Cedar

From www.cedar-audio.com:
THE CONCEPTS

There are an infinite number of processes that can affect the human perception of sound. For example, the live sound of an orchestra is dependent upon the venue, the audience and the local ambience. A recording of the same orchestra can be affected by a myriad more effects.

So what is the aim of a restoration engineer? The archival viewpoint suggests that such an engineer should present the listener with the most authentic reproduction of the original sound that can be obtained. But what about the creative influence of the recording engineer? With modern recordings, the ensemble sound often exists only on the recording medium, and many parts of it have probably never been through a microphone. Therefore the commercially minded engineer may, in contrast, attempt to generate a new recording more appropriate to its intended use. This use could be, for example, to please the public palate, or to represent accurately the sound of an era. Every restoration has its own criteria.

The algorithm designer is responsible for creating the facilities by which the restoration engineer generates new recordings from old. He or she does this by developing and implementing algorithms which remove unwanted sounds and/or effects present on the old recording.

CEDAR Audio provides a powerful set of restoration tools flexible enough to be used as the restoration engineer sees fit. However, it is our policy that the human ear should always be the final arbiter of sound quality; judgements based upon signal processing techniques are secondary considerations.


In another thread (Best-Sounding Benny Goodman Trio/Quartet? http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=42093 ) there was mention of music that had been CEDAR'd. So I went searching. Algorithm designer and creative restoration? No, no, no.

 

CEDAR = good. CEDAR misused = bad.

 

In my somewhat limited recollection of a rather diverse collection, I'm only calling one CEDAR'ed title to mind - that made specific mention of the process, that is! - and that would be the Yardbirds' Train Kept A-Rollin': The Complete Giorgio Gomelsky Productions (Charly CD LIK BOX 3). But we're in the process of getting ready for a move, so my boxed sets are sort of "boxed up" at the moment, and I can't pull that one out for quick reference. Anyone care to comment on the quality of CEDAR'ing in that set?

- M.

 

I have this set. According to the track-by-track notes, any NR was used very sparingly to clear up some pretty serious problems with some of the sources. It sounds great to me. Given that these recordings never sounded good(and downright awful at times), I think this is the best source for these recordings. Blows the newer Rhino compilation away.

 

My idea of CEDAR

 

I miss having a cedar-lined closet. We had one when we lived in Detroit--those little bungalows all had cedar closets. Would probably cost me a small fortune to do it in my walk-in closet here!

[/threadhijack]

 

Yeah, if the operator uses Cedar thay have made a serious error .

 

We still have a solitary cedar chest remaining from days of yore....wonderful aroma, gives the dump a rustic feel....

About time ya pitched in, Mr. Admin...can't keep asking Steve to help me!

 

We stand corrected! Seder it is!

 

Steve,
Can you suggest any cases where you were pleased that the "operator error" was mimimal, or non existant?
In other words, (and in your opinion), where CEDAR was used "correctly"?

Thanks!

 

Got one in my house. Does a great job at keeping those moths and other clothes eating bugs away!! But anyway let me get off the thread hijack express!!

I've never heard any use of CEDAR where it didn't negatively affect the sound of the music. I was happy that when Revenant did the Charley Patton box set that they did pretty much straight transfers of those 78's and didn't subject them to heavy noise reduction, like anyone else probably would have done.

 

How do you feel about other de-clicking software?
Any de-clicking stories?

 

I've been listening to the recordings of Artur Schnabel since I was 15. He recorded the first complete set of Beethoven's 32 piano sonatas back in the 30's. The recorded sound quality is iffy, the surfaces of the "78" originals are ofttimes noisy. The performances are quite compelling. Each transfer I've heard (and I've heard 4 LP transfers, 3 CD transfers) addresses the transfer issues differently. The RCA LP sounds heavily filtered, the Keith Hardwick transfers on EMI vinyl sound bright and clear, the Cedar-ed version of Hardwick's transfer---the first CDs of Schnabel's recordings---sounded dead and devoid of any color. And so on...
This is from Mark Obert-Thorn's notes for the Naxos re-issue of the Beethoven Sonata Cycle:

"Computerized declicking (although not denoising) has been employed not only to remove clicks and pops, but also to reduce surface crackle to a minimum without harming the upper frequencies. My approach to filtering has been to stop at the point at which more than just surface hiss was being affected: and my equalisation has aimed for a warm, full piano tone which is more representative of the original recordings."
The Naxos set of Schnabel's Beethoven is the best I've heard. I think that Mr. Obert-Thorn in addition to being aware of the tools at his disposal (and their limitations) also has some musical sense---some awareness of the tools at the musician's disposal.

 

Robin, thanks so much for the tip re: Schnabel. I have the CEDARed Hardwick set. I haven't listened to it in years, but IIRC it sounded muffled, as if it were being played under a blanket. "Dead and devoid of color" about sums it up. And yet the recordings themselves are precious.

