Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Best sounding mono recordings?
2,706 views
Skip to first unread message
kirkmc
Jan 9, 2014, 8:52:02 AM1/9/14
to
I've been writing something about listening to mono recordings, focusing on those recordings that were mixed first in mono, then in stereo, back in the early days of stereo: artists like Miles Davis, Bob Dylan and The Beatles, for whom recent releases of re-mastered mono recordings sound very nice.
Does anyone know about specific classical recordings that fit the same conditions? Recorded in any manner - most of the above used at least three-track tape - but where the mix was to mono first, with the stereo mix considered less important.
Also, what are the best sounding mono recordings you know, of any type of classical music? I'm finding that listening to good-quality mono recordings really is relaxing...
Kirk
Does anyone know about specific classical recordings that fit the same conditions? Recorded in any manner - most of the above used at least three-track tape - but where the mix was to mono first, with the stereo mix considered less important.
Also, what are the best sounding mono recordings you know, of any type of classical music? I'm finding that listening to good-quality mono recordings really is relaxing...
Kirk
O
Jan 9, 2014, 9:12:40 AM1/9/14
to
In article <47a84bff-c48c-4a1e...@googlegroups.com>,
This Artur Rubenstein mono disk immediately comes to mind as great mono
sound. The piano sound in Funerailles is amazing:
http://www.amazon.com/Plays-Liszt-Rubinstein/dp/B000003FL3/ref=sr_1_1?ie
=UTF8&qid=1389276627&sr=8-1&keywords=artur+rubinstein+funerailles
The used price is pretty good, too! :-)
-Owen
sound. The piano sound in Funerailles is amazing:
http://www.amazon.com/Plays-Liszt-Rubinstein/dp/B000003FL3/ref=sr_1_1?ie
=UTF8&qid=1389276627&sr=8-1&keywords=artur+rubinstein+funerailles
The used price is pretty good, too! :-)
-Owen
wkasimer
Jan 9, 2014, 9:44:16 AM1/9/14
to
Fricsay's first recording of the Verdi Requiem.
Bill
Bill
Message has been deleted
kirkmc
Jan 9, 2014, 10:19:27 AM1/9/14
to
On Thursday, January 9, 2014 3:03:38 PM UTC, frankwm wrote:
> Apparently mono is crap ('mostly'), according to a redneck yankee.
>
> http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/vt.mpl?f=music&m=204538
>
> (Comment appears after several linear-yards of yankee flannel)
>
>
>
> Anyhow; is this lark 'mono LP' - or 'mono CD'; as Franky Fricsay's VAD Reck Whim was first mastered All-Fool's' Day, 1954 - so may not always have sounded 'quite so stunning'.
To be fair, listening to mono recordings on a stereo doesn't sound great. But if you listen on a single speaker, and it's well recorded, it sounds glorious.
Kirk
> Apparently mono is crap ('mostly'), according to a redneck yankee.
>
> http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/vt.mpl?f=music&m=204538
>
> (Comment appears after several linear-yards of yankee flannel)
>
>
>
> Anyhow; is this lark 'mono LP' - or 'mono CD'; as Franky Fricsay's VAD Reck Whim was first mastered All-Fool's' Day, 1954 - so may not always have sounded 'quite so stunning'.
To be fair, listening to mono recordings on a stereo doesn't sound great. But if you listen on a single speaker, and it's well recorded, it sounds glorious.
Kirk
Christopher Webber
Jan 9, 2014, 10:26:37 AM1/9/14
to
On 09/01/2014 15:19, kirkmc wrote:
> listening to mono recordings on a stereo doesn't sound great. But if you listen on a single speaker, and it's well recorded, it sounds glorious.
I don't understand. Surely, if you have your stereo speakers correctly
> listening to mono recordings on a stereo doesn't sound great. But if you listen on a single speaker, and it's well recorded, it sounds glorious.
positioned, you produce a perfect mono image in the middle, where nature
(and possibly God) intended it?
Message has been deleted
RLane
Jan 9, 2014, 10:47:52 AM1/9/14
to
Probably a great question for Tom Fine, of the Mercury family fame.
Join the ARSC listserv and you could post your question there. I'm sure he would have some great examples for you from teh Mercury catalog.
http://www.arsc-audio.org/index.php
--
Android Usenet Reader
http://android.newsgroupstats.hk
Join the ARSC listserv and you could post your question there. I'm sure he would have some great examples for you from teh Mercury catalog.
http://www.arsc-audio.org/index.php
Android Usenet Reader
http://android.newsgroupstats.hk
William Sommerwerck
Jan 9, 2014, 11:10:46 AM1/9/14
to
"kirkmc" wrote in message
news:0d08951b-c915-46ac...@googlegroups.com...
> To be fair, listening to mono recordings on a stereo doesn't
> sound great. But if you listen on a single speaker, and it's
> well recorded, it sounds glorious.
Or if you use a hall synthesizer, running through separate speakers.
news:0d08951b-c915-46ac...@googlegroups.com...
> To be fair, listening to mono recordings on a stereo doesn't
> sound great. But if you listen on a single speaker, and it's
> well recorded, it sounds glorious.
William Sommerwerck
Jan 9, 2014, 11:19:06 AM1/9/14
to
"Christopher Webber" wrote in message
news:bj7tde...@mid.individual.net...
> I don't understand. Surely, if you have your stereo speakers correctly
> positioned, you produce a perfect mono image in the middle, where
> nature (and possibly God) intended it?
"God's intent" is that we hear reflected sounds from the sides.
And don't call me Shirley.
news:bj7tde...@mid.individual.net...
> I don't understand. Surely, if you have your stereo speakers correctly
> positioned, you produce a perfect mono image in the middle, where
> nature (and possibly God) intended it?
And don't call me Shirley.
William Sommerwerck
Jan 9, 2014, 11:21:08 AM1/9/14
to
I remember hearing a Buddy Holly mono recording that had a superb sense of
"depth".
"depth".
kirkmc
Jan 9, 2014, 11:25:40 AM1/9/14
to
Kirk
Christopher Webber
Jan 9, 2014, 11:31:09 AM1/9/14
to
On 09/01/2014 16:25, kirkmc replied to me:
>> >I don't understand. Surely, if you have your stereo speakers correctly
>> >
>> >positioned, you produce a perfect mono image in the middle, where nature
>> >
>> >(and possibly God) intended it?
> Actually, no. It makes a sweet spot between the speakers, which you don't get with a single speaker.
"Sweet spot" sounds good to me!
>> >
>> >positioned, you produce a perfect mono image in the middle, where nature
>> >
>> >(and possibly God) intended it?
> Actually, no. It makes a sweet spot between the speakers, which you don't get with a single speaker.
David Fox
Jan 9, 2014, 11:33:16 AM1/9/14
to
of the important steps in proper speaker placement and calibration. If
two speakers can't project a solid, coherent mono image between them
then they will never properly convey stereo. Depending on the room, it
often involves fiddling with the balance control. Some people believe
that it needs to be set at 12 o'clock regardless of circumstances, but
this is not true.
DF
David Fox
Jan 9, 2014, 11:47:35 AM1/9/14
to
"Swan Lake" - Dorati, Minneapolis MLP 1954. This was included in the
recent "MLP 2" box. I was floored when I heard this and thought it
might be the best-sounding mono classical recording I've ever heard. I
could also name several other mono MLP's, including Kubelik's "Pictures
at an Exhibition" which caused a reviewer to coin the phrase "Living
Presence."
Not classical, but since you brought up mono-vs-stereo:
"Only the Lonely" - Frank Sinatra (1958). Mobile Fidelity recently
reissued the mono mix of this album on CD and LP. The difference
between the mono and stereo is astounding, much in favor of the mono.
For that matter, many of Sinatra's early stereo Capitol recordings sound
better in their mono incarnations.
Also - just about anything recorded by Blue Note and/or Rudy van Gellar
in the mid-1950's. Many of Norman Granz's mid-50's Verve/Clef/Norgan
mono recordings are spectacular as well, including "Ella and Louis",
Ella Fitzgerald's early songbook releases, Anita O'Day's early albuums,
Billie Holiday's 1950's releases, the Art Tatum / Lionel Hampton / Buddy
Rich sessions, and many, many others.
And - no mono-vs-stereo conversation would be complete without bringing
up The Beatles. There have been terabytes written about the virtues and
variants of The Beatles' mono mixes vs their stereo counterparts and I
won't rehash any of it here. Suffice it to say if you've never heard
any of The Beatles in true mono - whether it be from the recent Mono Box
or original UK LP releases - you are in for a treat.
DF
Bob Lombard
Jan 9, 2014, 12:08:48 PM1/9/14
to
On 1/9/2014 11:33 AM, David Fox wrote:
>
>
> Actually, setting up two speakers to yield a pristine mono image is
> one of the important steps in proper speaker placement and
> calibration. If two speakers can't project a solid, coherent mono
> image between them then they will never properly convey stereo.
> Depending on the room, it often involves fiddling with the balance
> control. Some people believe that it needs to be set at 12 o'clock
> regardless of circumstances, but this is not true.
