On 23 maj 2007, at 02.06, Richard L. Hess wrote:
> One thing to remember with Cedar is that it is essentially a real-
> time process--at least as far as I've studied it and how I've seen
> it used. This contrasts with most plug-in processes which can run
> faster or much faster than real time when "rendering" an audio file
> with the application. For the workflow discussed here, either the
> Cedar hardware boxes OR Cambridge would work in real time -- and
> you can tweak in real time as well if you don't like what you're
Certainly presently I am using offline processing on the Mac
(Clickrepair) and editing the captured file at the same time. The
only "realtime" processing would be with an EQ or in some cases the
ELP Declicker product.
I am not entirely sure I can justify the c 40,000 dollar to 70,000
dollar price tag that was quoted for the Cambridge system presently.
Of course the problem is exacerbated due to the dearth of information
> However, as I have said, I don't think for discs -- especially "78"
> work -- anything meets the Cedar level of noise reduction AND ease
> of use.
> I would look at the Algorithmix high-end disc package which is 10%
> of the cost of Cedar (for that one plug-in). I am happy with the
> Noise-free Pro Algorithmix plug-in BUT I have never had occasion to
> use the Pro de-click. Just their mid-level "Sound Laundry" de-click.
Do you mean one Algorithmix plug in is 10% of Cambridge or all ? Do
you have a specific set of tools from them in mind ?
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