Nimbus prima voce CDs
Karthik Balasubramaniam
original recordings in their Prima Voce series. Please give me your
opinion if you've tried any...
--
Karthik Balasubramaniam
Matthew B. Tepper
>
> I read somewhere that Nimbus adds "resonance" (whatever that is) to
> the original recordings in their Prima Voce series. Please give me
> your opinion if you've tried any...
My opinion is that they are horribly bad. They add tons of fake reverb
(with maybe some stereo imaging), kind of like gussying up an old and
treasured photograph with lipstick.
I call the series "Pseudo Voce," and urge listeners to stay away. Go
for the real thing on Pearl, Romophone, Marston, etc.
Out of curiosity, which country is ".om"?
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://www.deltanet.com/~ducky/index.htm
My main music page --- http://www.deltanet.com/~ducky/berlioz.htm
And my science fiction club's home page --- http://www.lasfs.org/
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
janeh...@*no-spam*hotmail.com
>I read somewhere that Nimbus adds "resonance" (whatever that is) to the
>original recordings in their Prima Voce series. Please give me your
>opinion if you've tried any...
I've several of them and they sound fine to me.
william d. kasimer
>
> I read somewhere that Nimbus adds "resonance" (whatever that is) to the
> original recordings in their Prima Voce series. Please give me your
> opinion if you've tried any...
I've tried quite a few, and think that the transfers are absolutely
dreadful. The only ones I've kept are those of a couple of singers,
like Wilhelm Herold, who are otherwise unrepresented on CD.
Bill
--
William D. Kasimer
wk...@mindspring.com
wk...@juno.com
Mike Richter
Theoretically, the process cannot work. On some discs, it does. On most,
the result appears to be gross distortion of the sound.
At best, they are inconsistent.
Mike
Karthik Balasubramaniam wrote:
>
> I read somewhere that Nimbus adds "resonance" (whatever that is) to the
> original recordings in their Prima Voce series. Please give me your
> opinion if you've tried any...
>
> --
> Karthik Balasubramaniam
--
mric...@mindspring.com
http://mrichter.simplenet.com
CD-R http://resource.simplenet.com
Kevin McGowin
> Karthik Balasubramaniam <kar...@rsinc.om> wrote:
>
> >I read somewhere that Nimbus adds "resonance" (whatever that is) to the
> >original recordings in their Prima Voce series. Please give me your
> >opinion if you've tried any...
>
> I've several of them and they sound fine to me.
>
I have them all, and they vary. The price is right though, and they've
made many historic and important recordings readily available that
previously weren't.
Generally speaking, I kike the sound of the earlier disks ('91-93 or so)
better than the more recent ones. I don't know exactly why. But for me,
when going for historic recordings, you can rarely go too wrong with
Romophone. Ward Marston and others have done some superb work there.
--Kevin McGowin> >
Wotan99
I've enjoyed the ones that come from acoustical era, and they seem not to
doctor them, but at least claim to play a good quality historic record with an
aoustical machine and then record it.(Since I have a functioning Victrola and
many of the same records, I find the claim that "they" (as in all) are
dreadful not accurate, because I can play the originals myself and compare.
Maybe some people don't know what they really sound like?) The recordings of
the electrical era, I find nothing special.
Yes, Marston's work is fantastic-I haven't heard his own label, but know his
work from many others. Romophones were good, but their cheap packinging (2 CDs
each on a side of the plastic holder caused me to ruin a Muzio CD, and so
enraged me that i haven't bought another...i contacted the company, but they
wouldn't reply..maybe they've changed the packaging..it was a foolish false
economy)
W99
Matthew B. Tepper
kmcg...@grove.ufl.edu pondered what I'm pondering as follows:
>
>I have them all, and they vary. The price is right though, and
>they've made many historic and important recordings readily available
>that previously weren't.
This, to my mind, is a terrible tragedy.
Arr1on
I read that Nimbus uses a Victrola with a quill needle (not metal, because it
picks up more "scratch" sounds), and with an extremely large horn (instead of
the small ones on most Victrolas), and that the stereo impression is because
they record it in a hall with the Victrola playing on stage, and get natural
reverb from the hall.
I like the Prima Voce series, since I too have a Victrola and many of the
original 78s, and if anything is lacking from the original, it is all the
scratches (since I have metal needles). I have been seriously considering
using some quills from my ducks/geese and experimenting with making my own
quill needles.
The other companies that release many of these "oldies" DEFINITELY use
computerized "beefing-up" of the sound, to try and get the orchestra or piano
to sound like a modern-day sound. As a result, the voice is drastically
altered. The early sound recording process, after all, was originally meant to
record the human voice, and after that, other instruments. It shouldn't be all
that surprising that (given also that live orchestral/piano sound has changed
dramatically during the last century) the instrumental bits on the old
recordings sound awful to our ears.
If given a choice between Nimbus Prima Voce and practically anything else, I
choose the Nimbus. Oh well, as has been essentially said in this thread
already, "to each his own."
Brady McElligott--Edgewood, NM
arr...@aol.com
ve...@unm.edu
"Is it music, or just on pursose?"--Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov
Kevin McGowin
> In article <Pine.OSF.4.02A.9810032318530.17745-100000@willow>,
> kmcg...@grove.ufl.edu pondered what I'm pondering as follows:
> >
> >I have them all, and they vary. The price is right though, and
> >they've made many historic and important recordings readily available
> >that previously weren't.
>
> This, to my mind, is a terrible tragedy.
I see your point of course, and these days might tend to agree--but the
factors I mentioned helped ME greatly in the late 80's at the beginning of
my "career" as a collector (and, much more than that, a knowledgable
appreciator). Prima Voce always had a certain aesthetic then--they tended
to perfer Ponselle, Caruso and the coloraturas. But there's lots of stuff
around that they'll never put out because they don't see a market for it,
but one could do far worse than "start" with one of their compilation
discs. Folks with genuine sensibilities will go on and learn to
discriminate, and at the very least some of the people who come to opera
thru the latest popular embodiments of the form will come to be aware of a
recorded vocal tradition.
Kevin
Kevin McGowin
>
> Yes, Marston's work is fantastic-I haven't heard his own label, but know his
> work from many others.
Just last week I purchaced his recent Johanna Gadski CD, and am thrilled
with the results. Gadski's was a voice that recorded well, anyway,
though...her singing snippets of Wagner are, for me, the high point of
the Mapleson Cylinders.
Kevin McGowin>
Mike Richter
> I like the Prima Voce series, since I too have a Victrola and many of the
> original 78s, and if anything is lacking from the original, it is all the
> scratches (since I have metal needles).
Cactus needles are readily available (I used to have a yucca at my front
door and collected one whenever I needed it), but they are *not*
recommended. There is enough sap remaining to get into the grooves,
collect grit and otherwise make a mess. You can still find companies who
will sell you plastic needles of a variety of hardness to suit your
every need without damaging the discs. (FYI: Mine is a Columbia Phonola,
not a Victrola, but the same rules apply.)
Some months ago, I posted at my WWW site a set of comparisons of a
single recording with different needles, recorded at different
distances, and taken from the Phonola and from my stereo rig. The
opinions expressed varied as widely as you might think - there is no
'right' answer in a matter of taste.
Mike
Sergio Henrique M. da Silva
Personal opinion: I love it ! Before Nimbus I used to hate old records
(from the gramophone era) and it really changed my opinion. The transfers
are much better than other companies (EMI-full of cracks, RCA-also full of
cracks but a little better). I like Romophone also, which some claim is
truer to the sound than Nimbus. But in this matter, you have to buy and
listen, to see if you like their process.
Karthik Balasubramaniam wrote:
> I read somewhere that Nimbus adds "resonance" (whatever that is) to the
> original recordings in their Prima Voce series. Please give me your
> opinion if you've tried any...
>
> --
> Karthik Balasubramaniam
--
**************************************
* Sergio Henrique M. da Silva *
* shs...@ibm.net *
* http://www.geocities.com/~sergiohm *
**************************************
Matthew B. Tepper
>
>Personal opinion: I love it ! Before Nimbus I used to hate old records
>(from the gramophone era) and it really changed my opinion. The
>transfers are much better than other companies (EMI-full of cracks,
>RCA-also full of cracks but a little better). I like Romophone also,
>which some claim is truer to the sound than Nimbus. But in this
>matter, you have to buy and listen, to see if you like their process.
Look at it this way.
If you really really really really like the sound of Nimbus' transfers,
you can always take an honest Pearl or Romophone or Marston or Preiser
and play it in a tiled bathroom and mike the result, which is pretty
much what Nimbus does. And then if you want to go back to the real
sound of the recording, you have your Pearl or Romophone (or whatever)
original.
But if you buy the Nimbus, there ain't no way you can get rid of that
bathroom reverb. You're stuck with it, forever and ever and ever. And
no hallelujah.
Wotan99
This thread for me anyway vanished for a while. Sorry I missed Mike's
comparison.
You may have noticed that recently i was posting here about my Victrola, and
the quality of true acoustical recordings.
Of course there's no right in matters of taste-but one person i forgot who,
made some very critical remarks re: Prima Voce. I made the distinction betwee
the aoucstical and electricAL in that series. Also suggested that the very
critical person may not be familiar with the real acoutical sound. I've found
the Prima Voce process simply trying to get the most of what's on the old
discs-and in that, I think it an ingenious technique.
W99
william d. kasimer
> Of course there's no right in matters of taste-but one person i forgot who,
> made some very critical remarks re: Prima Voce.
That was me.
> I made the distinction betwee
> the aoucstical and electricAL in that series.
Yes, there is a difference. Their treatment of acoustics is
atrocious - while their treatment of electricals is criminal.
> Also suggested that the very
> critical person may not be familiar with the real acoutical sound.
Nope. Try again.
Mike Richter
you will be at a distinct disadvantage. Yes, he knows the acousticals.
Yes, he is being flippant. Yes, he is opinionated (unlike the rest of us
who are unfailingly objective).
I do not agree with him (as I have said), but I respect his right to his
opinion - and his right to be flippant with one who challenges his
basis. I would not be surprised to find that he had an Edison cylinder
machine and a Berliner disc machine as well - along with the means to
play Pathe hill-and-dale. I have found some Nimbus reconstructions
astonishingly good and some atrocious or even criminal. I have no simple
formula to tell others which to try. As I said, their logic is invalid,
but their results sometimes seem to be right on.
Can we leave it there?
Mike
Wotan99 wrote:
>
> First you seem to be in the minority of opinions expressed about this
> .
> Beyond a few select adjectives-atrocious, criminal etc. you don't seem to have
> any thing to say.
>
> Do you have the original acousticals?
>
> Your answer."Nope. Try again"
> That's overwhelmingly articulate
>
> Come on, you can do better than that??
>
> W99
--
Wotan99
Wotan99
First Mike, I've enjoyed some of your postings...but this last one is a bit
amusing.
God, I already hate that expression...flame war. I don't find myself quaking in
my boots. What is this thing going on here that if a discussion takes place, or
if strong opinions are expressed, that is something awful, to be avoided.. I
don't take this that seriously.
If you've noticed my postings, I don't fall into these traps, and I try to keep
a certain attitude-try not to be flippant, and try to give reasons for what i
say.
If WKAS is so knowledgable--I'm interested, but he's going to have to do better
then what he's done. I wonder why he bothered answering at all..in addition to
e-mailing me, since I have absolutely no idea what he has represented on this
board in the past. He, you, all of us have the option of just ignoring
something-but if you receive a meaningless e-mail, then it's my right to reply.
This is all a bit silly.
But I would also say to you...fine, some of the the Nimbus is atrocious, in
your opinion...but I think the use of the word criminal is a bit hyperbolic in
the spectrum of moral behavior...don't you?
W99
wk...@juno.com
wot...@aol.com (Wotan99) wrote:
> If WKAS is so knowledgable--
Still basking in Mike's compliments :-), but he's certainly exaggerating.
No, I don't own any of the acoustics which Nimbus has transferred (although I
have heard some of them). I'm blissfully ignorant of the details of Nimbus'
technique. But I *have* heard a pretty fair number of historic vocal
reisssues, including most of those issued by Nimbus, and have compared these
with other transfers. Caveat - my listening goal isn't to reproduce how a
particular acoustic record sounded on equipment during the acoustic era. My
goal is go glean as much about the *singer* as possible.
As I've said, I think that Nimbus' results are atrocious. First of all,
their transfers have a homogenizing effect. One only needs to listen to one
of their single voice-type compilations to discover this. Try, for example,
LEGENDARY TENORS. Even listening carefully, those voices sound MUCH too
alike - when I can't distinguish Sobinov and Smirnov, something is clearly
amiss. Second, probably for similar reasons, Nimbus transfers give a false
impression of vocal size. Their McCormack operatic CD makes pleasant
listening, but it certainly doesn't reflect reality.
More subjectively, I detest the echo-chamber effect that affects all of their
records. If I want to listen to music in a steambath, then I'll take my
boombox to the gym.
I won't even bother to comment on Nimbus' transfers of electricals - I think
that even their most avid proponents would agree that these are obviously
unacceptable.
In short, I find it hard to imagine that anyone who's heard outstanding
transfers (such as those of Marston, Winner, or Hladik) could find Nimbus'
efforts acceptable.
> I'm interested, but he's going to have to do
> better then what he's done.
Assuming that the above achieves a passing grade, Professor, now it's your
turn. What is it that you actually *enjoy* about these abominations? All I
know is that they sound like records do on your Victrola. Mere ownership of
such a piece of equipment and a few records does not necessarily convey
expertise, nor does it tell me much else.
> I wonder why he bothered answering at all..
Because you were making assertions that were not necessarily accurate. I did
not expand upon them because I assumed that someone of your obvious intellect
would know to check DejaNews to see what's been said before. A poor
assumption, obviously - my apologies.
> in addition to
> e-mailing me, since I have absolutely no idea what he has represented on this
> board in the past. He, you, all of us have the option of just ignoring
> something-but if you receive a meaningless e-mail, then it's my right to
> reply.
Again, my apologies. As far as I know, it's common courtesy to "cc" the
individual to whom one is responding, even if that individual lacks the
courtesy to attach a real name to his postings. Different ISP's are
idiosyncratic, and I do not like to assume that everyone sees the same notes
at the same time. My apologies - in the future, I'll be more discourteous
and respond only on the newsgroup.
> This is all a bit silly.
Indeed.
> But I would also say to you...fine, some of the the Nimbus is atrocious, in
> your opinion...but I think the use of the word criminal is a bit hyperbolic in
> the spectrum of moral behavior...don't you?
Not really. I have a real problem with companies that issue material in
inferior sound. They poison the market for more competent transfers - people
with limited budgets, who own, for example, a Nimbus CD of Schipa may be
unwilling to shell out money for a subsequent release by someone like Marston,
who's gone through the trouble and expense to do the job right.
Bill
William D. Kasimer
wk...@juno.com
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Wotan99
Dear Bill,
That's all fair enough. When I have the time later today (?) I' ll try to
answer. Do agree about the electricals.
Mike's comments made it sound like the very idea of expressing a contrary
opinion was some trangression...as if you were really Ward Marston or someone,
and I simply was a fool for even disagreeing.
Still object to the use of the word criminal-but that 's because I deal with
people I truly have reason to use that word. But we may have a different scale
of moral evaluation.
No problem with the cc...do it myself...but you didn't say anything other than
they're lousy.
Well back to other business,
W99
Matthew B. Tepper
wot...@aol.com pondered what I'm pondering as follows:
>
>Still object to the use of the word criminal-but that 's because I
>deal with people I truly have reason to use that word. But we may
>have a different scale of moral evaluation.
I have a better word: treasonous!
Christina West
wk...@juno.com wrote:
> Again, my apologies. As far as I know, it's common courtesy to "cc" the
> individual to whom one is responding, even if that individual lacks the
> courtesy to attach a real name to his postings.
It's certainly not standard Usenet practice. And IMO it's a damned
nuisance; I have barely enough time to keep up with the NGs as it is
without having to read the same thing again in an Email. Usenet is
the medium for public discussion, Email for personal correspondence.
> Different ISP's are idiosyncratic, and I do not like to assume that
> everyone sees the same notes at the same time.
People who are sufficiently concerned will arrange either to download
news frequently enough, or to expire their news infrequently enough,
to ensure that they keep abreast of any thread that particularly
interests them.
> My apologies - in the future, I'll be more discourteous and respond only on
> the newsgroup.
I doubt if anyone will consider that discourteous, it's the norm.
--
Christina West
xina on IRC
Email: xi...@argonet.co.uk
Web: www.argonet.co.uk/users/xina/
wk...@juno.com
xi...@argonet.co.uk wrote:
> > Again, my apologies. As far as I know, it's common courtesy to "cc" the
> > individual to whom one is responding, even if that individual lacks the
> > courtesy to attach a real name to his postings.
>
> It's certainly not standard Usenet practice. And IMO it's a damned
> nuisance; I have barely enough time to keep up with the NGs as it is
> without having to read the same thing again in an Email. Usenet is
> the medium for public discussion, Email for personal correspondence.
