I think Cedar and Algorithmix make fine products. I think the
experience of the operator and the sensitivities of the operator have
almost more to do with the final outcome than the product. Parker
Dinkens who has Cedar Cambridge and I exchanged a raw file and
compared. He and I took different approaches to the cleanup (i.e.
different tradeoffs) and the outcome was different. I think either
product can do a very competent job. He actually liked one of my
passes on DC6 Live/Forensics (which I didn't like as much). It's all
what you're going for.
I don't know SoundSoap - perhaps I should. I can tell you that there
is light years of difference between Algorithmix's NoiseFree Pro and
their Sound Laundry version. I suspect the same is true for the
de-scratch product. I was very impressed with Graham Newton's
demonstration of the Cedar Cambridge DeClickl (sp?) tool and I think
it's substantially better than the Sound Laundry version, but I have
not tried the Algorithmix Pro version of the scratch/click tool --
and won't because I don't do grooved things and don't need it.
At 10:35 AM 9/8/2005, Lou wrote:
>There is a quality of scale, too - SoundSoap 2 fills my simple needs
>and budget. Algorithmix looks amazing. Have you compared it with Cedar?
>>>The thing that makes it profeessional is 35 years of analog work
>>>with tape. THAT is priceless...
Richard L. Hess email: [log in to unmask]
Media web: http://www.richardhess.com/tape/
Aurora, Ontario, Canada (905) 713 6733 1-877-TAPE-FIX
Detailed contact information: http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm