LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  February 2006

ARSCLIST February 2006

Subject:

Re: De-static question

From:

phillip holmes <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sun, 12 Feb 2006 13:08:28 -0600

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (77 lines)

I think this is a semantics thing.  When I say louder, I don't mean 
compressed, but with the dynamics intact, they cut so the loud sections are 
as loud as they can go, within reason.     Ricker can cut a record that 
can't be played back, especially if it has lots of out of phase bass in it. 
And I know that Fine productions had plenty of dynamics and plenty of level. 
Great recordings.  And Piros did many of them, right?  A master masterer! 
His Mercury pressings have a distinctive look.  And the sound is 
extraordinary.  Those FR1 pressings are some of the most challenging to 
reproduce ever.  I believe there's one notorious issue, organ with 
antiphonal brass, that caused big problems with cartridges until the high 
compliance cartridges of the late '60s.  The FR1 pressings on Mercury, many 
1S RCAs, many many EMI and Deccas are Audiophile pressings.  The audiophile 
"movement" began when the equipment got to the point where guys would listen 
to something like the Firebird on Mercury and say "holy crap, that sounds 
much better than the Columbia I have---why?". As a matter of fact, half 
speed mastering was invented by Decca to help them get the treble on the 
records without distorting the early stereo cutter heads.  I suppose you 
could say that the audiophiles just rediscovered good mastering when the 
equipment made it apparent that the standards had slipped.  The MOFIs were 
cut softer overall, but the loud sections were way louder than the standard 
issue.  No limiting or compression.  So the UHQR of The Pines of Rome is 
very soft, then BOOM.  I think Stan mastered that one too.
I totally agree with you that the mastering engineer works the magic.  Any 
medium can sound bad.  Most can sound fantastic when done carefully.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom Fine" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 12:05 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] De-static question


> Hi Phillip:
>
> I have to argue with one statement:
>
>> Cutting engineers for the audiophile labels like Classic Records try to 
>> limit the side to 17 minutes for the best fidelity.  They cut louder than 
>> the old records with as big a groove as possible.
>
> Actually, a point of pride in the true olde days (NOT the 70s, but late 
> 50's and early 60's) was cutting loud and wide. That was definitely the 
> practice at Fine Recording and I know it was at other NY mastering places, 
> including the major-label studios (although they were usually more timid). 
> And singles were another story too. Today's "loudness wars" are somewhat 
> dejavu because singles were cut as loud as was possible to track by radio 
> turntables and jukeboxes. And, in many cases, they were compressed to the 
> moon for AM radio.
>
> Cutting got more timid with thinner vinyl, trying to fit more per side, 
> more compressed musical content (ie the rise of rock) and automated lathes 
> (plus the desire to avoid clipping with early solid-state cutter amps). 
> And we all know how low the quality got for typical USA records by the end 
> of the vinyl era (off-center holes, warped due to too-fast pressing or 
> too-tight wrapping, noisy vinyl, really bad mastering, etc).
>
> As I said in my earlier post, the first bunch of audiophile-oriented 
> records -- MoFi and Japanese reissues of American jazz classics -- were 
> mastered soft and pressed on really nice vinyl. The idea was, master timid 
> but with wide dynamic range and count on the vinyl to keep the noise floor 
> down. It was a good MO to prevent clipping distortion in solid-state phono 
> preamps of the day. And it also afforded tracking on a wide range of 
> turntables. The more recent vintage of audiophile reissues (which cost 
> much more money per LP too) take the olden days approach and cut hard and 
> deep and count on the user to have a system that can reproduce it well. 
> Deep cutting also never went out of style with 12" disco singles. In the 
> audiophile world
>
> My bottom-line feelings about LPs and, for that matter, 78's is that they 
> are what they are --  mechanical reproduction systems with century-old 
> technology. They are capable of being very good under the right 
> conditions, but like with CD's the run of the mill is usually far from 
> perfect. I would argue that CDs stand a better chance of being 
> mass-produced to a very high standard but mastering them properly is as 
> much an art as it was for mechanical grooved disks.
>
> -- Tom Fine

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager