Hi Clark:
Can you be more specific than:
"Speaking for myself, as a longtime practitioner of high-end
audio I have been able to apply such techniques to coax out sound from 78s
that I daresay few knew was there. I am speaking beyond stylus, beyond EQ,
beyond proper cleaning. These remain important of course, but what
I practice is not "future technology" but rather very much of the present."
What exactly are you speaking of "beyond stylus, beyond EQ, beyond proper cleaning"?
Thanks!
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Clark Johnsen" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] CEDAR V SONNOX
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>
>> Hi Clark:
>>
>> What do you mean by this statement:
>>
>> "Not only that, but it's my informed opinion that no one yet has gotten all
>> the sound off any 78, or for that matter any 45 or LP, and for that
>> reason they must be preserved."
>>
>> What is "hidden" or "unrecoverable" and what future technology do you
>> believe will make this information "recoverable"?
>>
> Thanks for asking. First, those words are not mine, nor would I ever use
> them. I was referring to the fact that playback quality in general has
> been on the upswing. Anyone well-read in the art of the LP knows of the
> strides that have been made in the last three decades; the 78s case remains
> more obscure. Speaking for myself, as a longtime practitioner of high-end
> audio I have been able to apply such techniques to coax out sound from 78s
> that I daresay few knew was there. I am speaking beyond stylus, beyond EQ,
> beyond proper cleaning. These remain important of course, but what
> I practice is not "future technology" but rather very much of the present.
>
> So far as I have found, 78s transfers available on LP and CD bear little
> resemblance to the quality that can be achieved... much of that due however
> to the sorry devices under discussion in this thread.
>
> Finally, I agree with everything Mr. Hamilton wrote; and Mr. Salerno has
> the perfect term: "digital capture".
>
> clark
>
>
>>
>
> -- Tom Fine
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Clark Johnsen" <[log in to unmask]>
>>
>>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 5:02 PM
>>
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] CEDAR V SONNOX
>>
>>
>> Hugely interesting discussion. It beats me though how a digital
>>> transfer,
>>> even if the uncorrupted first one, can be called an original -- unless I
>>> misunderstand the intent of the following: "We store the original,
>>> unprocessed digital transfers and document the tools (if you wish) of how
>>> the originals were reproduced and digitized. There will always be some
>>> variations even in this process. These files are inviolate and are the
>>> basic
>>> archive that is retained."
>>>
>>> I would have assumed that the originals are the originals, not the files,
>>> however inviolate.
>>>
>>> Not only that, but it's my informed opinion that no one yet has gotten all
>>> the sound off any 78, or for that matter any 45 or LP, and for that
>>> reason they must be preserved.
>>>
>>> clark
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Don Cox <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 23/02/2010, George Brock-Nannestad wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > The providers of restoration suites have no interest in comparisons,
>>>> > and obviously they couldn't care less how you apply the tools (like
>>>> > arms manufacturers). The atrocities that have been performed and sold
>>>> > proudly flagging the name of CEDAR since the late 1980s are only
>>>> > matched by those using the contemporary system NoNoise.
>>>> >
>>>> Likewise, you can wreck a photograph with Photoshop.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> --
>>>> Don Cox
>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
|