"Living Stereo" question

[Coytee]

Several years ago I acquired some 'Living Stereo' CD's.

Listening to one right now, Dvoraks New World Symphony (not that it matters!)

My question is... what if anything makes these living stereo recordings so great that they evidently made a run of them (I've got a handful of different disks/artists)

??

[JL Sargent]

Living stereo in the sense it was supplanting a dying mono.

[Mallette]

They are even better on the original "shaded dog" LP's...if you can get them, and also on R2R. They were recording using the same technique I do, two mikes positioned where your ears want to be. Some used three, as they were recorded in anticipation of some form of multi-channel (read, more than one) format that did not yet exist. Actually, they were done in parallel with a mono recording which was the actual immediate release.

Good CD's of this materials are "living" proof that vacuum tube technology and simple mike plans are inherently unimprovable and digital is just a technique, not necessarilly an improvement.

OK, it's cheaper and has wider dynamic range and noise floor...but next time you listen to one of them consider that you are hearing technology over a half century old.

These guys were GOOD at what they did...and are rarely equaled today.

Dave

[Chris A]

The booklet in one of those SACDs - Encores (Virgil Fox) - makes a big deal of the restoration process using the original machine model to play back--apparently a very rare machine today--and also correcting for the effects of age on the RTR masters (whatever that happened to be). They make a big deal of the "painstaking process of restoration". I guess that there is some attempt at noise suppression (tape hiss, wow, flutter). It sounded like some guy doing servitude for his dissertation... [8-|] .. getting next to nothing monetarily to do the "labor of love". or at least some esoteric scholarly pursuit.

This one SACD that I mentioned is a three-channel (across the front) and is very good - better than most or all '80s CDs in that genre. I am amazed that they were recorded when I was in, well, before grade school. The miking technique was apparently similar to the one mentioned above, but note that the diapason chest and the exposed ranks are in different places, so some sort of multiple mike technique was used in order to create the 3-channel image. They noted that this was the first time that the recording was available in 3-channel since most RTRs apparently didn't support that format then.

Highly recommended--at least based on that one sample.

Chris

[Mallette]

The miking technique was apparently similar to the one mentioned above, but note that the diapason chest and the exposed ranks are in different places, so some sort of multiple mike technique was used in order to create the 3-channel image.

Au contraire. Unless the instrument was poorly mated to the space or the diapason in another building, there is always at least one spot in the building where your ears want to be. That's were ol' farts like them and I put our mikes.

Dave

[jacksonbart]

On October 6, 1953, RCA held experimental stereophonic sessions in New York's Manhattan Center with Leopold Stokowski conducting a group of New York musicians in performances of Enesco's Roumanian Rhapsody No. 1 and the waltz from Tchaikovsky's opera Eugene Onegin. There were additional stereo tests in December, again in the Manhattan Center, this time with Pierre Monteux conducting members of the Boston Symphony Orchestra. In February 1954, RCA made its first commercial stereophonic recordings, taping the Boston Symphony Orchestra, conducted by Charles Münch, in a performance of The Damnation of Faust by Hector Berlioz. This began a practice of simultaneously taping orchestras with both stereophonic and monaural equipment. Other early stereo recordings were made by Toscanini and Guido Cantelli respectively, with the NBC Symphony Orchestra; the Boston Pops Orchestra under Arthur Fiedler; and the Chicago Symphony Orchestra under Fritz Reiner. Initially, RCA used RT-21¼ inch tape recorders (which ran at 30 inches per second), wired to mono mixers, with Neumann U-47 cardioid and M-49/50 omnidirectional microphones. Then they switched to an Ampex 300-3½ inch machine, running at 15 inches per second (which was later increased to 30 inches per second). These recordings were initially issued in 1955 on special stereophonic reel-to-reel tapes and then, beginning in 1958, on vinyl LPs with the logo "Living Stereo." Sony Music and successor companies have continued to reissue these recordings on CD.

[artarama]

I have a LIVING STEREO album of Bing Crosby and Rosemary Clooney "Fancy Meeting You Here". The notation on the back is dated 1958. The back reads:

"IMPORTANT NOTICE - This is a TRUE STEREOPHONIC RECORD specifically designed to be played only on phonographs equipped for stereophonic reproduction. This record will also give outstanding monaural performance on many conventional high fidelity phonographs by a replacement of the cartridge. See your local dealer or serviceman." (Oh I wish we had either of those again!!)

The lable reads: "Stereo-Orthophonic High Fidelity Recording"

The liner sleeve reads: "Now available in NEW ORTHOPHONIC and LIVING STEREO versions...already acclaimed for their musical excellence and technical perfection. "

Both the liner and cover of the LP are printed in four color. A very nicely done product. I am sure at this time Bing was getting the best of the best available at the time in both production quality and engineering.

The record is in great condition and sounds great. There is a lot of "back and forth" in the duets and it always seems the voices are very centered and just as prevalent out of the left channel as the right, however the instruments are bouncing around from the left to right channels a lot.

[Mallette]

"Now available in NEW ORTHOPHONIC and LIVING STEREO versions...already acclaimed for their musical excellence and technical perfection. "

"Orthoponic" is a word first heard in the 19th century used by speech therapists to describe correct speech patterns, that is, correct reproduction of words. Of interest here is that RCA nabbed it in 1925 to describe their folded horn design, which was developed in response to the harsh sound of electrically recorded records on the acoustic players of the time. The "eq" cureve of these was mechanical, as had been the recordings up to that time. RIAA eventually developed as the standard pre/demphasis for electrical recordings. Sousa pronounced the Victor Orthoponic record player to be the first he'd heard anything like "high fidelity" from.

"New Orthoponic" then was something of a stretch as it applied to the RCA recordings of the '50's since it applied to recording techiques rather than playback. However, in it's extended form it was accurate to some degree in describing a more high fidelity sound and stereo image.

Dave

[boom3]

I must add that the CD issues of the Mercury Living Presence recordings are also wonderful. I have a "Pictures at an Exhibition" CD reissue and it wows folks who can't believe it is 50+ years old,

[Richard Guba]

Read http://www.stereophile.com/interviews/402roy/ The search for Roy Dunann.

Although this is about Contempory Records, Jazz, the same holds true for RCA Living Stereo and Mercury Living Presence.

Great recording engineers, great microphones, good rooms, and a magic synergy make these great recordings.

Why does Sonny Rollins sound so much better on Way Out West compared to Blue Note of the same period? The answer is the recording engineer.

Living Stereo, Living Presence, and anything on Contempory recorded by DuNann are just amazing. They are all good on CD also if you can not find vintage LPs.

Rich

[Mallette]

Why does Sonny Rollins sound so much better on Way Out West compared to Blue Note of the same period? The answer is the recording engineer.

You are all over it. So few in the forum seem to really understand that it's ALL about the source material, and the source material is all about the engineer with boots on the ground.

I'd rather listen to a great recording on a boombox than krap on Klipschorns...

Dave

[Chris A]

[:-*] I find that many/most "audiophiles" seem constrained to think that the recording medium determines quality (especially analog recordings), and that is very interesting, i.e., perplexing, at least to my way of thinking. It seems to me that audiophiles should be running around looking for good recording engineers/enterprises.

The only other variable in this equation--musicians--if they are of high caliber, they usually do a great job all the time, IMHE.

It's like betting on the jockey instead of the racehorse: the best jockeys typically don't choose to ride poor horses...even if offered bribes. They have their reputations to protect for the next season of racing.

Chris

[Mallette]

I find that many/most "audiophiles" seem constrained to think that the recording medium determines quality (especially analog recordings), and that is very interesting, i.e., perplexing, at least to my way of thinking.

Complete krap. In order to avoid offending anyone I'll withhold my comments on those who somehow can believe that a medium that records ITSELF as well as the signal and adds itself and anything else handy to the signal everytime it's dubbed is somehow superior to a medium that is functionally immune to those issues and a noise free dynamic bandwidth greater than that of human hearing, with a frequency response to match.

Completely incomprehensible.

Do I love analog? Yes, but ONLY because the mass of great recordings remain in that domain, and thousands of the best who are long dead left us their legacy there. I have 2500 LPs, 500 or more 78's, bunch of 45's, 100 R2Rs, cassettes, 3 turntables (one for 78's only), an R2R, and a cassette deck. I don't think I can be accused of not loving analog. However, I stand in awe of the great engineers who managed such awesome sound in such a completely unforgiving and limited medium. When someone says their analog recording of whatever sounds better than their digital, they are commenting on the engineer, not the medium. Analog engineers had a century to refine craft. Digital engineers have had only a few decades. Much of the first couple of decades output was ruined by a combination of lack of understanding of digital combined with old analog farts using analog techniques in a digital medium.

Anyone who can't make a accurate sounding recording in the high res digital media should go to work for Fox news or something. It's a no brainer.

Dave

[SSnyder]

reccordings made with 3 micriphones were NOT intented for mult-chanell>>>>>>they made to MIX to two chanel

mono verson was made with 1 micriphones ONLY and thusly no MIX involved

no nothing a need to get hot in the coller about

[gjdob1812]

For the first time we are able to listen to a body of recorded material which was produced 50 and 60 years ago and be amazed at the quality of both the recording and performances. In 1960 could we have listened to a recording made 50 years earlier and appreciated it for it's sonic worthiness? This is why I look back at that mid-twentieth century era with respect and appreciation. Most of those old recordings still hold their own. It is a wonderful thing that Fritz Reiner and the Chicago Symphony and the executives at RCA found each other during this period. Both the orchestra and the recording engineers were at the heighth of their collective artistic and technical powers. Their body of work on the "Living Stereo" series of recordings is monumental and something that will never be done again. The guys at Sony were quite aware of the treasures they were sitting on. They were fully aware of the sonic quality of those recordings produced a half century earlier. Why not take them and reincarnate them on CDs. They can re-issue these landmark recordings and have a much better product and for a lot less money. No use to try and reinvent the wheel.

I think that's why many of us are on this site. There is a significant interest in the never ending pursuit of how to capture and preserve what many refer to as the Golden Age of the Recorded Arts. I'll never forget my "Smart ***" years in the mid 70s to early 80s. I always got kind of a kick out of going in to the local record store and asking "may I please see your classical record?" Naturally, the person sitting across the counter had no clue as to why they were having to deal with such an idiotic question, and he certainly did not see the humor in it. He suspected that I already knew the answer - the store didn't have any classical records. In retrospect, the commentary on my little story has very little, if any, humor. Anyway, I know that Paul Klipsch was a great admirer of classical music, and I'll bet he had a few "Living Stereo" LPs laying around to use as testing material.

I like that, from time to time, we have reason to celebrate the past.

Gary D.

[Islander]

A few months ago, I picked up a circa 1960 LP of Heifetz playing Sibelius' Concerto in D Minor, Op. 47 (not my typical listening material, I'll admit) on RCA Victor Red Seal. The record number is LM-2435. It's marked as being "New Orthophonic" High Fidelity, not stereo, but it's unlike any mono recording I've ever heard.

The sound is centred, but it's a wider centre than I've ever heard from a mono recording, and it's impressively realistic-sounding for such an old recording. It appears that the Red Seal records were higher quality from the initial recording and possibly further along the disc-making process as well.

[Chris A]

When I was young, there was this piano player that lived around these parts that made his signature performance playing Rachmaninoff Piano Concerto #2 with the Chicago Symphony/Fritz Reiner. Many kids my age listened to this guy -- Van Cliburn. This recording in 3-channel has been reissued (from '58 and '62) in Living Stereo by BMG in hybrid multi-channel SACD. Pretty amazing--even the Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto #1.

But the real shocker that I found recently--not on RCA but on Mercury "Living Presence" 35 MM reissue--is "Balalaika Favorites" by the Osipov Russian Folk Orchestra in 3-channel hybrid SACD. This recording beats anything that I've heard--digital or analog--which is a pretty tall order. I cannot believe the sound of the string orchestra (balalaikas) on this recording. It is simply amazing.

It's also an interesting story since in '62 there weren't very many western recordings occurring in the former Soviet Union. Most highly recommended.

Chris

[Boxx]

I find that many/most "audiophiles" seem constrained to think that the recording medium determines quality (especially analog recordings), and that is very interesting, i.e., perplexing, at least to my way of thinking.

Complete krap. In order to avoid offending anyone I'll withhold my comments on those who somehow can believe that a medium that records ITSELF as well as the signal and adds itself and anything else handy to the signal everytime it's dubbed is somehow superior to a medium that is functionally immune to those issues and a noise free dynamic bandwidth greater than that of human hearing, with a frequency response to match.

Completely incomprehensible.

Do I love analog? Yes, but ONLY because the mass of great recordings remain in that domain, and thousands of the best who are long dead left us their legacy there. I have 2500 LPs, 500 or more 78's, bunch of 45's, 100 R2Rs, cassettes, 3 turntables (one for 78's only), an R2R, and a cassette deck. I don't think I can be accused of not loving analog. However, I stand in awe of the great engineers who managed such awesome sound in such a completely unforgiving and limited medium. When someone says their analog recording of whatever sounds better than their digital, they are commenting on the engineer, not the medium. Analog engineers had a century to refine craft. Digital engineers have had only a few decades. Much of the first couple of decades output was ruined by a combination of lack of understanding of digital combined with old analog farts using analog techniques in a digital medium.

Anyone who can't make a accurate sounding recording in the high res digital media should go to work for Fox news or something. It's a no brainer.

Dave

Hey now... How did Fox news get into this mix? lol...

[seti]

It wasn't just living stereo there is alot of golden recordings from the early days of hifi. I buy lots of records from the 40's to the 60's. It is great when I open the gate fold to find detailed descriptions of recording methodology and mic placement. They really cared about how the art was recorded sometimes to the extent of not even mentioning the band lol.They took pride in their equipment as well letting you know every mic amp and even lathe used. Ah those were the days. Now I hope most wouldd be embarassed or should be embarassed about equipment used. Now don't get me started on that auto tune crap that can even make Cher palatable....*barf*