I don't disagree in theory with Paul's idea about a flat transfer. What I'd like to see built and
marketed is a disk preamplifier that does the initial impedence and capacitance match with the
cartridge and the first stage of amplification, then offers bridged output off that stage, goes on
to do a passive EQ with all the turnover and rolloff options, and then an output stage. So, a person
could play a disk once (efficient workflow), make a flat transfer to a separate digital file, and do
the EQ to the best of their expertise and taste -- so there is immediately a usable/listenable copy
for researchers, library clients, online, reissue or whatever. The idea of making two passes doesn't
fit budget-constrained workflows, and many of us are not at all sold on digital EQ (which also takes
extra time and extra steps after playback, again inefficient). The device I describe offers the best
of both worlds -- you get that flat transfer to archive and do whatever in the digital domain at
some later time, but you end up with a listenable/usable sound file at the same time.
It seems like such a preamp would not be a hard thing to design and build. If one hates passive EQ,
that's fine too, you could have an active EQ stage or stages with self-contained feedback loops like
an equalizer module on a 1970s recording console (they were gain-neutral and self-contained).
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Stamler" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2015 8:04 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Disasters at Commercial Archives
> On 4/9/2015 2:12 PM, Tom Fine wrote:
>> TOTALLY AGREE WITH CLARK! And yes, I'm "shouting!" Find the best
>> possible source of the media you want to transfer. CLEAN IT with
>> knowledge and care. Play it with the right stylus, at the right speed
>> and with the right EQ curve (and often "right" is what sounds best
>> because there is very little concrete documentation of recording curves
>> especially in foreign markets and especially in non-studio recordings).
>> Transfer it at high resolution, then be conservative and tasteful with
>> your digital restoration tools. This all sounds logical and common sense
>> based. But listen to most of the CDs reissuing 78s and you hear that few
>> people follow these steps, few people have good taste with using
>> "restoration tools," and many people seem to think consumers either
>> can't hear garbage work or don't care because they expect terrible sound
>> from 78s.
> Or they think the public hates hiss and scratches so much that they're willing to put up with
> mangled music.
> A hearty amen to all the sentiments Clark & Tom expressed, except that I'd make a flat transfer
> and archive that.
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.