Date:Tue, 10 Jul 2007 22:37:49 -0600
Reply-To:Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender:Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
<[log in to unmask]>
From:phillip holmes <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:Re: The 35mm fad and record ageing
Comments:To: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:<001601c7c364$cee4b730$6b01a8c0@TOMOFFICE>
Content-type:text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
I wondered why nearly every Everest LP I have is noisy. I assumed that
it was bad luck, not finding the good pressings yet. Is this a problem
with every pressing (1st, 2nd, etc...)? The later issues with the
orange label are awful, with bad tapes, bad mastering and bad vinyl.
The first pressings, especially the ones that have the wooden stick on
the end of the inner sleeve, have good mastering. But the background
noise is poor compared to Capitol even, where I also have had problems
finding a good pressing. Too bad they didn't get Piros to master and
RCA to press. The open reel tapes are very nice, even with the tape hiss.
Phillip
Tom Fine wrote:
> Hi Steve:
>
> A couple of points.
>
> First of all, Everest pioneered 35mm recording and their original
> belief and marketing tack was that it was a superior medium to tape --
> greater s/n and greater dynamics due to no saturation problems plus no
> print-thru problems (which apparently many labels had trouble with
> with classical recordings made on Scotch tapes in the 1950's --
> Mercury always used AudioTape and I don't recall hearing a lot of
> print-thru stories). I have heard many reports beyond yours about the
> poor quality of Everest vinyl. Indeed, one of the marketing hooks used
> by Vanguard when the Everest classical recording were first remastered
> to CD in the early 1990's what that finally fans could hear what they
> _really_ sound like vs. the poor-quality records. There was an
> interesting if somewhat fact-challenged article about the Everest
> remasters in Mix magazine in 1994. Lonn Henrichsen recently completed
> a 2-part history of Everest being published in a British audio/music
> magazine, name of course escapes me when I need it!
>
> As for editng 35mm masters, it's not as difficult as you might think.
> Remember the film moves at what amounts to 18 inches per second, so
> lining up sprocket holes was doable even to insert a percussion beat.
> The splices were straight-across so they were slightly more audible
> than angled tape splices, but some editors may have done custom cuts
> on an angle and the much lower background hiss mitigated most of the
> audibility. The original Everest studio setup used a Moviola table
> with 3-track magnetic heads according to Frayne's article. Mercury had
> an interesting custom rig -- an Ampex 300 transport with 2" custom
> guides and 3-track film-width heads and a custom-machined capstan
> motor "puck" so the thing moved film at 18 inches per second. The
> editor (Harold Lawrence) could then edit the film just like he was
> used to with 1/2" tape, the only difference being that splices need to
> line up vis-a-vis the sprocket holes -- and even in that case it
> didn't need to be super-precision because the Westrex film drive had
> small-diameter sprocket wheels and small sprocket teeth so it was
> forgiving on not-perfect splices and also on shrunken film. I'm not
> sure how Command did their editing, they might have inherited the
> Everest Moviola table.
>
> As I said in my original post, the number of music-recording studios
> was limited. As far as I know, aside from perhaps movie soundtracks
> not marketed as superior-sounding because they were made on 35mm, no
> Hollywood film soundstages were used for this recording fad.
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steven Smolian" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 10:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] The 35mm fad and record ageing
>
>
>
