|
Hi-Rez Highway New high resolution SACD releases, players and technology. |
|
|
|
Hi-Rez Highway New high resolution SACD releases, players and technology. |
|
In Reply to: RE: There are precious few products from the 50’s that I find superior to products today posted by Botanico92007 on August 20, 2010 at 17:43:22:
You wrote:
**** ....but RCA switched to 3-track tape machines in 1955, and Mercury did 3-track stereo from the beginning, as did Everest. This gave center fill.****
I did acknowledge, "center-fill"
I said:
"Some seem more like “mono” recordings but with two channels; that is, two mono recordings, left and right, with some center fill."
Also, I said *some* (not all). This is important because there cannot be a broad brush here.
But having acknowledged that there is "center-fill" the quality and depth of that center fill does not (almost always) match that of a modern recording, such as Telarc (since you mentioned that label). There is a key variable that may be notable (that can either weaken or strengthen my observations) I listen to the RCA Living Stereo primarily in three channel....which should be a plus. But I have made many comparisons with the two-channel tracks. The three channel is better (but not by the wide margin some espouse), but in ways not having necessarily to do with "center-fill".
By the way, I don't have enough experience with Mercury to make comments on that label.
You said:
***Multimiking later took over, ending the "Golden Age." Telarc returned to the 3 spaced omni technique. They deliberately imitated Mercury.***
Could it be that the microphones used by Telarc were superior (in almost all ways)? After 40-50 years I should hope so. Also, I have seen three mics employed differently. I suspect they yield different results.
Point is, the depth, height, spaciousness, frequency response, (not to mention other variables outside the purview of microphones), of RCA Living Stereo, as a rule, in my experience, do not approach that of Telarc. And while different audiophiles look for different things in "detail", I find that Telarc offers superior detail, albeit with greater contrast in loudness and perspective that I find to be an important detail in itself but others may not.
Of course, an important variable is that I listen to Telarc in multi-channel. But their multi-channel and two channel recordings are clearly “kissing cousins”.
I do hold RCA Living Stereo recordings in high regard. But some audiophiles seem to feel that they are beyond crtique. You have not expressed that point of view. I rarely find a recording that I have not heard some needed areas of improvment, even if they are quibbles that I may not voice.
Robert C. Lang
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: There are precious few products from the 50’s that I find superior to products today - Robert C. Lang 18:43:30 08/20/10 (2)
- Miking techniques - Botanico92007 16:13:17 08/22/10 (1)
- RE: Miking techniques - Robert C. Lang 20:23:41 08/23/10 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
