Aulos' remastering of Kondrashin's Shostakovich recordings

[Michael Schaffer]

On the eve of the re-release of the Kondrashin recordings of the
Shostakovich symphonies on Melodiya, I would like to rekindle the
discussion about the Aulos release, specifically the sound quality, or
rather, the quality of the remastering.

I listened to these quite a bit recently, and found that while Aulos
cleaned up the recordings throughly and nicely, they really went too
far and also seriously affected the sound - or whatever is left of that
on the master tapes.

I find the hiss levels *suspiciously* low and it appears to me that
they "cleaned up" rather too vigorously, compromising whatever is left
of the original sound on the tapes in order to make it as "clean" as
possible.

I understand they are still much better than earlier CD releases.
However, since we all know that the original recordings have aged quite
a bit, I would actually prefer a less aggressively "plastic surgery"
transfer and remastering approach than what Aulos did.

[m***@comcast.net]

Post by Michael Schaffer
On the eve of the re-release of the Kondrashin recordings of the
Shostakovich symphonies on Melodiya, I would like to rekindle the
discussion about the Aulos release, specifically the sound quality, or
rather, the quality of the remastering.
I listened to these quite a bit recently, and found that while Aulos
cleaned up the recordings throughly and nicely, they really went too
far and also seriously affected the sound - or whatever is left of that
on the master tapes.
I find the hiss levels *suspiciously* low and it appears to me that
they "cleaned up" rather too vigorously, compromising whatever is left
of the original sound on the tapes in order to make it as "clean" as
possible.
I understand they are still much better than earlier CD releases.
However, since we all know that the original recordings have aged quite
a bit, I would actually prefer a less aggressively "plastic surgery"
transfer and remastering approach than what Aulos did.

Are you saying that Aulos reduced the "bloom" of these recordings to
minimize tape hiss? I'm not saying I disagree with you, but could you
provide a couple of examples of specific tracks? My impression of the
set is that Aulos was quite successful in taming the coarseness that I
heard in BMG/Melodiya's prior attempt, without compromising the
original recordings. I have no idea what shape the original tapes are
in.

Marc Perman

[Michael Schaffer]

Post by m***@comcast.net

Post by Michael Schaffer
On the eve of the re-release of the Kondrashin recordings of the
Shostakovich symphonies on Melodiya, I would like to rekindle the
discussion about the Aulos release, specifically the sound quality, or
rather, the quality of the remastering.
I listened to these quite a bit recently, and found that while Aulos
cleaned up the recordings throughly and nicely, they really went too
far and also seriously affected the sound - or whatever is left of that
on the master tapes.
I find the hiss levels *suspiciously* low and it appears to me that
they "cleaned up" rather too vigorously, compromising whatever is left
of the original sound on the tapes in order to make it as "clean" as
possible.
I understand they are still much better than earlier CD releases.
However, since we all know that the original recordings have aged quite
a bit, I would actually prefer a less aggressively "plastic surgery"
transfer and remastering approach than what Aulos did.Are you saying that Aulos reduced the "bloom" of these recordings to

minimize tape hiss? I'm not saying I disagree with you, but could you
provide a couple of examples of specific tracks? My impression of the
set is that Aulos was quite successful in taming the coarseness that I
heard in BMG/Melodiya's prior attempt, without compromising the
original recordings. I have no idea what shape the original tapes are
in.
Marc Perman

Neither do I, of course, but I find the extremely low level of tape
hiss in, for instance, the 8th symphony, very suspicous. If you listen
to the string sound in, say, the 4th movement, it does sound to me like
somebody denoised there *massively*. I find it hard to describe, but
the higher strings have that somehow "plasticky" sound and the lower
strings that featureless sound, lacking in any kind of sonority. The
sonority of the lower strings is defined by soft, but distinct
overtones in the mid and higher ranges (that slight, but distinctive
zzzzz buzz the basses make, for isntance). That is usally covered up
when the higher strings play as well, but also usually audible in more
open lower string passages, even on recordings of that vintage. Not so
here. These fineties often fall victim to aggressive denoising.

[m***@comcast.net]

Post by Michael Schaffer
Neither do I, of course, but I find the extremely low level of tape
hiss in, for instance, the 8th symphony, very suspicous. If you listen
to the string sound in, say, the 4th movement, it does sound to me like
somebody denoised there *massively*. I find it hard to describe, but
the higher strings have that somehow "plasticky" sound and the lower
strings that featureless sound, lacking in any kind of sonority. The
sonority of the lower strings is defined by soft, but distinct
overtones in the mid and higher ranges (that slight, but distinctive
zzzzz buzz the basses make, for isntance). That is usally covered up
when the higher strings play as well, but also usually audible in more
open lower string passages, even on recordings of that vintage. Not so
here. These fineties often fall victim to aggressive denoising.

It's hard to listen to this movement with a critical ear toward the
sound when the playing is
so magnificent. I don't detect any massive denoising - the basses are
somewhat recessed, but
the violins sound bright enough, as do the woodwinds that begin around
4.05 into the movement.
I really need to listen to this cycle all over again to fairly comment
on the Aulos sound, but based
on some random sampling it's way, way better than what BMG/Melodiya did
with the sound.

Marc Perman

[tomdeacon]

Post by m***@comcast.net
It's hard to listen to this movement with a critical ear toward the
sound when the playing is so magnificent.

Precisely.

The rest is simply bla bla bla. Sound and fury signifying nothing.

The music is the point and you have got it.

TD

[tomdeacon]

Post by m***@comcast.net

Post by Michael Schaffer
On the eve of the re-release of the Kondrashin recordings of the
Shostakovich symphonies on Melodiya, I would like to rekindle the
discussion about the Aulos release, specifically the sound quality, or
rather, the quality of the remastering.
I listened to these quite a bit recently, and found that while Aulos
cleaned up the recordings throughly and nicely, they really went too
far and also seriously affected the sound - or whatever is left of that
on the master tapes.
I find the hiss levels *suspiciously* low and it appears to me that
they "cleaned up" rather too vigorously, compromising whatever is left
of the original sound on the tapes in order to make it as "clean" as
possible.
I understand they are still much better than earlier CD releases.
However, since we all know that the original recordings have aged quite
a bit, I would actually prefer a less aggressively "plastic surgery"
transfer and remastering approach than what Aulos did.

Are you saying that Aulos reduced the "bloom" of these recordings to
minimize tape hiss? I'm not saying I disagree with you, but could you
provide a couple of examples of specific tracks? My impression of the
set is that Aulos was quite successful in taming the coarseness that I
heard in BMG/Melodiya's prior attempt, without compromising the
original recordings. I have no idea what shape the original tapes are
in.

Nor does Mr. Schaeffer.

Nor does anyone who has not heard them.

It is astonishing that Mr. Schaeffer is suspicious of the sound quality
not because of what he HEARS, but rather what he doesn't hear, i.e.
tape hiss.

TD

[m***@comcast.net]

Post by tomdeacon

Post by m***@comcast.net

Post by Michael Schaffer
On the eve of the re-release of the Kondrashin recordings of the
Shostakovich symphonies on Melodiya, I would like to rekindle the
discussion about the Aulos release, specifically the sound quality, or
rather, the quality of the remastering.
I listened to these quite a bit recently, and found that while Aulos
cleaned up the recordings throughly and nicely, they really went too
far and also seriously affected the sound - or whatever is left of that
on the master tapes.
I find the hiss levels *suspiciously* low and it appears to me that
they "cleaned up" rather too vigorously, compromising whatever is left
of the original sound on the tapes in order to make it as "clean" as
possible.
I understand they are still much better than earlier CD releases.
However, since we all know that the original recordings have aged quite
a bit, I would actually prefer a less aggressively "plastic surgery"
transfer and remastering approach than what Aulos did.

Are you saying that Aulos reduced the "bloom" of these recordings to
minimize tape hiss? I'm not saying I disagree with you, but could you
provide a couple of examples of specific tracks? My impression of the
set is that Aulos was quite successful in taming the coarseness that I
heard in BMG/Melodiya's prior attempt, without compromising the
original recordings. I have no idea what shape the original tapes are
in.

Nor does Mr. Schaeffer.
Nor does anyone who has not heard them.
It is astonishing that Mr. Schaeffer is suspicious of the sound quality
not because of what he HEARS, but rather what he doesn't hear, i.e.
tape hiss.

Your rearrangement of Mr. Schaffer's post resembles a scientific report
on global warming after the Bush administration has gotten hold of it.
He was quite clear about what he hears:

If you listen
to the string sound in, say, the 4th movement, it does sound to me like

somebody denoised there *massively*. I find it hard to describe, but
the higher strings have that somehow "plasticky" sound and the lower
strings that featureless sound, lacking in any kind of sonority. The
sonority of the lower strings is defined by soft, but distinct
overtones in the mid and higher ranges (that slight, but distinctive
zzzzz buzz the basses make, for isntance). That is usally covered up
when the higher strings play as well, but also usually audible in more
open lower string passages, even on recordings of that vintage. Not so
here. These fineties often fall victim to aggressive denoising.

He wasn't criticizing the EMI Schnabel Beethoven transfers that you're
so fond of, so why the rancor?

Marc Perman

[Michael Schaffer]

Post by m***@comcast.net

Post by tomdeacon

Post by m***@comcast.net

Post by Michael Schaffer
On the eve of the re-release of the Kondrashin recordings of the
Shostakovich symphonies on Melodiya, I would like to rekindle the
discussion about the Aulos release, specifically the sound quality, or
rather, the quality of the remastering.
I listened to these quite a bit recently, and found that while Aulos
cleaned up the recordings throughly and nicely, they really went too
far and also seriously affected the sound - or whatever is left of that
on the master tapes.
I find the hiss levels *suspiciously* low and it appears to me that
they "cleaned up" rather too vigorously, compromising whatever is left
of the original sound on the tapes in order to make it as "clean" as
possible.
I understand they are still much better than earlier CD releases.
However, since we all know that the original recordings have aged quite
a bit, I would actually prefer a less aggressively "plastic surgery"
transfer and remastering approach than what Aulos did.

Are you saying that Aulos reduced the "bloom" of these recordings to
minimize tape hiss? I'm not saying I disagree with you, but could you
provide a couple of examples of specific tracks? My impression of the
set is that Aulos was quite successful in taming the coarseness that I
heard in BMG/Melodiya's prior attempt, without compromising the
original recordings. I have no idea what shape the original tapes are
in.

Nor does Mr. Schaeffer.
Nor does anyone who has not heard them.
It is astonishing that Mr. Schaeffer is suspicious of the sound quality
not because of what he HEARS, but rather what he doesn't hear, i.e.
tape hiss.Your rearrangement of Mr. Schaffer's post resembles a scientific report

on global warming after the Bush administration has gotten hold of it.
If you listen
to the string sound in, say, the 4th movement, it does sound to me like
somebody denoised there *massively*. I find it hard to describe, but
the higher strings have that somehow "plasticky" sound and the lower
strings that featureless sound, lacking in any kind of sonority. The
sonority of the lower strings is defined by soft, but distinct
overtones in the mid and higher ranges (that slight, but distinctive
zzzzz buzz the basses make, for isntance). That is usally covered up
when the higher strings play as well, but also usually audible in more
open lower string passages, even on recordings of that vintage. Not so
here. These fineties often fall victim to aggressive denoising.
He wasn't criticizing the EMI Schnabel Beethoven transfers that you're
so fond of, so why the rancor?
Marc Perman

Well, you know that he has gone off the deep end a long time ago, and
remember, he can't even tell the difference between major orchestras
with clearly distinct sound, so this discussion about sound quality is
definitely not something he can contribute to.
Did you get a chance to listen and check some of these recordings, for
instance the 8th symphony passages I was referring to?

[tomdeacon]

Post by Michael Schaffer
Did you get a chance to listen and check some of these recordings, for
instance the 8th symphony passages I was referring to?

You mean: "Did you hear what wasn't there? i.e. the tape hiss?"

HA HA HA HA

What a load of rubbish!

TD

[Michael Schaffer]

Post by tomdeacon

Post by Michael Schaffer
Did you get a chance to listen and check some of these recordings, for
instance the 8th symphony passages I was referring to?You mean: "Did you hear what wasn't there? i.e. the tape hiss?"

