Print

Print


I only have a few dozen European press EMI classical Lps from the first decade of stereo.This includes a bunch I bought for 2-3 Euro each in the early '00s on eBay Germany and France.One of those early German stereos being said Eroica.   I didn't think that importing of UK EMI LPs became widespread in the US until about the mid 70s,but for some reason,I have found a fair number of the early pre stereo UK HMV and Columbia pressings at thrift stores here in Albuquerque. Roger   > Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 22:36:48 -0400> From: [log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Bass less reissues from England,U.S.  Record club versions> To: [log in to unmask]> > Oh, yes. I remember reading as a kid how Capitol reinterpreted EMI> recordings for American "tastes," which seems to mean what you said. That's> why I'm surprised by the quality of the Klemperer disc - somebody screwed up> and made a decent record. I don't know who on the list is where, so any> casual comparison might be to US product, or to real EMI ASDs and such.> Looks like David is in Canada. In the US, if you didn't live in a large> city, chances were you didn't come across imported pressings very often> until late in the LP era. Many that did show up were items not issued on> Angel. I've only got a few.>  > I do have Klemp's Eroica on EMI. If I find the early CD issue, I'll rip 'em.> No organ, unfortunately, but it could be interesting to see what's above> 70Hz.> > -----Original Message-----> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Steven Smolian> Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2013 3:13 PM> To: [log in to unmask]> 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