 |
 |
No, I don't do everything in box, but many things are best done there. Mike is correct, as is Tom Fine, to a degree IMO. To make the best transfer, it is preferable to start with a good copy properly cleaned, but some records are so rare that you are lucky to have any copy at all. Forget unworn. Do the best you can. I personally prefer to Xfer flat and do the EQ later OR do the EQ properly at your phono preamp at the time of transfer, if you have such equipment handy. I have never needed to use a re-equalizer. The argument that Mike didn't mention is valid - EQing in PB preserves the phase relationships. Doing EQ in digital does not. I am just not able to hear such a difference myself. The other argument is probably just as valid, doing a flat transfer preserves the high end and enables the most accurate de-clicking. Again, I don't hear a difference. Someone with better ears than mine will have to continue these arguments. As far as preferring a software solution to a hardware solution for such things as removing wide spectrum noise, I am far less inclined to trust a hardware solution. Doing this process in the computer is so much more powerful. And there's all the other tools.... joe salerno On 11/30/2010 2:25 PM, Michael Biel wrote: > From: "[log in to unmask]"<[log in to unmask]> >> Jan, I personally am not into hardware solutions myself, there >> is software that probably costs less and improves with updates. >> Joe Salerno > > It sounds like my pal Joe would rather do everything inside his > computer. It is becoming evident, at least if we pay attention to the > research and warnings of Gary Galo, that some things are better taken > care of in the analogue mode before the sound hits the computer. Disc > equalization is one of them, and the RE-equalizer is for those who > pre-amp their phono carts thru a pre-amp with RIAA that can't be > bypassed. I don't have any experience with the active units you ask > about, but I suppose that they might be based on the old Burwin units > that Mike Stosich of Esoteric used to handle. If you are as discontent > with some of the results that come from many of the computer restoration > programs as I am, this might be the way to go. But contact Mike, > because he also does handle CEDAR and computer programs as well. > > Mike Biel [log in to unmask] > > > On 11/30/2010 11:59 AM, Jan Myren wrote: >>> Have anybody had any experience with the various sound restoration >>> modules from KEK-O-Kut and Esoteric on playback of 78 rpm records? >>> I think about the surface noise reducer and the de-hisser units, >>> also the RE-Equalizer... > >