Print

Print


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...
>
>