Beethoven Pf. Sonatas w. Schnabel (Naxos)
Edward A. Cowan
Beethoven's piano sonatas and other piano music on individual CDs. The
first to be issued, Naxos Historical 8.110693, contains the three
sonatas of Op.2. The transfers are by Mark Obert-Thorn.
This evening, I undertook to compare three CD reissues of these
recordings, as follows:
EMI CHS 7 63765 2, an eight-CD set of the thirty-two piano sonatas in
transfers by Keith Hardwick, done at Abbey Road Studios where the
sonatas had been recorded in the 1930's.
Pearl GEMM CDS 9083, a two-CD set, volume one of five volumes containing
the thirty-two sonatas and the other solo piano works that Schnabel had
recorded for HMV before WWII. (See below.) This volume contains sonatas
1-6 and also sonatas 19 and 20, these works dating from the time of the
others but not published until a few years after they had been composed.
The transfers are by Seth B. Winner Sound Studios Inc.
Naxos 8.110693 (as above).
I listened systematically, movement by movement, to these three
reissues, using Sonata No.1 in F-minor, Op.2, no.1, as the basis for
this comparison. (The performance itself is a classic.) The EMI is a
technological disaster, being so overprocessed that Schnabel's Bechstein
piano (the instrument he favored in all his recordings for HMV during
the pre-WWII period) sounds almost like a marimba. The 78rpm surface
noise is almost totally eliminated, and with that the upper partials of
the sound of his instrument are likewise gone. I should hope that this
CD set does not represent the original work of Keith Hardwick, who did
make some excellent transfers for LP, notably several recordings by Sir
Thomas Beecham that were reissued by EMI on the World Records label back
in the 1970's. I strongly suspect that some after-the-fact reprocessing
of these transfers had gone on at EMI, and that these transfers are not
truly representative of Hardwick's efforts. I did not compare the CD
edition with the Angel COLH LP edition published in the 1970's, though I
do have it. I have not heard the Seraphim LP edition that came after the
COLH.
The Pearl and Naxos issues are much better than the EMI. The Pearl has
more prominent 78rpm surface noise but also slightly more depth of bass
and "realism" than the Naxos, but otherwise I find the transfers on
these two labels comparable. Though I still prefer the Pearl, anyone
acquiring these indispensable recordings in the Naxos edition will have
something to cherish for a very long time, just as I have cherished the
(flawed) EMI reissues on LP and CD before the Pearl sets appeared. The
Pearl edition of Schnabel's Beethoven solo piano recordings seems to be
out-of-print, but it is well worth seeking out. The five volumes are as
follows:
Vol.1 (Pearl GEMM CDS 9083, two CDs) Sonatas 1-6, 19-20, Rondo in A, WoO
49, and Rondo a capriccio in G, Op.129.
Vol.2 (Pearl GEMM CDS 9099, two CDs) Sonatas 7-13.
Vol.3 (Pearl GEMM CDS 9123, two CDs) Sonatas 14-18, Six variations in F,
Op.34, and Bagatelles, Op.33.
Vol.4 (Pearl GEMM CDS 9139, two CDs) Sonatas 21-27, "Eroica" Variations,
Op.35, Fantasia in G-minor, Op.77, Bagatelle in A-minor, "Für Elise,"
WoO 59.
Vol.5 (Pearl GEMM CDS 9142, three CDs) Sonatas 28-32, Diabelli
Variations, Op.120, Batalles, Op.126.
(NOTE: The history of the making of these recordings may be gleaned from
the superb annotated discography of Artur Schnabel by David Bloesch in
_ARSC Journal_ Vol.10, no.1-3, 1986, issued Nov. 1987.)
--E.A.C.
Matthew B. Tepper
the Pearl box of the piano concerti (with Sargent), which also faces direct
competition in those works from MO-T transfers on Naxos. The Pearl,
however, has an additional PC #4, live from Columbus under Izler Solomon.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Top 3 worst UK exports: Mad-cow; Foot-and-mouth; Charlotte Church
Thomas Wood
Matthew B. Tepper <oy兀earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Xns92B4CD9C565...@216.148.53.99...
