DVD-Audio from LP

[AllenLowe]

Cedar used properly is nothing short of miraculous - on this forum I already did some work for Dan Gould, but more significant was an a/b I did for some forum members on the Benny Goodman Carnegoe Hall - adding Cedar to the reissue, which was not done originally. All agreed the post-Cedar was a major improvement. The bad Cedars you hav heard were probably the result of 1) over use of de-hiss - this should be used sparingly if at all, and 2) distortion introduced by too much processing - if you want a sample, send me a CDR and I'd be happy to comply -

[AllenLowe]

another thing to consider - I've heard many historical reissues in which the dull sound was not the result of de-noising but of mastering EQ - a perfect example of this is the original Jelly Roll Morton box, which was attacked as having too much processing - the real problem was mastering (or post-mastering) EQ, and I have been able to get incredibly good sound out of this box with some tweaking - so one has to consider all stages of the process - many companies will try to EQ out the noise, and this can be very unfortunate -

[mmilovan]

Milan? All I can tell you is that my Cambridge Audio DVD77 features both a co-axial and an optical digital out. Works absolutely fine for me! I can't speak for other manufacturers but I have not heard of any problems. Maybe commercially produced DVD-A has some kind of copy-disabling technology? I've never  tried it.

Colin AKA SeeWhyAudio

←

Colin,

I'm not speaking from any experienced level, but I've hear that lineouts are disabled due to - yes, copywrite protection.

Edited June 23, 2005 by mmilovan

[Guest]

Cedar used properly is nothing short of miraculous - on this forum I already did some work for  Dan Gould, but more significant was an a/b I did for some forum members on the Benny Goodman Carnegoe Hall - adding Cedar to the reissue, which was not done originally. All agreed the post-Cedar was a major improvement. The bad Cedars you hav heard were probably the result of  1) over use of de-hiss - this should be used sparingly if at all, and 2) distortion introduced by too much processing - if you want a sample, send me a CDR and I'd be happy to comply -

←

Thanks Allen, that is a very kind offer. Since I have only one thing in mind; ascertaining whether Cedar would ever be of use to me, I need above all else to hear a/b or before/after material.

I really am terribly sceptical of Cedar but I agree that many discs I have heard might have been 'de-hissed' too much. My philososphy on hiss is that it needs to be kept in the mix because too much of the music lives there as well. As a consequence I almost never do any hiss reduction in my work - there are exceptions of course.

Basically the hiss stays if it is in the original recording. If hiss has been introduced by tape-to-tape dubbing, system noise, mechanical (eg. groove walls) or similar, I'll try to minimize it but never get rid of it altogether. The cost in musicality is just too high.

I know this is a jazz forum (mostly!) but I don't have any jazz discs that were Cedared. However I could send you a disc that I made for a UK folk singer (fairly well known but I won't name him here). One of his albums was released as a Cedar'd version, taken from vinyl due to the loss of the original master tapes - it's awful - so I did a remaster for him with nothing more brutal than manual declicking and a sub filter. I think the two versions are unrecognizably different. The Cedar'd version sucks and the one I did is passably good. the man in question has no plans to release my version just yet (there is plenty of stock left on the Cedar'd pressing) but he absolutely loves the work I did. Unlucky for me - but maybe he'll relese it again? I hope so.

The most important aspect as far as I can tell is that the Cedar'd version has NO clicks whereas my version contains all the original studio recorded clicks and noises from guitar 'events', mic clicks, the leading edge of kick drum impacts, little noises from singers lips, etc. that the Cedar version dispenses with completely. It's sort of an object lesson in keeping all the material you can and getting rid of as little as possible. Bearing in mind this is a full range recording - many old jazz tunes are from 78's and shellac so there needs to be a whole different approach to denoising. Is your Benny Goodman Carnegie Hall full range stereo or crackly mono or somewhere in between? What's the original source?

If Cedar were ever to be of use to me I'd have to know that I could produce results that get rid of nothing (or near to nothing) that is supposed to be on the recording. If I adhere to my philosophy that normally means hiss. What's in it for me?

Colin AKA SeeWhyAudio

[Kevin Bresnahan]

I have yet to hear a commercially-relased CD with CEDAR noise reduction that I thought sounded "good". Most sound as if they were recorded with the band underwater. CEDAR is particularly brutal on drummers. Cymbles disappear. It might be poor engineering as Allen says, but that would mean that there are a lot of bad CEDAR engineers.

Quite honestly, as good as Allen says he is with CEDAR, if he wants to sell the resulting CD, he should stop using it. Not using CEDAR won't help make a sale but using it will definitely make quite a few potential buyers avoid it. There are a lot of people who will not buy a "CEDAR-ized" CD. That's a fact. I believe Mosaic stopped using it on their reissues because of customer complaints.

Later,

Kevin

[neveronfriday]

Cedar sucks because there are too many people to dumb to use it.

The software itself is a class act.

[J.A.W.]

I have yet to hear a commercially-relased CD with CEDAR noise reduction that I thought sounded "good". Most sound as if they were recorded with the band underwater. CEDAR is particularly brutal on drummers. Cymbles disappear. It might be poor engineering as Allen says, but that would mean that there are a lot of bad CEDAR engineers.

Quite honestly, as good as Allen says he is with CEDAR, if he wants to sell the resulting CD, he should stop using it. Not using CEDAR won't help make a sale but using it will definitely make quite a few potential buyers avoid it. There are a lot of people who will not buy a "CEDAR-ized" CD. That's a fact. I believe Mosaic stopped using it on their reissues because of customer complaints.

Later,

Kevin

←

Again, I've yet to hear a CEDAR-ized CD that sounds good.

[AllenLowe]

not true - Mosaic uses it on all of their reissues - I have talked to one of their engineers - you are probably hearing CEDAR on good recordings and just don't know it, as it is the standard, though not all companies will indicate it on the liners - John RT Davies used it for at least the last 10 years of his life; every SONY, every BMG, etc etc uses it - it is used on virtually every Euro reissue, good and bad; it is on all of the BMG "secret history of rock and roll" reissue; also Yazoo uses it (sparingly) - it's really everywhere - as I said, I'd be happy to give some samples - LP or 78, whatever you guys prefer -

[AllenLowe]

as I mentioned, it is everywhere - there is no other effective way to remove noise - I'm willing to bet that there is no pre-war reissue that doesn't use CEDAR or some similar method - so if you refuse to buy recordings with noise reduction you are not going to have anything older to listen to

[neveronfriday]

I have to agree with Allen.

I've just gone through a rather extensive remastering project for which Cedar was used (or better: had to be used) and if used correctly and by someone who knows what he's doing (usually by people who can keep their paws of the EQ, the real problem in today's remastering process), the results can be stunning, especially when we talk about fidelity.

Don't knock it until you've seen the right engineers use it.

[AllenLowe]

the Louis Armstrong Sony's all use CEDAR - and those sound pretty good -

[AllenLowe]

ACE records in Englnd - which does some of the best sounding reissues - uses CEDAR for their disc-based reissues -

[J.A.W.]

the Louis Armstrong Sony's all use CEDAR - and those sound pretty good -

←

To my ears the Sony Complete Hot Fives/Sevens box doesn't sound that good, but it could be bad EQ choices.

Edited June 24, 2005 by J.A.W.

[AllenLowe]

may be - that's why I would urge everybody who is serious about listening to get a decent EQ built into their systems - you can really brings things alive with even a 10-band EQ if you know where to go (usuually 3500-8000K) -

[AllenLowe]

also be aware that any sound restoration is only as good as the original tranfer - and there is a LOT of bad transfer work done - bad turntables, wrong styli, bad A/d conversions, bad sources, etc etc

[Guest]

ACE records in Englnd - which does some of the best sounding reissues - uses CEDAR for their disc-based reissues -

←

I was lucky enough to meet the CEO of Ace back in about 1996 and I quizzed him on a number of points; I suggested that some re-issues mostly from the Milestone, Prestige, Westbound labels and released on Ace's BGP sublabel were sonically awful.

I expected some kind of dithering but instead he 'fessed up that the budgets hadn't allowed for hands on interaction on the first few projects for the label. Apparently the master tapes were transferred to digital by non-expert operatives working for the owners of the tapes. They didn't use the best equipment alas. They were using fairly basic PCM recorders based on VHS video machines.

Things have got a lot better since - Ace are one of the best and most knowledgable re-issue labels out there and I am reliably informed that they use as little error correction as possible - my philosophy exactly. I didn't know that they used Cedar though! Allen are you sure it's so wide-spread?

Hmm... whatever the truth, I'm firmly in the camp of never having heard an 'acknowledged' Cedar CD that sounds good. I have however heard many discs that clearly used Cedar or some other noise reduction and were truly awful. Anyone remember the Charly re-issue label? Bunch of chancers...

Remember though that I am working primarily in the field of vinyl transfers and that my philosophy is to preserve the sound of the master tape that is hidden in the grooves. My goal is to remove the effects of the vinyl whilst keeping as much as possible of the tape source - warts and all.

Are all these re-issues that you speak of being treated for noise reduction and hiss reduction? If so, I hope they know what they're doing. I am currently doing a restoration project of old Bollywood soundtrack music. The client insists that vinyl sources be used because the surviving original tapes have all, but ALL been transferred to digital by the Indian labels. The tapes were then thrown into land-fill along withall the original stampers. acetates and mothers. Tragic.

They used Cedar on all the material and they turned everything up to 11. Out of the original sound there is almost nothing left! I heard one CD sourced from such material and it sounded like the music was coming down a drainpipe stuffed with cotton wool. Only with less hiss. It is a tragedy. So, clearly, Cedar can be horribly abused. Can it be used properly? I'm going to need some convincing! I need to hear an example of it being used properly. Anyone out there got one? Allen, could you point out any titles in the the Ace catalogue that have definitely used it?

Colin AKA SeeWhyAudio

PS For those who are interested I did a vinyl transfer of Terry Callier's 'New Folk Sound' from the original '60s US pressing. It sounds truly mindblowing on hi-res DVD-audio and I reckon even when bumped down to CD audio it's better than the version available on CD from Ace, on BGP records. Bear in mind that I was working with a mint condition LP made 40-odd years ago and that the BGP re-issue was made from a master tape that has had 40 years to degrade. It makes for an interesting comparison! If anyone wants one please contact me privately.

[AllenLowe]

the ACE CEDAR connection comes from an interview I read quite a while back, and they were referring to disc-based transfers - there is simply no other way to do it without going insane, and I am certain it is used on virtually all the reissues that come out - the problem, as you touched on, is lazy engineers who use one setting for everything and are too lazy to listen or re-do - if you are in this business and don't realize how wide-spread CEDAR use is, than you need to make some calls - it is EVERYWHERE - I'm almost sure Uptown used it on the recent Town Hall/Bird - or let's ask Chuck - call Seth Winner in Brooklyn, who does TONS of reissues, or Doug Pomeroy -

[Guest]

the ACE CEDAR connection comes from an interview I read quite a while back, and they were referring to disc-based transfers - there is simply no other way to do it without going insane, and I am certain it is used on virtually all the reissues that come out - the problem, as you touched on, is lazy engineers who use one setting for everything and are too lazy to listen or re-do - if you are in this business and don't realize how wide-spread CEDAR use is, than you need to make some calls - it is EVERYWHERE - I'm almost  sure Uptown used it on the recent Town Hall/Bird - or let's ask Chuck - call Seth Winner in Brooklyn, who does TONS  of reissues, or Doug Pomeroy -

←

LOL!

you're right, there is simply no other way of doing it without going insane - it's just that I'm perfectly willing to go insane in the search for a better way

Kidding aside - I really think my methods can challenge the need for Cedar (or at least provide an alternative that some might prefer) although I am trying to find out if Cedar can help me. By the way, I'm perfectly well aware that it is being used everywhere for vinyl transfers. I was concerned that you meant Cedar was being used for tape transfers, just to get rid of hiss?? I hope not.

Which brings us back to the big issue - is there a Cedar'd disc that sounds good? Preferably one that I can compare with a fairly easy to find and inexpensive copy of the vinyl? I can certainly do better, with my insanity-inducing methods, then all Cedar discs I have heard (like, 6 or so) Such as one reggae title I have done - a dub LP by Yabby You.

In the one case where I have a direct comparison of the Cedar job, the original vinyl and my methods, (that folk singer transfer I mentioned earlier), well, frankly mine blows the Cedar issue away - no contest. I just don't know whether the Cedar version could have been done better. I hear what you're saying and I imagine something so powerful would be very very easily misused but I still want to know if it can be used properly so the question remains; is there a Cedar'd disc that is any good? If so, will I be able to tell? Heh...

Colin AKA SeeWhyAudio

[AllenLowe]

yes, there are literally thousands of Cedared - jazz/blues reissue discs that sound good - I can come up with a list in the next few days - for a start, all of John RT Davies's Frog reissues from the last 10 years (he died last year but confirmed for me a few years ago that he used CEDAR) - the only way top complare vinyl would be with older reissues where the vinyl sourse was from disc, not tape - but I'll put some list together -

[Kevin Bresnahan]

I asked Mosaic about their use of Cedar noise reduction and the answer I got back from them was:

"We own a Cedar de-clicker and use it judiciously on disc transfer material where it does some good. WE DO NOT USE IT TO THE DEGREE THAT IT EATS INTO THE FREQUENCY RANGE OF THE MUSIC.

