Not when it's overused and sucks what little life is left out of the sound.
With all digital NR, it's a very fine line between slightly improving clarity
and sucking the air, space and depth out of the sound. My own bias is always
toward less but I've made and heard others' examples of judicious use of
digi-tools where audibility and clarity are improved. Rare with well-recorded
full-range music; the trained ear seems to prefer some hiss or surface noise
with the entire pallet of music as opposed to a quieter background with some
colors muted.
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Parker Dinkins" <parker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 3:52 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Cedar, was: Aren't recordings original sources?
Tom Fine wrote:
Also, many 78 transfers made for CD sets are awful. People do seem to lop
off the bass -- these records had plenty of low end, it was the TOP end
where they had no musical content. Yet people roll off the bass (maybe
because they have rumble-plagued playback systems) and crank up the EQ on
the upper midrange, which just accentuates the surface noise and unnatural
resonances from the original recording devices. Then you apply an overly
aggressive treatment with CEDAR or whatever else and you get ... crap.
Seems like CEDAR would be just what is required after all that torture.
--
Parker Dinkins
CD Mastering + Audio Restoration
http://masterdigital.com