Problem with Gieseking Warner box?

[Jonathan Ben Schragadove]

Started sampling some of the discs in the new Gieseking boxed set on Warner, and on some of the 1930's tracks I'm wondering if there are issues with the remastering: an annoying ringing tone. There is a review on Amazon that describes this in more detail. Anyone else hearing things?

[Invocation]

Yes, it is pretty obvious. I am wondering if Warner will redo those problematic tracks.

[Jonathan Ben Schragadove]

Thanks for confirming. The later material that I've listened to so far sounds fine.

[Pluted Pup]

Is the ringing sound from Noise Reduction?

[drh8h]

Do you remember any specific tracks, pieces obviously afflicted? The box has not been issued yet in the U.S. If it becomes suddenly unavailable for awhile, we will know what happened. The Amazon reviewer cites discs 1, 2 and 6. The first two discs include the mostly acoustical Homochord recordings which APR issued years ago in first-rate transfers.

DH

[Jonathan Ben Schragadove]

I first became aware of it when listening to Disc 4, track 9 (Mozart, from 1936).

[George]

Who did the transfers on this set?

[drh8h]

Art et Son Studio.

[Invocation]

The ringing sound is caused by using poor quality 78s discs.

[George]

Thanks, that is good news.

[Pluted Pup]

On Sat, 03 Dec 2022 12:48:03 -0800, Invocation wrote:

> The ringing sound is caused by using poor quality 78s discs.

I don't know what the listeners are saying by "ringing" sound.
Are they just complaining about surface noise? But they say
it is a processing sound and 78 surface noise by itself doesn't
sound like ringing to me.

This amazon review doesn't say enough, I can't tell what is
being talked about, why is the Liszt Concerto unacceptable,
Presto saying it is from 1936, not from the early 1920's:

This is an early response based on sampling discs 1, 2, & 6.
Unfortunately there seems to be a fault in the production of
these discs. I'm well aware that these are very old recordings
and are bound to sound poor in comparison to Gieseking's later
recordings, but the issue I'm having both on my computer and on
my hi fi system is a digital ringing at roughly the freqency area
around and above piano middle C. I have made digital transfers of
old material myself and recall this issues as arising from some
lack of synchronisation in the DAC. Unfortunately, I don't have
the knowledge to diagnose the fault precisely. It is, however, a
fault. I've checked other historical recordings on my systems and
my ears, just to be certain that I can isolate it. There is
definitely an issue with this Warner edition. What should I do?
Will Warner recall the discs and replace the faulty ones? Since
I've sampled three discs so far and found the same fault on each
one, I'm not optimistic about the rest.

UPDATE. I started to listen to disc 3, which has the Liszt First
Piano Concerto. The sound of this is simply unacceptable for an
issue by a major company. There is considerable distortion and
that same digital ringing I noted on other discs. All of this
indicates an unbelievably sloppy job by whoever was employed to
do the transfers and a lack of checking further up the chain. I'm
surprised, because other Warner boxes, e.g. the Barbirolli, have
been excellent. I'm returning the set to Amazon and hope that
Warner will do the decent thing and bring all the discs in the
Gieseking set up to their usual high standard.

[Stefan Huber]

It really doesn't sound like a problem with the source material to me - unless the source material happens to be a low resolution digital transfer ;) To me it seems if something happened during the CD mastering phase. I can't believe that a sound engineer would approve a recording sounding this way.

[Frank Berger]

On 12/5/2022 4:58 PM, Stefan Huber wrote:
> It really doesn't sound like a problem with the source material to me - unless the source material happens to be a low resolution digital transfer ;) To me it seems if something happened during >the CD mastering phase. I can't believe that a sound engineer would approve a recording sounding this way.

Has anybody tried to contact Warner?

[drh8h]

I just, finally, received this box yesterday, so haven't listened to much, but sampled some tracks and went through disc 1. Notably, some of the Homocords on that earliest disc are the Seth Winner transfers from the previous outstanding APR issue. I am not sure why they didn't use all of Seth's work. There is not problem with any of "his" tracks. Gieseking completists need to get the APR because it includes the Brunswick recordings. The Mozart "Turkish" excerpt on disc 6 is similarly afflicted with the ringing sound. I have not the knowledge to know what the problem is, but I am guessing it occurred late in the mastering phase. As for the Liszt Concerto, what is most noticeable to me is the extremely worn condition of the first movement. I have wondered if Art & Son is limited mostly to whatever Warner has in their archives. Independents like Seth Winner, who had a Gieseking series on Pearl, and Ward Marston, who made a number of Gieseking transfers for Naxos, have access to a network of collectors and institutions and can track down the best copies from anywhere in the world. I mention this because it has happened before. In the otherwise outstanding Furtwängler complete set, the discs used by Art & Son for the Brahms 1 were in dire condition in complete contrast to the rest of the set.

Dennis H

[George]

Thanks for clarifying the above, Dennis. Could you please confirm that the Warner box does not contain his full first recoriding (1938) of both books of Debussy preludes? The amazon image shows that only Book one (minus one prelude) is included. Maybe the booklet explains why?

Thanks,
George

[drh8h]

The first book is complete: the "Sunken Cathedral" was recorded earlier. Warner presents the records more or less chronologically. If one bought the "set" in the U. S., there was an empty pocket for that piece, which was sold separately. This is mentioned in one of B. H. Haggin's record books. The second book was recorded by Columbia in NYC and is not in this set, as mentioned in the booklet. The easiest way to obtain it right now is to purchase the 2-CD APR set of WG's prewar Debussy recordings. I did not mention the APR with the Homocords also includes some unpublished sides, Bach C# Maj P&F from Bk 1 of WTC and a couple of Scarlatti sonatas, along with other unpublished recordings. Also it has the two Brunswick sides, which I suppose belong to Universal. These omissions are mentioned in the current Gramophone review by Jed Distler. I have not tried to do the math, but all of the Columbia/Sony records could be pressed onto one or at most two, cds.

[George]

Thanks again, Dennis!

[Jonathan Ben Schragadove]

Thank you, Dennis.

[Pluted Pup]

Can you describe the "ringing"? Is it surface noise, is it
noise reduction? Noise reduction can have a whiny sound.

I far prefer surface noise to noise reduction artifacts.

[drh8h]

To me it sounds like a metallic resonance. You might think your tweeter was damaged or a piece of metal vibrating. Such noises are not uncommon on distorting or worn piano recordings, but this is subtly different, higher pitched and rather disembodied from the musical sound. I am still working my way through the discs, so can't say how much is afflicted. Never throughout an entire disc, and only certain short pieces. So far, the concertos, except the worn out parts of the Liszt, and sonatas are fine. The "Emperor" presumably from master pressings, is outstandingly good. The Turkish excerpt I mentioned is really disc 5. Can't see! Items with flute, also on APR, are affected, mostly in the flute passages. Probably less than an hour's worth notably afflicted so far, but I have a way to go through the 78s. I am listening on Amphion speakers and they have a very strong treble "presence." Other models or headphones or higher listening levels than my lease permit might yield different results, maybe less so with a treble rolloff. Surface noise is strong on some tracks. Art & Son usually don't overdo the noise reduction. We need a technical expert to weigh in.

DH

[Pluted Pup]

Anyway, I bought the set. I predict I'll describe it as "that does
sound like ringing but it's hard to describe".

> Art & Son usually don't overdo the noise reduction.

You can't go by names: Is Sony's Meyer or b-sharp good?
They did a terrible job on Richter's 1960 Columbia live
recordings. Is Ward Marston good? Sony placed his name
on the terrible engineering of the Complete Rachmaninoff set.
Is Keith Hardwick good? EMI placed his name on the 1990
Schnabel set. All three sets and engineering were severely
muffled by noise reduction.

> We need a technical expert to weigh in.

We don't need the type of experts who always apologizes for
intrusive engineering. We need the types who analyzes and
explains.

(Sorry for the TD derangement syndrome)

[drh8h]

Lordy, Ward's Rachmaninoff set for RCA was thirty years ago. Reports are RCA messed with it. If you haven't heard his other work, including an ongoing Rach (one cd to go) for Naxos, you are missing a lot of the best. The Sony crowd is mostly good. They have had a few misses but acceptable, and sometimes better, esp. with lacquer-based Columbias. Keith Hardwick died years, maybe a couple decades, ago. That Schnabel set is even older than the RCA. I don't think Keith had anything to do with EMI's noise reduction during the cd era. When he retired and started working for Testament and Pearl, the surface noise reassuringly returned. As for experts, I surely am not one, and if you gathered them all in a room, I doubt there would much agreement even about the weather.

DH

[Pluted Pup]

> > > > network of collectors and institutions and can track down the best copies from anywhere in the world. I mention this because it has happened before. In the otherwise outstanding Furtwängler complete set, the discs used by Art & Son for the Brahms 1 were in dire condition in complete contrast to the rest of the set.

> > > Can you describe the "ringing"? Is it surface noise, is it
> > > noise reduction? Noise reduction can have a whiny sound.
> > >
> > > I far prefer surface noise to noise reduction artifacts.
> >
> > To me it sounds like a metallic resonance. You might think your tweeter was damaged or a piece of metal vibrating. Such noises are not uncommon on distorting or worn piano recordings, but this is subtly different, higher pitched and rather disembodied from the musical sound. I am still working my way through the discs, so can't say how much is afflicted. Never throughout an entire disc, and only certain short pieces. So far, the concertos, except the worn out parts of the Liszt, and sonatas are fine. The "Emperor" presumably from master pressings, is outstandingly good. The Turkish excerpt I mentioned is really disc 5. Can't see! Items with flute, also on APR, are affected, mostly in the flute passages. Probably less than an hour's worth notably afflicted so far, but I have a way to go through the 78s. I am listening on Amphion speakers and they have a very strong treble "presence." Other models or headphones or higher listening levels than my lease permit might yield different
> > results, maybe less so with a treble rolloff. Surface noise is strong on some tracks.
>
> Anyway, I bought the set. I predict I'll describe it as "that does
> sound like ringing but it's hard to describe".

I listened to the first 3 CDs. It sounds like ringing on a few
tracks, it is not steady but only during loud notes. It's the
worst with the beginning of the second CD with the Grieg Lyric
pieces. With the ringing only on loud notes it resembles the
sound of players with lousy speakers that are worn out or
underpowered, like some boom boxes I've tried to use playing
piano music CDs.

[Pluted Pup]

30 years ago but remains the current version. It was reissued
in the early 2000's and removed information from the booklet,
not even including recording dates.

> Reports are RCA messed with it.

But they libeled Ward Marston by only listing him as
the engineer and not listing the mastering engineer who
did the severe noise reduction.

> If you haven't heard his other work, including an ongoing Rach (one cd to go) for Naxos, you are missing a lot of the best.

Are the Naxos discs Ward Marston's original masters before
RCA ruined them or are they a different master?

> The Sony crowd is mostly good. They have had a few misses but acceptable, and sometimes better, esp. with lacquer-based Columbias. Keith Hardwick died years, maybe a couple decades, ago. That Schnabel set is even older than the RCA. I don't think Keith had anything to do with EMI's noise reduction during the cd era. When he retired and started working for Testament and Pearl, the surface noise reassuringly returned.

He was libeled by EMI, by only including his name as engineer
and not the name of the mastering engineer who applied the
"NoNoise/Cedar".

> As for experts, I surely am not one, and if you gathered them all in a room, I doubt there would much agreement even about the weather.

We need analysis and explanation from experts, the only
disagreement would be how to use the resulting information.
Mastering information is critical to the sound of a
recording.

[vhorowitz]

You might get answers from the “experts” if your posts were a bit less filled with wild conjecture and assumptions. I will answer one question. Ward Marston’s Naxos Rachmaninoff (and anything else for them) are newly transferred. Naxos has never altered what he has provided them. As far as your other statements….you pay your money and use your ears. Then perhaps if you ask nicely, some of the experts won’t be put off by your abrasive attitude and will chime in with more information.

[Oscar]

On Thursday, January 26, 2023 at 6:55:54 PM, vhorowitz wrote:
>
> You might get answers from the “experts” if your posts were a bit less filled with wild conjecture
> and assumptions. I will answer one question. Ward Marston’s Naxos Rachmaninoff (and anything
> else for them) are newly transferred. Naxos has never altered what he has provided them. As far as
> your other statements….you pay your money and use your ears. Then perhaps if you ask nicely, some
> of the experts won’t be put off by your abrasive attitude and will chime in with more information.

