Thirty three and a third.

[Irons]

This may have been tried in the past and sunk without trace.

Is there any enthusiasm with forum members for a thread on not only the LP record but the music of the era they were produced? A platform to express all views, even if you cannot stand them (an understandable view).

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Not quite sure I understand your question.

We've had some LP-related threads, as well as any number of threads about mid-20th century music, which would be the LP era. Are you proposing to combine them in some specific way?

[Irons]

Not quite sure I understand your question.

We've had some LP-related threads, as well as any number of threads about mid-20th century music, which would be the LP era. Are you proposing to combine them in some specific way?

Not sure I understand it myself.

There is a train-spotting element to collecting vinyl, masses of minutia concerning  labels, sound engineers, recording locations and playback, which only a vinyl-head would find of interest and frankly would bore GMG members. That aside, no matter what, the music always comes first and that is why I mentioned it. Recently there was a fascinating thread on GMG "Pianists on LP" I am unable to recall the exact title. Every era, 78's, LP, CD and now Downloads, produces "stars" and artists from past generations fade from view. It has always been thus.

I did not think such a thread in all honesty was a goer. Thanks for your response.

[aligreto]

I am something of a vinyl collector in a small way but my knowledge of such things is quite limited. I do find them interesting though. There are a number of members here who have good knowledge and memory of the vinyl age. Therefore, may I suggest that you kick things off and see what type of response you get. I will contribute in whatever way that I can and the worst that can happen to me is that I might actually learn something.  Others might find suitable topics for discussion as they arise.

[Andante]

I still have some vinyl from the 50s some good jazz of that era Kenton, MJQ etc but I seldom play them as I have a small collection of remastered CDs which do get an airing now and again.

[Ghost of Baron Scarpia]

Not sure I understand it myself.

There is a train-spotting element to collecting vinyl, masses of minutia concerning  labels, sound engineers, recording locations and playback, which only a vinyl-head would find of interest and frankly would bore GMG members. That aside, no matter what, the music always comes first and that is why I mentioned it. Recently there was a fascinating thread on GMG "Pianists on LP" I am unable to recall the exact title. Every era, 78's, LP, CD and now Downloads, produces "stars" and artists from past generations fade from view. It has always been thus.

I did not think such a thread in all honesty was a goer. Thanks for your response.

I don't think awareness of recording minutia such as sound engineers, producers, locations, microphone configurations, etc, requires vinyl. I'm a big fan of some of the producers from the golden age of stereo and it is great to hear their work as they heard it when they listened to the playback of their master tapes.

I had a brief vinyl infatuation, but it faded fast. The only thing that tempts me back to vinyl are all of the monaural Mercury records that never made it to CD or SACD. But whenever I have found one on vinyl, it has sounded terrible.

Here's a great one that languished.



This is another that blew my mind when I found the very elaborate LP set from 1949. Then I found a CD transfer.

[Irons]

I am something of a vinyl collector in a small way but my knowledge of such things is quite limited. I do find them interesting though. There are a number of members here who have good knowledge and memory of the vinyl age. Therefore, may I suggest that you kick things off and see what type of response you get. I will contribute in whatever way that I can and the worst that can happen to me is that I might actually learn something.  Others might find suitable topics for discussion as they arise.

I will do as you advise. Thanks.

[aligreto]

This is another that blew my mind when I found the very elaborate LP set from 1949. Then I found a CD transfer.

Another aspect here that I quite often admire is the older cover art work which can be quite attractive. [There is also the opposite end of that scale as well, however.] A different marketing age then of course.

[Irons]

I don't think awareness of recording minutia such as sound engineers, producers, locations, microphone configurations, etc, requires vinyl. I'm a big fan of some of the producers from the golden age of stereo and it is great to hear their work as they heard it when they listened to the playback of their master tapes.

I had a brief vinyl infatuation, but it faded fast. The only thing that tempts me back to vinyl are all of the monaural Mercury records that never made it to CD or SACD. But whenever I have found one on vinyl, it has sounded terrible.

Here's a great one that languished.



This is another that blew my mind when I found the very elaborate LP set from 1949. Then I found a CD transfer.

CD is a great resource of historical recordings.

Analogue and digital are different animals as are the LP record and CD. A CD is a replica, the first to the thousandth, and country of manufacture, they are the same. A first edition LP pressing is far more dynamic then pressings further down the line. In the case of Decca, a Dutch pressing has a different sound signature to the same recording from the UK. It is easy on hearing a piece to distinguish from a Philips or EMI recording. There are far more variables with LP.

You make a good point that you are just as able to appreciate the efforts of sound engineers, venues etc on CD. In the age of the CD this does not appear to me to be so important with digital recording and transfers. I may be wrong there.

The CD v LP debate bores me and I feel no missionary zeal to promote vinyl. I just enjoy listening to records.

[aligreto]

CD is a great resource of historical recordings.

Analogue and digital are different animals as are the LP record and CD. A CD is a replica, the first to the thousandth, and country of manufacture, they are the same. A first edition LP pressing is far more dynamic then pressings further down the line. In the case of Decca, a Dutch pressing has a different sound signature to the same recording from the UK. It is easy on hearing a piece to distinguish from a Philips or EMI recording. There are far more variables with LP.

You make a good point that you are just as able to appreciate the efforts of sound engineers, venues etc on CD. In the age of the CD this does not appear to me to be so important with digital recording and transfers. I may be wrong there.

The CD v LP debate bores me and I feel no missionary zeal to promote vinyl. I just enjoy listening to records.

I also agree with this but I do also like handling and taking care of my vinyl. Weird, yes, but hey....

[Irons]

I also agree with this but I do also like handling and taking care of my vinyl. Weird, yes, but hey....

Oh yes. Weirdness is a prerequisite as my moniker gives a hint. Not a good day yesterday.

[Irons]

I was given a heads up on Supraphon issues of chamber music many years ago and collected them ever since. The Czech label Supraphon ordered from the United States state of the art Fairchild recording equipment. They took delivery just as the "Iron Curtain" took effect which effectively stopped all trade with the West. This gave Supraphon a massive advantage over other recording companies in the Eastern Block.
With the advent of stereo Supraphon designated red labels for stereo and blue for mono. After a short period red labels were dropped and nearly all, stereo and mono, were blue labels. It is said that the early red label issues were recorded with the all valve (tube) Fairchild equipment and the later blue labels with in-house modern transistor based equipment. I take the premise that all red label issues are recorded with valve equipment with a pinch of salt. It makes for a good story but too neat and tidy and that is one thing recording companies never are.
I do not set out to collect the earlier and supposedly better sounding red labels. It is a fact though that the Supraphon on my shelves with the best sound does happen to have a red label.

 

[vandermolen]

I have kept some of my most treasured vinyls (Boult's EMI Vaughan Williams symphonies box for example) and occasionally buy an LP which meant a lot to me (Karajan's DGG recording of Honegger's 'Liturgique' Symphony for example). However, I need a new turntable as my daughter purloined my old one.

[aligreto]

I was given a heads up on Supraphon issues of chamber music many years ago and collected them ever since. The Czech label Supraphon ordered from the United States state of the art Fairchild recording equipment. They took delivery just as the "Iron Curtain" took effect which effectively stopped all trade with the West. This gave Supraphon a massive advantage over other recording companies in the Eastern Block.
With the advent of stereo Supraphon designated red labels for stereo and blue for mono. After a short period red labels were dropped and nearly all, stereo and mono, were blue labels. It is said that the early red label issues were recorded with the all valve (tube) Fairchild equipment and the later blue labels with in-house modern transistor based equipment. I take the premise that all red label issues are recorded with valve equipment with a pinch of salt. It makes for a good story but too neat and tidy and that is one thing recording companies never are.
I do not set out to collect the earlier and supposedly better sounding red labels. It is a fact though that the Supraphon on my shelves with the best sound does happen to have a red label.

 

There you go; you have just imparted your first piece of knowledge to me in this thread. I have many Supraphon LPs on my shelf, including the one above, and I did not know any of the information above. Success!

[aligreto]

I have kept some of my most treasured vinyls (Boult's EMI Vaughan Williams symphonies box for example) and occasionally buy an LP which meant a lot to me (Karajan's DGG recording of Honegger's 'Liturgique' Symphony for example). However, I need a new turntable as my daughter purloined my old one.

Good for her 
I hope that she uses it and listens regularly.

[Irons]

I have kept some of my most treasured vinyls (Boult's EMI Vaughan Williams symphonies box for example) and occasionally buy an LP which meant a lot to me (Karajan's DGG recording of Honegger's 'Liturgique' Symphony for example). However, I need a new turntable as my daughter purloined my old one.

Chatting to the chap at a second-hand LP/CD shop I visit, he said a surprising amount of customers purchase LPs and do not own a turntable.

[Ghost of Baron Scarpia]

Chatting to the chap at a second-hand LP/CD shop I visit, he said a surprising amount of customers purchase LPs and do not own a turntable.

Makes perfect sense to me. The cover is the best part!

[Irons]

Makes perfect sense to me. The cover is the best part!

It is very much an important part. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5084782-classique

[aligreto]

Makes perfect sense to me. The cover is the best part!

:laugh:

Also, ageing eyes like mine do not require an electron microscope when reading LP cover and booklet notes as is the case with many CDs for me.

[Ghost of Baron Scarpia]

Mercury has a special place in my heart. My father had the famous Mercury Living Presence recording of Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture by Dorati (the stereo one). The LP had a peculiar sound that in not quite duplicated in the CD release. Probably the characteristics of the LP cutter and related electronics. But of course the CD brings more detail, and was prepared by the original record producer.

For years I only knew what was written in the CD notes about the production technique, three omni directional microphones suspended over the orchestra, fed directly into a 3 channel tape deck. No modification of the recording rig or tinkering with the volume settings in the course of a performance. But in those days the dynamic range of the LP, and of the tape deck, was not sufficient to capture the dynamic range of an orchestra. Other labels, such as Decca, resorted to gain-riding. I recently came across an article by Richard Fine's son (I forget where) in which he describes more of the Mercury way. Apparently they worked with the conductor to create a performance that would conform the the limitations of the recording. If there was a quiet passage they would take care not to make it so quiet that it would be inaudible on the LP. They way they could get the recording on tape without engineering interference. You can say this is an interference with the conductor's art, but it seems more honest to me and I prefer it to the engineering solution of adjusting the recording volume to get the signal that they need.

So maybe I've come up with something for your thread after all, and no vinyl was harmed in the creation of this post.