D P Ingram wrote:
> What is the /current/ view of the CEDAR AUDIO duo products?
As a long time CEDAR user and beta tester, I have found that there will always
be limitations in equipment designed for a simplistic user interface.
Note that CEDAR themselves say:
> There are occasions when a fully-featured, computer-based audio processing
> system is not appropriate.
I have the CEDAR Cambridge system which is their flagship system and use its
processes on a daily basis. Unless you are doing noise reduction processing
almost daily and have a lot of experience with it, there are many very subtle
aspects that you will completely miss. The Cambridge system will do much more
than the stand alone Duo-declickle box, simply due to the processing power
available in Cambridge. I evaluated one of the DUO declickle boxes against the
Cambridge declickle process and found the Cambridge process to be significantly
The old saying about "you get what you pay for" is true in this case. The DUO
boxes are an order of magnitude better than most other methods, but if you want
the flexibility of carefully adjusting the process operating parameters to
optimize your results, then you go for Cambridge.
> Cedar processed a couple of samples for me as a demo (I took some
> records off the shelf at random so not to influence the condition) and
> to be honest I didn't notice a dramatic change or improvement.
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.
I'm not sure if Gordon Reid of CEDAR is on this list or not, but I'm sure if he
is, he will not be shy about commenting further.
... 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.