Remastered Solti Ring Cycle
David R L Porter
Anyone any thoughts on the sound quality of the latest remastering of
the Decca Ring using dehiss2 technology?
And does anyone know if there are plans to release the Britten War
Requiem in this remastering, as that was a notably hissy recording?
Many thanks.
--
Best wishes,
David.
david....@zetnet.co.uk
+ + + + + + + + + + + + +
"The greatest change in him was his discovery of God and Jesus
Christ. All religion is to me a buzzing in the ears, and I cannot
explain or even describe what happened to Malcolm. All I know is
that he was utterly sincere." (A.J.P. Taylor on Malcolm Muggeridge)
Tony Movshon
Diligent readers of this newsgroup will know that I am usually
skeptical about claims for vastly improved sound in new remasterings
of decent original source material. Having bought a number of
remasterings over the years that have been little or not at all
improved, I've been eyeing the newly remastered Solti Ring with a
mixture of avarice and suspicion.
I was recently able to find the remastered set at a price that was
compatible with my conscience (I've now bought the thing 3.25 times --
once on LP, then Rheingold again in a reprocessed and substantially
improved LP transfer done for Time-Life Records, then the whole cycle
once more on early CD, and now again on late CD). I've spent a couple
of weeks with it, and done some fairly critical A/B comparisons of the
old and new CDs.
The newly remastered version is a clear and substantial improvement
over the original CD issue. Part of this is because the original
transfer was not very well done; the balance was quite aggressively
tilted toward high frequencies, giving much of the set a steely
glitter that was less prominent on LP. As implied by the original
poster, there was also a fairly noticeable overlay of tape hiss,
though I don't find this troubling in and of itself.
The most noticeable improvements in the new set are that the steely
edge is gone from the sound, and the tape hiss has been substantially
reduced. Remarkably, the noise reduction has been done without
removing any musical content that I can detect. The sound now has a
smoother and more spacious quality (an audiophile would doubtless talk
about "soundstaging"), and I fancy also that complex textures are
generally clearer and more transparent. The improvement is most
notable, oddly, in the two middle recordings, Siegfried and
Gotterdammerung, but is easily detectable throughout the cycle.
There are other improvements as well. First, taking advantage of
longer CD playing times that are now possible, the new remastering
gets Rheingold on 2 CDs instead of 3, and rearranges the disc breaks
to interfere less with the drama (for example, Acts 2 and 3 of
Gotterdammerung are now each complete on one CD). Second, the slim box
is a definite win, and saves substantially on shelf space. Third, I am
delighted to see restored the wonderful original cover photos that
Hans Wild did for the Decca issues (in the US, London botched the
LP covers as usual).
Finally (although the attraction of the new has something to do with
it), I must say that I have been listening to the cycle with greatly
renewed pleasure, and renewed admiration for the stunning achievement
that it is.
Tony Movshon
Center for Neural Science New York University
http://www.cns.nyu.edu mov...@nyu.edu
Richard L
In article <199805240...@zetnet.co.uk>, David R L Porter
<david....@zetnet.co.uk> writes
>Anyone any thoughts on the sound quality of the latest remastering of
>the Decca Ring using dehiss2 technology?
>
>And does anyone know if there are plans to release the Britten War
>Requiem in this remastering, as that was a notably hissy recording?
>
available in time for the 1999 Aldeburgh Festival.
Richard L
Ric...@atelier48.demon.co.uk
mike gray
David R L Porter wrote:
>
> Anyone any thoughts on the sound quality of the latest remastering of
> the Decca Ring using dehiss2 technology?
>
> Requiem in this remastering, as that was a notably hissy recording?
>
> --
> Best wishes,
>
> David.
> david....@zetnet.co.uk
> + + + + + + + + + + + + +
> "The greatest change in him was his discovery of God and Jesus
> Christ. All religion is to me a buzzing in the ears, and I cannot
> explain or even describe what happened to Malcolm. All I know is
> that he was utterly sincere." (A.J.P. Taylor on Malcolm Muggeridge)
The assumption that this is a "new transfer" isn't correct - Decca used
the old digital tapes with what I presume to be new EQ and with CEDAR2
to remove tape hiss. Hundreds of hours of studio time went into
preparing the original tape-to-digit transfer in the mid-1980s. All
Jimmy Lock has done this time (and is doing now on other catalog
treasures) is a little digital manipulation. Whether it's to your own
taste is yours to judge.
Regards,
Mike Gray
Fi Magazine
Tony Movshon
mike gray <mhg...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> writes:
> The assumption that this is a "new transfer" isn't correct - Decca used
> the old digital tapes with what I presume to be new EQ and with CEDAR2
> to remove tape hiss. Hundreds of hours of studio time went into
> preparing the original tape-to-digit transfer in the mid-1980s. All
> Jimmy Lock has done this time (and is doing now on other catalog
> treasures) is a little digital manipulation.
What's the source for this information? More to the point, is it
relevant? After all, new remasterings of *anything* could be
denigrated as " ... a little digital manipulation".
David R L Porter
The message <6k85l8$gbt$1...@news.nyu.edu>
from to...@cns.nyu.edu (Tony Movshon) contains these words:
> I was recently able to find the remastered set at a price that was
> compatible with my conscience (I've now bought the thing 3.25 times --
> once on LP, then Rheingold again in a reprocessed and substantially
> improved LP transfer done for Time-Life Records, then the whole cycle
> once more on early CD, and now again on late CD). I've spent a couple
> of weeks with it, and done some fairly critical A/B comparisons of the
> old and new CDs.
I bought it on LP not long after it came out, have Siegfried and
Walkure on cassette (surprisingly good Decca tape issues) and have
just bought the CDs in Britannia Music Club's ridiculously cheap 20 ukp offer.
> The newly remastered version is a clear and substantial improvement
> over the original CD issue.
<snipped >
> The most noticeable improvements in the new set are that the steely
> edge is gone from the sound, and the tape hiss has been substantially
> reduced. Remarkably, the noise reduction has been done without
> removing any musical content that I can detect. The sound now has a
> smoother and more spacious quality (an audiophile would doubtless talk
> about "soundstaging"), and I fancy also that complex textures are
> generally clearer and more transparent. The improvement is most
> notable, oddly, in the two middle recordings, Siegfried and
> Gotterdammerung, but is easily detectable throughout the cycle.
I never heard the original transfer but the remastering is
extraordinarily good. I had intended to keep the LPs in case I ever
bought a Linn Sondeck turntable, but I think I'll be selling them
now. The most stunning improvement I think is in the high end -
Wagner's use of percussion is particularly fascinating - and the
tidying up of the low end: the first note of the cycle emerges with
shocking clarity. I also like the way notes die away.
Curiously I find the sound stage has shrunk somewhat: I suspect
because what I was hearing on the LPs was reverberation etc, that was
not part of the original sound. The orchestral sound now resembles an
ideal opera house orchestra pit, I feel, and the relationship between
instruments and voices is very good. I haven't yet heard any of the
'extras' mentioned in the notes --- Solti's muttered exhortations,
scraping chairs, the studio cat (?) --- having so far just listened
to my favourite passages (fatally easy to do with CD indexing! I plan
to listen properly right through to each opera in due course).
> There are other improvements as well.
<snipped>
All agreed.
> Finally (although the attraction of the new has something to do with
> it), I must say that I have been listening to the cycle with greatly
> renewed pleasure, and renewed admiration for the stunning achievement
> that it is.
In some ways it was for me a different cycle, so dramatic was the
sound improvement, though my CD player is a quite good one (Meridian
delta 206 through Quad amp) and my turntable and cartridge are not in
the same class. All I can say is that it's like hearing Solti's Ring
afresh all over again, and I can't wait for the rest of that Decca
vintage to be remastered the same way (roll on their Salome, I'll
happily swap it for my current Sinopoli CDs).
Thanks everyone for your comments. Inciedentally, if you haven't read
John Culshaw's 'Ring Resounding', do so as soon as possible if you
enjoy Solti's Ring. It's a history of the whole recording project,
and I'm looking forward to re-reading it through with the new Cds playing.
David
Tony is the ONLY person (well, almost the only person) whose
recommendation of a new transfer I would trust unthinkingly (because
he's generally such a skeptic about such thing?). It must actually be
an improvement. But I still ain't gonna shell out for it!
-david gable
Old 8H
On Mon, 25 May 1998 05:29:53 GMT, David <dga...@midway.uchicago.edu>
wrote:
>Tony is the ONLY person (well, almost the only person) whose
>recommendation of a new transfer I would trust unthinkingly...
Well, he certainly beat ME as regards the issue of some of the Beecham
Haydn symphonies being in real stereo; so I guess I would say Tony is
just about the only guy I would trust, too (except, of course, for
you, Gentle Reader!)
Old 8H
Old 8H
On 24 May 1998 18:19:11 GMT, to...@cns.nyu.edu (Tony Movshon) wrote:
>mike gray <mhg...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> writes:
>> The assumption that this is a "new transfer" isn't correct - Decca used
>> the old digital tapes...All Jimmy Lock has done this time
>>(and is doing now on other catalog
>> treasures) is a little digital manipulation.
>
>What's the source for this information? More to the point, is it
>relevant? After all, new remasterings of *anything* could be
>denigrated as " ... a little digital manipulation".
>
> Tony Movshon
The extensive comments by James Lock in the four paragraphs given on
the first page of the libretto for Rheingold are worth consulting: he
describes the ineffectiveness and crudity of older methods of removing
hiss, and explains that EQ and Cedar-2 have been used quite
judiciously: so it also seems to my ears. From his remarks, and the
evidence of the disks, there is almost NO direct evidence in the set
of any of the crude, overprocessing and filtering that I have
repeatedly complained about from the crummy amateurish "bootleg"
companies that have unfortunately got their claws on Cedar software
(can we surmise bootleg copies of the computer program, too?)
I looked around on the set for a SPARS code. Well, Decca/London have
been a bit coy about this. Though I did not see one on the CD box
cardboard outer jacket or the jewel case cover, or indeed on the disks
themselves (which do have the publication date, 1959) I did finally
find the code on p. 5 of the Rheingold's libretto: it says ADD.
Whether or not it is done by another analogue - to - digital transfer
is not explained, at least as far as I could determine. I do recall
that the initial process was incredibly laborious, as the session
masters were in some disarray. Nowhere is there a statement of any
kind about digital encoding resolution; no label such as "bit-mapped"
or "20 bit" or anything like that (surely a good advertising point, if
true) so, once again, not having any other info, I would guess that
the transfer has probably been re - engineered with better EQ and
computerised noise reduction from the original set of A-D transfer
tapes.
As a matter of fact, what would be wrong with that? Since the noise
platform is substantial on the master, as evident from all previous
LPs and the first CD, 16 bit audio resolution would be satisfactory,
as the sound never really cuts off, and the tape hiss serves as a
"bias" to extend the resolution on ambient decays that extend on down
to the top of the hiss platform and may be heard even 'below' it. So
would it really require an initial re-quantising of the analogue tapes
to do a good job of changing the EQ and reducing the hiss?
It seems to me that Lock's exceptionally fine, critically well- tuned,
and acoustically defensible work is in the same league as the careful
procedures employed by CBS in the Masterworks Heritage series. I have
the Rheingold in the new copy, and the rest of Solti's Ring in the
older original CD transfer. While I am not going to go out and
replace my perfectly fine earlier editions, I can hear the
differences, and do agree with Lock's explanation about uncovering
tiny nuances, background noises, and acoustical details: they are on
the CDs for all to hear.
The older transfer sounds inconsistent in many passages: I recently
listened to Siegfried all the way through and noticed the high / low
balance changing from time to time; a loss of bloom in certain scenes;
and a great difference in tape hiss over the duration of the complete
opera: for example, in exposed horn solos, there is tremendous noise
modulation, which then disappears at other times in the recording.
None of this kind of inconsistency occurs in the new Rheingold CD
transfer: it is a remarkable example of archival restoration of a
recording from the "golden era" of early stereo. Cherish it!
Yours,
Old 8H
Peter
Tony Movshon wrote:
>
> In article <3570614b...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, NOS...@NOSPAM.ARG (Old 8H) writes:
> >mike gray <mhg...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> writes:
> >> The assumption that this is a "new transfer" isn't correct - Decca used
> >> the old digital tapes...All Jimmy Lock has done this time
> >>(and is doing now on other catalog
> >> treasures) is a little digital manipulation.
> >
> > been a bit coy about this. Though I did not see one on the CD box
> > cardboard outer jacket or the jewel case cover, or indeed on the disks
> > themselves (which do have the publication date, 1959) I did finally
> > find the code on p. 5 of the Rheingold's libretto: it says ADD.
> > Whether or not it is done by another analogue - to - digital transfer
> > is not explained, at least as far as I could determine. I do recall
> > that the initial process was incredibly laborious, as the session
> > masters were in some disarray. Nowhere is there a statement of any
> > kind about digital encoding resolution; no label such as "bit-mapped"
> > or "20 bit" or anything like that (surely a good advertising point, if
> > true) so, once again, not having any other info, I would guess that
> > the transfer has probably been re - engineered with better EQ and
> > computerised noise reduction from the original set of A-D transfer
> > tapes.
>
> noting that Decca/London never actually says how many bits their
> remasterings use, nor do they stoop to the fatuous claims of DGG or
> Sony about the quality of the remasterings. Since the sound of most of
> their CD issues is very good (as indeed was the sound on their LPs), I
> see no reason to grumble. However it was done, the new transfer is
> several notches better than the old.
>
> Tony Movshon
> Center for Neural Science New York University
> http://www.cns.nyu.edu mov...@nyu.edu
Maybe Seagram will be a bit more accomodating than Polygram has been in
reference to offering some kind of "trade-in" for older Compact Disc
versions of their opera sets towards the newly remastered editions. I
am reasonably sure that such a policy could generate quite a bit of
business for Seagram, i.e. profits, since no additional royalties would
have to be paid if it's a "one-for-one" trade.
I have written three detailed letters regarding this matter to the
presidents of Polygram, including to Mr. Alain Levy (who will probably
lose his job), but I never received the courtesy of a reply from any of
them.
Tony Movshon
mike gray
> >> The assumption that this is a "new transfer" isn't correct - Decca used
> >> the old digital tapes...All Jimmy Lock has done this time
> >>(and is doing now on other catalog
> >> treasures) is a little digital manipulation.
> >
> >relevant? After all, new remasterings of *anything* could be
> >denigrated as " ... a little digital manipulation".
> >
> > Tony Movshon
>
> The extensive comments by James Lock in the four paragraphs given on
> the first page of the libretto for Rheingold are worth consulting: he
> describes the ineffectiveness and crudity of older methods of removing
> hiss, and explains that EQ and Cedar-2 have been used quite
> judiciously: so it also seems to my ears. From his remarks, and the
> evidence of the disks, there is almost NO direct evidence in the set
> of any of the crude, overprocessing and filtering that I have
> repeatedly complained about from the crummy amateurish "bootleg"
> companies that have unfortunately got their claws on Cedar software
> (can we surmise bootleg copies of the computer program, too?)
>
> been a bit coy about this. Though I did not see one on the CD box
> cardboard outer jacket or the jewel case cover, or indeed on the disks
> themselves (which do have the publication date, 1959) I did finally
> find the code on p. 5 of the Rheingold's libretto: it says ADD.
> Whether or not it is done by another analogue - to - digital transfer
> is not explained, at least as far as I could determine. I do recall
> that the initial process was incredibly laborious, as the session
> masters were in some disarray. Nowhere is there a statement of any
> kind about digital encoding resolution; no label such as "bit-mapped"
> or "20 bit" or anything like that (surely a good advertising point, if
> true) so, once again, not having any other info, I would guess that
> the transfer has probably been re - engineered with better EQ and
> computerised noise reduction from the original set of A-D transfer
> tapes.
>
Old 8H is correct in noting the differences between the new and old
digital re-dos of the Solti Ring. Since the four-track back-up tapes
were used in part to repair segments the CD masters for both the
Siegfried and Gotterdammerung the first time around, it's not surprising
that there would be differences between parts taken from the original
ZAL, 2-track tapes and those taken from the multi-track ones, which were
mixed direct-to-digital.
