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  September 2012

ARSCLIST September 2012

Subject:

Re: early stereophony

From:

Eric Nagamine <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 27 Sep 2012 20:04:08 -1000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (297 lines)

Tom can correct me, but from experience, the Columbia record club pressed
Mercury's have the block type print in the leadout grooves like the Columbia
360 Sound LPs.  I recall usually the code started with the capital M.  The
retail Mercuries either had the RCA type block print (smaller than the
Columbias) starting with the FR prefix or later the hand written RFR prefix.
Over the years the most common club pressings I've seen were things like the
Dorati stereo Nutcracker. I don't think the more unusual stuff was issued by
the record club.

-----------
Aloha and Mahalo,

Eric Nagamine



-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Steve Smolian
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 5:05 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] early stereophony

Is there a particular matrix code that identifies these club issues?

Steve Smolian

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Fine
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 10:22 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] early stereophony

Hi Dennis:

First of all, this is great historical perspective, thanks so much for
sharing.

Your mention of the Columbia Record Club jogged my memory. Part of the low
opinion of Columbia's LP output in Mercury's offices was the bad sound on
Mercury records sold thru the Club. Columbia insisted on getting 2-track
tapes and doing their own mastering, at least for part of the "golden era."
The mastering was deemed timid and weak, and of course that's what Columbia
was aiming for -- optimal tracking and decent sound on every two-bit console
player out there. 
None of these deep and
wide Piros cuts that would jump the grooves on those POS players or make the
cheap speakers rattle, by golly. But, despite the grumblings, I don't think
a royalty check from the Club was ever returned!

By the way, somewhat relevant to this thread -- I just noticed in an old
Radio & TV New magazine from 1961 a surplus sale on 2-track stereo tapes
from Mercury, Columbia, RCA and the smaller fry like Livingston and
StereoTapes. Sold on Radio Row for $2 a tape. By then, all the consumer
machines were 1/4-track and stereo LPs had taken over the still niche market
for 2-speaker sound. Fred Plaut was actually correct in a way. According to
an article John Eargle wrote in the AES Journal in the late 60's urging
continued mono-stereo compatibility in mixing and mastering, the mono LPs
outsold stereo until they were taken out of print because retailers refused
to carry both formats of the same albums, in the mid-60's. As late as the
70's, EMI/Capitol/Angel engineer Carson Taylor was using classical recording
techniques compatible with mono because he knew that European classical
radio was still mono.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dennis Rooney" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 5:02 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] early stereophony


>I never read Mike Gray's account in TAS, but here are some thoughts about
> Columbia based on what I encountered doing CD reissues for Sony Classical.
> Let me preface them by noting that my experience focused almost 
> exclusively
> on Masterworks division source.
>
> By the mid fifties, Columbia manufactured an excellent Lp physically and
> their mono disc mastering was unexceptionable.  However, their focus was 
> on
> mass sales, especially their Columbia Record Club which enabled them to
> dominate the U.S. market. They emphasized a quality product and had
> introduced the "360" phonograph in response to the burgeoning interest in
> "hi-fi". Nevertheless, engineering was not at the forefront of their 
> image.
> An unwritten rule governed Columbia's disc mastering: "Make it loud, make
> it present", and the product reflected it, as it had done since CBS bought
> the label in 1938.
>
>>From that time, when mastering began to be done on 16-1/2" lacquers, the
> assumption was always that the master would INVARIABLY be subjected to
> post-production, and it continued throughout the Lp era. Whereas Mercury
> pursued a very different ideal, one as close to the master as possible,
> Columbia never intended the master to be anything but raw material. EQ,
> reverb, gain riding and compression all contributed to the released
> Columbia product from 78rpm to stereo. When I began doing CD reissues of
> Masterworks material, I was encouraged to always use master generation
> source. Much of it had been stored for years and often resisted discovery.
> But Columbia had been careful to preserve session tapes, which meant that
> enough material existed to fix problems due to wear in the edited
> originals. In the case of pre-tape material, I was successful in locating
> original lacquer source, a surprisingly large amount of which had survived
> in storage for four decades and more in excellent condition.
>
> Working with master material, I was pleased to discover a level of audio
> quality that was far more sophisticated than what the commercial releases
> suggested. Analogue tape was out of the picture by that time and careful
> a/d transfers could be further improved by digital noise-reduction 
> software
> and editing. Use of CEDAR to aid in correct stylus selection before
> transfer yielded a s/n quotient where the lacquers were very often quieter
> than the original chain. Most tapes survived in very good condition.
> Blocking was almost never encountered and the mostly 3M type 111 and
> Audiotape that had been used had survived extremely well. Binder 
> hydrolysis
> wasn't a factor until Ampex tapes began to be used in the eighties.
>
> Goddard Lieberson was immensely influential in the story of Columbia
> Masterworks but he was a producer who had faith in his engineers and they
> achieved the results you hear. Producers and engineers were not named on
> Columbia records for many years. The brand was the focus. Howard Scott was
> a principal producer of Masterworks recordings throughout the fifties. He
> recorded in New York with Fred Plaut (they did Glenn Gould, Isaac Stern,
> the NY Phil., etc.), and in Philadelphia and Cleveland, with a road crew
> that usually comprised Harold Chapman ("Chappy") and later Buddy Graham as
> balance engineers. and Ajutor {"Pappy"} Theroux as tape operator. Chappy
> was probably the only engineer Columbia had who truly understood
> stereophony. His setups have a cohensiveness that suggests a superior
> ability to place microphones. Pappy was a veteran who had been around a
> long time but not, I think, in the acoustic era. He arrived in advance of
> the sessions to set up and test the lathes and then the tape recorders.
>
> If they were not on the cutting edge of stereophony, those men all were
> careful craftsman and the studio practices they pursued made Columbia a
> very well run shop. It was easy for me to fix a bad splice in SONIC but
> knowing how they often had achieved success with limited means gave new
> respect to their "old-fashioned" ways.
>
> The reason Szell went to Epic was only partially to not dilute Ormandy's
> sales. Epic had been created to release the Philips recordings that were
> available when Columbia ended its exchange agreement with EMI in 1952.
> Philips, a relative newcomer, wanted a U.S. presence. But Willem van
> Otterloo, Eugen Jochum and Eduard van Beinum had little or no U.S.
> identity. It was decided that the label needed a major orchestra and
> conductor at the top of the roster and Szell was chosen. When Bernstein
> began to make headway against Ormandy on Columbia, the wisdom of that
> decision was plain.
>
> As I believe I wrote earlier, Columbia was resistant to stereo. Plaut
> particularly doubted that stereo discs would be an important part of the
> label's sales. 1/4-in two track stereo recordings began in the Masterworks
> Division with Berstein's MESSIAH in Dec. 1956. Columbia finally got a
> three-channel 1/2-in. Ampex machine, just one at first, in summer 1957.
> Afterwards, sessions were often recorded in mono (a&b sets), 2-channel
