[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ARSCLIST] Cedar, was: Aren't recordings original sources?
From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad
Hello all,
I feel responsible for having started this recent thread of "rudeness",
because I attacked Keith Hardwick and his approach to sound restoration in
transfers (a subject that is of interest to this list). I attacked him,
although he cannot defend himself, as he is dead. But I attacked him, based
on his results and I indicated precisely how anybody can obtain the
information that formed the basis for my judgment. The reason for my attack
was someone praising him where I thought the opposite was due.
Although Steve Abrams may have appeared abrasive in his mail, there are
several items in it that may be documented, not least by perusing ARSCLIST
itself. I have almost 30,000 posts here, and I can sort them any way I want.
I would probably be sensitive enough not to spring my conclusions as to who
argues on a basis of documentation and who merely opinionates, but it is very
clear to anybody who wishes to perform these analyses. We can also see who
does more or less covert advertising. The facts are there. And, as Eric says,
they are open, for anybody to see.
All in all I think that opinion from an authority is a good thing, because in
order to become an authority that person has had to work through a lot of
situations, has had to obtain a lot of personal experience. An opinion based
on this is usually a very sensible input and worth considering. It saves
time, because it is usually not accompanied by documentation. However, it is
all too easy to have confidence in own powers and to express an opinion
outside the field of direct experience. Then the opinion becomes dangerous,
because there will be some who believe that the authority has really extended
this far. This is actually what happens when a new scientific discovery is
given the thumbs down by peers. Alas, in the consultant field (irrespective
of subject area or speciality!) there will always be those who either speak
before they are a true authority or they are merely convincing personalities.
That is a further complication.
I think that it is healthy in a list like ARSCLIST to insist on
documentation. I would be very sorry if insisting gets permanently regarded
as rudeness, due to some unfortunate phrasing.
Kind regards,
George
---------------------------------------------------
Tom Fine wrote:
> Wow, Steve, that's really rude. You apparently have little impulse control
> yourself. It is you who
> shouldn't shoot from the hip, and please cease the personal attacks. I won't
> respond to a personal
> attack on a public list. If you had any class or dignity, you wouldn't
> launch them on a public list.
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve Abrams" <steve.abrams@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 2:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Cedar, was: Aren't recordings original sources?
>
>
> > Tom Fine has a tendency, which he should learn to control, to shoot from
> the hip. He has
> > previously condemned the highly regarded transfers of Ward Marston, Mark
> Obert-Thorne and David
> > Lennick on Naxos. The time has come to call his bluff. Let him give us a
> list of reissues he
> > condemns by these restoration engineers and others (e.g, Seth Winner,
> Roger Beardsley et al.). I
> > say he hasn't a clue as to what is involved in this kind of work and that
> he appears to be
> > ignorant and abusive. Tom's reputation is based on the fact that he is an
> expert on mommy and
> > daddy. We know nothing of his own work, not even the name of his
> company.
> >
> > Clark Johnson does a better job of protecting himself, but he too is short
> on factual examples,
> > critiques of the best works of restoration.
> >
> > I say to both of you, Put up or shut up!
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Steve Abrams
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Clark Johnsen" <clarkjohnsen@xxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 6:02 PM
> > Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Cedar, was: Aren't recordings original sources?
> >
> >
> >> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 7:29 PM, Tom Fine
> <tflists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> >>
> >>> Well, I'm certainly not vain enough to speak for anyone else on this
> list,
> >>> but ...
> >>>
> >>> Then we apparently don't have on this list the majority of reissue
> >>> producers and remastering engineers out there. Their lousy work speaks
> for
> >>> itself.
> >>
> >>
> >> And there you have it!
> >>
> >> But one must wonder whether joining this list would serve the cause.
> >>
> >> Perhaps an outreach effort should be made?
> >>
> >> clark
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -- Tom Fine
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Parker Dinkins" <
> >>> parker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 6:20 PM
> >>>
> >>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Cedar, was: Aren't recordings original
> sources?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I think most people here are aware of all that.
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Parker Dinkins
> >>>> CD Mastering + Audio Restoration
> >>>> http://masterdigital.com
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> on 10/23/08 3:53 PM US/Central, Tom Fine wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> 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
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >