Schnabel Beethoven Sonatas -- transfers
mandryka
I only have the EMI set and I’d like to get better transfers, so I am
curious about whether to get this box, or the Naxos transfers.
Pearl is too expensive!
Gerard
> Has anyone heard the transfers on Brilliant ?
>
Had Brilliant Classics ever made it's own transfers, or issued transfers that
have not been issued before?
(I'm curious to know.)
I suppose that Brilliant Classics delivers the EMI transfers again.
td
Perhaps you can check the Archives? We have been over and over and
over this subject many times.
By the way,not one single note will change in the process. Schnabel
will remain the same, for good or ill.
TD
FredT
It's Schnabel's genius that capture's my attention, first and
foremost.
Fred
Juan Rey
Not Beethoven's?
To the OP
I believe Brilliant simply reissues other companies' transfers. Unless
you can find out for sure what Brilliant have you're probably best
going for Naxos.
To Deacon
I don't recall the Brilliant issue being discussed. The question was
about transfers. How's Canada?
gperkins151
I agree that the EMI is poor. Naxos is inexpensive and the best
sounding transfers of those performances. The Pearl literally gave me
headaches.
You can get all of the Naxos CDs from MDT in the UK.
George
gperkins151
Oh, and I haven't heard the Brilliant, so I am not sure if they are
any good.
George
Juan Rey
Dante which AIUI has gone bust had a boxed set which was better than
EMI but not as good as Pearl or Naxos. IMO. Perhaps Brilliant took
over Dante's transfers?
Bob Lombard
> On Jun 12, 3:32 am, mandryka<howie.st...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Has anyone heard the transfers on Brilliant ?
>>
>> I only have the EMI set and I’d like to get better transfers, so I am
>> curious about whether to get this box, or the Naxos transfers.
>>
>> Pearl is too expensive!
>
> I agree that the EMI is poor. Naxos is inexpensive and the best
> sounding transfers of those performances. The Pearl literally gave me
> headaches.
Perhaps if you examine your memories closely, you will find that the
headaches weren't caused by the Pearl transfers but rather by TD's
reiterations of his one opinion on the subject, over and over and....
bl
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:7cc3c121-cd8f-4ee0-b3c8-
976627...@x27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
I'm with George -- get all the separate Naxos CDs from MDT. And curse EMI
for the legal action that has forced us to turn to foreign sources for our
best music, much as it used to be necessary to buy editions of James Joyce
and Arthur Miller from France (though not for the same reason).
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
gperkins151
LOL!!
George
td
It doesn't matter!
The question was
> about transfers. How's Canada?
Why do you ask?
TD
td
Only because various obstinate members keep insisting upon
"differences" when there can be none.
They all present Schnabel as well as we will ever hear him.
TD
mandryka
>
> - Show quoted text -
Let me just check I have understood you right, Tom? You're saying
that it's really not worth me trying to get a better set of transfers
than the EMI set. Right? The music shines through as well on EMI as it
does anywhere else.
Well, maybe you have saved me a few quid.
Sorry if that's not what you meant.
.
Matthew B. Tepper
9f3cf2...@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> Let me just check I have understood you right, Tom? You're saying that
> it's really not worth me trying to get a better set of transfers than the
> EMI set. Right? The music shines through as well on EMI as it does anywhere
> else.
>
> Well, maybe you have saved me a few quid.
>
> Sorry if that's not what you meant.
EMI scrapes away the noise, but also, unfortunately, Schnabel's tone. The
music "shines," I suppose, but it's with the light of a fluorescent tube,
rather than that of the sun.
Sorry, but on this issue it's always everybody else on one side, Tom Deacon
on the other. Do what seems best to you, but please do so informed.
td
That is precisely what I meant.
I must own 10 different versions of these sonatas. None is any better
than the others. Schnabel's Beethoven sings through on them all.
Save your money. Spend more time listening to Schnabel.
TD
Bob Harper
> On Jun 12, 9:07 am, Bob Lombard<thorsteinnos...@vermontel.net> wrote:
>> On 6/12/2010 6:43 AM, gperkins151 wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 12, 3:32 am, mandryka<howie.st...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> Has anyone heard the transfers on Brilliant ?
>>
>>>> curious about whether to get this box, or the Naxos transfers.
>>
>>>> Pearl is too expensive!
>>
>>> I agree that the EMI is poor. Naxos is inexpensive and the best
>>> sounding transfers of those performances. The Pearl literally gave me
>>> headaches.
>>
>> Perhaps if you examine your memories closely, you will find that the
>> headaches weren't caused by the Pearl transfers but rather by TD's
>> reiterations of his one opinion on the subject, over and over and....
>
> Only because various obstinate members keep insisting upon
> "differences" when there can be none.
>
> They all present Schnabel as well as we will ever hear him.
>
> TD
>
the notes are there in any competent transfer, but how well we can hear
them varies. You don't seem to understand (or believe) that, but it's so
whether you do or not.
Bob Harper
Allen
works) on Seraphim LP rereleases. Those Seraphim transfers were really
terrible, and MOT deserves congratulations on the job he did for Naxoz.
I don't have the complete set, as US releases of those items were halted
by that ridiculous New York court decision and I've never gone to
foreign sources to complete it. Must put that on my to-do list.
Incidentally, some of those early EMI transfers to CD were so bad (IMO)
that I didn't buy any for several years.
Allen
J.Martin
> EMI but not as good as Pearl or Naxos. IMO. Perhaps Brilliant took
> over Dante's transfers?
