I agree with Dennis, that listening COMBINED with reading and carefully studying photographs of
recording sessions will bring one closer to the truth. One question about listening -- can someone
cite some known multi-horn orchestral recordings, and single-horn recordings from around the same
time preferably with the same orchestra in the same studio? I'm interested to know what differences
can be detected in low-fidelity acoustic recordings.
Another topic worth exploring, and one that is somewhat well documented, is music recording for
motion pictures. For instance, almost as early as there was optical-electronic sound recording,
there were facilities to mix multiple sound sources (microphones or synchronized optical
reproducers). Because of the need to spotlight certain instruments in a sound-for-picture utility,
Hollywood was quick to adopt the use of multiple microphones and sound-mixing. 1930s Western
Electric equipment catalogs show that quite sophisticated mixing facilities were being built for the
major Hollywood studios, and one can definitely hear this in the typical music-for-picture of the
day (for instance, big orchestra swells during actions sequences, spotlighted violins for the
romantic scenes, etc).
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dennis Rooney" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2015 1:13 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] A-440, was speaking of pitch
> Multiple horns were in use sporadically from the late nineteenth century,
> as attested to by photographic evidence.
>
> Abbey Road Studios were opened about 1931, if memory serves, and were
> "state-of-the-art" before that term became a fatuous banality.
>
> Knowledge of recording practices cannot be wrung from reading alone.
> Listening is imperative. A trained set of ears can ferret out more than
> mere reading. That training comes only from listening and one cannot begin
> too early.
>
> I'm happy to learn of Steve's efforts and look forward to his exposition of
> the topic next year.
>
> DDR
>
> On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Steve:
>>
>> I am correct in remembering reading somewhere that HMV developed a
>> multi-horn recording system for large orchestras? If I remember what I read
>> correctly, there were 3 or 4 horns that came together into a single pipe
>> that fed the recording membrane. I forgot if Abbey Road was built in the
>> late acoustic era or was always an electric facility, or where this
>> multi-horn system was built. I don't recall reading anything about Victor
>> in the US doing multi-horn recordings, nor Edison.
>>
>> -- Tom Fine
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steven Smolian" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2015 12:10 PM
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] A-440, was speaking of pitch
>>
>>
>> I've been working on this at the acoustical recording end. The pieces are
>>> finally coming together and I expect to give a presentation at ARSC in
>>> 2016.
>>> Rather than go into the hardware, I'm analyzing the improved (or not)
>>> results by year based on a number of criteria. Stay tuned to this horn.
>>>
>>> Steve Smolian
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brandon Michael Fess
>>> Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2015 11:50 AM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] A-440, was speaking of pitch
>>>
>>> Thank you, gentlemen. While I'm just starting my professional career in
>>> audio preservation, this project may be on the back burner for a while.
>>> That
>>> said, I'm seriously interested in seeing if I can't begin gathering
>>> material
>>> for an eventual history. I've considered doing the same sort of work on
>>> live
>>> sound production for several years, so they might turn into
>>> joint/complementary productions.
>>>
>>> Brandon Fess
>>> LIS Candidate, Class of 2015
>>> Graduate Assistant, Belfer Audio Archive
>>>
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
>>> <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of John Haley <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent: Saturday, May 2, 2015 12:55 PM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] A-440, was speaking of pitch
>>>
>>> HI, Brandon,
>>>
>>> Keep in mind that the ARSC Journal happily publishes articles exploring
>>> topics involving recordings, especially historical recordings.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> John Haley
>>>
>>> On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Brandon:
>>>>
>>>> If you undertake research, ping me off-list and I'll share what I know
>>>> and point you to what I've found online. This is definitely a topic
>>>> deserving of some macro-view writing -- how orchestral music has been
>>>> recorded over the eras.
>>>>
>>>> -- Tom Fine
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brandon Michael Fess"
>>>> <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2015 10:52 AM
>>>>
>>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] A-440, was speaking of pitch
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tom,
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the brief introduction. I have some recording experience
>>>>> myself, but as graduate assistant at Belfer for the past 2 years, my
>>>>> interest in historic recording in every sense of that phrase) has
>>>>> really been piqued. I'll have to investigate the suggestions you
>>>>> make. Thanks for pointing me towards good starting points.
>>>>>
>>>>> Brandon Fess
>>>>> LIS Candidate, Class of 2015
>>>>> Graduate Assistant, Belfer Audio Archive
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <
>>>>> [log in to unmask]> on behalf of Tom Fine <
>>>>> [log in to unmask]>
>>>>> Sent: Friday, May 1, 2015 9:23 AM
>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] A-440, was speaking of pitch
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Brandon:
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a topic that could use a good summary, written in plain English
>>>>> (but scholarly in the sense of having plenty of references and
>>>>> footnotes). Going back to the acoustic era, there were different
>>>>> methods used in different places. You could start by reading the
>>>>> Sooey brothers' memoires, online at the David Sarnoff Library's
>>>>> website. Also should read books and memoires by early EMI people and
>>>>> other Berliner associates. In the electronic recording era, it's
>>>>> worth paying attention to methods used by EMI/HMV, Columbia, RCA
>>>>> Victor and other major producers of orchestra recordings in the 78
>>>>> era. My interest has mainly been in the tape era, specifically about
>>>>> 1950 into the 1970s. I also have interest in the early digital era,
>>>>> but haven't focused on what if any changes were made in such things
>>>>> as how sessions ran and microphone techniques (and there were
>>>>> changes, simply for the fact that early digital rigs didn't offer as
>>>>> much multi-track/remix options as people at Columbia, RCA and EMI
>>>>> were used to by the late 70s).
>>>>>
>>>>> In more recent years, the big change has been the shrinking budgets
>>>>> and marketplace for orchestral classical recording, which has forced
>>>>> mostly live recording in the US.
>>>>> The typical recording is
>>>>> primarily live performances with a "patch up" session held after a
>>>>> performance. Low-budget labels like Naxos mine overseas broadcast
>>>>> orchestras (sometimes just releasing broadcast recordings) and
>>>>> 3rd-tier US ensembles either without unionized musicians or with
>>>>> cheap/flexible contracts, to make low-budget recordings, usually with
>>>>> quantity trumping quality.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Tom Fine
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Brandon Michael Fess" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 8:49 AM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] A-440, was speaking of pitch
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I've known Deb Fox for years; I was an early supporter of Pegasus
>>>>> Early
>>>>>
>>>>>> Music when they were just
>>>>>> starting out. The Hochstein concert was my only option for seeing
>>>>>> the concert, as I work in Rochester on weekends.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for all the interesting info on early orchestral recording.
>>>>>> It's rather fascinating for me, as someone surrounded by thousands
>>>>>> of such records at Belfer, to have that information as part of my
>>>>>> understanding. Are there any other written works on the history of
>>>>>> orchestral recording practice that you know of? If not, I can sense
>>>>>> an opportunity for some scholarly work of my own...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Brandon Fess
>>>>>> LIS Candidate, Class of 2015
>>>>>> Graduate Assistant, Belfer Audio Archive
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <
>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> on behalf of Tom Fine
>>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 9:05 PM
>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] A-440, was speaking of pitch
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Carl, thanks again for referring us to that article. It makes for
>>>>>> interesting reading.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I do my presentation on the evolution of classical recording in
>>>>>> the US again, I'll definitely use some info from it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Those mic diagrams illustrate some of the reasons that classical
>>>>>> recordings from that era don't sound very good to my ears. There are
>>>>>> too many mics with too many arrival times. Even with post-session
>>>>>> mixing from the multi-tracks, there is no way to prevent the problem
>>>>>> of collapsing stereo image when the orchestra gets going full-tilt.
>>>>>> The sound becomes muddy and the image collapses because there are
>>>>>> too many sounds arriving at too many different times to too many
>>>>>> mics.
>>>>>> Perhaps today, you could transfer those multi-track tapes to a
>>>>>> Protools rig and mess with time-alignment during the loud passages,
>>>>>> to clarify the stereophony.
>>>>>> These techniques evolved
>>>>>> because producers and engineers wanted to ever greater "inner detail"
>>>>>> clarity during soft
>>>>>> passages.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Carson Taylor used fewer mics than the Columbia and RCA guys, and he
>>>>>> generally mixed the orchestra to 2-channel at the sessions. But he
>>>>>> got some strange frequency combing by using those coincident stereo
>>>>>> mics at different distances from the orchestra. On some sessions,
>>>>>> he'd put an AKG stereo mic about just behind the strings and a
>>>>>> Neumann stereo mic above and behind the conductor, out in the hall.
>>>>>> The problem is, if the brass gets going, it makes a very
>>>>>> strange-sounding balance between primary sounds and reverb because
>>>>>> both are hitting the stereo mics at different times. But, with the
>>>>>> other mics Taylor used, he was building on the classic Lewis Layton
>>>>>> RCA Living Stereo approach of filling in the quieter sections and
>>>>>> mixing the mics low relative to the front array. This worked very
>>>>>> well for Layton into the early 60s, but he kept adding mics and the
>>>>>> sound got muddier, as detailed in Mike Gray's history of recording
>>>>>> Reiner/Chicago original published in The Absolute Sound.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- Tom Fine
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>> From: "Carl Pultz" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 7:19 AM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] A-440, was speaking of pitch
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Parenthetically, the 1/1972 issue of Recording Engineer/Producer
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> contains a
>>>>>>> very informative article on the contemporary orchestral recording
>>>>>>> practices of the three major US producers, via interviews with Max
>>>>>>> Wilcox, John McClure, and Carson Taylor. Taylor speaks about his
>>>>>>> rearrangement of seating for Cleveland and his experience in
>>>>>>> Chicago.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Scans are available at http://www.americanradiohistory.com/
>>>>>>> originally from the collection of Doug Pomeroy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I recently recorded performances of Monteverdi's Vespers conducted
>>>>>>> by Paul O'Dette. Their tuning was A466, determined in part by the
>>>>>>> tuning of the cornetti. That was mean-tone, so it's a whole
>>>>>>> different scheme and effect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
>>>>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom Fine
>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 9:57 PM
>>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] A-440, was speaking of pitch
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Part of John Marks' research into that article included contacting
>>>>>>> the Cleveland Orchestra's music librarian and archivist. Not
>>>>>>> surprising to those familiar with George Szell's music and
>>>>>>> biography, he was an absolute stickler for consistent tuning to
>>>>>>> A=440.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The bigger issue I was surprised and somewhat dismayed to learn
>>>>>>> details of is EMI's practice of using 3rd generation dub tapes as
>>>>>>> their master of record for almost everything recorded by Carson
>>>>>>> Taylor in the U.S. That got me acquiring some copies of the
>>>>>>> original LPs and I was shocked to hear how much better many of them
>>>>>>> sound, even compared to late 90s "Recordings of the Century"
>>>>>>> remasters by Abbey Road. It goes to show that even if you have a
>>>>>>> good playback and a good digital chain, with skilled engineering,
>>>>>>> if you have a several-generations dub tape there's only so much
>>>>>>> fidelity you can get out of it. Plangent would help, but it's still
>>>>>>> better to get as close to first generation as is practical,
>>>>>>> particularly with classical music (because the dynamics, pitch and
>>>>>>> instrument tones are so effected by the slightest aspects of
>>>>>>> output<>input inherent to all tape dubs).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> According to what I learned from talking to people with knowledge
>>>>>>> of EMI Classics' practices (still in effect with Warner Classics),
>>>>>>> using the 3rd generation tapes is the path of least resistence
>>>>>>> because Capitol had some way to keep what were Angel master tapes
>>>>>>> in the US and only send out dubs for UK pressing. Apparently in the
>>>>>>> cases when a UK crew came over here and made recordings (standard
>>>>>>> practice after about 1980), then the master tapes were retained in
>>>>>>> England. In those cases, if the Angel LP was cut at Capitol, it was
>>>>>>> likely cut from a dub tape, so the UK EMI LP is likely to sound
>>>>>>> better. Taking it back to the modern era, I still can't get a
>>>>>>> definitive answer if the Capitol-made EMI classical recordings'
>>>>>>> tapes are in a vault here, and if they'll ever be used to make a
>>>>>>> new series of remasters.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- Tom Fine
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>> From: "Steve Smolian" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 8:51 PM
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] A-440, was speaking of pitch
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can't find the references at the moment, but I gave a paper at a
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> long-ago
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ARSC about this issue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm depending on memory for the dates, but it'll be pretty close.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The U.S. Navy adopted A-440 in 1916. The National Bureau
>>>>>>>> Standards did so
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> in or about 1918.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm pretty sure that the bands of most or all U.S. Armed Service
>>>>>>>> bands
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> that were in training and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> later participated in WW I were equipped with A-440 instruments.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is my speculation that many older instruments were given by
>>>>>>>> masters to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> servants or found their