HA HA HA HA
What a load of rubbish!
TD

You may not have known that since you obviously have no knowledge of
recording technology and history, but recordings from that type usually
had what people call "tape hiss". On recordings of that vintage, it is
usually very audible. I believe even you should be able to hear it.
When you hear a recording from that time and there is a very low hiss
level, you know it has been denoised. Denoising however often cuts out
parts of the actual music signal since that can not be entirely
separated from the background noise. Recordings which have received
such treatment too aggressively often display the sonic characteristics
such as I have described in my earlier post. I was asking Mr Perman if
he had heard the discolorations of string sound I descriebed there.
Again, you may not understand what we are talking about, but I thought
maybe if I explain it to you, you could learn something.
BTW, can you tell instruments apart? We know you can't tell orchestras
apart. Can you tell, say, a violin from a clarinet? If you actually
know what these are in the first place.

[tomdeacon]

Post by Michael Schaffer

Post by tomdeacon

Post by Michael Schaffer
Did you get a chance to listen and check some of these recordings, for
instance the 8th symphony passages I was referring to?You mean: "Did you hear what wasn't there? i.e. the tape hiss?"

HA HA HA HA
What a load of rubbish!
TD

You may not have known that since you obviously have no knowledge of
recording technology and history, but recordings from that type usually
had what people call "tape hiss".

Having spent the better part of a quarter century with analogue tape
recorders, I think I can speak about the presence or absence of "tape
hiss".

Since you don't HAVE the mastertapes, you can make absolutely no
judgment about the tape hiss or lack of tape hiss on these particular
recordings.

End of story, really, until you do acquire those mastertapes.

In the meantime, stop fantasizing about the absence of tape hiss and
start listening to Maestro Kondrashin's performances. You might learn
something about the music.

TD

[Michael Schaffer]

Post by tomdeacon

Post by Michael Schaffer

Post by tomdeacon

Post by Michael Schaffer
Did you get a chance to listen and check some of these recordings, for
instance the 8th symphony passages I was referring to?You mean: "Did you hear what wasn't there? i.e. the tape hiss?"

HA HA HA HA
What a load of rubbish!
TD

You may not have known that since you obviously have no knowledge of
recording technology and history, but recordings from that type usually
had what people call "tape hiss".Having spent the better part of a quarter century with analogue tape

recorders, I think I can speak about the presence or absence of "tape
hiss".
Since you don't HAVE the mastertapes, you can make absolutely no
judgment about the tape hiss or lack of tape hiss on these particular
recordings.

So you think they had tape machines with such a low hiss level in the
USSR in the early 60s?
Plus, you can hear the way the denoising has afected the actual musical
signal.
Or rather, one can hear that. You probably can't.

Post by tomdeacon
End of story, really, until you do acquire those mastertapes.
In the meantime, stop fantasizing about the absence of tape hiss and
start listening to Maestro Kondrashin's performances. You might learn
something about the music.

There is a lot we all can learn from Kondrashin, about this and other
music. That is why we listen to his recordings.
But that has nothing to do with the discussion about the way these
recordings are manipulated and presented in different releases.

Post by tomdeacon
TD

[tomdeacon]

Post by Michael Schaffer
There is a lot we all can learn from Kondrashin, about this and other
music. That is why we listen to his recordings.

Good. So start listening and sharing those insights with others,
instead of myopically straining our faculties by concentrating on the
existence or non-existence of tape hiss!!!

Post by Michael Schaffer
But that has nothing to do with the discussion about the way these recordings are manipulated and presented in different releases.

The discussion is futile, as you don't have the originals.

TD

[M***@gmail.com]

Post by tomdeacon
Having spent the better part of a quarter century with analogue tape
recorders, I think I can speak about the presence or absence of "tape
hiss".

When you and Schaffer speak, I know I am in the presence of tape hiss.

I'd CEDAR the pair of you ifI could.

[tomdeacon]

Post by M***@gmail.com

Post by tomdeacon
Having spent the better part of a quarter century with analogue tape
recorders, I think I can speak about the presence or absence of "tape
hiss".

When you and Schaffer speak, I know I am in the presence of tape hiss.
I'd CEDAR the pair of you ifI could.

LOL!

The first good comment to come in this entire thread.

TD

[TareeDawg]

<***@comcast.net> wrote in message news:***@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...


Where is the best place to get this Aulos set?

Ray H
Taree, NSW

[Michael Schaffer]

Post by TareeDawg
Where is the best place to get this Aulos set?
Ray H
Taree, NSW

I think your best bet is probably ebay. You can always buy them from
russianDVD.com, but they are a healthy $99.99. Sometimes better deals
pop up on ebay. Right now, there is one for $39.99 (excl. shipping, of
course), but there are 2 days left, so the price will probably go up.

[TareeDawg]

Post by Michael Schaffer

Post by TareeDawg
Where is the best place to get this Aulos set?
Ray H
Taree, NSW

I think your best bet is probably ebay. You can always buy them from
russianDVD.com, but they are a healthy $99.99. Sometimes better deals
pop up on ebay. Right now, there is one for $39.99 (excl. shipping, of
course), but there are 2 days left, so the price will probably go up.

Thanks. I'll think I will stick with my Barshai and Haitink sets for the
time being. I have heard Kondrashin in 8 and 10. Pretty awesome stuff, but
then Barshai and Haitink, in their own way, have much to say. Plus Previn in
4, Ormandy in 4 and 10, and I doubt whether anyone will match Klemp's Turin
recording of the 9th. Absolutely fantastic first movement.

Ray H
Taree, NSW

[Michael Schaffer]

Post by TareeDawg

Post by Michael Schaffer

Post by TareeDawg
Where is the best place to get this Aulos set?
Ray H
Taree, NSW

I think your best bet is probably ebay. You can always buy them from
russianDVD.com, but they are a healthy $99.99. Sometimes better deals
pop up on ebay. Right now, there is one for $39.99 (excl. shipping, of
course), but there are 2 days left, so the price will probably go up.Thanks. I'll think I will stick with my Barshai and Haitink sets for the

time being. I have heard Kondrashin in 8 and 10. Pretty awesome stuff, but
then Barshai and Haitink, in their own way, have much to say. Plus Previn in
4, Ormandy in 4 and 10, and I doubt whether anyone will match Klemp's Turin
recording of the 9th. Absolutely fantastic first movement.
Ray H
Taree, NSW

I would wait for comprehensive feedback about the new Melodiya box
release, especially since that also contains "Stepan Razin" (finally!).
As you can see from this thread, I wasn't too happy about what appears
to me to be very aggressive cosmetical surgery by the Aulotes - if the
Melodiya issue is just carefully transferred from the masters without
attempting to "upgrade" the sound like they did with Kondrashin's
Mahler recordings (I mean transferring without doctoring around), that
might actually be better. I think old recordings, like old people,
should be allowed to age gracefully.

[tomdeacon]

I think old recordings, like old people, should be allowed to age gracefully.

HA HA HA HA HA

There is nothing graceful about the ageing process.

TD

[Handel8]

Post by Michael Schaffer
I would wait for comprehensive feedback about the new Melodiya box
release, especially since that also contains "Stepan Razin" (finally!).
As you can see from this thread, I wasn't too happy about what appears
to me to be very aggressive cosmetical surgery by the Aulotes - if the
Melodiya issue is just carefully transferred from the masters without
attempting to "upgrade" the sound like they did with Kondrashin's
Mahler recordings (I mean transferring without doctoring around), that
might actually be better. I think old recordings, like old people,
should be allowed to age gracefully.

When is this new version coming out ? And where did you see the
information ? I see a 10 cd set on Melodyia listed on the MusicaBona
site:
http://www.musicabona.com/catalog/AMC2-043.html.en

No release date is given and no Stephen Razin, either. Please advise.
Price is a bit stiff IMO. I don't see it listed yet at the two major
British dealers I use, Crotchet and MDT. I would guess it would show
up in Japan and maybe RussianDVD first.

Alan Prichard

[Johannes Roehl]

Post by Handel8

Post by Michael Schaffer
I would wait for comprehensive feedback about the new Melodiya box
release, especially since that also contains "Stepan Razin" (finally!).
As you can see from this thread, I wasn't too happy about what appears
to me to be very aggressive cosmetical surgery by the Aulotes - if the
Melodiya issue is just carefully transferred from the masters without
attempting to "upgrade" the sound like they did with Kondrashin's
Mahler recordings (I mean transferring without doctoring around), that
might actually be better. I think old recordings, like old people,
should be allowed to age gracefully.

When is this new version coming out ? And where did you see the
information ?

have a look e.g. here:

http://www.jpc.de/jpcng/classic/detail/-/hnum/5169830
http://www.jpc.de/jpcng/classic/detail/-/lang/en/currency/GBP/hnum/5169830

HTH


JR

[Michael Schaffer]

Post by Handel8

Post by Michael Schaffer
I would wait for comprehensive feedback about the new Melodiya box
release, especially since that also contains "Stepan Razin" (finally!).
As you can see from this thread, I wasn't too happy about what appears
to me to be very aggressive cosmetical surgery by the Aulotes - if the
Melodiya issue is just carefully transferred from the masters without
attempting to "upgrade" the sound like they did with Kondrashin's
Mahler recordings (I mean transferring without doctoring around), that
might actually be better. I think old recordings, like old people,
should be allowed to age gracefully.

When is this new version coming out ? And where did you see the

http://www.jpc.de/jpcng/classic/detail/-/hnum/5169830http://www.jpc.de/jpcng/classic/detail/-/lang/en/currency/GBP/hnum/51...
HTH
JR
--
"Next to the ridicule of denying an evident truth, is that of taking
much pains to defend it." (David Hume)

Or here:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Cond-Kondrashin-Shostakovich-sym-1-15-11-CDs-box_W0QQitemZ230051172937QQihZ013QQcategoryZ307QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem?hash=item230051172937

http://cgi.ebay.com/KONDRASHIN-Shostakovich-Symphonies-1-15-11CD-BOX-MEL_W0QQitemZ110055759629QQihZ001QQcategoryZ307QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem?hash=item110055759629

Probably available soon for less from more sources. The box Handel8
found is probably the Aulos one - it says Melodiya in the description
but shows the Aulos cover. The price is indeed outrageous. You can get
it for $99.99 from russianDVD and maybe for less on ebay, amazon
sellers etc.

[Handel8]

Post by Michael Schaffer

Post by Handel8

Post by Michael Schaffer
I would wait for comprehensive feedback about the new Melodiya box
release, especially since that also contains "Stepan Razin" (finally!).
As you can see from this thread, I wasn't too happy about what appears
to me to be very aggressive cosmetical surgery by the Aulotes - if the
Melodiya issue is just carefully transferred from the masters without
attempting to "upgrade" the sound like they did with Kondrashin's
Mahler recordings (I mean transferring without doctoring around), that
might actually be better. I think old recordings, like old people,
should be allowed to age gracefully.

When is this new version coming out ? And where did you see the

http://www.jpc.de/jpcng/classic/detail/-/hnum/5169830http://www.jpc.de/jpcng/classic/detail/-/lang/en/currency/GBP/hnum/51...
HTH
JR
--
"Next to the ridicule of denying an evident truth, is that of taking
much pains to defend it." (David Hume)

http://cgi.ebay.com/Cond-Kondrashin-Shostakovich-sym-1-15-11-CDs-box_W0QQitemZ230051172937QQihZ013QQcategoryZ307QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem?hash=item230051172937
http://cgi.ebay.com/KONDRASHIN-Shostakovich-Symphonies-1-15-11CD-BOX-MEL_W0QQitemZ110055759629QQihZ001QQcategoryZ307QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem?hash=item110055759629
Probably available soon for less from more sources. The box Handel8
found is probably the Aulos one - it says Melodiya in the description
but shows the Aulos cover. The price is indeed outrageous. You can get
it for $99.99 from russianDVD and maybe for less on ebay, amazon
sellers etc.

Thanks for clearing that up for me. The price is not bad I must say.
I wonder how the packaging is. I got the new version of the Shostie
quartets on Melodyia from MDT and it came in the flimsiest paper box I
have ever seen for a multi cd set ! The art work was wonderful, but
the box itself was incredibly cheap ! They did re-arrange the set to
have the quartets in more or less numerical order, which I like better
than the way they had it before on the older sets. The older set I
have is the EMI box set from about 1993 IIRC.

