Print

Print


You're right on the money, Steve! �I used to entertain my sonically savvy friends by playing them the "Worthy is the Lamb - Amen" chorus from Sargeant's "Messiah" on the US pressed Seraphim release, and then on the English pressed World Record Club version, mastered by Anthony Griffiths. �It doesn't even sound like the same recording! �There are a number of differences but one of them is the lack of bass on the Seraphim version, (of course this has nothing to do with the LP/CD comparison).

db



>________________________________
> From: Steven Smolian <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask] 
>Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2013 3:13:03 PM
>Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Bass less reissues from England,U.S.  Record club versions
> 
>
>Please do not accept Angel issues of EMI material from this period as being
>the sonic equivalent of their overseas counterparts.� 
>
>At one point I was working on a classical reissue project that had to be
>mastered, by contract, by the Capitol engineering staff in the U.S.� What I
>sent out and what I got back were quite different- less bass from Capitol
>and more compression.�  That's what I hear on the U.S. made Angels of this
>period through the mid to late 1980s.� 
>
>I suppose some of the later ones are better, but there was one engineer
>there (who handled two of my projects) who acoustically sabotaged wheat I
>sent out.� Both projects were also released on cassettes with much better
>sound.
>
>This may have been done deliberately to minimize returns of records played
>on cheap turntables that could not track bass and that were thus likely to
>be returned as "defective."� I suspect this was true of other company's
>record club issues as well.� I recall� what I was sure at the time was a
>club-distributed copy of S&G's "Bridge Over Troubled Water"� where the bass
>was wimpy as compared with the store-distributed release.
>
>Steve Smolian
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Carl Pultz
>Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2013 1:55 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>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
>
>
>