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> way into hock shops, which thus made such instruments available to
>>>>>>>> poorer
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> musicians. I've not
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> seen any writing about this issue during the formative jazz band
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> years.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Those more versed in the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> reminiscences of the early layers may have encountered comments
>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> adjusting or not adjusting
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> tunable instruments and, where impractical, living with the sound.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In the early 1960s I contacted a piano tuner through Steinway, a
>>>>>>>> fellow
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> whose responsibilities
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> included the instruments used by Victor during Caruso's day. He
>>>>>>>> told me
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> that they always tuned
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> tuned to A= 440. I believe I included this somewhere in one of my
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> American Record Guide columns
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> then as a result.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Each orchestra has a collection of tuning forks, or, at least,
>>>>>>>> used to,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and their period of use
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> is often documented.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As to older situations, read "The Story of A" by - can't recall
>>>>>>>> his name.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It carefully explain s
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and documents pitch issues over the centuries when a court in
>>>>>>>> Germany
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> hired an Italian or French
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> court composer who then had instruments made for use during his
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> tenure.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> It also talks about the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> issues of different pitches for instrumental and instruments with
>>>>>>>> vocal
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> music and organ keyboards
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> that played in either of two pitches, depending on the type of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> service.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Pitch is also affected by temperature. The way concert halls are
>>>>>>>> and were
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> heated had a direct
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> effect as well.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's really complicated and fascinating.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Steve Smolian
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Original Message-----
>>>>>>>> From: Tom Fine
>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 6:12 PM
>>>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>> Subject: [ARSCLIST] speaking of pitch
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.stereophile.com/content/fifth-element-89
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is a good telling of John Marks' tortured journey on
>>>>>>>> discovering a
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> seemingly small but very
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> audible pitch error.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I did some further reporting with people I know who are very
>>>>>>>> familiar with
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the EMI classical
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> library. Apparently, the fast-pitched tape from which all digital
>>>>>>>> media
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> have been mastered came
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>> Capitol USA, and no one can locate the original 2-track master
>>>>>>>> tape made
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> by Carson Taylor, from
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> which the first edition USA albums were mastered.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now, after all of this consternation, it seems to me that one
>>>>>>>> could do as
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I did -- own the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> HDTracks
>>>>>>>> 96/24 download and then simply apply pitch-correction software to
>>>>>>>> it. I
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> couldn't hear any audible
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> degradation after doing that and, in fact, it sounded better
>>>>>>>> because it
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> turns out that once it's
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> A=440 (to which Szell and the Cleveland Orchestra strictly tuned),
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> music relaxes and flows
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> better, just from that very slight slow-down in tempo.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My personal opinion is that John Marks' dream of remastering this
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> recording from the 4-channel
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dynatrack tapes will never happen, but I do hope that Carson
>>>>>>>> Taylor's
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> original 2-track master (ie
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> second-generation tape, made directly from the Dyntrack session
>>>>>>>> tapes)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> will be found and this
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> pitch
>>>>>>>> error then corrected in all current in-print media.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -- Tom Fine
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
> --
> 1006 Langer Way
> Delray Beach, FL 33483
> 212.874.9626
>
>
|
