Frantz-I think that you and I are more in agreement than disagreement. I for one don’t think that everything sounds great-quite the contrary. As for cutting lathes, I have no idea what their true maximum dynamic range is capable of. I wish someone like Doug Sax was on this forum and could enlighten us. I won’t pretend that I’m smart enough to understand how the geometry relates to the dynamic range in terms of dBs.
The Miracle of Analog Sound
- Thread starter mep
- Start date
Frantz-I think that you and I are more in agreement than disagreement. I for one don’t think that everything sounds great-quite the contrary. As for cutting lathes, I have no idea what their true maximum dynamic range is capable of. I wish someone like Doug Sax was on this forum and could enlighten us. I won’t pretend that I’m smart enough to understand how the geometry relates to the dynamic range in terms of dBs.
Why not try to reach out to him? Sometimes, folks are more than willing to contribute to a forum like this as long as it doesn't get ugly. I think you'd have to put the question to him cogently, and invite him to look at the thread before responding, and of course, he may not, but if the question is earnest and you are asking for information based on his experience, he may be willing to post a response.
Micro- I bought alot of the original Mercury's back in the 80's and early 90's and at that time, on the system i had, I found them too bright. After what is probably a 20 year hiatus, i pulled a couple of them out, and on my current system, they sounded absolutely spectacular. The Vienna recording in particular, although I'm not a big fan of atonal music.
Not in my system.
And I'll give you a major reason why the tapes can't sound the same. Not even better or worse. But not the same and that's because of effects of aging. You can really hear it in the upper octaves and loss of spaciality. So how can the CDs sound the same as the LPs that were cut within what a week of the recording. People like KOJ say the tapes change in a month.
The strings are still edgy on many Mercury recordings
A function of the mikes they used. OTOH, they have great dynamics (George Piros was a magician with the lathe and as Tom Fine added, highly sought after by all the labels), sense of space and low end. Mercuries give a more up front, front row perspective than say the RCA Living Stereos of the day. Some of my favorite Mercuries include Dorati's Firebird, Resphigi's Ancient Airs and Dances, Hovhaness's Symphony #4, Gould's Fall River Legends, Piston's Incredible Flutist, Music of the Civil War, etc. In addition, the Dupre organ recordings are also exceptional. Of course, much of the magic lies in finding the earliest pressing. Forget the Phillips remastered Golden Imports. They are as HP termed the RCA 0.5 series, 1/2 the music.Musically, who else championed American composers?
While I don't know definitively, I don't see why not. It's a function of the magnetic particles becoming demagnetized.
Record companies have limited the LP since Day 1. Just like digital recordings were mastered for boom boxes, LPs were mastered for the worst turntable. Of course everyone knows how RCA yanked Reiner's Pines of Rome off the shelves because the tables of the day couldn't handle it (that's why a 1S is the most desirable and rarest--and can play on today's tables!).
And those 20+ mins sides classical albums are pretty much always compressed sounding. In some cases, they were meant for two LPs; or in some remasterings, the LPs are now spread out over four sides
Yes indeed. Now if only he Classic single sided 45 series had a lower noise floor .....
Just want to throw something into the discussion here. We see a lot of talk about Digital's higher dynamic range because the numbers seem to be oh so impressive over analog. There is a difference however between theoretical DR over usable DR, being the noise floor on one end and its nature and system capability to exploit the upper limits in the other. Taking this and human hearing sensitivity where the midrange comprises the biggest bulk of what's "important" since it carries the bulk of information, we will find that the difference is NOT actually all that great.
Now before you ask me for proof, I've got to go to Church so will be logging off. For those in search of truth on the form of proof, please let your fingers do the walking. Google, Yahoo and Bing are your friends.
Now before you ask me for proof, I've got to go to Church so will be logging off. For those in search of truth on the form of proof, please let your fingers do the walking. Google, Yahoo and Bing are your friends.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |