Actually, a properly used Packburn bypassed the RIAA curve and processed
flat, after which eq was added. Packburn offered another control amp with
the two segments of eq on rotary switches. I have one in my "maybe it still
works" equipment archive. Eventually, they offered one on a late model
Packburn, though I never liked that aspect of it.

I still have a Mac 26 preamp with a switch installed on the top to allow me
to bypass the RIAA.

Many complaints about the PB were a result of not giving it sufficient high
frequencies to work with. Dick Burns was furious that people blamed his
machine for less than optimum results when they ignored this aspect of how
the machine was designed to operate and then blamed it for por results.

It also suffered from folks turing the controls so far up that the sound was
affected, never mind those who didn't balance the left and right channels.
Ears were a useful attribute to using the Packburn successfully.

And then there were those who employed it on stereo sources.....

Steve Smolian

----- Original Message -----
From: "Parker Dinkins" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 10:25 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Disc EQ in the digital domain


> on 3/10/10 6:38 PM US/Central, George Brock-Nannestad wrote in part:
>
>> For this reason it would appear that going flat to your A-D, going into
>> noise
>> reduction (not here discussing the various characters of noises) and then
>> perform the EQ digitally, while you are at it, would give the best
>> effect.
>> However, as more and more noise reduction is using physiological
>> properties of
>> the ear for noise masking, possibly this approach will be thwarted, as
>> the ear
>> does not like to listen to a non-boosted bass from a pre-vinyl record,
>> and so
>> the wrong masking procedure would be applied if you had not already
>> corrected
>> the response in the pre-amp. It is probably a compromise situation.
>
> George, hi.
>
> In the early days of digital audio, click removal from disks was thwarted
> by
> well meaning people who used the Packburn, low pass filters, or even
> manual
> oxide removal.
>
> Automatic digital click removal consists of detection and then repair.
> Since
> a click is usually just a burst of white noise, any muffling of that burst
> made automatic detection and repair more difficult, and sometimes even
> impossible.
>
> Click detection was so important that, in some cases, you would get good
> results by creating a duplicate file using a high pass filter, and using
> that file to flag the areas to be declicked. The high pass file would be
> removed and the original file put back in its place so actual repairs
> could
> be made.
>
> As a logical progression, click removal before imposing the RIAA playback
> curve significantly improved in the click detection process because the
> RIAA
> playback curve reduces high frequencies.
>
> With modern tools, transferring flat, removing clicks, and then imposing
> the
> RIAA playback curve is not as essential to the click removal process as it
> once was - but it's certainly the conservative and correct approach for
> archival work because we don't know what further developments will occur
> with digital technology. And it doesn't hurt in the click removal process.
>
> Digressing: I'm not sure I would describe the click removal process in
> terms
> of masking, because masking has a particularly strong and different
> connotation with lossy audio compression. In click repair the actual work
> is
> done by interpolation, in which the damaged audio is actually replaced
> with
> new audio using algorithms based on what came before and after the click
> damage. If the click duration is short enough, almost anything can be used
> to replace it. The problem occurs when the damage is a longer duration,
> and
> especially when the damage occurs with an instrument we are familiar with,
> like a piano. In a longer problem area, you can sometimes build across by
> interpolating from one side and then the other until they join each other.
>
> Back to the main point: the conclusion of R.S. Robinson in my previously
> cited 2007 AES Paper 7185 was that in most cases the bass resolution
> truncation was 1 bit or less, which is negligible in light of the 24 bit
> resolution capability of modern converters, and in all events is more than
> compensated for by enhancement in the higher registers, where aural acuity
> is greatest (like those Fletcher and Munson boys described).
>
> Ironically, linear phase digital eq can cause problems because its
> implementation requires combining bands after changing each band's
> individual delays in an attempt to create a linear phase eq (which cannot
> be
> perfectly achieved). Ironically, this can be first audible in the lower
> registers. For that reason, some people prefer regular, precision digital
> eq.
>
> There's probably lots of poorly implemented digital eq in the world, too.
>
> --
> Parker Dinkins
>