Hi-Rez Highway: Water Lily Russian Recordings and turning the other cheek.... by music@waterlilyacoustics.com New high resolution SACD releases, players and technology.

For Sale Ads FAQ / News / Events

Posted by music@waterlilyacoustics.com (M ) on July 26, 2005 at 16:14:42

In Reply to: Re: Water Lily Russian Recordings and turning the other cheek.... posted by Chris from Lafayette on July 26, 2005 at 00:51:32:

Since the dog is still barking let me start by quoting from the Sufi tradition again: " The dog that ran between two wells, unable to decide which one to drink from, finaly died not of thirst but of exhaustion!".
In the very fine article publised in TAS by Michael Gray (issue 60, vol 14) on the Mercury sound, it is stated that when Mercury switched to stereo, Bob Fine used three Neumann U 47 tubes mikes. The very same mikes that today (though no longer made) are highly sought after by the Pop/rock studios for use as (mostly) vocal mikes. This is a fact, even though you do not get what I am trying to say. These mikes could be used either as cardioids or omnis (switchable!). The fact that Mercury used these mikes in the omni setting and current studio practice is to use it in the cardioid setting (not the case) dose in no way make what I have maintained incorrect. The very same model (U 47) mikes used by Mercury are also used today as a vocal mikes in the pop/rock studios, no matter what your stance.
Now, that very informative artical in TAS also gives the frequency responce of the U 47. They are 5db down at 50Hz, have a 5db dip between 2 and 4kHz and a 9db peak at 10kHz!!! THIS IS NOT A FLAT RESPONCE MIKE. If Mercury did not EQ, then the resulting recorings employing the U47 mikes will end up being highly colored. They do indeed sound highly colored (in spite of the EQ that I maintain was used) and if you want to belive that thses recordings are realistic, that is your problum. Yes, let us not forget, you are the one who is not bothered by a five foot long image of a violn! And you want to talk about realistic sound?! My objection to these recordings being touted as the holy grail is based on this fact (high degree of coloration) and the fact that they do not have stable imaging, due to the chosen mike technique. I have NEVER said they were BAD. I buy and enjoy them for what they do best: a "spectaculer" persentation of the sound with great dynamics. Unrealistic as hell, but exciting and fun.
At some point, Bob Fine switched from using the U 47 mikes to the Shoeps 201M, which also could be switched. This was used as the center mike and was flanked by a pair of Neumann KM 56s. Now, the responce of the 201M was better than that of a U 47, but still no cigar!. It was flat from 30Hz to 2kHz from whence is rose to a 7db(!) peak at 10kHz. As for the KM 56, no responce is given, but based on my knowledge (though admittedly small) of vintage Neumann tube mikes, I would say that they too had a responce similer to the U 47. So pundit, here is my question: if Mercury did not EQ the mikes which were far from flat, how can you tell me that these recordings are of reference quality? Look at the responce curve, 5db(!) down at 50Hz, a 5db(!) dip in the critical 2 to 4db region and a 9db(!) peak at 10kHZ. Or are you going to agree with me that EQ was indeed used during LP mastering, as I have maintained? The TAS artical says that EQ was indeed employed at the time of LP mastering. Keep in mind what happened to the dog mentioned above.
As for my comments about EMI, I admit that I may have not been clear, so I will state my case again: I prefer the EMI "house sound" to that of Murcury, RCA and Decca as it comes "closer to the real thing", IN COMPARISON to the "house sound" of the other three mentioned and NOT IN ABSOLUTE TERMS.
I need not waste my time doing a web search to find out who you are. Your postings reveal to me all that I need to know about you! Prattling opinions is not contributing to the enrichment and upliftment of the music lover. I mean significant contributions, like that which TAS has made, wherein music lovers can learn things of real value, such as the horrid sound of early digital, the real sonic difference between tubes /transistors and analog/digital, a discriptive language to express sonic colors and sound induced aural experiences, outright donations from add revenues to small record lables to further the art of recording and music, as well as the numerous articals about sound and music, such as the excellent series on Mercry, Decca, RCA and EMI.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---