That's what I'm hoping, but if I had to guess (which everyone here
seems to be doing) I would suppose these are the EMIs, given that
Brilliant has licensed stuff from them before. If the Brilliant set
includes the concertos (which the Dante did) that would be an
indication they're using Dante's transfers.
td
> On 6/12/10 9:04 AM, td wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 12, 9:07 am, Bob Lombard<thorsteinnos...@vermontel.net> wrote:
> >> On 6/12/2010 6:43 AM, gperkins151 wrote:
>
> >>> On Jun 12, 3:32 am, mandryka<howie.st...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Has anyone heard the transfers on Brilliant ?
>
> >>>> curious about whether to get this box, or the Naxos transfers.
>
> >>>> Pearl is too expensive!
>
> >>> I agree that the EMI is poor. Naxos is inexpensive and the best
> >>> sounding transfers of those performances. The Pearl literally gave me
> >>> headaches.
>
> >> Perhaps if you examine your memories closely, you will find that the
> >> headaches weren't caused by the Pearl transfers but rather by TD's
> >> reiterations of his one opinion on the subject, over and over and....
>
> > Only because various obstinate members keep insisting upon
> > "differences" when there can be none.
>
> > They all present Schnabel as well as we will ever hear him.
>
> > TD
>
> Ah, there's the rub, Tom. "As well as"? Not really. You're right: all
> the notes are there in any competent transfer, but how well we can hear
> them varies. You don't seem to understand (or believe) that, but it's so
> whether you do or not.
We have been through this many times, Bob.
You cannot here "more" than was there in the first place, and that
wasn't all that much, frankly, but enough to give us a general idea of
Schnabel's way with Beethoven.
If you have SPECIFIC things you hear in one transfer more than
another, please let me know.
Frankly, I think you WANT to hear more, so you do. It's wish
fulfillment.
TD
gperkins151
Let's start again.
When you say you want better transfers, what do you mean exactly? Do
you want a cleaner transfer with less noise?
Or do you want more piano tone, more of that high frequency
information that was lost when EMI judiciously applied their noise
reduction to the CD transfers? If so, can you tolerate the extra
surface noise that will come along with it? If so, then Naxos or Pearl
is for you. Pearl will give you the polar opposite to the EMI in terms
of sound, Naxos will give you transfers that you can listen to
everyday, without getting the headaches that the Pearl gave me or the
pianist playing underwater effect that EMI gave me.
George
gperkins151
> You cannot here "more" than was there in the first place...
You are absolutely correct, but this is not what EMI did when they
transferred this material to CD. Much of what was there in the first
place (lots of high frequency information that is a big part of how a
real piano sounds) was discarded by EMI when they made their first CD
transfers. Pearl went the other way, giving us what EMI did not give
us - exactly what was there in the first place. Then Mark Obert Thorn
found a splendid middle ground for Naxos Historical.
George
gperkins151
I get the distinct impression that Tom does his listening on a CD
Clock radio - in the shower.
George
Allen
transfers to CD (IMO)that I finally stopped buying any of them; you
explained why they were so rotten. I really hadn't put my finger on the
nature of the problem; I don't spend much time wondering just why
spoiled meat smells bad.
Allen
td
> On Jun 12, 2:15 pm, td <tomdedea...@mac.com> wrote:
> > You cannot here "more" than was there in the first place...
>
> You are absolutely correct, but this is not what EMI did when they
> transferred this material to CD. Much of what was there in the first
> place (lots of high frequency information that is a big part of how a
> real piano sounds) was discarded by EMI when they made their first CD
> transfers.
Have you heard the 78s? My father had them. I grew up with them.
ALL the LP transfers were a blessing for sore ears.
I did not buy the Pearl CDs: like listening to those blessed 78s.
Sheer torture.
Do what you like. It makes no difference, and certainly none to me.
TD
td
Your impression is wrong. I listen on a variety of equipment from
superb to adequate. Makes no never mind in the case of Schnabel's
Beethoven sonatas.
TD
td
Total hyperbole. If they were "rotten" how so? Wrong pitch? Wrong
notes? Side joins jumbled? Did you get the finale of the Waldstein
tacked onto the Tempest? Spoiled meat has begun to decompose. Did EMI
use decomposed masters.
Stuff and nonsense.
Schnabel's art is clearly delineated in ALL transfers providing the
speeds and the joins are right. The rest is simply impressionistic and
rather sophomoric twaddle.
TD
Ludwig
> Has anyone heard the transfers on Brilliant ?
Do you have a link? Brilliant reissued the Gulda recordings, but has
it reissued the Schnabel as well?
Bob Harper
what *is* there as well as possible. You're right: we've been over this
many times, and you still don't understand what I'm saying. Oh well.
Bob Harper
Steve de Mena
>
> You can get all of the Naxos CDs from MDT in the UK.
>
> George
Most are available from Amazon marketplace sellers for under $10 too.
Steve
td
td
I have the same response.
You don't understand what I'm saying. I think you're fantasizing. You
think I am deaf.
Oh well.
TD
td
And are easily ordered from Canada, of course. Incidentally I have
them. I didn't learn anything about Schnabel's Beethoven I have not
known most of my lifetime.
TD
David Oberman
wrote:
>You don't understand what I'm saying. I think you're fantasizing. You
>think I am deaf.
Tom, you never talk to me.
How come?
Steve de Mena
> mandryka<howie...@googlemail.com> appears to have caused the following
> 976627...@x27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Has anyone heard the transfers on Brilliant ?
>>
>> I only have the EMI set and I’d like to get better transfers, so I am
>> curious about whether to get this box, or the Naxos transfers.
>>
>> Pearl is too expensive!
>
> for the legal action that has forced us to turn to foreign sources for our
> best music
Steve
Steve Emerson
<42313106-d078-4d04...@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
mandryka <howie...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Let me just check I have understood you right, Tom? You're saying
> that it's really not worth me trying to get a better set of transfers
> than the EMI set. Right? The music shines through as well on EMI as it
> does anywhere else.
It doesn't. But -- it would be worthwhile to try to learn something
about whatever Brilliant is releasing, unless you can get the Naxos for
not appreciably more. There are a lot of decent transfers out there of
the Schnabel material. I rely pretty happily on the Dante set at this
point; for example. In the cases of a few sonatas, the Dantes are less
good (these things were evidently done by many hands), and for them, I
rely on other transfers.
Which is not to suggest that you hunt down the vanished Dante set, just
to evoke the amplitude of decent transfers. And the possibility that
Brilliant's might be good.
When was the last time EMI did a new batch, btw? When they reissued
Schnabel's Schubert Impromptus in an ART transfer, the difference was
night and day vs. their prior, late 1980s transfer; which was awful.
SE.
gperkins151
I think the problem here is that you think that we are saying that
there is more to be learned from the Naxos or Pearl masterings. I
can't speak for others, but I am certainly not saying that. All I am
saying is that they sound a lot more like a real piano than the EMI,
again because they contain more of that high frequency information.
Schnabel's tone is better represented by the Naxos and Pearl
transfers. Some people don't care so much about that stuff. They will
be happy with the EMI. Others (like the OP) won't like the EMI and
will try to find a more realistic sounding transfer. Luckily, there
are better sounding transfers and they aren't even expensive.
George
gperkins151
> On Jun 12, 4:14 pm, gperkins151 <gperkins...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 12, 2:15 pm, td <tomdedea...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > You cannot here "more" than was there in the first place...
>
> > You are absolutely correct, but this is not what EMI did when they
> > transferred this material to CD. Much of what was there in the first
> > place (lots of high frequency information that is a big part of how a
> > real piano sounds) was discarded by EMI when they made their first CD
> > transfers.
>
> Have you heard the 78s? My father had them. I grew up with them.
>
> ALL the LP transfers were a blessing for sore ears.
>
No, I haven't heard the 78s, but enough people with ears that I trust
told me that the Pearl was very close in sound to the 78s. I agree
with you, it's too much. But the EMI CDs are not enough.
George
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:PIOQn.204409$pj7.190052@en-nntp-
15.dc1.easynews.com:
> Ah, there's the rub, Tom. "As well as"? Not really. You're right: all
> the notes are there in any competent transfer, but how well we can hear
> them varies. You don't seem to understand (or believe) that, but it's so
> whether you do or not.
It should be noted that the EMI set is *notoriously* bad; reviewers and
consumers have been complaining about them for years.
Tom Deacon is not a disinterested party. He believes that only the
original owners of the recording, or their assigns, should be allowed to
issue any transfers, and that any other individuals or labels which do so
are pirates. Any recommendation that he makes will be predicated on this
peculiar belief, which has nothing to do with music nor with sound
conservation -- on neither of which subjects I value his opinions.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
***** War is Peace **** Freedom is Slavery **** Fox is News *****
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:HLednUlb8cNw3onR...@giganews.com:
Yes, I'm pretty sure I got the first seven volumes at the Tower Classical
Annex, or maybe Borders Westwood. That was when some functionary at EMI
decided it was time the menace of Naxos had to be stomped out, after which
I bought the rest from MDT.
Gerard
AFAIK only this:
CD 92
Piano Sonata Nos. 30, 31, 32
Piano Sonata No. 30 in E major Op. 109
1. Vivace, ma non troppo-adagio espressivo 3:53
2. Prestissimo 2:19
3. Tema, Variazioni I - VI 14:08
Piano Sonata No. 31 in A flat major Op. 110
4. Moderato cantabile molto espressivo 6:33
5. Allegro molto 1:55
6. Adagio ma non troppo-fuga 9:51
Piano Sonata No.32 in C minor Op. 111
7. Maestoso-allegro con brio ed appassionato 8:14
8. Arietta, adagio molto, semplice e cantabile 17:43
Total: 64:36
Arthur Schnabel, piano
Gerard
>
> Tom Deacon is not a disinterested party. He believes that only the
> original owners of the recording, or their assigns, should be allowed
> to issue any transfers, and that any other individuals or labels
> which do so are pirates. Any recommendation that he makes will be
> predicated on this peculiar belief, which has nothing to do with
> music nor with sound conservation -- on neither of which subjects I
> value his opinions.
At least _he_ has opinions.
td
If you actually think that Schnabel's "tone" was captured by Gaisberg
in the 1930sand passed on via 78 RPM shellac transfers, I think you're
fantasizing.
Perhaps the Schubert Impromptus come closestto accomplishing that
feat, and even then only very partially.
TD
td
Why don't you find an opportunity some time George. Then you would not
be simply passing on the opinions of "people with ears that you
trust".
TD
td
> Bob Harper <bob.har...@comcast.net> appears to have caused the following
> letters to be typed innews:PIOQn.204409$pj7.190052@en-nntp-
> 15.dc1.easynews.com:
>
> > Ah, there's the rub, Tom. "As well as"? Not really. You're right: all
> > the notes are there in any competent transfer, but how well we can hear
> > them varies. You don't seem to understand (or believe) that, but it's so
> > whether you do or not.
>
> It should be noted that the EMI set is *notoriously* bad; reviewers and
> consumers have been complaining about them for years.
>
> Tom Deacon is not a disinterested party. He believes that only the
> original owners of the recording, or their assigns, should be allowed to
> issue any transfers, and that any other individuals or labels which do so
> are pirates. Any recommendation that he makes will be predicated on this
> peculiar belief, which has nothing to do with music nor with sound
> conservation -- on neither of which subjects I value his opinions.
I wonder where Tepper has proof for such a statement. ( He doesn't, of
course)
WHEREAS, we have hundreds of examples of his bashing of ALL the major
record companies simply "on principle".
They turned him down for work, I think. Does anyone blame them?
