IF YOU'VE ENJOYED ANY (OR MANY) OF THESE RATHER EXCITING '78' TRANSFERS THEN A MODEST CONTRIBUTION WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH APPRECIATED.... https://www.paypal.me

24 Nov 2013

Felix Weingartner / Royal Philharmonic Society - Beethoven. Symphony 5 -&- Symphony 6 - Columbia 1927

Ludwig van Beethoven:  Symphony no.5 in C minor, op.67  
I: Allegro con brio  ~  II: Andante con moto  ~  III: Allegro  ~  IV: Allegro          FLAC  Mega Download
Columbia  L 1880-1883   late 1920's Album.   Laminated pressings.   Matrices: WRAX 2414/5, 17-22 (2/2/2/2/2/2/2/3)
Recorded: 28–29 January 1927 - Scala Theatre, London

Ludwig van Beethoven:  Symphony no.6 in F major, op.68  "Pastoral"
I: Allegro ma non troppo  ~  II: Andante molto mosso  ~  III: Allegro   ~  IV: Allegretto          FLAC Mega Download
Columbia  L 1893-1897   late 1920's Album.  Laminated pressings.   Matrices: WRAX 2363-66 (1/2/1/2) & 2377-82 (3/1/2/2/2/1)
Recorded: 18–19 January 1927 - Scala Theatre, London
The Royal Philharmonic Society Orchestra  conducted by  Felix Weingartner     
A few slight 'wear' traces remain in the 'Pastoral'.  You can compare these to the 'new improved' transfers by Obert-Thorn for Mr.Pee    Mr.Pee's Sym 5+6 mvt.1 mp3 sample

25 comments:

  1. Very nice restauration, many thanks!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not yet listened to these on 'the Hifi' (3 times already is enough for a day..) but they appear to be rather superior to Obert-Thorn's (his 'Pastoral' has spurious treble added - the 5th is noticeably duller (probably due to the surface hiss being reduced - as it is 'brighter' than the 6th: both sets here are transferred using the same EQ/de-click)..

      Delete
    2. Hi Tin Ear,
      can you re-activate the links for Weingartner's 5th and 6th. Would be very much appreciated as your transfers are astonishing. I joined only lately. And don't be to annoied with Mr. P. Isn't good for soul and body
      MB

      Delete
    3. Fell off my perch to get a comment here after so many months...
      Have re-uploaded these files - another transfer seems rather unnecessary - so may do the 1938 Brahms 1/4 'for my interest'.
      Basically am quite fed-up with the blogs/time spent..definitely not good for the body..

      Delete
  2. What a wonderful performance of the 5th, so very fresh! (As didn't get to Pastoral yet...) And once again, your transfer is splendid and sounds very nice indeed, whereas i can say directly i wouldn't listen to Mr. P's 'version', the sample sounds rather like a joke.

    Thanks a lot, great work as usual!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let us hope that Mark Obert-Thorn doesn't see that comment (and Mr.Pee pays for those transfers!!)

      I can't 'compete' with the remainder of this 1927 series - unless I'm offered some 85yo albums - as my Beecham/LSO 2nd has noticeable groove-wear - and only have Henschel's 1st as a BBC Radio 3 broadcast ('at my request') of the Pearl CD transfer - now OOP.

      At least you can Hear this 5th - as I've the previous Acoustic LSO version (also of the 7th); which is quite faint by comparison.

      Delete
    2. These really are fantastic performances - and if the sound in Pastoral is just slightly less great than in the 5th, at least it bears no resemblance to the joke-transfer, and still remains 'music' with realistic sound. Must be desperate times for mr. P! Hope he gets some good reviews in industry-publications, at least (just kidding..)

      Thanks again - and have a nice 'holiday'.

      Delete
    3. A 'holiday' from this blog - as, in 5 weeks, have transferred some 45 discs (and more than once, in some cases) not to mention wet-cleaning all (except the Brahms 4) - but the 'experience' has led to some better software settings for such transfers.
      It's the editing-away of very small clicks, etc, which adds the extra 'man-hours' to what is quite straightforward.processing of the discs.

      I'm sure 'we can all assume' that the Magic Names will, in the estimation of various on-line reviewers (excuse me whilst I fart in their direction!) have added Incomparable Lustre to Columbia's 'Magic Notes'..irrespective of how poorly they compare to my 'amateur efforts'..

