Surround sound, SACDs and DVD Audio

[Gordon]

What I'm still not sure about is how many of the Mercury recordings were made using more than 2 channels - and I don't mean current style multi mike setups. Is there a list somewhere? There seems to be a feeling that at least the three channel ones sound better than the two channel ones (when replayed using the appropriate number of channels). That would fit in with the results from some relatively early experiments in representing a more natural representation of sound in a hall.

A stout booklet that came with one of the earlier reissues [copyright 1994] of these Mercury recordings will tell you some of the answer. I have tried to upload the scan in several formats but the upload system tells me that they are all "invalid files". Send me a personal message and I'll send you the image.

It seems that Mercury began recording stereo in 1955 and ordered a special 3 track machine using half inch tape [the norm was quarter inch] from Ampex along with a 3 track 35mm film recorder [there is a picture of an early rack version in the booklet, there was also a portable version] both of which they used for all subsequent recordings. In the 1994 re-issue set each disc came with the recording machine identified. The previous releases have been on CD only and so the 3 channel sources have been reduced [as they would for LP] to 2 channel masters. The booklet came with a re-release set that Wilma Fine herself supervised and they were all 2 channel down-mixes. The lastest re-issues for SACD have been done by Universal engineers - see PJPJ's posting above. If they had the original tapes and machinery they would have had the choice of retaining the 3 channels. Maybe they worked from Wilma Fine's 2 channel remixes? If they did not have access to the originals it seems a shame. As with the Everest recordings made with a very similar if not identical machine there is a lot of noise compared to say Decca or EMI stereo of the same vintage. I used to have an LP set of Beethoven symphonies with the LSO and Krips recorded in 1960 by Everest [they did a lot of recordings with LSO around this time] and they were very noisy.

In addition to the Mercury own label releases they had a working relationship with Pye/Nixa in the UK during the late 1950s. Recordings of Barbirolli and the Halle in the Free Trade Hall were Pye copyright although recorded by Fine using Mercury gear. When EMI acquired the Nixa catalogue in about 1990 these were re-issued on EMI's Phoenixa label.

Having finally cracked how to post images up, here's a scan of page 10 of the Mercury booklet. The 3 channel 35mm magnetic film recorder is in the background and WCF is operating the small 3 channel mixer desk.

[Gordon]

For some background on Mercury see here:

http://www.soundfountain.com/amb/mercury.html

Note Wilma Fine's comment on her husband's view of CD vs LP!!

[Dave2002]

Note Wilma Fine's comment on her husband's view of CD vs LP!!

I think you're going to have to give us a clue as to where in that page the quote is. It doesn't leap out at one (me at any rate!).

Alternatively, copy it out and paste it for us all to see.

[Gordon]

It's about half way down the whole web page, just before the part titled "Transfer to CD". The interview between Wilma Fine [WCF] and whoever [RAB] has this dialogue:


RAB: Yes, they (EMI, Ed.) actually would need you to do it for them. When beautiful tapes that were made with valve recorders and amplifier stages and mixing consoles are re-released, one can hear that they have been replayed on modern equipment that work with transistors and so they have lost their original, beautiful character. In what state where the 1/2" tapes and reels with 35 mm magnetic film?

WCF: Some had to be restored. Splices had to be renewed and bits had to be re-recorded.
RAB: You had to mix the three channels once again for the CD-releases. How did you go about it?

WCF: First I listened to the LP's, many times, so my memory came back. You know that as a writer, that when you are absorbed by the writing process you cannot be reached by other people. It takes a lot of concentration. I listened of course to the sound balance and the stereo-image on the LP. I wanted that the CD did not differ from the LP.

RAB: What was the most difficult mix?

WCF: That was the Balalaika-recording. It was difficult to get the naturalness of the plucking of the strings right.

RAB: CD is a completely different medium. How do you perceive it? Do you think it has its restrictions?

WCF: Yes, my husband always said that the sampling rate was too low. But the CD's are closer to the masters, the original tapes, than the LP's.

That last statement will be a surprise to some.

[PJPJ]

RAB: CD is a completely different medium. How do you perceive it? Do you think it has its restrictions?

WCF: Yes, my husband always said that the sampling rate was too low. But the CD's are closer to the masters, the original tapes, than the LP's.

Interested parties may like to know about:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Concerto-Symphonique-Scherzo-Fantasque-AUDIO/dp/B00004REN2/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1339076218&sr=1-1

or

http://www.amazon.com/Music-Ernest-Bloch-DVD-Audio/dp/B00004REN2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1339076168&sr=8-1

An example of a DAD (a 24 bit compact disc pressed to DVD) - an analogue (on Studer) recording, released in stereo at 24/96 instead of 16/44.1 playable on any half-decent DVD player. The rarity of the DVD Walkman and absence of DVD Audio playback in cars were partly responsible for few like me thinking this format is a really good idea.

But, as Gordon said earlier, almost no-one's really interested in better than CD sound.

It doesn't drive me or to or , but if were to give a of several SACDs etc, I'd and .

[Stunsworth]

DVD Walkman, you should have bought a DAT Walkman. Errr, like I did. In retrospect not the best purchase I've ever made. Though it was fun at the time to record entire concerts without a break.

[PJPJ]

DVD Walkman, you should have bought a DAT Walkman. Errr, like I did. In retrospect not the best purchase I've ever made. Though it was fun at the time to record entire concerts without a break.

No Elcaset, then? When I was at school I thought the Elcaset would revolutionise recorded music. I've never seen a machine or its tapes.

[Bryn]

No Elcaset, then? When I was at school I thought the Elcaset would revolutionise recorded music. I've never seen a machine or its tapes.

So what about DCC? I was briefly tempted but fortunately held back.

[Gordon]

No Elcaset, then? When I was at school I thought the Elcaset would revolutionise recorded music. I've never seen a machine or its tapes.

Yet another example of the public at large not being interested in audio quality. The extra size [about 2 times area and twice as thick] of the cassette would put some off compared to the analogue CC. Sony made the same mistake with Betamax and VHS. At least the Beta system survived in professional circles for many years and even mutated into a digital version.

ELcaset [L for Large] was also launched into market that was taking up CC as a HiFi medium through Nakamichi et al and the introduction of new high coercivity tape formulations eg chromium dioxide and Dolby of course. This required the recorder to have accessible adjustments and selection of different EQ and bias etc but it worked well enough for many HiFi buffs [who loved having knobs to tweak] even if the machines were expensive and required very careful set up. However copying pre-recorded cassettes in bulk using very high speed non real time copying took a lot of care to get half decent results which could be quite variable.

EMI [and RCA in the US] tried the quarter inch tape medium on open reels of course rather than a closed cassette in the mid 1950s to launch stereo but that got taken over by LP.

[Stunsworth]

No Elcaset, then? When I was at school I thought the Elcaset would revolutionise recorded music. I've never seen a machine or its tapes.

I saw the reviews - and I think I saw an actual working machine at the Harrogate show.

[Stunsworth]

I should add that I still have the DAT Walkman, though the last time I powered it up it was rather poorly. The top wouldn't open at first, and when it did it played tapes with the horrible spitting sound that a corrupt digital recording can produce. I suspect the play/record head is shot.

[AmpH]

I still use good old fashioned cassette tapes for making and using recordings at home using my well fettled Nakamichi Dragon and a Sony Walkman Pro for portable use. With a little care and know how excellent results can still be obtained from this format. I still love it !!

[Dave2002]

I've been trying to find out more about 3 channel recordings. It seems likely that the Mercury recordings were in fact only recorded in 3 channels for convenience, and perhaps weren't intended to be replayed using 3 channels. RCA attempted a similar process with their Living Stereo series.

http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/RCALivingStereo.jsp

Some people find the 3 channel versions better - but not always!

http://audaud.com/2004/12/third-feature-of-the-month/

I'm guessing that 3 channel SACD versions of the Mercury recordings are now hard to find, and perhaps similarly for the RCAs, though I'm sure I've got a few hidden away.

http://www.sa-cd.net/shownews/26

I don't know if any other companies released 3 channel material.

PS: I've found that typing "Living Stereo" or "RCA Living Stereo" into search boxes for stores such as Amazon and others will give lists of possibles - look for the SACD versions, but mostly it's hard to know from the listings whether the issues are 3 channel or other forms of surround sound, or whether they are only 2 channel SACDs.

[PJPJ]

The three channel Everests (I have them all except the Krips/LSO/LvB set) give me unquestionably a far more three-dimensional sound-stage than the stereo programme. Due to disc storage, the stereo is 24/192 and the preferable three channel 24/96.

I also rate Everest's engineering as superior to RCA LS and Mercury.

[Dave2002]

The three channel Everests (I have them all except the Krips/LSO/LvB set) give me unquestionably a far more three-dimensional sound-stage than the stereo programme. Due to disc storage, the stereo is 24/192 and the preferable three channel 24/96.

I also rate Everest's engineering as superior to RCA LS and Mercury.

Interesting. Are the Everest 3 channel discs still available? Is there a list somewhere. It looks as though some might have ended up on SACD and some on DVD Audio at various times.

This thread from another forum is interesting. It has some misguided comments, but also some good stuff and some pictures which are at the very least entertaining - http://audiokarma.org/forums/showthr...=447418&page=2