Schnabel Beethoven sonatas box set?
anthony
have an estimate how long I have to wait until I can buy a complete
Naxos box set?
Those remasterings by Mark Obert-Thorne are truly wonderful -- I have
Volume Two, but don't want to keep buying until I can gain the set.
I'm listening through Quad amplification and little Neat Petite
speakers and they sound wonderfully alive on that set-up.
TransfrGuy
Thanks very much for your appreciative comments. I don't know if the volumes
will eventually be reissued in a box or not. The 12 volumes may just be put in
a slipcase like the seven Heifetz CDs, if they are boxed at all.
As for when the set will be complete, Naxos has the masters up through Vol. 7
already (Vol. 5 is a new release this month; see the Naxos website). I'm
starting work on Vol. 8 (with the "Hammerklavier") momentarily, and I hope to
have the remaining volumes done by the end of this year. I would guess that
Naxos should have them all out by sometime next summer.
Mark Obert-Thorn
Matthew燘. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:20031002214331...@mb-m17.aol.com:
I look forward to that, and keep up the good work!
--
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
War is Peace. ** Freedom is Slavery. ** It's all Napster's fault!
anthony
encouraging Naxos (and Mark as well!)
Does anyone know where I could find a copy of Vol. 1? There seem no
sources herein Australia. An internet address for someone who stocks
it would be greatly appreciated.
Raymond Hall
news:b2e2d36c.03100...@posting.google.com...
Try contacting Fish Fine Music in Sydney, unless you already haven't.
SYDNEY 02 9233 3371
.... and ask for their classical store.
Regards,
# http://www.users.bigpond.com/hallraylily/index.html
See You Tamara (Ozzy Osbourne)
Ray, Taree, NSW
Marc Perman
"TransfrGuy" <trans...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031002214331...@mb-m17.aol.com...
> On 2 October 2003, antho...@netscape.net wrote:
>
> >Now that I've given my old EMI set to my eldest daughter, does
anyone
> >have an estimate how long I have to wait until I can buy a
complete
> >Naxos box set?
> >Those remasterings by Mark Obert-Thorne are truly wonderful --
I have
> >Volume Two, but don't want to keep buying until I can gain the
set.
> >I'm listening through Quad amplification and little Neat Petite
> >speakers and they sound wonderfully alive on that set-up.
>
> Thanks very much for your appreciative comments. I don't know
if the volumes
> will eventually be reissued in a box or not. The 12 volumes may
just be put in
> a slipcase like the seven Heifetz CDs, if they are boxed at all.
Not acceptable. A slipcase that unwieldy would likely cause the
wall supporting my CD shelves to collapse. Why not a "White Box,"
or even a blue one?
Marc Perman
Baldric
Mark
The first movement of Op27/2 on the EMI set was very crackly indeed with
the surface noise the worst of the whole set. I assume this is because a
very popular work was always played to death and this was the best that
EMI could find.Is this a problem with the Naxos Op 27/2?
Cheers
Baldric
Baldric
> "anthony" <antho...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:b2e2d36c.03100...@posting.google.com...
> | Well, I guess I'll just have to buy them one by one to keep
> | encouraging Naxos (and Mark as well!)
> | Does anyone know where I could find a copy of Vol. 1? There seem no
> | sources herein Australia. An internet address for someone who stocks
> | it would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Try contacting Fish Fine Music in Sydney, unless you already haven't.
>
> SYDNEY 02 9233 3371
>
> .... and ask for their classical store.
>
Cheers
Baldric
David7Gable
I take it the consensus is the Naxos are the best transfers to date?
-david gable
TransfrGuy
>The first movement of Op27/2 on the EMI set was very crackly indeed with
>the surface noise the worst of the whole set. I assume this is because a
>very popular work was always played to death and this was the best that
>EMI could find.Is this a problem with the Naxos Op 27/2?
I just listened to it again, and I think the crackle on my Naxos transfer is
pretty much kept under control here. You can hear it on the Naxos website.
Mark O-T
Seth Winner
"David7Gable" <david...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031004193707...@mb-m17.aol.com...
wkas...@comcast.net
"David7Gable" <david...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031004193707...@mb-m17.aol.com...
> I take it the consensus is the Naxos are the best transfers to date?
No, I much prefer the Pearl transfers; when I bought the first Naxos volume,
I compared, got rid of the Naxos, and instead bought the rest of the Pearls.
The Obert-Thorn transfers are better than the Dante set (and presumably
better than the EMI, which I haven't heard), but lack clarity compared to
Winner's Pearl transfers, and sound overfiltered and a bit tubby to my ears.
The same comments apply, BTW, to the Beethoven concerti.
Bill
--
====================
William D. Kasimer
wkas...@comcast.net
wkas...@quincymc.org
Seth Winner
<wkas...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:09Lfb.687916$uu5.112560@sccrnsc04...
deac...@yahoo.com
guys.
Pace, pace, please!
You both, as well as Marston, do fine work.
I still listen to my EMI LP transfers done in the late 1950s and early
1960s with great pleasure. They were done by one of the old pros and
painstakingly at that.
And also to more recent transfers.
What I would say is that none of them is able to hide the artistry of
Artur Schnabel. Or the innate tubbiness of the originals, however they
treat the surface noise in the shellacs.
TD
Stephen Worth
wrote:
> The Obert-Thorn transfers are better than the Dante set (and presumably
> better than the EMI, which I haven't heard), but lack clarity compared to
> Winner's Pearl transfers, and sound overfiltered and a bit tubby to my ears.
I'm not sure what you mean by overfiltered. I'm guessing you don't mean
digital artifacting, because I've never heard an Obert-Thorn transfer
with that problem. If you mean that the sound is a bit muffled, that
may actually be an accurate transcription. All of the Beethoven Sonata
Society records that I have heard have a fairly thick, soft sound. Not
having heard the Pearl or Naxos transfers, I really can't make any
definite comment, but based on your description of the sound, Mark
Obert-Thorn's set might very well be truest to the records.
I have heard the Dante set, and it sounds completely different than the
original records. It's as if they thinned out and sharpened the EQ
until it sounded like a completely different room and piano, and then
compressed all of the dynamics out of the performance. The weird thing
is that the quietest passages are relatively free of surface noise.
This makes me think that they may have drastically re-EQed and
compressed an overfiltered early LP release taken from a vinyl pressing
off the metal parts. It would be hard to achieve that degree of
compression from the noisy UK shellac without pulling up a lot of
crackle with it. (There's a lot of variability in the sound though...
they may have taken the sonatas from several different sources.)
Schnabel's touch is one of the most important aspects of his playing.
Radical shifts in EQ and compression, no matter how "clear" it makes it
sound, are bound to blunt the expression of the playing. I recently
completed a CD of the Diabelli and Eroica Variations, and it was the
most difficult project I've ever attempted. I ended up transferring
twice and restoring three times, because I kept struggling to find the
best way to squeeze the optimal sound out of the records. At first, I
thinned the EQ out to make it sound more like other piano recordings.
But I realized that the pedalling and sensitivity of touch were being
affected. I finally went back to a less intrusive EQ, even though it
did sound a bit thick.
The crackly shellac, quiet passages that skirt the edge of audibility
and warm, almost upholstered sounding EQ in the Schnabel Beethoven
records require a lot of judgement calls. This is a case where I doubt
if there could be any clear-cut "best transfer". It all depends on how
close your own taste matches that of the transfer engineer.
See ya
Steve
--
*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VIP RECORDS: Rare 78 rpm recordings on CD in great sound
20s Dance Bands - Swing - Opera - Classical - Vaudeville - Ragtime
FREE MP3s OF COMPLETE SONGS http://www.vintageip.com/records/
Ramon Khalona
> Thank you, Bill... An honest objective answer...
Seth
> <wkas...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:09Lfb.687916$uu5.112560@sccrnsc04...
> >
> >
> > "David7Gable" <david...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20031004193707...@mb-m17.aol.com...
> >
> > > I take it the consensus is the Naxos are the best transfers to date?
> >
> > No, I much prefer the Pearl transfers; when I bought the first Naxos
> volume,
> > I compared, got rid of the Naxos, and instead bought the rest of the
> Pearls.
> > The Obert-Thorn transfers are better than the Dante set (and presumably
> > better than the EMI, which I haven't heard), but lack clarity compared to
> > Winner's Pearl transfers, and sound overfiltered and a bit tubby to my
> ears.
> >
> > The same comments apply, BTW, to the Beethoven concerti.
> >
> > Bill
No doubt Seth prefers Bill's answer. As someone who owns the EMI,
Pearl, Dante and is collecting the Naxos transfers, the answer is not
so easy. To my ears, the EMI set can be safely dismissed. The Dante
set appears to be overfiltered, but it all depends on perspective. A
novice would easily prefer it to the Pearl, which is very noisy. You
always pay a price because transfers are always a trade-off. Pearl
probably offers the best piano tone if you are willing (and I
certainly am) to put up with the surface noise.
However, the Naxos transfers are admirable in that they offer a
judicious compromise between tonal quality and noise reduction.
Buyer beware, it all depends on what YOU, the listener, prefer.
Mark, Seth, Ward, and others (in no particular order) deserve our
thanks for helping put these and other recordings in circulation.
Ramon Khalona
Steve Molino
news:D3Jfb.164513$0v4.12...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Yes, I still prefer the Pearls and won't be replacing them, but the Naxos
are the next best sounding IMO and certainly much cheaper (and easier for
find).
TransfrGuy
>Thank you, Bill... An honest objective answer...Seth
Since Mr. Winner appreciates "honest, objective" opinions, I hope he will not
mind if I add a few that I found regarding my Naxos Schnabel Beethoven Sonatas
series:
"Previous transfers ranged from bland mush (EMI) to strident sizzle (Pearl),
but here Mark Obert-Thorn finds just the right balance between minimal surface
noise and maximum musical fidelity."
- Peter Gutmann, classicalnotes.net (USA)
"I feel obliged to point out that the first two editions of Naxos's projected
11-CD anthology of Beethoven's solo piano music as performed by Artur Schnabel
offer the best sound yet for these performances. Transfer engineer Mark
Obert-Thorn ... has found a superb middle ground between background noise and
reduced high end. Schnabel's piano sounds remarkably warm, full and bright
…"
- Richard Perry, The Ottawa Citizen
"The remarkably fresh-sounding transfers [of the Schnabel Beethoven Concertos]
are the work of specialist Mark Obert-Thorn … Schnabel also recorded one of
the greatest cycles of Beethoven sonatas, which are now starting to emerge on
the Naxos label thanks to an unprecedentedly clear and vibrant transfer."
- Anthony Clarke, The Bulletin (Australia)
"I am old enough to have seen Schnabel perform - including once from a stage
seat in Chicago's Orchestra Hall …The rich mellowness of Schnabel's beloved
Bechstein, amazing even back in the days of the scratchy 78s, is amazing once
again thanks to the miraculous audio restoration of Mark Obert-Thorn."
- Alan Rich, LA Weekly
"These magnificent Mark Obert-Thorn remasterings . . . make the sound seem
nearly as fresh as the playing."
- International Record Review (UK)
"Transfer engineers have artistic decisions to make and Obert-Thorn … has
here achieved a sound that surely brings us as close to Schnabel as we are
likely to get."
- Christopher Howell, musicweb.net (UK)
Now, these are all still opinions, and you are free to disagree with them.
Everyone has his or her own tastes. But to get back to David Gable's original
question, there does appear to be a general worldwide critical consensus
favoring the Schnabel series on Naxos.
Mark Obert-Thorn
TransfrGuy
>I'm not sure what you mean by overfiltered. I'm guessing you don't mean
>digital artifacting, because I've never heard an Obert-Thorn transfer
>with that problem. If you mean that the sound is a bit muffled, that
>may actually be an accurate transcription. All of the Beethoven Sonata
>Society records that I have heard have a fairly thick, soft sound. Not
>having heard the Pearl or Naxos transfers, I really can't make any
>definite comment, but based on your description of the sound, Mark
>Obert-Thorn's set might very well be truest to the records.
Thanks, Steve, for your honest, objective answer ;)
In my transfers of the Schnabel Beethoven Sonatas, I've tried to bring out the
original sound of the records the best I could, not to impose any conception of
what Schnabel's tone *should* have sounded like. The fact that a critic (Alan
Rich) who actually heard Schnabel "live" and commented on the "rich mellowness"
of his tone calls my transfers "miraculous" says a lot, IMO.
Mark Obert-Thorn
Seth Winner
made a decision, by LISTENING to the various sets, and came up with his own,
WELL RESEARCHED answer!!!!! Seth.
"Stephen Worth" <ne...@vintageip.com> wrote in message
news:041020032247097599%ne...@vintageip.com...
Seth Winner
dub of the original production tapes that RCA made from 1951- 1956. In fact,
every re-issue from the Seraphim series (plagued with tape flutter), the
1982 LP series, and the badly processed EMI CD box all stem from those
original transfers done by RCA....Seth.
<deac...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0u5vnv0qtpvb8tqg4...@4ax.com...
Seth Winner
discs, if indeed they even know how to play back a 78rpm shellac pressing
properly. Oh, and another thing, by the time Schnabel came to Chicago, he
was playing a Steinway. So how can you compare the sound of a Bechstein to
one's memory of over fifty years ago (1942) of a different sounding piano!?
Seth.news:20031005120801...@mb-m19.aol.com...
> On 4 October 2003, Seth Winner wrote:
>
> >Thank you, Bill... An honest objective answer...Seth
>
> Since Mr. Winner appreciates "honest, objective" opinions, I hope he will
not
> mind if I add a few that I found regarding my Naxos Schnabel Beethoven
Sonatas
> series:
>
> "Previous transfers ranged from bland mush (EMI) to strident sizzle
(Pearl),
> but here Mark Obert-Thorn finds just the right balance between minimal
surface
> noise and maximum musical fidelity."
>
> - Peter Gutmann, classicalnotes.net (USA)
>
>
> "I feel obliged to point out that the first two editions of Naxos's
projected
> 11-CD anthology of Beethoven's solo piano music as performed by Artur
Schnabel
> offer the best sound yet for these performances. Transfer engineer Mark
> Obert-Thorn ... has found a superb middle ground between background noise
and
> reduced high end. Schnabel's piano sounds remarkably warm, full and
bright
>
> - Richard Perry, The Ottawa Citizen
>
>
> "The remarkably fresh-sounding transfers [of the Schnabel Beethoven
Concertos]
of
> the greatest cycles of Beethoven sonatas, which are now starting to emerge
on
> the Naxos label thanks to an unprecedentedly clear and vibrant transfer."
>
> - Anthony Clarke, The Bulletin (Australia)
>
>
> "I am old enough to have seen Schnabel perform - including once from a
stage
beloved
> Bechstein, amazing even back in the days of the scratchy 78s, is amazing
once
> again thanks to the miraculous audio restoration of Mark Obert-Thorn."
>
> - Alan Rich, LA Weekly
>
>
> "These magnificent Mark Obert-Thorn remasterings . . . make the sound seem
> nearly as fresh as the playing."
>
> - International Record Review (UK)
>
>
deac...@yahoo.com
<Seth.B...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Ask any of these critics, to compare the various transfers to the original
>discs, if indeed they even know how to play back a 78rpm shellac pressing
>properly. Oh, and another thing, by the time Schnabel came to Chicago, he
>was playing a Steinway. So how can you compare the sound of a Bechstein to
>one's memory of over fifty years ago (1942) of a different sounding piano!?
>Seth.
Anyone who knows Mr. Rich will know that he is far from infallible,
either in memory or taste.
That said, I don't really think that any of these transfers is capable
of HIDING Schnabel's genius at the piano. It is always there for us to
glory in, however the originals have been transferred. And my
experience goes back to the original 78s, which my father owned, the
RCA LP set, which I used to listen to at the Toronto Music Library,
the Angel COLH transfers painstakingly done by a master of the
business (forget the name, but he used to be almost famous!), as well
as later transfers on LP from EMI and the EMI CD transfers. And now
the latest ones done by freelance talent unrelated to EMI, who own the
masters.
In all, Schnabel's artistry was immediately apparent.
So, gentlemen, cool your jets!
TD
TD
deac...@yahoo.com
<Seth.B...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>TOM: FYI- The transfers you've liked all these years on Angel, is actually a
>dub of the original production tapes that RCA made from 1951- 1956. In fact,
>every re-issue from the Seraphim series (plagued with tape flutter), the
>1982 LP series, and the badly processed EMI CD box all stem from those
>original transfers done by RCA....Seth.
I wasn't talking abou the Seraphim transfers, Seth.
I was specifically speaking of the COLH transfers done, I think, by a
guy named Griffiths. At least I think it was he.
And according to the notes accompanying many of the COLH items - I
have the entire series, incidentally, with the exception of the vocal
section - the transfers were new at the time of release, i.e. the late
1950s, early 1960s.
I know the RCA transfers, as I used to listen to them at the library.
But I don't own them for comparison.
TD
TransfrGuy
>TOM: FYI- The transfers you've liked all these years on Angel, is actually a
>dub of the original production tapes that RCA made from 1951- 1956. In fact,
>every re-issue from the Seraphim series (plagued with tape flutter), the
>1982 LP series, and the badly processed EMI CD box all stem from those
>original transfers done by RCA....Seth.
Are you sure about that? I've always heard that the Angel and Seraphim LPs
stemmed from French Pathe Marconi transfers done in the late '50s, after the
split between RCA and EMI. The 1982 "HMV Treasury" LP set was newly re-done by
Keith Hardwick; I spoke to him about it. The EMI CD box was a vastly
over-CEDARed reprocessing of Hardwick's transfers for the LP set.
Mark Obert-Thorn
deac...@yahoo.com
I do believe that you have the facts straight, Mark.
The EMI transfers done in the late 50s and early 60s, and also issued
in France in the same Great Recordings of the Century series (called
Gravures Illustres in France) were freshly done for that prestigious
project.
Hardwick then did the next set, which, it would seem, was reprocessed
for the EMI CD set.
TD
Samir Golescu
What do you think, Mr. Winner, of Allan Evans' project of transferring
soon all of Schnabel's Beethoven on Arbiter, using Sonic Depth Technology?
regards,
SG
(:
Seth Winner
material....Check the box, which I just pulled off my shelf, of Volume 5,
which states: "Tapes re-mastered, and Side 3, Band 1 (Bagatelles, Op. 119)
from 78rpm by Keith Hardwick". There was another side's worth of unpublished
material Hardwick did at the time for the World Record Club issue (SHB 63)
of the concerti.
Those French Pathe Marconi transfers were from the RCA masters...RCA had
LP's out of them as late as 1957..the balance from the limited edition set
put out in 1956, that weren't issued in 1951. The Pathe issue came out
shortly after RCA withdrew its series. As I am writing this, my memory was
jogged by who told me about the fate of this series of recordings,
concerning transfers; it was a friend, now long gone, who worked at RCA
during the 1950's, and stayed in the business after his departure.
I'm in agreement with you, that the 1983 LP's are better than the CD's done
by EMI. What happened on the CD's is a rather sad case. They used the old
production tapes, and ran them through a prototype version they copied of
CEDAR's noise reduction software. What you hear on that issue is noise
reduction artifacts that not only pulse with the broadband noise, but
actually ate into the program signal, altering it to the point that the
piano sounded like a xylophone in fast passages...Here ends the sermon for
the moment...Seth.news:20031005132558...@mb-m05.aol.com...
Seth Winner
Time should be spent on legitimately issuing material from archives of live,
unpublished material. A wealthy benefactor can get a nice tax write-off for
underwriting the project, the institution gets the prestige and needed money
to keep going, and the collector/buyer reaps the ultimate benefit of a great
musical experience. Unfortunately, the musicians' unions in this country
still think that an historic recording commands the pay scale as if it was
done today. I speak from experience, believe me. The treasures of live
recordings/broadcasts housed by major organizations and repositories in this
country is quite staggering...Whether we will have the privilege of every
hearing them, let alone owning them is another question.
"Samir Golescu" <gol...@uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.31.03100...@ux7.cso.uiuc.edu...
Matthew燘. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:Pine.GSO.4.31.0310051251450.3432-100000
@ux7.cso.uiuc.edu:
Why don't you just toss in an apple labeled, "For the fairest"?
--
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
War is Peace. ** Freedom is Slavery. ** It's all Napster's fault!
Matthew燘. Tepper
Every lover of historical classical recordings should be glad that you're
doing the fine jobs you do. I know that I am, and I thank you.
BTW, for Schnabel's Beethoven, I long ago bought all the Pearl sets, and I've
been acquiring the Naxoi as they come out.
deac...@yahoo.com
<Seth.B...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Do we need another transfer of this?
>Time should be spent on legitimately issuing material from archives of live,
>unpublished material. A wealthy benefactor can get a nice tax write-off for
>underwriting the project, the institution gets the prestige and needed money
>to keep going, and the collector/buyer reaps the ultimate benefit of a great
>musical experience. Unfortunately, the musicians' unions in this country
>still think that an historic recording commands the pay scale as if it was
>done today. I speak from experience, believe me. The treasures of live
>recordings/broadcasts housed by major organizations and repositories in this
>country is quite staggering...Whether we will have the privilege of every
>hearing them, let alone owning them is another question.
The AFofM has to be one of the dumbest outfits in operation.
TD
deac...@yahoo.com
<oy兀earthlink.net> wrote:
>Guys, guys -- you two, and Ward Marston, are the KINGS of reissue transfer.
>Every lover of historical classical recordings should be glad that you're
>doing the fine jobs you do. I know that I am, and I thank you.
>
>BTW, for Schnabel's Beethoven, I long ago bought all the Pearl sets, and I've
>been acquiring the Naxoi as they come out.
Of course!
What's the fight all about? Ego? or money?
TD
Seth Winner
the years, is the indifference I've received from the critics on my work.
Many of the reviews I got never credited me for my work, when it was good,
but always seem to put it in when they found fault with a transfer. I
remember a joke a friend of mine used to pull on me, when the magazines came
out: "You had a great month...none of your stuff got reviewed this time
'round." I can also tell you, from the N.Y. scene, about a call I got from
a critic, who was going to review a CD I has recently done for a major
record company. He asked me, "How does it sound?" My response was, "Why
don't you go and listen to it yourself?" He did, and gave it a great review.
I also know, from friends in the used CD/record business, about the review
copies that they've purchased, sealed, before they were even released
offically!!!! I begin to wonder, how fair music criticism is in this
business, now that I've seen so much of it...Seth.
"Matthew B. Tepper" <oyþ@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Xns940B7531450...@207.217.77.205...
wkas...@comcast.net
"Stephen Worth" <ne...@vintageip.com> wrote in message
news:041020032247097599%ne...@vintageip.com...
> I'm not sure what you mean by overfiltered. I'm guessing you don't mean
> digital artifacting, because I've never heard an Obert-Thorn transfer
> with that problem. If you mean that the sound is a bit muffled, that
> may actually be an accurate transcription.
Thanks - that's probably a more accurate term. It's as though there's a
sonic veil on the Naxos transfers that I don't hear on the Pearls.
> All of the Beethoven Sonata
> Society records that I have heard have a fairly thick, soft sound. Not
> having heard the Pearl or Naxos transfers, I really can't make any
> definite comment, but based on your description of the sound, Mark
> Obert-Thorn's set might very well be truest to the records.
Since I've not heard the originals, I really can't say - but "truest to the
records" isn't necessarily what I listen for.
> This is a case where I doubt
> if there could be any clear-cut "best transfer". It all depends on how
> close your own taste matches that of the transfer engineer.
Absolutely. I should probably clarify why I prefer the Pearl transfers (I
think that I did this a while back, but maybe not). Yes, the Pearls retain
a lot more high-frequency surface noise, but since much of the musical
information isn't in that same frequency range, I find it pretty easy to
mentally filter it. Other transfers (and the Naxos CD I heard was among
them) tame that noise, but in the process of removing it, seem to accentuate
noise that's in the same frequency range as the music, so it's a lot harder
for me to filter it mentally, and as a result, the piano sounds less
realistic to me.
Bill
--
====================
William D. Kasimer
wkas...@comcast.net
wkas...@quincymc.org
>
deac...@yahoo.com
<Seth.B...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Thank you, Matt. I began to wonder sometimes, especially what I've seen over
>the years, is the indifference I've received from the critics on my work.
>Many of the reviews I got never credited me for my work, when it was good,
>but always seem to put it in when they found fault with a transfer. I
>remember a joke a friend of mine used to pull on me, when the magazines came
>out: "You had a great month...none of your stuff got reviewed this time
>'round." I can also tell you, from the N.Y. scene, about a call I got from
>a critic, who was going to review a CD I has recently done for a major
>record company. He asked me, "How does it sound?" My response was, "Why
>don't you go and listen to it yourself?" He did, and gave it a great review.
>I also know, from friends in the used CD/record business, about the review
>copies that they've purchased, sealed, before they were even released
>offically!!!! I begin to wonder, how fair music criticism is in this
>business, now that I've seen so much of it...Seth.
You have every right to be cynical about record criticism in general.
You might also extend that cynicism to music criticism in general.
In all matters your advice is best: why not go and listen to it
yourself!
TD
Ward Moron
> No...The only thing Hardwick did in the 1982 set was the unreleased
> material....Check the box, which I just pulled off my shelf, of Volume 5,
> which states: "Tapes re-mastered, and Side 3, Band 1 (Bagatelles, Op. 119)
> from 78rpm by Keith Hardwick".
Does anyone know when the Bagatelles, Op. 119 will be rereleased?
Clearly there's a legal problem for the independent people, and EMI
have their heads too far up their asses to do anything about it, but
might it happen one day?
tag gallagher
together with Schnabel's edition of the sheet music.
The discs were in automatic sequence. On the back of Side 1 was Side
26. Thanks to RCA, you could listen to all 32 sonatas and only have to
change sides once.
deac...@yahoo.com
wrote:
You are one of the few people I know who have actually OWNED this
edition.
You must have noticed that Schnabel doesn't do as he says.
Fascinating.
I don't remember the "sound", per se. What are your thoughts on it?
TD
Stephen Worth
<tGXfb.170141$3o3.12...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Seth
Winner <Seth.B...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Stephen: How can you make a decision on something you haven't heard? Bill,
> made a decision, by LISTENING to the various sets, and came up with his own,
> WELL RESEARCHED answer!
I'm very familiar with the sound of the 78s. I imagine most people who
buy the CD transfers aren't. My comments were intended to provide info
on the sonic qualities of the original records, not provide a critique
of how the CD transfers sound. I think I made that clear in my post.
Stephen Worth
<8KZfb.165433$0v4.12...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Seth
Winner <Seth.B...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Thank you, Matt. I began to wonder sometimes, especially what I've seen over
> the years, is the indifference I've received from the critics on my work.
> Many of the reviews I got never credited me for my work, when it was good,
> but always seem to put it in when they found fault with a transfer.
Isn't that what being a transfer engineer is all about? Ultimately, the
performance is what people are buying, not the guy who plays the
record. I honestly don't understand why transfer engineers should have
fan clubs at all. It's not rocket science... it's not even an art. All
it requires is a good ear, sound judgement and meticulousness. Those
are skills related to craftsmanship, not artistic creation.
The pinnacle of 78rpm restoration is to present the music clearly,
while the engineering remains as transparent to the listener as humanly
possible. The only time the listener will become aware of the
engineering is when it comes between him and the music. It seems to me
that if you don't get a lot of recognition, you are doing your job
correctly.
It's a different story if you engineer records the way Dutton does,
trying to "improve" the original performance through sweetening. That
approach may throw a spotlight on the engineer, but it's not always a
flattering one. It's better to be an unsung craftsman in my opinion.
Stephen Worth
wrote:
> Since I've not heard the originals, I really can't say - but "truest to the
> records" isn't necessarily what I listen for.
That's an important matter of approach for transfer engineers. There
is a range of opinion from "leave the record exactly as it sounds raw"
to "sweeten it to make it sound better than it originally did". Where
you as a listener stand on this scale will dictate which transfer
engineer's work you prefer. There isn't any hard and fast right or
wrong answer to these sorts of judgement calls. It's a matter of
personal taste and philosophical approach.
> the Pearls retain
> a lot more high-frequency surface noise, but since much of the musical
> information isn't in that same frequency range, I find it pretty easy to
> mentally filter it. Other transfers (and the Naxos CD I heard was among
> them) tame that noise, but in the process of removing it, seem to accentuate
> noise that's in the same frequency range as the music, so it's a lot harder
> for me to filter it mentally, and as a result, the piano sounds less
> realistic to me.
That's a very interesting observation. One of my areas of interest is
the effect of psycho-acoustics on the sound of historical transfers.
There's a phenominon that's well known among transfer engineers that
you've nailed in your description of how the two transfers sound to
you. A recording with limited high frequency information can sound
muffled to the ear. Adding a bit of steady high frequency noise can
fool the ear into thinking that it is hearing high frequencies in the
recording that it really isn't. The noise makes the recording sound
brighter, and the steadiness of the noise makes it easy for the
listener to tune it out.
In theory, both of the transfers you have heard may be virtually
identical, with the only difference being that there is more steady
noise in one of them. Contrary as it might seem, the noise might
actually be making the program material sound better. Your observation
that you detect more noise in the range of the program when the noise
is removed is interesting too. You might be noticing defects in the
program material more simply because the sound is less broken up by
the high frequency noise. I've never considered that possibility
before.
