[
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2007, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]
|
Home
/ FAQ
/ News Classifieds / Events |
Audio Asylum Thread Printer |
Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
75.18.228.82
In Reply to: RE: Comments-Saint Saens Symphony No. 3 (Organ)-Orchestre Metropolitain du Grand Montreal (long) posted by Russell on July 03, 2007 at 23:10:23
Yes, I am aware that the Ormandy/Philly has been reissued on SACD. I decided to pass on it after I bought a couple of the other Soundstream releases and was disappointed to find out that no effort was made to "fix" the over modulated bass that I believe afflicted those releases from that era. For example, the Maazel Tchaikovsky 4th has too much slam throughout. And I *love* slam, but not when it is out of proportion to that degree. At the time that artificial slam was a draw for me but as I gained more experience attending the symphony I found that that slam "au natural" is still quite thrilling and demanding of system resources. Telarc, too, learned or adjusted, and toned things down, but without having to forfeit the best and most consistent bass reproduction in the business.
Robert C. Lang
There was no low frequency EQ (or any EQ for that matter) employed on the Telarc Soundstream sessions, nor in subsequent years of Telarc classical sessions. In remastering the Soundstream sessions for SACD, certainly no EQ would have been used at that point either. The amount of low-end or "slam" was present at the original sessions. It was common practice at other classical labels in those days to tame down the natural dynamics and frequency response of an orchestra recording to accommodate the limits of analog tape and to fit the program on LP. Bob Woods and Jack Renner wanted to remove those artificially imposed limits on the music performances and recordings. The Soundstream digital system made it possible to do so. No artificial enhancement of the "slam" or low end response was needed and no extra microphones were placed near bass drum or timpani, etc.. Three mics across the front of the orchestra and that was it. One thing that I suspect did happen back then was that the musicians were enjoying the new-found "slam," too. We did have to restrain some overly-enthusiastic percussionists from over-doing it at times and still do ocassionally. The Telarc "slam" got a lot of attention for a very small independent label at a time that the music business (and Hi-Fi business) was languishing. The "slam" also enabled a lot of great music-making since. Those recordings hold up very well today as played on systems that have lots of dynamic power and depth. We've had lots of opportunities to revisit the original session masters and no one would think to change a thing on them.
Best Regards,Michael Bishop
Recording Engineer
1) For sake of clarity, I never suggested (or even thought) that there was Low end EQ.
2) I initially said in the lead post:
***even if the dynamics may be closer to “real” it is still a poor facsimile because it is out of proportion. (I have expressed on several occasions, and it is widely known, that Telarc’s bass was often far out of proportion to the rest of the orchestra on many of its recordings during this era).*****
That is, during the era (early digital) a lot of record labels were trying to “show off” the new technology with resounding blows of the percussion, much as many audiophiles turn up their new subwoofers……at first. And no one could show off better than Telarc. As you mentioned Telarc got a lot of attention for its bass prowess. The dynamics and loudness of the percussion and other bass instruments may have been recorded closer to real, but perhaps, at the expense of the rest of the orchestra, where less than the needed attention was given to detail of making it, too, as realistic as the percussion. Two of the biggest offenders I found were the Grieg “Peer Gynt Suite” disc and the Maazel/Cleveland Tchaikovsky No 4.
Note that I have, I bet, 95% of the Telarc classical discs recorded during this era. I enjoyed them immensely, and frequently used them for showing off my systems and for auditioning. I still enjoy them, especially as my systems were better able to cope. It’s just that as I started attending more live acoustic events that I learned that in the real world, while the bass drum can be indeed powerful (more powerful than any recording, Telarc or otherwise, I have heard) there is still a sense of proportion (well, most of the time) that was lacking in some of these early digital Telarc recordings.
3) The “problem” of out of proportion bass, rarely exists any more in Telarc recordings, in my opinion, at least no more than for other labels. (Sometimes it will be done on “purpose”, such as with the SACD 1812 Overture”, in which, cannon fire aside, the bass was, too me, out of proportion, but still enjoyable, nonetheless). And it (out of proportion bass) went away rather quickly.
Clearly the decision for a recording change, whether it was mic techniques, toning down testy percussionist, etc., came from the top. Also, Telarc (for the last quarter century) has provided more “balance” between bass and the rest of the orchestra. Perhaps, just as it has been long understood that the organ and orchestra can not be treated equally from a miking stand point then, too, perhaps Telarc has better implemented percussion/orchestra balance. In spite of these changes or perhaps because of them, Telarc, for me, is the standard bearer for authentic low end reproduction.
Robert C. Lang
"It was common practice at other classical labels in those days to tame down the natural dynamics and frequency response of an orchestra recording to accommodate the limits of analog tape and to fit the program on LP"
Do not really know or understand how difficult it is to capture these low frequency high dynamic signals on analog tape, but on the consumer end the Telarc LP's, when they first showed up, REALLY taxed cartridges to their absolute limit, in fact we tried many high end cartridges back in those early days of digitally mastered LP's and most produced considerable distortion, related to mistracking, with Telarc LP's.
Not a criticism of Telarc LP's, to me this clearly demonstrates the inherent limitations of analog playback source when dealing with non-compressed classical orchestral recordings.
Vahe
with 3 microphones suspended from the ceiling and quite a ways back.
If memory serves me well Jack Renner (Telarc engineer) explained in an interview to TAS this accomplished three things it gave a smoother sound especially to strings, increased ambiance and allows bass frequencies (which are very long) to be both deep and have huge impact without the use of any equalization! There was over a page of text explaining how closely mic’ed bass instruments diminished bass response, some of it of course over my head. But maybe someone who has or remembers the interview could fill in the details.
But if the bass of these un-EQ'ed Telarc soundstream releases sounds out of proportion, does the bass on your system sound out of proportion with Reference Recordings LPs as well? Pomp and Pipes for one has even deeper and stronger bass than any of the Telarc Soundstreams except for the cannon shots on Telarcs 1812 Overture? If so could your speakers be too close to the rear walls? Most manufactures recommend 1 1/2 to 2 feet from the rear walls.
With the exception of a little subduing of the high end which may be caused by distance microphone technique coupled with 50kHz sampling my Telarc LPs and Soundstream SACDs have very realistic sonics with superb deep bass response. My 4-ohm Infinity Reference Kappa 7's have 12-inch woofers fed 325 watts by my Adcom GFA-555II Power Amp's so I can reproduce quite powerful bass! Which I really miss on recordings that are bass shy.
"Music is love"
Teresa
******, does the bass on your system sound out of proportion with
Reference Recordings LPs as well? Pomp and Pipes for one has even
deeper
and stronger bass than any of the Telarc Soundstreams except for the
cannon
shots on Telarcs 1812 Overture? If so could your speakers be too close
to
the rear walls? Most manufactures recommend 1 1/2 to 2 feet from the
rear
walls.**********
I should give some clarifications that may address your questions.
The bass heavy issues I experienced on the Telarcs from this era were heard on *any* “full range” system I have auditioned over the years.
1) It is important to note that the problem only happen on Telarc recordings made between about 1979 (dawn of the digital recording age) and about 1983 (I going from memory).
2) Jdaniel can confirm but I think we played a selection or two from “Pomp and Pipes” when he was over. I don’t recall a problem with the bass. Remember “deep” is not the problem. “Proportion” and as Jdaniel pointed out, master tape “distortion”, in the case of Telarc’s “Organ Symphony” are the culprit.
3) It’s been nearly a quarter of a century since Telarc made a recording that I purchased that have this problem. The problem disappeared very quickly during the 80’s. After initially being applauded for their prodigious bass Telarc began getting criticism in the press for having too much of a good thing. For sure, I have not experienced this problem on any of the couple of dozen (at least) Telarc/HeadsUP SACDs that I currently own. The bass is both deeply extended *and* realistic, the consistently best in the business as far as I’m concerned. I have plenty of space in my listening room that is well suited for deep bass and the speakers are set up, to the inch, precisely as called for by the manufacturer. See Inmate Systems for a placement description
****My 4-ohm Infinity Reference Kappa 7's have 12-inch woofers
fed
325 watts by my Adcom GFA-555II Power Amp's so I can reproduce quite
powerful bass!**
4) The deep bass problem I am referring does not manifests itself completely until substantially below the 37 hz –3 (if memory serves me correctly) roll off of the Kappa 7s. In the case of the “Organ Symphony” the problem is more like at 22 Hz full output, certainly below 25 Hz.
Also, a friend of mine has some Kappa Reference speakers (8s I think) that are about 14 years old. His woofers need refoaming. Have you dealt with this issue? What do you recommend?
Robert C. Lang
It is true the -3dB point on the Kappa 7's is 37Hz, they are supposed to have useful bass down to 25Hz according to a review at the time they came out. So I may not reproducing the problem areas of the early Telarc's since I’m sure there is nothing below 25Hz.
From what I understand Telarc started moving the microphones closer in as D/A converters started to improve. Could it be the distant microphoning that produced too much level in the ultra-low frequencies?
The foam on my woofers still looks and sounds new. My Kappa 7's are 15 years and 2 months old.
One thing I love about sealed acoustic suspension enclosures is their woofers near total lack of distortion. Most speakers made nowadays are bass reflex and I can hear tons of distortion putting my ear right on either the woofer or reflex duct. However with my Infinity woofers there is no audible distortion with my ears right up against the woofer.
Once I do hear distortion could it indicate that I need to replace the foam surrounds?
I have listened to many, many speakers in the last 15 years and the only ones I like better than Infinity are the larger Magnaplaners.
"Music is love"
Teresa
I can't speak to whether distant microphoning produced too much level in the ultra-low frequencies?
I have never owned a ported design so I can’t speak to the distortion levels but I understand that sealed systems do provide more abundant bass than a comparably rated ported system. That’s because a ported system’s bass falls off like a rock while a sealed system bass rolls off much more slowly. So, while a ported system rated to down –3db at, say, 40Hz truly has almost no meaningful bass below that point a sealed system bass response rated at 40 Hz –3db will roll off gently and produce a meaningful response for another 1/3 of an octave or so.
Of course, that same ported speaker can be designed significantly smaller and more efficient because of the port, that some say can make audible noises in some speakers. This is probably the main reason why there has been a proliferation of ported designs and a commensurate decline in sealed designs.
Regarding the foam surround, the low humidity in the Reno area may ensure a longer life for the surround. Don’t necessarily expect a gradual deterioration in the way the surround looks. One day things can look fine and the next day you see cracks and holes. There may be a deterioration in sound quality but it is unlikely that you will notice it because of the gradual nature of it. Once the surround is replaced you will quickly notice the improved bass definition
Robert C. Lang
"Music is love"
Teresa
bits of foam will break off.There will be holes in the surrounds. My four woofers in my I981 Infinity Reference Standard II's all had to be replaced in 1997. I was told by refoamer, Simply speakers Clearwater Fl.new foam would last longer (BTW they did outstanding job as evidenced by solid bass sounds which my Marantz SA11 produces. For more om my wonderful infinitys:
http://www.infinity-classicsy/models/Reference-series-1+b-2-10+A+B-1981-86/in
dex-Reference.htm
sorry for confusion
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2007, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]