Don't get so defensive because there is nothing illegal about it. It's a new twist on a previous idea as you damn sure know!
Not defensive at all. Merely pointing out you're inventing things and posting them as facts... which you were. And yes, definitely illegal to steal software, especially when making a profit off of it. Not really interested in having a back & forth with you. Like I encounter regularly, you have strong unfounded opinions about a topic you don't have any firsthand knowledge about and I basically called you out on it. The end.
Good, and glad you are not going to go back and forth with me on this. You seem like the type that cannot control yourself. So I expect will will reply anyway. I had the idea back several years ago and didn't bother with it only because of several reasons. But I knew someone would be coming along (soon) with click repair in a live-action real-time box. So many versions of CR on the market that a new variation is in fact up for grabs. I looked up what patents are filed, and I am not right of the truck. It's not a bad idea, it's fair game, and maybe a competing box would help drive the outrageous price down. Over and out. The end.
Sue me if you have proof. There are quite a few programs running on the same idea. The same concept with similar results. What does that tell you?
No need for proof. Make wild claims and just label whoever calls you out on making unfounded accusations "defensive".
To those exercising logic, it means it's an idea which is not the monopoly of a single company. Cars, appliances, electronics, et alt. are all manufactured by different companies which independently take the concept and flesh it out in their own copyrighted ways. Considering your posing history, I'd expect you to argue some more so before you do, look up the history of the invention of the telephone. You'll hopefully be more enlightened afterwards on the concept of implementing the same idea in different ways.
Exactly, I am aware of not only the limitations of a patent granted on an invention (not that many years), but the lack there of on an idea. So if an idea is legally grabbed (most in this forum call it ripped off), altered and reimagined, it's not really stolen. Btw, I am aware. Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab no longer has a patent ownership on the Geo-Disc either. I looked this one up as well as many others. MFSL failed to renew that one during hard times in accounts receivables. And now it's up for anyone to make them, even molded right off of an original. It would have gone PD by now anyway. I considered making knockoffs in Mexico, but I think the market is saturated, with zero growth.
The SC-2 is significantly superior to CR, it is not even a contest, and I have been using CR as long as anyone here
Its detection is better, it handles synth and horns better, CR tends to collapse the soundstage a little, the SC-2 does not
There are people here in this thread who did comparisons with Click Repair and the outcome was not as good as with the SugarCube.
I own a SugarCube SC-1, and I also have a copy of ClickRepair I bought a few years ago. I stopped using ClickRepair pretty quickly after buying it because I was never really happy with how it worked or sounded. But I use the SC-1 every day. The SugarCube isn’t perfect, but it is *way* better than ClickRepair - ergonomically and sonically.
I am here - and have read all the posts, and listened to the samples, and studied the linked reviews - because I think we are discussing an interesting device.
I’m intrigued, have you compared it to the declicker on the Izotope RX products? Does it perform well post capture or indeed whilst capturing?
I was thinking about buying a SC then when I thought about it the more I realized I could just buy replacement records for the $2K. Fortunately for me most of my 3K - 4K records are still in excellent condition and the few that have issues can be replaced with either new copies or mint condition used copies.
Based on the posted audio examples, and the apparent ease of use, I can see how the Sugar Cube de-noisers can fit a need. For those who archive vinyl to a digital format, this could be a real time-saver when recording from a damaged vinyl source – especially if the user has a great number of damaged records to archive. Also, for someone wishing to play or archive a one-of-a-kind or very-difficult-to-obtain vinyl record – and if this special record is significantly damaged – an SC device could make this record much more listenable, in real-time. Another useful real-time application would be in a non-critical listening situation (such as a party) where the host wants to impress his guests with “the joy of vinyl” (provided a record doesn’t skip or stick). As impressive and capable as the SC de-noising is, having listened to the posted examples, there may be artifacts that I’m not hearing from 10-15 minutes of review. What I can hear, though, is loss of recorded room sound, or what some might call “air”. Perhaps this could be somewhat (or completely) remedied by post-processing frequency-specific gain makeup. But this would now involve inserting two processes between source and destination. Sometimes when taking a drug to combat a disease, it is necessary to take an additional drug to counteract its side effects. Notwithstanding the above-referenced applications, when digitally archiving a record that has a manageable number of intermittent pops/clicks, time permitting, a better method may be to remove “by hand” the offending spikes – thus preserving as much as possible the sonics of the original source. To be clear, I am not one who archives vinyl. I listen