> Thanks very much for the three-way comparison. Of course, there remains
> the Pearl box of the piano concerti (with Sargent), which also faces
direct
> competition in those works from MO-T transfers on Naxos. The Pearl,
> however, has an additional PC #4, live from Columbus under Izler Solomon.
I'd also be interested in hearing how the Naxos transfers compare to those
on Dante-Lys (though I'm not likely to replace them -- they're
satisfactory).
Tom Wood
wkas...@attbi.com
"Thomas Wood" <woo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:yk3v9.9729$VJ5.5...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> I'd also be interested in hearing how the Naxos transfers compare to those
> on Dante-Lys (though I'm not likely to replace them -- they're
> satisfactory).
The Naxos represent an improvement over the Dante set, which sound, by
comparison, unacceptably overfiltered and dull.
However, like EAC, I prefer the Pearl transfers; while O-T's Naxos transfers
reduce the high frequency portion of the surface noise, they do so at the
expense of some of the piano's sound. And because so much of the surface
noise on the Pearl set is relatively high frequency, it's a lot easier for
me to ignore than on the Naxos, where it's more of an integral part of the
piano sound.
BTW, if anyone knows where I can get a copy of the Pearl Volume 2, please
let me know (I have a dub, but I'd prefer the real thing, which seems to be
OOP).
Bill
--
====================
William D. Kasimer
wkas...@attbi.com
wkas...@quincymc.org
Stephen W. Worth
Cowan <eac...@anet-dfw.com> wrote:
> The EMI is a
> technological disaster, being so overprocessed that Schnabel's Bechstein
> piano (the instrument he favored in all his recordings for HMV during
> the pre-WWII period) sounds almost like a marimba. The 78rpm surface
> noise is almost totally eliminated, and with that the upper partials of
> the sound of his instrument are likewise gone.
I'm currently working on the Diabelli and Eroica variations, so I am
pretty familiar with the way these sound on 78. It isn't just the
"Mount Everest" of the piano literature, it is a difficult nut to crack
for a person attempting a transfer too...
These records were released by subscription in sets of around seven
records apiece. The pressings were all done in the UK by His Master's
Voice. Unfortunately, the quality of British shellac was well below the
quality used in the US. There is a solid mass of thousands of tiny
clicks per minute, even on the cleanest copies of the records. I
suspect that the noise is caused by the formation of tiny microscopic
cracks in the brittle surface of the shellac. US shellac doesn't have
this problem. That's why the Schnabel piano concertos, which were
released in the US generally sound so much better than the sonatas.
(The only sonata issued in the US on high grade shellac was
Hammerklavier, which unfortunately wasn't the best of Schnabel's
cycle.)
EMI would definitely have the edge, because it presumably has access to
the original metal parts. I don't know why their version turned out so
bad. I have only heard the LP issue (and the Dante CD which is taken
from the EMI LP) and the main problem with this transfer is
compression. All of the dynamics are lost... each note has the same
relative volume, making it very tiresome to listen to. That might be
what makes it sound like a marimba to you.
The records I heard sound a bit muffled too, but that isn't from over
processing. It's an aural illusion created by the complete lack of
surface noise in the metal parts. The piano was a little way back from
the mike in these recordings, so there isn't a lot of high frequency
information, except in the very loudest parts. It seems strange, but
these particular recordings sound a bit brighter and more present when
a little bit of the high frequency element of the surface noise is
left. If the EMI CD wasn't so highly compressed, the simple addition of
a little high frequency his at the edge of the range of hearing would
help them a lot.
I've been speaking with an engineer who "thinks outside of the box"
when it comes to the perception of recorded sound, and he has opened my
ears to several of these acoustical tricks that make historical
recordings sound better. I am trying to incorporate some of them into
my transfer of Diabelli and Eroica. I've put in about 250 hours of work
on Diabelli. I threw out the transfer and started over three times. I
think now I have reached a set of techniques that work pretty well with
"UK crackle". I'll be curious as to how it stacks up when I'm all done.
It will definitely have surface noise, but the noise will be at a low
level and relatively steady. Hopefully, the naturalness and dynamics of
the piano tone will draw the listener into the recording and make them
ignore the surface noise.
See ya
Steve
--
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
CLASSIC MUSIC FROM ORIGINAL 78s, EXPERTLY TRANSFERRED TO CD!
VIP Records: Dance Bands - British Swing Bands - Opera
Check out the free MP3 downloads at http://www.vintageip.com/records
Stephen W. Worth
Thomas Wood <woo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> I'd also be interested in hearing how the Naxos transfers compare to those
> on Dante-Lys (though I'm not likely to replace them -- they're
> satisfactory).
The Dante release is clean, but quite compressed dynamically. You don't
get a feel for Schnabel's coloration of the notes like you do in the
original 78s. Dynamically, the 78s go from a full roar down to a
whisper... very expressive pedalling.
Nicolas Hodges
>The
>Pearl edition of Schnabel's Beethoven solo piano recordings seems to be
>out-of-print, but it is well worth seeking out.
I believe that it's actually that there are distribution problems in the
US: they're listed by MDT and are in lots of shops over here.
--
Nic
I reserve the right to use irony and obscure forms of humour without warning
Edward A. Cowan
> BTW, if anyone knows where I can get a copy of the Pearl Volume 2, please
> let me know (I have a dub, but I'd prefer the real thing, which seems to be
> OOP).
According to Nicolas Hodges (see his message in this thread), the Pearl
edition of Schnabel's Beethoven piano music is still available in UK.
Try ordering from MDT...
--E.A.C.
Dan Koren
>
> EMI would definitely have the edge, because it
> presumably has access to the original metal parts.
>
Not necessarily. Remember metal
corrodes -- shellac does not.
dk
Samir Golescu
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Edward A. Cowan wrote:
[accurate transfer comparison snipped]
> I listened systematically, movement by movement, to these three
> reissues, using Sonata No.1 in F-minor, Op.2, no.1, as the basis for
> this comparison. (The performance itself is a classic.)
I am afraid I will have to take exception from this opinion. However
good/exceptional much of Schnabel's Beethoven, I find his opus 2 no 1, in
(i), (iii), and (iv) at least, terribly unexpressive and rushed almost
toward caricature. Beethoven might have written Allegro molto (if memory
serves) and indicated Alla breve but that doesn't necessarily imply that
the eight-notes throughout (i) have to be just as fast as sixteen-notes in
a 4/4 Allegro. Much of Beethoven's superb harmonic/thematic detail is lost
in the mad rush.
regards,
SG
Nicolas Hodges
Samir Golescu
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Nicolas Hodges wrote:
> >I am afraid I will have to take exception from this opinion. However
> >good/exceptional much of Schnabel's Beethoven, I find his opus 2 no 1, in
> >(i), (iii), and (iv) at least, terribly unexpressive and rushed almost
> >toward caricature. Beethoven might have written Allegro molto (if memory
> >serves) and indicated Alla breve but that doesn't necessarily imply that
> >the eight-notes throughout (i) have to be just as fast as sixteen-notes in
> >a 4/4 Allegro. Much of Beethoven's superb harmonic/thematic detail is lost
> >in the mad rush.
>
> a) What do you think of Kocsis's?
Never heard it. Why?
> b) Who do you like?
Nobody 100%. I guess I like the (younger) Kempff's tempo choices and
phrasing better than Schnabel's. Not enough fire though. People who play
all the sonatas are careful not to "give too much" in this "youthful"
opus, which actually bothers me. When he composed it, Beethoven surely
"put all of himself" into it. In a nutshell, I think that instead of
having performed the first sonata like a "young" Beethoven, still much
"influenced by Haydn" etc. I would prefer hearing it played as if
Beethoven died after writing it. Would some Levy be hidden out there?( :
regards,
SG
william d. kasimer
> I believe that it's actually that there are distribution problems in the
> US: they're listed by MDT and are in lots of shops over here.
Thanks for pointing this out - I couldn't find them on MDT's site
until I realized that the label is listed as Pavilion, rather than
Pearl...
