Re: [ARSCLIST] 78rpm EQ and postprocessing

[Scott Phillips <scottp@xxxxxxxxx>]

Indeed I do understand. Always it is reality, commercial or otherwise,
colliding with ideals I guess. The facts of life, still some moderation
would be in order. 

The characteristics of the original recording medium were always part of
the recording engineer's decisions. When tape hiss is part of the
equation, do you record the top end differently to 'fit' that
limitation? I think you do. When it will then go only to vinyl from tape
do you mix differently the bottom end? Yep. When one excessively removes
the (perhaps objectionable taken by itself) noises, when is the original
intended audible end product lost? I fully understand that
intelligibility is certainly important (and forensic works needs are
entirely different) but trying to make a cylinder, 78, LP, or anything
like that 'sound' 'just like a CD' without going back and mixing for the
new media is IMHO likely to end in excess use of the tools. If you can't
remix (for obvious reasons) why try for silence ? In 1920 did anyone
hear it that way, or expect it that way? Is it preservation to make it
what it never was? Once you pass the point of cleaning up the audio to
sound like a good recording made and played like it was back then, seems
like it is time to stop 'improving' it.

Sorry, got lost into a bit of rage there. I expect everyone one here
concerns themselves deeply about these matters... It is frustrating
though.. :>)


-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Karl Miller
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 9:32 AM
To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] 78rpm EQ and postprocessing

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005, Scott Phillips wrote:

> Must be my +50 age showing. It just doesn't show any reverence for the

> original artist or recording...

I don't mean to split hairs, but, ok, I will split some hairs.  I see a
difference between the recording and the artist.

It seems to me that the ultimate reverence for the artist was in the
hands of the original recording engineer. Yes, I do believe we have a
duty to represent that work as honestly as possible. We do the best we
can, and we do what we think is "right."

For me, the very process of playback is subjective. As it becomes
electricity, it becomes electronic music.

I guess we can try for an "absolute" when it comes to transfers, but it
seems to me to do so is problematic. For me, both flat transfers and
restoration are "memorex" and involve subjectivity. For me, those
aesthetic decisions are difficult and I have been known to produce as
many as 30 different "masters" before I am pleased with one of them. On
occasion I have returned to something a year later and, as a test for
myself, I redo the entire process. It never sounds the same as what
pleased me the first time I worked on it. I am reminded of Ward Marston
revisiting Caruso...and, many musicians who revisit repertoire producing
a different interpretation.

And, on the other hand, when you are looking for a "good review" honesty
is not always the best policy. I can elaborate if needed...but I sense
many of you will understand my comment.

Karl (another of the 50+ group)