You might try taking the Naxos transfers and dial up the treble on your
stereo until the background hiss is slightly audible. I imagine Mark
left the surface noise continuous between tracks. You should have a few
seconds of surface noise to be able to adjust this level pretty
carefully. This might make them sound less muffled to you. I always
leave a healthy bed of hiss on my transfers, but I have noticed that on
different people's stereos, the level of hiss can go from inaudible to
quite high. Adjusting the high frequency level from CD to CD might be
necessary to make the sound bright enough to be enjoyed. I know that in
theory, flat response is the best, but your ears are the ultimate
judge. You might want to try this out on other transfers and see if it
improves the way they sound to you.
Donald C. Patterson
deadcor...@hotmail.com wrote on 10/5/03 11:27 PM:
To the original poster:
Until all of the Naxos are out, you can still get the Dante box at Berkshire
for under $30. Sonically, it's a good compromise between the muffled EMI
box and the superior Naxos transfers. It comes in a very nice slim-line box
and includes the concerti, variations, and bagatelles. Takes up very little
shelf room. My wife and I have gotten much enjoyment from this set, as well
as my daughter, a budding 8-year-old pianist. Her teacher also likes the
set.
Still, I'm buying the Naxos discs as I find them in Borders. They are in
noticeably better sound.
--
Don Patterson
DCP Music Press
Professional Music Copy
and Arrangements
don...@olg.com
Seth Winner
Seth Winner
Just put a stylus in, set a level, and push a button on a tape recordeder,
and your done. It takes a lot more than that...Check out the old IRCC (now
CRC) issues, on how the major sound restoration engineers do it.....Seth.news:061020031514548814%ne...@vintageip.com...
Stephen Worth
<CMqgb.171601$3o3.12...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Seth
Winner <Seth.B...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> That still doesn't answer my question.....Seth.
Which question?
Stephen Worth
<3Pqgb.171608$3o3.12...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Seth
Winner <Seth.B...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Obviously, you think that doing a CD restoration takes all of 2 hours to do.
> Just put a stylus in, set a level, and push a button on a tape recordeder,
> and your done. It takes a lot more than that...Check out the old IRCC (now
> CRC) issues, on how the major sound restoration engineers do it
I'm sure you're a nice guy, but in this post you sure come off as a
sourpuss...
I've spent thousands of hours digitally restoring 78s. Even though I'm
basically an independent hobbiest and not a "major sound restoration
engineer", I've produced some things that I'm quite proud of. But even
if I was "major" that doesn't mean that I am being "creative" when I
declick and EQ, or that I am an "artist" worthy of a cult following
when my name appears in the liner notes of a CD. If that's what you
want, you're in the wrong line of work.
Restoration of records is a craft. It requires patience, a good ear,
technology and sound judgement. For the true craftsman, a job well done
is its own reward. If the listener can enjoy the performance without
being aware of the craftsman who restored it, then the craftsman should
be proud of that.
Ron Heath
smiggin when playing many of the NAXOS historical transfers I "think"
the sound opens out a bit and I enjoy it more.
Ron
Stephen Worth <ne...@vintageip.com> wrote in message news:<061020031546493702%ne...@vintageip.com>...
Raymond Hall
| In article
| <3Pqgb.171608$3o3.12...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Seth
| Winner <Seth.B...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
|
| > Obviously, you think that doing a CD restoration takes all of 2 hours to
do.
| > Just put a stylus in, set a level, and push a button on a tape
recordeder,
| > and your done. It takes a lot more than that...Check out the old IRCC
(now
| > CRC) issues, on how the major sound restoration engineers do it
|
| I'm sure you're a nice guy, but in this post you sure come off as a
| sourpuss...
|
| I've spent thousands of hours digitally restoring 78s. Even though I'm
| basically an independent hobbiest and not a "major sound restoration
| engineer", I've produced some things that I'm quite proud of. But even
| if I was "major" that doesn't mean that I am being "creative" when I
| declick and EQ, or that I am an "artist" worthy of a cult following
| when my name appears in the liner notes of a CD. If that's what you
| want, you're in the wrong line of work.
|
| Restoration of records is a craft. It requires patience, a good ear,
| technology and sound judgement. For the true craftsman, a job well done
| is its own reward. If the listener can enjoy the performance without
| being aware of the craftsman who restored it, then the craftsman should
| be proud of that.
Absolutely, and as Bach was also a craftsman, and as also was Haydn, and as
are vitually all composers, and also musicians, let us not forget the
undoubted artistic and aesthetic element that goes along with the craft.
When subjective decisions have to be taken, we enter the realm of aesthetics
[relationship that balances the appreciation of the concepts of beauty and
taste]. Decisions about trade-offs are a bit more than mere craft, and
especially in the realm concerning music.
Even programmers can be guilty of aesthetically pleasing code (usually the
most efficient code), just as mathematicians seek beauty in the reduction of
complexity to the simplicity of form and abstraction of an equation.
I for one, cannot see restoration of sound, as simply being written off as a
craft. There is art involved as well, and the art derives from being
previously acquainted with all the varying aspects of that art.
Regards,
# http://www.users.bigpond.com/hallraylily/index.html
See You Tamara (Ozzy Osbourne)
Ray, Taree, NSW
Seth Winner
and theory on how coarse groove discs were recorded & cut (i.e.:
pre-emphasis curves for electrics, etc.) and the inherent mechanical
problems of playing back this medium. Then one has to apply these resources
to making objective decisions, as well as artistic ones, in restoring a
recording to mastering level. Concerning digital restoration, I made many
inquiries, concerning the digital audio intergrity of the signal being
processed. As a result, I went with two of the most respected names in audio
restoration: CEDAR & SADIE. I have a fellow engineer who I send certain
specific audio inperfections to, which I can't handle; he uses SONIC
SOLUTIONS' No-Noise Modules. BTW, Both companies have send me software to
beta-test over the past few years, because they respect my input. As a
result, they've been able to improve upon their current software, and their
end-users have benefited. So if you think I'm looking for a fan club, you're
way off the mark. I've also been involved with Audio
Engineering Society, concerning writing new parameters for digital
preservation for archival use. What can be done behind the scenes, sometimes
can be even more important than whose name goes on a remastered CD....Seth.
P.S.: NARAS thought pretty highly of my work, with 3 Grammy nominations and
a honorable mention for a Grammy winning issue......Every craftsman expects
recognition for his work; afterall, would we know who Rembrandt was, if he
didn't sign his works?news:071020031348243029%ne...@vintageip.com...
Raymond Hall
| It's not only a craft, its also knowing the scientific/electronic
background
| and theory on how coarse groove discs were recorded & cut (i.e.:
| pre-emphasis curves for electrics, etc.) and the inherent mechanical
| problems of playing back this medium. Then one has to apply these
resources
| to making objective decisions, as well as artistic ones, in restoring a
| recording to mastering level. Concerning digital restoration, I made many
| inquiries, concerning the digital audio intergrity of the signal being
| processed. As a result, I went with two of the most respected names in
audio
| restoration: CEDAR & SADIE. I have a fellow engineer who I send certain
| specific audio inperfections to, which I can't handle; he uses SONIC
| SOLUTIONS' No-Noise Modules. BTW, Both companies have send me software to
| beta-test over the past few years, because they respect my input. As a
| result, they've been able to improve upon their current software, and
their
| end-users have benefited. So if you think I'm looking for a fan club,
you're
| way off the mark.
I am sure you do have plenty of fans. My reply, however, was to Stephen, and
wasn't intended to point out or to reason or to even bore people with
technical jargon. Fact is, there is art involved. Period. And I can
appreciate many of the technical aspects. After all, I am a professional
electrical engineer with an upper 2nd B.Sc Hons, and more besides.
Seth Winner
We may have our wires crossed....I think I was replying to Stephen's posting
that appeared before yours...Thanks for the response...Seth.
P.S.: I'm in complete agreement with you! I felt that those reading this,
should get a little bit of insight as to what goes on "behind" the scenes.
As a side note, which I found interesting, George Marek, the head of the Red
Seal Division of RCA recorded an interview for "The Man Behind The Legend"
series in 1963. He said at that time, concerning the release of the 2LP set,
"Toscanini Conducts Overtures", that the restoration of the original
pre-tape material was "science coming to the aid of art." How apropos!!
"Raymond Hall" <haxxr...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:bm06av$gmrhl$1...@ID-101911.news.uni-berlin.de...
Stephen Worth
<haxxr...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> When subjective decisions have to be taken, we enter the realm of aesthetics
I guess it's a matter of definitions... taking your definition a little
further, anything can be an art... playing poker, deciding which
restaurant to have dinner at, picking a long distance telephone service
provider, etc.
To me, art isn't making subjective decisions based on experience and
taste. Art is a form of personal expression. I prefer that transfer
engineers stick to craft and let the original performers' artistic
statement take front and center.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with being a craftsman. It's just as
valid a thing to be as an artist, and can contribute just as much to
society. When I say someone is a fine craftsman, I don't mean they are
a lousy artist.
Raymond Hall
| Ray:
| We may have our wires crossed....I think I was replying to Stephen's
posting
| that appeared before yours...Thanks for the response...Seth.
| P.S.: I'm in complete agreement with you! I felt that those reading this,
| should get a little bit of insight as to what goes on "behind" the scenes.
| As a side note, which I found interesting, George Marek, the head of the
Red
| Seal Division of RCA recorded an interview for "The Man Behind The Legend"
| series in 1963. He said at that time, concerning the release of the 2LP
set,
| "Toscanini Conducts Overtures", that the restoration of the original
| pre-tape material was "science coming to the aid of art." How apropos!!
Am glad we sorted it. And I have had too many instances of crossed wires in
reality, especially pins 2 and 3 on an RS-232 cable.
<g>
In full agreement.
Raymond Hall
| In article <blvtvm$gr9t9$1...@ID-101911.news.uni-berlin.de>, Raymond Hall
| <haxxr...@bigpond.com> wrote:
|
| > When subjective decisions have to be taken, we enter the realm of
aesthetics
|
| I guess it's a matter of definitions... taking your definition a little
| further, anything can be an art... playing poker, deciding which
| restaurant to have dinner at, picking a long distance telephone service
| provider, etc.
|
| To me, art isn't making subjective decisions based on experience and
| taste. Art is a form of personal expression. I prefer that transfer
| engineers stick to craft and let the original performers' artistic
| statement take front and center.
But my contention is that one doesn't know exactly the original artist's
intention, let alone from a modern recording. In reality your original
source represents an unknown reality, and with the craftmanship at your
disposal, tweaking knobs, filters, attenuators, and all that is available to
tweak (especially digitally), and hence disposing with any more technical
sprach, then there comes a stage where you (yes, YA) becomes Herbie the K,
the balance engineer, and recording producer, who unite in an artistic
endeavour to create an artistic reality in stone, whether on vinyl or CD.
You will require knowledge of the acoustic environment, the balance as would
be expected by using a score, knowledge of the dynamic markings, and simply
from past experience of a lot of listening to classical music, textures
which best represent the reality (maybe an orchestral reality) only as you
surmise that reality to be.
If you gave the source and all the technical knowledge and equipment to a
technical whiz kid who knows not much about classical music in general, then
my contention is that *you* should produce a more artistic sounding result.
The whiz kid might aim for sheer clarity, or sheer elimination of crackle,
or hiss. But you should be aiming for much more. What should actually emerge
from the loudspeakers is a highly complex waveform (completely unable to be
quantified by any complex function) that best represents your artistic view
of how the result should sound.
To a large extent, whether we are a composer like Bach or Stravinsky, or a
scientist, engineer, bricklayer, mathematician, or interior decorator, then
ALL are united by a large component of what is termed as craftmanship. At
the tip of the iceberg comes the cream, and that is called the artistic
component, an area where compromise is challenged, and directions have to be
chosen.
| There's absolutely nothing wrong with being a craftsman. It's just as
| valid a thing to be as an artist, and can contribute just as much to
| society. When I say someone is a fine craftsman, I don't mean they are
| a lousy artist.
But being an artist requires craftmanship, as you seem to admit above, (and
I agree with you largely about the component of craftsmanship involved), but
what you seem to be saying amounts to the effect that there are a few crafts
that allow no freedom of expression. This is where I disagree with you, and
especially in an area that involves, at the end, the production of highly
complex movements of air, and much too complex to express mathematically.
What I am saying is, is that one isn't dealing with the mere production of a
cisoidal waveform such as a pure sine wave.
deac...@yahoo.com
<Seth.B...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>It's not only a craft, its also knowing the scientific/electronic background
>and theory on how coarse groove discs were recorded & cut (i.e.:
>pre-emphasis curves for electrics, etc.) and the inherent mechanical
>problems of playing back this medium. Then one has to apply these resources
>to making objective decisions, as well as artistic ones, in restoring a
>recording to mastering level. Concerning digital restoration, I made many
>inquiries, concerning the digital audio intergrity of the signal being
>processed. As a result, I went with two of the most respected names in audio
>restoration: CEDAR & SADIE. I have a fellow engineer who I send certain
>specific audio inperfections to, which I can't handle; he uses SONIC
>SOLUTIONS' No-Noise Modules. BTW, Both companies have send me software to
>beta-test over the past few years, because they respect my input. As a
>result, they've been able to improve upon their current software, and their
>end-users have benefited. So if you think I'm looking for a fan club, you're
>way off the mark. I've also been involved with Audio
>Engineering Society, concerning writing new parameters for digital
>preservation for archival use. What can be done behind the scenes, sometimes
>can be even more important than whose name goes on a remastered CD....Seth.
>P.S.: NARAS thought pretty highly of my work, with 3 Grammy nominations and
>a honorable mention for a Grammy winning issue......Every craftsman expects
>recognition for his work; afterall, would we know who Rembrandt was, if he
>didn't sign his works?
I hate to see you "defend" yourself, Seth. Your work speaks for
itself.
Just let the amateurs blather on senselessly.
TD
Stephen Worth
<haxxr...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> To a large extent, whether we are a composer like Bach or Stravinsky, or a
> scientist, engineer, bricklayer, mathematician, or interior decorator, then
> ALL are united by a large component of what is termed as craftmanship. At
> the tip of the iceberg comes the cream, and that is called the artistic
> component, an area where compromise is challenged, and directions have to be
> chosen.
Like I said before, it's just a different definition of art... Under my
definition, craftsmanship and artistic expression are equals. Both can
create things of great beauty. The difference is that the craftsman is
creating something designed just to be functional or beautiful, or is
presenting someone else's art in an elegant and honest way. An artist
is making a personal statement... The statement in the music should be
coming from the performers and composers- they are the artists. The
function and elegance of presentation comes from the transfer engineer-
he is the craftsman.
Since you mentioned your education, I'll mention mine... I have a BA in
Design from UCLA. (The irony is that I am an artist!) I came to sound
restoration through my work in supervising post production in the film
business. I also do art restoration for major auction houses and
private collectors. In my art restoration business, I drafted a code of
ethics that I follow when restoring a piece...
€ Artwork with minor damage should be stabilized, and carefully
stored or displayed until the image is affected enough to warrant
restoration.
€ Restoration must remain faithful to the original artistic intent,
with no attempt to "improve" on the art by adding to, or deleting
from the image.
€ When modern materials and tools are inadequate to reproduce hue,
brilliancy or effect, vintage techniques should be thoroughly
researched and tested. However, in some cases, the use of certain
formulas or techniques must be discouraged due to considerations
of impermanence.
€ The quality of the restoration must not be dependent on the monetary
value of the artwork.
€ Expertise is the result of experience. The restorer must experiment
to discover better techniques, and cross reference artwork to learn
more about the material he is restoring.
Art restoration is a little different, but you can see how these same
principles can be applied to sound reproduction as well. The first
point would involve the conservatorship of the original shellac
records. The second precludes the use of "sweetening". The third
relates to my research into acoustic reproduction and psycho-acoustics.
The third is simply a matter of pride in the quality of one's own work.
The fourth requires the restorer to always strive to do better.
Even when I have done beautiful restoration work on artwork worth
hundreds of thousands of dollars, I haven't been foolish enough to
think that my work in any way was responsible for the artistic value of
the piece. That credit lies 100% with the artists who created it in the
first place. All I do is take it back to a state as close to the way it
was when they first created it as humanly possible.
Raymond Hall
| In article <bm0khf$ghhp9$1...@ID-101911.news.uni-berlin.de>, Raymond Hall
| <haxxr...@bigpond.com> wrote:
|
| > To a large extent, whether we are a composer like Bach or Stravinsky, or
a
| > scientist, engineer, bricklayer, mathematician, or interior decorator,
then
| > ALL are united by a large component of what is termed as craftmanship.
At
| > the tip of the iceberg comes the cream, and that is called the artistic
| > component, an area where compromise is challenged, and directions have
to be
| > chosen.
|
| Like I said before, it's just a different definition of art... Under my
| definition, craftsmanship and artistic expression are equals.
There is no reason to assume that craftmanship or art is inherently superior
to the other, but then how can one really equate green apples with red
apples? There is a finer distinction that must be sought between the musical
definitions for artistry and craftsmanship. I think we are both agreed on
what we define as craftsmanship. Where we seem to differ, is in the term
"artistic expression". To a large extent (and as defined by many
dictionaries), art is essentially an act of creation, and which can only be
achieved by craftmanship. To that extent, much of Bach or Stravinsky (to use
whatever examples pops into the head) are works of craftsmen. At what stage
do they become artists? The answer is, in my opinion, that both exercise
freedom of thought, and as such, by definition, become original in some
sense or other. Hence the term originality, in my world, is essentially a
redundant term.
In other words, wherever freedom of thought and expression are used, then
craftsmanship becomes art.
| Both can
| create things of great beauty. The difference is that the craftsman is
| creating something designed just to be functional or beautiful, or is
| presenting someone else's art in an elegant and honest way. An artist
| is making a personal statement...
As we are all unique, thank goodness, then all craftsmanship must be art
according to your above statement. We all make personal statements in
everything we do, and even in our posts.
<g>