GG: WTC II and SBM

["Paul Fawcett" <fawcett@bscr.uga.edu>]

Hi all,

   I finally picked up a copy the other day of 2 CD set - making up the 2nd book
of the WTC, after having owned WTC I for some time.  I was quite surprised by 
the poor quality of the recording in some of the pieces on the first CD....there
seemed to quite a lot more "crackling" type noises in the mix than other Gould 
recordings I've heard.  It almost sounds like electronic glitches, rather than 
background noise from the chair squeaking or whatever.  This seems to be 
particularly a problem with the pieces recorded in 1966 (according to the liner 
notes, WTC II was recorded in 8 sessions from 1966-1971 and was originally 
released in three LPs)   The notes also mention that the session occuring in 
1966 may have been cut short.  Was there some problem with the original 
recordings (perhaps from the first LP), or was this noise caused by 
deterioration of the analogue masters before they were digitally remastered?  
Has anyone actually owned/heard the original vinyl, and if so, does this noise 
occur here too?  This has all got me wondering if Gould became increasingly 
picky about what he chose to release as his career progressed (in terms of sonic
quality, not content).  Was there a point in his career where pressure from the 
label might cause him to release stuff that he felt to be less than his best? 
For example, did he always use tape splices, even from the earliest days, or was
this something that he started doing later? Perhaps he refined this technique 
over the years and used it more and more?  I do see from this recording that 
Gould would sometimes have an exceptional day ... I can't remember the date (I 
don't have the CD here at the lab), but there was a particular day represented 
on the 2nd CD that was just magic....everything he recorded that session is just
exceptionally fine. Do you suppose this was because he especially liked the 
pieces being recorded, or just because of natural fluctuations in technique (or 
perhaps mgs of Librium consumed...can we check this?)?  I had always thought of 
Gould as having very consistent technique, but perhaps a closer session vs. 
session comparison might be revealing.
    In an unrelated question, I was wondering if someone could explain to me the
idea behind Sony's Super-Bit-Mapping.  I understand that the digital remastering
was done using 20-bits, and that CDs use 16 bits, but what do all these 
proprietary bit mapping schemes actually do?  It seems to me the problem of most
accurately mimicing the master should be trivial:  say one is converting a 
number between 1-20 to a number betweeen 1-10... In this case, original numbers 
1 or 2 would become a 1, numbers 3 and 4 become 2, etc.  This seems to be 
absolutely straightforward, so I presume that I'm missing something, and that 
bit-mapping schemes are more sophisticated than this.  Do they bias towards the 
high or low end of the range (acting as a compressor)? Are the values assigned 
dependent only on the value input, or does it depend on context (perhaps the 
values of the numbers before and after)?  What does this really do to what we 
hear?  I also presume that the record companies make their digital masters using
20-bits so that they won't have to go back and do it all again when the next 
generation of CD-players comes out.  BTW, do the 16-bit numbers of a CD just 
indicate the amplitude of the waveform at that point?  If so, how many 16-bit 
numbers are required for 1 second of music?  Limited Gould content, I know, but 
I have a feeling that he would know all about this stuff if he was still here.


Cheers,

Paulito

Paul Fawcett                            .***.   .***.           .***.        
Department of Genetics                * | | | * | | | *       * | | | * 
University of Georgia               * | | | *   * | | | *   * | | | *   
Athens, Ga                        * | | | *       * | | | * | | | *       
fawcett@bscr.uga.edu                '***'           '***'   '***'