>
> DF
I'll buy this story. Aside from that, the 'sweet spot' is not single
>
>
> Actually, setting up two speakers to yield a pristine mono image is
> one of the important steps in proper speaker placement and
> calibration. If two speakers can't project a solid, coherent mono
> image between them then they will never properly convey stereo.
> Depending on the room, it often involves fiddling with the balance
> control. Some people believe that it needs to be set at 12 o'clock
> regardless of circumstances, but this is not true.
>
> DF
point, as the sound from a single speaker must be. At least in my mind
there is a 'sound stage' of sorts. No matter what Samir thinks, I think
it can be of piano width, if not string quartet width. [I've never heard
a single Maggy or Quad, don't know how that presentation changes the
illusion.]
bl
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
kirkmc
Jan 9, 2014, 12:39:14 PM1/9/14
to
On Thursday, January 9, 2014 5:08:48 PM UTC, Bob Lombard wrote:
> On 1/9/2014 11:33 AM, David Fox wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Actually, setting up two speakers to yield a pristine mono image is
>
> > one of the important steps in proper speaker placement and
>
> > calibration. If two speakers can't project a solid, coherent mono
>
> > image between them then they will never properly convey stereo.
>
> > Depending on the room, it often involves fiddling with the balance
>
> > control. Some people believe that it needs to be set at 12 o'clock
>
> > regardless of circumstances, but this is not true.
>
> >
>
> > DF
>
>
>
> I'll buy this story. Aside from that, the 'sweet spot' is not single
>
> point, as the sound from a single speaker must be. At least in my mind
>
> there is a 'sound stage' of sorts. No matter what Samir thinks, I think
>
> it can be of piano width, if not string quartet width. [I've never heard
>
> a single Maggy or Quad, don't know how that presentation changes the
>
> illusion.]
>
I find that with two speakers, it's reductive; if you move, you're not in the sweet spot any more. With one speaker, it's expansive; you can move a bit, and still hear it fine. From a single speaker, it radiates a fairly large sweet spot; from two speakers, there's much less room to listen comfortably.
> On 1/9/2014 11:33 AM, David Fox wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Actually, setting up two speakers to yield a pristine mono image is
>
> > one of the important steps in proper speaker placement and
>
> > calibration. If two speakers can't project a solid, coherent mono
>
> > image between them then they will never properly convey stereo.
>
> > Depending on the room, it often involves fiddling with the balance
>
> > control. Some people believe that it needs to be set at 12 o'clock
>
> > regardless of circumstances, but this is not true.
>
> >
>
> > DF
>
>
>
> I'll buy this story. Aside from that, the 'sweet spot' is not single
>
> point, as the sound from a single speaker must be. At least in my mind
>
> there is a 'sound stage' of sorts. No matter what Samir thinks, I think
>
> it can be of piano width, if not string quartet width. [I've never heard
>
> a single Maggy or Quad, don't know how that presentation changes the
>
> illusion.]
>
Kirk
David Fox
Jan 9, 2014, 12:54:14 PM1/9/14
to
speakers. Covering one ear may yield similar benefits :)
DF
kirkmc
Jan 9, 2014, 3:02:26 PM1/9/14
to
Yes, Blue Note is something I've been checking out lately. And I do like Sinatra; I'll have to look for some of his early recordings. I think there's a German company (Membran?) that has a big box of Sinatra fairly cheap.
Kirk
David Fox
Jan 9, 2014, 4:22:14 PM1/9/14
to
"needle drop" transfers. The good news is that if they utilized
original-issue Capitol LP's, they have a decent chance of sounding
better than the CD remasters put out by EMI.
DF
> Kirk
>
kirkmc
Jan 9, 2014, 6:12:18 PM1/9/14
to
Kirk
Christopher Webber
Jan 9, 2014, 6:38:38 PM1/9/14
to
On 09/01/2014 23:12, kirkmc wrote:
> They are probably just blatant copies of CDs, which are in the public domain in the EU.
No CD could possibly be PD in EU, as the first remasterings only
> They are probably just blatant copies of CDs, which are in the public domain in the EU.
appeared c.1983.
Copyright subsists in a CD remastering of any older recording, no matter
how old the original LP, and it will for at least forty years to come
(at least, here in the EU).
If they were ripping off a published CD (I say "if") then they would be
breaking the law.
David Fox
Jan 9, 2014, 7:48:45 PM1/9/14
to
"Figaro", Fricsay "Magic Flute", Bohm's first "Cosi", Krips' "Don
Giovanni"). They do sound like CD ripoffs rather than needle drops.
That said, you'd be better off if the Sinatra box contains needle drops.
DF
kongh...@gmail.com
Jan 9, 2014, 8:25:24 PM1/9/14
to
>>
kubelik/chicago - mussorgsky, bartok (mercury living presence)
v.beinum/rco - bruckner 7, 8 & 9
kubelik/chicago - mussorgsky, bartok (mercury living presence)
v.beinum/rco - bruckner 7, 8 & 9
fymido...@yahoo.com
Jan 9, 2014, 8:36:37 PM1/9/14
to
3Bs
Jan 9, 2014, 9:46:37 PM1/9/14
to
"Stereo is an invention of the Fakers!"
- Otto Klemperer -
That wonderful quote aside, Kirk, I think your premise doesn't map perfectly well to classical music. When you think of the Beatles and Motown, two examples where the mono recordings often sound better than the stereo releases, there were technological reasons that the stereo versions lacked dynamic punch and seemed glassy. The mono recordings sound quite impressive for their age, and-forgetting the lack of stereo- are quite good sounding even by modern standards. It is true that some very early stereo classical recordings fail to sound as good as their mono predecessors- look at Kempe's Brahms set on Testament. But the mono recordings weren't that wonderful to begin with, and it didn't take long for the recording companies to improve the stereo product to exceed where they had been with mono. There are people that will point to mono Mercuries (and this is the best example I can think of), but stereo Mercuries were quite good, too; Many of the famous Mercuries sounded great because of the venues (Symphony Hall, for example), but RCA got wonderful sound there as well- in stereo (at least until the first renovation).
Ironically, your question is better applied to the transition to digital, since many classical recording companies took a huge step back in terms of sound quality for a number of years before figuring out how to make digital sound as warm and full as analogue. But that's got nothing do do with mono-stereo.
- Otto Klemperer -
That wonderful quote aside, Kirk, I think your premise doesn't map perfectly well to classical music. When you think of the Beatles and Motown, two examples where the mono recordings often sound better than the stereo releases, there were technological reasons that the stereo versions lacked dynamic punch and seemed glassy. The mono recordings sound quite impressive for their age, and-forgetting the lack of stereo- are quite good sounding even by modern standards. It is true that some very early stereo classical recordings fail to sound as good as their mono predecessors- look at Kempe's Brahms set on Testament. But the mono recordings weren't that wonderful to begin with, and it didn't take long for the recording companies to improve the stereo product to exceed where they had been with mono. There are people that will point to mono Mercuries (and this is the best example I can think of), but stereo Mercuries were quite good, too; Many of the famous Mercuries sounded great because of the venues (Symphony Hall, for example), but RCA got wonderful sound there as well- in stereo (at least until the first renovation).
Ironically, your question is better applied to the transition to digital, since many classical recording companies took a huge step back in terms of sound quality for a number of years before figuring out how to make digital sound as warm and full as analogue. But that's got nothing do do with mono-stereo.
Bob Harper
Jan 9, 2014, 9:58:24 PM1/9/14
to
On 1/9/14, 5:25 PM, kongh...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>
> kubelik/chicago - mussorgsky, bartok (mercury living presence)
> v.beinum/rco - bruckner 7, 8& 9
My father had the LP of the Mussorgsky, obtained at the Audio Show in
>>>
>
> kubelik/chicago - mussorgsky, bartok (mercury living presence)
> v.beinum/rco - bruckner 7, 8& 9
Chicago the year it was released. I remember him telling me that
practically all the exhibitors had it playing away at the Show. By the
time it was finally put out to pasture, it was practically playing the
grooves from both sides, so often had it been played :)
And yes, the Van Beinum Bruckner recordings are excellent, as sound
*and* performance..
Another I would recommend is the DG Jochum/BPO Brahms set as an
excellent example of successful mono, especially the Third from that
set. It's from 1956, so one wonders why they hadn't yet gone to stereo.
Perhaps they tried but weren't satisfied with the result.
Bob Harper
RLane
Jan 9, 2014, 10:19:45 PM1/9/14
to
Bruno Walter's 1956 NYPO Mahler 1st
RLane
Jan 9, 2014, 10:21:38 PM1/9/14
to
Mske that 1954 (the Walter Mahler 1)
RLane
Jan 9, 2014, 10:24:52 PM1/9/14
to
Another one I find the mono sound fine on is the 1956 DG Shosty Dym. #10 with Ancerl/CPO.
David Fox
Jan 9, 2014, 10:35:14 PM1/9/14
to
performances, but I'm not sure all of these represent truly great
recorded sound. Most are fine recordings of excellent performances, but
few rise to the level of recording excellence that to use my example the
Mercury Dorati Swan Lake does. The Furtwangler 1954 Lucerne Beethoven
9th is a great example. It is probably the best-sounding recording in
the Furtwangler discography (the 1951 NDR Brahms 1st is a close second),
but I wouldn't hold it up as an exemplar of the mono recording process.
