Steve, This sounds like an interesting presentation. One thing that hasn't been mentioned about iZotope RX5 Advanced Editor is that there are both EQ Match and Ambience Match functions. I have used RX's EQ Match and it does wonders. I think it is superior to the version of that function built into the FFT filter of Samplitude--but that is also impressive and it's been around for a decade or so. I have not tried Ambience Match other than one time and I don't remember if I liked the result or not. I think it worked, but it didn't solve the ugliness problem I was having. I am a beta tester for Izotope but I think that they are doing more with DSP than almost anyone else. It's good software. You can download a trial for 30 days and see if it helps you. I have no idea whether it will help or not. I don't know where you are PC wise these days, but you'll want a fairly contemporary PC. I know I was disappointed when I first tried out iZotope--but it was the PC's slowness that got to me. I run it on a Core i7 930 4 core / 8 thread machine. I have 24 GB of RAM but that is more for Photoshop and Lightroom than RX. RX routinely fills up the processor to close to 100%. Cheers, Richard On 10/24/2016 17:11, Steven Smolian wrote: > I'm working on an ARSC presentation that discusses, among other things, > why, during the acoustic era, Victor kept recording the same selection and > performer over again at an interval of perhaps 5 years, usually issuing the > same catalog number even though the recording itself replaced an earlier > one, this considerable corporate investment being made with no idea that > electrical recording would make later listeners mostly ear-blind to what at > the time was considered sufficient improvement to warrant these > replacements. > > The ability to capture some degree of ambience in a recording is one of > these improvements. Apparently, it's' something we can hear but cannot > measure > > It's useful to remember that most of the instruments used today for > measuring audio attributes were not available to engineers at that time. > Rather, they seem to be a product of the need for them during the > improvement of telephone technology and were thus available to Western > Electric as they developed electrical recording from 1920-1921 on. > > Steve > > -----Original Message----- > From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Marcos Sueiro Bal > Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 2:44 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Ambience > > iZotope's RX4 has something called "deReverb", although I have not tried it. > > https://rxcookbook.izotope.com/reducing-reverb-rx-de-reverb-module > > Marcos Sueiro Bal > Senior Archivist, New York Public Radio > 646 829 4063 > > -----Original Message----- > From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Steven Smolian > Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 2:37 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Ambience > > Ambience of the room. > > Steve > > -----Original Message----- > From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Lou Judson > Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 2:21 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Ambience > > Are you meaning signal to noise? Or the ambience of the room it was recorded > in? > > <L> > Lou Judson > Intuitive Audio > 415-883-2689 > > On Oct 24, 2016, at 10:27 AM, Steven Smolian <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> I don't know of any but want to be sure that this attribute falls into >> audio's "unmeasurables." >> >> Stereo creates so many ways of blurring sonic information that a >> channel comparative tool might be possible but unreliable- different >> ways of isolating instruments, artificial reverb, etc. But mono? I'm >> thinking particularly of acoustically recorded 78s. >> >> Steve > -- Richard L. Hess email: [log in to unmask] Aurora, Ontario, Canada 647 479 2800 http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes.