[78-L] The record or the recording? (was: Alec Templeton)

[Steven C. Barr]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Biel" <mbiel at mbiel.com>
> David Lennick wrote:
>> Steven C. Barr wrote:
>>> since I am NOT that
>>> familiar with CD sound, I remain convinced that modern-day
>>> "de-noising" is entirely TOO aggressive! 78's are SUPPOSED to
>>> sound like that...dammit, folkses?!
>> Shh....I've been putting a lot of my old deleted Intersound and other 80s 
>> and
>> 90s masters onto Naxos Online, and many of them predate CEDAR and they 
>> sound
>> like RECORDS. Very enjoyable.  dl
> I want to make it clear that I am NOT advocating OVER-processing,
> because that adds distortion such as digital artifacts.  But, if I
> didn't know better, this sounds almost like the arguments I have with a
> few Old Time Radio people when they want OTR recordings to sound like
> they are on a cheap old radio with a torn speaker in a thunderstorm (one
> of these idiots asked "What would Fibber McGee think if he heard his
> programs in quiet hi-fi?"  I replied that this is how he heard them when
> he performed them, PLUS he heard them in surround sound with the band
> and the cast members and the sound effects all over the stage!!); and
> the 78 collectors who have been reading too many sleeve notes and think
> that the records MUST be played on old acoustical machines (playing
> records on old acoustical machines is listening to the MACHINE, not the
> recording).   If you are going to reissue a RECORD, fine, make it sound
> like a record.  But if you are going to reissue the RECORDING allow it
> to sound as much as you can like the musicians sounded like in the
> studio.  I listen to records all the time.  If it can be done, I would
> rather listen to the recording.
>
The applicable (and so far unanswered...it depends on personal 
preference...?!)
is this: WHAT is the goal of sound "restoration?! Are we looking for, as 
neas
we can approach it, an accurate (more or less) of the sound the 
artists/bands
played in the recording facility...a CD-derived "absolutely noise-free" 
version
of the recording...or simply an audio version of the original recording with
"noise" removed as far as possible? These are three TOTALLY different
goals...and the first is probably unreachable...?!

It might be best to look critically at the sonic "wave-form" generated by
playing the record...and carefully note where its pattern suggests 
frequencies
which were NOT recorded on the original acoustic (and/or some "electric?!)
recordings...?! In order to "put things back," the first step should/must be
to establish exactly whay ISN'T there...?!

Steven C. Barr