We never use Cedar or Sonic noise reduction as these processes are too invasive to the sound quality."

The gist of the whole E-mail was that the Cedar de-clicker program was OK, noise reduction programs are not. This is what I thought Mosaic told me a while ago. They do not use any noise reduction on their sets today.

BTW, the E-mail also included a reference to someone saying that they could hear noise reduction on the Sarah Vaughan Mosaic set. I searched all over for this post to let the person know that this is absolutely false. There is positively no noise reduction or de-clicking used on the Sarah Vaughan Mosaic set.

Kevin

[AllenLowe]

actually, de-clicking IS noise reduction, as is de-crackling - that's the primary meaning of noise reduiction in sound restoration, not de-hiss - that is the standard terminology, and whoever you spoke to does not understand this - most of the use of cedar is for de-clicking and de-crackling, and that use CAN reduce high frequency info and introduce distortion as well, if not done carefully. The great majority of HISS REDUCTION that I've heard on recordings is likely not CEDAR but from the use of inexpensive programs, of which there are now many on the market (these are the ones that use noise prints) -

[AllenLowe]

if the Sarah Vaughan contained pre-tape sources than I am certain CEDAR was used - however, I don't know that set-

[Guest]

actually, de-clicking IS noise reduction, as is de-crackling - that's the primary meaning of noise reduiction in sound restoration, >snip< -

←

That depends on how you interpret the meaning of the words;

On the one hand there is the semantic inclusion whereby noise is noise and noise annoys, including unwanted clicks. (You get rid of the clicks and you get rid of 'unwanted noises').

On the other hand there is an absolute difference between noise reduction and click removal:

Noise reduction = broadband or narrow band suppression or removal of certain sonic characteristics of a given waveform (tape hiss, rumble, hum, etc.).

There are three types of noise reduction; simple EQ (rumble), noise 'footprints' with programs such as Cooledit/Adobe or algorithm based stand alone technology such as Cedar. Not to be confused with 'decrackling'.

Click Removal = the removal of offending spikes in the audio - usually caused by dust, scratches or mistracking, static clicks on tape etc., and rebuilding the damaged section. This is achieved by either manually redrawing the waveform or by clever automatic programs that look around the surrounding undamaged audio to get information with which to make a 'plausible' guess as to what should have been there. Cedar's declicker does this.

Decrackling = the removal of many small clicks - not to be confused with noise reduction.

Another way of seeing the absolute difference is that noise reduction works on the entire waveform and declicking works on only damaged sections (ideally of course!)

I am, pedantically, yours

Colin AKA SeeWhyAudio

[Kevin Bresnahan]

From the Cedar Audio website, it appears that they several products. They are grouped into catagories. One of the catagories, called "Restoration Modules", lists Dehiss-3, NR-4, Declickle, Debuzz, Declip and Phase Correction.

Mosaic only uses Declickle. They don't use the other modules at all. Declickle sounds like an impulse analyzer that allows the user to decide how big of an impulse (or click) that will be reduced. The write-up on Declickle is found here.

FWIW, there seems to be quite a few users of Declickle that still refuse to use anything that could be called "noise reduction". It seems as if the users of Declickle use the Bill Clinton definition of noise reduction. "I only de-clicked it! I never used my noise reduction on that tape. I had to use my declicker because the tape was over 21 years old!"

Kevin

[AllenLowe]

nono nonononononononoonno- EVERY sound restoration person in the world, for the last 15 years, has used the phrase "noise reduction" to refer PRIMARILY to the removal of clicks and pops and crackle. This is not even an arguable point, and I'm sorry if that sounds arrogant, but I have known or spoken to some of the major people in the field (John RT Davies, Seth Winner, Doug Pomeoy) and that is the acknowledged terminology - I have done work for Sony and Rhino and Ryko Disc and Venus Records, and NPR and many many m,any others , and that is the terminology used - sorry to sound so weary here, but that is it - when CEDAR first came into use it's prime reason for being was de-crackling, declicking and de-popping. I know some of the first engineers who used it, and this is absolutely so - and on top of that I live about 3 miles away from the US distributior for CEDAR, and that is the terminology tTHEY use -

Edited June 24, 2005 by AllenLowe