Date:Fri, 11 Nov 2005 13:57:34 -0500
Reply-To:Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender:Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
<[log in to unmask]>
From:"Richard L. Hess" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:[Fwd: RE: [ARSCLIST] Coronation Recordings [3]]
Comments:To: [log in to unmask]Content-Type:text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
I received this from Rod and am following his request.
Hello Richard,
Since the changing of servers, I've been unable to post this email to
ARSCLIST and until I can query the Association directly regarding my
status, could/would you post this (below) for me?
Thanks,
Rod Stephens
>-------- Original Message --------
>Subject: RE: [ARSCLIST] Coronation Recordings [3]
>Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 01:15:30 -0800
>From: Rod Stephens <mailto:[log in to unmask]><[log in to unmask]>
>Organization: Stephens Audio Video Enteprises (S.A.V.E.)
>To: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
><mailto:[log in to unmask]><[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>Hello All,
>
>I hope that this will finally be posted; I've tried a number of
>times, but hasn't come up. I hope it's just a matter of changing
>servers. I wish Peter and myself good luck.
>
>Peter and I have been having an off list conversation about the 1953
>(got the year right this time) Coronation of Queen Elizabeth and his
>attempt to create a stereo version from the multiple audio sources
>recorded at that time. I asked his permission to share it, since
>his insight into the process has historical significance.
>
>Rod Stephens
>
>-------- Original Message --------
>Subject: RE: Coronation Recordings [3]
>Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 15:39:36 +0100
>From: Copeland, Peter <mailto:[log in to unmask]><[log in to unmask]>
>To: Rod Stephens <mailto:[log in to unmask]><[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>Due to more mismanagement of my time, I'm now back in the British
>Library Sound Archive two days after reading and replying to your
>message! If you really think ARSC members will appreciate it, I have
>no objection to your posting it; I have now "slept on what I wrote",
>and can find no objections. The only new can of worms is that I know
>EMI (or whatever it's called this week) have published the
>Coronation recording on CD, probably a double album. So far I
>haven't managed to pick up a copy.
>
>Best wishes, Peter
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Rod Stephens
>[<mailto:[log in to unmask]>mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: 25 October 2005 18:39
>To: Copeland, Peter
>Subject: Re: Coronation Recordings [3]
>
>
>
> > Copeland, Peter wrote:
> >
> > Dear Rod,
> >
> > After the lapse of nearly a month and a few seconds' further
> work on my project, I can say the following about how the
> Coronation was recorded.
> >
> > E.M.I made their own professional tape recorders. The
> Coronation was right across the changeover between their BTR1 and
> BTR2 machines.
> >
> > The only experience I have of a BRT1 was when I started
> working for an outfit called The Christian Broadcasting Commission
> in Liss (near the county borders of Hampshire, Sussex and Surrey).
> That organisation had been given some tons (literally) of recording
> and other audio equipment, which the BBC had found redundant.
> >
> > There's no doubt that when everything worked well, the BTR1
> could get the most out of contemporary recording tape. But it was a
> pig to set up, because (a) it was an oxide-out machine, and (b)
> because the preset screwdriver adjustments for setting the H.F
> (say), altered the gain at 1kHz, so you needed an oscillator which
> could switch between two frequency bands, and switch it once a
> second or so, to get the response flat!
> >
> > This may have been okay for the senior engineers at EMI
> Studios; but everyone else was pleased when the BTR2 came along.
> I'm prepared to admit it may have been *over*engineered! But its
> advantage for radio work was that if any one valve (U.S. "bottle")
> started failing, you were given switches to find out which one it
> was. And I had to pass a "simulated emergency" test at the BBC when
> I did my first engineering exam there in 1961.
> >
> > I would guess that when EMI recorded from their landline,
> they would have used two pairs of BTRs, one from each landline. By
> 1953 the CCIR characteristics for audio tape (at 15ips and 30ips)
> were in use everywhere in Europe (except the UK Decca Record
> Company, who had to "talk to" US Decca).
> >
> > At Westminster Abbey, the BBC would have been on-site (in the
> vestry) using OBA/8 amplifiers. This was a wonderful Outside
> Broadcast Amplifier, with one gain-block about a foot each way and
> nineteen inches wide, and a very sophisticated "main gain" control
> (a stud fader) which also altered the feedback. So the thing could
> handle dynamic ranges of anything between zero-level and about
> -95dB with respect to the Post Office landline level, which was
> 0.775v RMS into 600 ohms. I used to own an OBA/8, but have just
> donated mine to the official BBC museum!
> >
> > The OBA/8 was preceded by any number of passive mixers called
> MX/18s, which put series stud-resistances into passive mike cables,
> and actual practical mixing (in this case little more than changing
> from one mike to another) would be done on the MX/18s.
> >
> > There were four pots on each MX/18, and I would guess the
> Coronation would have needed about six or seven MX/18s for all the
> mikes, two feeding two OBA/8s. Two mikes would have been rigged at
> each location, each fed to an MX/18 by different cables (no
> multicore in those days).
> >
> > Also everything downstream was in duplicate. There would be
> two "music lines" (high fidelity analogue phone lines) and two
> "control lines" (telephone lines so that the location engineers and
> the Broadcasting House staff could keep in contact). The OBA/8 had
> switches so that if a fault developed in either the music line or
> the control line (on an ordinary broadcast), they could be swopped.
> >
> > But this wasn't an ordinary broadcast! The sound was also fed
> to the infant BBC Television Service (through something called a
> Trap Valve Amplifier), a zero-gain device which would effectively
> insulate the audio kit from anything television might do!
> >
> > All the mikes would have been passive. (There was nothing in
> those days which had a "head amplifier".)
> >
> > Most outside broadcasts were done with omnidirectional
> moving-coils, and most of these were British-made versions of
> American mikes. (We called one "the apple-and-biscuit" or the S. T.
> & C 4021, whereas I believe you call the same mike "the
> high-ball"). It is just possible the BBC-designed AXBT ribbon mike
> would have been used for the orchestral sound. This was a
> development of the original RCA ribbon made by Marconi in England,
> and it had just been re-engineered with higher-energy magnets. The
> resulting combination of the mike (called an "AXBT") and the OBA/8
> had the best power-bandwidth product of any audio system at that time.
> >
> > I consider it extremely unlikely that any "cutters" were
> used, not even for current-affairs work. But here is a diversion: I
> went to the BBC External Services at Bush House when I joined, and
> disc recording still accounted for about half the recording work
> there, because you could *see* the sound on the disc, and pick bits
> out! It is always possible that something like the Malay Service
> would have used discs for the Coronation. Remember, Malaysia was
> part of the British Empire at that time!
> >
> > But to answer your implied question : E.M.I transferred from
> tape to disc using Scully lathes, with either Westen Electric 2A
> cutterheads or with the weird RCA head with its sacrificial
> overloading system (to compensate the non-linearity in the
> armature). The BBC transferred the tape using its dreadful Type D
> machines, which had been developed rather hurredly for the 1951
> Festival of Britain. (The American Presto machines were much
> better, but they were never mentioned in cases of national pride).
> I actually used the Coronation recordings to research my IRSC paper
> on the BBC's equalisation practices!
> >
> > As for 50Hz mains hum, I doubt it would ever happen. 10125Hz
> from television linescan maybe; but 50Hz hum would be almost
> impossible with that kit.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Peter
> >
> > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>**************************************************************************
>
>Experience the British Library online at <http://www.bl.uk>www.bl.uk
>
>Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a
>Book. <http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook>www.bl.uk/adoptabook
>
>The Library's St Pancras site is WiFI - enabled
>
>**************************************************************************
>
>The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be
>legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you
>are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify
>the <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask] : The contents of this
>e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent.
>
>The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of
>the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British
>Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for
>the views of the author.
>
>**************************************************************************
>
Richard L. Hess [log in to unmask]
Aurora, Ontario, Canada http://www.richardhess.com/
Detailed contact information: http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm
