[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: arsclist Tubes will not die
From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad
Karl Miller has as usual written some thoughtful comments and
has pointed to the very real issue of terminology. I would like to
comment:
>
> I remember a bull session where several composers were
> asking the question, "what is electronic music." Ussachevsky leaned
> over and simply said, "Loudspeakers." For me the implication was, all
> electronic recordings were "electronic music," subject to the
> characteristics of the reproducer and the ears of the listener.
----- I think Ussachevsky was very precise: no electronic music
without loudspeakers, but not all loudspeaker music is electronic
music. The only difference between a LIVE (perhaps by direct wire)
transmisssion of music from a room with microphones to a room
with loudspeakers, and transmisssion VIA a storage medium is the
time delay, provided the complete transfer chain is up to the
challenge. The fact that music has been transmitted by electronic
means does not mean that it is electronic. In my vocabulary,
electronic music is music generated electronically.
>
> A disc recorded acoustically might sound "better" when transferred
> with a magnetic pickup, but is that preservation re recording?
----- I am still quite happy about a small piece I wrote in the ARSC
Journal on this subject in the Fall issue of 1989, pp. 156-161. Do
look it up!
> Similarly, is it preservation when one uses solid state electronics to
> transfer a recording done with tube electronics?
----- Since I wrote that piece I have been increasingly forgiving when
it comes to choose between a bad copy or no copy at all. If a bad
copy is all that is left, then the bad copy is the preservation copy of
the sonic event in question. The Brahms cylinder is a prime
example of a very crippled recording still serving as a glimpse of a
performance.
>
> A practical example...I often think of this when I am working with an
> aircheck...and wonder...now did that recording engineer really use
> this particular equalization curve. It just doesn't "sound" right.
----- When I teach I always find a way to say "there is no such thing
as a bad recording, only bad reproduction". And then I demonstrate
a mechanical recording I did on my "portable" (two handles - two
men) recording lathe in which there is a synchronous motor and a
very heavy turntable. I started recording at 78 rpm with what was
considered a good (though non-feedback) Lyrec cutterhead, but I
switched the motor off, and when we reached about 10 rpm I
stopped. Now, the interesting thing is that the recording is
surprisingly crisp almost all the way down (lowering the rpm during
replay!), possibly due to the elliptical stylus I use for reproduction.
If it had been a spherical stylus (or in the old days a trailing steel
needle for lacquer records), then that would not have worked.
>
> When one gets to splitting hairs...I wonder if there is a "right."
> Perhaps one perspective might have more "right" about it than another?
>
> For those of you who do preservation/restoration, what is "right?"
----- the "right" entirely depends on the purpose of your replay, and
anything is permissible as long as you tell what you did. The only
unethical thing would be if you said "this adjustment is reversible
by means of a simple opposite adjustment on replay of the copy",
and if it were not really true after all. For instance, you may lose
S/N ratio in the process or go to saturation and clipping.
>
> Is reformatting preservation?
----- it is indeed preserving sonic content, but obviously some of the
secondary or ancillary information will be lost (information given in
the recorded azimuth of the tape or in the groove profile of a record).
Kind regards,
George
-
For subscription instructions, see the ARSC home page
http://www.arsc-audio.org/arsclist.html
Copyright of individual posting is owned by the author of the posting and
permission to re-transmit or publish a post must be secured
from the author of the post.