I stand corrected.
BTW, if you find that this is a nuisance and a waste of your precious
time, how do you feel about those who choose to suddenly change a topic
entirely, without bothering to change the subject line? For example, someone
who chooses to whine about what is or isn't Usenet convention in a subject
titled "Nimbus Prima Voce CD's". Just curious.
Bill
Emma Alban
I don't suppose I have anything new or different to add to this discussion
which never stops me.
I'm somewhere in the middle of this. I did grow up hearing '78's, my
grandfather and his kid brother were obsessed with singers and had between them
maybe a thousand or more records. They were pretty finicky about their
equipment and needles but I don't know how expert they were.
I generally dislike many of the Nimbus CDs because they sound like nothing to
me, neither like '78's responsibly transferred nor like the careful treatment
of 78's computers make (theoretically) possible which "may" (sometimes?
rarely?) in the right hands or ears, "lift out" more info than a straight
forward playing of a '78.
They sound like an attempt to sell old singers' records at a modest price to an
audience which has grown up without scratch and sizzle and has no ability to
"listen through it."
I actually think they provide a service in doing that, though anyone who REALLY
loves the sound of old records (and that can be quite a marvelous sound) is apt
to wince and run at Nimbus.
I know of two exceptions: The Great Singers at the Maryinsky Theater, and Great
Singers in Moscow. First of all about half these selections have not appeared
on CD or circulated in the West (it's surprising they don't show up on Pearl's
compendious volumes of Russian singers). Secondly who ever produced this
project got into the Soviet archives and came up with mint or near mint copies
or masters -- the sound is astonishingly vivid. It doesn't sound to me as
though an "unacceptable" amount of "tweaking" were done. Some resonance was
added, but in this case the voices are more three dimensional than one would
expect. But as is true of all acoustical and electrical singers, I did not
hear these people live, so I'm only guessing that timbre, weight and heft are
caught accurately (these are all acoustics).
I agree that Nimbus electricals are awful -- except their Tauber transfer which
is the best I've heard on CD. The Tote Stadt selections have unbelievable
presence and don't sound faked. The EMI transfers were hideously noisy, the
Pearl's worse, and the various LPs I have all less good than Nimbus. Nimbus is
the cheapest of the CD's.
This whole matter of 'transfer" is very odd indeed. Marston is the miracle
worker, particularly on his own label where he sets himself the impossible task
of pitching Pathes (where the pitch, right or wrong to begin with, sags than
rises as the record plays), and where he works some kind of magic in keeping
the good aspects of the "original process" while bringing the tone forward.
The Maurel selections (added to the complete Patti) are revelatory in this
regard -- I've never heard this voice (admittedly old) sound as lovely or
distinctive and every nuance works. I also think these are far and away the
best transfers of Patti ever -- Marston uses conventional wisdom for pitching
but where he disagrees follows that with his own guesses. But perhaps more
important, the silvery distinction of tone which was variable but more often
than not still there and her manner, the haunting interpretive touches really
are clear.
I have not always been equally convinced by the Romophone issues, some of which
sound over filtered and remote to me.
But this obviously is not only a highly subjective situation it is hit or miss.
Take the Minerva transfers of half of Muzio's Edisons. This is an awful
label. Yet on that on CD, by miracle, those records are startlingly vivid, she
and the instruments behind her (clearly identifiable -- the scoring on Edisons
-- always very odd -- are right in the room). Instruments by the way, IMO, ARE
important because they "set off" the voice -- the clarinet or bass behind Muzio
is one way one hears the sheer distinctiveness of her timbre and her way of
projecting her tone. It was often said Edison had the "best" process but the
shortest attention span and the least interest in music or marketing. But the
"beingness" of Muzio's amazing tone is right there, touchable. I've played the
"spargi amante" for about 12 people who knew it from other pressings, and they
have all cried. The sound of this voice and the many effortlessly managed,
apparently spontaneous nuances are indescribable.
I don't know what point I'm making except some people probably have heard great
singing on Nimbus and enjoyed it 1/ because the price was right and 2/because
there was very little surface. And, 3/with all these labels yer pays yer money
and yer takes yer chances.
Emma Albani
Wotan99
Let's proceed from the premise that the Prima Voce series was developed with
the best intentions, with the idea of making classic acoustical recordings
accessible to more people, and with a particular view of how the sound could be
handled in a new and different way. As soon as the first recordings were
released using their Ambisonic transfer technology there were critics/experts
who loved it, found it a revelation, and others who hated the sound. Part of
the negative reaction was a result of a sound, with what to them were familiar
recordings, no longer sounding as they remembered them. The whole point of
Norman White's approach (the collector/ sound consultant) was to discover
qualities these records possessed which had never been heard before. Now you
and others didn't like the results, but I never heard any one before they other
day ascribe criminality to their project.
Starting at the easiest point they did a nice job packaging them, and that
certainly added to their appeal. The series was very appealing, was done with
taste, and the essays and other material was of a high quality. I always like a
text, and translation, but that is becoming a rarity. At least they provided
summaries of the arias and songs, which is more than a lot of CDS do today.
Perhaps you don't realize how resistant many people are to listening to
pre-electrical recordings. Whatever you may think of the series, there is not a
doubt in my mind that it exposed many people to these recordings, and developed
an interest in these great artists, and offered this all at a reasonable
price..
As I said, I have a functioning Victrola, with a large quantity of acoustical
records, and I enjoy listening to them because they still have an impact, an
immediacy, even with their shortcomings that the best engineered CD versions
don't possess. I don't pretend to be any great collector, or any authority on
acoustical records or early sound reproduction. But I know the voice, and I
know what the originals sound like. Actually it would be interesting if some
one who really knew what they were talking about joined in on this.
Often listening to the Victrola I would think; wouldn't it be great if we could
keep the pure acoustical sound but eliminate the shortcomings? Those were 1)
the problem of maintaining proper pitch with a spring operated machine (easily
solved) and of course the problem of pitch in these old recordings 2) the high
surface noise 3) The problem of controlling volume-only achieved by opening or
closing doors, or type of needle-using a "softer" needle brought out certain
qualities, but with a lose of volume and brilliance 4) the sense of the sound
being constricted-like a sound forced into a container. It seemed, as I mused
on this-while Caruso was playing in the other room-and I generally listen from
another room or outside in the warm weather because with the steel needles it
was unbearable sometimes, but without them the brilliance could be lost-that if
you had a large horn and used a fibre needle, you would solve many of the
problems. This had been in my mind for years.
And then the Prima Voce series appeared. They had done what I had imagined-used
a soft needle, with a modern turntable and built a very large horn, and then as
I understand it recorded them digitally without additional doctoring. What had
they accomplished? The fibre needle reduced surface noise and harshness,
obviously the speed/pitch was steady, and the large horn increased the volume,
and seemed to bring out qualities not heard before, and gave an openness to the
sound-that bottled in sensation wasn't there. So to me they had succeeded with
a marvelous experiment with this technology. Of course they also had access to
mint condition records from various collections, and as I understand it
recorded several different records of each aria. One part I was unsure about
with how precisely they used these different "takes" of the same recording to
create the final one they put on a CD-they claimed no doctoring, just the best
part of each one was used.
I think what many people reacted to-both positively and negatively- was the
fact that these recordings had never been heard this way before. Even
previously well engineered series still retained the constricted quality. Here
were these familiar voices and recordings, but with a open, mellow, yet full
sound. The question is over the view one holds of the results of his technique,
not in the intentions of the people behind it
W99
Wotan99
I don't even own that many of the Prima Voce Series, but I own enough to have a
good sense of them. The electrical transfers I've found to be fine, but nothing
extraordinary. One thing I haven't liked is their merging of the two kinds of
recordings. I would assume nothing would be gained by a similar technique being
used with electrical recordings.
This evening I listened to a selection of Prima Voce, some of Marston's work
and some originals on the Victrola to try to understand what has been said. My
overall impression is that none of the Primas are "atrocious", but I think I
understand the reference to listening in a bathroom-if that was the image. I
assume you are talking about what I referred to in my previous posting-the fact
that there is an openness, a resonance to the Primas that is different. If that
was the aspect of the sound objected to, perhaps as I suggested, it is because
it's different. But different may not be bad.
I have some of the same recordings on Prima Voces, and in the original
acoustical records, but in other cases the same singer, in different arias. I
noted that Prima Voce or Victrola, it was still the familiar Caruso, McCormack.
I took one specific aria, Questa o quella, with Caruso and did a direct
comparison. The Prima Voce retained all the familiar qualities, and reduced the
ones I had mentioned, and the overall sound in comparison to the Victrola was
as if the voice had been liberated from some kind of acoustical confinement.
Marston's work-here Claudia Muzio,I don't have anything on his own label- was
as usual of very high quality. It was clear, seemingly with more surface noise,
and more like the "traditional" sound. (This was on Romophone-the only that I
own, because as I said before I was infuriated (no I don't think it was
criminal) by their chincy packaging which caused me to ruin a CD, and never
bought another. Have they changed that?)
Well, that will have to do it for now. I would be interested in some more
specific references, so I could better able judge your extreme reaction.
W99
Wotan99
Happen to have noticed Emma's posting. Perhaps I answered why the Nimbus' don't
sound like anything else-because no one else had tried that approach. And as I
said I think the reduction of surface noise (unless they're lying) is due to
the fibre needle, and the softening of the sound.
I don't know what point he was making-but it was still interesting. Yes, Nimbus
flawed or not has introduced a lot of people to these recordings, at a cheap
price-Romophones and others are a fortune!
Let's talk more about Muzio-my favorite soprano. I call her a voice like
Tebaldi, but with passion and a brain. A bit unfair, but an indication of the
esteem in which I hold her. You don't need a special version to cry when you
hear her voice. (wasn't sure what piece you were refering to)
Good point about the instruments being a means of setting off the voice so we
can gauge the uniqueness of the sound.
W99
Wotan99
Perhaps if you read my postings on the Nimbus techique, like it or not-(and you
apparently don't) you'd at least respond to the pts.I raised, instead of just
repeating this thing about bathroom reverb. Which I don't even recognize as a
good description. I, while clearly hearing the difference in the Nimbus sound,
hear it differently.
How do we know they shouldn't sound like the Prima Voces?
Best
W99
W99
wk...@juno.com
wot...@aol.com (Wotan99) wrote:
> Yes, Nimbus
> flawed or not has introduced a lot of people to these recordings,
I do not know a single person to whom the above statement applies.
> at a cheap
> price
Cheap? These cost around $12 here - that's a lot to pay for inferior
transfers. Yes, their packaging is nice, but I'd rather spend the extra money
on decent transfers and look for biographical information and pictures
elsewhere.
> -Romophones and others are a fortune!
Oh, come on. Around here, Preisers, Romophones, and Marstons are $18, about
a buck more than major labels - and if you've ever priced the original 78's,
this will hardly seem like a fortune. And the packaging, at least for
Marston, is better than Nimbus' - more biographical information, written by
experts.
wk...@juno.com
wot...@aol.com (Wotan99) wrote:
> I don't even own that many of the Prima Voce Series, but I own enough to have
> a good sense of them.
I still own about ten of them, but I've purchased and/or heard about half of
all of their catalogue (they show up frequently as remainders and in used
record stores, which may say something about their popularity and/or
quality).
> The electrical transfers I've found to be fine, but
> nothing extraordinary.
I hate to beat a dead horse, but this statement is preposterous. Every one
of their electrical transfers that I've heard is extraordinarily poor. One
of my greatest CD disappointments of the last decade was finally finding
Flagstad's 1940 HAUGTUSSA on CD - and what a shock to put it on, and find it
to be totally unlistenable. I'm not a fan of Mark Obert-Thorn transfers
(Sorry, Mark. In this case it's simply a case of an engineer preferring a
different kind of sound), but it was a great relief when this recording was
issued on Romophone. One of their better efforts, LEGENDARY BARITONES, has a
desert-island recording of Igor Gorin singing an aria from ATTILA. Much as
I'd like to recommend this, I have a fourth generation cassette tape of this
that reveals more of Gorin than the Nimbus transfer, which sounds like Gorin
is singing from a cistern.
> This evening I listened to a selection of Prima Voce, some of Marston's work
> and some originals on the Victrola to try to understand what has been said. My
> overall impression is that none of the Primas are "atrocious", but I think I
> understand the reference to listening in a bathroom-if that was the image. I
> assume you are talking about what I referred to in my previous posting-the
fact
> that there is an openness, a resonance to the Primas that is different.
It's not just "different". It masks every important quality of a voice. It's
the musical equivalent of Gerber's - strained and homogenized to make it all
sound the same.
> I have some of the same recordings on Prima Voces, and in the original
> acoustical records, but in other cases the same singer, in different arias. I
> noted that Prima Voce or Victrola, it was still the familiar Caruso,
> McCormack.
I've heard many McCormack, Caruso, Martinelli (and dozens of others)
acoustics in multiple transfers, including those of the Prima Voce series.
Marston's transfers are usually among the best, although there are many
occasions where I might prefer Hladik, Winner, or Andrew Walter. And may God
forgive me for saying so, but I even prefer Haynes/Atwell transfers (on
Pearl) to the hideous distortions of the Prima Voce series.
> I took one specific aria, Questa o quella, with Caruso and did a direct
> comparison. The Prima Voce retained all the familiar qualities, and reduced
> the ones I had mentioned, and the overall sound in comparison to the Victrola
> was as if the voice had been liberated from some kind of acoustical
> confinement.
What did you think of Marston's transfer on Pearl? Or RCA's CD transfer?
Comparison of the Nimbus transfer to the original isn't relevant to a
discussion of which transfers are superior.
> (This was on Romophone-the only that I
> own, because as I said before I was infuriated (no I don't think it was
> criminal) by their chincy packaging which caused me to ruin a CD, and never
> bought another. Have they changed that?)
Their packaging is just fine, thank you. I prefer the slimline twopacks,
because I can fit more than double the number of CD's in the same space that
way. I would suggest, BTW, that if your knowledge of Marston's work is
limited to a single Muzio CD, without knowledge of other Romophone issues or
Marston's own, then your database is rather incomplete (how about Pearl?
Preiser? EMI. Even so, I'm astonished that you could prefer the Nimbus CD
over the Romophone.
wk...@juno.com
wot...@aol.com (Wotan99) wrote:
> As soon as the first recordings were
> released using their Ambisonic transfer technology there were critics/experts
> who loved it, found it a revelation,
Name one.
> Part of
> the negative reaction was a result of a sound, with what to them were familiar
> recordings, no longer sounding as they remembered them.
In my case, I have no memory of the original 78's. And if this were true, one
would expect that familiarity would temper my opinion. Quite the opposite, in
fact.
> The whole point of
> Norman White's approach (the collector/ sound consultant) was to discover
> qualities these records possessed which had never been heard before.
The whole point was to eliminate surface noise, in a futile attempt to market
these recordings to DDD-addled brains.
> Starting at the easiest point they did a nice job packaging them, and that
> certainly added to their appeal. The series was very appealing, was done with
> taste, and the essays and other material was of a high quality.
Sorry, but I must disagree even with this. The packaging is superior to
Preiser's, Pearl's (most of the time), and that of Legato and the various
other pirates. Compared to Romophone or Marston, Nimbus' essays are
superficial, the arias "summaries" pointless, and I have no need to see this
material in three different languages. Nice photos, but poorly reproduced.
The paper is of good quality, though.
> Perhaps you don't realize how resistant people are to
> pre-electrical recordings.
Having once been one of the resistant, I am well aware of this.
> Whatever you may think of the series, there is not
> a doubt in my mind that it exposed many people to these recordings,
Name one. And then name one who didn't move on to better transfers, almost
immediately.
> and developed
> an interest in these great artists, and offered this all at a reasonable
> price..
Garbage at bargain price is still just that - garbage.
> As I said, I have a functioning Victrola, with a large quantity of acoustical
> records, and I enjoy listening to them because they still have an impact, an
> immediacy, even with their shortcomings that the best engineered CD versions
> don't possess. I don't pretend to be any great collector, or any authority on
> acoustical records or early sound reproduction. But I know the voice, and I
> know what the originals sound like. Actually it would be interesting if some
> one who really knew what they were talking about joined in on this.
I couldn't agree more.
BTW, I should disclose the fact that I have no interest, financial or
otherwise, in any of the aforementioned labels. I do not work "in the
business", so I do not ever receive promotional copies of *anything*.
Anything that I've heard, I bought. And the below signature contains my real
name.
How about you, W99?
Bill
William D. Kasimer
wk...@juno.com
wk...@mindspring.com
Wotan99
" Yes, Nimbus
> flawed or not has introduced a lot of people to these recordings,
I do not know a single person to whom the above statement applies."
How many people do you know? What kind of people do you know?
Bill, that statement doesn't prove a thing..in fact, there seemed to be people
posting here who experienced this?
Oh well, I guess I'm not going to get a serious discussion of the pts. I
raised...and I have an open mind...just give me something to think about, other
than unsupported broad statements. After all it's just a message board.