Bill
Nicolas Hodges
>
>On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Nicolas Hodges wrote:
>
>> >I am afraid I will have to take exception from this opinion. However
>> >good/exceptional much of Schnabel's Beethoven, I find his opus 2 no 1, in
>> >(i), (iii), and (iv) at least, terribly unexpressive and rushed almost
>> >toward caricature. Beethoven might have written Allegro molto (if memory
>> >serves) and indicated Alla breve but that doesn't necessarily imply that
>> >the eight-notes throughout (i) have to be just as fast as sixteen-notes in
>> >a 4/4 Allegro. Much of Beethoven's superb harmonic/thematic detail is lost
>> >in the mad rush.
>>
>> a) What do you think of Kocsis's?
>
>Never heard it. Why?
Because it's very fast (as I recall). But of course completely different
(no loss of detail, though it flashes past...).
>> b) Who do you like?
>
>Nobody 100%. I guess I like the (younger) Kempff's tempo choices and
>phrasing better than Schnabel's. Not enough fire though. People who play
>all the sonatas are careful not to "give too much" in this "youthful"
>opus, which actually bothers me. When he composed it, Beethoven surely
>"put all of himself" into it. In a nutshell, I think that instead of
>having performed the first sonata like a "young" Beethoven, still much
>"influenced by Haydn" etc. I would prefer hearing it played as if
>Beethoven died after writing it. Would some Levy be hidden out there?( :
I know exactly where you're coming from. For me it is the scale and
'speed' of the energy which is different from later sonatas, and most
certainly not the intensity. I am talking specifically about that
sonata, though the same could be said to a slightly lesser extent about
other early Beethoven sonatas, most of which are less 'serious'.
vladimir
detail. That frequently bothers me, but in this case (Op. 2/1), I rather
like what he does. At least, I like what I think he's trying to do, and the
performance sounds lively to me, not scrambled.
Perhaps you'd like Richter's performance of Oct.10, 1076, on Music & Arts
CD-946. He doesn't sound like he's "afraid to give too much", that's for
sure. My notes on this say "Wow! Very exciting, technique to burn."
However, Richter, even in excellent form, isn't to everyone's taste, and
this is vastly different from Kempff's (later) version.
Another version I particularly like is Perahia's. I think it's one of his
best recordings.
- Phil Caron
william d. kasimer
I just did so - thanks!
Bill
Brendan R. Wehrung
Barton Wimble once told me he applied an electron microscope to the groove
surface and found that the flocking EMI added as a filler apparently stuck
to the stampers, so that the longer a stamper was used the higher the
buildup of noise--it was literaqlly pressd into the disc. That's why some
EMI 78s were quieter than others, it all depended on how new the stamper
was for that pressing run.
Brendan
TransfrGuy
Schnabel transfers and other versions, I thought it might be appropriate to
quote from my "Producer's Note" for the Naxos release in order to explain what
I did and why:
"Because the original discs rarely turn up in any form other than British
pressings, the problem of how to deal with the higher-than-average level of
surface crackle inherent in HMV shellac has lead previous transfer engineers
down one of two paths. One way has been to use heavy computerized processing
to keep the noise at a minimum. While this made for a relatively quiet result,
many critics felt that the piano's tonal qualities had been sacrificed to an
unacceptable degree. Another approach went to the opposite extreme, filtering
minimally and even apparently boosting the upper mid-range frequencies in an
attempt to add a percussive brilliance to the piano tone. Although this
produced a clearer result than the first method, many listeners were put off by
the relentless onslaught of surface noise that this approach to filtering and
equalization exacerbated.
"For the current transfers, I have tried to strike a balance between these two
positions. In order to start with the quietest available source material,
multiple copies of British, French and American pressings have been assembled,
and I have chosen the best sides from each. Computerized declicking (although
not denoising) has been employed not only to remove clicks and pops, but also
to reduce surface crackle to a minimum without harming the upper frequencies.
My approach to filtering has been to stop at the point at which more than just
surface hiss was being affected; and my equalization has aimed for a warm, full
piano tone which I believe is more representative of the original recordings.
"Finally, I have linked the movements of each of the sonatas by retaining the
surface noise on the original discs. With recordings of a basically higher
noise level such as the present ones, I feel that once the listener has become
acclimated to the surface hiss, much of it can be mentally screened out. It is
counterproductive to be reminded of it at the start of each new movement, as
happens in those editions in which movements are faded in and faded out."
I stick by my EQ and filtering decisions because, for my tastes, I feel that
the result is something both more listenable and true to the original recorded
sound than other attempts. I hope others will be of the same opinion when they
get to hear this series.
Mark Obert-Thorn
Martin
price in the UK?
Their website is singularly uninformative.
william d. kasimer <wkas...@quincymc.org> wrote in message
news:f69b4194.02102...@posting.google.com...
Philip Peters
Thomas Wood wrote:
And what about the Arkadia?
Philip
>
>
>
Stephen W. Worth
<trans...@aol.com> wrote:
> Computerized declicking (although
> not denoising) has been employed not only to remove clicks and pops, but also
> to reduce surface crackle to a minimum without harming the upper frequencies.
The one nice thing about HMV crackle is that it isn't really crackle...
It's made up of lots and lots of tiny clicks. If one is patient enough,
it is possible to declick out at least 80% of the crackle. If the piano
tone is natural enough behind the remaining 20%, the ear can easily
screen it out.
Stephen W. Worth
<ck...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
> Barton Wimble once told me he applied an electron microscope to the groove
> surface and found that the flocking EMI added as a filler apparently stuck
> to the stampers, so that the longer a stamper was used the higher the
> buildup of noise--it was literaqlly pressd into the disc. That's why some
> EMI 78s were quieter than others, it all depended on how new the stamper
> was for that pressing run.
I've heard about six different theories on this. I really don't know
which one is correct. But based on my personal experience, I tend to
think it has to do with the quality of the shellac itself. I have
hundreds of HMV records in pristine condition, and they all have the
exact same degree of crackle. Also, David Hall indicates in The Record
Book International Edition that UK HMV pressings are uniformly good,
which makes me think that the crackle occurred over time-- it wasn't
something inherent in the pressings from the beginning. It's consistent
throughout the side from beginning to end, which indicates that it has
nothing to do with wear patterns or mold infestation. The only thing
that leaves is some sort of aging process in the shellac.
Edward A. Cowan
> I stick by my EQ and filtering decisions because, for my tastes, I feel that
> the result is something both more listenable and true to the original recorded
> sound than other attempts. I hope others will be of the same opinion when
> they get to hear this series.
Thanks for your clarification. As I stated in my review, anyone
purchasing your transfer of the Sonatas, Op.2, will have a decent,
honest transfer of some classic, indispensable recordings. The problems
of dealing with the issued shellacs must have been truly enormous.
Do you have any idea whether EMI still has the original metal parts for
these recordings? And if they do, can they remove the impressed "gunk"
from the plates to make clean vinyl pressings once more for (yet
another!) transfer to CD?
--E.A.C.
TransfrGuy
>Do you have any idea whether EMI still has the original metal parts for
>these recordings? And if they do, can they remove the impressed "gunk"
>from the plates to make clean vinyl pressings once more for (yet
>another!) transfer to CD?
I tend to think they do not have the metal parts for these, or at least for
many of them. If you listen through to the transfers on the EMI set, they
sound as though British HMV shellacs were used for many of the transfers and
then heavily CEDAR denoised. EMI's policy during the '50s was to destroy 78
rpm metal parts once they had been used for transfer to LP, and these may have
been among the casualties.
Mark O-T
TransfrGuy
>The one nice thing about HMV crackle is that it isn't really crackle...
>It's made up of lots and lots of tiny clicks. If one is patient enough,
>it is possible to declick out at least 80% of the crackle.
I find that it depends on the type of HMV pressing involved, and the extent to
which it has been exposed to humidity. There are some HMVs which respond well
to CEDAR declicking, and you'd hardly know how crackly they were beforehand.
Others, however, still sound somewhat noisy even after declicking. You never
know how they'll turn out until you try them.
Mark O-T
Stephen W. Worth
Cowan <eac...@anet-dfw.com> wrote:
> Do you have any idea whether EMI still has the original metal parts for
> these recordings? And if they do, can they remove the impressed "gunk"
> from the plates to make clean vinyl pressings once more for (yet
> another!) transfer to CD?
The problem isn't dirt as much as it is wear... But based on what I
heard on the EMI release, I would guess that the metal parts are in
pretty good shape, because their release is basically clear with no
trace of UK crackle. That would indicate to me that their transfer
comes from clean metal parts... it's just compressed like crazy. The
trick is just convincing them to lay off the digital manipulation and
get them to release a straightforward, natural sounding transfer.
booba
Hi Mark,
I have heard the Pearl and EMI versions along with the current Naxos
Historical releases, and I have voted using my ears and with my
dollars for the Naxos CDs, as I feel comfortable with the balance and
compromises that you have employed. You are absolutely right when you
say it is a matter of taste, so YMMV.
I have always been impressed with your work for the Naxos Historical
series (my first one was Heifetz playing Tschaikovsky's violin
concerto) and hope you will continue to 'rescue' more good music for
all of us.
Regards,
Ee Bin
Singapore
Stephen W. Worth
<trans...@aol.com> wrote:
> I find that it depends on the type of HMV pressing involved, and the extent to
> which it has been exposed to humidity. There are some HMVs which respond well
> to CEDAR declicking, and you'd hardly know how crackly they were beforehand.
> Others, however, still sound somewhat noisy even after declicking. You never
> know how they'll turn out until you try them.
In the waveform, you can see exactly what makes up the crackle... It's
teeny little nicks in the curve. It's pretty easy to smooth over them
one at a time, but it's a very time consuming process. I can see how it
might occasionally fall "under the radar" of automatic declickers.
Stephen W. Worth
<trans...@aol.com> wrote:
> I tend to think they do not have the metal parts for these, or at least for
> many of them.
I have a question that you might know the answer to... If they were
going to throw the metal parts away after striking an LP master, why
didn't they just press vinyl protection copies off the metal parts
before throwing them away? It seems to me that it would be a lot easier
to archive vinyl disks than metal parts, and they wouldn't be
engineering themselves into a corner.
Edward Jasiewicz
"TransfrGuy" <trans...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021028184916...@mb-fc.aol.com...
...
> "Finally, I have linked the movements of each of the sonatas by
retaining the
> surface noise on the original discs. With recordings of a
basically higher
> noise level such as the present ones, I feel that once the
listener has become
> acclimated to the surface hiss, much of it can be mentally
screened out. It is
> counterproductive to be reminded of it at the start of each new
movement, as
> happens in those editions in which movements are faded in and
faded out."
Regarding this particular point, I'm glad to see someone has
finally followed my example in this clearly preferable solution
to presenting multi-movement historic recordings.
regards,
Ed Jasiewicz
Edward Jasiewicz
plenty of mistakes in interpreting which nicks in the curve are
part of the music or are actually clicks. Auto declickers leave
their own form of artifact if they're applied *at all,* granted
even if it occurs at a much less noticeable rate than CEDAR.
regards,
Ed Jasiewicz
"Stephen W. Worth" <ne...@vintageip.com> wrote in message
news:291020021051536220%ne...@vintageip.com...
Matthew B. Tepper
> In article <20021028230024...@mb-ba.aol.com>, TransfrGuy
><trans...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> I tend to think they do not have the metal parts for these, or at
>> least for many of them.
>
> I have a question that you might know the answer to... If they were
> going to throw the metal parts away after striking an LP master, why
> didn't they just press vinyl protection copies off the metal parts
> before throwing them away? It seems to me that it would be a lot
> easier to archive vinyl disks than metal parts, and they wouldn't be
> engineering themselves into a corner.
This would have required advance planning and intelligence, both of which
seem sadly to be in short supply in that industry.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Top 3 worst UK exports: Mad-cow; Foot-and-mouth; Charlotte Church
Stephen W. Worth
<oy兀earthlink.net> wrote:
> This would have required advance planning and intelligence, both of which
> seem sadly to be in short supply in that industry.
