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: Mercury Living Presence

From:

DAVID BURNHAM <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

DAVID BURNHAM <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 12 Jun 2012 10:21:31 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (77 lines)

I'm just listening, as I type this, to Rachmaninoff's P.C. 2 on a Mercury SACD.  I have compared this to the regular CD issue and can hear a significant improvement.  I have been in this business long enough to know that listeners, particularly those with recording engineering experience often hear what they expect to hear or what they want to hear, and I can be as guilty of this as anyone else.  In my opinion, one area where SACD really shines is in low level detail.  PCM digital deteriorates significantly as the level is reduced.  There is a fairly notorious CD demonstration of this where a piano solo is played at proper level and then reduced in 20 dB steps.  At each step, the playback is restored to the original level so one can hear the damaged caused by quantization distortion.  When the level has been reduced to -60 dB, the instrument is no longer recognizable as a piano - it sounds more like a synthesizer.  This, of course, is caused by
 the fact that as you reduce level, you use fewer and fewer bits.  I have never been able to find out authoritatively if DSD suffers from the same degradation but since it only employs one bit I can believe that it doesn't, at least at any audible level.  Even recording at 24 bits significantly improves quantization distortion.  But getting back to SACDs, where I hear a perceived improvement is in enhanced high frequency response - not caused by the extended high frequency response of the medium which can go out to 100k, (I am no longer a youngster and I can't hear much above 14k, which is well within the CD range), but because of the harmonic detail which gives a sheen particularly to string and brass instruments.  (I realize that using words like "sheen" when dealing with audio is almost useless but hopefully the word conveys what I mean.)  This is quite noticeable at the beginning of the last movement of the Rachmaninoff Concerto which has a
 fairly quiet opening in the cellos.  The rosin sound is more apparent than from a CD.  As you can perhaps imagine, if you have a playback system playing back even a loud orchestral recording and you disconnect your woofers and mid range speakers so that only the tweeters are operating, you will hear a lot of high frequency hisses and buzzes but at a fairly low level, (actually I suggest you don't try this at home because it can be damaging to amplifiers).  This means that even with loud music, these elements are down to being reproduced by very few bits on a CD.  On an SACD these frequencies are much more accurately reproduced hence the perception of an improved high frequency response.

One more point, a lot is said about the problems with not using the original playback equipment.  I would just like to comment that I think anyone would admit that a Studer A-80, (a popular mastering machine), has far better flutter and speed consistency specs than an Ampex 300.  I think ideal mastering will occur if the electronics with the original specs, (which may mean using the original heads), are fitted onto a modern machine.  In the notes of the SACD I'm listening to it says that the mastered SACD was compared with the original tape played on Wilma Cozart Fine's personal Ampex 300.  That should be fairly accurate.  I agree with Tom Fine that if the SACDs had been made using the original sources on the original playback situations, the final product would have been that much better.

db





>________________________________
> From: Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask] 
>Sent: Sunday, June 3, 2012 8:22:04 PM
>Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Mercury Living Presence
> 
>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]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2012 8:00 PM
>Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Mercury Living Presence
>
>
>> 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-----
>> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Clark Johnsen
>> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2012 1:07 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Mercury Living Presence
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 11:21 PM, DAVID BURNHAM <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>>   Why would they not have heard these differences when they issued the
>> CDs?
>>>
>> Two possible answers: 1) Recording studio audio systems generally s*ck. 2)
>> Wishful thinking.
>>
>> I recall that back in the late Seventies Victor Campos asserted that he had
>> found a cartridge that made LPs sound "just like the master tapes" (of
>> which he owned numerous good copies). That cartridge? A mid-priced Audio
>> Technica. Yes.
>>
>> A couple years later he had a Sonus Blue... much better!
>>
>> clark
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Dave b
>>>
>> 
>
>
>

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