The ultimate analogue LP - yours for 2,500 pounds

[Andrew Clarke]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2013/may/25/pete-hutchison-interview-new-vinyl-recording?

The reader comments are even more interesting than the article.

Andrew Clarke
Canberra

[William Sommerwerck]

"Andrew Clarke" wrote in message
news:240e25da-8bb3-4f68...@googlegroups.com...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2013/may/25/pete-hutchison-interview-new-vinyl-recording?

> The reader comments are even more interesting than the article.

I used to have a huge pile of audiophile LPs. Two years ago I sat down and
listened to some of them, to get a handle on what they "really" sounded like.
My conclusion? Most were euphonic, not truly accurate. I piled them up and
took them to a local store, where I received over $600 in store credit.

"Still not fully convinced, I ask Hutchison if his products are for
audiophiles only; or would the average listener be able to make out the
difference in sound quality? "Anyone could tell," he says. To prove his point,
he places one of the Bach LPs on to a turntable and lowers the needle [sic!].
Across a gap of more than half a century, Johanna Martzy's violin begins to
play. It's not only the music that's extraordinary: the sound is warm,
textured, gorgeously nuanced. We sit in silence for a few moments, marvelling
at the clarity. Save for a few little crackles here and there, it's perfect."

Hutchinson's belief, that a recording should be an artistic creation in and of
itself, without any necessary regard for the original, live sound, is an
assault on the very concept of high fidelity. When you play back good
recordings on good equipment, you are hearing the work of people who, for the
past 70 years, have been trying to remove any sense of an intermediary between
the listener and the performance. Hutchinson's work is an affront to their
efforts.

I would suggest that anyone who believes his recordings (which I assume are
dubbed from commercial LPs!) represent any sort of "perfection" listen to the
best multi-ch SACDs and judge for themselves. I find amusing that Linn,
arguably the most arrogantly/adamantly pro-analog company in the world makes
absolutely superb multi-ch SACDs, the sound of which actually resembles that
of a live performance. (Linn is also selective in whom it records, so you
almost always get good performances.)

[Gerard]

William Sommerwerck <grizzle...@comcast.net> typed:

> a live performance. (Linn is also selective in whom it records, so
> you almost always get good performances.)

Aren't all record companies selective?

[William Sommerwerck]

"Gerard" wrote in message
news:2cf39$51a1fd35$54686658$12...@cache1.tilbu1.nb.home.nl...
William Sommerwerck <grizzle...@comcast.net> typed:

>> Linn is also selective in whom it records,
>> so you almost always get good performances.

> Aren't all record companies selective?

Record labels specializing in audiophile recordings tended (and still tend) to
be smaller companies without the resources to pay for the best artists.
(Mercury was a rare exception, but only a few of its artists would be
considered absolutely top-rank -- eg, Antal Dorati.) They tended to make
recordings simply to achieve good sound, even if the performance was sometimes
sub-par.

Linn is not unique. 2L, AliaVox, BIS (and others I can't think of at the
moment) are all audiophile labels with generally excellent performances.

[David Fox]

At the risk of sounding blasphemous to audiophiles/vinylphiles, vinyl
doesn't sound more "musical" to me - it sounds more like vinyl. It
sounds compressed and rolled-off - often euphonically so, but rolled-off
all the same.

The audiophile set is aging and there are very few younger entrants. I
believe a tautological mindset has taken hold. The goal is no longer
"what is the best audio reproduction?" It has become "what sounds most
like what I like and/or what I know?" These people came of age during
the LP era and this has become cemented as their sonic benchmark. By in
large, they prefer vinyl to digital because it sounds like vinyl. Ditto
for tubes vs solid-state, etc. Whenever these topics come up, many
wizened audiophiles haul out horrible early digital and solid-state
examples, the overblown hype of "perfect sound forever", etc. Those
examples and arguments are now over 30 years old. The bottom line is
that a good digital rig sounds more like live music than an LP/tube
setup does. If you want something sweet and pretty to listen to while
you dim the lights and pour yourself a glass of wine, that's fine as
long as you truly understand what it is and what it isn't.

