I think you have jumped to conclusions. Lennick was probably talking about
the recent BMG stereo superposition of a modern orchestra on Caruso records,
a second attempt at the re-recordings done by Victor c. 1930 (and issued
complete by Pearl, transferred by Marston).

Also, I would like to know the precise source of your information about the
use of Bjorling's voice in the Stockham process.

I think it is possible to hear the signature of the old Met on some of the
Mapleson's. Also, the first series of Maplesons are not far-field
recordings. They were made with the horn in the prompter's box.

Steve Abrams

----- Original Message -----
From: "George Brock-Nannestad" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2007 9:52 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Cedar


> From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad
>
> Hello,
>
> David Lennick wrote
>
>> Some of us are still reeling from the memory of those gawdawful Caruso
>> reconstructions. Don't forget..the "original room" was designed to
>> produce
>> the
>> maximum amount of oomph and channel it into a horn.
>
> ----- that is not entirely true, and very company dependent. For instance,
> VTMC used what must be described as a very dry room, because e.g. in 1907
> they are reported as having all the windows open during summer.
>
> ----- those gawdawful Caruso reconstructions were based on very erroneous
> premise by Thomas Stockham in his processes. One was that if we can find a
> similar tenor in electrical recording, then we can use that voice
> characteristic to filter the original acoustic by Caruso himself and
> thereby
> get a grip on the difference, which must be what the acoustic process has
> contributed. They used Bjoerling, and indeed: if you increase the treble
> on
> the LP, then you hear Bjoerling's voice as "used by" Caruso, very strange
> indeed. But he cleaned up the bass quite efficiently. I do not have any of
> the McCormacks that RCA also put out using the Soundstream process, but
> here,
> at least, the voice was basically the same. Stockham called it blind de-
> convolution, and the process works, but the opera record collector he must
> have been associated with must have misled him.
>
> Mapleson cylinders would
>> be
>> about the only recordings where you might have a vague hope of
>> reconstructing
>> an acoustic worth hearing.
>
> ----- well, if anything, they were certainly far-field recordings.
> However,
> the signal-to-noise ratio is such that not much reverb signal is left.
> However, with modern signal processing - who knows.
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
> George