Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Sergei Rachmaninoff

Sergei Rachmaninoff
One of Rachmaninoff's most popular works, performed by a notable interpreter of his works.

One thing I must ask, though: File:Prelude_3_2_Rach_playing.ogg is the original. Can you be hard on the restoration, particularly the timing of the first three chords, which had some extra damage, and which I think I fixed successfully. If there's problems, I want to know and fix them, not coast by, so please, double-check my work and don't let me get away with anything.


 * Nominate and support. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 213 FCs served 20:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ? Lots of background white noise in there. Is this an old recording?  Nezzadar   ☎   02:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1919, but, of course, later recordings wouldn't be public domain recordings of him playing his own work. Added year of performance to the description. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 213 FCs served 09:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments 2:08 - 2:25 seems to have more clipping than the original, an artifact of restoration? In that area, I actually prefer the original recording. Also, is there a reason the original is 194kbps but the restoration is 66kbps? The timing of the chords at the beginning sounds fine to me.  Jujutacular  T · C 20:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Excellent for a 1919 acoustic recording. The fact that it is an interpretation by the composer, in his prime, is especially compelling. Edison (talk) 04:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Jujutacular. I noticed the clipping and then listened to the original and did not hear it. It could be a compression artifact as 66 kbps is small for so many notes are being played simultaneously in that stretch.  Zginder 2010-03-16T16:12Z (UTC)
 * Support. Is there much difference in the "clipping"? I find it hard to detect. This is a valuable recording. Tony   (talk)  17:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Conditional support: I agree that this is a valuable recording, and very much worthy of featured status on that basis. I was picking up some distortion myself a bit. I'll let better ears weigh in on that, but I'm inclined to support otherwise should the others come to a consensus on that point.  Imzadi  1979   →   23:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose Distorted in comparison to the original recording. Why 66k? Sounds like listening over a telephone circuit. Such a valuable recording deserves a better transfer. Edison (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You !voted on this over a year ago, with a different opinion  Them From  Space  06:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Struck earlier !vote. Edison (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not the best transfer (probably a dirty disc?) requires too much distortion to bring to a listenable state. I wouldn't be opposed to a clean transfer of this recording.  I actually have a clean copy of this disc, but no machine to play it on. :\  Them  From  Space  06:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, perhaps, the mountain this file has to climb to reach a super-majority is too great at this time. Participation at F.S. being what it is, I doubt this will see another three supports in any reasonable amount of time.

Not promoted --  S ven M anguard  Wha?  06:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)