TD
gperkins151
How well you dodge the issue, Tom.
I was arguing that the closest we will ever have to Schnabel's tone in
those Beethoven sonata recordings is in the 78 transfers, that's just
common sense. EMI seemed to lack this common sense and decided to
"clean them up" when they transferred these recordings to CD. Perhaps,
like you, they thought it didn't matter, that we'd be getting what was
there anyway. They were wrong. People have complained about these (and
many other EMI aberrations, BTW) for years. Your persistence in
defending these horrible transfers does nothing to invalidate the bad
experiences many of us have had in listening to them.
When it comes to recommending a performance, you have been very
helpful to me. For this, I am grateful. However, on the issue of sound
quality, I will look elsewhere.
George
gperkins151
No, I have my noisy Pearl CDs if I want that. And I don't.
George
gperkins151
> Has anyone heard the transfers on Brilliant ?
>
> curious about whether to get this box, or the Naxos transfers.
>
> Pearl is too expensive!
I don't have the Brilliant, but I have the Pearl, EMI and Naxos.
This morning I decided to upload a short sample of each so that folks
can compare for themselves and see which one they like.
You can download the three samples here, as separate WAV files:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/32z7m4c
George
td
What bothers me is general ignorance.
EMI had the masters. They made vinyl pressings. This reduced the noise
of the original shellac pressings. What you hear as "highs" are
actually noise and artifacts of the noise. What you hear on the EMI
transfers, and tat since the 1950s, is an accurate transfer of the
masters transferred either to LP or to CD.
If you wish to listen to original shellacs, be my guest. Been there.
Done that. Bought the tee shirt.
Frankly I prefer the masters. But even those give only a partial
indication of what SchnBel's Bechstein actually sounded like.
TD
gperkins151
If the LPs sound better than the 78s (closer to the sound of the
masters), why didn't Mark Obert Thorn or Seth Winner use the LPs as
their source for their transfers?
Also, what medium did EMI use to make the masters of these
performances?
George
mandryka
That's very kind of you, and very helpful. Thanks .
gperkins151
Your welcome. I'd like to know your thoughts on them, when you have
the time.
George
Peter Greenstein
"td" <tomde...@mac.com> wrote in message news:bfd58f9f-fc50-448a-bbd1->
>What bothers me is general ignorance.
>EMI had the masters. They made vinyl pressings. This reduced the noise
>of the original shellac pressings. What you hear as "highs" are
>actually noise and artifacts of the noise. What you hear on the EMI
>transfers, and tat since the 1950s, is an accurate transfer of the
>masters transferred either to LP or to CD.
>If you wish to listen to original shellacs, be my guest. Been there.
>Done that. Bought the tee shirt.
>Frankly I prefer the masters. But even those give only a partial
>indication of what SchnBel's Bechstein actually sounded like.
>TD
It also needs to be said that if you introduce 78 rpm shellac surface noise
into ANY recording the ear will perceive greater high frequency content in
the music. Surface noise has a jumble of high frequencies and they trick the
ear into thinking some of this is upper harmonics information. I noticed
this effect with tape hiss. Anyway, it's hard to say how much is real and
how much is perceived. Or does it really matter?
Anyway, I can't get worked up about all this. I have some of the Naxos CD's
but I get plenty of enjoyment from the EMI issues.
--
Peter Greenstein
http://www.wakefieldjazz.com/
Bob Harper
Bob Harper
Bob Harper
> On Jun 13, 3:22 am, "Matthew B. Tepper"<oy兀earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Bob Harper<bob.har...@comcast.net> appears to have caused the following
>> letters to be typed innews:PIOQn.204409$pj7.190052@en-nntp-
>> 15.dc1.easynews.com:
>>
>>> Ah, there's the rub, Tom. "As well as"? Not really. You're right: all
>>> the notes are there in any competent transfer, but how well we can hear
>>> them varies. You don't seem to understand (or believe) that, but it's so
>>> whether you do or not.
>>
>> It should be noted that the EMI set is *notoriously* bad; reviewers and
>> consumers have been complaining about them for years.
>>
>> Tom Deacon is not a disinterested party. He believes that only the
>> original owners of the recording, or their assigns, should be allowed to
>> issue any transfers, and that any other individuals or labels which do so
>> are pirates. Any recommendation that he makes will be predicated on this
>> peculiar belief, which has nothing to do with music nor with sound
>> conservation -- on neither of which subjects I value his opinions.
>
> I wonder where Tepper has proof for such a statement. ( He doesn't, of
> course)
>
views on copyright, and I think Matthew is pretty much on target in that
regard. As far as sound quality, no one will argue against the notion
that the best sources transferred by the most competent technicians will
yield the best result. Unfortunately we don't always have that option,
so choices must be made: the best source done poorly, or a less than
best source done well. Reasonable people can and will disagree about the
results. One would think that would be obvious.
Bob Harper
(snip)
Bob Harper
>> What bothers me is general ignorance.
>>
>> EMI had the masters. They made vinyl pressings. This reduced the noise
>> of the original shellac pressings. What you hear as "highs" are
>> actually noise and artifacts of the noise. What you hear on the EMI
>> transfers, and tat since the 1950s, is an accurate transfer of the
>> masters transferred either to LP or to CD.
>>
>> If you wish to listen to original shellacs, be my guest. Been there.
>> Done that. Bought the tee shirt.
>>
>> Frankly I prefer the masters. But even those give only a partial
>> indication of what SchnBel's Bechstein actually sounded like.
>>
>> TD
>
> If the LPs sound better than the 78s (closer to the sound of the
> masters), why didn't Mark Obert Thorn or Seth Winner use the LPs as
> their source for their transfers?
>
> Also, what medium did EMI use to make the masters of these
> performances?
>
> George
I think Tom means that EMI made vinyl 78s from the metal 78 masters, and
used these resultant vinyl pressings for their transfers. Is that correct?
Bob Harper
weary flake
> I must own 10 different versions of these sonatas.
Obviously, you find the issue of Schnabel Beethoven Transfers
to be an extremely important issue; last time you claimed
only to have six different transfers, so you've since added
four, in your vain effort to find different sounding transfers.
Elsewhere you claim the EMI issue is the sound of the masters,
so you've gone on again with the claim that the EMI does not
filter, or you pretend that filtering does not exist. Since
you are such an ardent Schnabel transfer collector may I
suggest you go whole hog and get all the Pearl issues too?
> None is any better
> than the others. Schnabel's Beethoven sings through on them all.
>
> Save your money. Spend more time listening to Schnabel.
Maybe there's too much EMI-bashing about, but I ain't crazy
enough to buy the EMI issue just cause others bash it.
weary flake
> On Jun 12, 3:32 am, mandryka <howie.st...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Has anyone heard the transfers on Brilliant ?
> >
> > I only have the EMI set and Iąd like to get better transfers, so I am
> > curious about whether to get this box, or the Naxos transfers.
> >
> > Pearl is too expensive!
>
> I don't have the Brilliant, but I have the Pearl, EMI and Naxos.
>
> This morning I decided to upload a short sample of each so that folks
> can compare for themselves and see which one they like.
>
> You can download the three samples here, as separate WAV files:
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/32z7m4c
There's an issue here, both Pearl and EMI also issued 2 CD
sets that were each reported to be considerably different than
the sound on their full sets, so are these samples from the
complete sets on Pearl or EMI or are they from the 2 CD sets?
Supposedly, the 2 CD sets on EMI sound "better" (less filtering?)
and the Pearl sounds "worse" (filtering and stereoization?).
Gerard
Are you gathering points? Some stores give them for nothing.
Bob Harper
Bob Harper
td
Silly question.
They are copyrighted, as are the EMI CD transfers.
> Also, what medium did EMI use to make the masters of these
> performances?
???
TD
td
> "td" <tomdedea...@mac.com> wrote in message news:bfd58f9f-fc50-448a-bbd1->
Agreed. I don't get worked up. I am just astonished at the fantasy
world some people live in.
TD
td
> >> Bob Harper<bob.har...@comcast.net> appears to have caused the following
> >> letters to be typed innews:PIOQn.204409$pj7.190052@en-nntp-
> >> 15.dc1.easynews.com:
>
> >>> Ah, there's the rub, Tom. "As well as"? Not really. You're right: all
> >>> the notes are there in any competent transfer, but how well we can hear
> >>> them varies. You don't seem to understand (or believe) that, but it's so
> >>> whether you do or not.
>
> >> It should be noted that the EMI set is *notoriously* bad; reviewers and
> >> consumers have been complaining about them for years.
>
> >> Tom Deacon is not a disinterested party. He believes that only the
> >> original owners of the recording, or their assigns, should be allowed to
> >> issue any transfers, and that any other individuals or labels which do so
> >> are pirates. Any recommendation that he makes will be predicated on this
> >> peculiar belief, which has nothing to do with music nor with sound
> >> conservation -- on neither of which subjects I value his opinions.
>
> > I wonder where Tepper has proof for such a statement. ( He doesn't, of
> > course)
>
> Well, Tom, you could have fooled me. You have made no secret of your
> views on copyright, and I think Matthew is pretty much on target in that
> regard.
No, he is not. He is wrong, as usual.
The Schnabel Beethoven is largely, but not completely ( those
Bagatelles!), free of copyright.
Did you get that Bob? FREE!
As far as sound quality, no one will argue against the notion
> that the best sources transferred by the most competent technicians will
> yield the best result.
Many here try to dispute that, Mr. Rose, for example, who is too cheap
to pay for master tapes even when they exist. His "business model" is
based on his materials being free. Then he charges full whack for his
stuff.
Unfortunately we don't always have that option,
> so choices must be made: the best source done poorly, or a less than
> best source done well.
How about a bad source done OK?
Reasonable people can and will disagree about the
> results. One would think that would be obvious.
Which is what I am doing, Bob.
But it would be nice to get the facts straight. Read Peter
Greenstein's note about surface noise.
TD
td
Correct. The result is far less surface noise, which then seems to
lack highs to those used to lots of surface noise.
TD
Gerard
Nope. Your only conclusion should be that you missed it.
Bob Harper
Bob Harper
Bob Lombard
A point. This thread has gone way beyond the point of usefulness.
bl
Gerard
Most threads miss that point.
gperkins151
> gperkins151 <gperkins...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 12, 3:32 am, mandryka <howie.st...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > Has anyone heard the transfers on Brilliant ?
>
> > > curious about whether to get this box, or the Naxos transfers.
>
> > > Pearl is too expensive!
>
> > I don't have the Brilliant, but I have the Pearl, EMI and Naxos.
>
> > This morning I decided to upload a short sample of each so that folks
> > can compare for themselves and see which one they like.
>
> > You can download the three samples here, as separate WAV files:
>
> >http://preview.tinyurl.com/32z7m4c
>
> There's an issue here, both Pearl and EMI also issued 2 CD
> sets that were each reported to be considerably different than
> the sound on their full sets, so are these samples from the
> complete sets on Pearl or EMI or are they from the 2 CD sets?
> Supposedly, the 2 CD sets on EMI sound "better" (less filtering?)
> and the Pearl sounds "worse" (filtering and stereoization?).
The EMI is from the complete, original CD set, not the remaster. The
Pearl is from Artur Schnabel plays Beethoven, Volume III.
George
gperkins151
So the LPs are copyrighted, but the 78s aren't? Forgive me if this is
another silly question, but I am trying to learn something here.
> > Also, what medium did EMI use to make the masters of these
> > performances?
>
> ???
>
> TD
You said you like the sound of the masters. This was in the days
before tape, right? So what was the original medium used for the
Schnabel masters? I honestly don't know.
George
gperkins151
Well vinyl does often have a warm sound, without any of that digital
brightness we often get from CDs. So this can help to explain that
dark EQ the EMI CDs have.
Also, since the original recording was meant to be played on those
78s, perhaps the recording engineers chose a dark EQ, knowing that the
effect of the surface noise would fill in the missing highs. If they
had recorded it brighter the 78s would sound too bright?
George
vhorowitz
EMI once HAD the masters, of course, but they were destroyed years
ago, when they thought (back in the COLH era) that making a tape
transfer with their then "state of the art" 1950s technology obviated
the necessity of holding on to the master 78 materials. IF they had
made high quality vinyl pressings at that time, we WOULD be calling on
EMI for their source material and they would be able to do a better
job, but this is not the case... Thus, the problem is that EMI has
decided to make do with these elderly tape transfers as their
"masters" for all of their subsequent issues (Seraphim, HMV Treasury,
etc). That is why EMI's cd issue is from a quieter source than the
commercial pressings everyone else has worked from (although the Dante
set seems to be taken from one of EMI's lp issues rather than the 78s,
and does a rather better job with this elderly generation source that
EMI managed). Much of what has been discussed as EMI's 78 transfer EQ
choices for their cd issue is a byproduct of the limitation of these
old tapes, and not a reflection on their current style of transfers
from actual 78 rpm materials, be it from master materials or
commercial pressings, which DO contain high frequency information that
was tossed away all nearly half a century ago in this EMI tape
transfer.
Btw, Tom, just an honest question, why do you have 10 different
versions if you fail to find substantive differences between them? Or
are those mostly lp issues?
td
You should google 78 RPM recording processes, George. You would learn
a great deal about the subject.
The masters are metal, formed from wax which was used in the cutting
of the originals. The "noise" comes from the material used to press
the 78s, i.e. shellac.
If you have the metal masters, you can, at great expense, produce
vinyl pressings from them which sound much, much, much quieter, of
course.
Anyway, google the subject. You'll learn a lot.
TD
td
Such misinformation. Hard to know where to begin.
First question. Have you ever visited the archives in Hayes?
TD
Bob Harper
Bob Harper
Bob Harper
1. Did EMI make vinyl pressings of the 78rpm metal masters?
2. If so, when?
3. Do they still have either the metal masters or the vinyl pressings
from those metal masters?
4. Were the vinyl 78s transferred to tape? If so, when, at what speed,
with what equipment, etc.?
5. With improvements in tape technology, were the vinyl 78s, either
existing or newly pressed from the metal masters (assuming they still
existed), re-transferred to tape, up to and including DAT?
6. What source was used for the various LP and CD issues? Was there one
master tape once, or did something like I've described in #5 occur?
No, I've not been to Hayes, and yes, I realize that this may all be moot
given EMI's financial condition. But they are serious questions.
Bob Harper
td
Gee, Bob. You have sounded so sure of everything so far, I just
supposed you knew tge answers to these and all questions relating to
EMI's transfers of their own recordings.
I have to say, I am somewhat crestfallen. Another hero turns out to
have feet of clay.
What a bummer!
TD
Bob Harper
>>
>> OK, some questions:
>>
>> 1. Did EMI make vinyl pressings of the 78rpm metal masters?
>>
>> 2. If so, when?
>>
>> 3. Do they still have either the metal masters or the vinyl pressings
>> from those metal masters?
>>
>> 4. Were the vinyl 78s transferred to tape? If so, when, at what speed,
>> with what equipment, etc.?
>>
>> 5. With improvements in tape technology, were the vinyl 78s, either
>> existing or newly pressed from the metal masters (assuming they still
>> existed), re-transferred to tape, up to and including DAT?
>>
>> 6. What source was used for the various LP and CD issues? Was there one
>> master tape once, or did something like I've described in #5 occur?
>>
>> No, I've not been to Hayes, and yes, I realize that this may all be moot
>> given EMI's financial condition. But they are serious questions.
>
> Gee, Bob. You have sounded so sure of everything so far, I just
> supposed you knew tge answers to these and all questions relating to
> EMI's transfers of their own recordings.
>
> I have to say, I am somewhat crestfallen. Another hero turns out to
> have feet of clay.
>
> What a bummer!
>
> TD
Sorry to disappoint you, Tom, but do you have any answers to my
questions? Apparently not. I would note in passing that none of these
questions has much to do with what I've offered previously about this
controversy.
Bob Harper
Oscar Williamson
Tom, are you saying that EMI still has the original metal masters?
Presumably, Abbey Road mastering engineers Simon Gibson and Andrew
Walter would have used them for the most recent EMI transfer, made in
2004 for two-disc Great Recordings of the Century set. http://tiny.cc/9ubdb
gperkins151
From that amazon posting, there was this said in a review:
"The engineers did an admirable job of reducing the surface noise from
the 78 rpm disks. But they took out the sparkle from the keys that can
be heard on the "Schnabel Plays Beethoven" Pearl editions of these
recordings, or the "Beethoven: Piano Works" Naxos editions." - A
techno geek
Doesn't sound like they did anything more with the sound.
George
gperkins151
> On Jun 12, 3:32 am, mandryka <howie.st...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > Has anyone heard the transfers on Brilliant ?
>
> > I only have the EMI set and I’d like to get better transfers, so I am
> > curious about whether to get this box, or the Naxos transfers.
>
> > Pearl is too expensive!
>
> I don't have the Brilliant, but I have the Pearl, EMI and Naxos.
>
> This morning I decided to upload a short sample of each so that folks
> can compare for themselves and see which one they like.
>
> You can download the three samples here, as separate WAV files:
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/32z7m4c
>
Thanks to another member, I have just added two more samples to the
folder. They are from the Dante and Nuovo Era transfers.
Here's the link to the folder again:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/32z7m4c
George
Oscar Williamson
>
> > Tom, are you saying that EMI still has the original metal masters?
> > Presumably, Abbey Road mastering engineers Simon Gibson and Andrew
> > Walter would have used them for the most recent EMI transfer, made in
> > 2004 for two-disc Great Recordings of the Century set.http://tiny.cc/9ubdb
>
> From that amazon posting, there was this said in a review:
>
> "The engineers did an admirable job of reducing the surface noise from
> the 78 rpm disks. But they took out the sparkle from the keys that can
> be heard on the "Schnabel Plays Beethoven" Pearl editions of these
> recordings, or the "Beethoven: Piano Works" Naxos editions." - A
> techno geek
>
> Doesn't sound like they did anything more with the sound.
>
> George
Hi George. I don't understand what you mean by 'anything more with
the sound.' I have the 2004 reissue, and it is a unique mastering.
Moreoever, it does sound a lot better than the first EMI attempt. Not
comparing to Naxos (which I bought) or Pearl (do not have, but have
listened to), just the fact that the 2004 *is* an improvement (IMO).
I ask again: Was the 2004 EMI GROC sourced from original metal parts?
td
I am not here to answer your questions on demand, Bob.
I would note in passing that none of these
> questions has much to do with what I've offered previously about this
> controversy.
So? Send me a private email and we can chat.
TD
td
there are hundreds of thousands of masters in Hayes.
To answer such a question would require my being there to check on
those two dozen.
But to say they have all been trashed and melted down is SO ignorant
as to beggar belief. Mind you, that source, vhorowitz, is notoriously
and wildly unreliable in his ignorant spouts.
TD
td
You are quoting an Amazon review, not Moses.
TD
td
gperkins151
By anything more with the sound, I meant improvement on the original.
When you say "not comparing to Naxos," do you mean that you haven't
compared? If you have, what are your impressions?
George
td
George, don't you think this conversation is becoming very, well,
boring?
The archives are full of discussions of all this material.
TD
gperkins151
You seem to have information that you don't wish to share, yet you
criticize us for being misinformed. I don't call that boring, I call
it annoying.
Why not answer the questions that have been asked of you? That would
make this more interesting.
George
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in
news:ad2b60e0-20e3-4eac...@j4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
> There's been a recent thread on CMG:
> http://www.classicalmusicguide.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=33656
Some of the negative remarks about EMI:
"...the EMI, whose sound I did not like...."
"The EMI set is an absolute disaster and is to be avoided at all costs."
"...the EMI CDs, which I see ARE still available. They are truly terrible."
"the EMI set....sound is too clinky-clanky."
To be sure, there are a couple of positive ones, but these tend to sidestep
the issue of whether the transfers are better or worse than others. And
one of them gives what I regard as an astonishing reason to prefer it:
"Do not worry, the EMI set is very listenable and that is what this is all
about.. Schnabel over sonics. You will not be dissapointed [sic]. The Naxos
are slightly better in sound but the entire set has one extra CD and you
will have to hunt and peck to find it, mate."
In other words, don't buy Naxos because it's "hard to find" (not if you
order from MDT or Amazon.co.uk, for example), and because it has one more
CD! I will forebear from commenting further on this reason.
> Have two, more or less complete, sets in pre-war albums - but would
> need 'some incentive' to do 'raw'/accurate dubs!!
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
pren
> On Jun 12, 3:32 am, mandryka <howie.st...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > Has anyone heard the transfers on Brilliant ?
>
> > I only have the EMI set and I’d like to get better transfers, so I am
> > curious about whether to get this box, or the Naxos transfers.
>
> > Pearl is too expensive!
>
> sounding transfers of those performances. The Pearl literally gave me
> headaches.
>
> You can get all of the Naxos CDs from MDT in the UK.
>
> George
Any idea why NAXOS hasn't issued a box set after 5 or 6 years of
releasing the single disks?
gperkins151
>
> To be sure, there are a couple of positive ones, but these tend to sidestep
> the issue of whether the transfers are better or worse than others. And
> one of them gives what I regard as an astonishing reason to prefer it:
>
> "Do not worry, the EMI set is very listenable and that is what this is all
> about.. Schnabel over sonics. You will not be dissapointed [sic]. The Naxos
> are slightly better in sound but the entire set has one extra CD and you
> will have to hunt and peck to find it, mate."
Slightly better?
I could listen to the two through the tiny speakers on my laptop and
hear more than a slight difference.
George
Edward Cowan
Beethoven sonatas in the Schnabel series. They appeared on separate
LP's, some in the LM series, others in the LCT series. Cesar
Saerchinger, in a discography appended to his biography of Schnabel,
lists the RCA Victor multi-LP set with all of the sonatas (LM-9500), but
he seems to have listed, among the separate LP issues, only LCT series
and not the LM's. These are all listed in the 1958 Schwann Artist
Listing, p.125. I have the first volume, LM-2158, with sonatas 1, 10,
and 28 (exactly the contents of vol. VII of the 78rpm series). I have
not heard it in some time, but this thread has motivated me to do a bit
of comparative listening, after which I'll get back with my findings.
(My great love of Schnabel's Beetoven sonatas (apart, that is, from his
sloppy and shapeless "Hammerklavier"!) impels me to do this. Anon.
--E.A.C.
Allen <all...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> The only CDs I have are Naxos. I had them all (including several other
> works) on Seraphim LP rereleases. Those Seraphim transfers were really
> terrible, and MOT deserves congratulations on the job he did for Naxoz.
> I don't have the complete set, as US releases of those items were halted
> by that ridiculous New York court decision and I've never gone to
> foreign sources to complete it. Must put that on my to-do list.
> Incidentally, some of those early EMI transfers to CD were so bad (IMO)
> that I didn't buy any for several years.
> Allen
--
hrabanus
td
The questions have been asked and answered before. Check the archives.
TD
weary flake
> frankwm <frankw...@hotmail.com> appears to have caused the following
> letters to be typed in
> news:ad2b60e0-20e3-4eac...@j4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
>
> > There's been a recent thread on CMG:
> > http://www.classicalmusicguide.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=33656
>
> Some of the negative remarks about EMI:
>
> "...the EMI, whose sound I did not like...."
>
> "The EMI set is an absolute disaster and is to be avoided at all costs."
>
> "...the EMI CDs, which I see ARE still available. They are truly terrible."
>
> "the EMI set....sound is too clinky-clanky."
>
> To be sure, there are a couple of positive ones, but these tend to sidestep
> the issue of whether the transfers are better or worse than others. And
> one of them gives what I regard as an astonishing reason to prefer it:
>
> "Do not worry, the EMI set is very listenable and that is what this is all
> about.. Schnabel over sonics. You will not be dissapointed [sic]. The Naxos
> are slightly better in sound but the entire set has one extra CD and you
> will have to hunt and peck to find it, mate."
Yet that character also doesn't like the sound: "I recommend the EMI box
set enthusiatically, even though the sonics are not that good"
The "site administrator" is the only one who wouldn't say the sound is
bad, for these reasons:
1) reputation: "Keith Hardwick of EMI accomplished the EMI remasters
himself and he was a no-nonsense kind of guy who would not tamper with
sound to the detriment of the originals"
2) the possibility of A-B tests between the EMI CD set and the Angel/USA
LPs and German Electrola LPs prove there's nothing wrong with the sound
3) the sound of the piano comes across good enough, anyway
Therefore:
1) if you don't like the EMI CDs, then it is the USA EMI at fault
and you may get European EMI CD pressings for better sound
2) if you don't like the sound maybe the pressing run was
defective
3) it's old anyway
Completely without explanation is the site-bosses explanation that
he "avoids other independent labels", and ignores all arguments
about post-transfer sound processing (ie filtering and such) as a
possibility of degrading sound.
I'm reminded of other dumb-ass defenses, like defending 1970s fake
stereo because of label declarations like "we will sell no (re)issues
without stereo channeling" are accepted as unquestionable, so it
was a bad sound or nothing proposition, or the declarations in 2004
that all new CDs will have software control to prevent copying, or
that there will never be music on the Internet without Digital
Rights Management, and so on.
> In other words, don't buy Naxos because it's "hard to find" (not if you
> order from MDT or Amazon.co.uk, for example), and because it has one more
> CD! I will forebear from commenting further on this reason.
But buying things from foreign sources *is* hard, just consider
how this sounds: "some profanity laden guys on usenet says I should
sign up with some overseas web site and give them all my personal
details and send them money to buy stuff that can't be legally bought
in this country"; it is difficult to make that decision.
So let's not forget that bad distribution is not equal to good
distribution, and semi-bans on distribution does mean, in practice,
that a majority of sales are lost to the country poorly distributed.
Mark Obert-Thorn
> The "site administrator" is the only one who wouldn't say the sound is
> bad, for these reasons:
>
> 1) reputation: "Keith Hardwick of EMI accomplished the EMI remasters
> himself and he was a no-nonsense kind of guy who would not tamper with
> sound to the detriment of the originals"
The one time I met Keith Hardwick, back around 1996, I asked him about
the CEDAR processing of his transfers in general, and specifically
about the Schnabel Beethoven Sonatas. When EMI first adopted CEDAR
(declicking and denoising) for historical reissues, they came out with
a large number of reissues at one time on their References series,
mentioning the use of the process on the back of the CDs. I asked
Hardwick whether he had gone back and re-transferred the material
which had already been issued on LP, like the Schnabel Beethovens. He
said he had nothing to do with the CEDARing of his older transfers,
and expressed annoyance that the Italian Nuova Era label, which some
alleged had pirated his HMV Treasury series LP transfers without
additional processing for their CD box of the Schnabels, was getting
better reviews than the EMI CD box.
Mark O-T
Oscar Williamson
Excellent post. Your Naxos transfers were my first exposure to
Schnabel's Beethoven and they are easily the best I've heard. I
appreciate you coming forward with this anecdote about Mr. Hardwick.
I'll be honest, when I see his name in liner credits -- with EMI
References it seems to be either he or Charles Levin -- I stay away,
for, unfortunately, I link his name with negligent use of CEDAR. Your
post has, at the very least, restored his name in my book. I have
heard -- and auditioned as recently as two weeks ago -- those HMV
Treasury boxes. Coming to them after hearing the de-noised References
CD's, I must say I was surprised at the quality of transfer and how
different it was to my expectation. That said, the technology used 30
years ago is now obviously obsolete and archaic. @Tom Deacon, I have
sent off an email to EMI re metal parts and 2004 GROC remaster. But
we both know that it was nothing more than a spit-shine of the '79
Hardwick vinyl transfers, same source used for 1990 References. In
other words, no new transfer, no metal parts digging.
td
wrote:
Gee. I wonder how many times you think they should make vinyl
pressings from the metal parts?
I should have thought that the metals would not benefit from endless
manhandling.
Personally it seems astonishing that heresay would allow you to turn
against someone of Keith Hatdwick's position, experience and
credentials. You would appear to give new meaning to the word
gullible.
TD