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  January 2012

ARSCLIST January 2012

Subject:

Re: Fwd: [ARSCLIST] Mercury 51-CD box set now officially set for USA and Europe m...

From:

Don Cox <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:45:10 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (81 lines)

On 30/01/2012, Tom Fine wrote:

> Just to note the facts on the SACD's -- those transfers (the SACD
> layer) was not done by the original producer, and original playback
> equipment was not used. The sound quality is quite different,
> especially the 2-channel layer -- that's a 2-channel mix by someone
> not from the original production team and not at the original
> sessions. If your ears prefer that, great, but it is different from
> the 1990's CDs. The SACD's are long out of print, and I think there's
> a small group of collector-cultists who covet them due to scarcity
> more than anything else.
> 
I have all the CDs, all the SACDs, and a number of LPs.

To my ears, the SACDs sound better than the CDS. I am quite happy to
listen to the CDs, but where the SACD is available I would listen to it
by preference. 

My opinion is that the DSD conversion rather than the SACD distribution
medium is responsible for most of the improvement.

The Chabrier disc is particularly good on SACD.

I was disappointed that the Gershwin concerto disc was not released as
an SACD, as that has digital clipping on the CD. Maybe some others do
too - this is the one I checked. It is a great performance.

> Also just to be clear here, the CD remastering in the 1990's set the
> bar for quality and fidelity. Unlike many competitors at the time,
> these transfers were done from FIRST GENERATION master tapes (Mercury

The SACDs were also made from the first generation tapes.

> did not dub, actual session tapes were edited, in 3-channel during the
> stereo era, and a 3-2 mix was made as the original LP was cut; same
> goes for the CD's, 3-2 mix was made by the original producer, output
> direct to A-D converter). The A-D conversion was using the
> then-revolutionary dcs box, working in 24-bit.44.1kHz. That digital
> signal was then fed to a Harmonia Mundi (sp?) digital buss with the
> Weiss-designed dither-downconvert module, which produced a 16-bit/44.1
> signal to feed digital-direct to the Sony 1630 master recorder. I've
> heard master tapes, original LPs and 1990's CD's, in a level-matched
> comparison setting. The CD's sound much closer to the master tapes
> than any other released media. Also worth noting -- there is complete
> disclosure of source material and recording details in the booklets
> for each CD, including details about what was used in the few cases
> where master tapes had been lost. In about a dozen cases, the original
> music director/editor made new master edits from the "B" reels (second
> tape recorder at the original sessions), because the "A" master tape
> was lost or damaged beyond playability. In a very few cases,
> everything had been lost except the 2-track second-generation that was
> recorded during the original vinyl-mastering session, made from the
> same 3-2 mix buss as the original LP. Unfortunately, one of those
> cases was the Byron Janis Prokofiev/Rachmaninoff recording from
> Moscow, the 35mm master for that has never been found and is presumed
> to have been mistakenly destroyed in the 70's. As clearly noted in the
> original CD booklets, there were a few cases where the original LP was
> from a 35mm master but the 35mm was lost. In those cases, except for
> the Moscow recording mentioned above, the 3-track 1/2" tape recorded
> at the same time was used at the master (in the 35mm days, master
> edits were done on both 35mm and 3-track due to global vinyl-cutting
> logistics).
> 
> So bottom line, since the entire Mercury team is now dead, the closest
> you get to their hands and ears is the 1990's CD's. And, all of them
> agreed (as did many "golden eared" critics) that the CD's sounded
> closer to the master tapes (and thus closer to how the actual sessions
> sounded) than any other release media. This includes instrument
> balance, timbre, reverb tails, "room tone," etc. The big limitation to
> enjoying all of this in the early 1990's was the typical CD playback
> equipment of the time. In today's age of superb and reasonably-priced
> DACs, that shouldn't be the case.
> 
Did that "closer to" include the SACDs, or are you talking about
opinions from when the CDs were released?

Regards
-- 
Don Cox
[log in to unmask]

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

December 2020
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