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