No, _your_ assumptions!! The Ward Marston Rachmaninov to which Pup refers is the RCA Gold Seal integrale of Rach's recordings for Victor. Previously issued on LPs in 1973, tt was spread over 10 CDs and Mr. Marston only _transferred_ the source material into the digital domain. He did _not_ turn the dials at the mastering stage. That was done by RCA house engineers, who royally screwed the pooch, butchered—butchered!–the music using the CEDAR noise reduction system, and left Marston's sterling work sounding just plain strange. Fuzzy, opaque, indistinct. Total crapola! One of the more infamous hack jobs in the history of archival restorations.

Thought you'd know that story. Guess I assumed incorrectly.

[Dan Koren]

On Thursday, January 26, 2023 at 6:55:54 PM UTC-8, vhorowitz wrote:
>
> ….you pay your money and use your ears.
>

better yet, use one's ears
before paying the money.

dk

[Dan Koren]

On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 4:05:37 PM UTC-8, drh8h wrote:
>
> As for experts, I surely am not one,
> and if you gathered them all in a
> room, I doubt there would much
> agreement even about the weather.

If all the experts are gathered in one
room the only possible outcome is a
thermonuclear reaction.

dk

[vhorowitz]

Sorry if I was unclear, but that 10 cd set is what I was referring to as well, and I know the story well. He did more than merely transfer it to the digital domain, but yes, it was royally screwed up indeed in the final mastering stage. Some people reported that a later repressing sounds different, but I’ve never been able to confirm that. The first pressings also developed an odd sort of “rot” on the discs making them unplayable. Perhaps some of us remember the VERY first RCA/BMG single CD in the early days of CDs with the 2nd and 3rd concerti (https://www.discogs.com/release/15890785-Rachmaninoff-Stokowski-OrmandyPhiladelphia-Orchestra-Rachmaninoff-Plays-Rachmaninoff-Concertos-Nos-2)….it was an unbelievable botch job…off pitch, seemingly played w/ an lp stylus…..it was quickly withdrawn and Ward was actually asked to do a replacement which was quietly substituted. I think that was his first work for them. Some of us I’m sure also remember how they goofed up one of the older Monteux sets (15 cds??) and one disc ended up about a major 3rd sharp….that Was corrected, but guess which one made it to the later (but very OOP nonetheless) 40 cd Monteux edition? Yes, the SHARP one!! And that never was corrected! Was it D’Indy? Can’t recall now.

[Al Eisner]

Have you informed Lawrence Livermoer Lab of this?
--
Al Eisner

[Dan Koren]

On Friday, January 27, 2023 at 3:48:47 PM UTC-8, Al Eisner wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2023, Dan Koren wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 4:05:37 PM UTC-8, drh8h wrote:
> >>
> >> As for experts, I surely am not one,
> >> and if you gathered them all in a
> >> room, I doubt there would much
> >> agreement even about the weather.
> >
> > If all the experts are gathered in one
> > room the only possible outcome is a
> > thermonuclear reaction.
>

> Have you informed Lawrence Livermoer Lab of this?

They've known this for a long time.
This is exactly what happened
when they assembled all the
experts at Los Alamos in
1945.

dk

[Owen Hartnett]

Uh...the 1945 bombs was the original atomic (fission) bomb. A
thermonuclear reaction is a hydrogen (fusion) bomb. Lawrence Livermore
knows this, but don't tell anyone else (shhhh....)

-Owen

[raymond....@gmail.com]

Little Boy was U235, whereas Fat Man was Plutonium. Trinity (U235) was actually more successful than both, and nobody got killed.

Ray Hall, Taree

[Owen Hartnett]

(Can't seem to edit out the quotes below. My comment not Ray's!)

> Yes, but Trinity, Little boy and Fat Man were fission bombs. Little
> Boy was a gun style (shoot a block of uranium into more uranium), where
> Fat Man used shaped charges to compress the plutonium. Thermonuclear,
> where a fission bomb was used to ignite a nuclear fusion bomb (the
> nuclear power the sun uses), and much higher megaton yields, came a few
> years after the war.
>

-Owen