      Delete
  3. Thank you so much, Tin Ear. While I admit that I'm doing some work to further improve these, they sound fantastic already. Are these the first electrical recordings of the symphonies?

    Kittenfish

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thank you for your effort, your transfers sound quite good if you can ignore the pitch inestability that kill those recordings, very good work made by you but the sources are terrible, not your fault.
    I think that the problem with M-O-T transfers in not the transfer it self, but the added pitch stabilization process, every time M-O-T ask Mr Rose to make this process the result is noticiable noisly compare to other M-O-T works. See (listen) Naxos, APR, Opus Kura, Pearl transfers are much quiter. I ask to M-O-T if Mr.Rose retouch his masters and he answer me that nobody retouch his work except when he ask for pitch stabilization. Sincerily, I don't belive so, he got the skill, training and experience to know how to reduce that high frecuency noise that remain above the notch filter he applied @ 10Khz.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Somehow I doubt if anyone in the late 1920's (or for the next quarter-century) really was at all vexed by some deviations from 'perfection' from these objects.
    It seems really daft to believe that 'the truth' of the actual sessions can somehow be revealed from under the disadventageous circumstances of their creation/mass distribution...which is why I consider them mostly 'near-junk'.

    These are totally untampered-with - with the exception of the de-clicking (at relatively quite low levels: circa 550,000 'repairs').
    You can 'improve' the sound by removing some contact-fizz - along with much of the remaining detail/dynamic-contrast (Obert-Thorn end-result: synthetic/boring).

    The response of these is tailored @ the HF by an Audacity-edjusted EQ roll-off from about 7kHz - the bass from about 50Hz.
    There is no loss of either any recorded HF - or low-bass with the Western-Electric recording system as at this date.
    Clearly, I am somewhat impervious to the 'pitch-instabilty' (not yet listened to the 6th via a HiFi) - and I really don't care - as the 5th surpassed any expections I might have had; the edited WAV certainly doesn't sound 'terrible', as a source, using my equipment.

    It's best that I just make these for myself - as it only means spending 2x the length of the recordings to hear them under acceptable restored conditions..so will leave it 'to the experts' to sell their compromised dross!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Interesting. i just want to make clear, as i didn't specify before, that for me the problem with Mr. MOT's versions isn't the 'noisiness' but the dullness&muddiness, the reduced range of the sound-dynamics, and consequently, the noisy lack of 'music' - not representing at all what's obviously hidden on the discs!

    Listened to both of these again today - wonderful!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes..I understood that; and am 'bemused' if others can't immediately identify the deficiencies (quite obvious via my Sony laptop speakers...) - as the 'sample' exhibits the 'confusion' that has occured to the music/instruments (partly due to a less good cartridge used by M O-T: likely still a very cheap Stanton 500; Mr.Pee uses a cheapo 1960's Shure M44 - with a 'childs toy' Rega 78rpm turntable..a total joke!) - but my Shure V15/3 (original elliptical stylii) have a sophisticated cantilever, etc, that reveals the 'light & shade'/dynamics to a far higher degree...hence I use it instead of my Shure M75/91/95 78 stylii - or ADC XLM R78 - with their 'thicker' cantilevers - which, by comparison, 'blur' the sound .
      Only the necessary 'de-click' is damaging the sound here - but at settings that remove much of the HF 'interference' caused by the shellac - without losing a load of 'detail'/dynamics/'attack'..

      Others are content to listen-to/buy nothing more than 'Muzak'....or likely 'make their own Muzak' from my various files; so it's probably pointless to show that something more accurate/High Quality existed - a least before self-apppointed 'engineers' intervened with their 'gizmos'....

      Delete
    2. Both Stanton 500 and Shure M44 where used all around the world in transfers studios because of the widely specific stylus you can find for both, barely for each kind of groove size, mono 33 RPM, BBC transcription, USA shellac, European shellac, RCA, Columbia or Pathe grooves, spherical, elliptical truncated specific for 78 rpm, sometimes the diference is only 0.1 mil and it's possible to capture a more clear sound or less noisy sound. Not only M-O-T or Mr Rose use them, Abbey Road Studios use it for all their EMI reissues.