I was reading the liner notes for one of the Franklin Mint sets, and
they said that for their historical recordings, they didn't directly
transfer off the metal parts... they struck custom heavyweight vinyl
copies off of the best remaining metal parts to do their transfers. The
results they got, even before the era of digital restoration techniques
(or perhaps because of it being in that era) are consistently good.
Is there a difference in sound quality between playing the actual metal
part and playing a clean vinyl pressing off of it?
TransfrGuy
>Regarding this particular point, I'm glad to see someone has
>finally followed my example in this clearly preferable solution
>to presenting multi-movement historic recordings.
Actually, this practice goes back at least as far as Barton Wimble's In Sync
cassette transfers from the early '80s.
Mark O-T
TransfrGuy
>they said that for their historical recordings, they didn't directly
>transfer off the metal parts... they struck custom heavyweight vinyl
>copies off of the best remaining metal parts to do their transfers. The
>results they got, even before the era of digital restoration techniques
>(or perhaps because of it being in that era) are consistently good.
That wasn't entirely the case. Many of those Franklin Mint transfers were done
by Ward Marston, and in addition to vinyl pressings, he also used metal parts
supplied by the original recording companies, as well as shellac discs from his
own collection.
>Is there a difference in sound quality between playing the actual metal
>part and playing a clean vinyl pressing off of it?
It depends. Some metals are corroded and are noisier than good shellac copies.
Vinyls are only as good as the condition of the stampers they're pressed from.
Mark O-T
TransfrGuy
>Actually, it's not quite that simple: auto declicking makes
>plenty of mistakes in interpreting which nicks in the curve are
>part of the music or are actually clicks. Auto declickers leave
>their own form of artifact if they're applied *at all,* granted
>even if it occurs at a much less noticeable rate than CEDAR.
My CEDAR-2 declicker unit allows for three "bandwidth" settings (small, medium
or large clicks) and has a dial control allowing a large variation in the
intensity of settings within each band. That way, I can adjust the setting so
that it doesn't eat into a trumpet note, for example. Even at that, it does
leave some clicks behind, which I then have to deal with using a digital
editor.
Mark O-T
Matthew B. Tepper
news:20021029184854...@mb-mu.aol.com:
I recall reading that Keith Hardwick did much the same thing. Can't recall
what method Tony Griffith used to use.
Dan Koren
You like Perahia ?!? Wow!
Rx Haloperidol.
dk
vladimir
his
>> best recordings.
>>
>You like Perahia ?!? Wow!
>
>Rx Haloperidol.
>
all, every now and then you knock all readers from their chairs with a
sudden Serkin, Kempff, or Arrau recommendation! Still waiting for you to
praise something by Clara Haskil, though. - can you? :-)
- Phil
Ray Hall
You forgot to add Brendel.
<g>
Regards,
# http://www.users.bigpond.com/hallraylily/index.html
< NEW Doris Day TV series news >
VIVE LA KAREN, as endorsed by El Toro de Taree
Ray, Taree, NSW
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.404 / Virus Database: 228 - Release Date: 15/10/02
Edward Jasiewicz
not the first application of this idea, then. Also considering
Sony's recent Goldberg Variations release set of Gould (which,
like the set of Goldbergs I produced for Norvard, combines two
historic performances by the same artist in one package), I was
beginning to get a bit paranoid. It appears that sometimes the
same good ideas are discovered independently.
Now, why oh why didn't Pearl follow this pattern? This point
therefore marks an important advantage the new Naxos release of
this material has over the excellent sounding Pearl set.
May I suggest that when you get to transferring the Waldstein,
please fix the pitch drift that occurs on most copies between the
second and third movements. Also, there is a problem with Pearl's
handling of the record side change between the end of the initial
statement and the repeat of the exposition of opus 111.
regards,
-ed
"TransfrGuy" <trans...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021029184854...@mb-mu.aol.com...
Edward Jasiewicz
instead, like the restoration of the Sistine Chapel?
-ed
"TransfrGuy" <trans...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021029190121...@mb-mu.aol.com...
Dan Koren
dk
"Edward Jasiewicz" <nor...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<Ymdw9.38359$Mb3.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...