Alan Prichard

[Steve de Mena]

Post by Handel8

Post by Michael Schaffer
I would wait for comprehensive feedback about the new Melodiya box
release, especially since that also contains "Stepan Razin" (finally!).
As you can see from this thread, I wasn't too happy about what appears
to me to be very aggressive cosmetical surgery by the Aulotes - if the
Melodiya issue is just carefully transferred from the masters without
attempting to "upgrade" the sound like they did with Kondrashin's
Mahler recordings (I mean transferring without doctoring around), that
might actually be better. I think old recordings, like old people,
should be allowed to age gracefully.

When is this new version coming out ? And where did you see the
information ? I see a 10 cd set on Melodyia listed on the MusicaBona
http://www.musicabona.com/catalog/AMC2-043.html.en
No release date is given and no Stephen Razin, either. Please advise.
Price is a bit stiff IMO. I don't see it listed yet at the two major
British dealers I use, Crotchet and MDT. I would guess it would show
up in Japan and maybe RussianDVD first.
Alan Prichard

I believe this is the new Melodiya issue, with
Stepan Razin:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/ygo79f

Steve

[m***@comcast.net]

Post by Michael Schaffer

Post by TareeDawg
Where is the best place to get this Aulos set?
Ray H
Taree, NSW

I think your best bet is probably ebay. You can always buy them from
russianDVD.com, but they are a healthy $99.99. Sometimes better deals
pop up on ebay. Right now, there is one for $39.99 (excl. shipping, of
course), but there are 2 days left, so the price will probably go up.

Kondrashin's Shostakovich cycle is also on Venezia, available from
Japanese sources for around $50 USD. I haven't heard it, but Venezia
has done a fine job on Kondrashin's Mahler.

Marc Perman

[rkhalona]

Post by Michael Schaffer
On the eve of the re-release of the Kondrashin recordings of the
Shostakovich symphonies on Melodiya, I would like to rekindle the
discussion about the Aulos release, specifically the sound quality, or
rather, the quality of the remastering.
I listened to these quite a bit recently, and found that while Aulos
cleaned up the recordings throughly and nicely, they really went too
far and also seriously affected the sound - or whatever is left of that
on the master tapes.
I find the hiss levels *suspiciously* low and it appears to me that
they "cleaned up" rather too vigorously, compromising whatever is left
of the original sound on the tapes in order to make it as "clean" as
possible.
I understand they are still much better than earlier CD releases.
However, since we all know that the original recordings have aged quite
a bit, I would actually prefer a less aggressively "plastic surgery"
transfer and remastering approach than what Aulos did.

Can you tell us where, in the Aulos set, you think too much denoising
has been applied?
I can compare those passages since I have both the early BMG/Melodiya
and Aulos sets.
IIRC, the Melodiya set used the "No-Noise" process, which could be
pretty brutal in terms of removing higher frequency content (a
miserable example of this is the recording of Kondrashin's Symphonic
Dances by Rachmaninoff where even a cassette sounded better). Being
familiar with both sets, I think Aulos did very well, but I can help
you make the comparison.
BTW, you probably know that the 4th symphony is in STEREO in the Aulos
set, whereas the BMG/Melodiya set put it out in MONO. I wonder what it
will be in the new Melodiya set.

RK

[tomdeacon]

Post by rkhalona
BTW, you probably know that the 4th symphony is in STEREO in the Aulos
set, whereas the BMG/Melodiya set put it out in MONO. I wonder what it
will be in the new Melodiya set.

In mono with added tape hiss, just so Mr. Schaeffer feels he is
listening to an old tape.

TD

[Michael Schaffer]

Post by rkhalona
Can you tell us where, in the Aulos set, you think too much denoising
has been applied?
I can compare those passages since I have both the early BMG/Melodiya
and Aulos sets.
IIRC, the Melodiya set used the "No-Noise" process, which could be
pretty brutal in terms of removing higher frequency content (a
miserable example of this is the recording of Kondrashin's Symphonic
Dances by Rachmaninoff where even a cassette sounded better). Being
familiar with both sets, I think Aulos did very well, but I can help
you make the comparison.
BTW, you probably know that the 4th symphony is in STEREO in the Aulos
set, whereas the BMG/Melodiya set put it out in MONO. I wonder what it
will be in the new Melodiya set.
RK

Allow me to quote myself:

Neither do I, of course, but I find the extremely low level of tape
hiss in, for instance, the 8th symphony, very suspicous. If you listen
to the string sound in, say, the 4th movement, it does sound to me like
somebody denoised there *massively*. I find it hard to describe, but
the higher strings have that somehow "plasticky" sound and the lower
strings that featureless sound, lacking in any kind of sonority. The
sonority of the lower strings is defined by soft, but distinct
overtones in the mid and higher ranges (that slight, but distinctive
zzzzz buzz the basses make, for instance). That is usally covered up
when the higher strings play as well, but also usually audible in more
open lower string passages, even on recordings of that vintage. Not so
here. These fineties often fall victim to aggressive denoising.

[tomdeacon]

The sonority of the lower strings is defined by soft, but distinct
overtones in the mid and higher ranges (that slight, but distinctive
zzzzz buzz the basses make, for instance). That is usally covered up
when the higher strings play as well, but also usually audible in more
open lower string passages, even on recordings of that vintage. Not so
here. These fineties often fall victim to aggressive denoising.

Since Mr. Schaffer would seem to play the double-bass, he should
probably be placed in the same category as David Hurwitz, late of this
group but mercifully absent for many moons. who views all music from
the perspective of the timpany.

Alan of Prague has this same vantage point, but there, at least, we
also have someone with clear musical taste.

Personally, I would think that a perspective of the whole is something
of an advantage in assessing the recordings of an ensemble which can
reach 100 players.

In any case, the zzzz buzz of basses is not "missing" from the
Kondrashin Aulos recordings. It might well have been by design. Mr.
Kondrashin was one conductor quite able to control his orchestra and
prevent them from making disagreeable sounds, including buzzes, which
are unmusical, of course.

TD

[Michael Schaffer]

Post by tomdeacon

The sonority of the lower strings is defined by soft, but distinct
overtones in the mid and higher ranges (that slight, but distinctive
zzzzz buzz the basses make, for instance). That is usally covered up
when the higher strings play as well, but also usually audible in more
open lower string passages, even on recordings of that vintage. Not so
here. These fineties often fall victim to aggressive denoising.Since Mr. Schaffer would seem to play the double-bass, he should

probably be placed in the same category as David Hurwitz, late of this
group but mercifully absent for many moons. who views all music from
the perspective of the timpany.
Alan of Prague has this same vantage point, but there, at least, we
also have someone with clear musical taste.
Personally, I would think that a perspective of the whole is something
of an advantage in assessing the recordings of an ensemble which can
reach 100 players.
In any case, the zzzz buzz of basses is not "missing" from the
Kondrashin Aulos recordings. It might well have been by design. Mr.
Kondrashin was one conductor quite able to control his orchestra and
prevent them from making disagreeable sounds, including buzzes, which
are unmusical, of course.
TD

Clearly you didn't understand at all what I mean by that. I am not
talking about "unwanted buzzing", I am talking about the overtones of
the lower strings. These define the quality and character of the sound.
But that is so basic that the fact that you don't understand that
completely disqualifies you from making any comments about the subject.

Oh, wait - you already disqualified yourself. As we all were very
amused to read, you can't even tell very distinctly sounding orchestras
apart.

You also only quoted only half of my post, the one about the lower
string, one of such instruments I indeed learned to play, in order to
give the impression I was somehow fixated on that. Although my playing
the bass means that I have better developed hearing for the lower
ranges than most people (that is something that is not part of the
normal setup of the human hearing, it has to be learned and trained),
it obviously does not mean that I am fixated on that only. Which is why
I also talked about the upper registers.

So, thanks for contributing nothing to the subject.

But why do you even post here when you obviously don't have anything to
say? Why do you misquote other people, just in order to be able to
drivel into the thread? Are you that starved of attention?
Is that because even the night nurse in the funny farm you are
(hopefully) confined to doesn't react to your cries for attention
anymore? Even when you wet your bed and smear your shit all over the
room, just in order to get some attention?

[Handel8]

Post by Michael Schaffer

Post by tomdeacon
In any case, the zzzz buzz of basses is not "missing" from the
Kondrashin Aulos recordings. It might well have been by design. Mr.
Kondrashin was one conductor quite able to control his orchestra and
prevent them from making disagreeable sounds, including buzzes, which
are unmusical, of course.
TD

Clearly you didn't understand at all what I mean by that. I am not
talking about "unwanted buzzing", I am talking about the overtones of
the lower strings. These define the quality and character of the sound.
But that is so basic that the fact that you don't understand that
completely disqualifies you from making any comments about the subject.
Oh, wait - you already disqualified yourself. As we all were very
amused to read, you can't even tell very distinctly sounding orchestras
apart.
You also only quoted only half of my post, the one about the lower
string, one of such instruments I indeed learned to play, in order to
give the impression I was somehow fixated on that. Although my playing
the bass means that I have better developed hearing for the lower
ranges than most people (that is something that is not part of the
normal setup of the human hearing, it has to be learned and trained),
it obviously does not mean that I am fixated on that only. Which is why
I also talked about the upper registers.
So, thanks for contributing nothing to the subject.
But why do you even post here when you obviously don't have anything to
say? Why do you misquote other people, just in order to be able to
drivel into the thread? Are you that starved of attention?
Is that because even the night nurse in the funny farm you are
(hopefully) confined to doesn't react to your cries for attention
anymore? Even when you wet your bed and smear your shit all over the
room, just in order to get some attention?

Michael,

Beautiful put down of TD ! But you forgot to ask him for his resume,
which we are still waiting for ! Oh, yeah, don't say anything bad on
thios board about Carig Dory, formerly of the late Dorian Recordings,
or TD will go apeshit ! LOL !

Alan Prichard

[Michael Schaffer]

Post by Handel8

Post by Michael Schaffer

Post by tomdeacon
In any case, the zzzz buzz of basses is not "missing" from the
Kondrashin Aulos recordings. It might well have been by design. Mr.
Kondrashin was one conductor quite able to control his orchestra and
prevent them from making disagreeable sounds, including buzzes, which
are unmusical, of course.
TD

Clearly you didn't understand at all what I mean by that. I am not
talking about "unwanted buzzing", I am talking about the overtones of
the lower strings. These define the quality and character of the sound.
But that is so basic that the fact that you don't understand that
completely disqualifies you from making any comments about the subject.
Oh, wait - you already disqualified yourself. As we all were very
amused to read, you can't even tell very distinctly sounding orchestras
apart.
You also only quoted only half of my post, the one about the lower
string, one of such instruments I indeed learned to play, in order to
give the impression I was somehow fixated on that. Although my playing
the bass means that I have better developed hearing for the lower
ranges than most people (that is something that is not part of the
normal setup of the human hearing, it has to be learned and trained),
it obviously does not mean that I am fixated on that only. Which is why
I also talked about the upper registers.
So, thanks for contributing nothing to the subject.
But why do you even post here when you obviously don't have anything to
say? Why do you misquote other people, just in order to be able to
drivel into the thread? Are you that starved of attention?
Is that because even the night nurse in the funny farm you are
(hopefully) confined to doesn't react to your cries for attention
anymore? Even when you wet your bed and smear your shit all over the
room, just in order to get some attention?Michael,

Beautiful put down of TD ! But you forgot to ask him for his resume,
which we are still waiting for ! Oh, yeah, don't say anything bad on
thios board about Carig Dory, formerly of the late Dorian Recordings,
or TD will go apeshit ! LOL !
Alan Prichard

Wo is Mr Dory (apart from that he apparently worked for Dorian records)
and how is he connected to little Tommy, the bedwetter?
I don't think you will get the resume soon. Little Tommy also chickened
out of the identify orchestras contest Mr Fox had proposed to organize
for him vs. me. Which I can understand because he wouldn't stand the
slightest chance. So there seems to be a tiny rest, a trace of sanity
left in him...but only a trace.

I forgot to say in the post above that the reason I am referring to
that as zzzzz or a slight buzz is that obviously, the higher the
overtones, the closer they get together. And the lower the instrument
and the fundamental notes it produces, the easier it is for us to hear
these overtones.

3-4 octaves above the fundamental it already gets really tight, so
these overtones, which are never the same between two instruments, let
alone between, say, 8 basses and 10 celli start audibly rubbing against
each other which results in that "buzz".