DF

[Mort]

Hi,

Regardless of what the LPs sound like, he is comparing apples and
oranges. He knocks CDs and equates them with MP-3. However, MP-3 is a
sad example of technology, throwing away most of the music to save
memory and hten trying to guess what was removed and restoring it. MP-3
is NOT CD quality music. Why not compare his LPs with a good quality CD
book spec recording. That would be fair.

Mort Linder

[Mark S]

On May 26, 12:18 pm, David Fox <davidfox2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> At the risk of sounding blasphemous to audiophiles/vinylphiles, vinyl
> doesn't sound more "musical" to me - it sounds more like vinyl.  It
> sounds compressed and rolled-off - often euphonically so, but rolled-off
> all the same.

Well said.

As a musician, I would say that CDs sound the way live music sounds.
LPs sound the way LPs sound.

[O]

In article <51a2ab33$0$20195$607e...@cv.net>, Mort <mo...@cloud9.net>
wrote:

> Andrew Clarke wrote:
> >
> > http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2013/may/25/pete-hutchison-interview-new-vin

> > yl-recording?
> >
> > The reader comments are even more interesting than the article.
> >
> > Andrew Clarke
> > Canberra
> >
>
> Hi,
>
> Regardless of what the LPs sound like, he is comparing apples and
> oranges. He knocks CDs and equates them with MP-3. However, MP-3 is a
> sad example of technology, throwing away most of the music to save
> memory and hten trying to guess what was removed and restoring it. MP-3
> is NOT CD quality music. Why not compare his LPs with a good quality CD
> book spec recording. That would be fair.

MP3 can approach CD quality music. Most people would be hard in a
blind test to tell a high bitrate MP3 from CD. But if you think MP3
throws away music, then so does CD, as SACD has an audible advantage
over CD.

-Owen

[maready]

On May 26, 8:40 am, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
wrote:

> "Andrew Clarke"  wrote in message
>

> news:240e25da-8bb3-4f68...@googlegroups.com...http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2013/may/25/pete-hutchison-interview-...

> I would suggest that anyone who believes his recordings (which I assume are
> dubbed from commercial LPs!) represent any sort of "perfection" listen to the
> best multi-ch SACDs and judge for themselves.

If you read the article, it explains that Mr. Hutchinson runs a pop
record/CD company that is distributed by EMI and that he has used his
clout to access EMI's original materials in order to remaster the
Martzy Partitas from the beginning, using only analog and tube
equipment throughout the process.

Or as his website puts it:


>>>>> —
Officially Sanctioned EMI ALL VALVE Heritage pressings mastered
from the first generation analogue master tapes.
—
Cut in true monaural using 1950's Lyrec / EMI valve tape machines
and Ortofon DS522 mono cutter head.
—
Hand-crafted sleeve artwork faithfully recreated using a vintage
letterpress procedure.
—
Released in strictly limited, individually – numbered editions of
300.
—
Featuring iconic 'Holy Grail' recordings by the most revered
classical performers. <<<<<<

I can think of worse things to do with the profits from running a
boutique pop/rock record label. Whether anyone is willing to shell out
for these artifacts is another matter ... Htey look beautiful, though!

http://www.theelectricrecordingco.com/

[Mort]

Again, probably apples and oranges. Most MP-3 that I have come across
are 128, hardly "high bitrate". Yes, some of the SACDs in my collection
sound somewhat better than their CD counterparts, but SACDs are
extremely limited in their availability as compared with standard CDs.
MP-3 may have made sense economically when memory was quite expensive,
but memory has become so cheap now. Again, marketing considerations do
play a major role.

By the way, beware of SACDs from such companies as Praga, which sell
alleged SACDs that sound exactly like their CD counterparts = not very good.

Mort Linder

[Oscar]

On May 26, 6:39 pm, O wrote:
>
> MP3 can approach CD quality music.  Most people would be hard in a
> blind test to tell a high bitrate MP3 from CD.  But if you think MP3
> throws away music, then so does CD, as SACD has an audible advantage
> over CD.

A few days ago I received an email from Decca Classics plugging the
Mastered For iTunes release of the Solti Ring, with prominent
placement of quotes by Paul Moseley and Philip Siney.

'In realising the Solti centenary edition of this famous Wagner Ring
recording, we've taken great care to get as close as possible to the
sound intended by the original — and legendary — Decca recording team.
We're delighted that we were able to use a source of higher-bit-depth
than CD; it's a revelation how Mastered For iTunes handles this high-
quality input, and the stunning result puts us as close as we can be
to the incredible and renowned singers and musicians whose
performances are so vividly captured here.'
— Paul Moseley, Music Director, Decca Classics

'At last! Mastered For iTunes is as good as pulling up a chair beside
me in the studio. Every nuance in detail and sonic colour gleaned from
the restoration of these old Decca treasures can now be enjoyed.'
— Philip Siney, Chief Audio Engineer, Decca Classics

[weary flake]

Andrew Clarke <andrew...@canberra.edu.au> wrote:

> http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2013/may/25/pete-hutchison-interview-new-vinyl

> -recording?
>
> The reader comments are even more interesting than the article.

Vinyl may be a substance, not a format, but with the science
of alchemy it can be rendered into gold.

[John Wiser]

"weary flake" <weary...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:wearyflake-6A3BF...@news.giganews.com...

I always thought it was sales which did that. Live and learn!

jdw

[Mort]

The audio Blu-ray disc in the big box is supposedly mastered in 24 bit,
from the thusly re-mastered tapes, as the original master tapes are now
unusable.

Mort Linder

[William Sommerwerck]

> MP3 can approach CD quality music. Most people would be

> hard[-pressed] in a blind test to tell a high bitrate MP3 from CD.

Several years ago, Wilson Audio demonstrated its ultra-expensive speakers
using MP3 sources. No one (apparently) noticed.

I think that if you know what to listen for -- specifically, the grainy,
spatially flat quality -- you should be able to spot MP3 without anything to
compare it to.

[William Sommerwerck]

> By the way, beware of SACDs from such companies as Praga,
> which sell alleged SACDs that sound exactly like their CD
> counterparts = not very good.

An SACD is an SACD. Whether it sounds better than a CD is beside the point.

By the way, I've heard at least one dreadful SACD that was taken from a
CD-format source.

[William Sommerwerck]

I used to have the Solti "Ring" on my iRiver jukebox -- in uncompressed WAV
format. There was plenty of room on the 20GB drive.

[Gerard]

Mort <mo...@cloud9.net> typed:

>
> By the way, beware of SACDs from such companies as Praga, which sell
> alleged SACDs that sound exactly like their CD counterparts = not
> very good.
>

That's not necessarily so.
Some CD counterparts sound very good.
An example:
http://www.classicstoday.com/review/stunning-falla-from-a-suspicious-source/?search=1

[weary flake]

"Gerard" <ghen_nosp...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Mort <mo...@cloud9.net> typed:
> >
> > By the way, beware of SACDs from such companies as Praga, which sell
> > alleged SACDs that sound exactly like their CD counterparts = not
> > very good.

What Praga is accused of doing is reissuing their CDs as SACD in
inferior sound to the original CDs, by adding fake stereo, etc.

> That's not necessarily so.
> Some CD counterparts sound very good.
> An example:
> http://www.classicstoday.com/review/stunning-falla-from-a-suspicious-source/?s
> earch=1

But was the original in mono? David Hurwitz is in favor of
fake stereo, so I gather.

[William Sommerwerck]

> What Praga is accused of doing is reissuing their CDs as SACD in
> inferior sound to the original CDs, by adding fake stereo, etc.

Which would be very bad, of course.

I have one Praga SACD, of Dohnanyi playing and conducting his works. It is an
early real-stereo EMI recording, and has decent sound, considering the source.
(Shortly after buying it, I found a review of the mono edition in "High
Fidelity".)

> But was the original in mono? David Hurwitz is in favor
> of fake stereo, so I gather.

I have no strong objection to fake stereo, //if// it is of the
sum-and-difference phasing type (a la Orban) that can be completely removed by
switching to mono -- and this is revealed on the package. I do object to
adding reverb to mono recordings.

Of course, the best solution to the problem of the lack of "spaciousness" in
mono recordings is the use of a hall synthesizer playing through //separate//
speakers to the side and rear.

[Alan Cooper]

"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in
news:ko02s1$l00$1...@dont-email.me:

>> What Praga is accused of doing is reissuing their CDs as SACD in
>> inferior sound to the original CDs, by adding fake stereo, etc.
>
> Which would be very bad, of course.
>
> I have one Praga SACD, of Dohnanyi playing and conducting his works.
> It is an early real-stereo EMI recording, and has decent sound,
> considering the source. (Shortly after buying it, I found a review of
> the mono edition in "High Fidelity".)

Concerning this notorious Praga issue, see the review at

http://www.amazon.com/Ern%C3%B6-Dohn%C3%A1nyi-Variations-Konzertst%C3%
BCck-Concerto/product-reviews/B0017TZ8ZK

or http://tinyurl.com/nf2j4je

Also

http://audaud.com/2008/12/erno-dohnanyi-variations-on-a-nursery-song-
konzertstuck-piano-concerto-no-2-in-b-minor-erno-dohnanyi-pianoroyal-
philharmonicsir-adrian-boult-janos-starker-cellophilharmonia-
orchestrawalt/

or http://tinyurl.com/oy67fhq

See also
http://www.pristineclassical.com/LargeWorks/Orchestral/PASC381.php , esp.
Mark Obert-Thorn's comment on the PC#2, obviously referring to the Praga
issue: "The recording did receive one previous CD release on an
independent label which some critics characterized as having come from a
noisy mono LP source."

'Nuff said?

AC

[weary flake]

"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:

> > What Praga is accused of doing is reissuing their CDs as SACD in
> > inferior sound to the original CDs, by adding fake stereo, etc.
>
> Which would be very bad, of course.
>
> I have one Praga SACD, of Dohnanyi playing and conducting his works. It is an
> early real-stereo EMI recording, and has decent sound, considering the
> source.
> (Shortly after buying it, I found a review of the mono edition in "High
> Fidelity".)
>
>
> > But was the original in mono? David Hurwitz is in favor
> > of fake stereo, so I gather.
>
> I have no strong objection to fake stereo, //if// it is of the
> sum-and-difference phasing type (a la Orban) that can be completely removed
> by
> switching to mono -- and this is revealed on the package.

Doremi, Hanssler, Praga, Urania, etc., keep their sometimes use
of fake stereo a "secret" from the prospective consumer, much
less refer to it as something that could possibly be undesired.

> I do object to
> adding reverb to mono recordings.

I've read here about some LP issues in the 1950s that were
'remastered' by playing the 78s, tapes or whatever the source in an
echoey stairwell or hall with a microphone at the other end to capture
the result, a la the Ormandy Scheherazade LP that was recalled because
there was a barking dog outside the room along with the music.

I've got an AS Disc CD that I suppose has heavy reverb added, so
that the pops and ticks have long echo tails.

> Of course, the best solution to the problem of the lack of "spaciousness" in
> mono recordings is the use of a hall synthesizer playing through //separate//
> speakers to the side and rear.

Yes, the "problem" should be entirely left to the consumer:
let the listener screw around with the sound after purchasing
a recording, if desired, but leave the real sound un-intervened
with in the packaged product.

[Gerard]

weary flake <weary...@hotmail.com> typed:

I don't know. Is there a mono Three-cornered Hat recording by Ansermet on Decca?
(I only know about a stereo recording.)

[O]

In article <51a2bbc5$0$20237$607e...@cv.net>, Mort <mo...@cloud9.net>
wrote:

> >>
> >> Regardless of what the LPs sound like, he is comparing apples and
> >> oranges. He knocks CDs and equates them with MP-3. However, MP-3 is a
> >> sad example of technology, throwing away most of the music to save
> >> memory and hten trying to guess what was removed and restoring it. MP-3
> >> is NOT CD quality music. Why not compare his LPs with a good quality CD
> >> book spec recording. That would be fair.
> >
> > MP3 can approach CD quality music. Most people would be hard in a
> > blind test to tell a high bitrate MP3 from CD. But if you think MP3
> > throws away music, then so does CD, as SACD has an audible advantage
> > over CD.
> >
> > -Owen
> >
> Again, probably apples and oranges. Most MP-3 that I have come across
> are 128, hardly "high bitrate". Yes, some of the SACDs in my collection
> sound somewhat better than their CD counterparts, but SACDs are
> extremely limited in their availability as compared with standard CDs.
> MP-3 may have made sense economically when memory was quite expensive,
> but memory has become so cheap now. Again, marketing considerations do
> play a major role.

My point is that the CD is not the ne plus ultra of recorded sound, and
if you discount MP3 as inferior, then you've probably got to lump in CD
quality as inferior also.

-Owen

[William Sommerwerck]

>> I have one Praga SACD, of Dohnanyi playing and conducting his
>> works. It is an early real-stereo EMI recording, and has decent
>> sound, considering the source. (Shortly after buying it, I found
>> a review of the mono edition in "High Fidelity".)

> Concerning this notorious Praga issue, see the review at

> http://tinyurl.com/nf2j4je

I have not listened to the piano concerto. So kill me.

[David Fox]

"MP3" encompasses everything from indifferently-ripped 128kbps tracks to
carefully-converted 320kbps tracks. The source material matters too.
If you are ripping a mono historical recording at 320kbps, the MP3 file
may be as large as the resulting (lossless) FLAC file. Some MP3's are
indistinguishable form CD files, especially in special circumstances
(e.g. listening through smart phones or listening in the car).

CD (16-bit/44.1) is not the ultimate format. There are higher-resolution
formats (including DSD/SACD) that can reveal more if there's more to
reveal. The latter phrase is the key. It's source-material-dependent
and listening-context dependent. Whether the marginal benefit is worth
the marginal cost is a personal decision.

DF

[Alan Cooper]

"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in news:ko0961$rcc
$1...@dont-email.me:

Hardly a capital offense, but several lashes with a wet noodle for
characterizing the sound as "decent" without listening to it first :-)

AC

[William Sommerwerck]

"Alan Cooper" wrote in message
news:XnsA1CDA19098C56am...@209.197.15.254...

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. :-)>>

[Mort]

Alan Cooper wrote:
> "William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:ko02s1$l00$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>>> What Praga is accused of doing is reissuing their CDs as SACD in
>>> inferior sound to the original CDs, by adding fake stereo, etc.
>>
>> Which would be very bad, of course.
>>
>> I have one Praga SACD, of Dohnanyi playing and conducting his works.
>> It is an early real-stereo EMI recording, and has decent sound,
>> considering the source. (Shortly after buying it, I found a review of
>> the mono edition in "High Fidelity".)
>
> Concerning this notorious Praga issue, see the review at
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Ern%C3%B6-Dohn%C3%A1nyi-Variations-Konzertst%C3%
> BCck-Concerto/product-reviews/B0017TZ8ZK
>
> or http://tinyurl.com/nf2j4je
>
> Also
>
> http://audaud.com/2008/12/erno-dohnanyi-variations-on-a-nursery-song-
> konzertstuck-piano-concerto-no-2-in-b-minor-erno-dohnanyi-pianoroyal-
> philharmonicsir-adrian-boult-janos-starker-cellophilharmonia-
> orchestrawalt/
>
> or http://tinyurl.com/oy67fhq

My terrible praga "SACD" was of S. Richter". I threw it out.

Mort LinderP>

[Mort]

O wrote:
> My point is that the CD is not the ne plus ultra of recorded sound, and
> if you discount MP3 as inferior, then you've probably got to lump in CD
> quality as inferior also.

A classic non sequitir, a play on words. Most CDs sound much better than
most MP-3 recordings.

Mort Linder

[Mort]

1) Do a side-by-side comparison test, and hear any differences. The
human ear and brain readily adjust to diverse sounds.

2) Many, if not most, recording buyers have less than optimum music
systems, ad in business it is often the number of buyers that counts.

Mort