On 05/12/07, Tom Fine wrote:
> The more transfer work I do, the more I'm convinced that the vast
> lion's share of attention and effort must be paid in the analog
> domain. Get it right there and you will need few digi-tools and
> digi-tricks. It's the age-old reality of garbage in = garbage out, and
> there are no digital tools that trump reality.
>
I think preventing rumble is more important than most people realise,
especially for 78rpm originals.
Rubber is your friend here.
Mechanical resonances in the pickup arm can also be a problem.
> The other reality is that computers are dumber than any human. The
> "decisions" made in automated processes are often harmful to audio
> quality. So the fewer "judgement calls" left up to software, the
> better the outcome in the hands of a skilled engineer with good ears.
>
> Over-use of automation is usually triggered by laziness, ignorance or
> unrealistic time/money budget expectations, or a combination of all
> three.
In mt\y experience the "auto" setting in computer programs seldom does
anything useful. This applies to Photoshop as well as to audio programs.
>
> As I see it, the really big plus that digital audio technology brings
> to the table, after a couple of decades of steady improvement against
> the backdrop of much hype and over-promise, is that we now have many
> options, ranging from simple to vastly complex and affordable to
> massively expensive, that get us very near if not at the nirvana of
> input=output. No previous technology came anywhere as close, each
> impressing numerous distortions and inaccuracies (some considered very
> euphonic by some, but let's call them what they are -- distortions and
> inaccuracies). But, as good as it is, the present technology still
> requires knowledge, skill and taste on the part of its users.
>
Yes.
Regards
--
Don Cox
[log in to unmask]
|