W99
wk...@juno.com
wot...@aol.com (Wotan99) wrote:
> " Yes, Nimbus
> > flawed or not has introduced a lot of people to these recordings,
>
> I do not know a single person to whom the above statement applies."
>
> How many people do you know? What kind of people do you know?
>
> Bill, that statement doesn't prove a thing.
It is exactly as useful as statement to which it responded.
> in fact, there seemed to be people
> posting here who experienced this?
Not that I recall, but I invite anyone to prove me wrong.
> Oh well, I guess I'm not going to get a serious discussion of the pts. I
> raised...
Exactly which points did you raise that warrant serious discussion?
> and I have an open mind...just give me something to think about,
> other than unsupported broad statements.
Let me see if I've got this right. You have heard *one* (1) Romophone CD,
and *zero* Marstons. I have no reason to believe that you've heard any other
modern, state-of-the-art transfers. Your only frame of reference appears to
be that you own a Victrola and have compared it to Nimbus transfers. And *I*
am the one accused of making "unsupported broad statements".
Sheesh.
Bill
Bill
Wotan99
Bill,
Thanks for some substance...naturally i don't agree..and i don't have the time
for the details right now..but as you see I will answer. But still object to
the level of language, but that's clearly your amusement, and right.
A couple of things quickly..this name one, challenge is absurd...people have
already posted here liking them(and I know several-who discovered them on their
own), and even some critical posts singled out individual recordings in the
series they thought highly of..that's out there already, others can speak up if
they're interested.
You say, "Comparison of the Nimbus transfer to the original isn't relevant to a
discussion of which transfers are superior." and generally put down the whole
idea that hearing the original acoustical has any relevance. Ridiculous
reasoning..if I use the original as a comparison, and gauge (subjectively) in
this case Nimbus, but also some older tranfers- how they sound -it means
everything. My major point, which you avoid, ( and perhaps there cannot be any
objective evaluation), is that who knows what the originals contain if they
were (and here I feel they were) given a chance to breath. A good transfer in
and of itself, with a sound you like, doesn't prove anything.
But an interesting subject.
And why this challenge about my name...you're full of challenges....I've never
heard this one before..why don't I have the right to some degree of privacy, if
that's what I want..frankly, I think you're all a bit naive to trust this
thing, but if you're comfortable that way..I'm not..judge me by what I say
And I'll also add that I have no interest in Nimbus company-weren't they sold?
W99
Matthew B. Tepper
>You then said; "Name one"
>
>I'll name several.
>
>John Steane-not an easy man to please-made favorable comments several
>times
>Peter Branscombe in Hifi News and Record-positive, and amusingly given
>this discussion mentions hiss and crackle
>Alan Blyth in Gramophone-favorable
>Samuel Lipman, New Criterion-favorable
>and others
>
>This doesn't prove anything, other than responding to your name one.
To me, it proves that four checks cleared.
Wotan99
Bill,
If you read over the people posting here I think you'd find an answer to your
wild"> > (flawed or not has introduced a lot of people to these recordings,)
You say" I do not know a single person to whom the above statement applies."
I see that even with the limited response here we had 5 people favorable, a
couple "it varies", and one or two that like a couple of recordings, and i
think 2 very negative. Whatever that means, why woould you make the statement
above...makes me wonder.
;( As soon as the first recordings were
> released using their Ambisonic transfer technology there were critics/experts
> who loved it, found it a revelation,)
You then said; "Name one"
I'll name several.
John Steane-not an easy man to please-made favorable comments several times
Peter Branscombe in Hifi News and Record-positive, and amusingly given this
discussion mentions hiss and crackle
Alan Blyth in Gramophone-favorable
Samuel Lipman, New Criterion-favorable
and others
This doesn't prove anything, other than responding to your name one.
As far as this series opening up the world of these historic recordings-I
personally know people who had that experience, and several of the posters in
thread also mentioned that.
I only mentioned a few recordings in the other posting-but yes i have hear
other LP and CD transfers. It is true I haven't bought any of Marston's own
label yet, but I have some of his work and know him first from an'81 LP of
Ignaz Friedman recordings. Interestingly, Emma's post, while mixed to negative
about Nimbus, was not enthusiatic about Romophone. And I can't stand the slim
two pack-don't like any packaging that sticks 2 CDs on opposite sides of the
same piece of plastic-talk of false economy.
You keep missing what to me is a crucial point- that the original source of the
recording is an acoustical record. Your comparisons are always from one
transfer to another. It's as if the original recording exists in the ether
somewhere, and then is recalled in some pristine form to be worked on by
various engineers and vocal experts and issued in new packaging. You seem to
belittle my reference to the original recording and listening to it on a
Victrola or similar acoustical playback machine. (And by the way, over the
years I've heard a variety of these machines, and hundreds of records, with
dozens of artists)) This all begins with a disc, and a specimen that is in the
best condition possible. Marston, or any other engineer must still begin with
this, and so much is determined by what they have access to. Then, at the first
step the choice must be made as to how to play the acoustical record. Nobody
escapes that and is stuck with the same problem; on what, how, what material
for the needle, an historic machine, a modern reproduction etc. Then how and
where to record this first playback. Once the master tape is made then all the
other screwing around begins.
Ideally, we should all be listening to the original. So how can we compare
something when we don't know what it sounds like at the beginning? All you are
doing is saying you prefer one transfer to another-but for this to finally make
sense you have to have at least some strong sense of what they sound like. In
fact, it's possible that the ones you laud may be terrible transfers, but very
pleasing recordings to listen to.
I outlined in my other post why the Nimbus process made sense to me. Now, of
course it may all be a great hoax and they have been electronically cleaned
up-but I guess you'll have to prove that. I don't want anything done with the
original after it's been recorded.(I guess we could agree that experiments like
the sound stream process of some yrs. ago was a terrible failure, and the wrong
use of computers) So a basic digital pickup, as straight forward as possible is
all that's needed. So then it comes down to how are you going to play the
original. I would do what they Nimbus did-and I explained how and why. Much of
what we had come to associate with acoustical records, IMO was do to the
limitations of play back. Therefore try playing them back, without any
electronic interference, in fact without any electricity (except for the
turntable) and it might be discovered that there's more on there than we
thought, and some of the limitations could be overcome.
Maybe it's only one way of looking at them-but I do think it has validity. I
marvel when I play an acoustical record how far we've gone in a short time.
From this totally mechanical, acoustical device which simply vibrates the air
again-you feel as close as you can to these voices-from the electrical process
to LPS- much of the technology I could grasp, and still was based on analogue
principles- to these CDS and digital sound which I understand as imperfectly as
I do this computer. Sound is broken down and encoded-not natural at all. We've
had people posting here that they hate CDS-a bit overstated but I know what
they mean. I have my LPS, and didn't simply replace every record with a CD-some
things I still have only as LPS. Sometimes I'll put one on that doesn't have
any pops or scratches and I'm amazed by how good the sound is, how warm, and
sometimes much more natural than the CDS. Is that movement still a foot with
new vinyl reissues? And we all know people who spend fortunes and buy
amplifiers with tubes, insisting that it is a better sound.
So it goes,
W99
Wotan99
Matthew,
Come on, you guys can do better than that!
Healthy cynicism is useful, total cynicism results in nihilism.
Watch out, it's bleak.
W99
william d. kasimer
> You keep missing what to me is a crucial point- that the original source of the
> recording is an acoustical record. Your comparisons are always from one
> transfer to another.
Because for me, the goal of transfer isn't to reproduce what the
original 78 sounded like when it was first issued. The goal was,
is, and will always be, as much as is possible, to reproduce the
VOICE.
> It's as if the original recording exists in the ether
> somewhere, and then is recalled in some pristine form to be worked on by
> various engineers and vocal experts and issued in new packaging.
But that's exactly the reality, isn't it? Except that the original
isn't "in the ether" - it actually exists.
> You seem to
> belittle my reference to the original recording and listening to it on a
> Victrola or similar acoustical playback machine.
I'm not belittling it - I simply think that it's irrelevant. It's
very, very hard for me to accept that an acoustically recorded 78
will sound better on a 1910 Victrola than it does on modern, state
of the art equipment.
> Marston, or any other engineer must still begin with
> this, and so much is determined by what they have access to. Then, at the first
> step the choice must be made as to how to play the acoustical record. Nobody
> escapes that and is stuck with the same problem; on what, how, what material
> for the needle, an historic machine, a modern reproduction etc. Then how and
> where to record this first playback.
Of course. And this is where Nimbus screws it up.
> Ideally, we should all be listening to the original. So how can we compare
> something when we don't know what it sounds like at the beginning? All you are
> doing is saying you prefer one transfer to another-but for this to finally make
> sense you have to have at least some strong sense of what they sound like.
What's more important is to know what *voices* sound like. As I've
said (repeatedly), I don't *care* what a Caruso 78 sounded like on
my great-grandfather's Victrola. I care what *Caruso* sounded
like. The problem with the Prima Voce series is that they are so
far removed from what a real live voice sounds like.
Matthew B. Tepper
>
>
>> You keep missing what to me is a crucial point- that the original
>> source of the recording is an acoustical record. Your comparisons
>> are always from one transfer to another.
>
>original 78 sounded like when it was first issued. The goal was, is,
>and will always be, as much as is possible, to reproduce the VOICE.
>
>> then is recalled in some pristine form to be worked on by various
>> engineers and vocal experts and issued in new packaging.
>
>isn't "in the ether" - it actually exists.
>
>> listening to it on a Victrola or similar acoustical playback
>> machine.
>
>very, very hard for me to accept that an acoustically recorded 78
>will sound better on a 1910 Victrola than it does on modern, state
>of the art equipment.
>
>> much is determined by what they have access to. Then, at the first
>> step the choice must be made as to how to play the acoustical
>> record. Nobody escapes that and is stuck with the same problem; on
>> what, how, what material for the needle, an historic machine, a
>> modern reproduction etc. Then how and where to record this first
>> playback.
>
>
>> compare something when we don't know what it sounds like at the
>> beginning? All you are doing is saying you prefer one transfer to
>> another-but for this to finally make sense you have to have at least
>> some strong sense of what they sound like.
>
>said (repeatedly), I don't *care* what a Caruso 78 sounded like on
>my great-grandfather's Victrola. I care what *Caruso* sounded
>like. The problem with the Prima Voce series is that they are so
>far removed from what a real live voice sounds like.
>
>Bill
>
>--
>William D. Kasimer
>wk...@mindspring.com
>wk...@juno.com
It occurs to me that one of the reasons that some people like the
Pseudo Voce transfers (for such I shall always call them) is that they
secretly like the sounds of their own voices as they sing in the
shower, and thus the Nimbus monstrosities with their heaps of added
phoney-baloney tile-bathroom acoustics are sinfully appealing to them.
Wotan99
to ducky兀deltanet.com
Bill, even though I disagree with him, at least makes an argument.
All you keep doing is repeating this sounding like a shower thing..I love wit
and humor, but Pseudo Voce..that's it...and singing in the shower..you must
have thought that was clever
I guess we're not going any where with this
W99
Wotan99
Bill,
I guess this is played out. We've each made our points.
I don't understand how you can say you don't care what an original 78 sounds
like..that you don't care what Caruso sounds like on a Victrola..it simply
makes no sense.
Your goal is to produce the voice, you say, but there is no voice, only lines
inscribed on old records. To say you prefer such a label or transfer doesn't
prove anything-you are comparing it to other transfers, and some image you have
in your mind that this is good, or represents the voice. It makies no sense.
Now to say that "Nimbus screws up" at least makes some sense, if you accept the
idea that their approach to playing the originals is misguided. That's at least
something to argue about. I've explained my reaction to their technique; I
won't repeat it, but it clearly represents to me ( and others) a logical and
ingenious solution to the limitations of the original disc, and most of all to
the short comings of traditional acoustical playback equipment. The reason they
went that way, and I would have also, is that we only know the voices from
these records- all that is left is in those grooves, so to find a way to
free-up more of what may be there, should be at the core of any approach. Maybe
if you had more experience with the originals, you'd understand what they've
done.
I'm sure, and I hope the Nimbus technique is not the end of trying to get more
out of these recordings, and I'm sure it's not the only valid approach. But I,
and clearly other people here, and on another board where the subject came up,
have derived much from the series.
But I'm not going to make you see that, and you're not going to convince me
that they're "atrocious and criminal".
Best,
W99
Michael E. Miller/Robert E. Seletsky
eccentric method of placing their microphones near a gramophone with an
outsized horn on the stage of an empty performance space, the resonance
that people object to is probably natural room reseonance. I don't think
the Nimbus folks are doing any "funny" stuff to these recordings, simply
picking up the resonance of the room they chose to use. And since the
the stage is the natural environment for opera, perhaps it actually
gives a little more presence to the enclosed acoustic sound of the early
78s. It may be odd, but I think Nimbus' motives are good. Of course
we'd like to hear the real voices of past great singers, but with the
technology of the period, that simply isn't going to happen on Nimbus,
Romophone, Marston, or anywhere.
Bob Seletsky
Arr1on
I LIKE the Nimbus series. I'm an opera singer, and I don't like to sing in the
shower; it screws up my voice. I have a Victrola, and I'd rather hear the
Nimbus versions, thank you very much, and pay for them, too.
You can buy and like and dislike whatever you want, too, thank you very much.
And say what you want, too, thank you very, very, very, VERY much.
Brady McElligott--Edgewood, NM
arr...@aol.com
ve...@unm.edu
"Is it music, or just on pursose?"--Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov
Matthew B. Tepper
arr...@aol.com pondered what I'm pondering as follows:
>
>I've said it before, and I guess I'll say it again:
>I LIKE the Nimbus series. I'm an opera singer, and I don't like to
>sing in the shower; it screws up my voice. I have a Victrola, and I'd
>rather hear the Nimbus versions, thank you very much, and pay for
>them, too.
>
>You can buy and like and dislike whatever you want, too, thank you
>very much.
>
>And say what you want, too, thank you very, very, very, VERY much.
See? Just like Nimbus -- bloody fake reverb on everything!
>Brady McElligott--Edgewood, NM
>arr...@aol.com
>ve...@unm.edu
>"Is it music, or just on pursose?"--Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov
--
Michael E. Miller/Robert E. Seletsky
> >And say what you want, too, thank you very, very, very, VERY much.
>
> See? Just like Nimbus -- bloody fake reverb on everything!
Actually, I think it's real reverb--the sound of the room where there
record the discs with a big-horned gramophone and microphone; that's
quite the opposite of "fake."
Bob Seletsky
Matthew B. Tepper
>
But it's *fake* on the grounds that it doesn't belong there in the
first place. What if I were to bring a Siamese cat into the session,
and wave a catnip mouse in front of its eyes in order to cause the cat
to mrow and wow all through the recording. Even if it's a *real* cat,
those added sounds simply do not belong there! Adding those mrows to
the recording fakes it up, as surely as much as adding reverb.
(BTW, I *much* prefer calicos!)
Matthew B. Tepper
>
>Matthew B. Tepper wrote:
>
>> But it's *fake* on the grounds that it doesn't belong there in the
>> first place. What if I were to bring a Siamese cat into the
>> session, and wave a catnip mouse in front of its eyes in order to
>> cause the cat to mrow and wow all through the recording. Even if
>> it's a *real* cat, those added sounds simply do not belong there!
>> Adding those mrows to the recording fakes it up, as surely as much
>> as adding reverb.
>>
>> (BTW, I *much* prefer calicos!)
>
>play the records somewhere: either a dead room or a live one. And a
>live one is more like a good theatre (at least we musicians like them
>better). It's a tricky question: if you record acoustic 78s on
>original equipment for transfer to CD, any decision made would
>constitute some level of "interpretation," always one step removed
>from the source. If I had a live room in which to play records, they
>would be heard with some "reverb"; in a room with heavy drapes and
>carpets, no. It's a matter of taste.
>
>I'm not crazy about Nimbus' way, nor anyone else's. Acoustic discs are
>very limited, and short of real "enhancement," they will never sound
>great. Is there any other way to transfer them accurately besides
>sticking a mike in the horn of a Victrola that wouldn't add even more
>inaccurate things than room resonance, I wonder?
>
>Best,
>Bob
But that's exactly the crux of the matter. You "have to play the
records somewhere," that's true. Making a transfer with *minimal*
"interference" means that the listener can juggle the controls on his
Bang & Olafson to his own taste. Take a Romophone transfer and twiddle
them dials, and you can hear (say) Schipa as he might have sounded in a
chapel, in Victoria Station (with or without pigeons), in a mineshaft,
or in the Vehicle Assembly Building.
But take a Nimbus transfer, and you're stuck with that blasted blurry
echo, and the only choices you have are what the bored horn player once
told Mengelberg: loud or soft.
Wotan99
>I've said it before, and I guess I'll say it again:
>I LIKE the Nimbus series. I'm an opera singer, and I don't like to sing in
>the
>shower; it screws up my voice. I have a Victrola, and I'd rather hear the
>Nimbus versions, thank you very much, and pay for them, too.
