Music Sound Quality from 35mm mag film?*

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by B.Burl, Nov 23, 2008.

  1. Trevor_Bartram

    Trevor_Bartram Senior Member

    Location:
    Boylston, MA, USA
    I have to agree with this entry. I noticed this when collecting the Mercury CDs mastered by Wilma Cosart Fine. Film definately had more dynamic range but there was often something wrong with the overall sound. I suspect something in the recording chain was not working correctly. Does anyone have a definitive reason why these recordings sounded this way?
    Regards, Trevor.
     
  2. Steve Hoffman

    Steve Hoffman Your host Your Host

    You mean bright and edgy with horrific overload distortion on peaks?
     
  3. Trevor_Bartram

    Trevor_Bartram Senior Member

    Location:
    Boylston, MA, USA
    So Steve, is there a technical reason for the difference in sound (smooth versus edgy) between tape and film?
    Thanks, Trevor.
     
  4. Tom Campbell

    Tom Campbell Forum Resident

    Location:
    Boston, MA
    I'm not an authority on the subject, but I know I have read that for the Mercuries, it was the microphones employed that had serious distortions at the treble end -- so it is not necessarily a tape issue.
     
  5. JonP

    JonP Active Member

    The Schoeps 201 mikes used by Mercury had a very bright sound but did not suffer distortion issues that I am aware. Even their most energetic recordings remain very clear and precise when it was abundantly clear the needles on the Ampex 1/2" machines were well into the red. Mercury just loved to close-mic everything so you got a conductor's sonic viewpoint of the world. But listen also to the Bluebeard's Castle recording...that is a 35mm transfer and there is some serious high energy orchestral playing in that. The first time I heard that recording it shocked the heck out of me and left me with goosebumps. And everything is captured in pristine, disortion-free sound including the terrifying tuttis.

    My personal feeling is that the extremely linear and energetic HF response of the mag film coupled with the bright 201s was just too much at times - I think with Everest they used the U47 more often than not and to my ears the result was much, much better.

    I tend to prefer as a general rule the earlier Mercuries when they employed the M56 and U47 mics - as I say the sound changed a lot when they hung up three 201s and used 35mm film on top of that.

    If I had to "rate" the sound of these labels in terms of realism, I would have to put the best of the Everests up top, the best of the RCA Living Stereo next and Mercury last. But of course since each of these labels produced recordings that vary tremendously in qualty, there is a lot of overlap.

    I was listening to the Mercury MacDowell Suite for Large Orchestra today and was enjoying the heck out of it so much I played it three times in a row. Fantastic sound, but I only ever heard this sort of sound from the conductor's podium or from my seat in the first violins lol! I love that sound to bits but it isn't what you get in the concert hall.
     
  6. yasujiro

    yasujiro Senior Member

    Location:
    tokyo
    Has C.R.Fine used (K?)M56? :confused:
     
    LeeDempsey likes this.
  7. JonP

    JonP Active Member

    I would not go so far as to say horrific overload distortion was a distinguishing feature of 35mm, but it does seem clear having listened to many 35mm recordings that the available headroom did seem to "brickwall" in comparison to the 1/2" Ampexes. We have to remember that if Mercury thought they could get an extra dB of S/N ratio, they would try.

    There is a nice example of 1/2" Ampex overload in the Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto with Byron Janis. He is playing some octaves in the bass line in the last movement and you can clearly hear the Ampex cry "enough". But it is a soft landing compared to 35mm.

    I agree about bright and edgy though, but as I have mentioned, I think 35mm went together very well with the old U47s. Listen to some of the Everests such as the Scriabin Poeme of Ectasy, Fountains of Rome, Three Cornered Hat and I can't see how they could be described as anything other than unbelievably accurate and realistic recordings (these three are the closest recordings to real concert hall sound I have ever heard in my entire life).

    Some have criticised the Classic Records remasterings as being bright and edgy, but to my ears only about 4 of the titles are intolerably so. I read recently to that Bernie Grundman's updated mastering suite is a bit less aggressive sounding than when it was used for the Everests. Then again, it sounded perfect to me for Wilma Cozart-Fine's 6 Mercury reissues on LP (these 6 reissues were superior to the CDs in my opinion, even though
    Wilma herself appeared to think her CDs were always closer to the master tapes). In any case, the Everest 35mm still must take some of the blame if indeed blame is the right word. I prefer the word "character".
     
    McLover likes this.
  8. Steve Hoffman

    Steve Hoffman Your host Your Host

    No, nothing to do with tape vs. film, just the house sound of Mercury.

    Back in the day, movie studios like WB used to do a "trick" when they recorded music scores on mag film. They would take advantage of the greater bandwidth and lower signal to noise and boost the 6,000-8,000 frequency range so when the mag was dubbed to the print master, the "presence" range would not be lost during the transfer and indeed be back to normal. A sort of primitive noise reduction technique.

    I've heard WB 35mm fullcoat mag on GYPSY, THE MUSIC MAN, THE HIGH AND THE MIGHTY, GIANT, RIO BRAVO, THE NUN'S STORY, AUNTIE MAME, etc. and a bunch of WB cartoons. I've heard MGM mag of BEN HUR and countless others not to mention a lot of indies like THE SEVENTH VOYAGE OF SINBAD, AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS, etc.

    All had that 6k, 8k boost and all were less harsh and aggressive than the Mercury Living Presence recordings.

    Sounds like I'm down on Mercury but I love many of those performances. I have first pressings of almost every one. It sounds to me like their gear (and monitors) made it sound like that aggressive sound was "just right"....

    To them it probably was but with our modern systems we can hear the flaws.

    Good thing is, if you have the Mercury CD's and SACD's, you can do a quick parametric "reverse EQ" in the pain range and reduce the frequency response to something like normal while removing a bit of hiss in the process. A win win if you know what you're doing.
     
  9. JonP

    JonP Active Member

    Yes, they employed the M56 quite frequently for left and right channels in the late 50s with a 201 for centre. There are many sessions from 1957 and 1958 where the M56 was employed.
     
    McLover likes this.
  10. JonP

    JonP Active Member

    Hi Steve,

    If hypothetically you were given the task of remastering the Mercuries, would you do what everyone thus far seems to have resisted doing...and apply EQ?

    btw, I have seen photos of the Mercury monitoring setup with those three enormous Altec speakers bearing down on the listening position. I just find it hard to believe these speakers were sucked out in the 6k - 8k presence regions - I would have thought they would sound rather overwhelming.

    Also, as I mentioned before, when I played first violin in orchestra, that "aggressive" Mercury sound is actually incredibly close to what you hear from within the orchestra as a player. That is what all these instruments sound like from very close up.

    I also think that some of the aggressive Mercury sound was not helped by the fact that the original CD reissues were before their time so to speak. What I mean is that consumer playback equipment just could not handle them properly back in the early 90s. Some of those Mercs which sat on my shelf for 18 years now (too screechy and aggressive) now sound great on my modern gear.
     
  11. MMM

    MMM Forum Hall Of Fame

    Location:
    Lodi, New Jersey

    I don't see how a close mic-ing technique would mimic a conductor's perspective.
     
  12. Steve Hoffman

    Steve Hoffman Your host Your Host

    I would add some reverse EQ to the tracks that needed it (IOW subtract, not add EQ). Nothing more than 1/2 db out at 8k and 1 db out at 6. It is wonderful how that little bit of sensitive parametric EQ reduction guidance makes everything sound more lifelike while still keeping the Mercury Living Presence "Snap". It points your ears in the right direction so to speak.
     
  13. yasujiro

    yasujiro Senior Member

    Location:
    tokyo
    I do agree with your assesment (though I played another instrument). :agree:
     
  14. MLutthans

    MLutthans That's my spaghetti, Chewbacca! Staff

    One of the problems of spaced omni recording: They are generally "less forgiving." Too close? Too much detail. Too distant? Dull sounding. Luckily, there is that elusive middle ground, which I hope to find some day! :righton:

    By the way, lest you think that 3-spaced-omni orchestral recording is completely dead, here are brief clips of recordings I did for public radio two seasons ago at a music festival up here in the frozen tundra:

    http://web.mac.com/mlutthans/iWeb/Site 24/Beethoven Scherzo.html

    http://web.me.com/mlutthans/Site_47/Blank.html

    Matt
     
    McLover likes this.
  15. Was flipping through some back titles yesterday and found this 1961 Reprise Pop Series R9-6048 release.

    Part front cover, label and back cover 35 MM, "120" blurbs below.
     

    Attached Files:

    Jonathan L and McLover like this.
  16. MLutthans

    MLutthans That's my spaghetti, Chewbacca! Staff

    Small world: Just today I bought a 7.5 ips reel-to-reel tape "Reprise Sampler" with a track from that Les Baxter album on it. Haven't played it yet.

    By the way, there is an excellent CD reissue of Esquivel's album from that same Reprise mag film series, available here:

    http://www.amazon.com/More-Other-Wo...WF/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&qid=1296786684&sr=8-15

    I'm about 99.44% sure those two titles were recorded on either 5 or 6 mag tracks (two synchronized machines).

    Matt
     
  17. McLover

    McLover Senior Member

    Thanks for giving me some info on the Canadian licensee then for Reprise, Sparton of Canada. And for this wonderful post.
     
  18. kevinsinnott

    kevinsinnott Forum Coffeeologist

    Location:
    Chicago, IL USA
    I agree with your first point, that in the orchestra the sound can be quite Mercury-like. But, your second point, well, I just listened to Respighi's Ancient Airs and Dances on my Sony CDP-507ES, from that vintage and it sounded great to me. I do agree many players of the time would produce the effect you mentioned, just not all by any means.

    My recording engineer friend does not like the Mercury Sound, so it's really a matter of taste, but to me when they got it right, it's really fun to say the least.
     
  19. Trevor_Bartram

    Trevor_Bartram Senior Member

    Location:
    Boylston, MA, USA
    So could it be that when 35mm film recorders became available, with technically additional dynamic range, the Mercury engineers assumed they would get a 'better' recording by placing the microphones closer to the orchestra or instrument etc than they would have for tape, which resulted in the aggressive sound we hear on many 35mm recordings?
    Regards, Trevor.
     
  20. MLutthans

    MLutthans That's my spaghetti, Chewbacca! Staff

    I think it had to do strictly with the personal preference of Bob Fine. Somewhere on the interwebs (I'll try to find it for you), there is an interview with Harold Lawrence in which he mentions that Bob Fine preferred a closer-in sound than he (Harold Lawrence) did, so on titles where Bob Fine was not present, the sound will be a little less-close, or words to that effect.

    Matt
     
  21. kevinsinnott

    kevinsinnott Forum Coffeeologist

    Location:
    Chicago, IL USA
    Matt I went to the link you posted, (very good site too) and according to one interview, the European recordings done without Fine were also done faster, with more variable results (it was not a positive comment). I confess I have not always noted who engineered which discs, so I'll have to check my favorites. Sometimes the Mercury Sound is really in your face. My recording engineering pal says they were counting on vinyl wear to reduce the harsh high end.
     
  22. Steve Hoffman

    Steve Hoffman Your host Your Host

    No, not vinyl wear but they knew that the old record cutting process dulled the rasp a bit and the record players of the day dulled the sound even more.

    When the CD versions were done, I'm sorry to say, they didn't take any of that into account (same as some of those Audiophile Decca/London transfers) and didn't fix the overripe lower treble.

    Nonetheless, some of those Mercury CD and SACD disks are truly wonderful. Indispensable, actually.

    For example, this is the best, even with the occasional overload distortion. Should be in everyone's record collection, either the old CD version or the later SACD version. I have both plus the old mono LP and stereo LP from childhood. This is without a doubt the best Polovtsian Dances From 'Prince Igor' ever recorded:
     

    Attached Files:

  23. McLover

    McLover Senior Member

    Steve,

    You took the words right out of my mouth on that recording. The best ever made of Love For 3 Oranges and Coq D' Or. Sonically thrilling.
     
  24. Steve Hoffman

    Steve Hoffman Your host Your Host

    Wow, I looked on Amazon. The SACD is $100.00!

    What happened to $15.00?

    Yikes.
     
  25. yasujiro

    yasujiro Senior Member

    Location:
    tokyo
    The Firebird SACD is $144.95.:rolleyes:
     

Share This Page

molar-endocrine