LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  May 2007

ARSCLIST May 2007

Subject:

Re: Cedar

From:

D P Ingram <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 25 May 2007 10:41:35 +0300

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (60 lines)

On 23 maj 2007, at 01.16, Graham Newton wrote:
> 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.
I must say that that is quite strange as it would be easy for a
"person" to pretend to be a potential customer and get the same
information anyway. Instead it maybe, wrongly, gives the impression
of "all hype and no delivery" and alienate many potential customers
who either have not heard and seen the CEDAR benefits, or have a bit
more patience. From every visit to CEDAR's web site I've came back
more confused than enlightened.

>> 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.
Certainly, I'd like to see how my samples would be through the bigger
system as I couldn't see any reason to take the DUO system over my
existing systems. Another list member as suggested the Cube-tec range
of products as a possible alternative. What are your views (and those
of anyone else) on them? http://www.cube-tec.com.

>> 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.

I can do that or would you prefer to download them ? They are anyway
at http://woof.terva.net/audiosample/ presently. These were taken
from random from a general stack of disks of average or less quality
(but not the scrap box) to give a typical example of some recordings.
They were then cleaned and converted either with a Stanton or a ELP
Laser turntable. I didn't have the rek o kut machine at that stage
with the different stylii set.

Many thanks, Darren

---
Darren Ingram (darren at ingram.fi / www.ingram.fi)
Provider of many things including research, media, innovation and
consultancy services.

"Insert pointless, humo(u)rless quotation and ASCII art here"
"Insert lengthy, boring and meaningless corporate and copyright
disclaimer here"

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager