Room Rumble from original hall

[garyrc]

Why is there so much "Room Rumble" from the original recording venue on some orchestral recordings, and not on others? It crops up on just a few modern recordings, but on some of my SACD Hybrids (played on a conventional CD player) remastered from great recordings of the 50s and 60s it is overwhelming, and I have to disconnect my sub (which is usually set to activate at 40Hz and below), but then almost as much of the rumble comes through the Klipschorns!

[WMcD]

Thanks for yours.

I had wondered how external noise is kept out of recordings by the CSO.

Orchestra Hall is on Michigan Avenue. The Loop elevated trains run behind it.

Medina Temple was the venue for some CSO recordings. There is an underground CTA line nearby and maybe less traffic on the street.

I have no noticed traffic or train noise. Maybe it is in there deep down. I also have not noticed noise in the few times I"ve been to Orchestra Hall. Mabye there is so much mass in these structures that it doesn't get through.

The good thing is that there is not some joker in the hall giving out a yell at the openning of a good passage. He seems to show up at every rock recording.

Gil

[Chris A]

Why is there so much "Room Rumble" from the original recording venue on some orchestral recordings, and not on others? It crops up on just a few modern recordings, but on some of my SACD Hybrids (played on a conventional CD player) remastered from great recordings of the 50s and 60s it is overwhelming, and I have to disconnect my sub (which is usually set to activate at 40Hz and below), but then almost as much of the rumble comes through the Klipschorns!

Speculation only: in the 50s and 60s, recording technologies such as stereo were
becoming standard practice. Advancement in recording engineering practice
was apparently occurring at an irregular pace, at least through inspection of
recordings from that era. I suspect that some engineers used infrasonic
filters in large halls and some did not. I would guess that large-hall
reverberation time is what you are listening to, and perhaps poorly isolated mikes, especially if you are referring
to recordings in cathedrals and older auditoriums that were built without the
benefit of sound reinforcement systems: Carnegie Hall comes to mind
here. Some halls are designed for extremely large reverberation times,
especially those designed for pipe organ performance. These issues are
still an issue in most large venues but the tools of the trade--high-order
filters and post-processing--make it easier or cheaper for the recording or
mixing engineer to address than was the state-of-the-art then.

I'm also thinking that the RIAA-curve problem, i.e., keeping the needle in
the groove and keeping ultra-lf feedback from affecting TT cartridge performance,
forced many engineers to think about whether to use the low-cut filters or
not. TT cartridge technology with near-DC-to-20 kHz+ capabilities really advanced in the late 60s through the 70s. I can also see that there were, even then, recording purists that
tried to minimize anything in the recording loop, because the quality of so
many devices and interconnects wasn't exactly what you find today.

Additionally, most home sound reproduction systems of the day simply did not
have the lf performance of many systems today.
I don’t remember hearing about “subwoofers” coming into wide home use until
the 1970s-80s. Powerful SS amplifiers
were coming into widespread use in the late 60s. Before that, it seems to me that we had transformer-coupled
tube amplifiers that were designed to block extreme lf content because they couldn’t
keep up with that infrasonic content unless using higher-sensitivity speaker
systems, i.e., large and expensive speakers.
Most home systems couldn’t economically reproduce those infrasonic frequencies, so record consumers didn't notice the issue.

One more thought: many papers were written on group delay and modulation
distortion in the late 60s/early 70s, including one or two by PWK. Many recording engineers probably did not
understand that those infrasonic frequencies were affecting sound reproduction
at higher frequencies-so they left the infrasonic content in.

Chris

[garyrc]

To Cask05. Thanks for your detailed reply. Yeah, the room rumble sounds like it contains some long reverberating bass -- so long that some of it is far removed from any discernible musical tone that excited it. If some of the old engineers of the '50s and '60s didn't filter out the deep, sub-musical bass on the grounds that it wouldn't be heard with the equipment of the day, I wonder why the people making the 21st century transfers of those old master tapes to SACD & CD don't filter it out NOW? They could do it quite judiciously. I'm thinking that in the '50s / '60s there may have been an infrasonic filter just before the disk cutter, but too far downstream to affect the master tapes now being used for transfer to digital. Otherwise, some of this mighty bass rumble -- the part between about 30 and 45 Hz would, even in those days, have been reproduced, with a little doubling and attenuation, by speakers like the Bozak Concert Grand, the biggest JBLs, the Patrician (?) with the huge woofer, and the Klipschorns, would it not?

