Re: arsclist Re: Thoughts...(have your cake and eat it)

[<stevenc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In fact, this has been discussed a number of times on 78-L, and no agreement
was ever reached! My (and, to a certain extent, the list) opinion is as
follows:

There are three possible ways to define "restoration"...and each is
acceptable
to given listeners...
1) "Restoration" = to restore the original sound of a specific sound
recording
insofar as technically possible. This means that sound deterioration due to
damage to the recording, including wear, whould be audibly removed, as
well as (possibly...there is not agreement here) sound not present on the
original master recording but added due to limitations of the medium in
which the recording was issued to the public (shellac-compund surface
noise and the like). The idea here is to restore the sound of the original
recording in pristine condition, as near as possible...or, what the
recording
would have sounded like under ideal conditions.

2) "Restoration" = to recreate the sound of what could have been recorded
had technology existed. This means that not only should the limitations of
the
medium used for issue should be addressed, but also the limitations of the
recording method used. In other words, bandwidth limitations and the lack
of stereophonic or other multi-source recording should be corrected insofar
as possible, so that the result sounds like a current state-of-the art
recording
of the performance. In other words, what the recording *should* have
sounded like!

The danger is, that as it becomes possible with digital technology, we will
venture into:
3) "Restoration" =  to recreate the sound of what would have been recorded
under not only ideal recording but performing circumstances. This could mean
what the recording would have sounded like in an acoustically better
setting...
or it could involve editing out wrong notes, and even a theoretical (and
digitally created) recording of a performance which never actually occurred!
This is, so far, not technically possible on a useful level...but that
doesn't
mean it never will be! In other words...what the recording *could* have
sounded like had it existed!

Food for thought...

...stevenc
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bewley, Nigel" <Nigel.Bewley@xxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 5:29 AM
Subject: RE: arsclist Re: Thoughts...(have your cake and eat it)


> Dear All
>
> On 04/12/02, George Brock-Nannestad wrote:
>
> > However, why not educate the listeners that original shellac noise
> > is their guarantee of authenticity, as is a cough with all its
> > reverberation in the sonic environment of a real-life situation. I am
> > terrified of the present processors made available for *live* sound
> > transmissions, some of which made by CEDAR, which are able to
> > fake a clean sound on the fly, because they remove the traces of
> > "unwanted" signals that might be the clue to a real event. I detest
> > an edited "reality". I have a forensic attitude.
>
> And Don Cox added:
>
> There is a fundamental difference between noises that were in the air at
> the event and hiss and crackles that are present only on the recording
> (or broadcast).
>
> I can see absolutely no reason to conserve noise in the recording, so
> long as the original sounds are not affected.
>
> You are suggesting that it would be better to make a transfer from a
> noisy pressing than a quiet one.
>
> I would like to add:
>
> One central thought at the British Library National Sound Archive is to
have
> at least two copies of recordings.  One is the 'archive copy'.  This may
be
> the original recording or it may be a copy (or clone) of the original and
is
> as faithful to the original as is practical.  The other version(s) is the
> 'playback copy' made for access or for conservation reasons.  This version
> may have been 'adulterated' with CEDAR, filtration and equalisation,
editing
> etc.  In some cases the playback copy is identical to the original.
> Sometimes there is no need to make a playback copy (we may have, for
> instance, two copies of a published compact disc).  Sometimes there are
more
> than one versions of a playback copy, perhaps reflecting 'layered'
> techniques or improving technology.  The transfer engineer making the
> playback copy is required to document the process gone through to arrive
at
> the copy and this sound will embody the experience (both technical and
> cultural) of the engineer.  In any case, we always have the archive copy
to
> make other playback copies if required.  It is worth noting that some of
our
> listeners and customers prefer the original sound (as Peter Copeland, my
> predecessor, puts it "warts and all").
>
> Yours, in the best of both worlds
>
> Nigel
>
> Nigel Bewley
> Manager, Technical Department
>
> British Library National Sound Archive
> 96 Euston Road
> London NW1 2DB
>
> nigel.bewley@xxxxx
> 'phone: +44 (0)207 412 7435
> fax: +44 (0)207 412 7416
>
> www.bl.uk/nsa
> www.cadensa.bl.uk  (on-line catalogue)
>
>
> **************************************************************************
>
> Free exhibitions at the British Library Galleries :
>
> 50 Years of Number Ones : Listen to any one of over 930 pop music chart
> toppers 1952-2002 (from 11 October)
>
> Magic Pencil : Children's Book Illustration Today (from 1 November)
original
> graphic work of 13 contemporary artists
>
> *************************************************************************
>
> The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be
legally
> privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the
> intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the
> postmaster@xxxxx : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or
> copied without the sender's consent.
>
> The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the
> author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The
> British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the
> author.
>
> *************************************************************************
>
> -
> For subscription instructions, see the ARSC home page
> http://www.arsc-audio.org/arsclist.html
> Copyright of individual posting is owned by the author of the posting and
> permission to re-transmit or publish a post must be secured
> from the author of the post.
>

-
For subscription instructions, see the ARSC home page
http://www.arsc-audio.org/arsclist.html
Copyright of individual posting is owned by the author of the posting and
permission to re-transmit or publish a post must be secured
from the author of the post.