Noise reduction comes in many forms. Some that I heard in analog days
did minimal damage to the music and the recording is quite enjoyable.

I agree about getting the transfer right to begin with. This is the step
which is neither analog nor digital, altho closer to analog which is
required to hear the thing. Proper cleaning of the record and choosing a
proper stylus, the first 2 steps in the work flow, can be critical. I
know because I've heard transfers in which these steps were not
conducted properly.

joe salerno

Clark Johnsen wrote:
> My tuppenny worth: Restoration is all well and good, depending, but it's the
> transfer stage that seems to me to stymy most efforts. If you don't get it
> all out of the groove, what's to "restore"?
>
> Further, sometimes the properly-captured signal is so good that restoration
> efforts can be minimized, always a good thing.
>
> Finally, I wish that "noise reduction" might never be used. But that's just
> me.
>
> clark
>
> On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Jan Myren <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> HI!
>>
>>
>>
>> Just like to know if anybody out there still prefers analogue restoration
>> of
>> 78 rpm records instead of digital?
>>
>>
>>
>> You know; digital restoration often leaves some strange digital artifacts
>> on
>> it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Any analogue/digital equipment that is recommended by users of remastering
>> 78's to digital media like CD's?
>>
>>
>>
>> Anybody out there using DCArt tools??
>>
>>
>>
>> All the best
>>
>> Jan
>>
>