That sounds great, Tom! When will you have your prototype ready for review?
On 4/10/2015 5:00 AM, Tom Fine wrote:
> 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
>>> based. But listen to most of the CDs reissuing 78s and you hear that
>>> 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
>>> 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.
West Hills, CA 91307