I feel similarly about most of the recordings mentioned.
DF
Steve de Mena
Jan 9, 2014, 11:41:47 PM1/9/14
to
On 1/9/14, 5:52 AM, kirkmc wrote:
> Also, what are the best sounding mono recordings you know, of any type of classical music? I'm finding that listening to good-quality mono recordings really is relaxing...
>
> Kirk
>
Schumann Symphony No.4 - Wilhelm Furtw�ngler-BPO (DG 1954 Studio)
>
> Kirk
>
Steve
MiNe109
Jan 10, 2014, 12:11:10 AM1/10/14
to
On 1/9/14, 8:58 PM, Bob Harper wrote:
> On 1/9/14, 5:25 PM, kongh...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>
>> kubelik/chicago - mussorgsky, bartok (mercury living presence)
>> v.beinum/rco - bruckner 7, 8& 9
>
> My father had the LP of the Mussorgsky, obtained at the Audio Show in
> Chicago the year it was released. I remember him telling me that
> practically all the exhibitors had it playing away at the Show. By the
> time it was finally put out to pasture, it was practically playing the
> grooves from both sides, so often had it been played :)
There's a coincidence: I just ripped the MLP cd of the Kubelik
> On 1/9/14, 5:25 PM, kongh...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>
>> kubelik/chicago - mussorgsky, bartok (mercury living presence)
>> v.beinum/rco - bruckner 7, 8& 9
>
> My father had the LP of the Mussorgsky, obtained at the Audio Show in
> Chicago the year it was released. I remember him telling me that
> practically all the exhibitors had it playing away at the Show. By the
> time it was finally put out to pasture, it was practically playing the
> grooves from both sides, so often had it been played :)
mentioned. Lots of cyrillic.
Stephen
David Fox
Jan 10, 2014, 12:55:09 AM1/10/14
to
composers. Cyrillic used to cause Squeezebox to misbehave, but it's
since gotten more robust. Still, I remove all Cyrillic characters from
tags if I have the time/patience.
DF
Steve de Mena
Jan 10, 2014, 1:45:14 AM1/10/14
to
On 1/9/14, 3:12 PM, kirkmc wrote:
> I have their Helmut Walcha organ CD set, and they're not needle drops. They are probably just blatant copies of CDs, which are in the public domain in the EU.
>
> Kirk
>
Did you rip them in iTunes and did it identify the record label?
>
> Kirk
>
Steve
Lionel Tacchini
Jan 10, 2014, 1:57:39 AM1/10/14
to
--
Lionel Tacchini
William Sommerwerck
Jan 10, 2014, 3:13:48 AM1/10/14
to
"3Bs" wrote in message
news:01c23441-10a4-4949...@googlegroups.com...
> Ironically, your question is better applied to the transition to digital,
> since many classical recording companies took a huge step back in
> terms of sound quality for a number of years before figuring out how
> to make digital sound as warm and full as analogue. But that's got
> nothing do do with mono-stereo.
The "warmth" and "fullness" of analog sound are frauds, colorations that are
part of most analog recording technologies -- phonograph records, in
particular. //Digital sounds more like live sound.//
In the early days of digital recording, Larry Archibald (who owned
"Stereophile" at that time) griped about the sound. With one exception. He
didn't object to Gordon's recordings, which were made with a Sony PCM-F1 --
not exactly a perfect digital processor.
One of the reasons early CDs didn't sound so good is that they were mastered
from the analog tapes used to master LPs. These apparently often had HF boost
to compensate for LP loss.
news:01c23441-10a4-4949...@googlegroups.com...
> Ironically, your question is better applied to the transition to digital,
> since many classical recording companies took a huge step back in
> terms of sound quality for a number of years before figuring out how
> to make digital sound as warm and full as analogue. But that's got
> nothing do do with mono-stereo.
part of most analog recording technologies -- phonograph records, in
particular. //Digital sounds more like live sound.//
In the early days of digital recording, Larry Archibald (who owned
"Stereophile" at that time) griped about the sound. With one exception. He
didn't object to Gordon's recordings, which were made with a Sony PCM-F1 --
not exactly a perfect digital processor.
One of the reasons early CDs didn't sound so good is that they were mastered
from the analog tapes used to master LPs. These apparently often had HF boost
to compensate for LP loss.
kirkmc
Jan 10, 2014, 5:19:57 AM1/10/14
to
Kirk
kirkmc
Jan 10, 2014, 5:20:34 AM1/10/14
to
Kirk
kirkmc
Jan 10, 2014, 5:21:45 AM1/10/14
to
Kirk
Alan Cooper
Jan 10, 2014, 9:00:49 AM1/10/14
to
kirkmc <kir...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:47a84bff-c48c-4a1e...@googlegroups.com:
> Also, what are the best sounding mono recordings you know, of any type
> of classical music? I'm finding that listening to good-quality mono
> recordings really is relaxing...
I'm sure you know them, but you might enjoy revisiting Karajan's
EMI/Philharmonia monos, esp. the less hackneyed repertoire (Stravinsky Jeu
de cartes; Roussel Sym #4; Balakirev Sym #1; Britten Bridge Variations,
etc.). Consistently excellent in both sound and performance, imo.
AC
news:47a84bff-c48c-4a1e...@googlegroups.com:
> Also, what are the best sounding mono recordings you know, of any type
> of classical music? I'm finding that listening to good-quality mono
> recordings really is relaxing...
EMI/Philharmonia monos, esp. the less hackneyed repertoire (Stravinsky Jeu
de cartes; Roussel Sym #4; Balakirev Sym #1; Britten Bridge Variations,
etc.). Consistently excellent in both sound and performance, imo.
AC
William Sommerwerck
Jan 10, 2014, 9:25:52 AM1/10/14
to
"kirkmc" wrote in message
news:be1aa0ae-78d5-4d2a...@googlegroups.com...
> It's not the CD itself that's copyright, it's the original performance.
> There are tons of public domain jazz recordings reissued here, and
> none sound like they're needle drops.
If that's so... why do you see copyright notices for a specific compilation?
news:be1aa0ae-78d5-4d2a...@googlegroups.com...
> It's not the CD itself that's copyright, it's the original performance.
> There are tons of public domain jazz recordings reissued here, and
> none sound like they're needle drops.
O
Jan 10, 2014, 10:43:58 AM1/10/14
to
In article <be1aa0ae-78d5-4d2a...@googlegroups.com>,
Actually, it's the inverse. The CD is copyright. The original
performance is public domain. In order to legally copy the
performance, it would be necessary to use source material (i.e. LP's)
published originally.
-Owen
performance is public domain. In order to legally copy the
performance, it would be necessary to use source material (i.e. LP's)
published originally.
-Owen
Christopher Webber
Jan 10, 2014, 11:14:08 AM1/10/14
to
On 10/01/2014 15:43, O wrote:
> Actually, it's the inverse. The CD is copyright. The original
> performance is public domain. In order to legally copy the
> performance, it would be necessary to use source material (i.e. LP's)
> published originally.
Pithily put. I hope that clears up KM's confusion. If you do an edited
> Actually, it's the inverse. The CD is copyright. The original
> performance is public domain. In order to legally copy the
> performance, it would be necessary to use source material (i.e. LP's)
> published originally.
remastering from an original Public Domain LP to CD, you have copyright
in your work for the full legal period. Beware though that you are not
doing it from a reissued, in-copyright LP.
I would think that not many respectable commercial outfits do crude
"needle drops" these days, although Regis give me pause for thought even
as I type that. Even at home - with a few pains taken - it is very
possible using good editing software to achieve results which do not
sound as if they had been LP-based at all.
Organ music, by the way, has been in my experience particularly easy to
transfer from LP seamlessly. I rather fancy that is what Membran (or
whoever) did with the Walcha set. Some of their opera transfers (such as
the Krips 'Don Giovanni') have sounded a bit murky but others (the
Monteux 'Manon') have proved good. Though I can tell they are from LP,
not CD "rip offs".
kirkmc
Jan 10, 2014, 2:00:12 PM1/10/14
to
Remember a few years ago the Naxos Historical releases that couldn't be sold in the US, but were legal in the EU?
Kirk
Norman Schwartz
Jan 10, 2014, 2:17:44 PM1/10/14
to
David Fox wrote:
>
> Well, it certainly solves the setup/balance problems of setting up two
> speakers. Covering one ear may yield similar benefits :)
>
That's a good idea for more than that single reason. Since the hearing in
one ear doesn't exactly match the other's (any more than the vision in both
eyes is exactly the same) the listener doesn't hear true 'mono' even if the
signal is mono.
> DF
>
> Well, it certainly solves the setup/balance problems of setting up two
> speakers. Covering one ear may yield similar benefits :)
>
That's a good idea for more than that single reason. Since the hearing in
one ear doesn't exactly match the other's (any more than the vision in both
eyes is exactly the same) the listener doesn't hear true 'mono' even if the
signal is mono.
> DF
Salmonella typhimurium
Jan 10, 2014, 2:59:28 PM1/10/14
to
O <ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote:
> In article <47a84bff-c48c-4a1e...@googlegroups.com>,
> sound. The piano sound in Funerailles is amazing:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Plays-Liszt-Rubinstein/dp/B000003FL3/ref=sr_1_1?ie
> =UTF8&qid=1389276627&sr=8-1&keywords=artur+rubinstein+funerailles
>
> The used price is pretty good, too! :-)
>
> -Owen
I usually find mono recordings to be dull (boring) sounding and resort
listening to them only when there is no stereo version of some otherwise
outstanding performance. Rubinstein's mono Funerailles falls into that
category. In the Rubinstein box there is a stereo recording (Vol. 1,
Highlights from Carnegie Hall) of this work which I find more satisfying.
(Not being a pianist nor musician, I'm easily satisfied.)
> In article <47a84bff-c48c-4a1e...@googlegroups.com>,
> kirkmc <kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I've been writing something about listening to mono recordings, focusing on
>> those recordings that were mixed first in mono, then in stereo, back in the
>> early days of stereo: artists like Miles Davis, Bob Dylan and The Beatles,
>> for whom recent releases of re-mastered mono recordings sound very nice.
>>
>> Does anyone know about specific classical recordings that fit the same
>> conditions? Recorded in any manner - most of the above used at least
>> three-track tape - but where the mix was to mono first, with the stereo mix
>> considered less important.
>>
>
>> I've been writing something about listening to mono recordings, focusing on
>> those recordings that were mixed first in mono, then in stereo, back in the
>> early days of stereo: artists like Miles Davis, Bob Dylan and The Beatles,
>> for whom recent releases of re-mastered mono recordings sound very nice.
>>
>> Does anyone know about specific classical recordings that fit the same
>> conditions? Recorded in any manner - most of the above used at least
>> three-track tape - but where the mix was to mono first, with the stereo mix
>> considered less important.
>>
>> Also, what are the best sounding mono recordings you know, of any type of
>> classical music? I'm finding that listening to good-quality mono recordings
>> really is relaxing...
>>
>
> This Artur Rubenstein mono disk immediately comes to mind as great mono
>> classical music? I'm finding that listening to good-quality mono recordings
>> really is relaxing...
>>
>
> sound. The piano sound in Funerailles is amazing:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Plays-Liszt-Rubinstein/dp/B000003FL3/ref=sr_1_1?ie
> =UTF8&qid=1389276627&sr=8-1&keywords=artur+rubinstein+funerailles
>
> The used price is pretty good, too! :-)
>
> -Owen
I usually find mono recordings to be dull (boring) sounding and resort
listening to them only when there is no stereo version of some otherwise
outstanding performance. Rubinstein's mono Funerailles falls into that
category. In the Rubinstein box there is a stereo recording (Vol. 1,
Highlights from Carnegie Hall) of this work which I find more satisfying.
(Not being a pianist nor musician, I'm easily satisfied.)
wade
Jan 10, 2014, 4:04:06 PM1/10/14
to
3Bs
Jan 10, 2014, 5:07:46 PM1/10/14
to
On Friday, January 10, 2014 2:13:48 AM UTC-6, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> The "warmth" and "fullness" of analog sound are frauds, colorations that are
> part of most analog recording technologies -- phonograph records, in
> particular. //Digital sounds more like live sound.//
Perhaps so, but at the dawn of digital recording some got it more right than others, don't you think? Blomstedt's '79 Bruckner 7 in Dresden sounds fine to me, bot other digital recordings from the same time sound glassy and thin.
> The "warmth" and "fullness" of analog sound are frauds, colorations that are
> part of most analog recording technologies -- phonograph records, in
> particular. //Digital sounds more like live sound.//
You can always say "that's the way it is". In my defense I've never been too concerned with the imitation parroting reality if it could be improved in a good way.
Christopher Webber
Jan 10, 2014, 6:10:39 PM1/10/14
to
On 10/01/2014 22:07, 3Bs wrote:
> You can always say "that's the way it is". In my defense I've never been too concerned with the imitation parroting reality if it could be improved in a good way.
Hear hear.
> You can always say "that's the way it is". In my defense I've never been too concerned with the imitation parroting reality if it could be improved in a good way.
Most of don't live in a large concert hall, so parroting reality in the
case of (say) Havergal Brian's 'Gothic Symphony' would be a curiously
sterile exercise.
And our neighbours would not tolerate it.
William Sommerwerck
Jan 10, 2014, 7:24:29 PM1/10/14
to
"3Bs" wrote in message
news:d4445267-57f9-418b...@googlegroups.com...
analog recordings. Some are good, some are bad, some are mediocre. LIVE SOUND
is the reference, NOT analog or digital recording.
> You can always say "that's the way it is". In my defense I've never been
> too concerned with the imitation parroting reality if it could be improved
> in a good way.
This is why so many recordings are lousy -- the producer and engineer are
trying to "improve" on what would better be left alone.
news:d4445267-57f9-418b...@googlegroups.com...
On Friday, January 10, 2014 2:13:48 AM UTC-6, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> The "warmth" and "fullness" of analog sound are frauds, colorations
>> that are part of most analog recording technologies -- phonograph
>> records, in particular. //Digital sounds more like live sound.//
> Perhaps so, but at the dawn of digital recording some got it more right
> than others, don't you think? Blomstedt's '79 Bruckner 7 in Dresden
> sounds fine to me, bot other digital recordings from the same time
> sound glassy and thin.
But that's not the point. The same criticism could be directed at thousands of
>> The "warmth" and "fullness" of analog sound are frauds, colorations
>> that are part of most analog recording technologies -- phonograph
>> records, in particular. //Digital sounds more like live sound.//
> Perhaps so, but at the dawn of digital recording some got it more right
> than others, don't you think? Blomstedt's '79 Bruckner 7 in Dresden
> sounds fine to me, bot other digital recordings from the same time
> sound glassy and thin.
analog recordings. Some are good, some are bad, some are mediocre. LIVE SOUND
is the reference, NOT analog or digital recording.
> You can always say "that's the way it is". In my defense I've never been
> too concerned with the imitation parroting reality if it could be improved
> in a good way.
trying to "improve" on what would better be left alone.
Steve de Mena
Jan 10, 2014, 8:35:46 PM1/10/14
to
On 1/10/14, 2:20 AM, kirkmc wrote:
>>
>> Did you rip them in iTunes and did it identify the record label?
>>
>>
>>
>> Steve
>
> It identified the tracks; iTunes never tells you labels.
>
> Kirk
>
It might have said "Original Masters" or something in the Album Field
>>
>> Did you rip them in iTunes and did it identify the record label?
>>
>>
>>
>> Steve
>
> It identified the tracks; iTunes never tells you labels.
>
> Kirk
>
to tie it to the Archiv set. iTunes is showing me "The 1947-52 Bach
Recordings [Disc x]", which is the title of the Archiv set and not of
the Membran set.
Steve
Bob Harper
Jan 10, 2014, 9:02:18 PM1/10/14
to
On 1/9/14, 7:19 PM, RLane wrote:
> Bruno Walter's 1956 NYPO Mahler 1st
The 1947 Walter/NYPSO Schubert 9 once available on United Archives has
> Bruno Walter's 1956 NYPO Mahler 1st
remarkably good sound for its era, though I'm not sure I could
justifiably include it in a 'best-sounding' list I couldn't say. dthe
performance is outstanding.
Bob Harper
O
Jan 11, 2014, 5:53:18 PM1/11/14
to
In article <bjakig...@mid.individual.net>, Christopher Webber
rule that any changes you've made (if any) have not substantially
changed from the original public domain source, and thus your copyright
is not valid. Unfortunately, there's little of copyright law that's
cut and dried, and not subject to vagaries of courts and lawyers. A
copyright on an already public domain work is more tenuous then one on
a recent in-copyright one.
-Owen, not a lawyer, not legal advise - consult a real lawyer for same.
<zarz...@zarzuela.invalid.net> wrote:
> On 10/01/2014 15:43, O wrote:
> > Actually, it's the inverse. The CD is copyright. The original
> > performance is public domain. In order to legally copy the
> > performance, it would be necessary to use source material (i.e. LP's)
> > published originally.
>
> Pithily put. I hope that clears up KM's confusion. If you do an edited
> remastering from an original Public Domain LP to CD, you have copyright
> in your work for the full legal period. Beware though that you are not
> doing it from a reissued, in-copyright LP.
That's not entirely correct either, although mostly so. A court may
> On 10/01/2014 15:43, O wrote:
> > Actually, it's the inverse. The CD is copyright. The original
> > performance is public domain. In order to legally copy the
> > performance, it would be necessary to use source material (i.e. LP's)
> > published originally.
>
> Pithily put. I hope that clears up KM's confusion. If you do an edited
> remastering from an original Public Domain LP to CD, you have copyright
> in your work for the full legal period. Beware though that you are not
> doing it from a reissued, in-copyright LP.
rule that any changes you've made (if any) have not substantially
changed from the original public domain source, and thus your copyright
is not valid. Unfortunately, there's little of copyright law that's
cut and dried, and not subject to vagaries of courts and lawyers. A
copyright on an already public domain work is more tenuous then one on
a recent in-copyright one.
-Owen, not a lawyer, not legal advise - consult a real lawyer for same.
Christopher Webber
Jan 11, 2014, 6:28:47 PM1/11/14
to
On 11/01/2014 22:53, O wrote:
> A court may
> rule that any changes you've made (if any) have not substantially
> changed from the original public domain source, and thus your copyright
> is not valid.
That is perfectly true. But as far as I know no genuine remastering has
> A court may
> rule that any changes you've made (if any) have not substantially
> changed from the original public domain source, and thus your copyright
> is not valid.
ever even been challenged on those grounds. Plain "rip offs" of course
have been, and are.
The problem is with the definition of "substantial", and the clause was
there to stop the straight "needle drop" rip-off merchants in the last
century.
When one regularly smooths upwards of 50,000 clicks, bumps and scratches
(let alone other artefacts) on a single LP I think that counts as
substantial!
Message has been deleted
Precious Roy
Jan 12, 2014, 11:16:24 AM1/12/14
to
Scheherazade, the Philharmonia under Dobrowen (1952) has just been reissued on Opus Kura -- a really fine transfer from vinyl and reveals a wonderful mono recording. And what playing! The mono sound is in some ways better than early EMI stereo. Coupled with Tsar Saltan.
wade
Jan 12, 2014, 11:41:52 AM1/12/14
to
On Sunday, January 12, 2014 8:16:24 AM UTC-8, Precious Roy wrote:
> Scheherazade, the Philharmonia under Dobrowen (1952) has just been reissued on Opus Kura -- a really fine transfer from vinyl and reveals a wonderful mono recording. And what playing! The mono sound is in some ways better than early EMI stereo. Coupled with Tsar Saltan.
Early EMI stereo definitely had a distinctive sound. Maybe it was just tied to the recording hall, as I havent checked everything to see when Kingsway was used and when Abbey Road Studio #1 was used. The same is true of the early Decca/London Vienna Mozart Opera recordings. Different again are all the Ansermet Geneva stereo recordings (to my hearing, much better sounding overall).
> Scheherazade, the Philharmonia under Dobrowen (1952) has just been reissued on Opus Kura -- a really fine transfer from vinyl and reveals a wonderful mono recording. And what playing! The mono sound is in some ways better than early EMI stereo. Coupled with Tsar Saltan.
Message has been deleted
Alan Cooper
Jan 12, 2014, 12:12:28 PM1/12/14
to
Precious Roy <precio...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:80ea1439-6898-4a90...@googlegroups.com:
Neal, whose blog has gone private, offered nice transfers of several
Dobrowen recordings, including his great Scheherezade, a few years ago.
See http://nealshistorical.wordpress.com/category/dobrowen/ for the
listings, no longer downloadable there, however. It's a good thing the
conductor changed his name, saving us the trouble of having to write out
(not to mention pronounce) "Itschok Zorachovitch Barabeitchik."
AC
news:80ea1439-6898-4a90...@googlegroups.com:
Dobrowen recordings, including his great Scheherezade, a few years ago.
See http://nealshistorical.wordpress.com/category/dobrowen/ for the
listings, no longer downloadable there, however. It's a good thing the
conductor changed his name, saving us the trouble of having to write out
(not to mention pronounce) "Itschok Zorachovitch Barabeitchik."
AC
Christopher Webber
Jan 12, 2014, 12:27:32 PM1/12/14
to
On 12/01/2014 16:16, Precious Roy wrote:
> Scheherazade, the Philharmonia under Dobrowen (1952) has just been reissued on Opus Kura -- a really fine transfer from vinyl and reveals a wonderful mono recording. And what playing! The mono sound is in some ways better than early EMI stereo. Coupled with Tsar Saltan.
I've never heard this Dobrowen performance, and am intrigued. Is the
> Scheherazade, the Philharmonia under Dobrowen (1952) has just been reissued on Opus Kura -- a really fine transfer from vinyl and reveals a wonderful mono recording. And what playing! The mono sound is in some ways better than early EMI stereo. Coupled with Tsar Saltan.
Tsar Saltan suite the usual three movements, or has it been bumble-beed?
Message has been deleted
Precious Roy
Jan 12, 2014, 7:42:50 PM1/12/14
to
Hmm. Musicparlour, you make it sound like "boosting the treble" was somehow illicit. But transfer engineers are allowed to apply equalization. I gather you have something against Walter Legge too, which sure seems silly.
Message has been deleted
Mort
Jan 12, 2014, 9:58:15 PM1/12/14
to
RLane wrote:
setups and separate tape recorders and microphones for mono and for
stereo. That yielded better results than mixing one from the other. Of
course, that was before digital recording. Some record sets, e.g. Ella
Fitzgerald sings the Gershwin Songbook, include both the mono and the
stereo versions of some songs; and in Ella's case, for some reason the
mono songs sound clearer and richer than the stereo versions. I am a
music lover and not an audio engineer, so I offer no good explanation
for this. A partial explanation in this Ella set is that in some cases
the original stereo tapes are lost, so those stereo versions are from
copy tapes.
Mort Linder
>
>
> kirkmc<kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I've been writing something about listening to mono recordings,
>> focusing on those recordings that were mixed first in mono, then in
>> stereo, back in the early days of stereo: artists like Miles Davis,
>> Bob Dylan and The Beatles, for whom recent releases of re-mastered
>> mono recordings sound very nice.
>> Does anyone know about specific classical recordings that fit the same
>> conditions? Recorded in any manner - most of the above used at least
>> three-track tape - but where the mix was to mono first, with the
>> stereo mix considered less important.
>> Also, what are the best sounding mono recordings you know, of any type
>> of classical music? I'm finding that listening to good-quality mono
>> recordings really is relaxing...
>> Kirk
>
In the early days of stereo, many recordings were made with separate
>
> kirkmc<kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I've been writing something about listening to mono recordings,
>> focusing on those recordings that were mixed first in mono, then in
>> stereo, back in the early days of stereo: artists like Miles Davis,
>> Bob Dylan and The Beatles, for whom recent releases of re-mastered
>> mono recordings sound very nice.
>> Does anyone know about specific classical recordings that fit the same
>> conditions? Recorded in any manner - most of the above used at least
>> three-track tape - but where the mix was to mono first, with the
>> stereo mix considered less important.
>> Also, what are the best sounding mono recordings you know, of any type
>> of classical music? I'm finding that listening to good-quality mono
>> recordings really is relaxing...
>> Kirk
>
setups and separate tape recorders and microphones for mono and for
stereo. That yielded better results than mixing one from the other. Of
course, that was before digital recording. Some record sets, e.g. Ella
Fitzgerald sings the Gershwin Songbook, include both the mono and the
stereo versions of some songs; and in Ella's case, for some reason the
mono songs sound clearer and richer than the stereo versions. I am a
music lover and not an audio engineer, so I offer no good explanation
for this. A partial explanation in this Ella set is that in some cases
the original stereo tapes are lost, so those stereo versions are from
copy tapes.
Mort Linder
Precious Roy
Jan 13, 2014, 1:44:49 AM1/13/14
to
On Sunday, January 12, 2014 5:31:07 PM UTC-8, themusicparlour wrote:
> The 'busy background' sounds as if surface-grunge has been noise-reduced away (sic): so the treble gets boosted to 'compensate' (sic)...'an old trick'.
>
>
> Mr Pegge-Legge refers to the 'cyclic thumps' that the 'sample' also discloses:
>
What sample? I'm not listening to any sample. Are you going by the mp3 on their website?
Opus Kura, as you no doubt know, could be described as a label dedicated to the under-use of noise reduction techniques. They don't use much on 78s and I doubt they would use very much on an LP.
> The 'busy background' sounds as if surface-grunge has been noise-reduced away (sic): so the treble gets boosted to 'compensate' (sic)...'an old trick'.
>
>
> Mr Pegge-Legge refers to the 'cyclic thumps' that the 'sample' also discloses:
>
What sample? I'm not listening to any sample. Are you going by the mp3 on their website?
Opus Kura, as you no doubt know, could be described as a label dedicated to the under-use of noise reduction techniques. They don't use much on 78s and I doubt they would use very much on an LP.
gggrou...@gmail.com
Jan 17, 2014, 6:15:35 PM1/17/14
to
On Thursday, January 9, 2014 3:52:02 AM UTC-10, kirkmc wrote:
> I've been writing something about listening to mono recordings, focusing on those recordings that were mixed first in mono, then in stereo, back in the early days of stereo: artists like Miles Davis, Bob Dylan and The Beatles, for whom recent releases of re-mastered mono recordings sound very nice.
>
>
>
> Does anyone know about specific classical recordings that fit the same conditions? Recorded in any manner - most of the above used at least three-track tape - but where the mix was to mono first, with the stereo mix considered less important.
>
>
>
> Also, what are the best sounding mono recordings you know, of any type of classical music? I'm finding that listening to good-quality mono recordings really is relaxing...
>
>
>
> Kirk
In 1968(?), didn't HIFI/STEREO REVIEW publish an article of outstanding mono recordings as a reaction to the phasing out of mono recordings at the time?
> I've been writing something about listening to mono recordings, focusing on those recordings that were mixed first in mono, then in stereo, back in the early days of stereo: artists like Miles Davis, Bob Dylan and The Beatles, for whom recent releases of re-mastered mono recordings sound very nice.
>
>
>
> Does anyone know about specific classical recordings that fit the same conditions? Recorded in any manner - most of the above used at least three-track tape - but where the mix was to mono first, with the stereo mix considered less important.
>
>
>
> Also, what are the best sounding mono recordings you know, of any type of classical music? I'm finding that listening to good-quality mono recordings really is relaxing...
>
>
>
> Kirk
Didn't that article include mention of Schwarzkopf's Coffee Cantata, Dennis Brain's recordings and Toscanini's OTELLO?
Willem Orange
Jan 17, 2014, 6:44:04 PM1/17/14
to
Message has been deleted
td
Jan 17, 2014, 8:21:18 PM1/17/14
to
On Thursday, January 9, 2014 6:12:18 PM UTC-5, kirkmc wrote:
> I have their Helmut Walcha organ CD set, and they're not needle drops. They are probably just blatant copies of CDs, which are in the public domain in the EU.
Actually not.
> I have their Helmut Walcha organ CD set, and they're not needle drops. They are probably just blatant copies of CDs, which are in the public domain in the EU.
At least not according to many. The original recording is the Long Playing record, not the digital encoding of the tape that produced that LP.
So, if any of the companies wanted to - they may with the Beatles and Presley - they could fight such theft of digital masters.
Not sure what the outcome would be, but it would be interesting to have that clarified.
TD
Herman
Jan 18, 2014, 4:17:28 AM1/18/14
to
Willem Orange
Jan 18, 2014, 4:39:45 AM1/18/14
to
On Saturday, January 18, 2014 3:20:22 AM UTC-5, gggrou...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> Was this the Schwarzkopf Bach lp that was mentioned in that 1968 article?:
>
>
>
> http://www.offtherecord.ie/images/classical%20%20lot%20%20972%20(35).JPG
No the only Schwarzkopf disc mentioned is the duet LP she did with Irmgard Seefried of Dvorak and Monteverdi
> On Friday, January 17, 2014 1:44:04 PM UTC-10, Willem Orange wrote:
>
> > On Friday, January 17, 2014 6:15:35 PM UTC-5, gggrou...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Thursday, January 9, 2014 3:52:02 AM UTC-10, kirkmc wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > I've been writing something about listening to mono recordings, focusing on those recordings that were mixed first in mono, then in stereo, back in the early days of stereo: artists like Miles Davis, Bob Dylan and The Beatles, for whom recent releases of re-mastered mono recordings sound very nice.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Does anyone know about specific classical recordings that fit the same conditions? Recorded in any manner - most of the above used at least three-track tape - but where the mix was to mono first, with the stereo mix considered less important.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Also, what are the best sounding mono recordings you know, of any type of classical music? I'm finding that listening to good-quality mono recordings really is relaxing...
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Kirk
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > In 1968(?), didn't HIFI/STEREO REVIEW publish an article of outstanding mono recordings as a reaction to the phasing out of mono recordings at the time?
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Didn't that article include mention of Schwarzkopf's Coffee Cantata, Dennis Brain's recordings and Toscanini's OTELLO?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Yes the fear was that a large number of mono recordings would be lost forever due to he success of stereo. Back then recordings had been issued in both mono and stereo versions but here was a big sell off of the mono sets in the sixties, No Schwarzkopf Coffee cantata was mentioned (is there one???)...
>
> > On Friday, January 17, 2014 6:15:35 PM UTC-5, gggrou...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Thursday, January 9, 2014 3:52:02 AM UTC-10, kirkmc wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > I've been writing something about listening to mono recordings, focusing on those recordings that were mixed first in mono, then in stereo, back in the early days of stereo: artists like Miles Davis, Bob Dylan and The Beatles, for whom recent releases of re-mastered mono recordings sound very nice.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Does anyone know about specific classical recordings that fit the same conditions? Recorded in any manner - most of the above used at least three-track tape - but where the mix was to mono first, with the stereo mix considered less important.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Also, what are the best sounding mono recordings you know, of any type of classical music? I'm finding that listening to good-quality mono recordings really is relaxing...
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Kirk
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > In 1968(?), didn't HIFI/STEREO REVIEW publish an article of outstanding mono recordings as a reaction to the phasing out of mono recordings at the time?
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Didn't that article include mention of Schwarzkopf's Coffee Cantata, Dennis Brain's recordings and Toscanini's OTELLO?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
> Was this the Schwarzkopf Bach lp that was mentioned in that 1968 article?:
>
>
>
> http://www.offtherecord.ie/images/classical%20%20lot%20%20972%20(35).JPG
No the only Schwarzkopf disc mentioned is the duet LP she did with Irmgard Seefried of Dvorak and Monteverdi
Willem Orange
Jan 18, 2014, 4:42:07 AM1/18/14
to
kirkmc
Jan 18, 2014, 6:03:44 AM1/18/14
to
Kirk
gggrou...@gmail.com
Jan 20, 2014, 2:58:06 AM1/20/14
to
http://ring.cdandlp.com/safir/photo_grande/114738630.jpg
Willem Orange
Jan 20, 2014, 5:15:43 AM1/20/14
to
MELMOTH
Jan 20, 2014, 6:25:27 AM1/20/14
to
Ce cher mammifère du nom de kirkmc nous susurrait, le jeudi 09/01/2014,
dans nos oreilles grandes ouvertes mais un peu sales tout de même, et
dans le message
<47a84bff-c48c-4a1e...@googlegroups.com>, les doux
mélismes suivants :
> Does anyone know about specific classical recordings that fit the same
> conditions? Recorded in any manner - most of the above used at least
> three-track tape - but where the mix was to mono first, with the stereo mix
> considered less important.
*Mercury*...
*Westminster*...
'1950...
--
Car avec beaucoup de science, il y a beaucoup de chagrin ; et celui qui
accroît sa science accroît sa douleur.
[Ecclésiaste, 1-18]
MELMOTH - souffrant
dans nos oreilles grandes ouvertes mais un peu sales tout de même, et
dans le message
<47a84bff-c48c-4a1e...@googlegroups.com>, les doux
mélismes suivants :
> Does anyone know about specific classical recordings that fit the same
> conditions? Recorded in any manner - most of the above used at least
> three-track tape - but where the mix was to mono first, with the stereo mix
> considered less important.
*Westminster*...
'1950...
--
Car avec beaucoup de science, il y a beaucoup de chagrin ; et celui qui
accroît sa science accroît sa douleur.
[Ecclésiaste, 1-18]
MELMOTH - souffrant
dk
Jan 23, 2014, 2:43:33 AM1/23/14
to
On Thursday, January 9, 2014 5:52:02 AM UTC-8, kirkmc wrote:
> Also, what are the best sounding mono recordings you know, of any type of classical music? I'm finding that listening to good-quality mono recordings really is relaxing...
>
The best sounding mono recording is 4'33".
>
So perfect in fact that one cannot tell
any difference compared to the stereo
version.
dk
td
Jan 23, 2014, 8:38:45 AM1/23/14
to
TD
O
Jan 23, 2014, 10:08:26 AM1/23/14
to
In article <018f923a-d137-4088...@googlegroups.com>,
themusicparlour <tin...@ymail.com> wrote:
> ...you can download (for free) complete scans of Audio / High Fidelity / HiFi
> Stereo Review - for the period 1952-1962 from:
> http://vintagevacuumaudio.com/magazines-1952-1962
>
For any of my fellow old timers in here, this is truly a trip down
memory lane.
-Owen
themusicparlour <tin...@ymail.com> wrote:
> ...you can download (for free) complete scans of Audio / High Fidelity / HiFi
> Stereo Review - for the period 1952-1962 from:
> http://vintagevacuumaudio.com/magazines-1952-1962
>
For any of my fellow old timers in here, this is truly a trip down
memory lane.
-Owen
Willem Orange
Jan 23, 2014, 10:14:42 AM1/23/14
to
Mr. Mike
Jan 23, 2014, 10:50:43 AM1/23/14
to
On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 10:08:26 -0500, O <ow...@denofinequityx.com>
issues I downloaded was kind of low-res.
wrote:
>> ...you can download (for free) complete scans of Audio / High Fidelity / HiFi
>> Stereo Review - for the period 1952-1962 from:
>> http://vintagevacuumaudio.com/magazines-1952-1962
>
>For any of my fellow old timers in here, this is truly a trip down
>memory lane.
I agree, though the resolution of a couple of PDFs of High Fidelity
>> ...you can download (for free) complete scans of Audio / High Fidelity / HiFi
>> Stereo Review - for the period 1952-1962 from:
>> http://vintagevacuumaudio.com/magazines-1952-1962
>
>For any of my fellow old timers in here, this is truly a trip down
>memory lane.
issues I downloaded was kind of low-res.
