Re: [ARSCLIST] discography of "direct-to-disk revival"?

[Tom Fine <tflists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi George:

By the definitions I've always learned, high-fidelity sound requires frequency range at or near 
limits of human hearing (generally agreed to be 20hz to 20khz), low distortion (defined various 
ways) and certain unmeasurable qualities provided by good microphones placed properly and a clean 
signal chain recorded properly on high-fidelity (ie as near as possible to input=output) media. 78's 
inherently fall down in both frequency range and usually in distortion, plus the signal chain before 
the disk-recording equipment was of limited fidelity until the electronic era had some time to 
evolve. The limits of the medium thus make it low-fi. By 78's, I mean the disks that were available 
for purchase (ie the mass media). Metal parts are another matter, especially as far as distortion 
and signal-to-noise ratio. Some of the CD's Doug Pomeroy has done from metal parts for BMG/Bluebird 
sound like they came off early tape, and that's a compliment (although this would be _really_ early 
tape since the Ampex 200 was capable of 30hz to 15K response and 1% or less distortion with most 
musical impulses). There are some CD reissues I've heard of Noel Coward -- made at the end of the 
acoustic era, I believe -- that sound like you're in the room (if your hearing cut off at 8K, so 
"the room" would have to be coated in drapes and Coward would be over-enunciating to cut through the 
drapes). But the 78 mass media was, alas, a junk media like 8-tracks. Not approaching most people's 
definition of high fidelity. LPs came much closer and got better over time (if American companies 
had been more careful about how they manufactured LPs, the mass media would have exceeded the 
capabilities of the playback equipment early on, but I can cite numerous sins of short-cuts that led 
to inferior records -- borne out by great CD remasters from the tapes in some cases). Pre-recorded 
tapes were, in many cases, a step backward. Exceptions would be the original 2-track mass-duped 
reels, which in many cases sound superior to the mostly badly-manufactured LPs of the time (too much 
hiss, but hiss is less annoying than crackle and off-center-hole wow anyday to my ears). 
Quarter-track reels, 8-tracks and high-speed-duped cassettes were a big step backward, especially 
since in some cases the vinyl cutting and manufacturing was getting better. The "audiophile" 1:1 
speed duped cassettes put out by MoFi and others were very good, assuming your cassette deck was 
manufactured on a day where they were being fussy about setting industry-standard azimuth (or you 
owned a Dragon).

I think it's pretty hard to argue with this -- as a mass medium CD's have the greatest potential for 
the highest fidelity in the largest percentages of individual units. This is due to an essentially 
lossless manufacturing process and a medium likely to work well right out of the box (remember how 
many LPs you'd take home that were shrink-wrapped too tight and were thus warped from the get-go --  
or all those records you bought that were drilled off-center so they wow). Now, whether the music 
companies choose to reach the full potential (which is hard, thankless work, just like it was with 
every other previous medium) is another question.

Bottom line, as a mass medium, I think it's pretty hard to call 78's high-fidelity.  There's an 
easier argument for LPs, especially those from certain quality-oriented manufacturers. Mass-duped 
tapes, the argument gets harder. CD's, it should be a no-brainer and when it isn't, it's pure 
negligence and laziness on the part of the industry.

-- Tom Fine

PS -- as I've said here before, one of the big trends I notice with the "CD's suck" crowd is that 
they have awful playback equipment, so George's last point still applies. Having a giant, expensive 
LP system and comparing its output to the Wal-Mart special Chinese multi-disc player is like having 
a Victrola and claiming 78's suck because of how they sound coming out of the Victrola (for the 
record, I did not form my views about 78's from listening to my Victrola -- in fact I've had the 
pleasure of listening to some 78 setups used for CD mastering and still conclude that's not a 
high-fidelity medium).

PPS -- whether something is worth listening to in a low-fi medium or not is another question. For 
most people, the answer is yes, especially judging from the trend to step back to nearly 78 quality 
in the digi-compressed formats found at iTunes and on iPods. For some things, I gladly listen to the 
old low-fi original recording because the performance is so good that I forget the distortion, noise 
and limited frequency response. But it's not a large body of music, especially since many of the 
great jazz and swing artists lived long enough to re-record their best stuff in the tape/LP era. One 
of the pleasures of the modern era is that CD's come out where someone carefully went back to the 
metal parts and puts out something that is stunningly better than what's been out there all these 
years. It's not often but it does happen.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "George Brock-Nannestad" <pattac@xxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2006 4:14 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] discography of "direct-to-disk revival"?


> From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad
>
> Tom, you wrote
>
> > OK, no offense but anyone who hears "perfect sound" on 78 has tin ears! That
> > medium is low-fidelity by any serious definition. The only reason I can see
> > listening to a 78 is if the performance is so to your taste that you can
> > imagine it sounding good -- because what's coming off those grooves ain't near
> > sounding good!
>
> ----- maybe you just did not get a chance to listen to some outstanding
> recordings. By that I mean recordings where the signal chain is so
> undistorted - non-linear as well as linear - that your ears will only have to
> deal with any gritty noise off the surface. You should realize that if your
> pickup cantilever and its support have undampened resonances that are excited
> by the impulsive character of the gritty noise, you have coloured noise
> added, and that is another layer of work. However, that is a reproduction
> problem, not inherent in the recording.
>
> ----- I have many recordings that fulfil that criterion, and some are vinyl,
> in which the gritty noise is gone. A very few are metal mothers, and boy, do
> they punch you physically by their presence of sound - but they need very
> good loudspeakers.
>
> I have an example:
>
> Berlioz:
> Damnation of Faust:
> Hungarian March
> Philharmonia Orchestra
> cond. Rafael Kubelik
> HMV C4031
> Mx: 2EA14660-1 ca. 1950
>
> that is very dynamic, broadband (you can hear a triangle sufficiently clearly
> in the background), it has depth (something so very lacking in many modern
> recordings) and a natural ambience. In fact this record even sounds good on
> lesser equipment.
>
> ----- assisting to a demonstration of the ELP Laser Turntable in Boston in
> 2002 I had brought a shellac pressing and a vinyl pressing of a 1936
> recording of cello and piano. Both were equally impressive on the good system
> provided. You could say, "well, a cello is not a good test signal", but it
> is. It is no use that the bow scrape you hear is just a tizz on the sound,
> sort of added fuzzyness, it has to come alive - and it did.
>
> ----- I usually say "there is no such thing as a bad recording, only bad
> reproduction", and to a surprising degree that holds through until the era of
> tape editing.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> George
>
> P.S. I have retained the subject line, although we have drifted