[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ARSCLIST] National Recording Preservation Board (NRPB) Study
Dear Steve and all,
Thanks for your question Steve. As usual, I can't give a straight
answer, so please forgive a string of separate paragraphs.
(1) Great Britain was in a real economic mess after the second World
War, and tape-recording had originated in Germany, so for many reasons
British record-companies were slow to master on tape.
(2) For the aforesaid economic reasons, it was Britain's second record
company (Decca) which enabled me to detect their LPs mastered on tape.
(I suppose I should add that "Decca" was also a trademark of an American
company, which made discs retailed here under the "Brunswick"
trademark). By that time, the U.S. Ampex company was beginning to
manufacture tape recorders, and "UK Decca" were able to get some; and UK
Decca used NAB equalisation for their master tapes. In view of their
stronger links with the USA, the British government prodded UK Decca to
sell most of their material to the USA, presumably as a way of repaying
"lease-lend."
(3) In an article I wrote for "Historic Record" magazine, and having
myself worked in broadcasting, it was relatively simple for me to detect
the early Decca LPs which had been mastered by copying from 78 metals,
and those mastered from cut-and-spliced tape. The switch happened after
about twenty LP sides had been mastered as I recall; and that in turn
implies that tape didn't reach UK Decca until mid-summer 1948.
(3) On the other hand, E.M.I built their own tape recorders, starting
with the BTR1. (Audio nerds like me considered this prefix meant "Big
Tape Recorder", or perhaps "Bad Tape Recorder". EMI spent much of this
time learning how *not* to build a tape recorder!) Things did not
stabilise until the BTR2 (1953), which was also the year in which CCIR
Characteristics were implemented for tape on this side of the pond.
(4) I do not know any rigorous way of telling the recordings which were
mastered on tape as opposed to disc. If one had perfect
sound-restoration facilities, one would simply listen to the nature of
the background noise. But whereas UK Decca were exporting vinyl 33s and
45s to the USA like there would be no tomorrow (and even built a special
factory for pressing them), EMI were still diverting resources to their
lead in radar (as a way of defending ourselves from the USSR).
(5) So far as 78s are concerned, UK Decca seems to have used the Take 2
suffix as meaning mastered with their ffrr (Full Frequency Range
Recording) cutter. Arthur Haddy of UK Decca was on our Technical
Advisory Committee when I joined the British Library Sound Archive; I
greatly regret I didn't ask him any further details. But there's no
doubt that you can't count on "Take 2" as being equivalent to
"Remastered."
(6) To answer the corresponding question for EMI, I would have to get
access to the microfilms we have of EMI's surviving paperwork (Index
Cards) from this period. They never show when tape-mastering was used;
but they do show "mastering dates", so by analysing these it would be
possible to see how and when the switch to tape-mastering occurred. In
addition, I can cite the corporate mentality that metal-parts were the
nearest thing to a "photographic negative". This had been true ever
since Emil Berliner invented lateral-cut disc records of course, and if
the master-negative was available, it would have a greater
power-bandwidth product than a contemporary master-tape.
My apologies for such a long-winded answer.
Peter Copeland
Former Technical Manager,
British Library Sound Archive.
-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Steven Smolian
Sent: 16 May 2006 16:53
To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] National Recording Preservation Board (NRPB)
Study
Peter,
I know EMI mastered to disc and to tape at the same time, gradually
changing to all-tape as money and time to upgrade became available. Has
anyone figured out a clue in the matrix codes which tells us if this was
done on tape and there is therefore no generational loss on later issues
or
was originally on a lacquer and is therefore one generation earlier on
the
78?
The only hint I've been able to reason out is to assume that if any
part of a set is take two or later, it is of a 78 original, assuming
tapes would
have been edited and its 78 iteration was always take 1. This is
reasoning, not real life. What's the gen on your side?
Off to ARSC this afternoon.
Steve Smolian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Copeland, Peter" <Peter.Copeland@xxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] National Recording Preservation Board (NRPB)
Study
Dear All,
I'd like to add one halfpennyworth to Tom Fine's comment. Here in
Britain, the 78 versions incorporated "original" matrix-numbers, which
now that both E.M.I and (UK) Decca have bitten the dust, provide the
only way to date a commercial sound-recording. And because this side of
the pond was about five years behind your side of the pond, that is a
very significant tool.
Peter Copeland
Former Conservation Manager,
British Library Sound Archive.
-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tom Fine
Sent: 16 May 2006 11:10
To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] National Recording Preservation Board (NRPB)
Study
No, I think he was saying your argument is ludicrous since the 45RPM LP
is what he says is the best source. Therefore proving my point about
late-era 78's, that in most cases they will be the
worst-case/worst-quality example and therefore are needed only as an
absolutely last resort.
In any case, I wasn't advocating dumpstering anything, just saying that
the late-era 78 material would not be what I'd take to a desert island
or care about very much unless, as I clearly stated has been the case a
couple of times, that was the only extant source for something.
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Richter" <mrichter@xxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 2:11 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] National Recording Preservation Board (NRPB)
Study
> David Lennick wrote:
>> Mike Richter wrote:
>> Tom Fine wrote:
Well, one question immediately comes to mind. Who CARES about 78's
issued after the advent of tape (1947-48), unless the tape master has
been lost? Even if only a good-condition LP exists (post-1948), it is
almost guaranteed to sound better and have a wider frequency/dynamic
range than the 78. So I ask again, who cares about what's gotta be the
vast majority of late-era 78's? I mean, they might make a nice novelty,
but they have little or no historical value since they're a
worst-case/obsolete-technology version of something.
>> Matter of fact, this argument is ludicrous. The only good-sounding
original issue of "South Pacific" was the 45-RPM set. The 78s are
overmodulated, the first LP pressings sound like short wave, the
subsequent ones keep adding layers of echo, the CD issues were a
disaster, proving that
Sony may own the rights and the original master but doesn't know its
acetates from a hole in the ground about what to do with them. Anyone
want to challenge me on this, meet me out back.
>
> I think David means that Tom Fine's position is ludicrous - since
David and I are in agreement. <G>
>
> There is no reason to assume that the source materials still exist. I
know of at least one case in which there are no masters for a series of
substantial opera recordings and that the publisher does not even have
clean copies of many of the LPs. (I've not yet determined whether they
are without any copy of some titles.)
>
> The record companies (and film companies) have a shameful record of
failing to keep master materials. Those that have been retained may not
have been stored adequately. I have often been called on to supply
transfers from my own copies for performers who have been told that the
publisher has nothing from which to provide a copy.
>
> So it may well be that the reason recent issues of "South Pacific"
have had poor sound is that the publishers no longer have copies of the
45s or of the tape from which they were made.
>
> Mike
> mrichter@xxxxxxx
> http://www.mrichter.com/
**************************************************************************
Experience the British Library online at www.bl.uk
Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. 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 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.
**************************************************************************