O
Jan 23, 2014, 1:02:13 PM1/23/14
to
In article <lge2e91oqq8iikqle...@4ax.com>, Mr. Mike
I opened up the May 1960 issue of High Fidelity, and just reveled in
the ads, a puff-piece/interview with Arthur Fiedler, then in the
reviews of recordings I know all so well:
"One signal omission from Rubinstein's Chopin discography has been the
set of Ballades, among the composer's greatest works. Now he produces
the best complete recording available (not, however, difficult, in view
of the competition)...Here his playing is freer, more introspective,
with a higher incidence of rubatos. An almost discursive air hovers
over the performances, but this is as it should be, considering the
nature of the works; and it is Rubinstein's genius that, while letting
the music flow now this way, now that, he holds it together."
On Richter playing Tchaik 1 with Ancerl:
"Muffled, echoing sound shrouds much of Richter's playing on this
recording, and the orchestra on occasion plays soggily and out of
tune...But there are great merits: in the powerful urgency of the
opening chords; in steady, deliberate tempos, where other pianists
rush; in an octave run almost as steely as Horowitz's; in the
first-movement cadenza, with its clinging tones, feathery runs, clear
lines and shapes."
It's a world where the ads were for amplifiers and radio tuners built
from kits; where an ad pitched a "diamond shaped" stylus instead of the
common conical because it better fit the nooks and crannies of the
groove; where many people bought raw speakers and built their own
wooden enclosures; where the phonograph was king, and there was doubt
that a vinyl record could be compatible with both stereo and monoral
phonographs; and where a 30 watt amplifier would cost $129.00.
-Owen
the ads, a puff-piece/interview with Arthur Fiedler, then in the
reviews of recordings I know all so well:
"One signal omission from Rubinstein's Chopin discography has been the
set of Ballades, among the composer's greatest works. Now he produces
the best complete recording available (not, however, difficult, in view
of the competition)...Here his playing is freer, more introspective,
with a higher incidence of rubatos. An almost discursive air hovers
over the performances, but this is as it should be, considering the
nature of the works; and it is Rubinstein's genius that, while letting
the music flow now this way, now that, he holds it together."
On Richter playing Tchaik 1 with Ancerl:
"Muffled, echoing sound shrouds much of Richter's playing on this
recording, and the orchestra on occasion plays soggily and out of
tune...But there are great merits: in the powerful urgency of the
opening chords; in steady, deliberate tempos, where other pianists
rush; in an octave run almost as steely as Horowitz's; in the
first-movement cadenza, with its clinging tones, feathery runs, clear
lines and shapes."
It's a world where the ads were for amplifiers and radio tuners built
from kits; where an ad pitched a "diamond shaped" stylus instead of the
common conical because it better fit the nooks and crannies of the
groove; where many people bought raw speakers and built their own
wooden enclosures; where the phonograph was king, and there was doubt
that a vinyl record could be compatible with both stereo and monoral
phonographs; and where a 30 watt amplifier would cost $129.00.
-Owen
Willem Orange
Jan 23, 2014, 1:13:49 PM1/23/14
to
John Wiser
Jan 23, 2014, 1:22:13 PM1/23/14
to
"td" <tomde...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:b54d611a-9f2c-4d00...@googlegroups.com...
That would depend *very* much on the player, don't you think?
jdw
news:b54d611a-9f2c-4d00...@googlegroups.com...
jdw
Willem Orange
Jan 23, 2014, 2:35:12 PM1/23/14
to
On Thursday, January 23, 2014 2:08:21 PM UTC-5, gggrou...@gmail.com wrote:
> Did that article also mention the first act of Walkure conducted by Walter and sung by Melchior and Lehmannn?
No Osborne says that he omitted "historical" recordings from the list since he firmly believed they would always be available in some way. Other critics mentioned the 33 Rosenkavalier excerpts with Lehmann.
No Osborne says that he omitted "historical" recordings from the list since he firmly believed they would always be available in some way. Other critics mentioned the 33 Rosenkavalier excerpts with Lehmann.
graham
Feb 22, 2014, 9:19:43 AM2/22/14
to
<gggrou...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c569dab8-0487-46ad...@googlegroups.com...
On Friday, January 17, 2014 1:44:04 PM UTC-10, Willem Orange wrote:
>Concerning Brain, do you know that his bio was published in 2012?:
The paperback was published in 2009 in the UK. The hardback much earlier,
IIRC.
td
Feb 22, 2014, 9:42:10 AM2/22/14
to
TD
graham
Feb 22, 2014, 12:13:55 PM2/22/14
to
news:1ef8b7d0-4d42-49b0...@googlegroups.com...
bloody quickly!
Graham
> On Saturday, February 22, 2014 9:19:43 AM UTC-5, graham wrote:
>> <gggrou...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:c569dab8-0487-46ad...@googlegroups.com...
>> <gggrou...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:c569dab8-0487-46ad...@googlegroups.com...
On Friday, January 17, 2014 6:15:35 PM UTC-5, gggrou...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >Concerning Brain, do you know that his bio was published in 2012?:
>> The paperback was published in 2009 in the UK. The hardback much
>> earlier,
IIRC.
>
> How about 1976?
>
I remember reading it when it first came out but not when! Time passes too
>> >Concerning Brain, do you know that his bio was published in 2012?:
>> The paperback was published in 2009 in the UK. The hardback much
>> earlier,
IIRC.
>
> How about 1976?
>
bloody quickly!
Graham
J
Feb 23, 2014, 9:58:43 AM2/23/14
to
Has anybody mentioned the Steber "Nuits d'Ete"? I was very impressed by the sound when I first heard it (Masterworks Heritage), and had to double-check the booklet to assure myself it was mono...
Dave Cook
May 11, 2014, 7:05:38 AM5/11/14
to
On 2014-05-05, gggg...@gmail.com <gggg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Do audiophiles ever seek out mono discs?
Mostly older Jazz and pop recordings where the mono mix is considered
superior because of the unnatural sounding pan-potting of the stereo
mix.
Dave Cook
> Do audiophiles ever seek out mono discs?
Mostly older Jazz and pop recordings where the mono mix is considered
superior because of the unnatural sounding pan-potting of the stereo
mix.
Dave Cook
GMS
May 11, 2014, 12:30:38 PM5/11/14
to
Haven't heard it for a number of years, but I remember being quite stunned by the sound of the 1954 Reiner/CSO "Don Juan" in its mono incarnation. IMHO, the stereo spread in the two track LP version bleached out a lot of the color that the mono version had in abundance!! (At the time, I understand that RCA used separate machines for their stereo and mono versions. The mono Don Juan is a clear winner to my ears.)
Gary Stucka
Gary Stucka
gggg...@gmail.com
Jul 2, 2014, 5:57:58 AM7/2/14
to
On Thursday, January 9, 2014 3:52:02 AM UTC-10, kirkmc wrote:
> I've been writing something about listening to mono recordings, focusing on those recordings that were mixed first in mono, then in stereo, back in the early days of stereo: artists like Miles Davis, Bob Dylan and The Beatles, for whom recent releases of re-mastered mono recordings sound very nice.
>
>
>
> Does anyone know about specific classical recordings that fit the same conditions? Recorded in any manner - most of the above used at least three-track tape - but where the mix was to mono first, with the stereo mix considered less important.
>
>
>
> Also, what are the best sounding mono recordings you know, of any type of classical music? I'm finding that listening to good-quality mono recordings really is relaxing...
>
>
>
> Kirk
Concerning Ansermet's DAPHNIS..., the following says:
> I've been writing something about listening to mono recordings, focusing on those recordings that were mixed first in mono, then in stereo, back in the early days of stereo: artists like Miles Davis, Bob Dylan and The Beatles, for whom recent releases of re-mastered mono recordings sound very nice.
>
>
>
> Does anyone know about specific classical recordings that fit the same conditions? Recorded in any manner - most of the above used at least three-track tape - but where the mix was to mono first, with the stereo mix considered less important.
>
>
>
> Also, what are the best sounding mono recordings you know, of any type of classical music? I'm finding that listening to good-quality mono recordings really is relaxing...
>
>
>
> Kirk
- A final marvel is the exquisite sharpness and sonic detail of the recording itself, which serves as an object lesson for those who sadly think of the monaural format as incapable of conveying the "realism" of stereo (or quad or surround, for that matter).
http://www.classicalnotes.net/classics4/daphnis.html
(By the way, it's on YOUTUBE.)
MELMOTH
Mar 11, 2015, 4:17:04 AM3/11/15
to
Ce cher mammifère du nom de kirkmc nous susurrait, le jeudi 09/01/2014,
dans nos oreilles grandes ouvertes mais un peu sales tout de même, et
dans le message
<47a84bff-c48c-4a1e...@googlegroups.com>, les doux
mélismes suivants :
dans nos oreilles grandes ouvertes mais un peu sales tout de même, et
dans le message
<47a84bff-c48c-4a1e...@googlegroups.com>, les doux
mélismes suivants :
> Does anyone know about specific classical recordings that fit the same
> conditions? Recorded in any manner - most of the above used at least
> three-track tape - but where the mix was to mono first, with the stereo mix
> considered less important.
