Rolling Stones London / Bowie RCA

[krabapple]

(In my defense, I am trying to put together playlists for my wedding reception)

Yeah, right. *cough* homo *cough*

BITCH!

[krabapple]

You forgot about the matrix numbers.

Especially numbers II and II. They were really a letdown.

[krabapple]

... anyway...

http://tinyurl.com/5d95n

in small amounts noise reduction can be useable.... but it will ALWAYS leave artifacts...

Yes, It's a big compromise.

I have a CD here with a ton of hum noise on it, but i wouldn't trade it for anything else.

Etc...

No, not etc -- Bob Katz seems to be pretty much says what I believe -- that even if technically there's a 'hit' on the music, subjectively, because of things like masking, it can sound *better* after digital broadband NR -- the cure *can* sound much better than the disease. *IF* you apply the cure well.

But I'm going to try to draw him out on that and see if I've interpreted it right.

[MK]

Yeah, that was the thread I was talking about. Well, here it is again:

Fantasy/OJC Jazz CDs - No-Noised or not???
I was looking around the web for some onfo on No-Noise due to a thread here about Nat King Cole's "The Christmas Song" and I stumbled upon an article at http://www.filmsound.org/QA/nonoise.htm and there was a line that caught my eye. It said:

"In terms of No-Noise vs. DINR, I have found that the No-Noise, in the hands of an experienced operator, with the guidance of the dialogue mixer, can produce excellent results. At Fantasy Films, the record company uses No-Noise all day every day to clean up old jazz catalogues, and we have a very practiced engineer do our dialogue work."

"record company" and "old jazz catalogues" to me equals OJC. Can this be true? Are these OJC CDs No-Noise-ed? Steve, you've been in their remastering room, right? Do they use No-Noise regularly?

Kevin (Bresnahan)
-------------------
Steve Hoffman replies:

Wow. Interesting. I've heard maybe 200 OJC's and I've never detected any No-Noise on any of them. The hiss levels for most of them match the master tapes that I am working on at any given time. Some even have more (due to EQ'ing to make them a bit brighter).

On the other hand, I have not heard ALL of them so who is to say? Most of the jazz master tapes recorded from 1955 on really don't have much hiss on them to begin with.

I do know this: The operators at Fantasy Studios are really the uncrowned Kings Of No-Noise and I mean this in a nice way. When they use the process it is pretty much undetectable. The only company who knows how to properly use the device in my opinion.

[lukpac]

No, not etc -- Bob Katz seems to be pretty much says what I believe -- that even if technically there's a 'hit' on the music, subjectively, because of things like masking, it can sound *better* after digital broadband NR -- the cure *can* sound much better than the disease. *IF* you apply the cure well.

Unfortunately, it is true. The art of noise reduction is an art of compromise. The very best systems (Cedar, Algorithmix, Backdrop (by TC, Sonic Solutions) have the least artifacts. It is a matter of knowing not to go too far, remembering that the ear itself is the world's best noise reduction system (it knows what to ignore and what to pay attention to). Learn the art of employing contrast and "sameness" to mask noise. What I mean is that if a noisy segment comes out of black, it will call attention to itself, but if you run a low level of noise prior to the noisy segment, it will not seem so noisy!

Can some of these systems be acoustically invisible (without artifacts)? Well, I prefer to call it a "cure versus disease" decision. In many many cases, and in skilled hands, the cure can sound much better than the disease, and the artifacts can sound, shall we say, "negligible, or inaudible to all but the most skilled observer, or masked sufficiently to be inaudible in most places".

You can't get something for nothing, there may be losses in transparency, noise modulation artifacts, "space monkeys", and so on. Once you educate yourself to the artifacts, you soon learn how to be gentle!

That works for me.

Some people may prefer the "sound" of noise reduction to that of hiss, but I don't.

[krabapple]

Katz also says, that it can sound 'negligable or inaudible to all but the most skilled observer'

So,

1) suppose you learned after the fact that there had been NR applied to a recording you thought sounded great. Do you assume it would sound better without the NR?

2) If a case of NR is only audible under conditions where you are actively 'looking for it' -- e.g. by using headphones and raising the volume to abnormal listnening levels -- would no NR still be preferable?

[lukpac]

Katz also says, that it can sound 'negligable or inaudible to all but the most skilled observer'

Katz doesn't define "skilled observer". And "negligible" to one person isn't "negligible" to another.

Sure, some people simply don't notice NR, or don't care. So? Some people do and do.

1) suppose you learned after the fact that there had been NR applied to a recording you thought sounded great. Do you assume it would sound better without the NR?

1) You're assuming such a recording exists.

2) Yes, but since I don't know of a such a recording, I couldn't tell you.

2) If a case of NR is only audible under conditions where you are actively 'looking for it' -- e.g. by using headphones and raising the volume to abnormal listnening levels -- would no NR still be preferable?

Since those are generally the same conditions where hiss is a problem, yes, no NR would still be preferable.