[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by calaf some instrumental music on old recordings sounds quite decent or even surprisingly good (as in why do engineers need all these mikes and channels today?). The obvious example is Pau Casals and his legendary Bach Cello Suites (1930s), but also Schnabel and the Pro Arte Quartet swinging in the Schubert "Trout" Quintet (1935) or the amazing 1932 Beethoven Violin Concerto from Joseph Szigeti (with Walter/BSO). In the end I suspect that (voice or instrument) when the music is good you quickly forget about the recording quality...

I think the difference is that he was talking mostly about acoustic recording... which favored the sound of the voice... and you are talking about electrical recordings, which had a much broader range of frequency response. Electrical recordings were introduced by Victor with the Orthophonic line in 1924.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark from HFR Do you like any of the transfers that Nimbus made a number of years back of old 78's? They played them on a Victrola in a moderate-sized hall with good acoustics and digitally recorded that sound, so that the reverb is natural instead of the fake stuff.

The basic idea was good, but Nimbus made a few crucial mistakes that doomed the whole concept. The machine and horn they used was wonderful. According to a fella I corresponded with who was in the room with it, it sounded incredible. The problem was that they chose to record it in much too large of a hall, and they used a proprietary multi-channel system that never achieved any degree of market saturation. Without proper multi-channel decoding, the direct sound of the phonograph got buried in an ocean of room reverb. I've heard that these records sound much better when you resolve the multi-channel mix.

The nail in the coffin for Nimbus was some of the recordings they chose... They released electrical recordings played acoustically on a machine designed to play acoustic records... stuff like Beecham's Magic Flute. Compared to a regular transcription, the Nimbus transfers sounded like a mess, and people assumed that they all sounded that bad.

Unfortunately, most engineers got the idea that acoustic playback was responsible for the failure of Nimbus's Grande Voce series. They went back to doing it the old way, and didn't learn anything from Nimbus's experiment.

See ya
Steve

 

[Doc Sarvis]

One of my favorite 78 transfers (for performance, not sound) is the Fried Mahler 2 recording, now on Naxos. How do you think that it compares for sound quality with some of the best you've done/heard?

 

[bigshot]

I'm afraid I haven't heard that recording...

The transfers I'm most proud of are the Walter Walkure, my ragtime collection and Handel's concerti grossi op. 6 by Adolph Busch. Those are three completely different types of recordings though. The Walkure was an amazingly lifelike pressing. All I had to do was achieve the right EQ balance and it sounded amazing. The ragtime transfers were from acoustic recordings, so I had to come up with a whole different set of techniques to squeeze the most out of them. The Busch set was a once in a lifetime thing... I stumbled across a complete set of 25 records in a thrift shop for $15. The only other complete set I know of is in the collection of Busch's widow! I had to come up with a way to eliminate the rumble of the laminated Columbia pressings and reduce the surface crackle without losing the body of the recording and the delicate harpsicord continuo.

It's hard to know whether a transfer is good unless you're familiar with the sound of the original 78 release. Otherwise, you don't know whether poor sound is a result of the remastering, or whether it's built into the recording itself. Recording quality depended on the particular session engineers, where it was recorded, whether it was a master take or a dub, the condition of the metal parts and/or how good a grade of shellac was used for the pressings. 78 collectors have their own world to figure out all this stuff!

It seems like transferring a record to CD would be a pretty simple process, but it requires a good ear for balances and the ability to make the correct judgement calls.

There are two basic philosophies of restoration, each with its own advatages and drawbacks.

The most basic is the non-interventionist approach. This is the camp I am in. (I'm toward the extreme end of it in fact...) I try to make my transfers sound as much like the records as possible. I don't attempt to sweeten or correct the judgements of the original engineers, just to remove noise to the degree that I can without impacting the sound of the music at all. I use impulse noise reduction more than digital smoothing filters. I feel that careful equalization can do more to make a recording sound good than digital sweetening. I always leave a little bed of surface noise so the recording doesn't end up feeling dead in the quiet passages.

On the other end of the spectrum is David Dutton. He has a considerable amount of experience in audio production and uses his sweetening techniques to improve the sound of the original 78s. He'll use digital reverbs to synthesize stereo, strives to remove all surface noise, and smooths out the sound using digital filters. His goal is to update the sound of the old recordings, not to just present them as they are.

Mark Obert Thorne and Ward Marston lean toward the non-interventionist side, but they use a little bit more noise reduction than I do. When you work for a major label, you need to be a little more flexible in your approach than a small label like mine does. They do excellent work, and their musicological research and knowledge of the history of the field are tops. Mark recently started using the CEDAR system... I use a combination of Macintosh based software packages.

You'll find a wide variety of approaches to restoration... each transfer engineer has his own particular tastes, and that's reflected in their work. Like any other field, there are good craftsmen and there are hacks. If you keep an eye on the fine print in the booklets, you'll figure out who is who.

See ya
Steve

 

[Vicious Tyrant]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot The sound of acoustic recordings on CD is nothing compared to the way they sound on an acoustic Victrola. I have two acoustic phonographs, and the sound of Caruso on them is uncanny. It makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up, it's so present and real. In fact, I had my suitcase phonograph at Starbucks one afternoon, and a person walked onto the patio from the street "looking for the person who was singing". They didn't even realize it was a recording.

Wow, if its really that good, I need to make an effort to find something like this and give it a listen.


Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot This provides a direct immediacy and sense of reality that no digital reverb can sythesize.

Its funny you'd use the word "immediacy", b/c that's always the word I think of when I hear these old recordings. I didn't use it b/c it sounded goofy to me, but that's exactly it!


Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot Here is an example of a track I restored from a record made in 1909. Keep in mind that this record is nearly 100 years old. When I was doing the transfer and processing the sound, I referred to the way it sounded on my acoustic phonograph and tried to duplicate the sound. It's pretty darn good for 100 years old! Listen in particular to the bass drum at the beginning and end and the xylophone solo in the middle. I'd like to see more engineers use these kinds of techniques. http://www.vintageip.com/records/VIP-RP-1001Trk18.mp3

Aahh, I can't get it to play. Any tips for me?


Seriously, thanks for this response. While I appreciate that there may have been better singers back then, I can tell its something about the recording techniques that is the difference.

Is this just something that can't be imitated today, or do people like the more current methods of recording?

Is this Victrola you're talking about something that can be bought on Ebay, or is it some kind of high end thing out of the reach of mere mortals like me?

My brother lives in LA - maybe if I ever visit him, I'll see if I can arrange something with you! I'd pay for a chance to hear it, if its as good as you say.

 

[Vicious Tyrant]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot Mark Obert Thorne and Ward Marston lean toward the non-interventionist side, but they use a little bit more noise reduction than I do. When you work for a major label, you need to be a little more flexible in your approach than a small label like mine does. They do excellent work, and their musicological research and knowledge of the history of the field are tops. Mark recently started using the CEDAR system... I use a combination of Macintosh based software packages.

Whoa. I just now caught that you are talking about actually making your own stuff on your own label. How exciting. Any links to your company?

 

[calaf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vicious Tyrant Whoa. I just now caught that you are talking about actually making your own stuff on your own label. How exciting. Any links to your company?

this must be it:
http://www.vintageip.com/records/

 

[rauer]

Are you familiar with the free 78RPM collection at archive.org? Lots of old records in MP3 format. Unfortunately it's 128 CBR only, but fortunately encoded with Lame. Some of the links on that page are dead for some reason.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vicious Tyrant Aahh, I can't get it to play. Any tips for me?

Try right clicking on it and select download to hard drive. It's an MP3 file, so you should be able to play it in your MP3 player.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vicious Tyrant Seriously, thanks for this response. While I appreciate that there may have been better singers back then, I can tell its something about the recording techniques that is the difference. Is this just something that can't be imitated today, or do people like the more current methods of recording?

Well, recording was in its infancy, so there were no rules. Each label maintained a laboratory where they experimented with different shapes of horns and different kinds of diaphragms. They weren't afraid to try new things. Also, each one of the major record labels made their own phonographs, so they could tweak the recording process to suit the playback machines and they could tweak the playback machines to suit the recording process.

There are elements of acoustic recording and playback that could be applied to modern recording, but most engineers are so steeped in hifi techniques, they don't know anything about acoustic techniques. They're having to relearn everything the old timers knew... they just call it psycho-acoustics now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vicious Tyrant Is this Victrola you're talking about something that can be bought on Ebay, or is it some kind of high end thing out of the reach of mere mortals like me?

Victrolas and old records really aren't expensive. You can get a nice mahogany cabinet model for a few hundred dollars, and the records generally sell for less than a dollar apiece. When you think about it, that's a bargain for stuff from the first world war era. There are phonographs and records that are fabulously expensive, but you really don't have to spend that much to get the full experience. You'll get a chance to hear music no one has heard for over half a century. Most of these records have never been released on LP, much less CD. The nice thing is that the works in the phonographs are very simple and are built to last. If you get an old machine and fix it up, it will outlast you.

If you're interested in getting a phonograph, just scan ebay for auctions in your area, and go and try out the phonograph before bidding. This discussion board is very good for getting advice...

http://sonoraman.proboards23.com/ind...?board=general

And this page has a wealth of info on old phonographs...

http://www.garlic.com/~tgracyk/

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vicious Tyrant My brother lives in LA - maybe if I ever visit him, I'll see if I can arrange something with you!

No problem... I often take my suitcase Victrola out to a local Starbucks and sit on the patio with my pup and play old records. Lots of fun.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rauer Are you familiar with the free 78RPM collection at archive.org? Lots of old records in MP3 format. Unfortunately it's 128 CBR only, but fortunately encoded with Lame. Some of the links on that page are dead for some reason.

This page is THE site on the internet for this type of music. Amazing stuff.

http://www.dismuke.org/

See ya
Steve

 

[Vicious Tyrant]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot Victrolas and old records really aren't expensive. You can get a nice mahogany cabinet model for a few hundred dollars, and the records generally sell for less than a dollar apiece. When you think about it, that's a bargain for stuff from the first world war era. There are phonographs and records that are fabulously expensive, but you really don't have to spend that much to get the full experience. You'll get a chance to hear music no one has heard for over half a century. Most of these records have never been released on LP, much less CD. The nice thing is that the works in the phonographs are very simple and are built to last. If you get an old machine and fix it up, it will outlast you. If you're interested in getting a phonograph, just scan ebay for auctions in your area, and go and try out the phonograph before bidding. This discussion board is very good for getting advice... http://sonoraman.proboards23.com/ind...?board=general And this page has a wealth of info on old phonographs... http://www.garlic.com/~tgracyk/

Oh craaaap.....

I'm getting that feeling as when I first visited head-fi for the first time. Thinking, ooooh a new thing to spend money on!

Seriously, I have always loved those old recordings and I could really imagine myself heading in this direction. I enjoy opera, but I LOVE those old recordings. I found a CD just called Heldentenore at B&N and it had this old recording of someone named Hermann Winklemann singing something from Lohengrin and it really almost made me tear up.

Its the first track here: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...852645-9077559

^Don't know if that long address will work, but I don't know how to edit it into a hyperlink.

Look, I'm in no way qualified to judge the quality of an opera singer, but it just sounded so real and sad and I don't know...just beautiful. I can honestly say it gave me a new appreciation of Wagner. That's no exaggeration at all....

I especially like the music with just a piano playing along. It puts the music in a new light for me.


Anyway, if I were to look into buying an old player, is there any guidance anyone out there could give me about what to look for and what to not look for?

Crap, I've got that raised blood pressure feeling I get when I'm facing an impending purchase.... My wife will be thrilled

This whole forum is awesome!

 

[PSmith08]

If that's the B&N I'm thinking of, then that one is a great place to find some of the more obscure stuff. Borders has its moments, and a decidedly larger classical selection; however, B&N really manages to keep a very good selection of the less well-known stuff and opera in stock. Between the two, it's hard not to find what you want.

I have noticed that B&N is a mite slow on the SACDs; however, they make up for it. I have found that for older stuff, B&N has some of the off-the-beaten-path stuff. TIS Music also seems to carry the Opera d'Oro catalog, and a lot of old stuff finds its way there.

 

[Vicious Tyrant]

Yeah, its probably the one you're thinking of. And you're right: Borders has the bigger selection, B&N has slightly more unusual stuff.

I don't know if you were here when the classical shop on the square closed (Can't remember the name right off hand), but they had a nice selection - but they closed a couple years back when the owner got tired of it. But, he donated his stuff to the IU library (which lets me take stuff out, as a community member

)


Duh, but what's SACD?

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vicious Tyrant Anyway, if I were to look into buying an old player, is there any guidance anyone out there could give me about what to look for and what to not look for?

Some general tips are...

External horn machines... the kind you see with the dog listening to them... are generally quite expensive. Recently, importers from India have started to sell brass reproductions made from old suitcase phonographs from the 60s. These are referred to as Crap-o-phones because they sound like crap and they fall apart. If you see a brass horn and a price tag in the low three figures, it's almost certainly a fake. Avoid these like the plague.

http://www.oldcrank.com/articles/cra...-o-phones.html

There are two types of phonographs... designed to play the two types of records... acoustic and electrical. Acoustic phonographs are what play the stuff you probably want- records from 1905 to 1925. They're the most common too. The phonographs designed to play electrical records are usually called Orthophonic or VivaTonal, depending on the brand. They cost much more because they have exponential horns and multiple springs.

Victrola is the brand to look for. Parts are easily available, and they were the best sounding around. The best entry level Victrola is the VV-XI (known as Victor the Eleventh).

http://www.victor-victrola.com/VV-XI%20PHOTOPAGE.htm

It's a cabinet model about chest high with two springs and an Exhibition sound box. These are usually made of mahogany, and they literally made millions of them. You should be able to find one in good condition for between $300 and $400. (unless you live on the west coast where phonographs cost $100 or $200 more than on the east coast.) A Caruso record played on this machine will be loud enough to be heard a block away!

The way to tell if it is in good shape is to wind the phonograph up and time how long it takes to spin down. It should go for at least six minutes. If you hear bumping in the spring, or if the handle turns without winding it up, the motor needs repair (very expensive). Odds are any phonograph you find will need the soundbox rebuilt, but you can do that easily yourself with a kit from APSCO (antique phonograph supply company)...

http://www.antiquephono.com/victor.htm

It's important to know that not all phonographs play all kinds of records... Edison phonographs play only Edison records, and Victor and Columbia don't play Edison. You will probably want a Victor or Columbia because most opera was on those labels.

Another option is a suitcase phonograph. The best models are the VV-50, designed to play acoustic records...

http://www.victor-victrola.com/VV%2050%20PHOTOPAGE.htm

Or the VV-2-65, designed for electrical records...

http://sonoraman.proboards23.com/ind...ead=1121023230

Check out Tim Gracyk's site linked above. He has a lot of info there.

Here is a picture of my pup with my Victor VV-2-65 suitcase Victrola.

See ya
Steve

 

[PSmith08]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vicious Tyrant Yeah, its probably the one you're thinking of. And you're right: Borders has the bigger selection, B&N has slightly more unusual stuff. I don't know if you were here when the classical shop on the square closed (Can't remember the name right off hand), but they had a nice selection - but they closed a couple years back when the owner got tired of it. But, he donated his stuff to the IU library (which lets me take stuff out, as a community member ) Duh, but what's SACD?

SACD is a newish hifi format. Its claim to fame is surround sound. Also most SACDs are done in DSD, which is touted as a really high-res format. All the new RCA Living Stereo releases are done in SACD hybrid, which has a plain Redbook CD layer. Unless one has SACD equipment (and, possibly, a surround setup), they are just very well-mastered CDs.

I remember the shop to which you refer, but I was an infrequent customer when it was open. (Now "Caveat Emptor" bookstore and Roberts Photo on Kirkwood are different stories

) I always want to go to Arte Nova CDs, just to see what they have; however, I can never get up there to do so.