Re: [ARSCLIST] 78rpm EQ and postprocessing

[Scott Phillips <scottp@xxxxxxxxx>]

Clearly I vote for #3 as well, since it allows the use by others of
options #1 and #2 at any time in the future FROM option #3. At the very
least, it allows the most options for the future, including improvements
in processing technology that will certainly occur over the years.
Having only the results of #1 and #2 left after the original media
crumbles to dust doesn't give you many options to work with. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Steven C. Barr
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 10:14 PM
To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] 78rpm EQ and postprocessing

----- 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