 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
100.40.104.113
Just when you thought it was safe to visit Music Lane again...I have been quietly cornering the world market in early Oistrakh Brahms Cleveland 1969 pressings... US and ROW pressings. France. Germany. Russia.
My two most recent purchases have taught me a lot!
And because Audio Asylum is populated by many who get distracted by Bright Shiny Objects, here is the short version.
My working hypothesis of the moment on that is, in view of my not having been able to find a resource that establishes a date for Angel's changeover from the the goldenrod solid-color label with the beaver-brown band across the middle, to the later orange label with the pen and ink sketch of an angel:
While the the goldenrod solid-color label with the brown band across the middle is not necessarily a guarantee that the pressing is pre-master-tape-substitution, the orange label with the pen and ink sketch of an angel pretty much assures that that LP is post master tape substitution.
The LP copy I have had since circa 1978 that I bought in Nashville has the orange label with angel, and is scribed Side 1 F 13, Side 2 G 10. I am now informed that the G lathe was relocated from NYC to LA at some point, so, I was previously misled by true but inapplicable statements that the F code meant cut in LA, while the G code meant cut in NYC... .
My next-to-last Angel acquisition was Side 1 F2 Side 2 F4, so, I was getting close, much closer than my Nashville LP.
My most recent (delivered today) purchase is: F2/F2! The same stampers as the celebrated-in-myth-and-legend Brown U. LP! Rejouissent les paysans dans les roues!
Of course, it has the same gold w/brown band label as the Brown U. LP. What is fascinating is that while the penultimately-purchased LP has a shiny (coated) paper stock for the cover, the more recently-purchased but OLDER LP has a MATTE-finish paper for the cover.
OK!
Here we are:
Barring the discovery of an F1/F1 LP (my working hypothesis on that is that the first cut was rejected for being over-optimistically too hot), it seems reasonable to assume that if you are pawing through the bins and find an Angel SFO-36033, if the cover is shiny, check the label. If the label is gold/brown, check the scribing. If the cover is matte, check the label but it almost certainly will be gold/brown. In which case, please check the scribing and if you can, email me what it says.
And of course, if anyone finds an F1/F1, please notify me.
BTW, Bob Ludwig, ever the helpful friend, decoded for me the mysterious "I AM" scribe in a triangle. That's on the two most recent finds but not on my Nashville LP.
I thought it was the emblem of some Mystery Cult, but Bob assures me that "I AM" in a triangle is the "union bug" of the "International Association of Machinists," the union (in that early era) of the pressing plant and therefore of the plating operation.
Thanks to everybody!
The next step is to get the new LP washed and make a rip on a known good for speed VPI turntable, so I can make accurate timing checks.
At some point, I will get back to Warner.
ATB,
John
PS: I posted this in Music r/th vinyl because this is not really about vinyl, it is about the music and the master tapes.
Edits: 09/04/15Follow Ups:
But here is the the 1969 Double Concerto, S1f1, S2F2. I assume I acquired it in approx 1971, since I stamped my name on it to discourage theft. She'll, Oistrakh, and Rostropovich blew me away then and now.
Because my head is about to explode!
John
or if its whistle is a bit sharp or flat.
And the 2003 digital remaster is fine by me as well.
David's chubby little fingers are still doing fine IMNSHO.
the train really isn't going that fast. I just played it, and tempi are entirely reasonable throughout, unlike Hilary Hahn's insane speed, for example.
And if it's sharp, it's nowhere near as sharp as many European versions, including Oistrakh's own. But I have to agree with the comments in this thread about the Angel LP. It just isn't a good pressing, and I seem to have the original in near mint condition.
US Angel pressing I had was poor.
Big and warm tonally but this later reissue had limited frequency range and dynamics with a slight distortions. Murky midrange and opaque strings. The worst kind.
Nobody has made a dramatic confession on the order of, "My life has been a lie--I used artificial preservatives!"
HOWEVER, the documentary evidence, backed up by listening, is that in early 1973 in the UK there was a "master tape substitution." While I have not been able to gain access to any paper records in the US relevant to the issue, listening and measurements of US releases indicate that circa 1973 the US releases were changed as well.
Now, we have to assume that when a major player in the classical music market makes a master-tape substitution for a marquee release by one of the most revered artists in the world, there had to be a reason, even if the reason was only quiet panic...
My fear is that a huge error in judgment was made by non-technical, marketing personnel at EMI UK, with the result that the UK paper trail was thrown out and the UK's stereo mixdown original (but second- or third-generation) master tape was destroyed. One can only speculate as to why.
So unless the original US LP cutting tape was put in a vault, the only hope of "getting back to real" is if the original 8-track/4-channel Dynatrack in-machine master tapes from Cleveland escaped the purge.
In an ideal world, I'd Kickstart it, but... that would be four months out of my life.
ATB,
jm
I had forgotten, just a bit, that there is something I love David Oistrakh's playing. And whatever it is, it certainly comes out in this particular recording.
While Oistrakh was a prodigy, as far as I know he did not have "stage parents." IIRC his mother worked in the box office of the local concert hall/opera theater. Very rare among first-rank violinists, Oistrakh's first instrument was the viola, and he continued to play viola throughout his life. I can't help but think that that influenced how he played the violin.For whatever reason, Oistrakh's approach to the violin I think developed more along musical lines than toward "violinism." There might be dozens of players "who get around better on the violin" than Oistrakh did, but there was never in my opinion a violin player who was a greater musician--as a musician. Oistrakh's première recording of the Shostakovich first violin concerto is one of the most important recordings of the 20th-c.
Oistrakh's playing embodied (almost paradoxically) a monumental conception of the music, tempered with humanity and humility.
The once and future King David.
jm
Edits: 09/05/15
I'm almost certain it's yellow/brown with the matte cover, I'll check when I'm home tomorrow.
Dave
I've heard worse Angels but I've heard better records...I prefer the Klemperer personally.
Dave
Edits: 09/05/15
or Szell or the Cleveland orchestra for that matter. Not only is this a typical noisy American Angel pressing, it just isn't well recorded or produced. Very dynamically compressed, yet it often reaches the saturation point, for example in the brass fanfares in the first movement. The soloist and orchestra sound disconnected. The solo violin obviously has its own microphone, but many passages require blending or even have the violin accompanying and the orchestra in the solo role, and that isn't achieved.
I won't be looking for an English EMI pressing of this one. But a good digital remastering could work wonders. If it isn't off pitch. ;-) For a vastly better produced version, try Oistrakh star student Gidon Kremer with Karajan and the BPO, recorded at the 1976 Salzburg festival, ironically also on EMI.
I keep hoping someone will step forward to provide evidence that what we would usually call the "original stereo master tapes" were not thrown out when "replacement masters" were cobbled up in 1973.
No insult meant to cobblers.
THAT is the problem.
The known-to-exist substitute analog masters suffer from problems or at least significant differences from the earliest LPs in addition to pitch and speed, and the original, "from Capitol Records in Los Angeles to Abbey Road" copy or duplicate original cutting tapes seem to have been thrown out and their paper trail erased.
I believe that the original, unedited, in-machine in Cleveland, Dynatrack sessions tapes were repatriated to the UK because the UK arm paid for them.
But that is all now owned by Warner, and Honey Badger is sublimely indifferent.
ATB,
JM
What evidence do you have that they were destroyed? Ok, the record was remastered at some point, hardly unusual. And what is the significance given that the original doesn't sound very good? It's not making much sense to me.
Dave
Hi.
(1) Nobody has made a Confession. I stated that.
(2) My ultimate inference is admittedly based on circumstance. I stated that too. (It is also based on hearsay, and I admit that now.)
(3) But, I have great faith in the love of money.
An objective observer, rbolaw, in response to you, noted that the EQ of the Szell CD was not good.
Above is an image from the SACD booklet, of the EMI tape box. If you blow it up and read everything very carefully, it states that there was the master-tape substitution in 1973. It also says, " 'Remastered' from this tape" in 2001. I believe that that was the EMI CD, that was very late to the party. And not good.
A later sticker states that there was a 24/96 (bad handwriting) transfer for the Jap[anese] SACD (I believe the Esoteric by TEAC SACD) in 2011. That SACD is reportedly sharp. I am not about to blow $200 on a used copy on eBay when I am convinced by the mass of evidence that it is dreck.
The EMI "Signature Series" SACD I wrote about in Stereophile [link below] certainly is sharp. 446.5.
I did not ambush EMI or Abbey Road. I presented my evidence to them months in advance of filing my copy. They had super-abundant opportunity to locate the original UK cutting masters and compare them.
Instead, they ended the discussion. A third party later told me that "people" were "very upset at all the noise and static" I was generating. If they had the original UK cutting masters available, they could have located them and clocked them. They also could have made good with their own paying customers, and then leased out the real masters for a premium to the former third-party remaster issuers.
That person, in the tone of someone advising a foolish idealistic friend to "Beware of Creeping Vronskyism," told me that "he would not be surprised" if not only the cutting master that Capitol sent over in late 1969 could not be located, but that the paper trial started in... 1973. He would not be surprised at all.
But he didn't exactly say that that was the case. One must be careful when discussing Creeping Vronskyism.
A former EMI person patted me on the head and said, "Sonny, you don't know the half of it," but after that bit of Ancient-Mariner-ism, he disappeared into the mists.
I believe that what happened was that circa 2011, someone (with a better sense of pitch than I have) heard the sharpness of the 1973 replacement master tapes--as noted in the tape box, please look at it--and unfortunately, the LP they grabbed to check pitch had been cut from the speeded-up 1973 replacement "master" tape.
Herb Belkin wept...
There is not a shred of evidence that the Cleveland Orchestra (unlike the BSO) has ever tuned to anything other than 440Hz. The in-machine Dynatrack session masters recorded a performance tuned to 440. Those tapes might have been off within 1 Hz. Welcome to machine parts milled by eyeball.
Anyone who cares to, can pay $35 to Acoustic Sounds to get a CSOB LP remaster that is sharp. I have no evidence that that LP was not re-cut from the 2011 digital dub from the corrupt master.
I was not about to pay $40 (shipping) for a foregone conclusion, but one of my Job's Comforters (they are on sale this month at Bed, Bath, and Beyond) did, and he clocked the audiophile remaster LP being as sharp as the SACD. A closed loop...
One can only speculate why the pre-1973 US Angel LPs are not all they should have been.
Possibilities:
Severance Hall is not the world's best recording venue. Symphony Hall Boston, it is not.
The Dynatrack system was still new.
Maestro Szell, at least as far as audio goes, was a flake.
The production team wanted to out-Heifetz RCA (John Atkinson, as far as I can tell, had difficulty listening past Oistrak's Airstream-sized Stradivarius).
(Hey, when I was a violin student, that's how I wanted to sound!)
# # #
Your final question CERTAINLY has resonance!!!
What if I get 500 people to Kickstart $30 each, and I pry loose the unedited, in-machine in Cleveland session tapes, and pay for obscene amounts of insurance to send them by courier (hey, that job is in my toolbox) to Bob Ludwig, and he threads the tape up and phones me to say, "These tapes are not hopeless, but, the bloated and overloaded sound of the pre-1973 LPs, is what is on these tapes."
Well, at the end of things, our consolation is found in faith and art.
I have great faith that the recording sessions sounded great--in the hall.
And, the Poet has the last word:
When old age shall this generation waste,
Thou shalt remain, in midst of other woe
Than ours, a friend to man, to whom thou sayst,
"Beauty is truth, truth beauty," - that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.
JM
LPs cut from the original tapes don't sound good. LPs cut from the later tapes and digital copies sourced from those tapes don't sound good. Deficiencies in both are at least in the ball park in terms of types of deficiencies. The later tape seems to run fast, which is very easy to correct.
What is the basis of the hypothesis that the original tape sounded better than the 1973 tape? I see no reason to think it is the case, and all that we know once we remove wild speculation points to there being little if any difference in sound quality between the two.
Dave
PS one explanation that you don't give for the sound of the original LP is that it sounds like most other Angel's of the time - lousy.
If you have not read my Stereophile column on this subject, and especially the sidebar about Dynatrack, you really should, because that is the mother lode of fact.
Please fill me in... EXACTLY where am I speculating wildly? I was told I had upset some people with my "static and noise." Oh, ya mean that I publicly apologized for telling my readers to buy SACDs that in fact were not from the "original master tapes" the way the sticker on the shrink wrap promised??? Sorry, I was just doing my job. Or apologizing for not reading the handwriting inside the tape box.
I have multiple journalistic sources who do not want publicly to be dragged into this. At least one is a former insider. One source had with me the conversation I paraphrased.
"I would not be surprised" is I think clearly a pre-emptive evasion. (And "you don't know the half of it" is I think corroboration.)
That person can, however disingenuously, now state "I never told John Marks that you told me the real reason you are so upset is that the [earlier UK LP cutting] master tapes can't be located, and that the paper trial starts with the 're-mix' master."
Seems pretty clear to me. So, where am I wild?
That aside, why do I believe that there is greater fidelity to be extracted if either or both the in-machine Cleveland session tapes and the original Los Angeles, razor-blade-edited stereo mixdown tapes are located?
Several reasons. First, the session recorders (I am vehemently assured) were 3M Dynatrack machines that simultaneously recorded each channel on two tracks. The first track was to NAB standards; the second was boosted more than 10dB, making it useless on tuttis but providing greater S/N on quiet passages. Recording, as just noted, was steady-state. Both tracks were recorded continuously. This was pre-Dolby, obviously. And Dolby quickly put Dynatrack out of business because it did not need extra tracks.
On playback, the playback deck used a time-weighted circuit including a Schmitt Trigger and an optical switch to "decide" when to switch from the boosted-track playback electronics to the NAB track. This was a cumbersome and quite rare pre-Dolby attempt to get more dynamic range and less tape hiss from the tape stock formulations of the era.
Given the reputation of Dynatrack (supposedly, EMI engineers thought that a Frank Sinatra test was direct-cut from the mics, but it had been recorded to Dynatrack), one would hope for better from the Angel LP. If we can get access to the original in-machine Dynatrack tapes, there are at least two possibilities for improvement over what we have now.
One, the Dynatrack tapes, overloads and all, could be transferred flat to hi-res digital (perhaps even Plangent Processes!). A smart person could write a DAW macro script emulating the Schmitt Trigger playback circuit--which is reproduced in the Dynatrack owner's manual that I have a scan of.
Two, if the Dynatrack system had a bad day in May 1969, modern noise reduction software such as iZotope RX4 might be able to make the NAB tracks more listenable than what we have now. C'mon, people! Walter Gieseking's 1950s Abbey Road Debussy recordings seem to have less wrong with them than what should be a wonderful recording. Nearly 15 years of technology progress equals a step back? Something went wrong, and it should be fixable.
What we are hearing now divides into two camps. Pre-master-tape-substitution US Angel LPs (pre 1973) were almost certainly cut from a two-channel, mixdown-to-stereo of the in-machine-in-Cleveland Dynatrack 8-track tapes. Post 1972 LPs and CD Quality (2001) and hi-res (2011) releases all come from the "RE-MIX" of March 1973. Which is not only off in speed and pitch; it has some subtle EQ and stereo differences.
The two-channel, mixdown-to-stereo would have been straight passes of the approved takes that were later razor-blade edited. E.g., I am quite certain that there is an edit before the first-movement cadenza. It would have been dicey to take a razor to the Dynatrack tapes but that would have been an easy edit on the stereo mixdown.
I am assured that Carson Taylor cut his own lacquers, and this was a marquee project--the first EMI/Angel recording of the Cleveland, etc. The lacquers then left his hands, and the rest is history, meaning: Opaque.
Was it the case that three years later, David Oistrakh finally got a chance to hear the LP they sent him, and he looked at his wife and said, "Honey, this really sucks! They've gotta re-mix me!" THAT is wild speculation. See the difference?
That said, it is possible that the plated lacquer and the pressed LPs do not represent all that was on the original Los Angeles stereo mixdown tape. They could have cheaped out on the pressings.
The process I just described raises another issue. Given that the Cleveland machines had 8 tracks, we can I think validly assume that there were a certain number of microphones mixed in a mixer to stereo to cover the orchestra (that eats up 4 of 8 Dynatrack tracks) and so that leaves track space for a mono or a stereo mic as the spot mic for Oistrakh. Just about every person of wealth and taste who has listened carefully (i.e., John Atkinson) has commented that Oistrakh's sound is unnaturally large.
Could that be why the tape box note says "Re-Mix"(!!!!!) rather than "Transfer" or "Remastering"? Did EMI/Abbey Road, in 1973, go back to the Dynatrack, find that half the stupid Yank tracks were over-loaded, and so they made a new mix-down only from the three NAB tracks??? And they did what they could to EQ away the tape noise?
That is speculation, but it is not wild. There was not an 8-track Dynatrack machine in the UK; there was only a 4-track in Sweden.
If the Dynatrack in-machine session masters are indeed in a box in storage in the UK marked "Unplayable," then the prospect opens up of not only getting the noise reduction the original producer and engineer expected; the solo tracks can be rebalanced to sound more natural on modern hi-res digital playback.
Hey, if it were my project, I'd release the raw unedited tracks, what a trove for violin students. Oistrakh was a very reliable player, his pitchers were always in the strike zone. I bet that recreating Carson Taylor's 1969 razor blade edits for a companion disc edited version would not be difficult.
BTW, there should have been an 8-track Dynatrack backup machine in Cleveland, but, it is possible that after the LP was released, those tapes were re-used rather than redundantly stored here.
So, the fat lady has not yet solo'ed, IMHO.
JM
My F1 side is consistently sharp, between 10 and 20 cents at 440, so more like 443-445.
Dave
After the article came out I heard from a VIP with the Violin Society of America who brought the article to the attention of Norman Pickering, who at the time was IIRC 98 years old.
Norman (of Pickering Cartridge fame, and one of the Founders of the AES) emailed to share the charming vignette of George Szell's commissioning him to construct a Rube Goldberg-esque Remote Control Tuning Fork Bonker and Amplifier.
Pickering mounted a push button on Szell's podium. A push of the button caused a mallet to bonk a 440Hz tuning fork in an enclosure. A microphone picked up the sound, which was beamed onto the stage.
Szell liked it so much he had them use the sound to call the audience back from Intermission.
Pickering confirmed that the amplified tuning fork was in use in 1969.
For reasons I have discussed elsewhere, I came to conclude that the most accurate sample to take would be the first minute of the first-movement cadenza. It would make abundant sense to take a break at the lead-in orchestral tutti. One assumes that Oistrakh would take a little break, perhaps wash his hands, and in any event re-tune.
My spectrum analysis (Amadeus Pro II) of the first minute of the first-mvmt cadenza of my rip of the Brown U. LP has A = 440.2. But the reason I have been buying up pressings is that I want to rip an early pressing on a turntable I have more faith in.
At the end of the day, if early US Angel LPs average 443 or even 445, it doesn't matter, because there is no proof that the sessions were anything but 440, and the SACD is 446.5. That's an error of about 1.5%.
Audio magazines are not usually in the habit of turning a blind eye to 1.5% distortion.
Of course, I have speed-corrected a clone of the 24/96 download, but that is not the only problem with it. In an ideal world, access to the Dynatrack tapes, if playable, should enable a complete sonic restoration including a more natural balance between orchestra and soloist.
Cleveland has no documents on file regarding any approval by Szell of test pressings, but those could have been regarded as not requiring archiving. I have one hearsay report that Szell's listening setup was two AR speakers on the floor under a couch. But that's OK, I have it on good authority that Bernstein listened to LP test pressings in mono.
jm
They are still using that sound. A more recent addition is playing a recording in Severance Hall of a cell phone ringing when the hall has quieted and awaits the concertmaster before tuning up. It's a reminder, obviously, to turn OFF your cellphone ringer.
On a related topic, a local chamber orchestra has a spoken announcement before the concert to "turn your cell phones on...[long pause] AFTER THE CONCERT." Gets a laugh every time.
I can confirm that my F1 side plays at the same speed and pitch as the YouTube link below, which is presumably sourced from the commercially available digital copy. According to you that is sourced from the "corrupted" 1973 tape. Anyway, no 1.5% distortion relative to the F1 lp. You may have another crow-eating column in your future.Dave
Edits: 09/08/15
I didn't say otherwise. What I did say is that on my LP the majority of the playing is sharp. Whether that's what happened at the moment, whether the session recorder was slow, or whether the machine the original master 2-track was transferred to was slow, who knows, but your contention that the "corruption" happened in the transfer to the "remix" tape is simply conjecture not backed with any evidence. It should be relatively simple to compare a "remix" recording with an earlier one, perhaps you'd be willing to send me a file of the first minute or so of the second movement sourced from the digital file of the "remix" for comparison with my lp. That would at least provide evidence of a speed difference between the two or lack thereof, which would then be a factual basis for claims about the two tapes at least.
"there is no proof that the sessions were anything but 440, and the SACD is 446.5"
Likewise, there is no proof that any of the tapes prior to the "remix" were anything but 446.5. A lack of evidence is not proof that something else is true. Those are assumptions.
Dave
So, there could be a difference between F1 and F2.
But even if all the tapes were at 445+, why enshrine a technical error?
You have not yet asserted, as some people on Hoffman's forum did, that out of respect for Oistrakh, the Cleveland "Must have" tuned sharp.
I guess that I just bring out the whackjob in some foax, because Steinway's artist division did not retune Richter's piano to 445 for Oistrakh & Richter's 1970 Alice Tully Hall recital. There are lots of Oistrakh recordings close or even below 440.
And don't hold your breath about my eating crow. Effective July 31 I became a Vegan, so it would have to be Crow-fu. Which I am told is actually rather tasty.
No luck on the de-alcoholized CTNdP, though... .
Immer essen,
jm
plays at the same speed/pitch as the YouTube version, and my F4 side does as well. Are you claiming your F2 sides do not? Spectral analysis is unnecessary, simply play them simultaneously."So, there could be a difference between F1 and F2."
More speculation.
"But even if all the tapes were at 445+, why enshrine a technical error?"
Because there isn't a factual basis for claiming a technical error.
"You have not yet asserted, as some people on Hoffman's forum did, that out of respect for Oistrakh, the Cleveland "Must have" tuned sharp."
If you haven't noticed by now, I don't engage in such speculation.
"And don't hold your breath about my eating crow."
Well, that's a matter of integrity and I won't speculate about that either. I don't know whether you'll own up to your claims of pitch change between pre-'73 LPs and reissues being proven false, not to mention all of the professional malfeasance implied on behalf of EMI/Warner, without being couched in a claimed discovery. I think the fact that early LPs match the YouTube example (unless you can prove that the YouTube example is a different speed/pitch than the digital version referenced in your article) conflicts with nearly every claim/accusation in the Stereophile article. I know what I would do if I was in Warner's legal department...
So simple question, does your F2 LP match the YouTube example for pitch/speed? How about any digital versions you own, do they match the YouTube example? No spectral analysis or ambiguities required, not are any anecdotes imparted by privileged acquaintances about tuning devices relevant. No special laboratory turntables necessary, it's easy enough to determine whether your table is slow or fast if they don't match up. Do they match up?
Dave
Edits: 09/08/15
I'm not sure what this debate is about. John has found evidence that strongly suggests something else was substituted for the original master tape in 1973. Unless and until the original master/source tape from 1969 is found, every other conclusion one might draw is to some degree circumstantial and/or speculative. No point in arguing, really.
As for testing pitch by ear, I know that when I took an online test for pitch sensitivity, the best I could reliably do was distinguish pitches about 0.75 hz apart, and then only after a long period of total silence and ear "resting". I found, as have authors far more expert than I, that if one listens to slightly out of tune music for any length of time, the ear "adjusts" and loses some of its sensitivity to the pitch differences.
I found John's article interesting, I would wait for hard evidence at this point. I notice EMI's successors apparently had the chance to respond to his observations, but to date have not.
John has made numerous claims that are pure speculation and not rooted in any kind of reliable fact. Specifically, he claimed that the 1973 tape (we'll accept the photo in the SACD documenting that it was made and deemed the new master) was "corrupted" and made specific claims about pitch changes and speed changes. There's nothing speculative about it, we have the recordings he was/is referring to, speed/pitch differences are easily verified. He also made further claims about what was done to the original master tape that were similarly unfounded.
Keep in mind with your reference to hearing pitch changes that a significant portion of his Stereophile article was devoted to demonstrating how audible the difference is and how much of a "corrupting" affect it supposedly is. In any case, while hearing minute pitch differences may be difficult (the claims in his article notwithstanding), differences in timing are not difficult to discern, two musical examples that become apart by a second or more could not be easier to verify.
John's article appears interesting as does his OP here if one accepts his wild speculations. It's less so when one limits the content to actual claims of fact and when his speculations can be factually shown to be irresponsible, baseless claims.
Dave
OK, but remember John Marks is a magazine columnist who writes for entertainment purposes, though he does so intelligently imho. I understand the difference between hard evidence and speculation, and so does he (we're both lawyers, after all). But he's allowed to speculate, especially when the recording owners refuse to comment on the record, but wink and roll their eyes off it.
And I'm not arguing with any of your factual observations. My amateurish, low tech, brief measurements of a couple portions of my F2/F2 copy of this record suggested about a=443. That's one of the first things I said in this thread.
I've also measured a Szell/Cleveland orchestral recording that did indeed start at exactly a=440, but even there some orchestral solos were clearly played slightly sharper, and trying to keep the orchestra down to a=440 at all times was no doubt a project, so Szell's use of the Pickering device isn't surprising.
Finally, a=446.5 is pretty darn high, a good ways up even from a=443. I would have a hard time playing in an ensemble tuned that sharp. So I'm waiting for more hard evidence, if it ever comes, but I think John has raised some good questions.
The biggest question is what spectral analysis shows. He is making claims solely based on that without establishing that it's a reliable indicator of anything about the recording. He posted spectral analysis of his F2 cadenza, why that? If it's a reliable indicator of anything the spectral analysis of any portion of the recording would provide the same result, and a comparative spectral analysis of the same passage in a known later version would also be informative. These are humans on these recordings, after all. Not only that, there are more definitive methods of verifying the things he claims about the recording, and I think it's clear at this point why he refuses to address those (they would prove my point and show his claims to be incorrect).
I also think it's fair to say that his column and comments go a good bit further than simple speculation - he hasn't speculated that the 1973 could be corrupt, he has stated that it is.
I think your comment about his column being more about entertainment than anything else is proving to have merit.
Dave
as well as assuming that YouTube is reliable as to speed.
I am no expert, but, aren't audio-synch problems a bane of YT?
New flash: I don't work for you.
I'll stick with spectral analysis.
If anyone feels defamed, I am sure that Alan Dershowitz will take their case for free, for the publicity value.
My first discovery filing of course will consist of production requests for the UK pre-1973 master tapes... I expect to hear crickets.
Final point: the Archivist of the Cleveland Orchestra did me the favor of interviewing current and past players. The Cleveland Orchestra, according to her informants, has never tuned to anything other than A = 440. (More than one Hearsay Rule Exception would allow that into court.)
The SACD is at 446.5. Not 440. There was a gross error somewhere, and not by me.
I await your hand-fluttering Hilary Clinton imitation--"What difference does it make?" I guess it makes a difference only if you care. I do, you apparently don't.
jm
Your lp doesn't match YouTube? You may not work for me, but if you had integrity you would a) find the truth and b) admit it being that you've published serious factual accusations. You tell me if YouTube is not reliable as to pitch and speed, yet another speculation. Regardless, all that's required here is to play about a minute of the LP with the YouTube, and/or play a minute of the YouTube with any other versions you have. Are any of them different whatsoever? I should add that spectral analysis is not nearly as reliable a measure as playing them simultaneously, as I'll remind you of your factual claim that the first movement is 20 seconds shorter on the "corrupted" version than the earlier tape. Spectral analysis is in fact moot.
For the nth time, I have never made a claim about what the Cleveland orchestra tuned to, so your repeated references to it are also moot.
Dave
"Please fill me in... EXACTLY where am I speculating wildly?"
With;
"Barring the discovery of an F1/F1 LP (my working hypothesis on that is that the first cut was rejected for being over-optimistically too hot)"
"a huge error in judgment was made by non-technical, marketing personnel at EMI UK, with the result that the UK paper trail was thrown out and the UK's stereo mixdown original (but second- or third-generation) master tape was destroyed."
and I would add your characterization of the remix as "corrupted". Apart from the machine that was recording the new tapes running slightly slow - again a very easy fix - there is no evidence provided of significant difference between the two tapes. Despite all the effort you go to in the Stereophile article to describe the horrors of different pitch/tempo, the tempo portion at least is well within the margin of human variation from one performance to the next (ie the Klemperer first movement is within one second of the "corrupted" Szell master in length).
So you are guessing that substantially better sound may be obtained from the session tapes...which doesn't seem to be much of the point of your OP...and that may be but again there isn't much in the way of evidence pointing to that being the case.
Dave
if the original master tape could actually be found, was in pristine condition, and could be used to make a top quality reissue. I suspect it can't be, or that would have happened already. But maybe with a little bit o' luck there will be a JMR release some day.
The problem with my original LP could mainly be that it's a very bad pressing (it's in excellent condition, with almost no clicks or pops). I'm no expert, but the high noise floor, compressed dynamics and distortion seem to point to that. The original master tape could have been much better. The CD is harsh sounding, I doubt anything else made from whatever later source was used to make it will be very good either.
Thanks!
The tapes are currently owned by Warner Music. I wildly speculate that in the corridors of Warner Music's executive offices there pulsates a deep and abiding faith that absolutely nobody of consequence reads the scrawlings of John Marks, so if they just pretend that I don't exist, they don't have to deal with the fallout of a Kickstarter project disrupting the market for CSOB remasterings that are sharp and fast.
Some poor fool paid $260 on eBay (two hundred sixty dollars) for a used Esoteric by TEAC SACD that was made from a 24/96 PCM pass of a re-mixed substitute master tape. I am sure that the head of Esoteric, who chooses their SACD projects personally, is blissfully unaware of me and my obsession. But were I in his shoes and found out, I'd want a refund of all the license fees I paid as well as my NRE costs.
Or, if that speculation is too wild, on the negotiating principle that a Kickstarter promoter needs the master tapes a lot more than Warner needs an annoying anorak twerp in their reception area, were I Warner, I'd separate the boychiks from the menchiks by saying, "Sure, we'll look for the tapes and send whatever we have to Bob Ludwig. Our vault-search fee is a non-refundable $5000, even if we find nothing. If we find tapes, the $5000 is a non-refundable advance against royalties. All risk that the tapes are unplayable is yours."
So, I just don't have the stomach lining left to get involved where the other party obviously does not want to play ball.
jm
Well, as I'm sure you know, many LPs were originally badly mastered and/or pressed and sound vastly better when they are remastered and reissued in modern digital or analog form. Sometimes the opposite is true. Sometimes a bad recording just remains a bad recording.I would think this particular one would be a good candidate for remastering and reissue, if the original master tapes can be found, since (imo) this is a case of great musicians but subpar engineering.
Ed.: And the SQ of the Szell version is also bad on the EMI CD. The Klemperer recording is vastly better engineered.
Edits: 09/06/15
And I think that the French orchestra (remember, the BSO always was somewhat in thrall to French musical culture, and is the only US orchestra that tunes to 442) tuned at least to 442 or even 443. I measure the CD at 445 but I think that a little of that is just creeping up.
jm
I don't know what the situation is now, but when I attended USC as an undergraduate in the late 60's / early 70's, they told us that the LA Phil tuned to 442 at that time.
nt
Good luck to you, John. FWIW, my copy has the matte cover, the classically ugly mustard and brown label and F2/F2 in the deadwax. It sounds and measures sharper than a=440 with my modest equipment (and ears!) but I'll continue to read about your investigation with interest.
I still prefer the Oistrakh/Konwitschny version for the performance, at least from the orchestra, but its SQ is terrible, even by 50s mono standards. So if you succeed in getting someone to produce a high quality audiophile issue of the Oistrakh/Szell, I'll happily buy it.
During the Szell era, while the Cleveland Orchestra was maybe the best symphony orchestra in the world for a good portion of it, it may have also been the worst victim of horrid recordings.....
I think it has diminished Szell's stature as a great conductor. Especially since recordings have been digitized. (Although Sir Georg Solti has been victim here too.)
Which recordings did you have in mind?
"Which recordings did you have in mind?"
Aside from the Prokofiev 5th Symphony, just about every recording I've heard with Szell/Cleveland was "average" at best, threadbare at worst.
I have the circa 1954 American Decca mono LP. Great cover artwork too. Tuned very sharp, as I'm sure you are acutely aware.
nt
They identified the orchestra as the "Saxon State Orchestra", no?
Yes, it says Saxon. The whole recording has that distant, underwater quality that makes you feel like the last row of the balcony was full and you're standing in an outer stairwell.
But you could have avoided all this effort by just staying behind the Iron Curtain (recording-wise!) and learning to enjoy A-446!
Seriously though, I do admire your quest to keep the integrity of the Oistrakh/Szell performance intact. ;-)
Or by buying the recording with Klemperer:
My son, whom I adore...
I know it's a little late, but, I'd really like DNA testing.
My son turned down the dangle of a free ride at a famous European university with legendary music programs, to take the oath as a service member at age 17, and has spent an awful lot of time in combat zones.
I'd love to meet his real father.
My idea of hard work is putting the CD in the CD player after the second bottle of wine has been opened. So this kid can't be mine.
Anyway, one of his pithy aphorisms is, "When All Options Suck, ya just gotta Embrace the Suck."
Every time I can, I pray for the parents of his comrades who are no longer with us.
And, believe it or not, I have the Dresden and Moscow Oistrakh Brahmses in multiple formats.
JM
Which branch is he in? Is he still on active duty?
I have said too much already.
Thanks,
John
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