Another discerning listener who doesn't think Nimbus is "criminal and
atrocious"
And what's the response- the shower obsessive
W99
Wotan99
>eccentric method of placing their microphones near a gramophone with an
>outsized horn on the stage of an empty performance space, the resonance
>that people object to is probably natural room reseonance. I don't think
Well, Bob I hope you've read some my postings (W99) on this subject...I'm glad
to see there are some more people who don't think Nimbus is "criminal" I think
you make a good point because the photo of the way Nimbus does this shows the
large horn on the stage of their concert hall.
Best,
W99
Michael E. Miller/Robert E. Seletsky
alfie_g...@my-dejanews.com
no intention of becoming a megaphone, blaring the message of those I work for
as though it were gospel. However, all I can say about our Prima Voce series
here at Nimbus is that it obviously does one thing and that is to stir up
people into talking about it all the time.
Next year we will be celebrating the tenth anniversary of Prima Voce, with
the 100th issue on the label. The CDs continue to sell very well, in fact
they are often the best sellers in a month's releases.
The process, for all those of you who believe that we 'add' something to our
recordings, is really quite simple and from 78 to microphone to DAT tape to
CD, there is no adding of resonance, filtering of hiss or any process that
adds or subtracts. The room that we record the CDs in does, in truth, add a
certain warmth to the voice, just as it does (being a concert hall) for any
living singer when they sing there. The same room is used for a lot of our
recordings, and for those of you who have formed strict ideas about it being
a bathrooom, fair enough. For others of you who enjoy well balanced
recordings, try anything by the Vienna Piano Trio (as recorded in the same
room).
In closing I would like to say that everyone has an opinion, and I think the
fact people have a place to express those opinions is something to be
encouraged by when so many people around the world have no route to the
outside world for their opinions. Gentlemen, it's always a pleasure to read
the postings on here......and so nice to be talked about all the time, we
must be doing something right to warrant such devotion :-)
With all best wishes,
Alf Goodrich
Nimbus Records
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
wk...@juno.com
mem...@sprintmail.com wrote:
> I'm not crazy about Nimbus' way, nor anyone else's. Acoustic discs are
> very limited, and short of real "enhancement," they will never sound
> great.
Of course they won't sound "great" to our ears, accustomed as they are to
modern stereo (not to mention live voices). But I'm always amazed at how
much a good engineer can do.
> Is there any other way to transfer them accurately besides
> sticking a mike in the horn of a Victrola that wouldn't add even more
> inaccurate things than room resonance, I wonder?
This, of course, suggests that an acoustic era Victrola plays acoustic
recordings more "accurately" than modern equipment. Sorry, but I can't buy
that argument.
Wotan99
modern stereo (not to mention live voices). But I'm always amazed at how
much a good engineer can do.""
There you go again missing it-we don't want to be amazed at what an engineer
can do, we want to hear what's on the records.
""This, of course, suggests that an acoustic era Victrola plays acoustic
recordings more "accurately" than modern equipment. Sorry, but I can't buy
that argument.""
How do you know that an acoustic machine does not play more accurately? In
fact, of course it plays accurately, it's playing the original! If we all owned
decent acoutical machines, and a fine collection of pristine vintage recordings
we wouldn't buy the engineers work at all (except maybe in a case like Pathe
where pitch is such a problem) Look at the new Opera News about collectors-they
collect old discs and cylinders-and appear to have functioning acoustical
machines...WHY?
W99
james_...@smtplink.mssm.edu
> we don't want to be amazed at what an engineer
> can do, we want to hear what's on the records.
And if a talented engineer can use the resources of modern technology and his
own refined taste to help us "hear what's on the records," are we not
permitted to be amazed? I think it's not all that different a situation from
being able to praise the breath control, evenness of scale, or meaningful
diction of a singer. Of course these qualities are not ends in themselves,
but rather tools of communication. And so should not the talents of an
engineer be praised if they succeed in delivering to us the essence of a past
singer's performance?
> Look at the new Opera News about collectors-they
> collect old discs and cylinders-and appear to have functioning acoustical
> machines...WHY?
These collectors (SOME of whom have the equipment you mention) are
specialists who are willing to go to great trouble and expense to re-create
the listening experience as "accurately" as possible. They are also people
who have taken the time to educate themselves so that the sounds emerging
from these discs can be understood in the context of other
acoustically-similar discs. Further, many of them possess rare or unusual
discs or cylinders that are not available in other, more convenient media,
such as tape or compact disc.
Finally, these people are *collectors*, which means they derive pleasure
simply from the ownership of *stuff.* As Charlie pointed out, some of them
never even remove their discs from the sleeves. In some cases, then, the
interest in antique equipment and media is not motivated solely by an
interest in the content, i.e., the music.
As it happens, the next PARTERRE BOX will include an examination of the
remastering controversy surrounding the "Callas Edition" from EMI, questioning
some of the artistic and technical decisions made by the engineering on this
project. I think we can all agree that some engineering does a disservice to
important source material. But I do not think it is fair to say that modern
engineering *cannot* present older material in an "authentic" or otherwise
satisfactory manner. To insist that everyone interested in older recordings
must seek out antique cylinder machines would be absurd if it were not
impossible in the practical sense.
jj
wk...@juno.com
wot...@aol.com (Wotan99) wrote:
> How do you know that an acoustic machine does not play more accurately?
What's the speed of your Victrola? How constant is that speed? Can you
change that speed to correspond to the speed at which the record was made
(which certainly *isn't* always 78 RPM)? What is the frequency response?
What's the signal-to-noise ratio? I submit that there is probably much more
information in those grooves than a contemporaneous machine could (and can)
reproduce.
> In fact, of course it plays accurately, it's playing the original!
Sorry, but that's not nearly the truism that you'd like it to be.
> Look at the new Opera News about collectors-they
> collect old discs and cylinders-and appear to have functioning acoustical
> machines...WHY?
Because they look rather nice, don't they? If I owned a large collection of
acoustic 78's, you can bet that I'd have one prominently displayed too. I'll
bet that those same collectors own rather elegant modern equipment. I know
one of the people prominently featured in that article, and I believe that he
no longer owns a single 78 RPM record or LP (he might have kept a few for
sentimental value, but he's swithced over to CD completely for listening).
And Larry Holdridge, also featured prominently and photographed for that
article with his acoustic machine, is often named as producer on CD reissues
of historic material.
Bill
Wotan99
>own refined taste to help us "hear what's on the records," are we not
>permitted to be amazed? I think it's not all that different a situation from
>being able to praise the breath control, evenness of scale, or meaningful
>diction of a singer. Of course these qualities are not ends in themselves,
>but rather tools of communication. And so should not the talents of an
>engineer be praised if they succeed in delivering to us the essence of a past
>singer's performance?
>
Perhaps if you read the entire thread you'd understand this was merely a small
part of an ongoing discussion about Prima Voce. In that sense my latest rather
half-hearted response only represents a fragment of my view of the subject.
We're beyond changing any minds here, but I am gratified to see many people
posting in appreciation for the series, and the whole subject has been (we see)
also apprecited by NImbus.
Clearly good engineers are important, and one of my points,(made by others as
well), has been that Nimbus opened this world to the non-specialist at
affordable prices. Nobody is suggesting that everyone must own an old
acoustical machine and a valuable collection of original, but that the Prima
Voce has in many respects made that unnecessary
Your Reference to the Callas reissues (aside from being your usual
self-advertising) is really a completely different issue.
W99
Michael E. Miller/Robert E. Seletsky
> But that's exactly the crux of the matter. You "have to play the
> records somewhere," that's true. Making a transfer with *minimal*
> "interference" means that the listener can juggle the controls on his
Once again, you have to play it somewhere: if they stuck the mike in a
dead room, the transfer would sound dead; they choose a live room, so
it's live. It's just like any other recording: you are indeed stuck with
where it was recorded. And I don't think anything is gained by
"improving" the original sound. As with any remastering, the original
source is the best it's ever going to get. If the sound resonates in the
room or the horn, that's part of the sound sinec the contents of the
grooves themselves are so primitive. Suffice it to say that if you want
a less live acoustic space, get another pressing. It's just a matter of
opinion. To be honest, they all sound horrible, so what's the fuss?
Best,
Bob S.
wk...@juno.com
wot...@aol.com (Wotan99) wrote:
> Clearly good engineers are important,
But if the Nimbus process is as advertised, why do they even bother with an
engineer? Sounds like he hasn't got much to do.
> and one of my points,(made by others as
> well), has been that Nimbus opened this world to the non-specialist
At least one.
> at affordable prices.
I'm not going to repeat myself.
