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  November 2014

ARSCLIST November 2014

Subject:

Re: Recording technology

From:

Paul Stamler <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Mon, 17 Nov 2014 21:24:53 -0600

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (98 lines)

On 11/17/2014 7:30 PM, Tom Fine wrote:

> I've often wondered about applying the Mercury technique, including
> using the real-deal Schoeps M201 microphones (they need restoration, but
> they're still alive), with a modern high-resolution digital recording
> rig. Will people like it without the "thickening" of magnetic tape? Was
> that part of the secret with Mercury and RCA (both used the same kind of
> Ampex tape machines for most of the best-liked recordings, and RCA used
> somewhat similar but usually more microphones). Decca also used Ampex
> tape machines for their early stereo recordings. How much of the beloved
> sound is tape-related? I don't know the answer. I tend to think the love
> is more mic-technique related but a modern all-digital version might
> require some mastering EQ nip and tuck to thicken it out a tiny bit.

Tom, I hear what you're saying, and more-or-less agree, but I'm not sure 
all of the "thickening" came from tape. The following is a digression 
from the main topic, but perhaps an interesting one.

I say that based on some experiments I've done, back in the 1970s and 
about 10 years ago. The more recent first: I was reviewing a pair of 
Microtech Gefell M930 microphones for Recording magazine. (I gave them a 
rave, and subsequently bought the review pair. I was apparently the 
fifth reciewer in a row to do that. They've become my "money" 
microphones, the most pried in my collection.

Well, I was at a local studio trying them out on drums. They're 
sufficiently high-output that I wondered what would happen if I ran them 
from a stand-alone phantom supply straight into the recorder (a ProTools 
rig). Now, via every mic preamp I tried these were thoroughly modern 
transformerless microphones, with incredibly clean and present sound 
(the're particularly good on drums, I've found). I plugged them into a 
transformer-coupled phantom supply I'd borrowed from George Vazquez 
Wolin, and suddenly it was 1966 and I was listening to drums from a Stax 
or Motown classic -- think "midnight Train to Georgia", say. I heard all 
the thick sound of a classic analog setup -- from a ProTools rig, no 
less. It all came, as far as I could tell, from the transformer I'd 
added to each channel (the phantom supply dated from the 1960s, 
probably, so the transformers in it weren't modern).

The experiments I did in the 1970s involved listening to Ampex (A440C) 
and Studer (B67) tape decks. I heard what I think of as classic Studer 
sound from it: warmish, slightly compressed-sounding, and "thick", what 
I'ver seen referred to as the "gluing-together" of the mix. I heard this 
sonic signature, to a lesser extent, from the Ampex too.

So big deal, right? That's the stereotypical sound of tape. Yeah, but 
there was no tape; I was listening to the Studer with its switch set in 
the "Source" position. Ditto the Ampex, again to a lesser extent.

I think I was hearing transformers again when I looped signal through 
these tape machines. Also perhaps electrolytic capacitors; rhe Studer 
used lots of them, mostly of the tantalum variety, and mostly without 
polarizing voltage. The Ampex used nearly as many, but they were 
aluminum, and motsly had polarizing voltages across them.

But when Tom and others talk about the "thickrning" sound of tape, they 
*may* be hearing the sound of the electronics, particularly the 
transformers in the circuit. If thhat's true, by the way, it suggezts 
that Tom's experiment of recording in the classic Mercury fashion 
through a high-res digital setup might profit, not necessarily from 
running the signal through tape, but incorporating a few old-style (UTC, 
Triad) transformers into the chain.

Now back to the topic, which is already in progress:

> Unfortunately, we discuss this in a time where there is very little
> budget to make proper classical recordings and we don't live in an age
> of giants as far as conductors and orchestras go. Part of what you might
> dislike about modern classical releases is that fact that most of them
> are really nothing more than forever-playable broadcasts, recordings of
> live performances (something totally different from a recording
> session). In the best cases today, a major orchestra records a live
> performance and then the union rates allow for a short after-concert
> "patchup" session. Rarely have there been carefully heard playbacks, so
> the patchup decisions are made on the fly by an overworked producer or
> producer/engineer. Keep in mind that Mercury, RCA and Decca session
> books will clearly show that a major symphonic piece could have taken
> 2-3 full days to get on tape. Sessions went even longer in the 70s
> (perhaps not to better ends). That's unheard of today. Also today, the
> market is flooded with junk, b- and c-list orchestras recording on the
> cheap for the likes of Naxos. None of it appeals at all when compared to
> the great recordings from the "golden age." It's the Wal-Marting of
> classical music, if you will. Just like journalism, just like book
> authoring, music-making and recording are crafts. When there is not
> money and time to allow for craftsmanship, record companies and
> consumers (and what used to be called newspaper readers, and book
> buyers) get what they are willing to pay for.

Again I agree; most of the modern conductors I've heard are pallid 
compared to the Reiners and Munches of my youth. I invite you to hear 
one exception, though: David Robertson. I heard him conduct Beethoven 9 
in 2013, and it gave me the same tingle the Reiner recording always has. 
And he kicks serious butt on Stravinsky -- he plays it with passion, 
while most moderns aeem afraid to get their hair mussed up.

Peace,
Paul

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