On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 16:15:07 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , Don Pearce
wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 12:45:33 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , Don Pearce
wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 10:07:53 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:
[snip]

The real question, though, is what - if any - such alterations may
be an 'improvement' when it comes to something like the more
'scratchy' old EMI recordings.


Well, I suppose you try a few by ear to see how it goes. I don't envy
you a command line interface for this job though? The graphic
environment of Audition makes the whole thing a good deal more
intuitive.

But it brings me back to my main question, which I've left unsnipped
above. I am wondering if others have already experimented and formed a
view wrt what kind of alteration may be systematically beneficial for
various classes of material?


I thought I had covered that. Yes I've done exactly that, but I would
say the results were not uniformly good.

That addresses my specific point of interest more directly. I've had the
impression that there does tend to be a 'label balance' which often
distinguishes pre mid 1970s EMI from Decca, for example. Here I'm focussing
on the spectral response differences which seem to me to often make the EMI
more forward in the few kHz region but lacking in low bass compared with
Decca.

So your view is that any such general tendency varies so much in detail
from example to example that there isn't a single alteration that might be
useful as an option for an 'EMI sound'? That is one of the points I've been
pondering. One reason for this I outline below.


I think maybe there isn't a label balance, but it is quite possible
that there is a mastering engineer balance. I can quite imagine a busy
chap just winding the settings to where he usually does, Provided the
cutting room didn't send the result back to him with little yellow
arrow stickers all over it, he'd just move on to the next.

Using my method I found that it
was a bad idea to go beyond about half of th shortfall for any frequency
band. Beyond that, an unpleasant degree of unnaturalness overwhelmed
things.

[snip]

The problem here is that if you try and recover the bass on vinyl, you
very quickly discover the joys of groove warp and rumble.

I'm not interested here in altering what I hear on LP. Indeed, one of the
things that prompted my wondering about this is that I keep having the
impression that - for EMI in particular - there is a difference in spectral
balance between their LP and CD issues of some (if not many) works.

Indeed, I've been wondering if they used to 'tweak' what was cut to LP in a
way that does this, but haven't (always) been taking that into account for
later CD re-issues. I am thinking of materal from many years ago.


Ok, I see what you're doing now.

d

In article , Don Pearce
wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 16:15:07 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:


Indeed, I've been wondering if they used to 'tweak' what was cut to LP
in a way that does this, but haven't (always) been taking that into
account for later CD re-issues. I am thinking of materal from many
years ago.


Ok, I see what you're doing now.

I can give an example of this in terms of three 'box sets'.

1) EMI Set of 30 discs of works by Vaughan Williams.

2) The Decca 50 box

3) The new (to me) Mercury Living Presence 51CD box

I'd say that if you listen to various discs from each you do tend to end up
feeling each 'box' (i.e. label or set of engineers) have their own 'sound'
differences from the others.

To my ears, the best in terms of response and imaging is the Decca. Good
spectral balance, good 'distance' and direct/reverb balance. The Mercury
does, indeed, have 'presence'. But that shows in both a good way (clean
images) and a bad way (emphasis on the presence region and a bit too
'close'). The EMI can sound 'relaxed', but often lacks LF compared with the
Decca. And often seems to me to as if they players were using metal strings
rather than gut.

This isn't clear cut, and I'm just making a generalisation that has many
exceptions. Some of the earliest EMI recordings can sound much better. e.g.
Some in the Steinberg EMI box set from the late 1950s and early 1960s. And
an early EMI of works by Prokofiev conducted by Malko. But for a lot of the
time EMI recordings do seem to have a harsher string sound in comparison,
and lack LF.

Yet my old LPs of some of the same works don't show this to the same
extent. Making me wonder if those making the transfers to CD have
overlooked some stage in the original process to LP that alters the
response. This can't be inherent to LP replay because if I make a CDDA
standard digital copy of the LP it retains the sound from the LP, and
doesn't sound like the CD in such cases.

One specific idea that came to mind is as follows.

That those making the EMI recordings used monitors that has dip in their
crossover region, so balanced with a peak on what was taped that
compensated. Yet those making transfers to LP set up their systems in such
a way that this peak was corrected. This could happen without those
involved being aware of the reason why the chosen arrangements 'worked OK'.
But then mean later people doing the CDs would not pick this up.

I note that Mercury make a point of saying they have done to transfers to
CD 'with no alterations'. That sounds fine until you realise that the
results may well have benefitted from some. e.g. Because LP replay may add
a 'bump' to the LF response, and tapes may have had less bass than
otherwise would have been included. (I'm ignoring the problem that some
Mercury CDs are actually clipped! :-) So leaving the gain alone isn't
always ideal if you didn't set it right in the first place.... )

BTW Annoyingly for those into 'hifi' etc, the Mercury box set has little or
no info on details of recording locations. May say 'UK' and the month
without identifying explicitly where, when, who, etc. Some of these details
were on the leaflets of the individual CDs, but are omitted for the box.
Whereas the Decca set has a booklet that gives details of the recording
venues, dates, and staff.

FWIW The sox equalizer and bass settings I mentioned a while ago are my
first guess as to what might tame/improve the poorer EMI CD transfers. But
I've not yet experimented.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 12/02/2012 09:32, Jim Lesurf wrote:


FWIW The sox equalizer and bass settings I mentioned a while ago are my
first guess as to what might tame/improve the poorer EMI CD transfers. But
I've not yet experimented.


Does strike me as bizarre that such apparently cherished recordings
suffer at the point of conversion. I mean, how hard can it be?

Having said this, the Amazon reviews (only two) of your new medley
appear glowing:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mercury-Livi.../dp/B005XBA9Y8

I am wondering, and without wanting to bring on escalation, if the
transfer from analogue to digital is at least part of the reason some
people prefer LPs?

Rob

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 09:32:38 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , Don Pearce
wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 16:15:07 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:


Indeed, I've been wondering if they used to 'tweak' what was cut to LP
in a way that does this, but haven't (always) been taking that into
account for later CD re-issues. I am thinking of materal from many
years ago.


Ok, I see what you're doing now.

I can give an example of this in terms of three 'box sets'.

1) EMI Set of 30 discs of works by Vaughan Williams.

2) The Decca 50 box

3) The new (to me) Mercury Living Presence 51CD box

I'd say that if you listen to various discs from each you do tend to end up
feeling each 'box' (i.e. label or set of engineers) have their own 'sound'
differences from the others.

To my ears, the best in terms of response and imaging is the Decca. Good
spectral balance, good 'distance' and direct/reverb balance. The Mercury
does, indeed, have 'presence'. But that shows in both a good way (clean
images) and a bad way (emphasis on the presence region and a bit too
'close'). The EMI can sound 'relaxed', but often lacks LF compared with the
Decca. And often seems to me to as if they players were using metal strings
rather than gut.

This isn't clear cut, and I'm just making a generalisation that has many
exceptions. Some of the earliest EMI recordings can sound much better. e.g.
Some in the Steinberg EMI box set from the late 1950s and early 1960s. And
an early EMI of works by Prokofiev conducted by Malko. But for a lot of the
time EMI recordings do seem to have a harsher string sound in comparison,
and lack LF.

Yet my old LPs of some of the same works don't show this to the same
extent. Making me wonder if those making the transfers to CD have
overlooked some stage in the original process to LP that alters the
response. This can't be inherent to LP replay because if I make a CDDA
standard digital copy of the LP it retains the sound from the LP, and
doesn't sound like the CD in such cases.

One specific idea that came to mind is as follows.

That those making the EMI recordings used monitors that has dip in their
crossover region, so balanced with a peak on what was taped that
compensated. Yet those making transfers to LP set up their systems in such
a way that this peak was corrected. This could happen without those
involved being aware of the reason why the chosen arrangements 'worked OK'.
But then mean later people doing the CDs would not pick this up.

I note that Mercury make a point of saying they have done to transfers to
CD 'with no alterations'. That sounds fine until you realise that the
results may well have benefitted from some. e.g. Because LP replay may add
a 'bump' to the LF response, and tapes may have had less bass than
otherwise would have been included. (I'm ignoring the problem that some
Mercury CDs are actually clipped! :-) So leaving the gain alone isn't
always ideal if you didn't set it right in the first place.... )

BTW Annoyingly for those into 'hifi' etc, the Mercury box set has little or
no info on details of recording locations. May say 'UK' and the month
without identifying explicitly where, when, who, etc. Some of these details
were on the leaflets of the individual CDs, but are omitted for the box.
Whereas the Decca set has a booklet that gives details of the recording
venues, dates, and staff.

FWIW The sox equalizer and bass settings I mentioned a while ago are my
first guess as to what might tame/improve the poorer EMI CD transfers. But
I've not yet experimented.


I sense pain. This is all stuff that they should have been able to
sort out at source. It's going to be a lot of work to find how to
group the records into piles with similar requirements.

d

In article , Don Pearce
wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 09:32:38 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:
[big snip]

FWIW The sox equalizer and bass settings I mentioned a while ago are my
first guess as to what might tame/improve the poorer EMI CD transfers.
But I've not yet experimented.


I sense pain. This is all stuff that they should have been able to sort
out at source.

I agree. In some cases I'm pretty confident that this *has* been dealt with
correctly, and the transfers done with care. Equally, I have a distinct
feeling that in other cases it hasn't been done so well.

The Decca re-issues generally seem excellent to me. Not yet really sure
about the Mercury box as I've not had enough chance to listen to more than
a few discs. The EMI problem seems more common to me, alas.

It's going to be a lot of work to find how to group the
records into piles with similar requirements.

At present I'd focus on EMI and do it in two stages.

Firstly, experiment when I next find a suitable disc.

Then try any settings from that on similar future EMI discs to see if a
'typical' alteration tends to help or not.

It only takes a short time to apply the filtering and generate a temporary
file which has been 'corrected' (sic, maybe). It may well be a waste of
time, but I will probably give it a try simply out of curiousity.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article om, Rob
wrote:
On 12/02/2012 09:32, Jim Lesurf wrote:


FWIW The sox equalizer and bass settings I mentioned a while ago are
my first guess as to what might tame/improve the poorer EMI CD
transfers. But I've not yet experimented.


Does strike me as bizarre that such apparently cherished recordings
suffer at the point of conversion. I mean, how hard can it be?

It can be quite hard for what experimenters know as the calibration
problem. e.g. In these cases the original setup used to balance the
recording may have had a non-flat response to 'match' what ended up on LP
after the recording had passed though all the stages after recording.
Sometime one part of the chain may not know what the others are doing. And
"Send re-enforcement, we are going to advance" becomes "Send three and
fourpence, we are going to a dance." ;-

Having said this, the Amazon reviews (only two) of your new medley
appear glowing:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mercury-Livi.../dp/B005XBA9Y8

Yes. And I've enjoyed what I've heard thus far. Although I do wonder to
what extent people are more impressed by the 'in yer face' presence than in
the result being a convincing representation of the instruments in their
acoustic enviroment. For that, the Decca recordings seem better to me. But
as yet I've only heard a few of the discs from the Mercury box, so am also
relying on having some of the earlier single CD issues.

I am wondering, and without wanting to bring on escalation, if the
transfer from analogue to digital is at least part of the reason some
people prefer LPs?

That is what I wonder about. In particular if the 'master tapes' (or
whatever is appropriate) were balanced to end up sounding good on LP
(having been transferred via a process that further altered the balance*.

And with USA recordings there is also the CBSssssss problem... ;-

This effects would mean a 'source' that might sound different on the CD if
an equivalent adjustment were not made for CD transfers or modern equipment
not being like the kit of decades ago.

It is certainly the case that I have some LP+CD examples were the CD is
clipped or peak compressed and the LP is not. But this is usually a 'pop'
problem caused by the obsession with loudness. That said, some Mercury CDs
seem to be clipped - which seems to be a misjudgement of level.

In some cases I do have both the LP and the CD, so may also compare them.
However that does add the issue of old discs and a replay system that isn't
totally flat!

If it were not that the Decca example sound so alike LP - CD I'd wonder if
the EMI examples were because the LPs I have are simply worn 'smoother' by
years of replay. However I may know more given some time and experiment. Or
I may well decide it isn't something I can even diagnose, let alone partly
fix! Oh well, the music is enjoyable, regardless. :-) it is just that
I've become curious about this, so wondered if anyone else had experimented
already.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
When I get a chance I'll experiment with this and see if anything
emerges. But Don's comments do chime with my feeling that this may vary
too much. Although I have the feeling that a fairly simple common
alteration might be useful for some old EMI reissues on CD. It may well
be that I'm just hearing the effects of messy multi-micing, mic
resonances, etc, and so impractical to deal with. But I am wondering,
for example, if a dip in the few kHz region may make some of the poorer
examples sound better.

Big snag on multi-mic recordings is each individual mic will be EQ'd to
give the best results for the job it's doing. For a start, you'd hack all
the bass off a spot mic if the source has no bass end. A vocal mic will
likely have a slight lift either side of round about 5kHz to bring the
vocal slightly forward. Mics are also chosen for their individual
characteristics for the particular job they're doing. And so on.

So altering the overall frequency response even in bands is unlikely to
bring about a satisfactory improvement. Unless we're talking about a
pretty poor recording in the first place.

--
*That's it! I‘m calling grandma!

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article om,
Rob wrote:
I am wondering, and without wanting to bring on escalation, if the
transfer from analogue to digital is at least part of the reason some
people prefer LPs?

Absolutely. With LPs, it was often essential to alter the master recording
- as it simply couldn't be cut satisfactorily. No such restrictions exist
with CD. Yet most still go through a mastering process. I'd rather have
the recording exactly as the original engineer (and artists) had heard and
approved. Not messed about with by others.

--
*With her marriage she got a new name and a dress.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 13:57:45 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article om,
Rob wrote:
I am wondering, and without wanting to bring on escalation, if the
transfer from analogue to digital is at least part of the reason some
people prefer LPs?

Absolutely. With LPs, it was often essential to alter the master recording
- as it simply couldn't be cut satisfactorily. No such restrictions exist
with CD. Yet most still go through a mastering process. I'd rather have
the recording exactly as the original engineer (and artists) had heard and
approved. Not messed about with by others.

There is also the factor of the uneven frequency response of the
cutter. If you simply transfer the cutting master to digital, it won't
sound much like what was transferred to the wax. It really does need
to be a whole new process, starting from scratch.

d

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
wrote:
When I get a chance I'll experiment with this and see if anything
emerges. But Don's comments do chime with my feeling that this may
vary too much. Although I have the feeling that a fairly simple common
alteration might be useful for some old EMI reissues on CD. It may
well be that I'm just hearing the effects of messy multi-micing, mic
resonances, etc, and so impractical to deal with. But I am wondering,
for example, if a dip in the few kHz region may make some of the
poorer examples sound better.

Big snag on multi-mic recordings is each individual mic will be EQ'd to
give the best results for the job it's doing. For a start, you'd hack
all the bass off a spot mic if the source has no bass end. A vocal mic
will likely have a slight lift either side of round about 5kHz to bring
the vocal slightly forward. Mics are also chosen for their individual
characteristics for the particular job they're doing. And so on.

Yes, I appreciate that. It is one of the reasons I'd not expect to be able
to 'cure all ills'. But that doesn't mean no improvement at all is ever
possible. And bear in mind that one of the reasons for my interest is the
feeling that the overall spectral balance on the EMI LPs differs from on
CD. It seems more plausible *that* difference might be correctable to a
useful extent. Particulary given the lower noise floor, etc, of the CD
medium.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html