> Nobody is suggesting that everyone must own an old
> acoustical machine and a valuable collection of original,
Although it's been mentioned prominently in every one of your postings.
> but that the Prima
> Voce has in many respects made that unnecessary
Fortunately for me, and many others, the presence of Marston, Romophone,
Preiser, and miscelleneous releases on other labels, have made Nimbus
superfluous and avoidable.
> Your Reference to the Callas reissues (aside from being your usual
> self-advertising) is really a completely different issue.
Odd that the much more blatant advertising by that clown from Nimbus didn't
seem to bother you...
Wotan99
>> self-advertising) is really a completely different issue.
>
>Odd that the much more blatant advertising by that clown from Nimbus didn't
>seem to bother you...
>
>Bill
Quite frankly, I found the rep from Nimbus rather amusing, as he seemed bemused
by the whole thing. (and you don't think the Callas reissues are a different
problem?)
A point others keep trying to make to you-we don't want them highly engineered,
we want what's on them.
What's the point of the diologue if your're not reading what I say-not agreeing
is something else, and that's fine..but all along I've stressed that these are
real recordings- that's the starting point-you seem to have trouble accepting
that.
W99
Matthew B. Tepper
>
> In article <19981014140457...@ng23.aol.com>,
> wot...@aol.com (Wotan99) wrote:
>
> > Clearly good engineers are important,
>
> But if the Nimbus process is as advertised, why do they even bother
> with an engineer? Sounds like he hasn't got much to do.
More like just a janitor, to wash the walls and keep them smooth and
shiny!
> > and one of my points, (made by others as well), has been that
> > Nimbus opened this world to the non-specialist
>
> At least one.
>
> > at affordable prices.
>
> I'm not going to repeat myself.
>
> > Nobody is suggesting that everyone must own an old acoustical
> > machine and a valuable collection of original,
>
> Although it's been mentioned prominently in every one of your
> postings.
>
> > but that the Prima Voce has in many respects made that unnecessary
>
> Fortunately for me, and many others, the presence of Marston,
> Romophone, Preiser, and miscelleneous releases on other labels, have
> made Nimbus superfluous and avoidable.
It's too bad they haven't had the advertising clout that Nimbus has
enjoyed (particularly when they were being distributed here by A&M -- as
if THEY know or care the least bit about classical music, its recordings
or its consumers).
> > Your Reference to the Callas reissues (aside from being your usual
> > self-advertising) is really a completely different issue.
>
> Odd that the much more blatant advertising by that clown from Nimbus
> didn't seem to bother you...
Naw, this guy was only an apprentice clown. The REAL Nimbus clown --
the Russian with the trick voice -- passed away a few years ago.
> Bill
Matthew B. Tepper
>
> What's the point of the diologue if your're not reading what I say-not
> agreeing is something else, and that's fine..but all along I've
> stressed that these are real recordings- that's the starting point-you
> seem to have trouble accepting that.
I *do* have a great deal of trouble accepting your claim that these are
"real" recordings. They've been mercilessly tarted up with excessive
added reverb. Mrow and wow!
james jorden
> and you don't think the Callas reissues are a different problem?)
>
> A point others keep trying to make to you-we don't want them highly
> engineered, we want what's on them.
If you could get over your crank routine (and your really uncalled-for
rudeness) for a few minutes, you could see that we are in fact talking
about the *same* problem, which is how to handle source material that is
limited and flawed sonically. What sort of "enhancement" should an
engineer impose on this material?
In connection with the article (not by me) about EMI's engineering of
(especially) the live material in the "Callas Edition," I spoke to a New
York-based engineer who demonstrated to me some rather subtle
refinements to existing recordings, and, frankly, none of it sounded
"engineered." Rather, the sound was simply clearer and more immediate.
I felt there was not so much "garbage" between me and the singers. This
is the advantage of the judicious use of modern sound-enhancement
techniques. Admittedly, the demonstration was on material from the '50s
(the Scala MACBETH), but I cannot see why such techniques could not also
be profitably applied to older studio recordings.
It's a matter of taste and time, of course. Naturally I would prefer
even scratchy and dim originals to a phony-sounding re-engineered
version. But all engineering is not *bad* engineering. It seems to me
that an unequivocal rejection of modern recording science is nothing
more than Luddism.
--
james jorden
jjo...@ix.netcom.com
latest opera gossip from parterre box:
http://www.anaserve.com/~parterre/lacieca.htm
Arr1on
>change that speed to correspond to the speed at which the record was made
>(which certainly *isn't* always 78 RPM)?
I guess you don't have, or are unable to take into account those of us who DO
have perfect pitch.
And don't give me a lot of "reverb" about variations of pitch during the last
century. Get over it, already, thank you very (I think I said this before...),
very, very, very, VERY much.
The ducks that I raise (Muscovies) don't have voices, thank God. However, if I
wish to record my four cats, catnip does not interfere with the recording of
the meows; it only makes the meowing more enthusiastic.
Which reminds me of the time another singer told me of a recording of the De
Falla songs: she said (what sounded to me like) "I have a recording of these
with horn and cats."
The computerized stuff that tries to make the piano or orchestra sound modern
still sits on my shelf, to be played at musician parties along with Florence
Foster Jenkins (unfortunately not issued on Nimbus). I prefer my singers with
the natural reverb that would have existed had I heard them sing in a hall.
Nimbus' version of it is at least as good as some computer programmer's
version. Perhaps if you played Nimbus CD's in the shower, the reverb you don't
like would cancel out the Nimbus reverbs you don't like.
Until then, "any more quacks out of you..."
Oh well, anyone who likes or raises ducks can't be all bad. Probably rather
nice, thank you very much.
(Cut to the sound of quackless ducks...)
Wotan99
Speaking of the devil.
At least your buddy took the time to make some points-all we've gotten from you
is the shower bit, animal sounds, and some unfunny remarks. Name calling but no
substance.
W99
wk...@juno.com
arr...@aol.com (Arr1on) wrote:
> >What's the speed of your Victrola? How constant is that speed? Can you
> >change that speed to correspond to the speed at which the record was made
> >(which certainly *isn't* always 78 RPM)?
>
> I guess you don't have, or are unable to take into account those of us who DO
> have perfect pitch.
Mazel tov. Does your Victrola have perfect pitch, too?
Arr1on
>
It shouldn't stretch the imagination too much to figure out that those of us
with perfect pitch can (and do) adjust the variable speed control (that was a
part of most quality Victrolas) so that the recording plays in the right key.
It is even possible to adjust the pitch as it drops--even while it is dropping!
Anyway, stretch the imagination.
Keith Moulton
<alfie_g...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>Next year we will be celebrating the tenth anniversary of Prima Voce, with
>the 100th issue on the label. The CDs continue to sell very well, in fact
>they are often the best sellers in a month's releases.
But perhaps that is because of the excellent content of the
series, as opposed to the method in which the recordings are transferred
to CD. To me, the sound quality is not particularly important for these
early singers' recordings which will have serious sonic limitations no
matter how you go about it. Still, the Prima Voces usually sound to me
like a recording of a victrola playing in a reverberant room. Which they
are. And I'd rather have the sensation of playing a victrola in *my*
room.
>The process, for all those of you who believe that we 'add' something to our
>recordings, is really quite simple and from 78 to microphone to DAT tape to
>CD, there is no adding of resonance, filtering of hiss or any process that
>adds or subtracts.
Yes, you *do* add resonance and filter the sound by virtue of the
particular acoustic properties of the room you record them in, unless it
were an anechoic chamber. Calling it "warmth" does not change the fact.
Now, it's an interesting approach which merits consideration, but I think
the fact that it's also one of the *easiest* way to make these recordings
has something to do with Nimbus' affection for the process.
Best,
--
Keith Moulton.
OperaStuff: http://www.columbia.edu/~km34 email: km...@columbia.edu
Don Drewecki
The analogy I can come up with would be to take a print of a
glass-plate negative photograph made in 1888, and put it
into a refurbished frame from the same time. Or, you can take
that actual glass plate negative, make a NEW print of it in a
modern darkroom, and print it on today's print paper, and put it
into a new frame. Most people, including myself, would choose the
latter on the assumption that today's technology can retrieve more
information from a negative than older technology. That's the way
it is with Victrola-played acoustical records recorded in the
Nimbus way, it is absurd, though perhaps a few titles may have
been well handled. Still, give me modern transfer methods every
time.
--
Don Drewecki
<dre...@rpi.edu>
Matthew B. Tepper
>
Not surprisingly, I would add one more step to your parallel of photo
processing "the Nimbus way": using tints of various hues on the
photograph.
That's right -- I've just likened their process to (ugh) colorization!