----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Fine" <[log in to unmask]>
> This backs up my point. ANY transfer of this material will require some
> sort of equalization to realize what the original artists and engineers
> expected for playback to sound like. So how is an electrical transfer,
> with electrical EQ applied to the transfer engineer or producer's ear any
> more legitimate or proper than an acoustic transfer made through the horn
> of the transfer engineer or producer's choice? I'm still trying to figure
> out the venom directed at acoustic transfers and those who have done them.
> An approach where you know the exact recording condition, the exact
> parameters of the horn and of the recording device, and you can
> "un-distort" the sound back to what it was in the room before the horn is
> a different matter -- although now you are attempting to remove the media
> which may or may not be a good interpretation of the history. But, in any
> case, where that sort of electronic/DSP transfer is possible, it's likely
> to be more pleasing to more listeners, I think.
This, in turn. takes us back to an "initial" question!
When we set out to use a recorded version of a sound artifact (aka
"record"), we have
to decide whether our goal is to re-create the sound of the original
"improve" that recorded sound to reflect (insofar as we can?!) the sound
GUESS was recorded...the supposed "original" sound created by the recording
Each "musical event" generated a defined setof sounds,,,which was then
(with the extant accuracy). This recorded "event"can then be played back,
the accuracy dependent on the system used by the listener!
So...do we attempt to recreate the original sonic "event"...?!
Steven C. Barr