|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 26, 2014 - 12:22 PM
|
|
|
By: |
OnyaBirri
(Member)
|
Wow - Onya's postin' more than one liners. I'd be interested in what percentage of hi-fi LPs you think had quality record-studio recordings. More than 10% could be 15% or 95%... Also, are you implying that all the "majors" had high quality and - the converse - that smaller independent labels typically had less than satisfactory sound? The one-liner is my preferred genre, though I have branched out occasionally into longer forms. Honestly, I couldn't give you a percentage, because I don't have all the albums. Generally speaking? I would say that most records on RCA, Mercury, and Capitol would fit the bill. Columbia is more problematic. Mitch Miller loved reverb, and a number of great Columbia sessions are marred by excessive reverb. Decca was very hit or miss. As far as mid-size and smaller labels, it varies. Robert Drasnin's "Voodoo" was recorded for a budget label called Topps, and the (abridged) CD version, "Exotic Excursion," taken from the masters, sounds incredible. Jazz labels varied. Audiophiles consider Contemporary albums recorded by Roy Dunann to be among the sonically greatest albums ever made. Clef and Norgran, which later became part of Verve, had a more primitive sound. Everest started off as a high-end classical label, and they quickly went south. Do you have the Antill/Ginastera album on Everest? Right up your alley. Great suites and very well recorded. I could go on and on. The point is, there were a lot more labels competing in those days, they had to very quickly create hi-fi catalogs, and a few years later, stereo catalogs. There was a booming postwar economy. I simply find it interesting that this thinking did not seem to be readily embraced by Hollywood studios. Again, we have cited a number of reasons for this in previous posts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 28, 2014 - 4:05 PM
|
|
|
By: |
ToneRow
(Member)
|
The point is, there were a lot more labels competing in those days, they had to very quickly create hi-fi catalogs, and a few years later, stereo catalogs. There was a booming postwar economy. I simply find it interesting that this thinking did not seem to be readily embraced by Hollywood studios. Again, we have cited a number of reasons for this in previous posts. Onya, I do think the film studios did acknowledge the changing environment and attitudes of post-WW II society. Consider the significant developments between 1952 & 1953. For the first time in cinema history, the silver screen's aspect ratio altered to include 2.35:1 widescreen and other ratios different to the then-standard 1.33:1. There was an increase in color photography such that by 1955 half the films made in Hollywood were in color. Also, there was significant progress in experimentation in stereo recordings, especially at 20th Century Fox. As early as the late 1940s, Alfred and Lionel Newman were recording 2-channels via optical equipment (from my understanding, but correct me if I'm wrong about this). Between '52 & '54, film studios began recording film scores on 35mm magnetic film stock and in genuine stereo. What Onya maintains, though, is that the sound quality of stereo on 33mm mag is not as good as recordings made by record companies during this same time period - and I think this is more a matter of opinions and preferences. I think I recall reading here within FSM threads about how 1950s audiences claimed how well the theater stereo systems sounded in comparison to their sound reproduction equipment at home. [4-track movie stereo vs. vinyl LPs played back on turntables]. Still ... we can no doubt agree that employment at the Capitol Records building was likely different than working within a film studio. Different rooms and acoustics. Perhaps different equipment, too. Maybe the topic header should be re-phrased? Maybe it should be film scoring stages vs. record company studios. Anyhoo, I think Onya's questions would likely be best answered by technicians who had worked in these industries during the 1950s. A recording engineer who was born in the 1930s, started out in his 20s during the 1950s and is currently still alive and retired. The only name that comes to mind this moment is Dan Wallin. Dan Wallin started in 1965 doing George Duning's MY BLOOD RUNS COLD @ Warners. He's still with us, I think, and retired.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 30, 2014 - 7:35 AM
|
|
|
By: |
finder4545
(Member)
|
Onya, just for information. Remembering that engineer Garry Margolis was an authority in sound recording, I found an old paper. Published on the July 1972 number of HIGH FIDELITY MAGAZINE is an article of this highly estimated engineer undertitled “If you want to hear well-engineered movie music recordings at home, maybe you should live in Radio City Music Hall”, with specification that “Garry Margolis is a Hollywood recording engineer who works with both film sound and commercial recordings”. Margolis starts with: “Motion Picture Sound has often been referred to in disparaging terms by many listeners who are used to hearing magnificent recordings made for the home and who compare these with so-called “original soundtrack” discs. They wonder why a recording that sounded fine when they saw the film in a theater sounds so bad in the home”. He continues with a brief history of stereo systems, until 1955’ “Todd-AO”, stating that “Today we have advanced some twenty years in technical development, but the average soundtrack recording still sounds terrible in the home. The main reason is that film scores are recorded for a complete different listening environment than that of a living room. Taking the average size and reverberation of the motion picture theater into consideration, soundtracks are recorded relatively dry. Otherwise the sound reproduced in the cavernous theater would be muddy. In the living room, however, these recordings sound flat and dull. Further, instead of trying for wide range, flat response in theaters, motion picture engineers have, over the years, created a quasi standard response curve, taking into account the limited frequency response, distorsion and noise of optical sound, the response curves of theater loudspeaker systems, and the acoustical characteristics of a large room with patrons absorbing sounds plus air-conditioning rumbles and whooshes. The resultant recording characteristics are antithetical to home listening, where an effort is made to get as wide and flat a response as is technologically feasible”. Margolis makes an in-dept analysis of the many and various aspects concerning the two different kinds and conditions of listening, tricks used by engineers to balance the result and solve some problem, the multi-tracks adopted here an there for different final treatment of the signal, concluding that “the answer to the compatibly problem is to record everything on 8 or 16 tracks and synthesize two version from these multichannel originals”, mentioning Samuel Goldwyn studio ideal acoustic for recording symphonic scores, and Glen Glenn Sound in Hollywood as one of the first major independent service to apply the better solution of an usual film-equalized recording and simultaneously cut a 16-track recording of the session for later remix, indicating the Mancini’s HAWAIIANS album as a very good quality recording, and ending with this: “One can only advise the purchaser of soundtrack albums to beware of the inherent problems in these hybrid beasts. Few symphonic film scores will sound right in the home even if they were well recorded for film purpose. One can only hope that separate session were held for the record buyer. Pop, jazz and rock - particularly if dual masters were made - can be entirely satisfying, assuming that they were properly remixed. Unfortunately, there is no way of knowing whether any of this was done simply by looking at the record jacket. Hopefully film producers and recording companies will soon realize that merely adding echo to a film track will not satisfy the home listener. He has been spoiled by the superior product made for his listening environment, and expects the same standards on every disc he buy regardless of its origin”. Much of this, if not all, has been well said and explained in this thread, the words of Margolis are a document, and I think you must have a precise idea about anything, at this point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Nov 2, 2014 - 1:53 AM
|
|
|
By: |
finder4545
(Member)
|
Rozsaphile, it’s always a pleasure hearing from who lived in person those wonderful days of great collecting. The Ken Sutak article “Investment Market in Movie Music Albums” was a classic, and the opening anecdote of “The Return of Raintree County” emblematic of what was happening with albums becoming rare and guys hunting for them to speculate. Contrary to that, I used to get safe copies of many now rare albums only to be sure not to lose the music by accident, finding myself, at last, with a collection virtually doubled! I see the artistic value of that LP albums emerges more and more, as time goes by, and often I take care of re-listening to some old title reissued in CD format, finding often differences, surprises, oddities. The last time, playing on my turntable Tiomkin’s OLD MAN AND THE SEA on Columbia ACS-8013, I found a clearness and brilliance absolutely superior, compared to the Varese VSD-5232 reissue on compact. Conversely, I noticed the LP had the channel rather unbalanced. In any case, great Tiomkin! That was a very interesting article, thank you for posting. I found this line interesting: “…The answer to the compatibly problem is to record everything on 8 or 16 tracks and synthesize two version from these multichannel originals…" I assumed that by the time of 8-track recording, this is exactly what they were doing, allowing for separate mixes for film and album, assuming that the album was not a re-recording. Depending on production’s plans and choices, obviously. The better DNA-father is in a 8 or more tracks recording, and this contains the information for both the sons, the first “music in the air” (theatre) and the second “music in the ear” (the single listener). What follows is a free decision, and if a commercial recording is decided, the result can furtherly depend on mixer’s skill, competence and musical knowledge. After the real conductor of the orchestra, the mixer-engineer, being able to manage singles or groups of the instruments captured by mikes. becomes just like a second “conductor” of the session and can damage a well played piece, altering levels and presence. I confess that I myself am absolutely unsatisfied by mixing applied of glorious recent re-recordings, while listen with pleasure to those old Charles Gerhardt recordings on Polydor. Returning to your assumption, the same Margolis stated in the end that “Unfortunately, there is no way of knowing whether any of this was done simply by looking at the record jacket”.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|