From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad
Hello, Jay and Mike,
NIMBUS had high profile and high prestige. So much that they would only
subject historic records in absolute pristine (virtually unplayed) condition
to their giant horn machine. One reason was that they did not want to do post-
processing, such as noise removal, the second was that they were running
short on thorns, which by the way filtered the life out of the recordings. I
have knowledge of at least one important collection in which the best and
unique copies were taken to be played acoustically via the giant horn. Mind
you, there is no doubt in my mind that this was the gentlest and best
acoustic reproduction they could ever have had, but still .......
I have never checked whether Prima Voce did a Patti set. I would love to hear
"la Calasera" subjected to the giant horn plus EMG acoustic soundbox
combination. This record was originally withdrawn within a month, because it
lasted no more then 3 plays on contemporary gramophones. The recorded
velocity at her loud places was about 50 cm/second or about 20 dB above an
average level. This was entirely due to an untamed resonance at recording. It
was fortuitously re-issued on the ca. 1950 white label HMV series (V.B. 40? -
off the cuff) and I have used it quite a lot - so much that even my Expert
Stylus diamond replay has worn the record! Bryan Crimp in the LP set had to
use a limiter, which sounds awful, and even Roger Beardsley's very nice
transfer of the Historic Masters vinyl reissues sounds strained at those
spots.
Mike, you made two observations that I would like to amplify:
[Mike] Here's a trick you can try at home if
> > you have an acoustical machine. Listen to it playing when you are in the
> > next room -- you will find it more lifelike when you are not near it
> > especially playing a vocal record.
----- what you have essentially described is one of the reasons why tone-
tests were credible, provided the setup was suitable and the audience was not
in the direct line of radiated sound.
[Mike] They introduced the first release in a
> > large reverberant ballroom and took their advertising quotes before
> > critics had a chance to really hear the discs properly.
----- Barney Pisha (the equipment and in particular pickup reviewer for Audio
Magazine) told me in 1986 that when CBS originally presented the LP to the
press, they did it during the summer at Atlantic City, with windows open. The
breaking waves masked the inevitable noise from the early pressings.
----- now, I have never heard any of the Prima Voce reissues of electrical
recordings, and I wonder how they were able to obtain the correct
reproduction characteristic. Apparently they did not succeed.
Kind regards,
George
--------------------------------
> In the early days of CDs, pressing plant time was very dear as there were
> only a couple of manufacturing plants. Nimbus ( in England ) was one of
> them. Nimbus had many high claims about their quality but working with
> ancient recordings was something they never really overcame.
>
> However, their reissues did sell pretty well for us & to some degree still
> do, especially at the lower price points.
>
> Your search for sound & video ends here!
>
> Jay Sonin, General Manager
> Music Hunter Distributing Company
> 25-58 34th Street, Suite # 2
> Astoria, NY 11103-4902
> [log in to unmask]
> 718-777-1949
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Biel" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 2:38 PM
> Subject: [ARSCLIST] Nimbus [was: Technics apparently really has discontinued
> their turntables]
>
>
> > When the Nimbus Prime Voce samplers came out I used to carry them around
> > with me to collectors meetings. I called them the Nimbus Laughing Record
> > because they always elicited laughter far heavier than The OKeh Laughing
> > Record. Beyond acoustical recordings, they also used this process on
> > electrical records even through post-war years. They made fine electrical
> > records sound old and wheezy -- how in the world could that be considered
> > lifelike unless your hearing is seriously impaired? I issued a challenge
> > that they record a voice they all knew well, that of the Crazy Count who
> > owned the company and recorded for Nimbus, transfer it to a 78, and see
> > how "lifelike"it was.
> >
> > They used tricks to make it "lifelike". They recorded in the crazy
> > count's dining room -- a highly reverberant room -- using an "Ambesonic"
> > surround sound microphone and encoded them in UHJ Quad which folded all
> > the distant rear reverb into the front channels. The UHJ Decoder was
> > never marketed in the U.S. at all, never giving anybody a chance to remove
> > the rear reverb out of the sound. Here's a trick you can try at home if
> > you have an acoustical machine. Listen to it playing when you are in the
> > next room -- you will find it more lifelike when you are not near it
> > especially playing a vocal record. They introduced the first release in a
> > large reverberant ballroom and took their advertising quotes before
> > critics had a chance to really hear the discs properly. If they now take
> > their praise back they would have to explain -- and a few did but not
> > necessarily in print because Nimbus was known to threaten suit under the
> > British libel laws.
> >
> > Mike Biel [log in to unmask]
> >
> > On 1/5/2011 6:04 AM, George Brock-Nannestad wrote:
> >> From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad
> >>
> >>
> >> Hello Don,
> >>
> >> well, you can see my reply to Tom. But I disagree with Wikipedia in
> this
> >> statement, unless you define "life-like" very carefully:
> >>
> >> "Although controversial, the
> >>> technique is capable of producing remarkably life-like results -
> >>> particularly for recordings made "acoustically" prior to the
> >>> arrival of studio microphones in 1925."
> >> The problem is that - for better or for worse - the "ordinary"
> 1910-1920s
> >> acoustic reproduction would mollify some of the resonances (and anti-
> >> resonances) that were recorded on the records. In particular if you
> >> followed
> >> Victor's advice to play the records at 78 rpm although they were recorded
> >> at
> >> 76 rpm. The "old" acoustic reproduction sounded acceptable and it was
> >> certainly commercial, or the record industry would never have taken
> off.
> >>
> >> However, the giant horn was ideal, it provided no compensating coloring
> >> of
> >> its own. The thorn needles performed a severe treble cut, so what
> >> remained
> >> was a very "horny" reproduction, namely the "horny" version that was
> >> recorded
> >> in the grooves. NIMBUS recorded in a reverberant hall, which made for a
> >> very
> >> reverberant and seemingly full sound, but the frequency range that is
> >> commonly used to distinguish good operatic voices from bad ones was
> >> entirely
> >> missing: the range from 2.5 to 3.5 kHz. In some Prima Voce reissues
> they
> >> tried to put some shine into the voice by increasing the level at around
> >> 800
> >> Hz. That was the "life" or "live-ness" they "liked". I am sure that for
> >> listening in the car they would do fine at high speed.
> >>
> >> Kind regards,
> >>
> >>
> >> George
> >>
> >> ----------------------------
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 04/01/2011, Tom Fine wrote:
> >>>> George, do you have a copy of Gramophone magazine's anniversary CD,
> >>>> where they recorded the old stuff to digital by playing it out a
> >>>> massive horn-acoustic player? It was kinda quaint, I think their
> point
> >>>> is that this is how our editors heard this music back in the days
> when
> >>>> it was made.
> >>>>
> >>> Nimbus Records in Wales used to do this. A quote from the Wikipedia
> >>> entry:
> >>>
> >>> "A large sub-label of Nimbus Records is the vocal series Prima
> >>> Voce. This label specialises in the transfer of vocal records on
> >>> 78 rpm disc dating from 1900. The method of transfer involves
> >>> the use of thorn needles and a giant acoustic horn on a
> >>> carefully-restored gramophone. No electronic processing is
> >>> used: instead, the gramophone is placed in a living room
> >>> environment and recorded ambisonically, in surround-sound,
> >>> from a typical listening position. Although controversial, the
> >>> technique is capable of producing remarkably life-like results -
> >>> particularly for recordings made "acoustically" prior to the
> >>> arrival of studio microphones in1925."
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Regards
> >>> --
> >>> Don Cox
> >>> [log in to unmask]
> >>
> >
|