LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  November 2012

ARSCLIST November 2012

Subject:

Re: Stuff of which dreams are made

From:

Roger Kulp <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Roger Kulp <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 22 Nov 2012 09:44:11 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (128 lines)

   The Rachmaninoff seems like another case of if it ain't broke,don't fix it,especially since ever since the dawn of  stereo,there have been constantly improved recordings of his rolls.

As for the blues and hillbilly 78s in question,would it not be possible to apply the same method Patrick Feaster applied to the picture of the now famous Berliner/Schiller record image?

Roger


-----Original Message----- From: Tom Fine
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 10:43 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Stuff of which dreams are made

The only comment I have on this line of thinking is, it's very hard for a machine to create out of
thin air something it "thinks" is "missing." When you get into something involving human senses and
brain together -- music, art, photography, moving pictures -- it's not just an "artificial
intelligence" thing but also an "artificial aesthetic" thing.

A small example of this idea is the controversial nature of the piano re-creations of Rachmaninoff
and Art Tatum by the Zenph:
http://www.zenph.com/art-tatum-piano-starts-here

Keep in mind that the Zenph technology is re-creating things that are there (actual notes played,
actual space between notes and tempo as played back from the recording, perceived stength of key
strikes, which is perceived from audible audio, etc), and it's still controversial. Trying to make
up what an old recording chain couldn't or didn't capture is a very controversial business. I think
that's what Shiffy and Carl are describing.

Given a long history of disappointing computer/digital gadgetry as it relates to audio, I advocate
more modest steps. First, let's see if it's possible to "erase" damages and destructions to a
playable groove that time, abuse and original pressing problems have created. Can we first of all
get a groove back to how it was on the metal mother? Then, can we "play" it? When we play it, what
does it sound like? Can we then attack those audio limitations and distortions with known methods
and technologies? Then how does it sound? Once we get there, to the best of our ability and our
technologies' limits, I think we can think about creating out of thin air "improvements" to the
original recording. I'd like to see as a first step, removing the damages caused by wear/abuse and
original manufacturing problems/limitations. I say start there because I think the kind of work Carl
Haber is doing is in that ballpark.

Some topics to debate over turkey and cranberries.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- From: "Carl Pultz" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 8:50 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Stuff of which dreams are made


> There are so many angles from which one can consider these ideas, technical
> and aesthetic. Looking back on my own reaction to early CD reissues, for
> instance, the flawlessness that seemed to be a commercial requirement for
> promotion of the new medium also removed the content further from actual
> experience. It may have been the flaws in analog media that helped its
> mechanical nature to seem more organic, and helped us to suspend disbelief.
> Is it any wonder (social aspects aside) that the Grunge aesthetic soon
> followed the new perfection of recording techniques, along with the
> continuing re-adoption of imperfect old studio tools?
> 
> As a devotee of Walker Evans, it's not hard for me to make this leap. It is
> the imperfections of age and use that give objects their humanity, symbolic
> of lives and experience. Perhaps this is true even when those humanizing
> flaws are technical side-effects rather than artifacts of human touch.
> Having long ago accepted mechanical substitutes for actual experience, we
> still rebel against inhuman perfection, a rebellion made more urgent and
> necessary as the lived experience of living becomes ever more challenged by
> the relentless substitution of perfected media representation.
> 
> Allow me to give thanks today for all that I've learned and the ideas born
> from the discussions and arguments of this remarkable community. Best wishes
> to all.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Art Shifrin
> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 7:25 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [ARSCLIST] Stuff of which dreams are made
> 
> Static (meaning fixed media, not their artistic content) works of art and
> engineering that have significant damage have long been cherished despite
> their material / structural flaws.  These include buildings, statues,
> graphics, and a probably unlimited range of objects.  So it's completely
> reasonable and reassuring that miserably made and or worn & damaged
> recordings can be appreciated by those who can 'filter out' what's wrong.
> I include 'reassuring' because if such appreciations were not occurring,
> then the artifacts would be even more likely to be discarded and or
> destroyed than if not.
> 
> At first thought I was thinking that the noises, distortions, and or
> perturbations of recordings might be analogous to cracks in the media
> (paint, wax, ink, et. al.) of graphics, or the materials of objects.  But
> given how such things are 'seen', that's not necessarily so.  Given
> adequate light, especially for large or enormous things if viewed from
> adequately long distances, the flaws can even disappear.  Listening to a
> mangled recording
> far enough away from its transducer, and or with other acoustic impediments
> might be comparable.
> 
> Tom's proposal to achieve improvements via modifying virtual grooves should
> be extended to restoring what's missing, not 'merely' (the word's NOT
> intended to be sarcastic or derisive) smoothing out flaws.  I presume that
> sufficient computing power (software not included) exists can be mustered
> to simulate the audio contents that were replaced by the 'side effects' of
> the damage: make the grooves 'appear' as they did (or probably did) before
> they were altered.  Then, when all of the audio's read back by the
> image-to-sonic process, differences between the portions that underwent
> various extents of repair / replacement could be minimized if not  be
> distinguishable from one other.
> 
> A simple example of this principle is replacing the disruptions in 'silent'
> (a misnomer) portion of a recording.  Slugging in state-of-the-art 'silence'
> amongst any kinds of audible noise results in much more noticeable dropouts
> than inserting the same kind of noise and room tone.  This should even
> include periodic problems such as thumping that can't be completely
> suppressed.
> 
> I think that it's comparable to film and video tape tape restoration when
> production stills and captions replace what's missing.  It's noticeable but
> less jarring than the alternative.
> 
> Think of each sample and bit depth as an audio 'still'.  String enough of
> them together, play 'em fast enough, and they could hopefully sound as if
> the grooves had never decayed or been damaged.
> 
> Happy Thanksgiving from
> Shiffy, Marlene & Spencer
> 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager