I also find it abominable that people set their email to reply only to them. I am only interested in the list, Matthew.
Lou Judson
Intuitive Audio
415-883-2689

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Lou Judson <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Swish
> Date: March 6, 2018 at 5:39:28 PM PST
> To: Matthew Sohn <[log in to unmask]>
> 
> Sheesh! Would you cut an archival tape in little pieces 7.5” LONG?
> 
> I find this heresy disgusting. Speed can be determined by ear. If you can’t do that you are in the wrong business.
> 
> But I don’t do disc transfers, so why do I care? Just shocked. SHOCKED I tell you!
> 
> :-) with a little bit of humor
> <L>
> Lou Judson
> Intuitive Audio
> 415-883-2689
> 
> On Mar 6, 2018, at 5:28 PM, Matthew Sohn <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>> George said: "The good click-removers we have now have also enabled me to suggest that a 
>> radial scratch be made on every original shellac record side before archival 
>> transfer."Sounds like heresy, but I understand the reasoning. Perhaps a transfer before the defacing as well? The scratch would have to be in a straight line, not hand-drawn, and hopefully as light as possible.  
>> 
>>   On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 6:43 PM, George Brock-Nannestad <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad
>> 
>> 
>> Hello all Swish-removers,
>> 
>> to me Swish is an important authenticator. I have used the swish in a 
>> commercial transfer to find out that the record was transferred at 78 rpm, 
>> rather than the 70 that ought to have been used. If it had been cleaned up, I 
>> would not have had this short-cut to prove malpractice. 
>> 
>> The good click-removers we have now have also enabled me to suggest that a 
>> radial scratch be made on every original shellac record side before archival 
>> transfer. The use copy may then have the click removed. The archival transfer 
>> will in itself show one of the most important parameters in transfer.
>> 
>> Best wishes,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> George
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>