David Lennick wrote about assumed unique problems of ADD recordings:
> They aren't..my (possibly incorrect) assumption is that at least ADD processing might have minimized the tape hiss and background noise. When I did a "collectors' classics" show on CJRT in the 80s and 90s, I had to make an unofficial arrangement with engineering to get them to shut off the limiters immediately before airing my show, or surface noise and crap would have been overwhelming. The particular CD I mentioned may be eminently listenable on most systems but not on a radio station which is aiming to put out a signal as loud as everything else on the dial. A couple of years ago the Buffalo station had similar problems any time it put on a Mercury Living Presence reissue or a
> Sony reissue of any old Ormandy recordings. I don't notice this now but I don't know whether they improved their signal or acquired better transferred CDs.
Any reissue has the opportunity to improve or to degrade the sound
whether the tools are analogue or digital. Digital processing can do
more for good or ill more easily than analogue, but having done both I
can assure you that one can foul up a clean original with analogue
limiters, denoisers and the like just as effectively as with the most
sophisticated digital tools.
In fact, improvement and degradation are usually both effected in the
process. For that reason, my latest (and possibly my last) volume of the
Audio Encyclopedia offers the complete recordings of the great Italian
baritone, Titta Ruffo, in three formats. One I call "easy listening" -
heavily processed MP3s for low noise at a low data rate; high-rate MP3
files of lightly processed originals; and (DVD-ROM only) 44.1 ksps
16-bit monaural WAV files for those wanting to create their own balance
between noise and fidelity.
[log in to unmask]