As a boy I studied with a piano teacher who had studied with a student of Schnabel. Schnabel himself studied with Leszetycki, who studied with Czerny, who studied with Beethoven. So I like to think that my study of Beethoven -- limited as it was -- at least came from the source.

As for the Naxos set, I've just ordered it from Tower. Even the .wma clips sounded magical -- can't wait for the CDs!

And as for CEDAR, I always had the impression that it was less obnoxious than NoNOISE, at least in the right hands. A number of Ted Kendall's transfers for Hep have been CEDARed, but IIRC they don't sound as glassy and airless as recordings that have been indiscriminately NoNOISEd.

 

Robin L's comments on the Schnabel Beethoven set are spot-on. It's sad to see EMI treating a cornerstone of its legacy so shabbily. I buy lots of instrumental classical reissues (and I've got plenty original 78s to compare them with) and I think Mark Obert-Thorn is the best around. Even when he has to work with crackly HMV shellacs his skill easily overcomes any advantage EMI gains from using metals (in this particular case; I've heard fine 78 transfers from Abbey Road, and bad ones too.)

 

I'm afraid I can tell when CEDAR is used as well; there's something in the highs that seems like it adds white noise to cover up the clicks it removes. It's certainly better than what NO-NOISE did (at least on the early ones labeled as such). Now, there is a world of difference between such abortions as the EMI Schnabel raping (the cd set)of the old Hardwick transfers (I'm not a great fan of those on LP either -- rather hard edged, and lacking in bass), and a more moderate use of it. And the overfiltering of that EMI set is extreme and not directly related to what damage the CEDAR overuse caused. The interesting thing is that the EMI releases of that period proudly cite CEDAR on the jacket -- they did this until complaints poured in about what it was doing. The solution---- keep using it, but don't credit it!! I can tell you, for instance, that Mark Obert-Thorn DOES use CEDAR de-clicking and de-noising modules, and I think you would be hard pressed to find someone NOT using it now. I'm no engineer, but I'm a musician and a big collector or 78s and transfers of stuff from that era -- so, having played around with the setup of another well known 78 transfer engineer, I was amazed at how little a tweak of that de-noising module turned a relatively untouched 78 sound into a nightmare of removed bass frequency attacks and highs that sounded under water!! Scary stuff. But, indeed, it's all a matter of degree, and I think if it's the world we live in, very sparing use of it is liveable to me, if not desirable in the long run. The sad thing, is that shoddy companies, such as the UK label Proper, take others transfer work, CEDAR it to DEATH, and render the original work untraceable, but also completely unlistenable in the process.

 

I agree. 78 RPM surface noise is very easy to listen "through", as it were. It takes all of one second for the ear to adjust; after that you no longer notice it. But NR keeps on bothering me from beginning to end.

 

IIRC, many of the Bluebird label big band titles on Columbia's Legacy series are CEDAR'd.

 

Any of You here listened to "Lady Day-The Complete Billie Holiday On Columbia 1933-1944"? That's my benchmark for a transfer of historical (78 based) recordings. There's a Louis Armstrong-like---trumpet like---quality to Lady Day's sound that comes across quite clearly on her Verve recordings. Until I heard these transfers (Columbia Legacy CXK 85470---also scattered across something like 15 individual CDs), I didn't hear that horn-like quality in the old recordings.The sound of Billie on previous re-issues was much smoother, not so particularly and specifically "Billie" as in these classic recordings from the thirties and early forties. There's a lot more life in these modern transfers than the Columbia LPs or the first batch of Columbia/Sony CDs. I wonder what sort of excavation work went into these Cd's, what sort of tools the re-mastering engineers had at their disposal? How much time did they spend just listening to these gems?

I used to own a clutch of Charlie Parker 78s. Mr. Hoffman is right---the music is just more "present" on a good 78. The Musicrafts of Parker and Gillespie always sound better than any re-issues---real audiophile stuff!

Particularly strange and uncanny are Acoustics played back on an Acoustic player. You know---the old cactus-needled things with ivory-handled brass cranks and floor-standing cabinets made of solid oak? You could understand how table tapping, tea leaf reading and other Sylvia Brown-type spiritualities would be popping up at about about the same time as Edison's very first recordings. Even more than any modern "audiophile" recordings, these relics have soul.

Thomas Mann gets into the aesthetics of the Acoustic phonograph in "Magic Mountain". Best description of a record player I've ever read (and I've inhaled decades worth of audio magazines).

 

Does anybody have an example of CEDAR used the right way? (no more wood jokes, alright?)

 

It's a lot harder to come up with examples of noise reduction "used right" than "used wrong." When used right the listener wouldn't even know it was used. Used wrong it's hard to miss.