From: Carl Pultz <[log in to unmask]>
> Loud - I bet! I had 801s around that time and they could light up a room.

> When you get toward a realistic sound level, the tonal balance falls into
> place and the sound starts to make more sense. Our perception of the balance
> of low to high frequencies is different at different SPLs. Turn it down much
> below the live volume of an ensemble, and that balance thins out. Since most
> domestic listeners do not play big music anywhere near a realistic volume,
> the temptation in mastering is to help them out by goosing the low end. Like
> a Loudness button, but usually not so extreme

I always felt that this should have been called a "quietness" control. 
All too often it was used when playing things loud -- just turn the
LOUDNESS on and WOW that bass is fantastic.  But that is not what the
thing was for.  It was for when you had a low volume.

Mike Biel  [log in to unmask]  


> I struggle with that judgment
> on anything that doesn't come out with a musically plausible balance at
> comfortable domestic volume. The way most recording venues are around here,
> you're much more likely to get thin and bright than deep and rich,
> particularly with ruler-flat digital recording. It's one measure of the
> purity of the Living Presence approach that they didn't give into that kind
> of compromise.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Fine


Carl, you are correct that it was B&W 808's with big amps, I think by
Mark
Levinson, maybe Cello 
brand? That system got LOUD, like full orchestra in your face loud. The
studio had a nice stereo 
spread and reliable soundstage and frequency response, so the 3-2 mix
could
be done with reliability 
and repeatability. I've described the audio chain before, so I'll just
say
it was very direct and 
there was no DSP stuff after conversion.

The playback equipment and digital technology used in Germany were
different. I think the SACD's 
sound like the same tapes played back on a different machine, not a huge
difference in sound (so if 
you're hearing one, check your CD player regarding playback of the
original
CDs) but more 
"solid-statey" compared to playback on an Ampex 300. The first two
issues
have "un-Mercury" 3-2 
mixes (the 2-channel SACD layer), not enough center channel in the mix.
The
last two batches sounded 
better (more like the original CDs) in all respects, but I still prefer
the
CDs because they are 
real-deal Mercury.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Carl Pultz" <[log in to unmask]>
> At Edison NJ, they had B&W 808s and, iirc, B&W amps and a Cello Audio
> Pallet used as a line amp/switcher - not too shabby.

> -----Original Message-----
DAVID BURNHAM <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Why would they not have heard these differences when they issued the CDs?

From:Clark Johnsen
> Two possible answers: 1) Recording studio audio systems generally s*ck. 2)
> Wishful thinking.