Mercury on SACD. Yes you should care.

[Classical Music]

There must be some of you who remember the rotund engineer by the name of
Bert Whyte.
He was present at many of the Mercury Sessions including the early Chicago
sessions with
Rafael Kubelik and Rochester sessions with Hanson. He personally modified
a mono Magnacord Tape Recorded into a stereo machine and recorded onto tape
stereo versions - using his own mics - of the primary, official mono, CR
Fine mono masters. Lord knows where these Bert Whyte tapes are now.
(Imagine a Kubelik/CSO Tchaikovsky symphony or Bartok in real stereo?
Imagine that Hanson/Barber 1st Symphony in stereo?)

Later he was audio engineer for Everest, recording at first onto three
channel ½ inch tape then, like Mercury, onto three channel 35 mm film. Bert
would always mention how magnificent his three channel tapes were as well as
those Mercury's he and CR Fine would audition periodically under controlled
conditions. Bert would also allude to these listening sessions in superb
down to earth articles he wrote for the now defunct, Audio Magazine. he
never mentioned ever listening to RCA "Living Stereo" in the original
format.

This bring forth the question? Should we support these proposed SACD
Mercury issues? Absolutely and in every way. 5.1 systems will not be
adequate as center channel "speech" boxes with not cut it. L<->C<->R
speakers must be the same, all of them and they must be placed in you
listening room correctly. Obviously, all three amps must be the same, all
of them. It requires a faithful commitment.

To end this essay.... Bert Whyte was a good man. He would often say, "Here
we are listing to these masters in three channels. We are the lucky few."
Hopefully the day will come when 'the great unwashed' ( a term he often
used without malice) will be able to do the same." Well, folks, Bert's
dream is about to be realized. Let's hope that we will be willing to take
advantage of it all to some degree, whether it comes to us from Mercury, RCA
or Vanguard/Everest, et.al.

CM

[Harry Lavo]

"Classical Music" > wrote in message
...
> There must be some of you who remember the rotund engineer by the name of
> Bert Whyte.
> He was present at many of the Mercury Sessions including the early Chicago
> sessions with
> Rafael Kubelik and Rochester sessions with Hanson. He personally
modified
> a mono Magnacord Tape Recorded into a stereo machine and recorded onto
tape
> stereo versions - using his own mics - of the primary, official mono, CR
> Fine mono masters. Lord knows where these Bert Whyte tapes are now.
> (Imagine a Kubelik/CSO Tchaikovsky symphony or Bartok in real stereo?
> Imagine that Hanson/Barber 1st Symphony in stereo?)
>
> Later he was audio engineer for Everest, recording at first onto three
> channel ½ inch tape then, like Mercury, onto three channel 35 mm film.
Bert
> would always mention how magnificent his three channel tapes were as well
as
> those Mercury's he and CR Fine would audition periodically under
controlled
> conditions. Bert would also allude to these listening sessions in superb
> down to earth articles he wrote for the now defunct, Audio Magazine. he
> never mentioned ever listening to RCA "Living Stereo" in the original
> format.
>
> This bring forth the question? Should we support these proposed SACD
> Mercury issues? Absolutely and in every way. 5.1 systems will not be
> adequate as center channel "speech" boxes with not cut it. L<->C<->R
> speakers must be the same, all of them and they must be placed in you
> listening room correctly. Obviously, all three amps must be the same, all
> of them. It requires a faithful commitment.
>
> To end this essay.... Bert Whyte was a good man. He would often say,
"Here
> we are listing to these masters in three channels. We are the lucky few."
> Hopefully the day will come when 'the great unwashed' ( a term he often
> used without malice) will be able to do the same." Well, folks, Bert's
> dream is about to be realized. Let's hope that we will be willing to take
> advantage of it all to some degree, whether it comes to us from Mercury,
RCA
> or Vanguard/Everest, et.al.
>

I've got my three front Thiel's and my two rear's fired up and ready to go!
;-)

Seriously, best I can tell listening to newer dsd recordings done direct
with three front mikes, and from listening to some of the older three track
jazz stuff, the three track recording solidifies the soundstage and at the
same time addes more depth/air around the indiviual instruments. However,
if room acoustics are good and the speakers are well away from reflective
surfaces to the sides, then the three mike recording doesn't seem all that
different from the resulting stereo mix.

[Norman Schwartz]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
...

> Seriously, best I can tell listening to newer dsd recordings done direct
> with three front mikes, and from listening to some of the older three
track
> jazz stuff, the three track recording solidifies the soundstage and at the
> same time addes more depth/air around the indiviual instruments. However,
> if room acoustics are good and the speakers are well away from reflective
> surfaces to the sides, then the three mike recording doesn't seem all that
> different from the resulting stereo mix.

I have a 3 panel per side Maggie Tympani set-up, edges of both outer panels
are 4 feet from side walls and are both 5 1/2 feet from the rear wall. I
hate to think of the effect that another set of panels; tweeter ribbon +
midrange driver and 2 bass panels all placed in the center could do to the
imaging.

[Kalman Rubinson]

On 26 Aug 2003 17:09:22 GMT, Norman Schwartz >
wrote:

>I have a 3 panel per side Maggie Tympani set-up, edges of both outer panels
>are 4 feet from side walls and are both 5 1/2 feet from the rear wall. I
>hate to think of the effect that another set of panels; tweeter ribbon +
>midrange driver and 2 bass panels all placed in the center could do to the
>imaging.

Well, AR and Magnepan pulled that off successfully at CES.

Kal

[Jack Dotson]

How did Magnepan and AR, as you say, pull it off? Use their smaller center?

"Kalman Rubinson" > wrote in message
...
> On 26 Aug 2003 17:09:22 GMT, Norman Schwartz >
> wrote:
>
> >I have a 3 panel per side Maggie Tympani set-up, edges of both outer
panels
> >are 4 feet from side walls and are both 5 1/2 feet from the rear wall. I
> >hate to think of the effect that another set of panels; tweeter ribbon +
> >midrange driver and 2 bass panels all placed in the center could do to
the
> >imaging.
>
> Well, AR and Magnepan pulled that off successfully at CES.
>
> Kal

[Kalman Rubinson]

On 27 Aug 2003 02:03:19 GMT, "Jack Dotson" > wrote:

>How did Magnepan and AR, as you say, pull it off? Use their smaller center?

They used a single 20.1 on each side (and for each rear channel) with
a pair of them angled acutely as a center slightly more distant from
the listener. Center imaging was superb with excellent depth.

Kal

>
>"Kalman Rubinson" > wrote in message
...
>> On 26 Aug 2003 17:09:22 GMT, Norman Schwartz >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I have a 3 panel per side Maggie Tympani set-up, edges of both outer
>panels
>> >are 4 feet from side walls and are both 5 1/2 feet from the rear wall. I
>> >hate to think of the effect that another set of panels; tweeter ribbon +
>> >midrange driver and 2 bass panels all placed in the center could do to
>the
>> >imaging.
>>
>> Well, AR and Magnepan pulled that off successfully at CES.
>>
>> Kal

[Norman Schwartz]

"Kalman Rubinson" > wrote in message
news:n_W2b.271687$Ho3.36096@sccrnsc03...
> On 27 Aug 2003 02:03:19 GMT, "Jack Dotson" > wrote:
>
> >How did Magnepan and AR, as you say, pull it off? Use their smaller
center?
>
> They used a single 20.1 on each side (and for each rear channel) with
> a pair of them angled acutely as a center slightly more distant from
> the listener. Center imaging was superb with excellent depth.
>
> Kal
>
> >
> >"Kalman Rubinson" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On 26 Aug 2003 17:09:22 GMT, Norman Schwartz >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I have a 3 panel per side Maggie Tympani set-up, edges of both outer
> >panels
> >> >are 4 feet from side walls and are both 5 1/2 feet from the rear wall.
I
> >> >hate to think of the effect that another set of panels; tweeter ribbon
+
> >> >midrange driver and 2 bass panels all placed in the center could do to
> >the
> >> >imaging.
> >>
> >> Well, AR and Magnepan pulled that off successfully at CES.
> >>
Are you saying they used a 20.1 for the center channel as well, all powered
by ARC amplification, and if so which amps did they use? A 20.1, although
probably *vastly* superior to my vintage Tympani IVa, has a smaller width
than that of Tympani (54" per side). In any event if I could or should
consider placing a third Tympani IVa between the existing two, wouldn't it
knock the hell out of the soundstage presented by all 2 channel recordings?
Perhaps there is an electronic trick to simulate a center channel which can
be extracted from the existing two? (BTW I did audition the original MG20
shortly after its release. Playing the conclusion of the Walton "Crown
Imperial" track from the MLP CD, *at the volume setting chosen by the staff
* caused sparks to shoot out of the speaker. Although the speakers didn't
appear to suffer from the event, it kind of turned me off from considering
its possible purchase. Mr. Mike Kay wasn't exactly pleased by the event.)

[Kalman Rubinson]

On 27 Aug 2003 15:16:02 GMT, "Norman Schwartz" > wrote:

>Are you saying they used a 20.1 for the center channel as well,

Nope. Two 20.1s for the center channel.

>all powered
>by ARC amplification, and if so which amps did they use?

Cannot recall but they had a BIG rack of equipment. Surely, one of
the CES reports on the web will have more detailled info.

> A 20.1, although
>probably *vastly* superior to my vintage Tympani IVa, has a smaller width
>than that of Tympani (54" per side). In any event if I could or should
>consider placing a third Tympani IVa between the existing two, wouldn't it
>knock the hell out of the soundstage presented by all 2 channel recordings?

I don't know what a single of the IVa or a 20.1 would do in the center
as all Maggies are asymmetric.

>Perhaps there is an electronic trick to simulate a center channel which can
>be extracted from the existing two?

Many but the Meridian TriField is the best I've used.

Kal

[ludovic mirabel]

"Classical Music" > wrote in message >...
See below:

I have a few of the Everest 35mm. film lps (eg. Vaughan Williams' 9th
symphony) and I agree that they are superb- even in plain stereo- and
even better in my JVC six speaker surround system.
On the subject of centre speaker: I have large planar Acoustat
X. I tried putting a 32" TV in between. The image was totally ruined.
On the other hand a vertical modification of classical Quad, the
width and depth of its bass panel, recessed somewhat back, was well
tolerated. (I no longer have it because a) I never solved the hum
problem b) I didn't need it since I built the transmission line
woofers)
Ludovic Mirabel

> There must be some of you who remember the rotund engineer by the name of
> Bert Whyte.
> He was present at many of the Mercury Sessions including the early Chicago
> sessions with
> Rafael Kubelik and Rochester sessions with Hanson. He personally modified
> a mono Magnacord Tape Recorded into a stereo machine and recorded onto tape
> stereo versions - using his own mics - of the primary, official mono, CR
> Fine mono masters. Lord knows where these Bert Whyte tapes are now.
> (Imagine a Kubelik/CSO Tchaikovsky symphony or Bartok in real stereo?
> Imagine that Hanson/Barber 1st Symphony in stereo?)
>
> Later he was audio engineer for Everest, recording at first onto three
> channel ½ inch tape then, like Mercury, onto three channel 35 mm film. Bert
> would always mention how magnificent his three channel tapes were as well as
> those Mercury's he and CR Fine would audition periodically under controlled
> conditions. Bert would also allude to these listening sessions in superb
> down to earth articles he wrote for the now defunct, Audio Magazine. he
> never mentioned ever listening to RCA "Living Stereo" in the original
> format.
>
> This bring forth the question? Should we support these proposed SACD
> Mercury issues? Absolutely and in every way. 5.1 systems will not be
> adequate as center channel "speech" boxes with not cut it. L<->C<->R
> speakers must be the same, all of them and they must be placed in you
> listening room correctly. Obviously, all three amps must be the same, all
> of them. It requires a faithful commitment.
>
> To end this essay.... Bert Whyte was a good man. He would often say, "Here
> we are listing to these masters in three channels. We are the lucky few."
> Hopefully the day will come when 'the great unwashed' ( a term he often
> used without malice) will be able to do the same." Well, folks, Bert's
> dream is about to be realized. Let's hope that we will be willing to take
> advantage of it all to some degree, whether it comes to us from Mercury, RCA
> or Vanguard/Everest, et.al.
>
> CM

[Norman Schwartz]

"Kalman Rubinson" > wrote in message
...
> On 27 Aug 2003 15:16:02 GMT, "Norman Schwartz" > wrote:
>
> >Are you saying they used a 20.1 for the center channel as well,
>
> Nope. Two 20.1s for the center channel.
>
> >all powered
> >by ARC amplification, and if so which amps did they use?
>
> Cannot recall but they had a BIG rack of equipment. Surely, one of
> the CES reports on the web will have more detailled info.
>
It doesn't seem likely (to me, anyway) that this arrangement would fit
within
the confines of most *home* installations. It is a good thing that Magnepan
is not dependent upon its sales in order to remain in business and offer us
the many wonderful items and customer support as they always have done.