For instance, the lowest a that can be played on a bass has a frequency
of only about 55Hz, the 3rd octave is then around 440Hz, the 4th around
880Hz, and in that range and slightly higher, we already have overtones
which are as closer and closer as a semitone. And that range also
happens to be one of the areas our hearing is most sensitive in.

So we (well, not "we" in the sense of *all of us*, but in the sense of
the people who can hear) can hear that buzz extremely well.
Which is not an unwanted buzz, but an element of orchestral sound, one
of the things which make a string section sound like a string section,
and not just an amplified sound with a simple overtone structure. Add
to that the considerable amount of high frequency noise that is
actually included in the sound of bowed string instruments (the "sound
of rosin", and of horsehair gliding across steel strings), plus the
"explosive" nature of the attack noise of the bow all across the sound
spectrum, then you have the most essential ingredients for a "natural"
string sound that need to be captured on a recording.
Obviously, the better the players, the less of some of that noise you
get. But it is always there to a certain degree.

Especially these "noise" ingredients are what make the sound "real" and
"alive" and which is so hard to synthesize (otherwise one could easily
synthesize the sound, and we all know how completely unrealistic that
sounds) and which give a sound - any sound of any instrument - it
unmistakeable and characteristic quality. And it is unfortunately
exactly these elements of the sound which vanish with aggressive
denoising because there is no way to separate them from the noise
background. The result of that is an extremely "bleak" and
"featureless" sound, and that is exactly what I was talking about in
the beginning.

[tomdeacon]

Post by Michael Schaffer
I forgot to say in the post above that the reason I am referring to
that as zzzzz or a slight buzz is that obviously, the higher the
overtones, the closer they get together. And the lower the instrument
and the fundamental notes it produces, the easier it is for us to hear
these overtones.
3-4 octaves above the fundamental it already gets really tight, so
these overtones, which are never the same between two instruments, let
alone between, say, 8 basses and 10 celli start audibly rubbing against
each other which results in that "buzz".
For instance, the lowest a that can be played on a bass has a frequency
of only about 55Hz, the 3rd octave is then around 440Hz, the 4th around
880Hz, and in that range and slightly higher, we already have overtones
which are as closer and closer as a semitone. And that range also
happens to be one of the areas our hearing is most sensitive in.
So we (well, not "we" in the sense of *all of us*, but in the sense of
the people who can hear) can hear that buzz extremely well.
Which is not an unwanted buzz, but an element of orchestral sound, one
of the things which make a string section sound like a string section,
and not just an amplified sound with a simple overtone structure. Add
to that the considerable amount of high frequency noise that is
actually included in the sound of bowed string instruments (the "sound
of rosin", and of horsehair gliding across steel strings), plus the
"explosive" nature of the attack noise of the bow all across the sound
spectrum, then you have the most essential ingredients for a "natural"
string sound that need to be captured on a recording.
Obviously, the better the players, the less of some of that noise you
get. But it is always there to a certain degree.
Especially these "noise" ingredients are what make the sound "real" and
"alive" and which is so hard to synthesize (otherwise one could easily
synthesize the sound, and we all know how completely unrealistic that
sounds) and which give a sound - any sound of any instrument - it
unmistakeable and characteristic quality. And it is unfortunately
exactly these elements of the sound which vanish with aggressive
denoising because there is no way to separate them from the noise
background. The result of that is an extremely "bleak" and
"featureless" sound, and that is exactly what I was talking about in
the beginning.

Is it any wonder that the double bass has only ever produced TWO star
players.

Gary Karr and Serge Koussevitzky.

Fortunately most of us are spared this kind of technical mumbo jumbo in
the normal course of our day.

"Featureless" would be a good word for it.

TD

[Michael Schaffer]

Post by tomdeacon

Post by Michael Schaffer
I forgot to say in the post above that the reason I am referring to
that as zzzzz or a slight buzz is that obviously, the higher the
overtones, the closer they get together. And the lower the instrument
and the fundamental notes it produces, the easier it is for us to hear
these overtones.
3-4 octaves above the fundamental it already gets really tight, so
these overtones, which are never the same between two instruments, let
alone between, say, 8 basses and 10 celli start audibly rubbing against
each other which results in that "buzz".
For instance, the lowest a that can be played on a bass has a frequency
of only about 55Hz, the 3rd octave is then around 440Hz, the 4th around
880Hz, and in that range and slightly higher, we already have overtones
which are as closer and closer as a semitone. And that range also
happens to be one of the areas our hearing is most sensitive in.
So we (well, not "we" in the sense of *all of us*, but in the sense of
the people who can hear) can hear that buzz extremely well.
Which is not an unwanted buzz, but an element of orchestral sound, one
of the things which make a string section sound like a string section,
and not just an amplified sound with a simple overtone structure. Add
to that the considerable amount of high frequency noise that is
actually included in the sound of bowed string instruments (the "sound
of rosin", and of horsehair gliding across steel strings), plus the
"explosive" nature of the attack noise of the bow all across the sound
spectrum, then you have the most essential ingredients for a "natural"
string sound that need to be captured on a recording.
Obviously, the better the players, the less of some of that noise you
get. But it is always there to a certain degree.
Especially these "noise" ingredients are what make the sound "real" and
"alive" and which is so hard to synthesize (otherwise one could easily
synthesize the sound, and we all know how completely unrealistic that
sounds) and which give a sound - any sound of any instrument - it
unmistakeable and characteristic quality. And it is unfortunately
exactly these elements of the sound which vanish with aggressive
denoising because there is no way to separate them from the noise
background. The result of that is an extremely "bleak" and
"featureless" sound, and that is exactly what I was talking about in
the beginning.Is it any wonder that the double bass has only ever produced TWO star

players.
Gary Karr and Serge Koussevitzky.

There's plenty more great musicians who played and play the bass. I
respect all of them, just as I respect every good musician on any
instrument. That you don't kow more about the subject does not really
affect it.
But then you don't know much about anything, do you? Does that mean the
world is an empty place?
No, it's just your head that is.

Post by tomdeacon
Fortunately most of us are spared this kind of technical mumbo jumbo in
the normal course of our day.

That's not even mumbo jumbo - it's the most basic facts about sound and
the sound of instruments. That it already overwhelms you is further
proof for your complete ignorance when it comes to such matters.
Funny, I thought you allegedly worked in a radio station once. And
those things are so basic, you still don't know them? Is that why you
were fired?

Post by tomdeacon
"Featureless" would be a good word for it.
TD

[ansermetniac]

Post by Michael Schaffer

Post by tomdeacon

Post by Michael Schaffer
I forgot to say in the post above that the reason I am referring to
that as zzzzz or a slight buzz is that obviously, the higher the
overtones, the closer they get together. And the lower the instrument
and the fundamental notes it produces, the easier it is for us to hear
these overtones.
3-4 octaves above the fundamental it already gets really tight, so
these overtones, which are never the same between two instruments, let
alone between, say, 8 basses and 10 celli start audibly rubbing against
each other which results in that "buzz".
For instance, the lowest a that can be played on a bass has a frequency
of only about 55Hz, the 3rd octave is then around 440Hz, the 4th around
880Hz, and in that range and slightly higher, we already have overtones
which are as closer and closer as a semitone. And that range also
happens to be one of the areas our hearing is most sensitive in.
So we (well, not "we" in the sense of *all of us*, but in the sense of
the people who can hear) can hear that buzz extremely well.
Which is not an unwanted buzz, but an element of orchestral sound, one
of the things which make a string section sound like a string section,
and not just an amplified sound with a simple overtone structure. Add
to that the considerable amount of high frequency noise that is
actually included in the sound of bowed string instruments (the "sound
of rosin", and of horsehair gliding across steel strings), plus the
"explosive" nature of the attack noise of the bow all across the sound
spectrum, then you have the most essential ingredients for a "natural"
string sound that need to be captured on a recording.
Obviously, the better the players, the less of some of that noise you
get. But it is always there to a certain degree.
Especially these "noise" ingredients are what make the sound "real" and
"alive" and which is so hard to synthesize (otherwise one could easily
synthesize the sound, and we all know how completely unrealistic that
sounds) and which give a sound - any sound of any instrument - it
unmistakeable and characteristic quality. And it is unfortunately
exactly these elements of the sound which vanish with aggressive
denoising because there is no way to separate them from the noise
background. The result of that is an extremely "bleak" and
"featureless" sound, and that is exactly what I was talking about in
the beginning.Is it any wonder that the double bass has only ever produced TWO star

players.
Gary Karr and Serge Koussevitzky.

The two greatest Musicians to play the bass are

Acoustic-Charles Mingus
Electric-Joe Osborne

Mingus may have some peers but Osborne does not, did not and will not

Abbedd

Post by Michael Schaffer
There's plenty more great musicians who played and play the bass. I
respect all of them, just as I respect every good musician on any
instrument. That you don't kow more about the subject does not really
affect it.
But then you don't know much about anything, do you? Does that mean the
world is an empty place?
No, it's just your head that is.

Post by tomdeacon
Fortunately most of us are spared this kind of technical mumbo jumbo in
the normal course of our day.

That's not even mumbo jumbo - it's the most basic facts about sound and
the sound of instruments. That it already overwhelms you is further
proof for your complete ignorance when it comes to such matters.
Funny, I thought you allegedly worked in a radio station once. And
those things are so basic, you still don't know them? Is that why you
were fired?

Post by tomdeacon
"Featureless" would be a good word for it.
TD

[Michael Schaffer]

Post by tomdeacon

Post by Michael Schaffer
I forgot to say in the post above that the reason I am referring to
that as zzzzz or a slight buzz is that obviously, the higher the
overtones, the closer they get together. And the lower the instrument
and the fundamental notes it produces, the easier it is for us to hear
these overtones.
3-4 octaves above the fundamental it already gets really tight, so
these overtones, which are never the same between two instruments, let
alone between, say, 8 basses and 10 celli start audibly rubbing against
each other which results in that "buzz".
For instance, the lowest a that can be played on a bass has a frequency
of only about 55Hz, the 3rd octave is then around 440Hz, the 4th around
880Hz, and in that range and slightly higher, we already have overtones
which are as closer and closer as a semitone. And that range also
happens to be one of the areas our hearing is most sensitive in.
So we (well, not "we" in the sense of *all of us*, but in the sense of
the people who can hear) can hear that buzz extremely well.
Which is not an unwanted buzz, but an element of orchestral sound, one
of the things which make a string section sound like a string section,
and not just an amplified sound with a simple overtone structure. Add
to that the considerable amount of high frequency noise that is
actually included in the sound of bowed string instruments (the "sound
of rosin", and of horsehair gliding across steel strings), plus the
"explosive" nature of the attack noise of the bow all across the sound
spectrum, then you have the most essential ingredients for a "natural"
string sound that need to be captured on a recording.
Obviously, the better the players, the less of some of that noise you
get. But it is always there to a certain degree.
Especially these "noise" ingredients are what make the sound "real" and
"alive" and which is so hard to synthesize (otherwise one could easily
synthesize the sound, and we all know how completely unrealistic that
sounds) and which give a sound - any sound of any instrument - it
unmistakeable and characteristic quality. And it is unfortunately
exactly these elements of the sound which vanish with aggressive
denoising because there is no way to separate them from the noise
background. The result of that is an extremely "bleak" and
"featureless" sound, and that is exactly what I was talking about in
the beginning.Is it any wonder that the double bass has only ever produced TWO star

players.
Gary Karr and Serge Koussevitzky.

There's plenty more great musicians who played and play the bass. I
respect all of them, just as I respect every good musician on any
instrument. That you don't kow more about the subject does not really
affect it.
But then you don't know much about anything, do you? Does that mean the
world is an empty place?
No, it's just your head that is.

Post by tomdeacon
Fortunately most of us are spared this kind of technical mumbo jumbo in
the normal course of our day.

That's not even mumbo jumbo - it's the most basic facts about sound and
the sound of instruments. That it already overwhelms you is further
proof for your complete ignorance when it comes to such matters.
Funny, I thought you allegedly worked in a radio station once. And
those things are so basic, you still don't know them? Is that why you
were fired?

Post by tomdeacon
"Featureless" would be a good word for it.

"Clueless" is the word for you.

Post by tomdeacon
TD

[tomdeacon]

Post by Michael Schaffer

Post by tomdeacon
"Featureless" would be a good word for it.

"Clueless" is the word for you.

No.

Opinionated will do, thank you very much.

TD

[tomdeacon]

Post by Michael Schaffer
Clearly you didn't understand at all what I mean by that. I am not
talking about "unwanted buzzing", I am talking about the overtones of
the lower strings. These define the quality and character of the sound.

Perhaps, in your opinion.

Frankly, I am quite happy to do without the "buzzing" of doublebasses.
In my experience they stand there and saw away providing little other
than a comfortable cushion for the rest of the orchestra. In the lower
register of strings, only the cellos can claim to have an interesting
role in the fabric of the music. The basses: well, they're the webbing
in the sofa.

Post by Michael Schaffer
Oh, wait - you already disqualified yourself. As we all were very
amused to read, you can't even tell very distinctly sounding orchestras
apart.

Wrong. I confused the Vienna Philharmonic and the Berlin Philharmonic
on one occasion.

Generalising from the particular is a dangerous exercise.

e.g. Michael Schaffer is an idiotic double bass player. Rule: all
double bass players are idiotic.

Hmmmmmmm.

Perhaps I have something there. Corkie Monahan might be another.

Post by Michael Schaffer
You also only quoted only half of my post, the one about the lower
string, one of such instruments I indeed learned to play, in order to
give the impression I was somehow fixated on that. Although my playing
the bass means that I have better developed hearing for the lower
ranges than most people (that is something that is not part of the
normal setup of the human hearing, it has to be learned and trained),
it obviously does not mean that I am fixated on that only. Which is why
I also talked about the upper registers.

What would YOU know about the "upper registers". I am unsure you can
hear anything above middle "C"

Post by Michael Schaffer
So, thanks for contributing nothing to the subject.

Just more offensive garbage, of course.

Post by Michael Schaffer
But why do you even post here when you obviously don't have anything to
say?

Translation: Why do you post here when you clearly disagree with my
premise?

The answer should be clear even to a double bass player.

Post by Michael Schaffer
Why do you misquote other people, just in order to be able to
drivel into the thread?

Misquote?

Examples, please.

Post by Michael Schaffer
Are you that starved of attention?

Hardly. I simply refuse to accept the naive garbage you have been
dishing out about "hiss" you can't hear from recordings whose tapes you
have never heard.

It's just plain dumb.

Post by Michael Schaffer
Is that because even the night nurse in the funny farm you are
(hopefully) confined to doesn't react to your cries for attention
anymore? Even when you wet your bed and smear your shit all over the
room, just in order to get some attention?

More low-class garbage.

It is amazing to me that we have spent 33( and counting) posts on a
thread which was already hanging by an very thin thread itself. It
beggars belief.

No wonder some here have questioned the recent quality of this
newsgroup.

TD

[graham]

Post by tomdeacon
Wrong. I confused the Vienna Philharmonic and the Berlin Philharmonic
on one occasion.

IIRC, wasn't this a "senior moment" when you were thinking of one but typed
the other, allowing the vultures to descend in droves?
Graham

[Handel8]

Post by graham

Post by tomdeacon
Wrong. I confused the Vienna Philharmonic and the Berlin Philharmonic
on one occasion.

IIRC, wasn't this a "senior moment" when you were thinking of one but typed
the other, allowing the vultures to descend in droves?
Graham

Maybe it was, Graham, but TD has posted innumerable visious posts here
that even if you are correct in this one instance, the basic thrust of
Michael's and my posts as regards TD is spot on IMO. TD's record here
is availablel for all to read and therefore make their own judgement.

Alan Prichard

[tomdeacon]

Post by graham

Post by tomdeacon
Wrong. I confused the Vienna Philharmonic and the Berlin Philharmonic
on one occasion.

IIRC, wasn't this a "senior moment" when you were thinking of one but typed
the other, allowing the vultures to descend in droves?

It could have been that. Or, the fact that I was enjoying breakfast on
the verandah and listening through the screen door to the music playing
in the Living Room.

The vultures descended, of course, as vultures tend to do - what a
lovely word, now that I think of it, sounding very much as disgusting
as the bird it describes, just part of the genius of the English
language - but their prey not only provided them with precious little
flesh, but they are still so hungry that they have come back for
another try. It will be in vain, however. In the meantime, of course,
they have chased away weaker souls than I. That's the pity of it all.
Who wants to stand up to the abuse of someone whose world view is
centred upon a very large, cumbersome, ungrateful sounding instrument
like the double bass? Very few, in fact.

In the meantime, this paragon of hearing misses "hiss" that he has
never heard even exists!!!

Really too silly for words.

TD

[bpnjensen]

Post by tomdeacon
The vultures descended, of course, as vultures tend to do - what a
lovely word, now that I think of it, sounding very much as disgusting
as the bird it describes...
TD

You are a sad, sick, misguided, artificial man, Tom.

Bruce Jensen

[tomdeacon]

Post by bpnjensen

Post by tomdeacon
The vultures descended, of course, as vultures tend to do - what a
lovely word, now that I think of it, sounding very much as disgusting
as the bird it describes...
TD

You are a sad, sick, misguided, artificial man, Tom.

Wrong. I am quite real, Bruce. And not sad at all. Just prepared to
fend off the vultures. Are you one of them too? Ah well, you can't have
everything. Anyone bearing the name of one of the greatest automobiles
ever made should have a modicum of pride and taste. Quel dommage!

TD

[Michael Schaffer]

Post by tomdeacon

Post by tomdeacon
The vultures descended, of course, as vultures tend to do - what a
lovely word, now that I think of it, sounding very much as disgusting
as the bird it describes...
TD

You are a sad, sick, misguided, artificial man, Tom.Wrong. I am quite real, Bruce. And not sad at all. Just prepared to

fend off the vultures.

There is no "vultures" here. Nobody is interested in scavenging you.
Nobody here is interested in you *at all*.

Post by tomdeacon
Are you one of them too? Ah well, you can't have
everything. Anyone bearing the name of one of the greatest automobiles
ever made should have a modicum of pride and taste. Quel dommage!
TD

[Michael Schaffer]

Post by tomdeacon

Post by tomdeacon
The vultures descended, of course, as vultures tend to do - what a
lovely word, now that I think of it, sounding very much as disgusting
as the bird it describes...
TD

You are a sad, sick, misguided, artificial man, Tom.Wrong. I am quite real, Bruce. And not sad at all. Just prepared to

fend off the vultures.

There are no "vultures" here. Nobody is interested in scavenging you.
Nobody here is interested in you *at all*.

Post by tomdeacon
Are you one of them too? Ah well, you can't have
everything. Anyone bearing the name of one of the greatest automobiles
ever made should have a modicum of pride and taste. Quel dommage!
TD

[bpnjensen]

Post by Michael Schaffer

Post by tomdeacon

Post by tomdeacon
The vultures descended, of course, as vultures tend to do - what a
lovely word, now that I think of it, sounding very much as disgusting
as the bird it describes...
TD

You are a sad, sick, misguided, artificial man, Tom.Wrong. I am quite real, Bruce. And not sad at all. Just prepared to

fend off the vultures.

There are no "vultures" here. Nobody is interested in scavenging you.
Nobody here is interested in you *at all*.

Well, not exactly true either - just last week, one of Tom's comments
led me directly to a recording that I have become very happy with,
Monteux's Chicago Franck Symphony. I am usually quite happy for Tom's
musical discussion, as I am with everybody's...yours too!

It's the pervasive rancor, arrogance and puerile haughtiness that
really becomes a turn-off. Is this common in the world of music
appreciations? Or common just in the world of the disconnected
internet? It takes all kinds to make up the world, I suppose.

Bruce Jensen

[Bob Harper]

bpnjensen wrote:
(snip)

Post by bpnjensen
It's the pervasive rancor, arrogance and puerile haughtiness that
really becomes a turn-off. Is this common in the world of music
appreciations? Or common just in the world of the disconnected
internet?

I think the latter; at least it makes it much easier to be unpleasant.
It's an unfortunate byproduct of the anonymity and/or isolation the
internet makes available.

Glad you discovered the Monteux Franck Symphony. The best ever, even if
there's some uneradicable distortion on the master tape.

Bob Harper
It takes all kinds to make up the world, I suppose.

Post by bpnjensen
Bruce Jensen

[bpnjensen]

Post by Bob Harper
Glad you discovered the Monteux Franck Symphony. The best ever, even if
there's some uneradicable distortion on the master tape.

Yes, thanks, it is very exciting, and the BSO Petroushka that comes
with it is pretty endearing too. I noticed what I thought to be some
distortion in the sound, especially on the more densely orchestrated
segments, where I had not heard it on some modern digital recordings; I
was thinking it might be just an acoustic product of the recording
venue, but in retrospect it could have been the tape distortion that
you mention.

Bruce Jensen

[bpnjensen]

Post by tomdeacon

Post by bpnjensen

Post by tomdeacon
The vultures descended, of course, as vultures tend to do - what a
lovely word, now that I think of it, sounding very much as disgusting
as the bird it describes...
TD

You are a sad, sick, misguided, artificial man, Tom.

Wrong. I am quite real, Bruce. And not sad at all. Just prepared to
fend off the vultures. Are you one of them too? Ah well, you can't have
everything. Anyone bearing the name of one of the greatest automobiles
ever made should have a modicum of pride and taste. Quel dommage!
TD

Tom - I was referring to your apparent inability to appreciate what the
vulture - not the metaphoric ones, but the real birds - actually
contributes to the natural (and human) world. Despite the revulsion we
may feel about the birds' habits, their positive role is not
inestimable. They do what Nature has calculated for their genetic
makeup - which is, when you come down to it, literally not much
different from most humans - and there is nothing really disgusting
about it. They fit very well into their appointed niche, and
ultimately are a boon.

On a related note, the use of the word "vulture" to denote some of the
worst of human nature seems not particularly appropriate either. There
is little moral equivalent.

Bruce Jensen

[Michael Schaffer]

Post by tomdeacon

Post by graham

Post by tomdeacon
Wrong. I confused the Vienna Philharmonic and the Berlin Philharmonic
on one occasion.

IIRC, wasn't this a "senior moment" when you were thinking of one but typed
the other, allowing the vultures to descend in droves?It could have been that. Or, the fact that I was enjoying breakfast on

the verandah and listening through the screen door to the music playing
in the Living Room.
The vultures descended, of course, as vultures tend to do - what a
lovely word, now that I think of it, sounding very much as disgusting
as the bird it describes, just part of the genius of the English
language - but their prey not only provided them with precious little
flesh, but they are still so hungry that they have come back for
another try. It will be in vain, however. In the meantime, of course,
they have chased away weaker souls than I. That's the pity of it all.
Who wants to stand up to the abuse of someone whose world view is
centred upon a very large, cumbersome, ungrateful sounding instrument
like the double bass? Very few, in fact.

The bass which is right now leaning in the corner of the room is not
the center of my world. But it is a very fun element of it. Right now,
the center of my world is professional sound systems. I am going to
align and finetune one tonight. That's a lot of fun, too. Well, you
wouldn't know, since you have no knowledge of these things...

Post by tomdeacon
In the meantime, this paragon of hearing misses "hiss" that he has
never heard even exists!!!
Really too silly for words.
TD

[rkhalona]

Post by graham

Post by tomdeacon
Wrong. I confused the Vienna Philharmonic and the Berlin Philharmonic
on one occasion.

IIRC, wasn't this a "senior moment" when you were thinking of one but typed
the other, allowing the vultures to descend in droves?

Ah, the DJ's fans show up! This image of the poor little fired DJ
being victimized is ludicrous.
You must have missed all the vile language he has dished out around
here (or perhaps you don't want to see it).

RK

[tomdeacon]

Post by rkhalona
You must have missed all the vile language he has dished out around
here (or perhaps you don't want to see it).

It is always on the ready, of course, whenever he encounters idiocy,
rudeness, viciousness, ignorance, or any other of the many sins on
regular display here. Of late that has been fairly absent, perhaps due
to the sustained absence of many of the more obvious perpetrators.

But I am happy to oblige you, if you would like to join that clan.

Would you like to step up to the plate, Ramon, and show us your
colours?

TD

[Michael Schaffer]

Post by tomdeacon

Post by rkhalona
You must have missed all the vile language he has dished out around
here (or perhaps you don't want to see it).It is always on the ready, of course, whenever he encounters idiocy,

rudeness, viciousness, ignorance, or any other of the many sins on
regular display here. Of late that has been fairly absent, perhaps due
to the sustained absence of many of the more obvious perpetrators.
But I am happy to oblige you, if you would like to join that clan.
Would you like to step up to the plate, Ramon, and show us your
colours?
TD

I am sure Ramon would also take part in the listening challenge
proposed by Mr Fox.
So, when are *you* going to "step up to the plate"?

[tomdeacon]

Post by Michael Schaffer
I am sure Ramon would also take part in the listening challenge
proposed by Mr Fox.
So, when are *you* going to "step up to the plate"?

Did "twinkle-toes" propose something?

I must have missed that.

TD

[Michael Schaffer]

Post by tomdeacon

Post by Michael Schaffer
Clearly you didn't understand at all what I mean by that. I am not
talking about "unwanted buzzing", I am talking about the overtones of
the lower strings. These define the quality and character of the sound.Perhaps, in your opinion.

Not at all. That is not my opinion. That is a fact of physics. Overtone
structures are what define the sound of instruments.
You didn't know that? You think that is "my opinion"?

Wow.

Post by tomdeacon
Frankly, I am quite happy to do without the "buzzing" of doublebasses.
In my experience they stand there and saw away providing little other
than a comfortable cushion for the rest of the orchestra. In the lower
register of strings, only the cellos can claim to have an interesting
role in the fabric of the music. The basses: well, they're the webbing
in the sofa.

You probably can't hear the basses well anyway. I am not surprised.
Or, let me rephrase that. Not probably. You said it yourself. You can't
hear the basses clearly, that is why you can't hear what they actually
contribute to the orchestral sound - usually much more than just
"sawing" away.
But I have heard that kind of statement often from people who don't
have well developed hearing and aren't able to grasp complex musical
structures.
Obviously, that disqualifies you from making any statements of
informative value about basically any kind of music. Especially the
music of the Western hemisphere which is heavily based on the bass
voices as it is constructed around the harmonic progression of chords,
and the bass note is particularly important for the definition of the
chord.
That also applies to piano music since the piano reaches down even
further than the double bass. I know you fancy yourself a piano music
expert but now we know you can't hear the lower register of the piano
in focus, so you best refrain from dramatic statements about that genre
in future, too.
Thanks in advance.

Post by tomdeacon

Post by Michael Schaffer
Oh, wait - you already disqualified yourself. As we all were very
amused to read, you can't even tell very distinctly sounding orchestras
apart.Wrong. I confused the Vienna Philharmonic and the Berlin Philharmonic

on one occasion.
Generalising from the particular is a dangerous exercise.
e.g. Michael Schaffer is an idiotic double bass player. Rule: all
double bass players are idiotic.

The difference: that is your opinion. Your inability to tell these
orchestras apart was admitted by yourself - by accident, of course. But
it really completely disqualifies you from making any statements about
sound qualities.
BTW, the WP and BP also have subtly different, yet very distinct styles
of playing the bass, in addition to the more obvious differences, e.g.
of the oboes and horns. A pity you can't hear and appreciate that.
You don't know what you are missing. Literally.

Post by tomdeacon
Hmmmmmmm.
Perhaps I have something there. Corkie Monahan might be another.

Post by Michael Schaffer
You also only quoted only half of my post, the one about the lower
string, one of such instruments I indeed learned to play, in order to
give the impression I was somehow fixated on that. Although my playing
the bass means that I have better developed hearing for the lower
ranges than most people (that is something that is not part of the
normal setup of the human hearing, it has to be learned and trained),
it obviously does not mean that I am fixated on that only. Which is why
I also talked about the upper registers.What would YOU know about the "upper registers". I am unsure you can

hear anything above middle "C"

But you have no basis at all for that statement. I am basing my
judgment of your lack of hearing abilities and background knowledge on
what you said yourself - can't tell orchestras apart, can't hear the
basses properly, don't know anything about overtone structures etc -
not some things I made up, like you, in your desperation to be taking
seriously.
Since you seem to place so much importance in your online credibility,
Mr Fox offered you a chance to restore that - but you turned it down.
We all know why, of course.

Post by tomdeacon

Post by Michael Schaffer
So, thanks for contributing nothing to the subject.Just more offensive garbage, of course.
But why do you even post here when you obviously don't have anything to
say?Translation: Why do you post here when you clearly disagree with my

premise?

Wrong translation. It means: But why do you even post here when you
obviously don't have anything to say?
Literally.
It would be very welcome if you had anything to contribute about the
subject.
That is why I started the thread: not to let it be known that I think
these recordings have been doctored around with, but to find out if
they have, or if the limitations I heard are the original recordings in
the state it is preserved.
So there isn't even a "premise" here. It is an invitation to discuss,
not to defecate onto the keyboard as you usally do.
But then you don't contribute much to any discussion, so I shouldn't
have had to ask that question.

Post by tomdeacon
The answer should be clear even to a double bass player.

Post by Michael Schaffer
Why do you misquote other people, just in order to be able to
drivel into the thread?Misquote?

Examples, please.

See above. You cut my comments about higher strings in order to be able
to say I only am interested in the sound of lower strings. That is
childish.

Post by tomdeacon

Post by Michael Schaffer
Are you that starved of attention?Hardly. I simply refuse to accept the naive garbage you have been

dishing out about "hiss" you can't hear from recordings whose tapes you
have never heard.
It's just plain dumb.

You obviously don't know much and have not much experience with older
recordings. If you did, you would know that fairly high levels of tape
hiss were a basic technical reality back then, especially in the
pre-Dolby era.

Post by tomdeacon

Post by Michael Schaffer
Is that because even the night nurse in the funny farm you are
(hopefully) confined to doesn't react to your cries for attention
anymore? Even when you wet your bed and smear your shit all over the
room, just in order to get some attention?More low-class garbage.

It is amazing to me that we have spent 33( and counting) posts on a
thread which was already hanging by an very thin thread itself. It
beggars belief.

The post count only rose that high because of spammers like you.

Post by tomdeacon
No wonder some here have questioned the recent quality of this
newsgroup.
TD

[Michael Schaffer]

Post by tomdeacon

Post by Michael Schaffer
Clearly you didn't understand at all what I mean by that. I am not
talking about "unwanted buzzing", I am talking about the overtones of
the lower strings. These define the quality and character of the sound.Perhaps, in your opinion.

Not at all. That is not my opinion. That is a fact of physics. Overtone
structures are what define the sound of instruments.
You didn't know that? You think that is "my opinion"?

Wow.

Post by tomdeacon
Frankly, I am quite happy to do without the "buzzing" of doublebasses.
In my experience they stand there and saw away providing little other
than a comfortable cushion for the rest of the orchestra. In the lower
register of strings, only the cellos can claim to have an interesting
role in the fabric of the music. The basses: well, they're the webbing
in the sofa.

You probably can't hear the basses well anyway. I am not surprised.
Or, let me rephrase that. Not probably. You said it yourself. You can't
hear the basses clearly, that is why you can't hear what they actually
contribute to the orchestral sound - usually much more than just
"sawing" away.
But I have heard that kind of statement often from people who don't
have well developed hearing and aren't able to grasp complex musical
structures.
Obviously, that disqualifies you from making any statements of
informative value about basically any kind of music. Especially the
music of the Western hemisphere which is heavily based on the bass
voices as it is constructed around the harmonic progression of chords,
and the bass note is particularly important for the definition of the
chord.
That also applies to piano music since the piano reaches down even
further than the double bass. I know you fancy yourself a piano music
expert but now we know you can't hear the lower register of the piano
in focus, so you best refrain from dramatic statements about that genre
in future, too.
Thanks in advance.

Post by tomdeacon

Post by Michael Schaffer
Oh, wait - you already disqualified yourself. As we all were very
amused to read, you can't even tell very distinctly sounding orchestras
apart.Wrong. I confused the Vienna Philharmonic and the Berlin Philharmonic

on one occasion.
Generalising from the particular is a dangerous exercise.
e.g. Michael Schaffer is an idiotic double bass player. Rule: all
double bass players are idiotic.

The difference: that is your opinion. Your inability to tell these
orchestras apart was admitted by yourself - by accident, of course. But
it really completely disqualifies you from making any statements about
sound qualities.
BTW, the WP and BP also have subtly different, yet very distinct styles
of playing the bass, in addition to the more obvious differences, e.g.
of the oboes and horns. A pity you can't hear and appreciate that.
You don't know what you are missing. Literally.

Post by tomdeacon
Hmmmmmmm.
Perhaps I have something there. Corkie Monahan might be another.

Post by Michael Schaffer
You also only quoted only half of my post, the one about the lower
string, one of such instruments I indeed learned to play, in order to
give the impression I was somehow fixated on that. Although my playing
the bass means that I have better developed hearing for the lower
ranges than most people (that is something that is not part of the
normal setup of the human hearing, it has to be learned and trained),
it obviously does not mean that I am fixated on that only. Which is why
I also talked about the upper registers.What would YOU know about the "upper registers". I am unsure you can

hear anything above middle "C"

But you have no basis at all for that statement. I am basing my
judgment of your lack of hearing abilities and background knowledge on
what you said yourself - can't tell orchestras apart, can't hear the
basses properly, don't know anything about overtone structures etc -
not some things I made up, like you, in your desperation to be taking
seriously.
Since you seem to place so much importance in your online credibility,
Mr Fox offered you a chance to restore that - but you turned it down.
We all know why, of course.

Post by tomdeacon

Post by Michael Schaffer
So, thanks for contributing nothing to the subject.Just more offensive garbage, of course.
But why do you even post here when you obviously don't have anything to
say?Translation: Why do you post here when you clearly disagree with my

premise?

Wrong translation. It means: But why do you even post here when you
obviously don't have anything to say?
Literally.
It would be very welcome if you had anything to contribute about the
subject.
That is why I started the thread: not to let it be known that I think
these recordings have been doctored around with, but to find out if
they have, or if the limitations I heard are the original recordings in
the state it is preserved.
So there isn't even a "premise" here. It is an invitation to discuss,
not to defecate onto the keyboard as you usally do.
But then you don't contribute much to any discussion, so I shouldn't
have had to ask that question.

Post by tomdeacon
The answer should be clear even to a double bass player.

Post by Michael Schaffer
Why do you misquote other people, just in order to be able to
drivel into the thread?Misquote?

Examples, please.

See above. You cut my comments about higher strings in order to be able
to say I only am interested in the sound of lower strings. That is
childish.

Post by tomdeacon

Post by Michael Schaffer
Are you that starved of attention?Hardly. I simply refuse to accept the naive garbage you have been

dishing out about "hiss" you can't hear from recordings whose tapes you
have never heard.
It's just plain dumb.

You obviously don't know much and have not much experience with older
recordings. If you did, you would know that fairly high levels of tape
hiss were a basic technical reality back then, especially in the
pre-Dolby era.

Post by tomdeacon

Post by Michael Schaffer
Is that because even the night nurse in the funny farm you are
(hopefully) confined to doesn't react to your cries for attention
anymore? Even when you wet your bed and smear your shit all over the
room, just in order to get some attention?More low-class garbage.

I agree. And pretty disgusting. Please stop doing that. Both in your
room and here. Thanks.

Post by tomdeacon
It is amazing to me that we have spent 33( and counting) posts on a
thread which was already hanging by an very thin thread itself. It
beggars belief.

The post count only rose that high because of spammers like you.

Post by tomdeacon
No wonder some here have questioned the recent quality of this
newsgroup.
TD

[tomdeacon]

Post by Michael Schaffer

Post by tomdeacon

Post by Michael Schaffer
Clearly you didn't understand at all what I mean by that. I am not
talking about "unwanted buzzing", I am talking about the overtones of
the lower strings. These define the quality and character of the sound.Perhaps, in your opinion.

Not at all. That is not my opinion. That is a fact of physics. Overtone
structures are what define the sound of instruments.
You didn't know that? You think that is "my opinion"?
Wow.

I am always astonished by people who are astonished by the revelations
contained in my posts.

Wow, indeed.

Post by Michael Schaffer

Post by tomdeacon
Frankly, I am quite happy to do without the "buzzing" of doublebasses.
In my experience they stand there and saw away providing little other
than a comfortable cushion for the rest of the orchestra. In the lower
register of strings, only the cellos can claim to have an interesting
role in the fabric of the music. The basses: well, they're the webbing
in the sofa.

You probably can't hear the basses well anyway. I am not surprised.
Or, let me rephrase that. Not probably. You said it yourself. You can't
hear the basses clearly, that is why you can't hear what they actually
contribute to the orchestral sound - usually much more than just
"sawing" away.

Positing ideas for which you have absolutely NO proof, of course, is
your stock-in-trade.

Post by Michael Schaffer
But I have heard that kind of statement often from people who don't
have well developed hearing and aren't able to grasp complex musical
structures.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Why is it that all doublebass players are pompous twits, I wonder?

Post by Michael Schaffer
Obviously, that disqualifies you from making any statements of
informative value about basically any kind of music.

Is that an invitation for me NOT to comment on the idiocies which flow
from your pen?

If it is, I decline the invitation.

Post by Michael Schaffer
Especially the music of the Western hemisphere which is heavily based on the bass
voices as it is constructed around the harmonic progression of chords,
and the bass note is particularly important for the definition of the
chord.

Fortunately for many of us, the double bass is an instrument which most
of us can nicely avoid contact with in our daily lives.

Post by Michael Schaffer
That also applies to piano music since the piano reaches down even
further than the double bass.

Indeed. And does so without unnecessary "buzzing", at least on my
Bosendorfer, which, I should add, has four extra notes in the bass,
making it possible to realize what Debussy really intended in The
Sunken Cathedral. Very nice that. But no buzzing, of course.

I know you fancy yourself a piano music

Post by Michael Schaffer
expert but now we know you can't hear the lower register of the piano
in focus, so you best refrain from dramatic statements about that genre
in future, too.

I don't "fancy myself" as anything but a music-lover.

And I wouldn't fancy myself as a double bass player, if I were you. It
causes many to laugh out loud.

Post by Michael Schaffer

Post by tomdeacon

Post by Michael Schaffer
Why do you misquote other people, just in order to be able to
drivel into the thread?Misquote?

Examples, please.

See above. You cut my comments about higher strings in order to be able
to say I only am interested in the sound of lower strings. That is
childish.

Wrong.

It is called "editing", something many here should do in order to
reduce the length of posts.

I did not, of course, "misquote" you, as you allege. I simply selected
what I wanted to respond to.

TD

P.S. Notice that I have again "edited" your post. Some of it was more
garbage which didn't deserve any answer, let alone repeating.

[Michael Schaffer]

Post by tomdeacon

Post by Michael Schaffer

Post by tomdeacon

Post by Michael Schaffer
Clearly you didn't understand at all what I mean by that. I am not
talking about "unwanted buzzing", I am talking about the overtones of
the lower strings. These define the quality and character of the sound.Perhaps, in your opinion.

Not at all. That is not my opinion. That is a fact of physics. Overtone
structures are what define the sound of instruments.
You didn't know that? You think that is "my opinion"?
Wow.I am always astonished by people who are astonished by the revelations

contained in my posts.
Wow, indeed.

Wow, indeed. Why somebody would insist on dropping his pants
continuously in a public message forum and reveal his massive musical
incompetence instead of just taking part in the relaxed exchanges of
information is more a revelation a psychiatrist would be interested in
though. You don't contribute anything to the musical value of this ng.

Post by tomdeacon

Post by Michael Schaffer

Post by tomdeacon
Frankly, I am quite happy to do without the "buzzing" of doublebasses.
In my experience they stand there and saw away providing little other
than a comfortable cushion for the rest of the orchestra. In the lower
register of strings, only the cellos can claim to have an interesting
role in the fabric of the music. The basses: well, they're the webbing
in the sofa.

You probably can't hear the basses well anyway. I am not surprised.
Or, let me rephrase that. Not probably. You said it yourself. You can't
hear the basses clearly, that is why you can't hear what they actually
contribute to the orchestral sound - usually much more than just
"sawing" away.Positing ideas for which you have absolutely NO proof, of course, is

your stock-in-trade.

Post by Michael Schaffer
But I have heard that kind of statement often from people who don't
have well developed hearing and aren't able to grasp complex musical
structures.HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Why is it that all doublebass players are pompous twits, I wonder?

How would you know? You never were part of a professional music
environment. You won't know too many musicians. If you did, you would
know that they are the same variety of people as in "real life". That
includes bass players. All sorts of different people. To the outsider,
especially one as infantile and retarded as you are, they may appear
like what you imagine and associate them to be. But the reality is very
different. But again, you would not know that.

Post by tomdeacon

Post by Michael Schaffer
Obviously, that disqualifies you from making any statements of
informative value about basically any kind of music.Is that an invitation for me NOT to comment on the idiocies which flow

from your pen?
If it is, I decline the invitation.

Post by Michael Schaffer
Especially the music of the Western hemisphere which is heavily based on the bass
voices as it is constructed around the harmonic progression of chords,
and the bass note is particularly important for the definition of the
chord.Fortunately for many of us, the double bass is an instrument which most

of us can nicely avoid contact with in our daily lives.

That has nothing to do with double basses as such. It is a basic
principle of music. There are many instruments which can take that
function, among others. Lots of different instruments. All with
different sounds made by different overtone structures. But we already
know that is beyond you.
You don't have any contact in your daily life with actual music making,
so I can believe you it will be easy for you to avoid coming into
contact with any kind of music maker.

You don't even have to try - your nurses will probably ssee to it you
don't get too close to sane people on the outside.

Post by tomdeacon

Post by Michael Schaffer
That also applies to piano music since the piano reaches down even
further than the double bass.Indeed. And does so without unnecessary "buzzing", at least on my

Bosendorfer, which, I should add, has four extra notes in the bass,
making it possible to realize what Debussy really intended in The
Sunken Cathedral. Very nice that. But no buzzing, of course.

Of course it buzzes. Pianos have a very complex overtone structure.
Especially some brands like Bösendorfer which have a rather rich
sound. They buzz and ring, and that's what makes the sound quality. But
you can't probably hear all those differences anyway. Somebody with as
little musical knowledge as you constantly betray certainly won't have
the ability to play Debussy either, probably not even the easier
pieces. Certainly not that one.
Although I could actually picture you sitting at the piano and randomly
baging keys but believing you are a great pianist.

Post by tomdeacon
I know you fancy yourself a piano music

Post by Michael Schaffer
expert but now we know you can't hear the lower register of the piano
in focus, so you best refrain from dramatic statements about that genre
in future, too.I don't "fancy myself" as anything but a music-lover.

And I wouldn't fancy myself as a double bass player, if I were you. It
causes many to laugh out loud.

Only those who don't know anything about music and music making - like
you. People who do respect any instrumentalist or vocalist who can sing
or play well on any instrument - be it the human voice, the trombone,
the flute, the bass, the clarinet, be it percussion, violin, harp,
whatever. All these are just instruments, all of them can serve great
music making, and all of them have been employed for that purpose by
the great composers, so all of them are absolutely indispensable.

Post by tomdeacon

Post by Michael Schaffer

Post by tomdeacon

Post by Michael Schaffer
Why do you misquote other people, just in order to be able to
drivel into the thread?Misquote?

Examples, please.

See above. You cut my comments about higher strings in order to be able
to say I only am interested in the sound of lower strings. That is
childish.Wrong.

It is called "editing", something many here should do in order to
reduce the length of posts.

Editing is OK, but when you cut something and then act like it hasn't
been said, it's just falsification.
Which is probably the one thing you are any good at - until you were
found out to be nothing more than hot air and kicked out.
I am sure you have a lot of explanations for your failures, for the
fact that you are now a lonely old man drivelling nonsense from his
keyboard at night on the net. They probably all have to do with all the
other evil people, none of them with your own obvious shortcomings.

Post by tomdeacon
I did not, of course, "misquote" you, as you allege. I simply selected
what I wanted to respond to.
TD
P.S. Notice that I have again "edited" your post. Some of it was more
garbage which didn't deserve any answer, let alone repeating.

Hey - nobody is making fun of you because you are just an old
incontinent man - in more than just one way! People do give you a
little attention because we know you need it so much, why not give a
little of it, just out of pity?
But please stop smearing your excrements on the wall or urinating in
the corridors. That is not nice. And please stop urinating here. Thanks
and good night.

[tomdeacon]

Post by Michael Schaffer

Post by tomdeacon
Why is it that all doublebass players are pompous twits, I wonder?

How would you know? You never were part of a professional music
environment.

HA HA HA HA HA

The idea that playing a double bass is part of a "professional music
environment" is ludicrous.

Post by Michael Schaffer
You won't know too many musicians. If you did, you would
know that they are the same variety of people as in "real life". That
includes bass players. All sorts of different people. To the outsider,
especially one as infantile and retarded as you are, they may appear
like what you imagine and associate them to be. But the reality is very
different. But again, you would not know that.

Oh, I think I get a very good idea of YOUR identity. And "idiotic twit"
who plays the double bass sums it up nicely.

Having known a number of double bass players in my career, I would have
to say that none was as much of a twit as you, but then I haven't met
them all.

Certainly Gary Karr was no twit.

Nor was Serge Koussevitzky.

Indeed, both are great musicians.

TD

[Michael Schaffer]

Post by tomdeacon

Post by Michael Schaffer

Post by tomdeacon
Why is it that all doublebass players are pompous twits, I wonder?

How would you know? You never were part of a professional music
environment.HA HA HA HA HA

The idea that playing a double bass is part of a "professional music
environment" is ludicrous.

There are thousands of great musicians in orchestras, bands, all sorts
of ensembles around the world who play the bass professionally on a
very high musical level. It only confirms the impression I already had
of you that you can't appreciate and respect that.

Post by tomdeacon

Post by Michael Schaffer
You won't know too many musicians. If you did, you would
know that they are the same variety of people as in "real life". That
includes bass players. All sorts of different people. To the outsider,
especially one as infantile and retarded as you are, they may appear
like what you imagine and associate them to be. But the reality is very
different. But again, you would not know that.Oh, I think I get a very good idea of YOUR identity. And "idiotic twit"

who plays the double bass sums it up nicely.
Having known a number of double bass players in my career, I would have
to say that none was as much of a twit as you, but then I haven't met
them all.
Certainly Gary Karr was no twit.
Nor was Serge Koussevitzky.
Indeed, both are great musicians.

I thought the idea of playing the bass professionally was "ludicrous"?
I guess both Gary and Serge would disagree with you. Well, Serge can't
anymore.

Post by tomdeacon
TD

There was this hilarious CSI episode when they find a guy who is well
beyond his 50s and who is a tough casino manager dead - in diapers. Not
just the kind of diapers some older people have to wear for medical
reasons. Real baby diapers, scaled up to adult size. I think he also
had a pacifier. Then they found he had a whole room decorated like a
baby room, with the crib and all the toys and all that, all scaled up
to his size.
When I read your posts, I always have to picture you like that - in
those diapers, sitting in your baby room and crying and poopooing like
crazy just to get some attention.
But you had enough attention now. I hope you are at least grateful.

[tomdeacon]

Post by Michael Schaffer
I thought the idea of playing the bass professionally was "ludicrous"?

You misquote yourself.

I do believe you talked about a "professional musical environment".

Playing the bass is a profession. I leave aside for the moment whether
the double bass is a "musical instrument", let alone playing it might
qualify for its player being included in a "professional musical
environment".

That you were part of a professional musical environment is what is
impossible to credit.

TD

[Michael Schaffer]

Post by tomdeacon

I thought the idea of playing the bass professionally was "ludicrous"?You misquote yourself.

I do believe you talked about a "professional musical environment".
Playing the bass is a profession. I leave aside for the moment whether
the double bass is a "musical instrument", let alone playing it might
qualify for its player being included in a "professional musical
environment".
That you were part of a professional musical environment is what is
impossible to credit.
TD

I understand what you mean. Of course it is impossible to "credit" -
for you. Since you never were part of something like that yourself, you
don't have the slightest clue what that means and is. In general and in
particular..

Any kind of good professional musician, no matter what he/she plays, is
part of a complex and interwoven professional musical environment. Good
bass players are no exception - on the contrary, good musicians usually
have nothing but respect for what bass players achieve on an instrument
that is very difficult to play, physically and technically. It is very
nice to receive that respect from fellow musicians, and it is all the
more entertaining and revealing to see that complete ignoramuses like
you don't have the slightest idea what it takes to be a good and
professional musician, but that idiots like you think they can
downgrade musicians because they play less "glamorous" instruments.

