D P Ingram wrote:
> One problem I have found is the relative paucity of information about
> CEDAR and its products on its own web site. You'd expect a greater
> presales presence, examples, demonstrations etc. Unless they've hidden
> them from view that is.
No, they aren't on the CEDAR website. I've spoken to the CEDAR directors about
this lack of information on more than one occasion, and their response has been
that they don't want to give away details that could help their competition.
I can understand this since there are already existing legal actions over
plagiarism of some of their processes.
> If the primary mission is to restore "78 rpm" recordings would there be
> the benefit there? Of course, restoring "other audio" (33/45 rpm vinyl,
> tapes etc) should be viewed as a "secondary" benefit.
As I already said, if you want the flexibility of carefully adjusting the
process operating parameters to optimize your results, then you go for
Cambridge. The benefits are available for all applications.
> How easy is the software to use (not a lot to see on the CEDAR site,
> hence the bone question)? Can a series of templates be created for
> eventual fine tuning ?
Yes, the template idea is one of the most useful features of Cambridge... it
takes a snapshot of all the operating process and their settings and allows you
to save it for future re-use. You can also set a base template which comes up
each time Cambridge is started. There is also the "open recent" feature that
lets you pick recently saved templates.
> Would you be willing to listen to a couple of "before CEDAR DUO" samples
> and CEDAR's own processing to see if Cedar Cambridge could do any better
> without spending GBP40k on every component? I can put them online if you
> would be !
I would be interested in hearing before and afters, although I don't want to
spend the time to critique them since I would be listening on computer speakers
and would probably miss the subtle differences... besides, any lossy
compression scheme like mp3 or others would not make a fair test. If you
wanted to put them on an audio CD and mail it to me, please email me off list
and we could discuss it further.
>> Presumably these samples were processed by CEDAR in the UK, and this
>> being the case they should be properly done since they have a studio
>> that does this work on a daily basis.
> Yes, but on the DUO system as that was the system being considered.
Up to a point, DUO declickle should be able to duplicate what the declickle
process in Cambridge does, but there is a limit to the processing power in the
DUO boxes which does not affect Cambridge and if your processing needs reach
this limit, then Cambridge is the way to go. I'm sorry I can't quantify that
statement, but it usually is reached only when very heavy processing is needed.
... Graham Newton
Audio Restoration by Graham Newton, http://www.audio-restoration.com
World class professional services applied to tape or phonograph records for
consumers and re-releases, featuring CEDAR's CAMBRIDGE processes.