Like I always say, you can't put back something that isn't there. But
there is a qualification, which is what I hope Richard will explore in his
article, in his usual methodical way. Where something is still there, but
out of proportion with the rest, sometimes it is possible to "bring it
back." It's just that puts us "back in the soup" on the use of overriding
personal judgment, and yes, taste (no pun intended).
Best,
John Haley
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Fred Thal <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hello Tom,
>
> > Is it correct that if azimuth is not optimally adjusted on playback
> before transfer,
> > correcting the phase in the digital realm will not recover whatever
> high-frequency
> > content was not reproduced due to bad azimuth?
>
> Yes, that is correct.
>
> > Or, is there content that is cancelled by being out of phase that can be
> recovered
> > after transfer by correcting the phase in the digital realm?
>
> For clarity, it is best to think of azimuth loss in the context of a
> single channel only. Here, the full-track monaural reproducing head is
> our perfect model. So it follows that azimuth losses are caused only
> by a physical, geometrical misalignment of a reproducing head's
> relationship to a subject tape recording.
>
> The losses occurring at the repro head due to azimuth misalignment on
> playback are permanent and not recoverable. Acknowledging the wonders
> of modern DSP, any software algorithm that attempts to replace
> information which is not present in the native file will essentially
> be guessing, in my opinion. I'm hoping that Richard Hess treats this
> topic in his upcoming paper.
>
> > I think the first statement is true.
>
> Yes, you have it right.
>
> Fred Thal
>
|