[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ARSCLIST] Cedar, was: Aren't recordings original sources?
I think most people here are aware of all that.
CD Mastering + Audio Restoration
on 10/23/08 3:53 PM US/Central, Tom Fine wrote:
> Not when it's overused and sucks what little life is left out of the sound.
> With all digital NR, it's a very fine line between slightly improving clarity
> and sucking the air, space and depth out of the sound. My own bias is always
> toward less but I've made and heard others' examples of judicious use of
> digi-tools where audibility and clarity are improved. Rare with well-recorded
> full-range music; the trained ear seems to prefer some hiss or surface noise
> with the entire pallet of music as opposed to a quieter background with some
> colors muted.
> -- Tom Fine
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Parker Dinkins" <parker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 3:52 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Cedar, was: Aren't recordings original sources?
>> Tom Fine wrote:
>>> Also, many 78 transfers made for CD sets are awful. People do seem to lop
>>> off the bass -- these records had plenty of low end, it was the TOP end
>>> where they had no musical content. Yet people roll off the bass (maybe
>>> because they have rumble-plagued playback systems) and crank up the EQ on
>>> the upper midrange, which just accentuates the surface noise and unnatural
>>> resonances from the original recording devices. Then you apply an overly
>>> aggressive treatment with CEDAR or whatever else and you get ... crap.
>> Seems like CEDAR would be just what is required after all that torture.
>> Parker Dinkins
>> CD Mastering + Audio Restoration