So who makes the grooved disk EQ you guys are using that makes the phase corrections? Is that phase
issue now a phantom menace?
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Pomeroy" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 10:23 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Playing Edison Diamond discs
> Just for the record, I like analog, but I use EQ in the digital domain all the time (in it's
> analog version,
> which includes phase correction).
> I find the accuracy and repeatability of computer based EQ a positive benefit. The eye helps the
> On May 11, 2015, at 12:00 AM, ARSCLIST automatic digest system wrote:
>> Date: Sun, 10 May 2015 14:07:20 -0400
>> From: Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: Playing Edison Diamond discs
>> Hi Jamie:
>> I agree with most of what you're saying, but guys like Doug Pomeroy, who have a long track record
>> making excellent-sounding remasters from disks can read chapter and verse why doing EQ in the
>> digital domain doesn't work as well. See Gary Galo's article in ARSC Journal, too. That said, I'm
>> not averse to taking something back out to analog, I've always had good luck with it, so I don't
>> that as taboo (ie do what you suggest -- a flat transfer and your 45/45 processing in the digital
>> realm, but then I'd take it back out to analog for proper de-emphasis EQ). I also don't think
>> possible to totally remove surface noise and, in the case of heavily damaged grooves, all the
>> and pops without serious, horribly audible digital artifacts. So going for "total removal of the
>> disk medium" is a fool's errand, there comes a point where what's left is too thin sounding or
>> inherently distorted so it's more annoying tham some surface noise masking the harsh distortion.
>> worthy goal that you're espousing, using modern digital tools, is to get as much music content
>> of the grooves and cancel out as much noise as possible.
>> By the way, the description you wrote "the stylus is unyielding and gouges its way through pinch
>> effect" exactly describes such record-wreckers as the GE variable reluctance cartridge. Those
>> of cartridges (including the cheapo 3-gram trackers included in the console systems) cored out
>> grooves on many a 1950's and 60's mono record, making them not worth buying even in the dollar
>> at record stores.
>> -- Tom Fine
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Jamie Howarth" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Friday, May 08, 2015 6:27 PM
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Playing Edison Diamond discs
>>> I think what frustrates the discussion is that digital it is possible to exactly duplicate what
>>> are achieving mechanically plus a whole lot more.
>>> It's not that the stylus is unyielding and gouges its way through pinch effect (one hopes). It's
>>> simply not wired to communicate what it's doing in that axis. There is nothing magical about
>>> coil placement that makes it suck compared to 90/0... You want to use the GE? Terrific. It still
>>> moves vertically it just couples the entire mass of the tone arm and bearing to that motion
>>> than absorb it locally in the cantilever. Terrific.
>>> To each his own.
>>> Every iota of geometry in the groove/stylus interface can be deduced from 45/45. All of the
>>> mechanical noise cancellation or the facsimile thereof achieved via wiring for 90/0 can be
>>> achieved digitally, and then some.
>>> I'll bet Ortofon says nothing about doing the declick and cleanup from a non-de-emphasized
>>> digitization but it's a good idea before all the bass boost and treble rolloff. Do the RIAA or
>>> whatever curve afterward. Slap some on in the monitor so you know what you're listening to. But
>>> preserve and restore right off the cartridge. Don't bake in anything that loses information.
>>> Please pardon the misspellings and occassional insane word substitution I'm on an iPhone
> DOUG POMEROY
> Audio Restoration & Mastering Services
> 193 Baltic St Brooklyn, NY 11201-6173
> (718) 855-2650
> [log in to unmask]