From Steven Smolian:
>> Sorry. This is counterintuative.
>> An imperfect horn is an imperfect horn is...
>> and, in both directions. I simply cannot accept the logic.
From: Goran Finnberg <[log in to unmask]>
> Tell that to Nimbus. :-)
I HAVE told it to the Nimbus Nitwits, every chance I get.
> BTW, many of these transfers sound really good to my ears.
> Puts to shame so many others imo. Goran Finnberg
I would be ashamed to admit it.
When the series first started I used to carry around the first two
Nimbus samplers which I called "The Nimbus Laughing Records" because
that is what they provoked whenever I played them to collectors. As was
mentioned they did their recordings in a VERY reverberant room -- the
Crazy Count's dining room -- which bounces the sound around and makes it
fuller like the jackasses who added echo in the 50s thought would sound
better. What made it worse is that they used an Ambesonic
surround-sound microphone and encoded the recordings into UHJ, a quad
system that was never marketed in the United States. Because nobody in
the U.S. and practically nobody anywhere else had a decoder, this folded
the rear reverberation back into the front channels and made matters
much, much worse. (That's why all Nimbus CDs are over-reberant.)
When they famously introduced the series in a Grand Party, it was noted
how they played the recordings. They were played from speakers
faaaaarrrrr faaaarrrrr away from the listeners in an ultra reverberant
ballroom. People thought it sounded great because it was DISTANT. Have
you ever noticed that your acoustical phonographs sound better from the
NEXT ROOM? Try it. It is amazing.
I proposed a simple test to them which they ignored. Because they were
also using it for electrical recordings, even those made in the 1940s, I
suggested they make a NEW recording of a voice they are familiar with --
such as the Crazy Count who owned the company then and made vocal
recordings for them -- cut it on a disc and play IT back with their
system. The failures of their theories would stick out like a sore
Likewise with the comments about Edison. It is an INSULT to Walter
Miller to say that he thought that this is how the recordings should
ideally be heard. They were CONSTANTLY and CONTINUALLY striving to
IMPROVE their systems. If they thought it was good enough, why try to
improve it???? It is noted in the Edison files that when they heard
electrical recording they knew they were cooked -- but the Old Man only
remembered his 1878 experiments in trying to combine the phonograph and
the telephone -- and now, in his deafness he resisted the moves his
staff, especially his sons Theodore and Charles, to modernize. Likewise
with electrical playback. They KNEW acoustical playback -- even theirs
-- was horrible. Don't insult them by making it seem that they
considered acoustical reprodution ideal. As soon as they could they
switched over to electrical recording and reproduction AND dubbing. And
when they started lateral recording, it was the laterals which were the
LISTEN TO THE ORCHESTRA BEHIND THE SINGERS. IF IT DOESN'T SOUND RIGHT
WHAT HAPPENED IN THE STUDIO IS NOT BEING REPRODUCED CORRECTLY.
Mike Biel [log in to unmask]