All *MERCURY* records (1953-1955)...
> conditions? Recorded in any manner - most of the above used at least
> three-track tape - but where the mix was to mono first, with the stereo mix
> considered less important.
gggrou...@gmail.com
Jan 18, 2014, 12:40:02 AM1/18/14
to
On Thursday, January 9, 2014 3:52:02 AM UTC-10, kirkmc wrote:
> I've been writing something about listening to mono recordings, focusing on those recordings that were mixed first in mono, then in stereo, back in the early days of stereo: artists like Miles Davis, Bob Dylan and The Beatles, for whom recent releases of re-mastered mono recordings sound very nice.
>
>
>
> I've been writing something about listening to mono recordings, focusing on those recordings that were mixed first in mono, then in stereo, back in the early days of stereo: artists like Miles Davis, Bob Dylan and The Beatles, for whom recent releases of re-mastered mono recordings sound very nice.
>
>
>
> Does anyone know about specific classical recordings that fit the same conditions? Recorded in any manner - most of the above used at least three-track tape - but where the mix was to mono first, with the stereo mix considered less important.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Also, what are the best sounding mono recordings you know, of any type of classical music? I'm finding that listening to good-quality mono recordings really is relaxing...
>
>
>
> Kirk
The following blog entry may be of interest:
>
>
>
> Kirk
http://soon.cocoplastic.com/page/Top-100-Mono-Recording.aspx
gggrou...@gmail.com
Jan 18, 2014, 3:20:22 AM1/18/14
to
On Friday, January 17, 2014 1:44:04 PM UTC-10, Willem Orange wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 9, 2014 3:52:02 AM UTC-10, kirkmc wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > I've been writing something about listening to mono recordings, focusing on those recordings that were mixed first in mono, then in stereo, back in the early days of stereo: artists like Miles Davis, Bob Dylan and The Beatles, for whom recent releases of re-mastered mono recordings sound very nice.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Does anyone know about specific classical recordings that fit the same conditions? Recorded in any manner - most of the above used at least three-track tape - but where the mix was to mono first, with the stereo mix considered less important.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Also, what are the best sounding mono recordings you know, of any type of classical music? I'm finding that listening to good-quality mono recordings really is relaxing...
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Kirk
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
> >
>
> > > I've been writing something about listening to mono recordings, focusing on those recordings that were mixed first in mono, then in stereo, back in the early days of stereo: artists like Miles Davis, Bob Dylan and The Beatles, for whom recent releases of re-mastered mono recordings sound very nice.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Does anyone know about specific classical recordings that fit the same conditions? Recorded in any manner - most of the above used at least three-track tape - but where the mix was to mono first, with the stereo mix considered less important.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Also, what are the best sounding mono recordings you know, of any type of classical music? I'm finding that listening to good-quality mono recordings really is relaxing...
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Kirk
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > In 1968(?), didn't HIFI/STEREO REVIEW publish an article of outstanding mono recordings as a reaction to the phasing out of mono recordings at the time?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Didn't that article include mention of Schwarzkopf's Coffee Cantata, Dennis Brain's recordings and Toscanini's OTELLO?
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Didn't that article include mention of Schwarzkopf's Coffee Cantata, Dennis Brain's recordings and Toscanini's OTELLO?
>
>
>
gggrou...@gmail.com
Jan 23, 2014, 2:08:21 PM1/23/14
to
gggrou...@gmail.com
Feb 22, 2014, 4:57:18 AM2/22/14
to
On Friday, January 17, 2014 1:44:04 PM UTC-10, Willem Orange wrote:
> On Friday, January 17, 2014 6:15:35 PM UTC-5, gggrou...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, January 9, 2014 3:52:02 AM UTC-10, kirkmc wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > I've been writing something about listening to mono recordings, focusing on those recordings that were mixed first in mono, then in stereo, back in the early days of stereo: artists like Miles Davis, Bob Dylan and The Beatles, for whom recent releases of re-mastered mono recordings sound very nice.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Does anyone know about specific classical recordings that fit the same conditions? Recorded in any manner - most of the above used at least three-track tape - but where the mix was to mono first, with the stereo mix considered less important.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Also, what are the best sounding mono recordings you know, of any type of classical music? I'm finding that listening to good-quality mono recordings really is relaxing...
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Kirk
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > In 1968(?), didn't HIFI/STEREO REVIEW publish an article of outstanding mono recordings as a reaction to the phasing out of mono recordings at the time?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Didn't that article include mention of Schwarzkopf's Coffee Cantata, Dennis Brain's recordings and Toscanini's OTELLO?
>
>
>
> Yes the fear was that a large number of mono recordings would be lost forever due to he success of stereo. Back then recordings had been issued in both mono and stereo versions but here was a big sell off of the mono sets in the sixties, No Schwarzkopf Coffee cantata was mentioned (is there one???) but the Brain Mozart Concerti and the Toscanini Otello among others were rightly mentioned as great recordings which should always be available. It may be an interesting exercise to go over the list to see if they all are indeed still readily around - I think they are.
>
> > On Thursday, January 9, 2014 3:52:02 AM UTC-10, kirkmc wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > I've been writing something about listening to mono recordings, focusing on those recordings that were mixed first in mono, then in stereo, back in the early days of stereo: artists like Miles Davis, Bob Dylan and The Beatles, for whom recent releases of re-mastered mono recordings sound very nice.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Does anyone know about specific classical recordings that fit the same conditions? Recorded in any manner - most of the above used at least three-track tape - but where the mix was to mono first, with the stereo mix considered less important.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Also, what are the best sounding mono recordings you know, of any type of classical music? I'm finding that listening to good-quality mono recordings really is relaxing...
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Kirk
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > In 1968(?), didn't HIFI/STEREO REVIEW publish an article of outstanding mono recordings as a reaction to the phasing out of mono recordings at the time?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Didn't that article include mention of Schwarzkopf's Coffee Cantata, Dennis Brain's recordings and Toscanini's OTELLO?
>
>
>
Concerning Brain, do you know that his bio was published in 2012?:
gggrou...@gmail.com
Feb 22, 2014, 5:11:28 AM2/22/14
to
On Thursday, January 9, 2014 3:52:02 AM UTC-10, kirkmc wrote:
> I've been writing something about listening to mono recordings, focusing on those recordings that were mixed first in mono, then in stereo, back in the early days of stereo: artists like Miles Davis, Bob Dylan and The Beatles, for whom recent releases of re-mastered mono recordings sound very nice.
>
>
>
> Does anyone know about specific classical recordings that fit the same conditions? Recorded in any manner - most of the above used at least three-track tape - but where the mix was to mono first, with the stereo mix considered less important.
>
>
>
> Also, what are the best sounding mono recordings you know, of any type of classical music? I'm finding that listening to good-quality mono recordings really is relaxing...
>
>
>
> Kirk
Wasn't this Crespin's debut recital album? Didn't it come out in 1958 and only in mono?
> I've been writing something about listening to mono recordings, focusing on those recordings that were mixed first in mono, then in stereo, back in the early days of stereo: artists like Miles Davis, Bob Dylan and The Beatles, for whom recent releases of re-mastered mono recordings sound very nice.
>
>
>
> Does anyone know about specific classical recordings that fit the same conditions? Recorded in any manner - most of the above used at least three-track tape - but where the mix was to mono first, with the stereo mix considered less important.
>
>
>
> Also, what are the best sounding mono recordings you know, of any type of classical music? I'm finding that listening to good-quality mono recordings really is relaxing...
>
>
>
> Kirk
I think I had a French pressing of it and the orchestral sound simply leapt out of the speakers:
http://img.cdandlp.com/2013/01/imgL/115825933.jpg
gggg...@gmail.com
May 5, 2014, 5:26:28 PM5/5/14
to
On Thursday, January 9, 2014 3:52:02 AM UTC-10, kirkmc wrote:
> I've been writing something about listening to mono recordings, focusing on those recordings that were mixed first in mono, then in stereo, back in the early days of stereo: artists like Miles Davis, Bob Dylan and The Beatles, for whom recent releases of re-mastered mono recordings sound very nice.
>
>
>
> Does anyone know about specific classical recordings that fit the same conditions? Recorded in any manner - most of the above used at least three-track tape - but where the mix was to mono first, with the stereo mix considered less important.
>
>
>
> Also, what are the best sounding mono recordings you know, of any type of classical music? I'm finding that listening to good-quality mono recordings really is relaxing...
>
>
>
> Kirk
> I've been writing something about listening to mono recordings, focusing on those recordings that were mixed first in mono, then in stereo, back in the early days of stereo: artists like Miles Davis, Bob Dylan and The Beatles, for whom recent releases of re-mastered mono recordings sound very nice.
>
>
>
> Does anyone know about specific classical recordings that fit the same conditions? Recorded in any manner - most of the above used at least three-track tape - but where the mix was to mono first, with the stereo mix considered less important.
>
>
>
> Also, what are the best sounding mono recordings you know, of any type of classical music? I'm finding that listening to good-quality mono recordings really is relaxing...
>
>
>
> Kirk
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages