Re: [ARSCLIST] 78rpm EQ and postprocessing

["Steven C. Barr" <stevenc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Karl Miller" <lyaa071@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 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.
>
Well, when processing pre-digital recordings, particulary those which
were recorded acoustically, there are at least three possible goals:

1) An attempt to recreate, insofar as possible, the actual performace
which was recorded. This requires the removal of all noise added during
the recording process (shellac noise, vinyl noise, tape noise, usw.) as
well as all noise added by the deterioration of the recording through
the wear and tear of use and storage...along with correcting for any
frequencies lost by older recording technologies. Of course, this has
to be a subjective estimate of what would have been heard, since there
is no ideal with which to compare the results...

2) An attempt to recreate the actual content of the recording were it
possible to reproduce it perfectly and minus any inherent noise. That
is, there is no attempt to add the missing bass to acoustic recordings,
for example...but noise due to the deterioration of the recording as
well as any inherent in the type of record must be removed. This is,
of course, also subjective, but to a lesser extent...

3) An attempt to, as nearly as possible, the sound of the recording
itself...not what it SHOULD have sounded like with current technology,
or even what it WOULD have sounded like were it played back perfectly.
This means that the recording should be cleaned to the extent
possible, and any sonic flaws due to damage corrected for...but,
for example, if the source is a 78, the result should sound like
a 78 being played (but not a dirty, cracked, etc. 78!).

Personally, I favour #3...but a lot of reissues tend toward #2,
and a few attempt #1...

Steven C. Barr