Hi-Rez Highway: Re: Water Lily Russian Recordings and turning the other cheek.... by Chris from Lafayette New high resolution SACD releases, players and technology.

For Sale Ads FAQ / News / Events

Posted by Chris from Lafayette ( A ) on July 26, 2005 at 23:56:13

In Reply to: Water Lily Russian Recordings and turning the other cheek.... posted by music@waterlilyacoustics.com on July 26, 2005 at 16:14:42:

Well, folks, time for me to disengage.

Kavi and I are now going around in circles, rehashing the same claims and counterclaims. The trouble with engaging in discussion with a blowhard, prone to extravagant, reckless hyperbole, delivered with sneering, barely literate sarcasm, is that one has to be on guard not to descend into the same methods of argument or factual presentation. I admit I haven’t always avoided this descent myself, especially in yesterday’s posts – but I now caution myself to avoid these cheap techniques.

So, if I may summarize the post above:

Kavi presents a description of Mercury’s recording techniques based on information which he evidently read in a TAS article. My information is based on a published interview with Robert Eberenz as well as my conversation with Harold Lawrence – two folks who actually participated in the Mercury recording sessions (in fact, the only two who were present for all the Mercury stereo recording sessions – not Wilma, and not Bob). Some of Kavi’s information and my information are at odds. For another example of this, here’s another Eberenz quote concerning which microphones were actually used at the Mercury recording sessions: “. . . when we went to stereo, the U47 was the center mike and they filled on the left and right with the Telefunken 201 microphone. . . We used those and the Telefunken KM 56s. We tried those for awhile. Then, when we finally we got enough 201s, we used nothing but 201s thereafter.” So what I’d like to know is, where did TAS get its information? Where did Kavi get his information (if it was anything beyond the TAS article)? Can Kavi name just one pop diva who uses a 201 microphone? (And remember that I never said this was impossible, just that I’d be surprised.)

As for equalization, Kavi’s initial assertion that equalization was employed in Mercury recordings is clearly refuted by the Eberenz interview excerpt I posted yesterday. As for equalization for LP mastering, yes, I’ve never disputed that assertion since Kavi first proclaimed it. And of course, LP equalization has always been irrelevant to the subject at hand. (Remember, I was originally quoting from the CD booklet – I got rid of all my LP’s when the horrid sound of early digital first burst upon the scene.) Anyone, even would-be pundits, can check previous posts on these points.

I’ll skip the last two points in Kavi’s note.

So, Kavi, as the hippies say, it’s been real!

-Chris Salocks
(Take my opinions with a grain of salt – everything else being equal, I prefer DVD-Audio!)

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

Amplified Parts

---

[ 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 ]

---