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  November 2009

ARSCLIST November 2009

Subject:

Re: Edison, etc

From:

Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:00:10 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (174 lines)

Hello George:

I thank you for your comments. You made a key point that I totally agree with and bears repeating:

You said either kind of transfer is "legit" --

"provding you say what you are doing and do not claim that it is the TRUE sound of the recording. It 
is not, it is ONE of the ways that you can use it."

Absolutely!

You went on to say:

"And if you are doing a preservation transfer, it is useless to aim for this kind of acoustical 
transfer, because it cannot ever be used for anything but demonstrating how that machine sounded 
with that record on that day. "

And then went on to give some good reasons why this is true.

But I think the hostility by some on this list is over acoustic transfers made for COMMERCIAL 
products, not archival preservation items.

Also, your point about wanting to hear close to the original "scream-a-thon" performance as a method 
of evaluating singing is absolutely a good idea for an academic study, or a study to consider and 
document the recording methods or production choices of the Experts (engineers) back in the day. But 
again, I think if you're looking at how the majority of people might want to hear these old relics, 
they'd probably like some mitigation done for the un-musical sound used for an imperfect recording 
method back in the studio. I might be wrong, though!

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "George Brock-Nannestad" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 5:36 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Edison, etc


Hello,

Tom Fine yesterday wrote some well-considered comments, and I would like to
address them:


>Hi Will:
>
>Thanks for this reference (http://tinyurl.com/yfbzcsn)

>Chapter 12 is indeed very interesting reading. The late Peter
>Copeland raised a lot of important issues.
>
>What I came away with was, ALL transfers of acoustic recordings
>are imperfect. And even if you did devise a way to undo all the
>distortions of the recording processes, youīd end up with a faithful
>record of people screaming and playing overly loud in unnatural
>balance in small rooms, so the sound would be un-musical and un-
>pleasing. So itīs all "season to taste" if the transfer is to be enjoyed
>by the listeners.

----- I do like the description you give of the sound in the acoustic
recording studio--you have grasped the very fundamentals. But it is a worst-
case scenario from which we may learn how to work more gently on less
distorted recordings--the majority. But even in the worst case my taste
differs. I want to hear live NATURAL people performing professionally albeit
unnaturally rather than a big fat blob (with tentacles=resonances) to smooth
everything out. The sound of both instruments and voices is unpleasant to my
ears when played straight from an acoustic recording, even if the overall
volume appears balanced. And by now I know what to do about it.

Those professonal performers who were able to adjust to obtain a satisfactory
end result were performing ("screaming") like that, because recording is a
feed-back process. It is a balance of technology and ideology. The technology
is only one part that may be deficient when you judge the end result (apply
the ideology), and since the record producer could not change his technology
(it takes from 1925-1931, the advent of Blumlein's very linear recording
system), he could change the way people produce sounds. Playback destroyed
the master, so you had to wait until processed test records were available.
Marvellous. It reminds me of the feeble beginnings of voice and speech
recognition by computers. During my first acoustics conference (in 1969, I
think it was) Gunnar Fant (those who care know who it is) said that perhaps
people ought to learn to imitate the speech of the computers of that day, in
order to improve recognition. Both recognition and recording technology have
evolved. And reproduction technology.

It is for this reason that I find immense joy in being able to get back to a
proper piano sound in Wilhelm Backhaus' acoustic recording of Perpetuum
Mobile (which is much more interesting than Friedheim's, although Columbia
had a better acoustic recording technology) or to work further on Grieg and
Pugno now that Marston and his collaborators have removed the noise and the
machine-based flutter. I can now get to work on getting a real piano back.
But if I had an acoustic reproduction on an original phonograph interposed my
task would be impossible, because I would be faced with having to try to take
care of both the historical equipment, and the ambience as well.

----- a final remark about behaving unnaturally: Joseph Schmidt had a
marvellous electrical gramophone operatic career but absolutely no stage
presence due to his very small stature. It would have been unnatural to put
him on the stage. Georg Kulenkampff was reported (in Telefunken's "Die
Ernte", a commented catalogue in the late 1930s) to twist and turn in front
of the microphone to make the microphone capture the best sound from his
violin. This is something he would never do in the concert hall, mainly
because it would not be amplified (and it probably looked ridiculous).
Precisely the same behaviour has been reported to me by an eyewitness
concerning Aksel Schiotz, the Danish Lieder tenor in the 78 rpm period.

>So I come back to this -- I canīt see why people would vehemently
>oppose acoustic transfers, nor how acoustic transfers would be any
>less "legit" than electronic transfers, especially if the end product is
>meant to be enjoyed as recorded music rather than some sort of
>technical documentation.

----- it is perfectly legit, provided you say what you are doing and do not
claim that it is the TRUE sound of the recording. It is not, it is ONE of the
ways that you can use it. And if you are doing a preservation transfer, it is
useless to aim for this kind of acoustical transfer, because it cannot ever
be used for anything but demonstrating how that machine sounded with that
record on that day.

A linear/straight or similar transfer made on calibrated equipment can be
used for ANY purpose you might imagine, from distorting it into 1910 to
getting back to "screaming" NATURAL voices. And it is indeed those voices you
need if you want to evaluate their performance, rather than the performance
of the technician who put them up to it. So, this kind of transfer is what
you need to build on when you preserve for the future.

>This is kind of the in the same league as to
>why there are mastering engineers when the product is intended to >be
commercially successful and enjoyable -- "season to taste" is
>important even after a precise modern recording and mixing.
>
>The only really big advantange I can see for electronic transfers of
>acoustic recordings -- and it is a big advantage -- is that modern
>electronic playback equipment is very gentle on old media. Indeed
>such methods as scanning grooved material and "playing" with a
>laser seem to be nearly non-destructive.

----- I think the advantages are cumulative.

>But, for common (non-rare)
>media, if someone is producing a music-recording product to be
>enjoyed by fans and collectors, I think he/she should use whatever
>process yields the right "season to taste" for his/her target audience.

----- you have a point if you were considering the audience that is only
moderately interested but who likes a bit of oldish sound. And using
historical equipment to make CDs and purport that this is what it should
sound like is much, much cheaper than working with resonances and anti-
resonances. Even buying a restored gramophone/phonograph, to play everything
through when re-mastering it is much, much cheaper than spending hours of
experienced time on an acoustic signal. So, whatever the profit there is, it
is higher. Yummy!

Kind regards,


George



----- Original Message -----
From: "Prentice, Will" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 8:59 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Edison, etc., reply to Tom Fine


George referred to Peter Copelandīs writing on this subject. Chapter
12 of his manual covers acoustic recording and many of the issues
discussed here in some detail:
http://www.bl.uk/reshelp/findhelprestype/sound/anaudio/analoguesou
ndrestoration.pdf

Will

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

November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
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