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:

John Haley <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 26 Mar 2014 13:42:13 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (168 lines)

While we are right to focus on correct design and function of the
equipment, that's just the starting point.  There is no substitute, ever,
for checking the pitch yourself.  You cannot assume anything, and you
simply have to do it, whatever old tape or new machine you are dealing
with.  Pitch, even pitch that varies across a recording (which occurs with
some frequency in live recordings, both from discs and tapes), is easily
correctable with standard computer programs, once you understand and can
pinpoint what the problem is.  You have to use your ears for that,
spot-checking the pitch throughout.  It's a PITA, but there is no other way
to get it right. Our species can detect very small increments in pitch, and
I believe almost anyone can learn to do that, which just takes some
concentration and perhaps practice.   Slight changes in pitch will
definitely change the sonority of various instruments and voices, depending
on what they are, sometimes profoundly.  People who fly airplanes need good
vision; people who work on recordings need good ears.  None of this work of
copying tapes and remastering recordings can be just done routinely.  If
for no other reason, the subject matter (the music) deserves that much
respect, for us to get the pitch right.  But how often that doesn't happen
...

Best,
John








On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Jon Samuels <[log in to unmask]>wrote:

> The earliest RCA stereo (or more accurately, binaural) recording
> Dave,
>
> The earliest RCA stereo (or more accurately, binaural) recordings were
> indeed experimental, recorded by a different crew, using different
> equipment.  The simultaneously recorded mono was considered the master, and
> the producer of the mono recording was in charge of the recording, not the
> stereo producer.  (Don't forget, that RCA didn't even issue the stereo
> versions on LP until 1958.)  Also, there was only one binaural rig
> available, so some orchestral recordings were only done in mono, even as
> late as 1955.  Starting in 1955, the binaural became the master, and the
> mono became a mixdown of the binaural.
>
> The one area I disagree with you is in the sound.  Many RCA binaurals, if
> one can find the original tapes, sound spectacular.  Some of the monos also
> have extraordinary sound, but all things being equal, given a choice
> between the two, I would choose the binaural in most cases.
>
> Jon Samuels
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, March 26, 2014 11:51 AM, Dave Burnham <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> It is my understanding that the earliest RCA stereo recordings were little
> more than experiments and were recorded by a different crew using different
> mikes and equipment. The resulting sound was very inferior to the mono
> equivalents. Compare mono/stereo versions of "Also sprach...", and
> Liebermann's "Concerto for Jazz Band...." by Reiner.
>
> db
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> > On 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

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