[78-L] CEDAR

[Spats]

Hi!

I was using a track on a CD that I'd recorded directly on to my CD 
recorder myself and done no work on.
Remember, it is not that I was getting 'weird' results with CEDAR.
It's that it isn't doing ANYTHING...or very, very little.
So, I'm assuming that I'm doing something wrong.

By the way, 'Amadeus' has some pre-set filters already on it, such as 
one that counteracts the RIAA curve.

Earl.

At 3:52 pm -0700 09/10/2008, 78-l-request at klickitat.78online.com wrote:
>At 21:08 09.10.2008, you wrote:
>>Hi!
>>
>>I do not have the black box version, I have a computer (PC) with
>>nothing but the software version of CEDAR installed on it.
>>
>>Unlike my normal computer (as in the Apple Mac upon which I'm typing
>>right now), it IS in the same room as my gramophone, so what you say
>>doesn't apply to my situation.
>>
>>My current problem is that, just to get the hang of the thing, I'm
>>practising by accessing a rather noisy track from a CD, trying to
>>process it with CEDAR, through its three processes, but can hear very
>>little difference between the before/after versions. Indeed, only one
>>of the three processes seems to make any difference at all.
>>
>>The CEDAR people kindly popped in once, so I know that it's wired 
>>up correctly.
>>
>>Earl.
>
>Is your sample track guaranteed to be flat EQ stereo (no RIAA, no 
>graphic EQ, no treble-cut, no mono mixdown, no nothing)?
>
>I have but very little first-hand experience with CEDAR (used it 
>only once when transferring a handful of sides at a Paris studio 
>where everything was already setup properly so I didn't have to 
>think much about the settings), so I'm doing a bit of educated 
>guessing here, but I have heard from various users that CEDAR is 
>very critical when it comes to pre-processed tracks. You will 
>possibly get very little benefit from CEDAR if you use it on a 
>commercially mastered CD track. Even slightly filtered noise, 
>although still *sounding* like 78 noise, can have very different 
>physical properties (esp. phase-distortion from analogue EQ 
>circuitry, a tube preamp with a "soft" impulse response, etc.) that 
>causes CEDAR to mis-recognize it as part of the music and thus to 
>pass it through unchanged. The rather inefficient 
>decrackling/denoising heard on various CEDAR-processed CDs on tracks 
>that could not be found as master pressings but were taken from 
>earlier analogue copies points to this
>  being a CEDAR-typical problem.
>
>You can re-equalize not-too-badly filtered recordings *manually* by 
>analyzing the spectral distribution of the noise and creating a 
>"mirror" EQ curve that counteracts the treble rolloff introduced by 
>the original engineer and flattens out other dips and bumps in the 
>response, but that is quite a tricky thing to do, and definitely not 
>recommended for a first experiment. I have found that such manual EQ 
>re-engineering (a rather time-consuming procedure BTW!) greatly 
>improves the decrackling performance of the AlgorithmixPro suite I 
>am using for my own remastering work; quite likely the situation 
>with CEDAR is similar.
>
>Chris