Sampling frequency on Radio programmes - Taking it off topic
roger at tricker.co.uk
Tue Apr 28 03:56:15 PDT 2015
I thought that what was meant was that a recording was made on a, near tonally identical, piano and compared with the original. Then, as the piano sound was deemed to be near identical, the extra 'noise' could seen and removed. The new piano sound can then be discarded leaving the original piano sound.
Sent from my iPad
> On 28 Apr 2015, at 11:32, michael norman <michaeltnorman at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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
>> 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.
> I couldn’t agree more.
> get_iplayer mailing list
> get_iplayer at lists.infradead.org
More information about the get_iplayer