Recording styles - quality - old and new

[Gordon]

Am I correct in thinking that Decca used to master 'Ace of Clubs' lps to suit the low fi quality of the record players they were probably going to played on?

Many, if not most, of the AoC Decca re-releases were done cheaply by using their old LXTxxxx mono catalogue ARLxxxx matrices so there was relatively little remastering of the stampers and so no retuning the cut for cheap players. When stereo came the Ace of Diamonds [SDDxxx catalogue from full price SXLxxxx with ZALxxxx matrices] label did the same. Now and again the odd side would get remastered with a new matrix number for example in a box set re-release where some sides were squeezed a bit to get more in.

As regards Dave's query about cutting masters - the whole release system started with the production team and the artist/s agreeing on which takes to use. The listening was often at the studios from the master tapes [or a copy of it] but occasionally from test acetates cut locally and played on in house turntables and pickups. Decca would use their own cartridge and arm typically with a Garrard 301/401 turntable [back in the 50/60 era anyway]. The ears of the production and engineering teams - the cutting engineer particularly - would have a good idea what needed doing in the way of levels and EQ at the cutting/mastering stage so that the discs came out of ther pressing plant with the required sound - but only insofar that the domestic playing devices would be similar to their own. If your domestic playback system was radically different from theirs then there could be a discrepancy in sound quality and so your home listening might well prefer one style eg Decca over another eg EMI or whoever. There are stories of major artists approving records for release only to be horrified when they heard their own records at home!

Decca were well known for hitting tape rather harder than EMI which tended to brighten the sound.

[Ferretfancy]

Yes but some were fun to listen to - Stokowski's Marche Slave - the combination of his excesses and the recording were irresistible.

cloughie
Funnily enough, I've found that Phase 4 discs on CD sound better on good equipment, probably because the original LPs were cut at a very high level with quite a bit of distortion. They are fun to listen to as a guilty pleasure! Stokey's Symphonic Synthesis of Boris Gudunov is one such.
The Phase 4 recordings were not made by Decca's classical team, but engineered by a team from their popular wing overseen by Tony D'Amato -- mafia maybe ?
When the mixer desk was used later by the classical boys, they had to start by cleaning the coffee out of the faders!

[Ferretfancy]

It was also a joke in BBC radio circles when I worked there a long time ago that BBC TV only knew a bit about the pictures and had no idea that there was any sound
attached!! (Sorry Ferret, I know you worked in the TV sound area, so there must have been a few who knew the ropes!!)

Ariosto
I think you may have been looking over my shoulder ! Many of the film editors I worked with in TV had rather odd ideas about preparing sound tracks, which meant that you had to have the hands of an octopus to manage the fades. When we started using Dolby, other problems arose, because they failed to grasp the important fact that the calibrating Dolby tone had to stay with each roll of sound,if they removed it for later use the whole enterprise collapsed!

Sound recordists on the road found it quite tricky when stereo was introduced. You can't use studio techniques on location, so it was decided to use M&S recording, which makes it possible to follow the action with the mic on a fish pole or boom, and at the dubbing stage the image width can be varied if necessary. Of course, the two microphones had to be used in a co-incident set up for M&S to work. One recordist really believed that true stereo could be achieved if you used a mono mic for the action and a separate mic which could be yards away. The principle of phase coherence escaped him completely,. To be fair, stereo on television was introduced rathe abruptly, without enough thought about how it could be done, and we did not have digital recording or computers to make life easier.

[Dave2002]

Ariosto
I think you may have been looking over my shoulder ! Many of the film editors I worked with in TV had rather odd ideas about preparing sound tracks, which meant that you had to have the hands of an octopus to manage the fades. When we started using Dolby, other problems arose, because they failed to grasp the important fact that the calibrating Dolby tone had to stay with each roll of sound,if they removed it for later use the whole enterprise collapsed!

Sound recordists on the road found it quite tricky when stereo was introduced. You can't use studio techniques on location, so it was decided to use M&S recording, which makes it possible to follow the action with the mic on a fish pole or boom, and at the dubbing stage the image width can be varied if necessary. Of course, the two microphones had to be used in a co-incident set up for M&S to work. One recordist really believed that true stereo could be achieved if you used a mono mic for the action and a separate mic which could be yards away. The principle of phase coherence escaped him completely,. To be fair, stereo on television was introduced rathe abruptly, without enough thought about how it could be done, and we did not have digital recording or computers to make life easier.

I guess that when stereo TV was introduced most people wouldn't have noticed any problems anyway, if they simply used the TV speakers. Apart from a general air of ambience, did many people care? Indeed, do they care today either?

This has got me thinking about why recordings have been made anyway. I naively have thought in the past that perhaps they were to record the performances of great artists for posterity, but recording companies may not have seen it that way. For them, recordings may simply be products, designed to stimulate a short term cash flow, and hence ephemeral. If you were running a business for profit you might do the same. The problem is that years later you might discover that you really did have recordings of performances which really were worth recording well, but you didn't know that at the time.

However, sometimes one can enjoy music even if the quality isn't the greatest. I've really enjoyed Klemperer's recording of Bruckner 4 with the Vienna Symphony Orchestra where the recording is somewhat deficient, but the music making seems, to me at least, to come through very well indeed. Would that be more enjoyable if the recording had been done more carefully?

[MrGongGong]

This has got me thinking about why recordings have been made anyway.

careful matey
you might start a real discussion of what it really means for music to have some things recorded (and i'll start posting Magritte pipes again !)

[pastoralguy]

I guess that when stereo TV was introduced most people wouldn't have noticed any problems anyway, if they simply used the TV speakers. Apart from a general air of ambience, did many people care. Indeed, do they care today either?

This has got me thinking about why recordings have been made anyway. I naively have thought in the past that perhaps they were to record the performances of great artists for posterity, but recording companies may not have seen it that way. For them, recordings may simply be products, designed to stimulate a short term cash flow, and hence ephemeral.

That's part of the problem that lovers of early cinema have, in that over 90% of the movies made were melted down for the celluloid's silver content. Movies were seen as simply 'product' - nothing more. It was only many years later that the films were seen as historical documents. By that time, a lot of the surviving films had deteriorated into sticky goo or dust.

Even more up to date films remain the property of the studio that produced them and are therefore at the mercy of how 'enlightened' the producers are re saving their 'product'. I believe that the original negatives of 'The Godfather' were allowed to deteriorate because the movie was percieved as having had its moment.

[Petrushka]

The situation with the cinema is mirrored, to an extent, by that of the BBC and the archives. Many classic television series simply disappeared when the tapes were wiped, Ditto concert recordings. The 1970's truly saw people of very little imagination and forethought.

Recordings of music, however, have been made from the very start with posterity in mind. Anyone acquainted with the Elgar/Fred Gaisberg correspondence will know this. Visionary producers like Culshaw and Legge quite clearly had posterity in mind. Much more recently, however, the huge explosion in the number of issues gives me room for doubt and the emphasis has perhaps shifted somewhat to 'the product'. However, we are fortunate indeed to have such a massive archive available.

[HighlandDougie]

the emphasis has perhaps shifted somewhat to 'the product'

The recent launch of yet another 'series' by DG ('First Choice' this time) is a slightly depressing reminder that among what were 'the majors' it does mostly seem to be about the product, which is I suspect a by-product of the labels ("the brands", I suppose) being owned by large multi-national corporations or, worse, private equity investors who seem only interested in the so-called bottom line. There are honourable exceptions within Universal - three cheers for the re-release of John Tilbury's John Cage Sonatas and Interludes (plus Birtwhistle, Stockhausen et al). These days the excitement I used to feel 30 years ago on opening the Gramophone and wondering what Decca or DG or EMI or Philips might be releasing that month has now been transferred to what I now think of as 'the majors' - Chandos, Hyperion, Harmonia Mundi and BIS, to name but four, not to mention Naxos. None owned by multi-nationals and all committed both to music and to 'their' artists, as well as to the best possible recording quality. So while I share some of Petrushka's implicit gloom, as long as we keep buying the CDs and downloads of new recordings, I think that there is some hope for the future. But I do wonder how Walter Legge might have reacted to today's marketing departments (not to mention Dr Klemperer - how would they have sexed him up?).

[mathias broucek]

The recent launch of yet another 'series' by DG ('First Choice' this time) is a slightly depressing reminder that among what were 'the majors' it does mostly seem to be about the product.....

It's a yawn-inducing set of re-releases, isn't it? Some really good material combined with some that's a long way from being a first choice!!!! And not even all that cheap!

[John Wright]

The old days... acoustic recording.... in a 'laboratory'!

[John Wright]

Sorry, that posting may be off-topic (you're all taking about CD releases). Let me post again over at Platform 3.

[Dave2002]

John

No, that was fine, and seemed perfectly relevant to me.

[JFLL]

... Dr Klemperer - how would they have sexed him up?

I don't think they'd have needed to, judging from some of the stories of his amatory adventures.