Re: [ARSCLIST] Plus Deck

[stevenc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Frank Forman" <fforman1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Thanks, Tom. The big advantage of PlusDeck is its simple convenience. Just
> pop in a cassette, a sound file is created, and the files stops when the
> tape does. (It will even automatically reverse and pick up the other side.
> I wouldn't do that, though, since there would be a certain amount of blank
> space at the end of each track. This is okay, I guess, for a single side.)
> I am much to hard of hearing to tell the difference between a cheapo
> in-dash mechanism and a studio-quality deck, or a Walkman, for that
> matter, except if the transport wobbles. I can't hear Dolby either, for
> that matter.
> I'm not inclined to do all this monitoring of the recordings. I'd be glad
> to just put in the tapes, rename the files, and type up an index of the
> M-sets. Later on, someone can do up something more like a discography. The
> point is that I'm willing to do a certain amount of work to jump start the
> process of  converting every 78 to MP3. I'd have to take it on faith that
> the sound is satisfactory for this purpose of jump starting. I can hear
> wobbles but not loss of frequencies over 500 Hz.
I suspect the same thing could be done by feeding a cassette-deck
signal to the sound card and using the appropriate software to convert
the signal to a sound file...
> I can mail the cassettes to anyone willing to do a better job and will
> actually do them all and not effectively give up after 50 or so.
>
> What we need is a scale from 0-100, with 0 being unlistenable, 1 being the
> worst cylinder, and 100 being present in concert. I hear too often that
> such and such is a fabulous transfer--of a 78 rpm recording, but so and so
> is a mediocre digital recording. I should think that virtually every
> digital recording is superior to every 78 rpm recording. Can't I go to a
> concert and sneak in a portable MP3 device I can buy for $100 than were
> ever made on 78s, *unless* the best microphones in the 78 rpm days are so
> much better than those that come with portable MP3 devices that the
> overall quality of the old recording would be better.
>
> How much have microphones improved?
>
> I'll let everyone take a stab at the 0-100 scale. Here are the points:
see end...
> cylinder
> Berliners
> first acoustics
> acoustics of 1920. Cortot's American Victors were made 1919-20 and 1922-3.
> There was a significant improvement in the sound of the second batch.
> last acoustics
> first electrics (I mean those of 1925, not the few ones made before that)
> electrics after 1926 (when Stoky remade the 1925 New World)
> electrics after 1940. The bass on organ recordings suddenly become better.
> last electrics
> mono LPs
> early stereos
> Shaded dogs
> last stereo LPs
> first CDs
> CDs a few years later
> today's CDs
> SACDs, etc.
> live concert at a bad seat
> live concert at the best seat
Having taped many live concerts (albeit non-classical) I would NOT put
them at the high end! It is surprising how much irrelevant "junk" sound
our minds edit out, but recordings don't...every word spoken by fans
near the mike location is preserved for posterity, along with noises
from outside the venue and incidental noises originating in the venue!

> (I think recordings are superior to live events, since microphones can be
> placed where humans can't be. My most treasured stereo LPs are the early
> stereo Vox of the Middle and Late Quartets, done by the Loewenguth
> Quartet. It sounds like being seated in the middle of the players, and I
> can hear the various instruments bouncing off one another, and so hear
> *Beethoven* better than anyone possibly could sitting in the audience. It
> is too bad that, once the ping-pong enthusiasm of early stereo recordings
> faded away, the misguided notion that recordings should try to capture
> what is heard in concert again took over. Recorded music exists as its own
> aesthetic. I wonder what Brahms would have thought if he knew that once I
> year I put on Fritz Lehmann's incomparable recording of the German Requiem
> and head for the hills in my running shoes! The agnostic Brahms would be
> shocked at first, but when he understood that this is an annual ritual and
> that I invariably burst into tears, not long after I get "runner's high,"
> at the moment the chorus bursts into counterpoint, "Herr, Du bist würdig
> zu nehmen Preis und Ehre und Kraft," he would understand that my way of
> feeling the unique power of his composition was not so sacreligious after
> all.)
>
> Splice in wire, acetate tape, Myler tape, cassettes, 8-track, cheapo
> in-dash cassette players, Walkmen, AM and FM broadcasts, digital
> broadcasts, webcasts.
>
> Rate various amplifiers and speakers.
>
> There will be lots of subjectivity here, but more of a consensus than you
> might expect. Judges in wrestling matches, dog grooming constests, wine
> tasting affairs, and so on typically agree with each other on a scale of
> 0-100. This may imply objectivity. It may also imply that those who are
> too far away from the consensus are simply not invited back. (There may be
> international differences. In human beauty, symmetry is universal, and so
> is a hip-waist ratio of 0.7 for women.)
>
> As far a greatness in classical music goes, you can take a look at Charles
> Murray's _Human Accomplishment_. The book consists mostly of Murray's
> going through various histories in many areas and counting the number of
> pages devoted in each to various achievers. There's are generally high
> correlations among the sources. (Only a curmudgeon like Normal Lehrbrecht
> disdains Mozart. While I think his best piano concerti are masterpieces,
> he did crank out a lot of flack, and I'd have to say he and Wagner are the
> most overrated composers.)
>
> But with sound quality, I'd expect the consensus to be much higher,
> certainly in the rank ordering and probably in the number on a 0-100
> scale. I can't think of a group better qualified to give these rankings a
> try, since we know all types of recordings.
>
> Frank
>
Now, rating this will be difficult...keep in mind that sound
recordings are found in "as is" condition, and that often means
some familiarity with the recorded music is needed, if only
to figure out it is actually the sound heard on the recording!
Also, I can't afford to take in classical music these days...

1 - average recording in G or P condition, as played on the
average unmaintained acoustic machine. Sounds vaguely like
the selection in question, if only because of familiarity
with what SHOULD be heard...

1.5 - average sound heard in a back-row seat at a live
performance of popular music. Somewhere, under the extraneous
sounds created by drunken patrons and the dubious acoustics
of the venue, the sound of music exists...we think...

5 - pre-1918 acoustic recording in the typical condition
in which it is usually found (worn, grey grooves, usw.)
There is enough music audible that one can follow the tune,
or song along if one knows the lyrics...but only the unlimited
ability of the human mind to edit out sound makes it listenable.

10 - average Victor or Columbia acoustic recording as played
on a good-quality (but not top-quality) player. Much shellac
noise (which we mentally edit out), minimal bass response, and
a response curve which looks much like an altitude profile
of Colorado...but our minds cleverly edit out the superfluous
and edit in the missing bits.

20 - 1924-25 acoustic recordings on Brunswick or Okeh discs
(and a handful of 1920 Artos!) in E to E+ condition. Only the
lowest bass notes have disppeared.

20.5 - early electric recordings on Brunswick, Emerson-derived
labels and other minors. Only the slightly better bass response
will tell you these are electric!

35 - average electric Victor and Columbia discs, in "as found"
condition. Often slightly noisy, but bass can be heard.

50 - E+ Columbia "Viva-Tonal" laminated pressing record.
Defiencies only noticeable if an immediate A/B aural
comparison with much later recordings are made.

50 - Waring's Pennsylvanians Victor of "Freshie" and any
others made in an acoustically live studio (VERY seldom
used in this era). We don't realize how much information
our minds read from echoes until we actually hear them!

75 - London (Decca-UK) ffrr 78's and other postwar 78
records pressed on shellac. Our minds edit out the
shellac noise...

80 - vinyl pressings of above.

95 - high-quality audiophile stereo LP's played on a
state-of-the-art player, preferably through high-quality
headphones. Actually BETTER than being there (see comments
on live events).

95 - high-quality digital recording, again played on
s.o.t.a player, and...most importantly...NOT remixed
for CD reissue by someone more familiar with popular
present-day CD releases! The absolute lack of medium
noise makes up for any (theoretical) losses during
digitization.

100 - reserved for some future technology which can
record the brain signals of an event attendeee and
then transmit those to the brain of a listener, so
the "listener" actually experiences the event and
can mentally edit out any sonic discrepancies, just
as he/she/it would do in the venue...

Steven C. Barr