Re: [ARSCLIST] Acostic playback

[Karl Miller <lyaa071@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 12 Dec 2005, Mike Richter wrote:

> There is little question that ideal playback on the console had markedly
> different qualities from those of any of the modern approaches. All that
> one can say with confidence is that the sound from the console at its
> best was an ideal the publisher expected from the best equipment at the
> time of release. There is no way to say which is most accurate relative
> to the recorded performance.

For me, there is a special quality to the sound of an acoustic disc played
on an acoustic machine. While I have not tried the "Pepsi Challenge," and
while I find each machine to have its own "quality" of sound, for me,
there is an honesty about the sound that I don't find through electrical
reproduction.

I also agree completely with the notion that regardless of the playback
environment, it is problematic to say which is the most accurate. If the
recording engineer of the time had the performer adjust amplitudes
according to the engineer's expectation of what sounded best on that
particular company's machine, and since each machine, even those
manufactured by the same company were likely to have some differences in
how they would reproduce sound...kinda like not all violins by the same
maker sound the same...makes it problematic to find a situation where one
approach is going to the be the right one...especially since the not all
performers would play the same way...even as instructed. However, I do
believe that some generalizations are worthy of consideration...like, as a
composer, I believed that some lines might sound better played by the
violins, versus the violas, or clarinets.

And, on the subject of piano recordings of the acoustic period...that is
one of the reasons why I believe there can be more truth in a well done
transfer of a Welte roll than in an acoustic disc.

Karl