-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [ARSCLIST] Coronation Recordings [3]
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 01:15:30 -0800
From: Rod Stephens <mailto:savecal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx><savecal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: Stephens Audio Video Enteprises (S.A.V.E.)
To: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <mailto:ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx><ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx>
Hello All,
I hope that this will finally be posted; I've tried a number of times, but hasn't come up. I hope it's just a matter of changing servers. I wish Peter and myself good luck.
Peter and I have been having an off list conversation about the 1953 (got the year right this time) Coronation of Queen Elizabeth and his attempt to create a stereo version from the multiple audio sources recorded at that time. I asked his permission to share it, since his insight into the process has historical significance.
Rod Stephens
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: Coronation Recordings [3] Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 15:39:36 +0100 From: Copeland, Peter <mailto:Peter.Copeland@xxxxx><Peter.Copeland@xxxxx> To: Rod Stephens <mailto:savecal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx><savecal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Due to more mismanagement of my time, I'm now back in the British Library Sound Archive two days after reading and replying to your message! If you really think ARSC members will appreciate it, I have no objection to your posting it; I have now "slept on what I wrote", and can find no objections. The only new can of worms is that I know EMI (or whatever it's called this week) have published the Coronation recording on CD, probably a double album. So far I haven't managed to pick up a copy.
Best wishes, Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Rod Stephens [<mailto:savecal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>mailto:savecal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 25 October 2005 18:39
To: Copeland, Peter
Subject: Re: Coronation Recordings [3]
> Copeland, Peter wrote:
>
> Dear Rod,
>
> After the lapse of nearly a month and a few seconds' further work on my project, I can say the following about how the Coronation was recorded.
>
> E.M.I made their own professional tape recorders. The Coronation was right across the changeover between their BTR1 and BTR2 machines.
>
> The only experience I have of a BRT1 was when I started working for an outfit called The Christian Broadcasting Commission in Liss (near the county borders of Hampshire, Sussex and Surrey). That organisation had been given some tons (literally) of recording and other audio equipment, which the BBC had found redundant.
>
> There's no doubt that when everything worked well, the BTR1 could get the most out of contemporary recording tape. But it was a pig to set up, because (a) it was an oxide-out machine, and (b) because the preset screwdriver adjustments for setting the H.F (say), altered the gain at 1kHz, so you needed an oscillator which could switch between two frequency bands, and switch it once a second or so, to get the response flat!
>
> This may have been okay for the senior engineers at EMI Studios; but everyone else was pleased when the BTR2 came along. I'm prepared to admit it may have been *over*engineered! But its advantage for radio work was that if any one valve (U.S. "bottle") started failing, you were given switches to find out which one it was. And I had to pass a "simulated emergency" test at the BBC when I did my first engineering exam there in 1961.
>
> I would guess that when EMI recorded from their landline, they would have used two pairs of BTRs, one from each landline. By 1953 the CCIR characteristics for audio tape (at 15ips and 30ips) were in use everywhere in Europe (except the UK Decca Record Company, who had to "talk to" US Decca).
>
> At Westminster Abbey, the BBC would have been on-site (in the vestry) using OBA/8 amplifiers. This was a wonderful Outside Broadcast Amplifier, with one gain-block about a foot each way and nineteen inches wide, and a very sophisticated "main gain" control (a stud fader) which also altered the feedback. So the thing could handle dynamic ranges of anything between zero-level and about -95dB with respect to the Post Office landline level, which was 0.775v RMS into 600 ohms. I used to own an OBA/8, but have just donated mine to the official BBC museum!
>
> The OBA/8 was preceded by any number of passive mixers called MX/18s, which put series stud-resistances into passive mike cables, and actual practical mixing (in this case little more than changing from one mike to another) would be done on the MX/18s.
>
> There were four pots on each MX/18, and I would guess the Coronation would have needed about six or seven MX/18s for all the mikes, two feeding two OBA/8s. Two mikes would have been rigged at each location, each fed to an MX/18 by different cables (no multicore in those days).
>
> Also everything downstream was in duplicate. There would be two "music lines" (high fidelity analogue phone lines) and two "control lines" (telephone lines so that the location engineers and the Broadcasting House staff could keep in contact). The OBA/8 had switches so that if a fault developed in either the music line or the control line (on an ordinary broadcast), they could be swopped.
>
> But this wasn't an ordinary broadcast! The sound was also fed to the infant BBC Television Service (through something called a Trap Valve Amplifier), a zero-gain device which would effectively insulate the audio kit from anything television might do!
>
> All the mikes would have been passive. (There was nothing in those days which had a "head amplifier".)
>
> Most outside broadcasts were done with omnidirectional moving-coils, and most of these were British-made versions of American mikes. (We called one "the apple-and-biscuit" or the S. T. & C 4021, whereas I believe you call the same mike "the high-ball"). It is just possible the BBC-designed AXBT ribbon mike would have been used for the orchestral sound. This was a development of the original RCA ribbon made by Marconi in England, and it had just been re-engineered with higher-energy magnets. The resulting combination of the mike (called an "AXBT") and the OBA/8 had the best power-bandwidth product of any audio system at that time.
>
> I consider it extremely unlikely that any "cutters" were used, not even for current-affairs work. But here is a diversion: I went to the BBC External Services at Bush House when I joined, and disc recording still accounted for about half the recording work there, because you could *see* the sound on the disc, and pick bits out! It is always possible that something like the Malay Service would have used discs for the Coronation. Remember, Malaysia was part of the British Empire at that time!
>
> But to answer your implied question : E.M.I transferred from tape to disc using Scully lathes, with either Westen Electric 2A cutterheads or with the weird RCA head with its sacrificial overloading system (to compensate the non-linearity in the armature). The BBC transferred the tape using its dreadful Type D machines, which had been developed rather hurredly for the 1951 Festival of Britain. (The American Presto machines were much better, but they were never mentioned in cases of national pride). I actually used the Coronation recordings to research my IRSC paper on the BBC's equalisation practices!
>
> As for 50Hz mains hum, I doubt it would ever happen. 10125Hz from television linescan maybe; but 50Hz hum would be almost impossible with that kit.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Peter
>
> <mailto:peter.copeland@xxxxxxxxxx>peter.copeland@xxxxxxxxxx
>
>
**************************************************************************
Experience the British Library online at <http://www.bl.uk>www.bl.uk
Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. <http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook>www.bl.uk/adoptabook
The Library's St Pancras site is WiFI - enabled
**************************************************************************
The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the <mailto:postmaster@xxxxx>postmaster@xxxxx : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent.
The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author.
**************************************************************************