Re: [ARSCLIST] Cedar

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

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom Fine" <tflists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> One thing to consider about CEDAR. You might want to buy some of the CBS/Sony
reissues of their 78
> catalog from the earlier era of CD's, for instance any of the 2CD Duke
Ellington sets. These were
> heavily CEDAR'd. I believe metal parts were used where available. One could
also check out teh 3CD
> Billie Holiday set from CBS/Sony Legacy label. If you have original 78s (which
would of course be
> vastly inferior to metal parts), you might want to listen and compare and
decide for yourself. As
> I've said, I'm not as opposed to various NR schemes for stuff that my ears
tell me is low-fi anyway,
> ie anything from the 78 era. The CEDAR, as used in those examples, seems to
remove a lot of
> physical-contact noise (whoosh, ticks and pops) but does seem to remove "air"
and "space" around the
> music, assuming that was ever captured in the low-fi medium. For my ears,
there might be a slight
> edge to careful tick and pop removal through editing and some EQ to reduce
noise. This method was
> tried and true until CEDAR came along and you can hear excellent examples from
Frank Abbey at I
> think CBS on most of the Time-Life Legends of Jazz series of LPs. But the
things that I don't like
> that I hear on the CD's might also be lousy A-D chain or a variety of
non-CEDAR artifacts. So,
> again, just to state clearly -- I am not a Luddite and do agree that there are
some examples where
> digital tools perform miraculous changes on older low-fi media to vastly
improve audibility. One
> could take just about any of the Bluebird/BMG recent reissues done by Doug
Pomeroy to hear what I'm
> talking about. I think Doug is on-list and will correct me if I'm wrong but I
believe his method is
> use well-cleaned metal parts whenever possible, play back very precisely and
use digital tools
> judiciously in the computer after A-D conversion. Finally, I'm sure this is
stating the obvious but
> even if you are successful in removing much of the background noise, a 78
still has very limited
> frequency response and will this never approach "fidelity" by the dictionary
definition of being
> true to the source.
>
True...but right now I'm listening to, and enjoying, a 90-minute old cassette
(c. 1981-82), on a low-fi "mini-ghetto-blaster!). I suspect the sound would
dis-satisfy most modern-day audiophiles...but my brain's own "sound correction
facility" seems to adequately restore the missing bits, in spite of the
recordings' having been through at least two generations of "inadequate"
playback! One has to keep the mindset of those parties who used to listen
to these old records...and to whom the very idea that one could pick up a
disc, place it on one's gramophone, and hear the performance from days/
months/years ago...was a miracle!

What digital technology is striving for (probably not possible...) is
to analyze the content of an old recording and successfully deduce/induce
the sounds that WEREN'T recorded...!

Steven C. Barr