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  June 2012

ARSCLIST June 2012

Subject:

Re: Who needs vinyl?

From:

Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Sat, 2 Jun 2012 13:42:53 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (273 lines)

Hi Dennis:

Thanks for all your comments and insights. All very interesting as always.

I totally agree with you that the better Columbia remix/remaster jobs of recent years are very much 
superior to the original LPs, as are the RCA SACDs to even the much-loved Living Stereo LPs. One 
man's ears, opinions, etc.

I also agree with Don Cox about 20-bit transfers. One of the lesser-known aspects of the Mercury 
CD's is that the A-D was done at 24-bit an the signal was then down-converted on the way to the 1630 
mastering deck. So the capture was in 24-bit, which definitely made a difference to the ears of the 
producer, mastering engineers and various guests to the studio while the equipment was being 
selected. The dcs converter that was used was MUCH better-sounding than other equipment tested. If 
the only choice had been a Sony 16-bit converter, the CDs wouldn't have happened. The chain used was 
analog playback > dcs A-D converter (44.1kHz/16-bit) > Harmonia Mundia (sp?) digital buss and 
dither-down module (Weiss designed) > digital input of 1630 recorders (2 masters made 
simultaneously). In the early days, problems had to be fixed with video-style insert-edits on the 
1630 system. Later, a Sonic Solutions computer was used for complex edits and also to sync up SFX 
and music for the "1812" and "Wellington's Victory" CD. None of Sonic's "cleanup" DSP stuff was used 
because it wasn't deemed good-sounding. When the Sonic computer was used, content was uploaded and 
downloaded to 1630 all-digital, no re-converting or other such stuff.

I cringed a little bit right after I hit "send" because I don't want to set up a false dicotomy of 
"produced sound" vs. a notion of "documentary sound." As I tried to say, ALL good classical 
recordings are "productions," meaning they are heard from a sonic position not possible to attain in 
the recording space, unless you are a character from "Crouching Dragon, Hidden Tiger" and can float 
somewhere above and behind the conductor's head or elsewhere in the hall (or have many ears in many 
places at once if more than a few mics are used). Mics hear differently from humans, so production 
is involved in setting and mixing the mics to get a desired stereo or mono image. Even a single-mic 
approach isn't "documentary" because the mic placement is designed for a "super-real" pickup and 
then of course there's editing and re-takes and the like. The reasons for all of this is that a 
record is made to be listened to over and over, and it must be "super-real" to be enjoyable, free of 
bad flubs, sonically sparkling, etc. This is why I don't believe in issuing recordings of radio 
broadcasts, because the performance was a one-time event and often containing flubs or other things 
that would not pass muster with a recording session of yore (today is a different matter, a lot of 
new-issue classical stuff is just concert recordings with maybe a few hours of patch-ups afterwards, 
and it sounds it!).

So nobody in the "golden age" execpt cheapo labels issuing concert recordings from Europe were 
taking a "documentary" approach.

What I mean by "produced sound" is an ambience and even reverb/illusion of space that has little or 
nothing to do with the recording venue but rather is created by mixing, EQ and adding reverb later. 
That's what Kazdin was doing with his more elaborate "magic." It's also what Denon was doing with 
their recordings made in an anacholic chamber in the 70s. I'd call that the extreme of "produced 
sound." Probably the other end is a produced classical recording (ie specific mic placement not in 
an audience sound-plain, editing and retakes) made with one mic, which Mercury and RCA were doing in 
the early 50's. That's not a "documentary" but the sound is what that mic was capturing in that 
acoustic space and the dynamics and details were left up to the orchestra. Mercury and RCA, and also 
Decca, kept more to this philosophy (with RCA having more mics as time went on and moving more 
toward a "produced sound" philosophy as time went on). Columbia was always more into "produced 
sound" to one degree or another, as far as I can tell. I think EMI, Philips and DGG always preferred 
that direction too. There were exceptions to all of these generalizations, of course, as each 
recording project was unique.

- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dennis Rooney" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 1:08 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Who needs vinyl?


> Dear Tom,
>
> In reply...
>
> DDR
>
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>
>> One man's opinions ...
>>
>> 1. the early CD's "Great Performances of the Century" or whatever the
>> series was called, with the fake "newspaper front page" artwork, generally
>> sucked.
>>
> *
> Actually, that line was called "Great Performances" and was, indeed, done
> mostly from Lp cutting masters ("two-tracks") often with little or no
> expertise in the A/D transfer, audible splices unfiexed, etc.
> *
>
>>
>> 2. Dennis Rooney produced a good series of reissues in the late 90's,
>> Masterworks Heritage. I have those versions of Szell/Cleveland, whatever
>> was released in the series, and it is fantastic.
>>
>
> *THANKS*
>
>>
>> 3. I thought much more care was taken and better quality resulted with the
>> Bernstein Edition reissues of the 90's, vs the earlier reissues.
>>
>
> *THANKS AGAIN*
>
>>
>> 4. A lot of the better second-generation reissues seem to have been
>> re-packaged in that dirt-cheap "essential" series, which has cheezy artwork
>> and sketchy recording/production details but sometimes quite good sound.
>> Some of them sound like they are "Great Performances of the 20th Century"
>> first-generation transfers repackaged, but I might be wrong on that.
>>
> *
> Essential Classics was something of a grab bag regarding audio quality but
> after 1992 it improved when A&R rather than Marketing supervised the studio
> work.*
>
>
>
>>
>> 5. In general, to my ears, Columbia's recordings were of inconsistent
>> quality. Sometimes they did really well, sometimes not. I tend to hear
>> through their inadequate recordings if it's a Szell or a great Bernstein
>> performance. If it's a lackluster Bernstein or a so-so Ormandy, I can't
>> cotton to the poor-sounding recordings.
>
> *
> In general, the Columbia master tapes sound better than any Lp release.
> Their true quality was much more accurately reflected in the CD reissues
> from the early 90s on.*
>
>
>> Columbia always used several to many mics, so the big problem they have is
>> the same all over-mic'd classical recordings have -- unnatural ambience,
>> congested and un-detailed sound when everyone is playing loud, shifting
>> placement of instruments depending on their volume levels (ie bleed into a
>> number of mics), and dynamics controlled at the mixing board rather than by
>> the orchestra.
>
>
> *Fred Plaut did not believe in stereo and Masterworks did not make a
> regular stereo master until December, 1956 (the Bernstein MESSIAH). His mic
> technique was referred to by many of his colleagues as "multi-mic mono".
> Only one Columbia engineer, Harold Chapman ("Chappie"), had a true
> understanding of stereophony and how to mic for it, which is why his
> recordings possess a true stereo image.*
>
> When they got into Andy Kazdan sonic productions, that's a different way of
>> making a classical record and it sometimes has its benefits, but it's
>> definitely a "produced" sound vs. a "recorded" sound. There's a difference
>> between a produced performance -- all great classical albums are "produced"
>> in the sense that they are super-perfect and super-real compared to all but
>> a few spontaneous performances -- and a produced sound, which means that
>> the overall sound quality is a production of mixing and adding echo and the
>> like, it's not something that can happen at all in real-time in a real
>> space. Like I said, sometimes it's very interesting and works well, so I'm
>> not blanket condemning it. Columbia was definitely very into "produced
>> sound" for their classical records from the late 60's onward. I discussed
>> this in my presentation at the AES in NY last year, including details on
>> Columbia's 1975 Grammy Award-winning recording of "Daphnis and Chloe" that
>> involved 32 microphones and separate mixes for stereo and quad. In my
>> opinion, it works as a vehicle to get into the music (for instance, the
>> details of every voice in the chorus, the details of every little nuance of
>> sound from the solo instruments, very clear details within sections as long
>> as not too many people were playing at the same time), but it's definitely
>> a produced sound. Some in the audience very much didn't like the Columbia
>> approach vs. earlier few-mic RCA approaches.
>>
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> *In truth, Columbia was "into a 'produced sound'" from 1939 on. All
> 33-1/3rpm lacquer masters produced after that date assumed post-production
> in creating the 78rpm masters. EQ, reverb, and level adjustments were all
> routine and the practice continued into the Lp era. Its 3-track, 1/2-in
> stereo masters had all three tracks in constant motion. We automated
> several mixes in doing a/d transfers of them and the sight of the faders
> during playback was a sight to see. Andy Kazdin was certainly delighted
> with "produced sound". He wanted no part of documentary reality. "We're
> making MAGIC here!" was his motto.*
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "L. Hunter Kevil" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 5:09 PM
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Who needs vinyl?
>>
>>
>>  Steve and Richard,
>>>
>>> Can you give us any clues as to how to identify which Sony reissues have
>>> been outstandingly remastered and which have not?
>>>
>>> Hunter Kevil
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 3:09 PM, [Richard A Kaplan] <[log in to unmask]
>>> >wrote:
>>>
>>>  Sony's release of Bernstein's Mahler cycle last year in new masterings
>>>> from
>>>>  session tapes was revelatory; it shows (a) what they're capable of when
>>>> they're  willing to use the resources, and (b) how inadequate the huge
>>>> bulk of
>>>> their CD  reissues have (has?) been. I'm with Steve: More!
>>>>
>>>> Rich Kaplan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In a message dated 6/1/2012 3:05:07 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
>>>> [log in to unmask] writes:
>>>>
>>>> I  recently heard the last 2 movements of the Beethoven 3d Piano Concero
>>>>  on
>>>> the radio and was amazed.  I had no idea who was before the public  at
>>>> present who played the piece this well. What particularly grabbed me was
>>>> how
>>>> rich the piano tone was, how clear the various piiano voices and
>>>>  orchestral
>>>> parts were and how well the whole thing sounded  together.
>>>>
>>>> Imagine my surprise.  It was Leon Fleisher, George Szell  and the
>>>> Cleveland
>>>> Orchestra, made in 1959.
>>>>
>>>> After a bit of  investigation, I learned it was a new, 2012 24 bit
>>>> ransfer
>>>> from Sony. I  orderd the box of the 5 Beethoven and two Brahms Concerti
>>>> that
>>>> night. When  it arrived, it also proved to contain the Brahms Handel
>>>> Variations, the op.  39 Waltzes and  Mozarrt's 25th Concerto.
>>>>
>>>> I'm playing the 3d now  through my office listening set-up.  It's far
>>>> more
>>>> than the radio  disclosed.
>>>>
>>>> Though I've yet to see a review that addresses it,  this is clearly (!) a
>>>> huge improvement over all previous releases in any  format.
>>>>
>>>> I am assuming they've used Capstan as there is no  wow or flutter-
>>>> something
>>>> to which my my ear is particulary  sensitive.  The crispness of the sound
>>>> indicates corrections to  problems caused by slight misphasings, firmly
>>>> and
>>>> distinctly positioning  the instruments within the orchestra.  A slight
>>>> cut
>>>> made here at about  2700 cycles allows the piano to sound completely
>>>> equalized throughout its  range with no notes suddenly sticking out.  The
>>>> occassional buzzy  noise I used to think were defects in the recording
>>>> are
>>>> now revealed as  piano problems.  I can't hear any tape hiss at all. The
>>>> only
>>>> negative  is that the time between movements is often too short and
>>>> unrelated
>>>> to the  music's pulse.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, yes.  Setting aside a few missed notes  in a few of the more elaboate
>>>> passages, the 3d is a terrific  performance.  They are well enough known
>>>> by
>>>> now not to require a  review.
>>>>
>>>> The digital millenium has arrived.  More!   More!
>>>>
>>>> Steve Smolian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
>
> -- 
> Dennis D. Rooney
> 303 W. 66th Street, 9HE
> New York, NY 10023
> 212.874.9626
> 

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

January 2021
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