      Delete
    3. No..it's not the stylus-size; the Shure's only have 'the one size' - either conical [or elliptical: V15/3 or M97: I don't have the 78stylus for the latter; the ADC is about 15% larger stylus] - it is the effect that the coil-structure/cantilever imposes on the sound ('the detail/transparency, etc) - and you cannot 'twiddle knobs' to overcome the inferiority compared to the Shure V15/3 (and a few more superior 78 models - I also have an Ortofon 'C' that could be used + a Decca London Green which needs a repair).

      If you could compare the Shure V15/3 to the obsolete Shure M44/cheap Stanton 500 - you would very quickly realise what I say is correct!

      Delete
    4. Hello again Tin ear
      I totally agree with your comments about the choice of cartridge. I have usually used an M-75 78 with an .0035 inch truncated elliptical installed by Expert Pickups. I also have .0028 & .0040 ellipticals which I find gives excellent sound and covers most mainstream labels. Shure cartridges do need careful capacitance matching to arm and pre-amp but this does help with inner clarity..However about 20 years ago, after reading what the 'professionals' use and believing that I needed a cartridge which would track above 3 grams, I bought a Stanton 500 and replaced the stylus with an .0035 elliptical - big mistake. Even using my SME arm it sounds coarse, loud and lacks definition So I only use this for warped discs as a last resort.

      Another factor in this chain, which is rarely mentioned, is the Analogue to Digital sound card. A cheap or poor Sound Blaster can ruin the good work from the disc end. I would be interested to hear your own experiences and feelings on this.

      Pitch stability on these earlier Columbias I have found to be a nightmare to correct. The varying recorded speed through a single side and matching with the next side I have found to be almost impossible on a variable speed turntable (Goldring G99). I spent weeks on the Harty Beethoven 4th Symphony with only limited success, so those who get it right have my greatest respect.
      Best Wishes again
      Howard

      Delete
    5. Hello Howard, (yes..I'm 'still editing': MAD!!!).
      As you can see from the 'Expert Pickups' scan - unless you send an original assembly for re-tip then you get/got some crude 'cranked' cantilever in a silicone 'slug'..with no proper suspension.

      I have Shure N75-3 original stylii (25thou conical) which fits my Shure M75 + is the correct stylus for my V15/II. Also have an (identical) one for the M91..
      The N95-3 assembly, whilst identical', benefits from the superior coils of the M95; however it/these have nowhere near the 'analysis' of a V15/3 with the original elliptical stylus (which I also have) - also due to the V15/3's far superior cantilever.
      An ADC XLM has their larger 30thou conical R78 stylus appears no better than the cheaper Shure's - and seems to acquire 'swish' on Columbia laminates.

      The one I don't have is the N478E for the (original) M97; which has the V15/3's elliptical stylus.

      I use the Shure V15/3 78E with no capacitance matching (if it was in the SME 3009 Series 3 'maybe' as that cable has 220pf added) - and any EHF 'peak' isn't anyway applicable to 78 playback

      The card, etc (got for £25 from eBay) is the decade-old Terratec DMX6fire 24/96 which still (it appears) 'competes' due to its excellent spec.

      I didn't 'do anything' to these splendid Weingartner's (great orchestra..) and I really don't see that pitch/speed is a problem..so the Obert-Thorn/Rose version has good reason to sound so inferior (knackered Muzak, IMO) with all the 'gizmo's' applied to the signal + the inferior cartridge used!!

      Delete
  7. I'm not saying that you do right or wrong, although I think you take a big risk using the delicate V15/3 stylus into a 0.3 mil shellac groove, but is your decision and clearly is not the common use, but your results are far superior in detail and clarity levels. Your transfers are great for the early 80s CD standards, you know, they remember me the very early M&A CDs, very clear sound but with a lot of remainded clicks.
    What I'm saying is that you can't blame M-O-T or Mr Rose only for using the industry standard in transfers. Even archiving sites like CHARM where made it using the Shure M44 and a CEDAR declicking module. Remember that this people must SALE their products, this means that they can't accept the level of noise that you/me obtain in yours/our amateurs efforts. Up today, our masters files will be rejected by every record label, no matter how many downloads we have in our blogs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Previously the Shure V15/3 would be used for 78 transcriptions; then the styii became unavailable - also the top Stanton 881 was used.

      What 'professionals' ('industry standard') now use are are far less-good/sophisticated designs: which leads to inherently inferior sound being Extracted From The Groove (ignoring any stylus size aspect).

      The Shure 44 is simply an obsolete/primitive 'disco' cartridge - dating from the mid '60's.

      The Only reason it is used is because 'Expert Pickups' sold that model for many years with a range of their stylii.
      However, they are unlikely then/now to use proper cantilevers/suspensions; just something 'home-made': and the Stanton 500 came with a range of 78 stylii sizes (at least early-on).

      FYI: here is a 1997 letter/invoice from 'Expert Pickups' for a replacement [larger, truncated] stylus/assembly for my V15/3 - which I had to return, as it was quite incompetently manufactured (sic!!) by them. The 'alternative cartridge' mentioned would have been the crappy Shure M44..

      So, Thank God for eBay - as I've been able to buy, cheaply, 4 Boxed/New Old Stock *Genuine* Shure VN78E (elliptical stylii for my V15/3 cartridge/s (originally bought V15/3 as almost a Teenager..) - and which these transfers are made @ 1.8 grams tracking-weight!

      Delete
  8. Sorry, i don't mean to push myself into the conversation but wish to just state a couple of observations, as i find this interesting (and the subject matter just a bit disgusting.)

    i see what Pablo is saying about the 'industry standard' but this is just one reason why a lot of people are becoming increasingly frustrated with the 'institutionalized industries' of today. However, mr. Pose is surely an independent and allegedly desiring to serve a particular kind of audience, and i don't see how 'industry standards' relevant to mass-production apply to his case - that, after all, is the attraction of independents, in general. Maybe mr. P should also join the 'loudness war' to compete with Metallica? Generally, independents succeed because they do not care about such standards as deemed fit by CEO's who don't care for the products their company is producing.

    Further, if what Pablo said would be entirely applicable, why would mr. Rose be worried about Tin Ear's blog as evidenced by his insincere&facetious email? After all, these amateurish unstandard transfers would pose no threat to his 'business model' (though, i would wish his business to come crashing down and him having to get an honest job...)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pablo's point, basically, is that to be able to sell these things commercially the assumption is that they need to be turned into innocuous 'Muzak'.

      For me, I want to be excited-by/involved in the 'performance' - and you can't achieve that by flattening the sound with an aural steam-roller (or using really inferior 78 playback equipment..).

      What is particularly annoying about Rose is that he was 'gifted' a very large Shellac collection, and I queried, at the time, whether m/any would ever be heard - as he only wanted the $$$$ earners - and anyway merrily copies 'vintage' stuff from other peoples LP/CD transfers!!

      Given the huge quantity of free CD-Rips available online I fail to understand why he has almost any income from his 'stunning transformations' (those CD sites also make the efforts of the still-remaining 78/LP blogs pretty futile, IMO..).

      Delete
    2. Not a bit cynical, though...a condition i think partly created by the industry itself, as in, i think people have 'learned' from somewhere that noise/light crackle is unacceptable and muted sound is ok. Anyway, partly i'm sure the 'industry standard' is also set by cost-cutting...better to use cheap 'acceptable' cartridges than actually good ones. At any rate, mr. P should care more than the industry - i'm pretty sure i read him claiming he strives for quality, or something to that effect...he didn't mention caring about 'industry standards' and them being good enough for him, but perhaps he's said that elsewhere. Anyway....

      PS: And that is very annoying!

      Delete
    3. Well - he's a useful 'target'.
      But (apart from his latest cover designs....Yuck) I don't think 'we' need bother wondering 'which pickup cartridge?' was used for the latest Fricsay 'release'...

      Delete
    4. Thank you for this. I used to have Weingartner 78s in 'pristine' condition which did not survive a move. (They were discards from the Stanford University Library, free for the taking, but did not make it to NJ.) I have bought CD versions of them with varying degrees of satisfaction. Weingartner delivers the goods regardless. You mention that you have a acoustic 7th. I read that there was actually an unabridged version issued only in France, but have never seen or heard any of it. Have you?

      Delete
    5. The LSO discography (available free from 'CHARM' website) only shows 2 sides being re-made a year or so after the 1923 release.

      I'm not too certain which 'version' I have - but 'Satyr' has a transfer available from his blogs.

      Mine delayed as a disc has an edge-chip: though had intended uploading this/5 some years before - but it inevitably requires 'de-clicking' - and doubt I would ever be entirely happy with any of my efforts - and as there are some many 'methods' to employ!!

      Delete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.