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 > > >