Sampling frequency on Radio programmes - Taking it off topic

[michael norman]

>
> I am not so forgiving.  It sounded like good-old-fashioned-British arrogance
> to me!
>
> The point is that by removing clicks, rumble, etc he is merely restoring the
> recording to as pristine condition as can reasonably be done given that the
> original recording is damaged by such artifacts and is no longer actually in
> said pristine condition.  By changing the sound of the piano, he is going
> beyond mere restoration and actually putting something into the recording
> that was never there in the first place.  Absolutely he should NOT be doing
> this.  He may think that he's merely making up for the less advanced
> recording technology of earlier times, but the punters of those times
> accepted that technology at face value and enjoyed it nevertheless, and a
> modern listener who wishes to explore old original recordings would expect
> to do likewise, not find themselves actually exploring what has been
> artificially injected into a recording by modern technology.  What would be
> the point of that?  If you must have a modern sound, why not buy a modern
> recording?
>
> It's tampering with the historical record (here I mean 'record' in the
> 'written history' sense).
>
> I get a sense that some people who use digital technology rapidly get a sort
> of megalomania where, because it's so easy, they fiddle-faddle and tweak
> everything under the sun, regardless of actual benefit or otherwise so
> derived.  It's the same sort of arrogance that (being at my most generous)
> removed all the master tape hiss from some early Fleetwood Mac CDs, but in
> so doing left us with a gutted sound that was inferior to the original LPs.
> It's the same sort of arrogance that feels the need to insert the sound of a
> buzzard over the soundtrack of a natural history scene, even though there's
> no buzzard in sight, or, even worse, the scene is of a different bird of
> prey which makes a different noise.  After all it's so easy, you don't have
> to make the camera crew go back out there to refilm the scene to suit the
> editor's lack of taste, by merely pressing some buttons he can ruin a
> perfectly decent shot entirely on his own at little or no extra expense to
> the company.
>
> Regards, Charles.
>
> www.macfh.co.uk/CEMH.html
>
I couldn’t agree more.

Mike