LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


[email protected]


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  June 2013

ARSCLIST June 2013

Subject:

Re: remastering discs using CEDAR, et al

From:

Jon Samuels <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 20 Jun 2013 07:04:15 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (101 lines)

Hi Tom:

I think your observations are very astute.  In the continually ticky/manual deticking example I mentioned earlier, what I noticed was the reduction of high frequency steady-state surface noise after I deticked the side.  Since I was only affecting the ticks, that shouldn't have happened if the algorithm simply replaced the tick with synthesized clean audio from either side of the tick, which is what I've always been told the software did.

I completely agree that the most important factor is using the best existing disc source.  I've written this before this before, but as a metaphor, think of it as the difference between a vaccine and a cure.  Far better to get a vaccine and not get sick, than get sick and need to be cured.

--Jon Samuels

--- On Thu, 6/20/13, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] remastering discs using CEDAR, et al
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Thursday, June 20, 2013, 8:59 AM

Hi Jon:

I've been surprised with the de-tick tool in Sony Soundforge. I know what you mean about removing sparkle from acetates and shellacs. I think many de-ticking tools incorporate some kind of surface-noise removal, too, the idea being that then the tick removal won't pump the background noise up and down. What I found with the Sony tool is that if you tweak the amount of tick level-reduction, you find a point where the ticks are minimalized enough not to be annoying and there is no pumping on the surface noise. I generally turn off the surface noise reduction part of the tool. I prefer to maximize music and minimize disk noise in the analog domain by careful selection of media (ie find the best copy available), good cleaning process, proper stylus and then tuning turnover and rolloff to ear. I don't really put too much stock in strict adherence to allegedly-used recording curves of yore. If they were actually used, then playback will obviously sound best in
 that curve. Most of the time, either the equipment was not in perfect adjustment or an altogether different curve was used. Given the frequency limitations of much early disk-recording equipment, especially field equipment, I listen carefully to where the music actually is and try to minimize the noise in the surrounding frequencies. It's obviously hardest with well-recorded orchestral music and easiest with midrange-heavy content like a blues guy singing with his own guitar. With spoken-word material, I tune to audibility of the words above all else. I don't really care if it sounds like a phone line as long as the words are crystal clear, but it's rarely necessary to go that far!

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- From: "Jon Samuels" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 8:41 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] remastering discs using CEDAR, et al


In my opinion, using deticking algorithms is a mixed bag. I've used CEDAR, Izotope, NoNoise and other declicking and dekrackleing software, and have almost never found there to be no negative sonic effect. No engineer worth his/her salt will ever get to the point of introducing digital artifacts, but the sound becomes homogenized and loses its' sparkle long before that. Some engineers feel that you can EQ to compensate for this loss. I think that's unadulterated nonsense.

Still most consumers feel that the trade-off is worth it, and there are time when the surface ticks are so extreme that no alternative is possible.

If one has the time (and energy), a superior way to detick is manually, one tick at a time. This is a nightmare to do on a ticky acetate, but the results are sonically better. Interestingly, I did a test of an continually ticky 78 acetate, and discovered that even manually detick algorithms affect the sound.
--Jon Samuels





--- On Thu, 6/20/13, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Benny Goodman Carnegie Hall 1938
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Thursday, June 20, 2013, 5:19 AM

One thing to remember is that current-vintage CEDAR and other restoration software is a completely different animal from the early-CD-era stuff over-used and, unfortunately, boasted about. A good comparison is the current Mosaic set of Duke Ellington small-group sessions vs the Sony "Duke's Men" CD sets. Pick any tune and hear clear differences between 1980s methods and modern methods. The latest Robert Johnson box set vs the massive-selling early-90's set is another example. The software and methods today, when used properly (alas, some engineers -- including guys who get a lot of work in this field -- still over-use the tools to the point of producing unpleasant artifacts), do a much better job of removing unwanted noises and keeping more music. It still comes down to hard work on the part of the engineer -- selecting the best playback method, finding the best media to playback, and using his ears and taste at every step.

There was just a good panel on this topic put on by AES NYC Section. Seth Winner had a particularly good demo, including videos showing how he cleans disks and finds just the right playback stylus before running one second of digital capture. Doug Pomeroy described in detail modern disk-transfer methods vs what he experienced at Columbia in the 70s (suffice to say, methods and technology have vastly improved). And Andreas Meyer touched on disk and tape playback plus played some before and after work he did on RCA opera reissues. I thought it was one of the best AES NYC meetings in years. People stayed around talking until we literally got kicked out of the room.

My final word on all of the modern tools -- and this is one man's opinions -- is that they still can't be automatic-thrown into a situation unless one is OK with many annoying digital artifacts. Each disk side, each reel of tape, must be considered in and of itself. The analog transfer quality is much more important than the arsenal of digital tools. And the engineer must listen very carefully for unwanted artifacts. To my ears, and perhaps others', digital artifacts are much more annoying than analog noise or ticks and pops. The two analog noises that I find equally annoying to digital artifacts are fuzz-distortion (which can actually be mitigated, to a point, with modern digital tools), crackle (which can be removed to a surprising extent in many cases) and hum (which has always been removable since the first notch filter was invented).

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Stamler" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 2:55 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Benny Goodman Carnegie Hall 1938


> On 6/19/2013 7:10 PM, Clark Johnsen wrote:
>> "CEDAR... to restore the warmer sound of the original LPs." Oh dear. I
>> don't like the sound of that (as it were).
> 
> 
> Well, if not abused, Cedar is usually less intrusive than other cleaning-up software. I personally prefer careful descratching, no decrackling, careful filtering of infrasonic garbage, and no further processing. But that's just me.
> 
> Peace,
> Paul
>> 
>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Donald Clarke <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 
>>> Don't know anything about the Phoenix, but the Jasmine set is quite
>>> wonderful; I doubt if the quality of that transfer will be exceeded. A
>>> British company, transfers done by a Swede (Bjorn Almstedt), CDs made in
>>> Czech Republic; the notes say that after 18 months and close to 200 studio
>>> hours of work using "CEDAR and countless hard disc edits to restore the
>>> warmer sound of the original LPs without the clicks" is the result, but I
>>> had the vinyl set in the mid-1950s and this is superior to what I remember,
>>> plus it's more complete. Some said it was still not complete, a bit of
>>> somebody's solo missing, but I can't remember what it was. Where is Phoenix
>>> Jazz? I would be suspicious.
>>> 
>>> Donald Clarke
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Jun 19, 2013, at 5:17 PM, Thomas Stern wrote:
>>> 
>>> I notice a forthcoming "Phoenix Jazz" 2-CD set, billed as COMPLETE
>>> recording.
>>> Sony, Jasmine and some other labels have also issued these recordings.
>>> Anyone have a
>>> detailed breakdown of differences if any, sound quality of transfers,
>>> editing, annotation, etc.
>>> of the various releases ???
>>> Thanks!
>>> Best wishes, Thomas.
>>> 
>> 
> 

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

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
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