> stereo (or binaural, c&d sets) and one 3-channel with a different mix than
> the binaurual. As soon as more three-track machines arrived, the 1/4-in
> sets were discontinued.
>
> This post is longer than I originally intended. Mea culpa.
>
> DDR
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Tom Fine 
> <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>
>> What I was always told about Columbia -- and keep in mind this is from 
>> the
>> perspective of competitors, although my father did have contact here and
>> there with Columbia over the years, including in the early LP days since
>> Reeves developed their own microgroove system with Fairchild --  was that
>> Columbia was very hidebound and conservative in all matters technical.
>> Their recordings were considered technically "boring" and "dull," 
>> although
>> I now thing that was more the fault of their mastering techniques. 
>> Columbia
>> never embraced 2- or 3- mic stereo, opting for more mics than Mercury or
>> RCA from the get-go. They also seem to have had some strange procedures 
>> and
>> techniques, based on what veterans have said and written. And there 
>> seemed
>> to be technical factions, meaning the product was uniform-sounding or
>> consistent.
>>
>> Mike Gray wrote a really good technical history of Columbia that was
>> published in The Absolute Sound right after they went to the larger 
>> format.
>> It was the usual Mike article -- well-researched and vault-verified with
>> cooperation from the company (Sony by then).
>>
>> Columbia's engineers were capable of excellent classical recordings.
>> Listen to the CD reissues Dennis Rooney did in the 90's, especially the
>> Szell albums. To think that Szell was consigned to Epic so as not to 
>> ruffle
>> Ormandy's sales. No disrespect to Ormandy's many fine albums, but Szell 
>> was
>> a top-league conductor and he had Cleveland in top-league playing 
>> condition
>> throughout his Epic career.
>>
>> One thing both RCA and Columbia had to deal with in the 1950's is that
>> their technical staffs were led by guys (all men) who came up cutting 
>> 78RPM
>> disks, sometimes going back to the acoustical-recording era. This was the
>> same thing as in later years getting guys who came up in the early 60's 
>> to
>> get into the age of DAWs and digital editing. There's a friction of the 
>> old
>> against the new. Stereophony was just too new for some of the old hands.
>> Notice that the smaller companies who jumped into stereophony early and
>> with both feet tended to have younger technical people involved in the
>> recording and production, and stereotypically (pun intended), younger
>> people tend to be more open to new ideas and techniques. This is ironic,
>> because 2-channel stereophony was proven and tested in the 1930's when 
>> some
>> of the old guard were still kids.
>>
>> -- Tom Fine
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Lewis" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 9:31 AM
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] early stereophony
>>
>>
>>  In his liner notes to "The Birth of the Third Stream" (Columbia CK 
>> 64829)
>>> George Avakian touches on, but does not elaborate,
>>> that some experimental stereo recording was made during the June 1957
>>> sessions for the Adventures in Sound LP "Modern
>>> Jazz Concert" but does not elaborate. Back when the CD was released I 
>>> sent
>>> a query through the Sony grapevine, and what
>>> came back was that the stereo equipment had just arrived at Columbia but
>>> no
>>> one really knew how to operate it, and that some
>>> testing was done for the "Modern Jazz Concert" album in stereo, but none
>>> was usable, and none was saved.
>>>
>>> I guess they had figured it out at least by the time of Stravinsky's
>>> "Agon"
>>> in 1958. If, as Tom said, Mercury was "late in the game"
>>> in 1955 in dealing with the stereo phenomenon, then Columbia was almost
>>> not
>>> in the game at all. Personal opinion: Once they did
>>> get it going, stereo did provide for a big boost in their overall
>>> sound quality, though that opinion may be influenced by shoddy
>>> mastering/pressing and the tattered condition of some mono Columbia 
>>> tapes
>>> that have come down to us.
>>>
>>> Uncle Dave Lewis
>>> Lebanon, OH
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Dennis Rooney 
>>> <[log in to unmask]>
>>> **wrote:
>>>
>>>  I found no reference to the MAR items in my archival research on 
>>> Szell's
>>>> Columbia/Epic recordings. It's entirely possible that RCA recorded 
>>>> them.
>>>> There was great resistance to stereo from Fred Plaut and others. and I
>>>> never found any evidence of experimental binaural setups that preceded
>>>> the*Messiah
>>>> * of Dec. 1956. However, when inspecting the tapes at IMAR, I came 
>>>> across
>>>> an Ormandy/PO recording (I no longer remember the repertoire) recorded
>>>> c1955 in 3-track, 1/4-inch format. The contents were never released.
>>>>
>>>> DDR
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
>
> -- 
> 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

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