| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#281
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
|
|
#282
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 11:11:05 -0800, Jenn wrote
(in article ): In article , Doug McDonald wrote: wrote: Just a question regarding your Mercury Living Presence reissues on LP. Was there any compression used in mastering them? Scott, NO compression whatsoever. There is nothing vague about that answer.But it is incomplete. You have to ask the original recording engineer "Was there any gain riding done during the recording session?" and ask the conductor "did you hold back on dynamic range to fit it onto the recording dynamic range?" I can testify regarding the statements of one of Mercury's conductors. Frederick Fennell (Eastman Wind Ensemble, Eastman-Rochester Orchestra, London Pops Orchestra) said many times that, on his recordings at least, there was no "holding back on the dynamic range". They played the works as they played them in concerts which usually took place the week before the session. Fred's work was characterized by dynamic extremes, and he said that there was absolutely no holding back (witness the amazing EWE recording of Walton: Crown Imperial). "They didn't tell me how to conduct, and I didn't tell them how to make records. It was a beautiful relationship." By the way, nearly all of FF's Mercury recordings were done in one or two takes, always played straight through. Yes, I've always noticed that there are far fewer splices in a Mercury recording than there are in say, a Columbia of EO & the PO. I can ALWAYS hear a mechanical tape splice (where the tape is cut with a razor blade) because ambience changes at the splice point. Many Mercury's have none but at worst there are usually only a couple. |
|
#283
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
On Nov 16, 10:12�am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message On Nov 15, 11:11?am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: wrote in message On Nov 14, 9:58?pm, Doug McDonald wrote: wrote: Just a question regarding your Mercury Living Presence reissues on LP. Was there any compression used in mastering them? Scott, NO compression whatsoever. There is nothing vague about that answer.But it is incomplete. You have to ask the original recording engineer "Was there any gain riding done during the recording session?" and ask the conductor "did you hold back on dynamic range to fit it onto the recording dynamic range?" I seem to remember seeing a photo of either Mr. or Mrs. Fine sitting at a console reading a score to allow gain riding. Doug McDonald We really don't have to ask that question at all. The original recordings are what they are. Appeal to blind faith, noted. What are you trying to say Arny? That the original recordings *aren't* what they *are*???? They are what they are Is that an appeal to blind faith Arny? That is what you said when *I* stated that "they are what they are." Now you are saying "they are what they are." You really haven't cleared up anything in regards to your assertion about an appeal to blind faith. They sound amazing. ....to some people. Do you think they sound something less than amazing? Well, they are amazing for the day, but the day and the technology used to make them has long passed out of the relam of the best that can be done. So you have actually heard them? Perhaps you could give us a list of commerical CDs that IYO offer substantially more life like sounding symphonic recordings. I'm not into playing preferenced games with people who think that added noise and distortion sounds best. I think live music sounds best. I think some of the Mercury titles are among the most life like sounding symphonic recordings of all time. You are implying that they are not. If there is any meat behind that opinion it follows that you must have heard symphonic recordings that you feel out class the all the Mercuries in their sense of realism. I don't see how my personal preferences would would give you cause to not support your assertions with specific examples. I don't judge a recording by how it is made but by how it sounds. That seems to be a sharp reversal of recent behavior. What behavior would that be? I think my pragmatic approach to audio has been pretty consistant on this thread. Pragmatism biased for the sounds of the distant past seems to be some kind of contradiction in terms. Biased Pragmatism, isn't that an oxymoron? You are simply mischaracterizing my pragmatism. It is really a simple approach. If something sounds better it is better. i don't know how one could be any more pragmatic an audiophile than that. as for biases, we all have them. Not much can be done to make them go away. I accept that fact. You see a conflict where none exists. The Mercuries were consistantly outstanding. Perhaps, in their day. No such qualification is needed. IME they more than stand up to the recordings of any era. Same question as I asked �Harry - since you avoid bias controlled listening tests, how do we know that your evaluation isn't the result of your biases as opposed to your personal biases? Your question is based on a false premise. I actually do bias controlled comparisons between different recordings and different masterings. In fact it is you who has avoided doing any such bias controlled comparisons between the Mercuries and recordings you might deem as state of the art due to the use of modern technology. It is you who avoids doing bias controlled comparisons between competing masterings of commercial titles. It is you who has avoided doing any meaningful bias controlled comparisons between vinyl and CDs of commercial recordings. How do we know any of your opinions about anything we have discussed isn't the result of your biases? Some titles are among the very best sounding reocrdings ever made. Highly unlikely, if you're talking about recordings made in the 50s and 60s. Microphone and recording technology has made significant gains since then. It's not a question of probability. You might try actually listening to the Mercury recordings instead of speculating about the likelyhood of their excellence. Beem there, done that. Really? Which of the Classics Mercury reissues did you use? Thus far it would appear that you have not actually done so. Actual listening strikes as a crucial step in forming any kind of meaningful opinion about the quality of any recording. Listening with your biases running amok is no way to judge in any generalizable, accurate sort of way I agree. So I would suggest you do as I did and make some good old fashioned bias controlled comparisons. |
|
#284
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
On Nov 16, 10:12�am, "C. Leeds" wrote:
wrote in message It's interesting to me just how superior the original LPs are to the CD reissues. The master tapes have degraded so badly that the CD releases just can't compare to the original LPs. The best sounding CD I have of "Balalaika Favorites" is the one I burned from the LP. I don't believe the tapes have degraded at all. IMO the Classics reissue of Balalaika Favorites betters the original substantially. But the original is quite excellent on it's own merits. I would also like to make it clear that I have been very impressed by the Mercury CDs. None of my Mercury CDs are of any of the same titles that I have on LP. I can't comment on which sound better by format. But I can say that I have absolutely outstanding sounding Mercuries on original LP, on CD and on audiophile reissue LP. The *recordings* IME are consistantly excellent and in many cases absolutely world class regardless of the format. My biggest issue with the Mercuries is performance. I am not a big fan of Dorati. I think the real goldmine in the Mercury catalog is in the Howard Hanson recordings of American composers. It's hard to find much of that material at all on record or CD. Hanson was IMO a great conductor as well as composer. These Mercuries really are gems. Great sound, great music and great performances. If one has any interest in American classical music the Mercury catalog is without equal. They also offer a few other odd and rarely heard bits of classical music that IMO are simply overlooked. |
|
#285
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
|
|
#287
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
|
|
#288
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 10:12:13 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): wrote in message On Nov 15, 11:11?am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: wrote in message On Nov 14, 9:58?pm, Doug McDonald wrote: wrote: Just a question regarding your Mercury Living Presence reissues on LP. Was there any compression used in mastering them? Scott, NO compression whatsoever. There is nothing vague about that answer.But it is incomplete. You have to ask the original recording engineer "Was there any gain riding done during the recording session?" and ask the conductor "did you hold back on dynamic range to fit it onto the recording dynamic range?" I seem to remember seeing a photo of either Mr. or Mrs. Fine sitting at a console reading a score to allow gain riding. Doug McDonald We really don't have to ask that question at all. The original recordings are what they are. Appeal to blind faith, noted. What are you trying to say Arny? That the original recordings *aren't* what they *are*???? They are what they are - good examples of legacy technology. A technology that had any number of audible limitations compared to what can easily be done today. While I agree about what is possible, today, 99 times out of 100, today's efforts are NOT as good. What does that tell you? They sound amazing. ....to some people. Do you think they sound something less than amazing? Well, they are amazing for the day, but the day and the technology used to make them has long passed out of the relam of the best that can be done. They are amazing period. I'd like your idea of what is currently available that sounds better? Perhaps you could give us a list of commerical CDs that IYO offer substantially more life like sounding symphonic recordings. I'm not into playing preferenced games with people who think that added noise and distortion sounds best. Arny, if you say that these Mercury recordings (whether on LP, CD, or SACD) are easily bettered today, then you should easily be able to point out some examples. That you refuse can simply be interpreted as you are just being your normal, contrary self, and really don't know what you are talking about. I don't judge a recording by how it is made but by how it sounds. That seems to be a sharp reversal of recent behavior. What behavior would that be? I think my pragmatic approach to audio has been pretty consistant on this thread. Pragmatism biased for the sounds of the distant past seems to be some kind of contradiction in terms. Biased Pragmatism, isn't that an oxymoron? Actually, I think he talking in terms of absolute listening quality, and that he's being very pragmatic. The irony of you calling others biased, OTOH, is simply amazing here. The Mercuries were consistantly outstanding. Perhaps, in their day. No such qualification is needed. IME they more than stand up to the recordings of any era. Same question as I asked Harry - since you avoid bias controlled listening tests, how do we know that your evaluation isn't the result of your biases as opposed to your personal biases? How the hell can one perform bias-controlled listening tests on a specific set of recordings? Harry is not saying that just the Mercury LPs stand up to the recordings of any era, he's talking (I believe) about the recordings themselves, on ANY available delivery media. Some titles are among the very best sounding reocrdings ever made. Highly unlikely, if you're talking about recordings made in the 50s and 60s. Microphone and recording technology has made significant gains since then. Some aspects of it, yes. Other aspects of recordings have not changed that much. A good hi-fidelity stereo recording made in the 1950's or 1960's still sounds magnificent today. For instance Bert Whyte's recordings of Villa-Lobos/Ginastera with Sir Eugene Goossens and the LSO in '58, '59, and '60 have been re-issued on Vanguard in hybrid SACD/CD. The original Whyte 3-track masters have been cleaned-up digitally and the tape-hiss has been seamlessly removed. The recording is stunning in it's "you-are-there" palpability. Even more so is the Vanguard recording of Vaughan Williams' incidental music with Abravanel/Utah Symphony Orchestra recorded in 1966 and 1967 as two or three track analog masters by Ed Friedner. Again, Vanguard has digitally cleaned these masters up and removed the hiss using digital audio correlation and the results are stunning. Robert Woods of Telarc or even Keith O. Johnson of Reference Recordings can only dream of making modern digital recordings that sound this real. I'm not saying that it can't be done, you understand (I've come close, myself), but I am saying that most modern recording producers and engineers either can't or won't do it and I'm dying to hear of some who have (an exception is the great, unsung modern recording engineer, Bruce Leek. He records mostly college and military ensembles such as the Denver Brass or the D.C. Air Force band and his work is mostly available on the Klavier label.) That's why I want to know what you consider great modern technological recordings. Because I'll buy 'em tonight. It's not a question of probability. Right, recording technology has progressed to the point where the audible superiority is more like a certainty, presuming equal care and attention to the SOTA. You might try actually listening to the Mercury recordings instead of speculating about the likelyhood of their excellence. Beem there, done that. Thus far it would appear that you have not actually done so. Actual listening strikes as a crucial step in forming any kind of meaningful opinion about the quality of any recording. Listening with your biases running amok is no way to judge in any generalizable, accurate sort of way. I don't see where Harry has exhibited any particular biases. You, OTOH, ..... |
|
#289
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
On Nov 16, 7:17�pm, Sonnova wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 10:12:13 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): How the hell can one perform bias-controlled listening tests on a specific set of recordings? Harry is not saying that just the Mercury LPs stand up to the recordings of any era, he's talking (I believe) about the recordings themselves, on ANY available delivery media. It's actually pretty easy. You just need listeners that are not intimately familiar with the performances. :ine up several recordings, sit the listener down and have em listen. If they don't know the source or the vintage of recording you will get some pretty unbiased opinions on sound quality. I do this quite often with a good friend of mine who is a weekly concert goer. |
|
#290
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
"C. Leeds" wrote in message
wrote in message (about the legendary Mercury recordings) Some titles are among the very best sounding reocrdings ever made. Arny Krueger answered in : Highly unlikely, if you're talking about recordings made in the 50s and 60s. Microphone and recording technology has made significant gains since then. This is a good example of how measurementalist thinking results in prejudiced, faulty reasoning. Evidence? Yes, it is certainly true that huge gains in recording technology have been made since these recordings were made. So then it is your claim that recordings made in the 50s and 60s contain no audible evidence of the limited technology that was used to make them? Playback quality has also improved, and it's likely that the people who made these recordings had no was to assess just how exemplary a job they were doing. Not only that, but given the limited state of the headphones and speakers of the day, they were very limited in terms of hearing problems with the micing, that are now readily audible today. But, the proof is in the pudding. There seems to be enough documentation about how these recordings were made, that they could be recreated today, if anybody wanted to waste their time and money that way. There is overwhelming opinion that agrees with S888Wheel that these records "are among the very best" that have ever been made. Well, lets see, that's based on a sample of what 3 or 4 of the how many billions of music lovers in the world? Come on guys, let's not get overwhelmed with our own OSAF based on a miniscule sample. What explains the difference between what they think and what Arny thinks? Arny's *problem* is that he agrees with the billions of other music lovers who think that technology has significantly advanced since the 60s and that these advances have born audible fruit. It's simple: we've actually heard these recordings. Classic example of people who mistakenly believe that they've found the holy grail moldering away under a pile of reasonably fresh refuse. It's interesting to me just how superior the original LPs are to the CD reissues. ....in the opinion of a miniscule percentage of the music lovers currently listening to music today. The master tapes have degraded so badly that the CD releases just can't compare to the original LPs. Says who? I didn't overlook a frank admission of that in the recent Mercury press releases, did I? The best sounding CD I have of "Balalaika Favorites" is the one I burned from the LP. And where is the globally-significant evidence that you have to support that claim? I think that its good for people to have pride in their work and possessions, but claiming that a transcription you did of some ancient piece of vinyl is the best in the world seems to be a tad hyperbolic. |
|
#291
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
On Nov 17, 6:11�am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"C. Leeds" wrote in message There seems to be enough documentation about how these recordings were made, that they could be recreated today, if anybody wanted to waste their time and money that way. That strikes me as a profoundly ignorant claim, especially comming from someone who presents themselves as an experienced and knowledgable "recordist." Do you really believe that you could actually recreate these recordings today with nothing more than the same equipment and the documentation that you have seen? I challenge you to find one single recording engineer that agrees with you on this one. This claim completely ignores all of the significant choices made for each specific situation by recording engineers.The very choices that are at the heart of the *art* of recording. |
|
#292
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 06:11:56 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "C. Leeds" wrote in message wrote in message (about the legendary Mercury recordings) Some titles are among the very best sounding reocrdings ever made. Arny Krueger answered in : Highly unlikely, if you're talking about recordings made in the 50s and 60s. Microphone and recording technology has made significant gains since then. This is a good example of how measurementalist thinking results in prejudiced, faulty reasoning. Evidence? Yes, it is certainly true that huge gains in recording technology have been made since these recordings were made. So then it is your claim that recordings made in the 50s and 60s contain no audible evidence of the limited technology that was used to make them? I'm certainly not saying that, but aside from signal-to-noise (which can be fixed once the masters are digitized. Modern digital auto-correlation can make these hissy old Scotch 150 masters pretty quiet) and the physical condition of the tapes, I'd say that the audible evidence of the limited technology used to make some of these recordings is pretty irrelevant to the end product. You really should make an effort to hear the Classics Records release of the Mercury "Firebird" on 45-RPM single-sided, 200 gram vinyl. It will astonish you (unless you let your prejudice get in the way). Playback quality has also improved, and it's likely that the people who made these recordings had no was to assess just how exemplary a job they were doing. Not only that, but given the limited state of the headphones and speakers of the day, they were very limited in terms of hearing problems with the micing, that are now readily audible today. The problems with the mikes are fairly minor. They were quite peaky around 16 KHz, but that complemented LP, and can be easily tamed today for digital (here is one place where EQ would be essential). But, the proof is in the pudding. There seems to be enough documentation about how these recordings were made, that they could be recreated today, if anybody wanted to waste their time and money that way. Since they sound so good, and few modern recordings sound as real, I'd say that it would not be a waste of time (and I wonder why you think it would be). But for various reasons, it wouldn't be easy. Robert Woods of Telarc, for instance, used to slavishly copy Fine/Eberenz' miking technique for the early recordings, and it didn't work. Turns out, he was using modern calibration microphones for their very flat frequency response. The problem was (I suspect) that these calibration mikes were TRUE omnidirectional, not "sort-of" omnidirectional like the mikes Mercury was using. The results were different from Mercury's even though three mikes were used and the spacing was the same, and ultimately lacked any of the great sound-stage and overall palpability that the best Mercury recordings exhibit. There is overwhelming opinion that agrees with S888Wheel that these records "are among the very best" that have ever been made. Well, lets see, that's based on a sample of what 3 or 4 of the how many billions of music lovers in the world? Come on guys, let's not get overwhelmed with our own OSAF based on a miniscule sample. What explains the difference between what they think and what Arny thinks? Arny's *problem* is that he agrees with the billions of other music lovers who think that technology has significantly advanced since the 60s and that these advances have born audible fruit. It's simple: we've actually heard these recordings. Classic example of people who mistakenly believe that they've found the holy grail moldering away under a pile of reasonably fresh refuse. It's interesting to me just how superior the original LPs are to the CD reissues. ...in the opinion of a miniscule percentage of the music lovers currently listening to music today. The master tapes have degraded so badly that the CD releases just can't compare to the original LPs. Says who? I didn't overlook a frank admission of that in the recent Mercury press releases, did I? The best sounding CD I have of "Balalaika Favorites" is the one I burned from the LP. And where is the globally-significant evidence that you have to support that claim? I think that its good for people to have pride in their work and possessions, but claiming that a transcription you did of some ancient piece of vinyl is the best in the world seems to be a tad hyperbolic. These recordings keep getting re-released over and over in every new media format that comes down the pipe because they are UNIVERSALLY recognized as being superior recordings that reveal something new and wonderful everytime they are remastered. It has to be that reason because many of these performances, while certainly competent, are seldom the definitive performances available. What's Dorati's "Firebird", for instance, to Stravinsky's own on Columbia? I'll tell you this, the Mercury sound FAR better, and that's it's raison d'etre. Dorati was no Ormandy or Reiner, Louis Lane was no Liensdorf or Walter. But there are gems. Most of Fennel's work on Mercury with the Eastman Winds is pretty definitive symphonic band and of course, Hanson conducting Hanson are national treasures. |
|
#293
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 06:11:56 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "C. Leeds" wrote in message wrote in message (about the legendary Mercury recordings) Some titles are among the very best sounding reocrdings ever made. Arny Krueger answered in : Highly unlikely, if you're talking about recordings made in the 50s and 60s. Microphone and recording technology has made significant gains since then. This is a good example of how measurementalist thinking results in prejudiced, faulty reasoning. Evidence? Yes, it is certainly true that huge gains in recording technology have been made since these recordings were made. So then it is your claim that recordings made in the 50s and 60s contain no audible evidence of the limited technology that was used to make them? I'm certainly not saying that, but aside from signal-to-noise (which can be fixed once the masters are digitized. Modern digital auto-correlation can make these hissy old Scotch 150 masters pretty quiet) and the physical condition of the tapes, I'd say that the audible evidence of the limited technology used to make some of these recordings is pretty irrelevant to the end product. You really should make an effort to hear the Classics Records release of the Mercury "Firebird" on 45-RPM single-sided, 200 gram vinyl. It will astonish you (unless you let your prejudice get in the way). I don't have it on vinyl, but based on the discussion here I pulled out my SACD three-channel version and listened to it today. It certainly is a very, very fine recording and it is hard to hear any way it would be improved by recording it in digital. On the other hand, the disk contains a lot of other pieces as well, and some of them didn't fare as well....mikes too close, muffled bass, etc. I didn't have the time or patience to look through and see whther Fine did all those as well...I suspect at least not some of them...or perhaps since they were "bon-bons" they simply weren't as careful in the setup. But these were *recording* issues, not digital vs analog issues. Playback quality has also improved, and it's likely that the people who made these recordings had no was to assess just how exemplary a job they were doing. Not only that, but given the limited state of the headphones and speakers of the day, they were very limited in terms of hearing problems with the micing, that are now readily audible today. The problems with the mikes are fairly minor. They were quite peaky around 16 KHz, but that complemented LP, and can be easily tamed today for digital (here is one place where EQ would be essential). They were peaky, but that also gave them "reach". To this day, Schoeps premiere mics for orchestral recording still have an exaggerated presence for this very reason. But, the proof is in the pudding. There seems to be enough documentation about how these recordings were made, that they could be recreated today, if anybody wanted to waste their time and money that way. Since they sound so good, and few modern recordings sound as real, I'd say that it would not be a waste of time (and I wonder why you think it would be). But for various reasons, it wouldn't be easy. Robert Woods of Telarc, for instance, used to slavishly copy Fine/Eberenz' miking technique for the early recordings, and it didn't work. Turns out, he was using modern calibration microphones for their very flat frequency response. The problem was (I suspect) that these calibration mikes were TRUE omnidirectional, not "sort-of" omnidirectional like the mikes Mercury was using. The results were different from Mercury's even though three mikes were used and the spacing was the same, and ultimately lacked any of the great sound-stage and overall palpability that the best Mercury recordings exhibit. There is overwhelming opinion that agrees with S888Wheel that these records "are among the very best" that have ever been made. Well, lets see, that's based on a sample of what 3 or 4 of the how many billions of music lovers in the world? Come on guys, let's not get overwhelmed with our own OSAF based on a miniscule sample. What explains the difference between what they think and what Arny thinks? Arny's *problem* is that he agrees with the billions of other music lovers who think that technology has significantly advanced since the 60s and that these advances have born audible fruit. It's simple: we've actually heard these recordings. Classic example of people who mistakenly believe that they've found the holy grail moldering away under a pile of reasonably fresh refuse. It's interesting to me just how superior the original LPs are to the CD reissues. ...in the opinion of a miniscule percentage of the music lovers currently listening to music today. The master tapes have degraded so badly that the CD releases just can't compare to the original LPs. Says who? I didn't overlook a frank admission of that in the recent Mercury press releases, did I? The best sounding CD I have of "Balalaika Favorites" is the one I burned from the LP. And where is the globally-significant evidence that you have to support that claim? I think that its good for people to have pride in their work and possessions, but claiming that a transcription you did of some ancient piece of vinyl is the best in the world seems to be a tad hyperbolic. These recordings keep getting re-released over and over in every new media format that comes down the pipe because they are UNIVERSALLY recognized as being superior recordings that reveal something new and wonderful everytime they are remastered. It has to be that reason because many of these performances, while certainly competent, are seldom the definitive performances available. What's Dorati's "Firebird", for instance, to Stravinsky's own on Columbia? I'll tell you this, the Mercury sound FAR better, and that's it's raison d'etre. Dorati was no Ormandy or Reiner, Louis Lane was no Liensdorf or Walter. But there are gems. Most of Fennel's work on Mercury with the Eastman Winds is pretty definitive symphonic band and of course, Hanson conducting Hanson are national treasures. For somebody who claims to be an audiophile, Arny seems ignorant of the audiophile culture, including its legends and honorees. And BTW....please note, Arny.....Sonnova said of the "CD's he had", not that were ever produced anywhere in the world. A bit of hyperbole, wouldn't you say? A strawman by any other name....... |
|
#294
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
wrote in message
On Nov 17, 6:11?am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "CO. Leeds" wrote in message There seems to be enough documentation about how these recordings were made, that they could be recreated today, if anybody wanted to waste their time and money that way. That strikes me as a profoundly ignorant claim, especially coming from someone who presents themselves as an experienced and knowledgeable "recordist." I'm used to the unnecessary invective. Enjoy yourself! Do you really believe that you could actually recreate these recordings today with nothing more than the same equipment and the documentation that you have seen? Well that, a room and an orchestra... ;-) However, you're making this unnecessarily personal. I never said or even suggested that *I* would be the best person to address this task. I only said that there is some engineer, living and working actively, who could do it. Actually, there are probably dozens. However, you'd have to get them to drop their standards for equipment and procedures quite significantly. I would not be surprised if many of them refused the gig on the grounds of their principles and the danger to their reputation. Let's face it - you find mechanics working in NASCAR when they are at the top of their game, and you find many of the same people working with legacy technology when they are essentially retired and far away from the best days of their lives. |
|
#295
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
On Nov 18, 5:48�am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message Do you really believe that you could actually recreate these recordings today with nothing more than the same equipment and the documentation that you have seen? Well that, a room and an orchestra... ;-) However, you're making this unnecessarily personal. I never said or even suggested that *I* would be the best person to address this task. I only said that there is some engineer, living and working actively, who could do it. �Actually, there are probably dozens. However, you'd have to get them to drop their standards for equipment and procedures quite significantly. I would not be surprised if many of them refused the gig on the grounds of their principles and the danger to their reputation. Perhaps you could name names of the recording engineers who would actually have to drop their "standards" to do this. Perhaps you could name the recording engineers whose reputations would actually suffer if they were to make a recording that sounded like one of the outstanding Mercury recordings. Can you name any such recording engineers? |
|
#296
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
"Sonnova" wrote in message
These recordings keep getting re-released over and over in every new media format that comes down the pipe because they are UNIVERSALLY recognized as being superior recordings that reveal something new and wonderful everytime they are remastered. They can't be universally recognized as being superior because almost all music lovers either don't know about them or have largely forgotten them. The fact that the means used to make these recordings is both well-documented and almost universally ignored in this day and age, tells all of the story that most of us need to know. The micing technique used is defensible on the grounds that really good cardiod microphones were not available at the time, at any price. Today, really good cardiod and hypercardiod mics are readily available for under $1,000 each. Even Guitar Center carries them! There's only one reason why these recordings are being reissued - some marketing person thinks that they will sell. No record company releases recordings on this scale (# of titles and PR effort) for love - they think that there is a significant enough market for them. Hey, if you like them, by all means enjoy them. However part of live is understanding what is unique to you, and what most people actually think. Failing to do that leads a few to diefy their preferences in relatively unique ways. |
|
#297
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 05:48:12 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): wrote in message On Nov 17, 6:11?am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "CO. Leeds" wrote in message There seems to be enough documentation about how these recordings were made, that they could be recreated today, if anybody wanted to waste their time and money that way. That strikes me as a profoundly ignorant claim, especially coming from someone who presents themselves as an experienced and knowledgeable "recordist." I'm used to the unnecessary invective. Enjoy yourself! Do you really believe that you could actually recreate these recordings today with nothing more than the same equipment and the documentation that you have seen? Well that, a room and an orchestra... ;-) However, you're making this unnecessarily personal. I never said or even suggested that *I* would be the best person to address this task. I only said that there is some engineer, living and working actively, who could do it. Actually, there are probably dozens. However, you'd have to get them to drop their standards for equipment and procedures quite significantly. I would not be surprised if many of them refused the gig on the grounds of their principles and the danger to their reputation. There are many ways to record an orchestra which will result in a recording that is as good as these Mercury's in terms of soundstage and imaging as well as ambience capture. These modern recordings SHOULD be better than the Mercury's in terms of flat frequency response, distortion, and dynamic range, as these are undeniable digital strengths and the result of modern microphone design and construction. The problem is, nobody does it. I hear dozens of new orchestral CDs per year. These come from everywhere in the world, and are engineered by disparate recording engineers, all with their own ideas as to what constitutes the proper way to record a symphony orchestra. As I have stated before, nobody gets as good a result as Bob Fine and Bob Eberenz did with those Mercury Living Presence recordings of half a century ago. My question is why can't they do it? Why don't they do it? If all modern symphonic recordings were even in the ball park of these Mercury's, surely we'd be living in the golden age of recording (except that all of the great conductors are gone, but that's another issue). I maintain that these recordings are revered for a reason (which has nothing to do with any form of audio nostalgia). The Mercury's, the early RCA Red Seal stereos, some of the Everests and a few of the Vanguards represent an ideal of how a good recording played on a decent stereo system can give the listener a glimpse of what I believe we're all in this for in the first place. The actual sound of real music being played in our listening rooms. It's just a glimpse, mind you, and is far from the ideal experience, but everytime I play one of these recordings whether on LP, CD, or SACD, I'm encouraged to redouble my own efforts at making the same kinds of recordings. Let's face it - you find mechanics working in NASCAR when they are at the top of their game, and you find many of the same people working with legacy technology when they are essentially retired and far away from the best days of their lives. |
|
#298
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 05:26:45 -0800, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 06:11:56 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "C. Leeds" wrote in message wrote in message (about the legendary Mercury recordings) Some titles are among the very best sounding reocrdings ever made. Arny Krueger answered in : Highly unlikely, if you're talking about recordings made in the 50s and 60s. Microphone and recording technology has made significant gains since then. This is a good example of how measurementalist thinking results in prejudiced, faulty reasoning. Evidence? Yes, it is certainly true that huge gains in recording technology have been made since these recordings were made. So then it is your claim that recordings made in the 50s and 60s contain no audible evidence of the limited technology that was used to make them? I'm certainly not saying that, but aside from signal-to-noise (which can be fixed once the masters are digitized. Modern digital auto-correlation can make these hissy old Scotch 150 masters pretty quiet) and the physical condition of the tapes, I'd say that the audible evidence of the limited technology used to make some of these recordings is pretty irrelevant to the end product. You really should make an effort to hear the Classics Records release of the Mercury "Firebird" on 45-RPM single-sided, 200 gram vinyl. It will astonish you (unless you let your prejudice get in the way). I don't have it on vinyl, but based on the discussion here I pulled out my SACD three-channel version and listened to it today. It certainly is a very, very fine recording and it is hard to hear any way it would be improved by recording it in digital. On the other hand, the disk contains a lot of other pieces as well, and some of them didn't fare as well....mikes too close, muffled bass, etc. Absolutely (although the LP has ONLY the Firebird). These are the vagaries of recording on location (and well I do know that). It's all, ultimately, about control, or rather, lack of it. When you can't pick the venue, find that your microphone placement is rendered less than ideal by other considerations (stage size, the need for soloists down-front, room acoustics, etc.), you take what you can get. There is no doubt that some of the Mercury's were better than others and the "Firebird" is certainly an exercise in serendipity. I didn't have the time or patience to look through and see whther Fine did all those as well...I suspect at least not some of them...or perhaps since they were "bon-bons" they simply weren't as careful in the setup. But these were *recording* issues, not digital vs analog issues. He and/or Ebernez did all of them, as far as I know, but like I said, location recording involves more uncontrollable variables than does studio recording. When the venue is good and things come together just right, the result is magic, but that doesn't happen all the time. There is one venue where i regularly record, the Dinklespiel Auditorium at Stanford University, that yields superb results, but another auditorium, the one at nearby Foothill College, I can't get a decent recording out of to save my life. I've taken to recording the Foothill ensemble in their rehearsal hall. I get much better results there. Playback quality has also improved, and it's likely that the people who made these recordings had no was to assess just how exemplary a job they were doing. Not only that, but given the limited state of the headphones and speakers of the day, they were very limited in terms of hearing problems with the micing, that are now readily audible today. The problems with the mikes are fairly minor. They were quite peaky around 16 KHz, but that complemented LP, and can be easily tamed today for digital (here is one place where EQ would be essential). They were peaky, but that also gave them "reach". To this day, Schoeps premiere mics for orchestral recording still have an exaggerated presence for this very reason. I've never used the Schoeps mikes, but Bob Woods of Telarc did. Even though he was trying to copy Fines techniques (in the Label's early days, at least), he never achieved the level of palpability and "thereness" that Fine was able to accomplish at his best. Maybe you've just struck upon the reason. |
|
#299
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 05:26:45 -0800, Harry Lavo wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 06:11:56 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "C. Leeds" wrote in message wrote in message (about the legendary Mercury recordings) Some titles are among the very best sounding reocrdings ever made. Arny Krueger answered in : Highly unlikely, if you're talking about recordings made in the 50s and 60s. Microphone and recording technology has made significant gains since then. This is a good example of how measurementalist thinking results in prejudiced, faulty reasoning. Evidence? Yes, it is certainly true that huge gains in recording technology have been made since these recordings were made. So then it is your claim that recordings made in the 50s and 60s contain no audible evidence of the limited technology that was used to make them? I'm certainly not saying that, but aside from signal-to-noise (which can be fixed once the masters are digitized. Modern digital auto-correlation can make these hissy old Scotch 150 masters pretty quiet) and the physical condition of the tapes, I'd say that the audible evidence of the limited technology used to make some of these recordings is pretty irrelevant to the end product. You really should make an effort to hear the Classics Records release of the Mercury "Firebird" on 45-RPM single-sided, 200 gram vinyl. It will astonish you (unless you let your prejudice get in the way). I don't have it on vinyl, but based on the discussion here I pulled out my SACD three-channel version and listened to it today. It certainly is a very, very fine recording and it is hard to hear any way it would be improved by recording it in digital. On the other hand, the disk contains a lot of other pieces as well, and some of them didn't fare as well....mikes too close, muffled bass, etc. Absolutely (although the LP has ONLY the Firebird). These are the vagaries of recording on location (and well I do know that). It's all, ultimately, about control, or rather, lack of it. When you can't pick the venue, find that your microphone placement is rendered less than ideal by other considerations (stage size, the need for soloists down-front, room acoustics, etc.), you take what you can get. There is no doubt that some of the Mercury's were better than others and the "Firebird" is certainly an exercise in serendipity. I didn't have the time or patience to look through and see whther Fine did all those as well...I suspect at least not some of them...or perhaps since they were "bon-bons" they simply weren't as careful in the setup. But these were *recording* issues, not digital vs analog issues. He and/or Ebernez did all of them, as far as I know, but like I said, location recording involves more uncontrollable variables than does studio recording. When the venue is good and things come together just right, the result is magic, but that doesn't happen all the time. There is one venue where i regularly record, the Dinklespiel Auditorium at Stanford University, that yields superb results, but another auditorium, the one at nearby Foothill College, I can't get a decent recording out of to save my life. I've taken to recording the Foothill ensemble in their rehearsal hall. I get much better results there. I did a lot of live recording back in the '60's and '70's....and I know exactly what you are talking about. I had taken John Woram's training (Institute of Audio Research) and had become skilled enough in purist micing techniques to usually get a decent to quite good recording no matter what the venue, but when it all came together, it was magic. One of the tragedies of my most recent move was that I lost a box of transcription tapes that I had made from the masters of some of those better efforts. Playback quality has also improved, and it's likely that the people who made these recordings had no was to assess just how exemplary a job they were doing. Not only that, but given the limited state of the headphones and speakers of the day, they were very limited in terms of hearing problems with the micing, that are now readily audible today. The problems with the mikes are fairly minor. They were quite peaky around 16 KHz, but that complemented LP, and can be easily tamed today for digital (here is one place where EQ would be essential). They were peaky, but that also gave them "reach". To this day, Schoeps premiere mics for orchestral recording still have an exaggerated presence for this very reason. I've never used the Schoeps mikes, but Bob Woods of Telarc did. Even though he was trying to copy Fines techniques (in the Label's early days, at least), he never achieved the level of palpability and "thereness" that Fine was able to accomplish at his best. Maybe you've just struck upon the reason. Could well be. A lot of current-day recording folk don't understand the purpose of those special capsules that Schoeps sells. More Europeans do than Americans, I suspect, however. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Updated Vinyl Catalog-30,555 Vinyl Records FS | Marketplace | |||
| Canadian Vinyl Store-29,930 Vinyl Records FS | Marketplace | |||
| Euphonic versus accurate | High End Audio | |||
Linear Mode