[boom3]

Are you sure it is room rumble and not artifacts of the tape transports used in the recording process? I am really inclined to think it's the later. The tape transports in use in the late 50-s early 60s, with a few exceptions, were designed for broadcast where AM cuts off every thing below 100 Hz and it was a rare FM station that had anything below 50 Hz.This would not have been noticed on the LPs of the day, either, as you mention.

Yes the speakers you mentioned could reproduce the 30-45 Hz range easily, provided they had something "down there" in the program content. Subwoofers are not a new concept. In the 50s some audiophiles made coffin-size resonant couplers that would sound off in the 30-20 Hz region...but recordings that would show off this effect were scarce. The London ffr recording of Also Sprach Zarathustra (sp?) had a 30 Hz organ note at the start, but that was releasd ca. 1968. I recall a pal of mine saying he had watched the notes on an oscilloscope and sure enough it was around 30 Hz.

I agree that some of the tape to CD/SACD transfers have not been done welll...the top flight engineers, like John Eargle, seem to be busy recording new material. I love the DVD-A format but one of its problems is that some of the re-mixes are awful and remind me of the worst products of "quad" .OTOH, if you listen to the re-mixes Mickey Hart produced of some Dead material, and the DVD-As released by Neil Young, you realize how much potential the DVD-A format has.

[LarryC]

and perhaps poorly isolated mikes, especially if you are referring to recordings in cathedrals and older auditoriums that were built without the benefit of sound reinforcement systems: Carnegie Hall comes to mind here.

Carneige Hall has always had another problem: a subway is located close to the hall, and rumble can be heard during very quiet passages when a train is traveling by. I recall reading that some recordings were done late at night and coordinated with the train schedules.

[Chris A]

If some of the old engineers of the '50s and '60s didn't filter out
the deep, sub-musical bass on the grounds that it wouldn't be heard with the
equipment of the day, I wonder why the people making the 21st century transfers
of those old master tapes to SACD & CD don't filter it out NOW? I have always wondered why there seems to be such
carelessness in the recording industry, particularly with the high-volume
"hits" of that period. Some really inexcusable noise and other
recording issues plague most of the popular vinyl I have from the 60s, and even
into the 70s. Capitol and Atlantic lead my list of poorer performers of the time. If it’s a major
label and the music is popular, “remastered” hits usually are barely cleaned up
and usually compressed into “Loudness War” CDs and mp3 downloads, IMHO.

They could do it quite judiciously. I'm thinking that in the '50s / '60s
there may have been an infrasonic filter just before the disk cutter, but too
far downstream to affect the master tapes now being used for transfer to
digital. Agreed.

Otherwise, some of this mighty bass rumble -- the part between about 30 and
45 Hz would, even in those days, have been reproduced, with a little doubling
and attenuation, by speakers like the Bozak Concert Grand, the biggest JBLs,
the Patrician (?) with the huge woofer, and the Klipschorns, would it
not?

Remember that PWK reportedly
stated that he designed loudspeakers for the 1% or less of the households that
wanted good music. One percent of that “hit-driven”
market apparently did not translate into higher quality recordings from the record companies then, and their culture apparently hasn't changed even today.

The economics of the market are now much different. Nowadays music
recording, mastering, and even limited CD production can occur in converted
garages using comparatively cost-free gear. I recommend the book "The Long Tail" by Chris Anderson. The big record companies may not survive if they do not adapt to the new marketplace. Meanwhile, the typical consumer puts up with (or even prefers) Loudness War mp3s ripped at low bit rates. Fortunately, the Long Tail has also provided a safe sanctuary for audiophile-quality recordings due to the nearly zero distribution costs of online sales.

[Marvel]

I have the lp and cd of Janos Starker's Bach Cello Suites, put out by Mercury. They were recorded in ballroom Studio A at Fine Recording in New York in 1965. I have often listened on headphonesat night, while working at my computer, and am almost positive I hear room rumble or heavy trucks on the street.

Many home studios today are much quieter than professional studios of the distant past. I don't mean the music is necessarily better, but the studios often are. Yet some incredible music was recorded in not so favorable locations.

Bruce

[Chris A]

I have the lp and cd of Janos Starker's
Bach Cello Suites, put out by Mercury. They were recorded in ballroom
Studio A at Fine Recording in New York in 1965. I have often listened
on headphonesat night, while working at my computer, and am almost
positive I hear room rumble or heavy trucks on the street.

Many
home studios today are much quieter than professional studios of the
distant past. I don't mean the music is necessarily better, but the
studios often are. Yet some incredible music was recorded in not so
favorable locations.

Bruce

I have to agree - some of my favorite material is almost unlistenable by modern standards - recordings from the early 50s and 60s, and virtually all of those are classical performances from performers that are now legends. Even Coltrane's recordings aren't much in terms of audiophile recording quality but they are incredible if you're in the right mood to just listen to what he is actually doing. The list of such notable-but-poorly-recorded albums is a long one indeed.

[Chris A]

Are you sure it is room rumble and not artifacts of the tape

transports used in the recording process? I am really inclined to think it's

the later. The tape transports in use in the late 50-s early 60s, with a few

exceptions, were designed for broadcast where AM cuts off every thing below 100

Hz and it was a rare FM station that had anything below 50 Hz.This would not

have been noticed on the LPs of the day, either, as you mention. My old man had an Ampex luggable 2-track R-to-R that dated

back to the late 50s-early 60s that didn't seem to have any of those

problems. In fact, it seemed to be the only piece of gear that reproduced

lf well at the time.

I agree that some of the tape to CD/SACD transfers have not been done

welll...I love the DVD-A format...if you listen to the re-mixes Mickey Hart

produced of some Dead material, and the DVD-As released by Neil Young,

you realize how much potential the DVD-A format has. I believe that DVD-A really is better: http://sound.westhost.com/cd-sacd-dvda.htm

[boom3]

I just found out (thanks to Amy's blog) that John Eargle has died.

http://www.physicstoday.org/obits/notice_160.shtml

At least he left a huge body of work 275 released recordings acoording to the article, and he worked with Paul at one time.

[Marvel]

Thanks for posting that link Boom. Quite a long list of accomplishments. I would be happy to do a tenth of that in my lifetime.

[garyrc]

Sorry to hear that John Eargle has died. I think that at least one of his articles is in the loose-leaf Audio Papers collected by PWK.

The Crown tape recorders of the 1970s did just fine down to 30 Hz at 7.5 ips, and not quite as low at 15 ips, but 15 ips provided better high frequency response, of course.

I can only assume that the Ampex studio models were as good.

Then there was the matter of so-called "Head Bumps," narrow band elevations of as much as 3 dB, that were conveniently ignored by advertising depts. The Teak 3340S had them, as well as hissing like a Puff Adder in heat, and the bumps drove DBX code/decode crazy. The Crown was bump free.

[Marvel]

I'm sorry, but my 3340S was (and still is) incredibly quiet. No head bumps either. Made some wonderful tapes over the years, tapes I wish I still had, that were bounced and up to 10 or 12 tracks. Still stayed pretty quiet.

[garyrc]

Marvel,

Sorry, didn't mean to cast aspersions on anyone's equipment.

Perhaps there were changes made in the 3340S over the years. Mine was c1973-1974.

I was recording a great deal of music with very quiet passages, as well as the spoken word. My 3340S was checked out by both a local repair guy and Teac, and declared normal, but it had more intrusive high pitched hiss than my former Teac, a Revox I compared, or the Crown. When switching between "Source" and "Tape" on all three recorders, there was a subtle increase in hiss on the Revox and Crown, and a more prominent increase in audible hiss of "tape" over "source" on the 3340S. With a 1K tone, "tape" and "source" were at the same level in all three recorders tested. All were set up for Scotch 206/207, and those were the tapes used. I remember that both the measured and advertised S/N ratio of the 3340S was only about 3 dB worse than the other recorders. The engineer who measured both the 3340S and the Crown for me said that the difference to the ear was in the spectral characteristics of the hiss .... over a wide spectrum their average noise was within 3 dB of the same level, but the peak of the noise spectrum was higher, and more in the ear's most sensitive range, with the 3340S.

As you said, one could make fine tapes with the 3340S, and I would have probably not had a problem with music without many very soft passages and narration with the silent spaces between words. When not considering hiss, the three recorders sounded slightly different, but no one was superior in overall sound quality.

[Marvel]

I guess I sounded very defensive. I apologize. That would have been about the same time period I had mine, too, so it probably had those characteristics. I just was ecstatic to have a four track. I was using the same tape as you, and switched to something else for a while. It escapes me now just what else I tried. They weren't the best machines, but the 3340S suited my purposes at the time. I was a very broke musician, and couldn't afford much. I remember trying a Dokorder, because the specs looked great, it had more controls and a horizontal trnsport with the electronics bridge over the top. It had so many problems that I took it back after about a week.