only because I truly enjoy the experience. And the records I most enjoy are (generally) 1962-1978 Rock/Pop/Folk. [On digital discs, I own a vastly wider range of music styles, and the newest/cleanest versions of my faves. I play them using Arcam / B&K / B&W. I don’t stream, but I sure check out lots’a stuff on YouTube!] I had not been playing vinyl for thirty years, and realized how much I missed it. I purchased fully serviced 1972-1974 Dual 1229 / Shure VN15 III – DL [DU] (JICO VN35HE) / Sansui 7000 / JBL L100A. All device connectors are stock. The cabling and its gold plated connectors are audio-grade. That’s the maximum level of “vinyl audiophilia” I achieve. Prior to getting this rig, I would sometimes bring an O.O.P. record to the studio to burn onto a CD. Now I just play the vinyl. I also enjoy “the hunt” for best-condition vinyl copies. As an example, I bet I have at least fifteen copies of Rubber Soul. Each pressing sounds different (different matrices; different plants; different countries...). Some of these pressings are quite common; if I’ve got such a record, and its condition is less than VG+, I’ll play it on one of our ’62 Magnavox Saratogas. Heck, once in a while I might even stack’em! When restoring my ’59 Seeburg 220, I could have added Bluetooth, but that for me would miss the point. It’s stocked with fifty period-correct 45s from the 50s-90s. Despite using best-condition records, it still sounds like two Fender Twins blasting noisy 45s – which it kind’a actually is. While the SugarCube devices are apparently state-of-the-art, I do not find them completely sonically transparent. And yes, this evaluation is based solely on the digital audio examples provided in this forum. If someone brought over an SC device, I would definitely plug it in (it might be most useful in the Seeburg!). And I might be persuaded. I don’t use analog rigs so that I can say, on principle, “I’m pure analog”. For me, it is a joy (and a relief) to hear my favorite artists in the closest-to-exact form in which they originally released their products. I will do that the best I can – using contemporary technology when I can judge its improvement, or when I’m not able to source authentic period-correct parts, and then will use new caps, styluses, tubes, etc. My analog rigs are used only for pleasure. They provide psychological (and probably physical) “digital relief”. Sometimes it seems my record players, radios, (and some Sunbeam and Hamilton Beach kitchen items) are the only devices in my house not connected to the internet! I’m glad that talented people are pursuing – and achieving – real improvements that can help make older technologies accessible and enjoyable for new generations. As far as the business model of SweetVinyl (maker of SugarCube), I won’t comment in this post, other than to wish them the best in their noble pursuit. Oh, alright, I'll make one comment: To achieve scale, maybe they can license a version of their device to Crosley. Welcome to Sugar Cube
[QUOTE="MisterNines, post: 19826896, member: 91827" Notwithstanding the above-referenced applications, when digitally archiving a record that has a manageable number of intermittent pops/clicks, time permitting, a better method may be to remove “by hand” the offending spikes – thus preserving as much as possible the sonics of the original source. [/QUOTE] Quote from vinyldoneright (post # 387): "Its detection is better, it handles synth and horns better, CR (= Click Repair) tends to collapse the soundstage a little, the SC-2 does not". So, he used a software to remove pops/clicks, but prefers the SugarCube SC-2 because it does a better job than doing it manually.
The samples provided in this thread are off semi-trashed (in my grading opinion) records at a really high declick level (level 6) on the SC-2 so yes there is some softening of the music for sure, I never go above level 3 and I do not experience that
Copy that, Anton888. I'm not a vinyl archivist - I really only have experience in de-noising multitrack/2-trk recordings in ProTools. In that environment, it would depend on circumstances/results needed whether I'd use a global fix, or would dive deep down in the waves of a few offending spikes - or do both. In general, I would want my actions to have the least affect on the overall program, while acceptably repairing the offending passages (each of which might only be measured in milliseconds, frames, or samples).
Actually my samples do not use anything higher than the level 5 default. The Doors album is indeed well used, and that album in particular when run through the SC-2 really knocked me out as an example of how effective the SC-2 is. The Elton John album is another case entirely. Visually it looks fine but is in fact horrifically noisey and but not for the Sugarcube would be headed for the trash. But moving beyond extreme examples, what I appreciate most about the Sugsrcube is that when I buy very decent used records any minor issues they may have become a moot point. The same can be said for new vinyl with it’s high defect rate. Between having an SC-2 and a vinyl flat in hand I’m fairly well set for not having to get irritated or go returning records for minor noise or warps, both problems are remedied by these devices (with their very diffetent price points). From my now nearly year long experience with this device I can say that 95% of the time I cannot hear a difference with the SC-2 engaged or bypassed. However there are certain recordings with great dynamic range and lots of air and high end for which it’s readily spparent that there’s a loss. The DCC pressing of Elton John’s Madman Across the Water being the best example.