You are even further away from having even a faint notion of what it is
like to be part of such an environment since you have no cultural ties
to that at all. For you, that's just part of a diffuse idea of what
"culture" means. For me, it's my own cultural background, and I just
happened to grow up, study and work in some of its epicenters. Good for
me. Incredibly enrichening. It's a pity you have no idea what that is
like. But that is something you can't even remotely begin to
understand. Schade...Du hast nicht einmal eine entfernte Ahnung, was Du
verpasst, Du kleiner Scheisser...

[tomdeacon]

Post by Michael Schaffer
You are even further away from having even a faint notion of what it is
like to be part of such an environment since you have no cultural ties
to that at all. For you, that's just part of a diffuse idea of what
"culture" means. For me, it's my own cultural background, and I just
happened to grow up, study and work in some of its epicenters. Good for
me. Incredibly enrichening. It's a pity you have no idea what that is
like. But that is something you can't even remotely begin to
understand. Schade...Du hast nicht einmal eine entfernte Ahnung, was Du
verpasst, Du kleiner Scheisser...

Hmmmmm.

I would think that Germans would have more sense than to talk grandly
about "KULTUR". We all know how cultured that nation was fifty years
ago.

And the final greeting resembles something out of a film featuring
uniformed Nazi officers mistreating some poor Jew.

Schade, indeed.

TD

[Michael Schaffer]

Post by tomdeacon

Post by Michael Schaffer
You are even further away from having even a faint notion of what it is
like to be part of such an environment since you have no cultural ties
to that at all. For you, that's just part of a diffuse idea of what
"culture" means. For me, it's my own cultural background, and I just
happened to grow up, study and work in some of its epicenters. Good for
me. Incredibly enrichening. It's a pity you have no idea what that is
like. But that is something you can't even remotely begin to
understand. Schade...Du hast nicht einmal eine entfernte Ahnung, was Du
verpasst, Du kleiner Scheisser...Hmmmmm.

I would think that Germans would have more sense than to talk grandly
about "KULTUR". We all know how cultured that nation was fifty years
ago.
And the final greeting resembles something out of a film featuring
uniformed Nazi officers mistreating some poor Jew.
Schade, indeed.
TD

Took you a while, but I knew you would have to resort to the Nazi
wildcard at some point. BTW, are you wearing your diapers now?

[Steve de Mena]

Post by tomdeacon

The sonority of the lower strings is defined by soft, but distinct
overtones in the mid and higher ranges (that slight, but distinctive
zzzzz buzz the basses make, for instance). That is usally covered up
when the higher strings play as well, but also usually audible in more
open lower string passages, even on recordings of that vintage. Not so
here. These fineties often fall victim to aggressive denoising.

Since Mr. Schaffer would seem to play the double-bass, he should
probably be placed in the same category as David Hurwitz, late of this
group but mercifully absent for many moons. who views all music from
the perspective of the timpany.

Reading Michael's posts one would never know he
was a double-bassist. If anything, I would
probably guess he was a brass player.

Steve

[Michael Schaffer]

Post by Steve de Mena

Post by tomdeacon

The sonority of the lower strings is defined by soft, but distinct
overtones in the mid and higher ranges (that slight, but distinctive
zzzzz buzz the basses make, for instance). That is usally covered up
when the higher strings play as well, but also usually audible in more
open lower string passages, even on recordings of that vintage. Not so
here. These fineties often fall victim to aggressive denoising.

Since Mr. Schaffer would seem to play the double-bass, he should
probably be placed in the same category as David Hurwitz, late of this
group but mercifully absent for many moons. who views all music from
the perspective of the timpany.Reading Michael's posts one would never know he

was a double-bassist. If anything, I would
probably guess he was a brass player.
Steve

You mean because I often write about brass vibrato and other stuff like
that? It is true, I am massively interested in performance styles and
the different sound worlds produced by all kinds of instruments and
orchestras. But I also used to play the horn when I was a kid, I didn't
study that professionaly though. Still, I think the horn in particular
is a great instrument, and I am in particular fascinated by the typical
brass sound of Soviet orchestras, as readers of this ng have probably
gathered by now...
But I also have a fairly good collection of oboe solo recordings,
because that is another instrument I particularly enjoy hearing and
comparing the different playing styles.

[rkhalona]

Post by Michael Schaffer

Post by rkhalona
Can you tell us where, in the Aulos set, you think too much denoising
has been applied?
I can compare those passages since I have both the early BMG/Melodiya
and Aulos sets.
IIRC, the Melodiya set used the "No-Noise" process, which could be
pretty brutal in terms of removing higher frequency content (a
miserable example of this is the recording of Kondrashin's Symphonic
Dances by Rachmaninoff where even a cassette sounded better). Being
familiar with both sets, I think Aulos did very well, but I can help
you make the comparison.
BTW, you probably know that the 4th symphony is in STEREO in the Aulos
set, whereas the BMG/Melodiya set put it out in MONO. I wonder what it
will be in the new Melodiya set.
RK

Neither do I, of course, but I find the extremely low level of tape
hiss in, for instance, the 8th symphony, very suspicous. If you listen
to the string sound in, say, the 4th movement, it does sound to me like
somebody denoised there *massively*. I find it hard to describe, but
the higher strings have that somehow "plasticky" sound and the lower
strings that featureless sound, lacking in any kind of sonority. The
sonority of the lower strings is defined by soft, but distinct
overtones in the mid and higher ranges (that slight, but distinctive
zzzzz buzz the basses make, for instance). That is usally covered up
when the higher strings play as well, but also usually audible in more
open lower string passages, even on recordings of that vintage. Not so
here. These fineties often fall victim to aggressive denoising.

I've just performed a comparison of the 8th symphony in the first
BMG/Melodiya and Aulos CD releases. You are correct that the Melodiya
release has been denoised less intrusively, as evidenced by more tape
hiss, but there is a shrillness in the Melodiya transfer that has been
effectively tamed in the Aulos transfer. This is heard most noticeably
at the very beginning of the symphony and at the beginning of the 4th
movement, where quite a bit of distortion is audible in the Melodiya
transfer and much less so in the Aulos. I listened both through
speakers and headphones. On headphones I was able to detect a low
level hum in the Aulos transfer that I don't quite hear in the
Melodiya. This hum is almost undetectable through speakers at normal
listening volume.

I also listened to the string passages you suggested in the 4th
movement. Everything you hear in the Melodiya transfer (including the
overtones) are there in the Aulos transfer, as another poster
suggested, but the Aulos sounds cleaner. Obviously a compromise had to
be made and I think Aulos did well. If I had to make a choice between
the two sets (I don't since I own both), it would clearly be the Aulos
since it makes for a more pleasant listening experience (that
shrillness at the beginning of I and IV makes the Melodiya hard to
listen to).

These two sets have clearly been equalized differently. My guess is
that very little improvement will be achievable beyond what Aulos has
done. Now, if I can only get my hands on the single disc of "Stepan
Razin" and "The Sun Shines Over the Motherland" in the new Melodiya
box, I'll be a happy camper.

RK

[Michael Schaffer]

Post by rkhalona
I've just performed a comparison of the 8th symphony in the first
BMG/Melodiya and Aulos CD releases. You are correct that the Melodiya
release has been denoised less intrusively, as evidenced by more tape
hiss, but there is a shrillness in the Melodiya transfer that has been
effectively tamed in the Aulos transfer. This is heard most noticeably
at the very beginning of the symphony and at the beginning of the 4th
movement, where quite a bit of distortion is audible in the Melodiya
transfer and much less so in the Aulos. I listened both through
speakers and headphones. On headphones I was able to detect a low
level hum in the Aulos transfer that I don't quite hear in the
Melodiya. This hum is almost undetectable through speakers at normal
listening volume.
I also listened to the string passages you suggested in the 4th
movement. Everything you hear in the Melodiya transfer (including the
overtones) are there in the Aulos transfer, as another poster
suggested, but the Aulos sounds cleaner. Obviously a compromise had to
be made and I think Aulos did well. If I had to make a choice between
the two sets (I don't since I own both), it would clearly be the Aulos
since it makes for a more pleasant listening experience (that
shrillness at the beginning of I and IV makes the Melodiya hard to
listen to).
These two sets have clearly been equalized differently. My guess is
that very little improvement will be achievable beyond what Aulos has
done. Now, if I can only get my hands on the single disc of "Stepan
Razin" and "The Sun Shines Over the Motherland" in the new Melodiya
box, I'll be a happy camper.
RK

Thanks for taking the time to make that comparison. It has been a long
time since I heard the earlier CD of the 8th (to stick with that
example), and what I remember sounded exactly like what you describe,
but I don't have it so I can't make that direct comparison myself.
That wasn't really my question though since it is already known and
(AFAIK) generally uncontested that that early release was not exactly
done very well, and whatever Aulos did is certainly better than that.
What I am curious about now is how these recordings sound in the new
Melodiya box better, worse, the same...
I didn't hear the hum, BTW, but I only relistened to the 4th movement
of the 8th to doublecheck my earlier impressions. Was it there as well
or did you hear it in other places?
What I had forgotten to mention earlier is that the flatness of the
lower frequency range isn't there all the time - that's what had
aroused my suspsicion in the first place. For instance, you can hear
the "buzz" very clearly in the passage beginning at 4:45 - it is very
distinct here, almost as if there was another instrument doubling in
the third octave, and the curious thing is that it basically "switches
on" at that moment and it is much more subdued in the precedding
passage, especially in the last seconds (from about 4:40) of the flute
passage - but there you can clearly hear denoising artefacts (probably
only with good headphones though), that strange "diffuse ringing echo
in the distance" that is often caused by such processes.

BTW, I am pretty much decided I will buy the Melodiya box, but I will
probably wait until it's been out a little longer and prices have
dropped.

[Bill Anderson]

Hello Michael -

Interesting thread. Unfortunately, I have neither the BMG nor the Alrus
set. So, I am afraid that my contribution is limited at best. But
generally, an aggressive approach to hiss can and will take the bloom
off of a recording, whether it be a tape or disc source. I have
certainly went too far in some of my earlier transfers. It takes a lot
of time and experimentation to get an acceptable balance of sound
quality and noise reduction. Sometimes, the companies just do not have
the luxury of time to perform this delicate balance. And, sadly, other
companies don't care.

I'm sorry I can't contribute any more substantive information.

- Bill

[h***@yahoo.com]

Gosh, what a silly discussion.

That's why I put DSCH8 in my cd-player (Naim CDX) to check what this
all about.

I hear plenty of buzz overtones on the Aulos remastering.

A couple of years ago when this remastering was released there were
long discussions on GMG about the comparative merits of the Aulos and
the Melodyia. The Aulos was considered to be preferable. (BTW this was
before GMG was turned into a chitchat room for stupid Americans.) The
only problem is of course you don't know what equipment people are
using (and what kind of brains they have - see for instance the
number of people on this thread who are talking about the "Alrus"
remastering).

Herman

[Handel8]

Post by h***@yahoo.com
Gosh, what a silly discussion.
That's why I put DSCH8 in my cd-player (Naim CDX) to check what this
all about.
I hear plenty of buzz overtones on the Aulos remastering.
A couple of years ago when this remastering was released there were
long discussions on GMG about the comparative merits of the Aulos and
the Melodyia. The Aulos was considered to be preferable. (BTW this was
before GMG was turned into a chitchat room for stupid Americans.) The
only problem is of course you don't know what equipment people are
using (and what kind of brains they have - see for instance the
number of people on this thread who are talking about the "Alrus"
remastering).
Herman

I have just seen this new set listed at MDT for release in January
2007. The price is pretty stiff, however, at some 65 pound sterling !
The current price offered on ebay from someone in the Russian
Federation is much lower at 70 USD plus 15 USD for shipping. Maybe
someone will get this set and make the comparison. It is debatable
whether Melodyia would have remastered this again and whether the 4th
Symphony(or the one mentioned earlier in this regard) comes in mono or
stereo. I have seen two versions on ebay from two different sellers in
Russia at the same price. One seems to have a white cover and the
other reverses the colors, being mostly black. The black seems more
attrative to me FWIW. The MDT listing shows the white cover.

Alan Prichard