Print

Print


I think I was the one who started this thread, or at least this aspect of it, and I was referring to the deep bass, <25hz, which was impressively present on EMI and Decca LPs but absent on the CDs.  This comparison is particularly noticeable on recordings including organ, such as Boult's recordings of the Elgar Oratorios and Vaughan-Williams Symphonies 1 & 7, the countless choral recordings from Kings' College and other choirs, and items such as Fruhbeck de Burgos' recordings of Elijah and the Mozart Requiem.  Fruhbeck de Burgos recorded the Mozart Requiem in the late '60s and he uses full organ to great effect throughout but one particular place which is very dramatic and magical is at the end of the "Confutatis maledictis", during the last 15 bars at the same point where the choir enters, singing very quietly, he supports them with a quiet 32 foot pedal.  The effect is breathtaking and I miss it on every other recording and on the CD reissue of this
 recording.  I once recorded it in a situation where the 32 foot resources were available and the conductor agreed to try it;  everyone was blown away by the effect, (in a nice way).  Since there is no low frequency limitation on CDs, it's sad that these British reissues have to be treated this way.

db



>________________________________
> From: Carl Pultz <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask] 
>Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2013 1:54:45 PM
>Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Bass less reissues from England
> 
>
>Cleaning up the inbox, I found this kind explanation, somehow missed in
>June. Thank you, John. I had heard about this, but forgot the term, since
>the last time I aligned a tape machine was in 1999. My MRL tape is stashed
>away.
>
>In the same thread, Michael Gray challenged a couple of us to look closer at
>EMI LPs vs. early CDs to see if the perception that the CDs (some at least)
>were shy on bass is valid. Jamie Howarth offered to do analysis. I've kept
>this in mind. Best I could do from my modest collection is Klemperer's
>Beethoven 5, an old Angel/Capitol pressing (S35843, Red spine/baby-blue
>label) vs. the first CD reissue (CDC 7 47187). A/B'ed with a rough match of
>levels, the surprise is how CLOSE they sound to each other.
>
>One comparison isn't enough, of course, and there isn't a heck of a lot of
>low frequencies on either version. My general impression was from when I had
>access to an extensive range of the EMI catalog in both formats. That's long
>gone now, sadly. Happily, I have a much better hifi than in 1985 and digital
>playback has made great strides since then. While looking for comparisons, I
>did find one fascinating item in old and new digital remasterings:
>Barbirolli's V-W Tallis Fantasia. Hearing the old English String Music CD
>reissue vs. the 2000 version in the Great Recordings box set is interesting.
>I think the differences are way beyond what could be attributed to
>differences in A-D converters. (Well, yeah, sure. Fifteen years, lots of
>changes. Maybe a different source.) It was worth the effort - the newer one
>is much better, IMO. Check it out if you can. I don't have it on LP.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Chester
>Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 11:15 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Bass less reissues from England
>
>At 08:26 AM 6/3/2013, Carl Pultz wrote:
>>Um, er, - - What? I've never heard of fringing compensation. Please 
>>explain, Sir.
>
>See
>http://home.comcast.net/~mrltapes/mcknight_low-frequency-response-calibratio
>n.pdf
>
>If the master tape has no tones, and (or) LF playback EQ is set using a
>full-track alignment tape without compensation for fringing, the actual LF
>response will be too low.
>
>The LF problem is exacerbated if the alignment tape has only one LF tone at
>100 Hz (a lamentable recent trend -- false economy, IMHO).  Setting 100 Hz
>to the same level as 1 kHz is rarely the correct answer.  If the LF tone was
>50 Hz, error would be much smaller.
>
>If playback is being aligned using tones on the master tape, and the only LF
>tone is 100 Hz, same problem.
>
>Once upon a time, most tape machines could record -- but now many are
>playback only.  If the machine can record *and* the track width of the
>record and playback heads are the same *and* the track width of the tape to
>be played matches the playback head, setting LF record-playback response as
>flat as possible is usually the correct answer.  This should be done with a
>continuous frequency sweep, or a method that plots response at 1/3 octave
>intervals or less.
>
>For a playback-only machine, accurate LF calibration requires a DIY
>alignment tape whose track width matches the track width of the tape you
>want to play (which hopefully matches the track width of the playback head).
>This tape should have tones at 1/3 octave intervals or less to give a
>reasonably accurate picture of head bumps.
>
>Graphs showing head bumps at http://www.endino.com/graphs/ Shows why setting
>LF response at any single frequency is often a bad idea.
>
>-- John Chester
>
>
>