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  March 2014

ARSCLIST March 2014

Subject:

Re: Fwd: [ARSCLIST] "Why Vinyl Is the Only Worthwhile Way to Own Music"

From:

Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 26 Mar 2014 07:44:58 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (148 lines)

Hi John:

I'm not sure what era Capitol you are referring to.

I think the very early Capitol stereo, the first round of session recorded in Pittsburgh, may have 
been done on a 2-track machine with 2 mics. Soon afterward, Irv Joel and another engineer (did a lot 
of jazz recording at Capitol NYC but I can't remember his name right now) travelled around in a 
little "micro-van" with a "portable" Ampex 300 3-track. I don't think they used more than 3 mics, at 
least early on. The results of those sessions would have probably been mixed down to a 2-track 
disk-cutting master.

I don't know how Capitol's Hollywood recordings were done, but I assume 3-track with multiple mics, 
mixed to a 2-track cutting master. I would guess the same about Houston.

I do know some facts about the Capitol/EMI/Angel recordings made by Carson Taylor in the late 60s 
and early 70s, in Chicago and Cleveland. Taylor used a 4-channel (8-track) 3M Dynatrack recorder at 
the sessions, and about a dozen microphones (counting his coincident stereo mics as 2 mics). Back at 
the Capitol Tower, he mixed his session tapes to 2 channels and dubbed them to 2-track NAB, and then 
edited the 2-tracks into the master. Original USA LPs were cut from these tapes. A former Capitol 
mastering engineer has told me that Taylor sometimes or always edited two master tapes, and one was 
sent to England for the original-issue EMI LPs. Somewhere along the line, dubs were made, and it's 
apparent that the EMI reissue CDs and SACDs were made from these dubs. John Marks, a writer for 
Stereophile, has discovered that at least two of the Cleveland recordings were dubbed so as to end 
up with fast/sharp pitch on the EMI CDs and SACDs. It's unclear how or why this happened. John did 
spectrum analysis on the CDs/SACDs and on dubs of original LPs that he and I had. The original LPs 
are perfect A=440, whereas all EMI CD and SACD resissues we could find are A=445 to 446. These are 
the Oistrakh recordings with Cleveland/Szell. We tested the Gilels-Szell recordings, made by 
Columbia engineers, and they are dead-on A=440. We also tested the CD and HDTracks downloads of 
later Szell/Cleveland recordings made by Carson Taylor and they are A=440. And we tested 
Chicago/Giulini recordings made by Taylor, and they are A=440. So something went wrong in dubbing 
the master for those particular Cleveland-Szell recordings, and it's not clear yet where or why the 
error occured. John Marks is still digging.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Haley" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 6:28 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Fwd: [ARSCLIST] "Why Vinyl Is the Only Worthwhile Way to Own Music"


> RE Jon Samuel's eye-opening post about multiple generations tape dubs at
> RCA, "aging" the product every time reissues were done, even into the CD
> era (pretty horrible news, actually), does anyone one know if this was also
> the practice with EMI/Capitol?  I have recently been comparing some Capitol
> classical LP's reissued over time, and I would swear that the earlier ones
> have more "life" in them.
> Back to RCA, I guess that means that the Victrola classical LP's that so
> many collectors seem to have prized (at least in the past), were made from
> later generation tape copies too.
>
> Best,
> John Haley
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 6:17 AM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>
>> As far as I know, the only RCA Living Stereo issues that are all from
>> first-generation tapes are the BMG SACD/CD discs. Jon Samuels and Mark
>> Donahue will correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that all of
>> the 3-track session tapes were mixed to 2-tracks, which were then edited
>> into "master" tapes. And, a third generation dub was often used to cut LPs.
>> For the earliest stereo recordings, the ones made on the RCA 2-track
>> machine at 30IPS, at least the earliest stereo LPs were cut from
>> first-generation tapes. Later LPs may have been cut from dubs (they must
>> have been, because the first generation tapes were still in good playing
>> condition 50 years later).
>>
>> RCA began using 3-track session recorders circa 1956. So the 1954 and 1955
>> stereo recordings were all or almost all 2-track and the first-generation
>> LPs were almost all cut from first-generation tapes.
>>
>> It is also my understanding that Columbia was late to stereo, but jumped
>> right in with 3-track, so all of their stereo LPs were cut from
>> second-generation or later 2-track tapes.
>>
>> Back in the day, people either couldn't hear the sound degradation from
>> each generation of tape dubbing, or refused to acknowledge it, or felt it
>> was minimal and harmless compared to disk-to-disk or disk-to-tape dubbing
>> they had probably done earlier in their careers.
>>
>>
>> -- Tom Fine
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carl Pultz" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 5:48 AM
>>
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Fwd: [ARSCLIST] "Why Vinyl Is the Only Worthwhile
>> Way to Own Music"
>>
>>
>>  OMG. The horror is finally revealed. Did this also apply to the .5
>>> "audiophile" LP series? They sounded lousy to me.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jon Samuels
>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 11:41 AM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Fwd: [ARSCLIST] "Why Vinyl Is the Only Worthwhile
>>> Way to Own Music"
>>>
>>> Early CD transfers had another problem. At RCA (and, from what I
>>> understand, to differeing degrees at other record companies), edited reels
>>> from the recording sessions were never used in the early CD days. The main
>>> reason had to do with bookkeeping (and Jack Pfeiffer's belief that no one
>>> could hear the difference, and therefore was not worth the trouble to
>>> track
>>> down, find and physically restore the edited masters). From it's earliest
>>> LP days, RCA maintained a system where every LP side (and later every CD)
>>> had to have its' own tape. That meant that if an LP was re-issued with a
>>> different number, the later LP master would at best be a first-generation
>>> dub of the previous LP. Unfortunately, they took this a couple of steps
>>> further. Three-track (and higher) masters were always mixed down to
>>> 2-track
>>> for the LP. (One of the reasons this was done was to deliberately reduce
>>> the dynamic range in the LP master before the cutting stage.) Each new
>>> re-issue's tape master was a dub of the most recently released LP tape
>>> master, not the original one. They continued this practice with early CDs.
>>> Also, in later LP years, they often dubbed early 30 ips tape masters to 15
>>> ips, and used those for later LPs with the same issue numbers. The
>>> consequences of these factors was that early CD masters were sometimes as
>>> much as seven or eight generations down from the original session tapes.
>>> (It also explains why collectors often prefer earlier LP issues.)
>>>
>>> The first RCA CDs that used the edited session tapes (called workparts in
>>> RCA parlance) rather than dubs as their source material were the Artur
>>> (now
>>> Arthur) Rubinstein CD series released in 1984, which was produced on CD by
>>> Max Wilcox. That didn't become pretty much standard practice around
>>> RCA/BMG
>>> until around 1988/9 (and even then, not in every instance).
>>>
>>> This doesn't even allow for the improvement in the quality of digital gear
>>> over the past thirty years (a subject written about here many times).
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Jon Samuels
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> 

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