Re: [ARSCLIST] 78rpm EQ and postprocessing

[Karl Miller <lyaa071@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Scott Phillips wrote:

> 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 ?

Some of Dutton's restoration comes to my mind. Not too long ago I was
listening to his transfer of the Koussevitzky Prokofieff 5th. It certainly
didn't sound like the original recording...he added reverb...as far as I can
tell, to "recreate" the ambiance that was lost with his noise reduction.

 In 1920 did anyone
> hear it that way, or expect it that way?

For me, that is a most interesting question. I cannot help but wonder if
our perception of things changes. As we all know, "is it live, or is it
memorex" wasn't a new approach to marketing. I wonder, what on earth were
those people hearing back in the early days when there was a singer and
Victrola behind the screen. Was the audience stupid? Would you be able
to fool anyone today with a comparison using the technology of the early
days? Or was it all just a "set up," as some have suggested.

Was it not the film, "The Great Train Robbery" where the audience
rushed out of the theater, thinking a train was headed directly at them.
Was that just hype, or did some in the audience actually think that a
black and white image was the real thing? Perhaps that seems like a far
fetched notion, but being a former fan of science fiction movies...I can
remember the "special effects" from the days of the 50s. You could tell
how it was faked. I then remember seeing films like the first Star Wars
and Close encounters and thinking...this is incredible. With the way
things are now, I look back on that first star wars film and notice
how far we have come.

I guess I wonder if our level of perception is not based upon an
expectation.

 Is it preservation to make it
> what it never was?

Again, for me, another fascinating question. For me, when anything is
recorded, it becomes something it never was. I remember reading reviews
written at the time of the introduction of electrical recording. Critics
were saying that electrical recording was a distortion of the
original...and some even stated it was immoral since it took the
mechanical vibration and turned it into electrical energy. For me, there
is indeed a certain honesty in acoustic recordings...given their limited
dynamic and frequency ranges.

For me, preservation means to preserve the original object. Ultimately, I
believe that any reformatting, represents some amount of restoration.
(splitting a few more hairs)

 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.

For me, that is a rough one. I can't help myself, I have to go on until I
feel anything else I would do, would lose the content...with me making
some subjective decisions as to what constitutes content, or relevant
signal.

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

I love exchanging thoughts on all of this. I find it very frustrating at
times. I had so looked forward to the Boston Symphony set of historic
performances. When it was released, the engineer used additional
compression on the recordings...I asked him why..."well people seem to
like it better that way." My frustration was extreme.

I am reminded of a situation where my wife was scanning an old family
photograph. The original was overexposed. When she started playing with it
in photoshop, changing the brightness and contrast, the image of another
person appeared at one corner of the photograph. Ok, this wasn't like
finding the image of Abe Lincoln, but it had meaning for her.

I guess my point is, what if she had only a straight transfer and no
opportunity to "restore it" to suit her needs...well she wouldn't have
found the image of that family member.

Similarly, some years ago, I was doing a transfer of an acoustic disc
which featured some actress (can't remember her name) trying to perform
some different dialect. I did the "straight" transfer and then played with
it. As I took away more and more, I noticed an odd change in the amplitude
of her voice. Then, I began to hear someone in the background telling her
the lines she had forgotten. My guess was that the actress had forgotten
the line, turned her head to the person behind her who prompted her with
the appropriate line. Ok, so this is probably more a forensic situation,
but my point is, how nice it would be if a patron, or listener could take
out as much noise as they would like. True, it isn't a simple thing to
do...even if most listeners have moved up from a "tone control" to some eq
on their home stereo.

Indeed, difficult decisions and sometimes very frustrating
results...especially when its the  only copy I access.

Karl