Print

Print


Dismuke wrote:

> I present vintage recordings on my
> Internet radio station and elsewhere on the Internet
> so I have a need to be able to get them to sound as
> good as I can.  And many of my records are in very
> much less than E condition.
<snip>
> I simply do not
> have the free time to lavish large amounts of
> attention in order to make a single given recording
> sound its absolute possible best.  For me, the trade
> off between quality and quantity is a big factor. 

> My understanding is the Duo operates in "real time." 
> Does that mean I could actually use it in a "live"
> setting and use it to spin 78 rpms on a radio
> broadcast and get decent results?

In one word, Yes!  It operates in real time, as do most of CEDAR's processes 
excepting a few that need an editing platform to function, such as the de-thump 
and retouch processes, which use the SADIE Editor.

With DUO you basically have a box where you put dirty audio in the front and 
get clean audio out the back... subject to a few front panel settings.
You could establish a working average group of settings that would work well in 
most instances.  The down side would be that you would allow more noise through 
on poor condition discs, but for the overall clean-up accomplished, this would 
be a small price to pay for something you could set and forget.

> What sort of
> learning curve is there for an intelligent novice to
> be able to get merely satisfactory or better results? 

With the DUO boxes, fairly small, but Cambridge has much more flexibility and 
thus a more steep learning curve.

> If the same novice had Cambridge, could he get decent
> results - or does its expanded capabilities actually
> work to his disadvantage?  My guess is Cambridge would
> not be able to be used for live broadcasts - is that
> correct? 

Cambridge operates in real time also, and there is no reason why you couldn't 
establish a good starting point similar to the DUO boxes.  I actually have done 
this with my Cambridge system and find it serves me very well.  It is easy to 
make minor changes to this kind of template as you find you need them, and then 
save them on a project by project basis to be recalled as needed.  This is one 
feature that Cambridge incorporates that I find invaluable... a sort of 
snapshot of all operating processes.

> Finally, I would be very interested if someone who had
> knowledge with CEDAR and who has a spare moment to do
> so could listen to the following 128 kpbs mp3s of
> records in various conditions processed using my
> current equipment and let me know to what degree I
> could get better results from CEDAR so I have an idea
> whether or not it would be worth such a large
> investment.

Your samples are only output, and to properly compare, I would need to see the 
input also.  Be aware that one of the most annoying and almost impossible 
noises remove is scrape noise, where grooves are deeply scored by playing with 
damaged styli or simply excess wear.

CEDAR is expensive... no question of that, but for your purposes, the DUO boxes 
would move you an order of magnitude ahead of where you are now with processing 
ability... the most important is the real time ability.

Keep in mind that audio restoration is not as simplistic as some people would 
like you to think... there is no panacea or universal remedy... often you need 
a variety of processes and external equipment to accomplish the best possible 
results.  Many times the results don't justify the effort expended to get that 
last little improvement.





... Graham Newton

-- 
Audio Restoration by Graham Newton, http://www.audio-restoration.com
World class professional services applied to tape or phonograph records for
consumers and re-releases, featuring CEDAR's CAMBRIDGE processes.