 |
 |
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 sense >> based. But listen to most of the CDs reissuing 78s and you hear that few >> 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 sound >> 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. > > Peace, > Paul > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > http://www.avast.com > >