RE: Humming, DSP & musical reductionism

["Baldwin, Daniel" <baldwin@baermarks.com>]

This message is off the subject of GG, but on the subject of transfers to
digital format, and I can't resist the chance to pick the brains of Mr. Hill
and other sound engineers and similar experts in the "collective."

I have begun to acquire some CDs on labels such as Pearl (Edwin Fischer's
recording of WTC), Dutton Labs (Beecham's recordings of Mozart symphonies)
and Arkadia (an Italian label-- I just purchased Cortot's recording of the
Chopin etudes) -- all of these are transfers from 78s. The Dutton and
Arkadia recordings are remarkably free of surface distortion; they have a
kind of unearthly purity which almost sounds real, but not quite. There also
seems to be excessive treble on the Arkadia recordings. On the other hand,
the Pearls have more surface noise, but sound less artificially treated; it
seems like I am getting a performance (under all the noise) that is truer to
the original, but then again the sound is sometimes so muddy that it is
difficult to make out the original. Are my perceptions true to what you know
about the processes used by these various labels? What transfers do you
recommend?   Does the process of "cleaning" and "restoration" yield a
product which may be more pleasing to the ear, but is not worth the
sacrifice, in that the end result is virtually a different performance? Or,
are there sonic modifications typically introduced by the restoration
process for which, once I know about them, I can make adjustments  when I
listen, so as to filter them out?

Incidentally -- what is your opinion of Sony's transfers of GG's recordings
from analog to digital format? I recently read a review of the GG set in the
Philips Great Pianists  of the 20th Century series (it is in the July/Aug
issue of American Record Guide) opining that the engineering on the digital
transfers of the Byrd and Gibbons tracks included in the set is far superior
to the engineering of the same tracks on the Sony issue ("A Consort of Byrd
and Gibbons"). What do you think?













-----Original Message-----
From: John Hill [mailto:jphill@home.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 10, 1999 2:50 AM
To: Thomas W. Conklin
Cc: BONG; f_minor@email.rutgers.edu
Subject: GG: Humming, DSP & musical reductionism


Thomas W. Conklin wrote:
 
> I have read many comments on "improving" Glenn's recordings.  I have
> collected and listened to recorded classical music (and live) for more
than
> 50 years including most of Glenn's LP's.  It is my conviction that any
> electronic manipulation, including analog to digital, is going to take
away
> from something that was there in the original and/or replace it with
> something that was not there before.  Mainly, what is taken away is
> ambiance.  Such detraction will reduce the actual recorded information
that
> carries with it the perception of musical stage width, height and depth.

Hi, Tom......and Greetings to the Collective!

As a music recording engineer and one who is something of an audio purist,
I have to concur with your argument above.  Anyone who has struggled to
craft
a good recording knows that it rarely gets better than the first generation
master
tape.  In many cases, things get audibly worse.  Does everybody remember
back in 1983 when Sony and Philips promised that digital audio would provide
"Perfect Sound....now and forever"?  Many of us have been less than thrilled
with
that promise for the past.......oh, fifteen years or so.

However, new developments in digital audio and DSP show great promise.
High resolution digital encoding at the 96k, 24-bit level *can* sound very
good,
when done correctly.  The new SACD (Super Audio CD) system from Sony is
also opening many eyes and ears.  Telarc has a number of releases out
already
and, when compared directly to standard red book CD, the new format is
really
an astonishing step forward in sound quality.  Interestingly, each new
development
in digital technology seems to elicit the response among critical listeners
that
"this sounds more like *analog*".  Hmmmmm....

Restoration and remastering of old analog master tapes (most of GG's
catalog)
is another area where great strides are being made.  Several hard-disk
editing
systems offer "de-noising" algorithms that can be quite effective in making
older,
noise-laden master tapes sound more musical.  But these manipulations are
not trivial.  Musical results will only be obtained (as always) by editors
who have
musical ears/training and who respect the integrity of the master tapes with
which they're working.

> Sadly, we cannot bring Glenn back, but even if we could, I suspect he
would
> still hum because the intensity of his musical expression could not be
> limited even by him.  Do we really want to yoke him in?
> Bless him.

As to the question of removing GG's signature humming.....I'm with you all
the way.
I view GG's humming as an organic part of his performance.  I wouldn't
*want* it
removed and I see this as a completely separate argument from the question
of
digital transcription or noise reduction.  Improving and updating
limitations
of the
original *media* is one thing;  tampering with GG's performance is quite
another.
He made that sound at the session;  I'd like to hear it from my playback
medium.

There were, of course, some attempts made at various times to reduce the
audible
level of Gould's humming.  On one record jacket, I remember reading about
the
engineers fitting GG with a gas mask and some kind of baffling system to try
to keep
this sound from reaching the primary mics.  Not surprisingly, what they
ended
up with
on tape was a slightly quieter, but more muffled and bizarre-sounding hum
that
probably drew more attention to itself.  I wonder if maybe GG hummed even
louder
at those sessions...

cheers, 
jh