Tom Fine has a tendency, which he should learn to control, to shoot from the hip. He has previously condemned the highly regarded transfers of Ward Marston, Mark Obert-Thorne and David Lennick on Naxos. The time has come to call his bluff. Let him give us a list of reissues he condemns by these restoration engineers and others (e.g, Seth Winner, Roger Beardsley et al.). I say he hasn't a clue as to what is involved in this kind of work and that he appears to be ignorant and abusive. Tom's reputation is based on the fact that he is an expert on mommy and daddy. We know nothing of his own work, not even the name of his company.
Clark Johnson does a better job of protecting himself, but he too is short on factual examples, critiques of the best works of restoration.
I say to both of you, Put up or shut up!
Kind regards,
Steve Abrams
----- Original Message ----- From: "Clark Johnsen" <clarkjohnsen@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 6:02 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Cedar, was: Aren't recordings original sources?
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 7:29 PM, Tom Fine <tflists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
Well, I'm certainly not vain enough to speak for anyone else on this list, but ...
Then we apparently don't have on this list the majority of reissue producers and remastering engineers out there. Their lousy work speaks for itself.
And there you have it!
But one must wonder whether joining this list would serve the cause.
Perhaps an outreach effort should be made?
clark
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message ----- From: "Parker Dinkins" < parker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 6:20 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Cedar, was: Aren't recordings original sources?
I think most people here are aware of all that.
-- Parker Dinkins CD Mastering + Audio Restoration http://masterdigital.com
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 thesound. 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 tolop 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 http://masterdigital.com