301 1/2 hours were taken in 1984 to restore Gotterdammerung alone. I
don't have a figure for the other three operas, but I would imagine the
time taken was proportional to their length, the number of edits, and
the state of the original analog masters.
I disagree with 8H, however, when he talks about the suitability of
Decca's original 16-bit transfer. Contrary to what he suggests, tape
hiss is an inadequate dither engine; it occurs at the wrong frequencies
and at the wrong bit levels. A process like UV-22 is better for
capturing sound from even old analog tapes at the 16-bit level.
8H (and I) will be interested to hear what BMG's Decca-like redo of
their AT tapes (using UV-22) sounds like when they're issued this fall.
20-bit transfers are even better. Talk to *any* remastering or session
engineer about this today, and they'll tell you the same thing. In
fact, a Sony producer told me just last week how big the differences
were, working on analog material from 16-inch lacquers and from mono
tape, between 16, 20 and now 24-bit SBM processing. So, too, did Decca
engineers before the studios were gutted by Polygram last September.
Mike Gray
Fi Magazine
P.S. A very careful listen to Jimmy Lock's work (via a Prism DA-1,
Meridian 518 into STAX Lamdba Pro phones - *very* revealing of low-level
detail) reveals tiny but significant swissy artifacts from the CEDAR-2
processing. Even with the best of ears and intentions, there is no free
lunch in hiss reduction - something is always lost, and something is
always added.
Old 8H
The previous exceptionally detailed and informative 'rebuttal' by Mike
seems to me to be completely judicious and correct, and totally
defensible.
After I wrote my comments, it did occur to me that UNLESS the 16-bit
tape were processed only digitally, a D-A decoding, followed by an
analog processing and 16-bit A-D conversion, might cause significantly
audible loss. One would expect that only a conversion at a higher
resolution, mapped down to 16 bits again for CD, would retain details
thus lost (some would be inaudible data alteration, but I would bet
that details of "airiness" and "soundstaging" would be changed.) So
I completely agree that mere "re-EQing" and Cedaring from the 16-bit
original A-D tapes might POTENTIALLY cause some loss, accompanying the
claimed gain, in the reprocessing. But after one full playback at
complete attention, and several other excerpted auditings of the
Rheingold, I cannot truly report a let-down that would cause me to run
out and find an old copy of 414 101-2.
As I stated, I do not hear the awful degradation of, say, an Iron
Needle "Cedar job". What is perfectly described by MG as " tiny but
significant swissy artifacts from the CEDAR-2 processing" is
occasionally audible to me, too, even on non- audiophile- grade
equipment; but much of the hiss is moderated, and overall sonic
balance improvements are the gain. I don't hear a suck- out of
frequencies down into the lower midrange (like a typical Iron Needle
travesty) or the "music played under water" effect of the DoReMi
butchering of the Heifetz/Toscanini Brahms Concerto. Thus, I
concluded that Lock et al. have done a good job in their attempt, as
has Sony with the Masterworks Heritage series.
Now, if I were RULER OF THE UNIVERSE, I would just leave the hiss in.
But if I were to turn loose a bunch of engineers with the latest gee-
whiz gear and computer programs, I would hope they would act just like
the tasteful guys at London/Decca and Sony. I can live with that.
Incidentally, the stuff about dithering, while irrelevant to many non-
engineers here, was useful, since I have not kept up with AES journals
and other pro audio publications in the last decade. The reason I do
NOT follow the audio n. g.'s and mags anymore is that they have just
totally lost touch with ordinary mortals like me, a music lover. I
don't have $53,000 to spend on some headphones. If I had the moolah,
it would go for Furtwaengler records.
Yours,
Old 8H
mike gray
And *I* agree 100% with old 8H. If I had a dollar for every bundled
CEDAR-processed CD I've heard (not to mention noise-gated and other
analog forms of noise reduction), I could leave the comfortable confines
of the employment of Uncle Sam and get on with some of the things I'd
*really* like to do.
Those of us who care about the music (and I'd like to count myself among
them) think that technique should serve art, not the other way round.
Digital technique today is very good (e.g., 20-bit) and very dangerous
(CEDAR and its cousins). Whenever I see the phrase "cleaned-up" when
referring to a new CD, I get the shivers ...
Mike Gray
Alrod
>So, too, did Decca
>engineers before the studios were gutted by Polygram last September.
>
>Mike Gray
>Fi Magazine
Forgive me for showing my ignorance, but this is the first I've heard
of that. What was lost? Did they just close the Broadhurst Gardens
recording studio or did they also gut the transfer-remastering
facilities too, in which case who's going to be doing the ADRM where?
Alrod
Matthew B. Tepper
Alrod wrote:
>
> >So, too, did Decca
> >engineers before the studios were gutted by Polygram last September.
> >
> >Mike Gray
> >Fi Magazine
>
> of that. What was lost? Did they just close the Broadhurst Gardens
> recording studio or did they also gut the transfer-remastering
> facilities too, in which case who's going to be doing the ADRM where?
You're assuming that the new bozos at Shikkergram are even going to
bother to keep the classical reissue lines.
(In case anybody hasn't caught on, "shikker" is Yiddish for "drunkard.")
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://www.deltanet.com/~ducky/index.htm
My main music page --- http://www.deltanet.com/~ducky/berlioz.htm
And my science fiction club's home page --- http://www.lasfs.org/
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GMU/CS d+ s+:+ a44 C+ U !P !L !E W++ N++ !O K- w+(++)$ !O M- !V PS+(++)
PE- Y+ PGP- t(+) 5+++ X-- R- tv+ b+++ DI+++ !D G e+++ h(+) r>++ y+>++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
mike gray
Alrod wrote:
>
> >So, too, did Decca
> >engineers before the studios were gutted by Polygram last September.
> >
> >Mike Gray
> >Fi Magazine
>
> of that. What was lost? Did they just close the Broadhurst Gardens
> recording studio or did they also gut the transfer-remastering
> facilities too, in which case who's going to be doing the ADRM where?
>
Dear Alrod -
All but a handful of staff were let go last September from Belsize Road
(tape archives, producers and remastering) My latest information is
that the tapes were being inventoried for a possible move to the
Berliner remastering facility DG runs in Hannover. This leaves Decca
with a few engineers, producers and archival personnel - others were to
be vetted and possibly hired back as private consultants (!) Similar
cuts ocurred at Philips last year, and a move of their archives to
Hannover may also be in the works.
To answer the specfic question - ADRM was a labor-intensive process as
much marketing as technical work. Don't expect anything like the same
care these days. Do expect CEDAR2 redos of old transfers (e.g. War
Requiem, etc.) to bring them up to "90s standards"
Mike
Alrod
>You're assuming that the new bozos at Shikkergram are even going to
>bother to keep the classical reissue lines.
Yes, but.....
Bronfman is coming in from Hollywood, where the back catalog of films
is generating revenue from TV, VHS and soon DVD sales. It is entirely
possible that someone may persuade him to keep repackaging old
Polygram recordings in the way that Munves hath shown unto us, and
freeze all new recording.
Mind you, the idea of present-day DG engineers understanding what
their counterparts at Decca/London were trying to do thirty years ago
is a ticklish one...they did worship at different churches of a
Sunday.
Alrod
Matthew B. Tepper
In article <3574c57f...@news.mindspring.com>,
nfna...@NOSPAMrocketmail.com spake unto the unwashed masses:
>
>>You're assuming that the new bozos at Shikkergram are even going to
>>bother to keep the classical reissue lines.
>
>Yes, but.....
>
>Bronfman is coming in from Hollywood, where the back catalog of films
>is generating revenue from TV, VHS and soon DVD sales. It is entirely
>possible that someone may persuade him to keep repackaging old
>freeze all new recording.
The way they persuaded him to keep repackaging MCA and Westminster and
whatever else they previously owned?
>Mind you, the idea of present-day DG engineers understanding what
>their counterparts at Decca/London were trying to do thirty years ago
>is a ticklish one...they did worship at different churches of a
>Sunday.
Sorry, I'm a Saturday kind of guy....