Who likes the LPs and reissues thereof mastered from 35mm film? Is the sound quality of pressings mastered from 35mm film superior to the sound quality of pressings of the same classical music performances mastered from magnetic tape?
Who has compared the same musical performances on LPs mastered from 35mm to LPs mastered from tape? Are direct comparisons even possible (were any of the Living Presence sessions recorded simultaneously to both 35mm film and to magnetic tape)?
Ron, I'll have to check, but I remember that there were some tape back ups done of some of the 35mm recordings. IIRC, there was one recording that the 35mm film was compromised in some way and they had to use the back up tape to generate the CD that Wilma Cozart remastered or one of the few SACD's that Universal issued from the Mercury originals. Don't think there was ever a comparison done of tape vs 35mm (only when the 35mm was not playable).
I have maybe 80% of the original Mercuries in early pressings and almost all of the reissues from Speakers Corners and Classics. There are a few other companies which did reissues, including Analogphonic where I have their two or three reissues. Of course, Philips reissued many of the original Mercuries on their Mercury Golden Imports series in the '70's. Some of those were very fine, but most suffered from rolled off highs and lows. Great surfaces however. Mercury also rereleased some of their recordings on a series which typically took two records of 30+ minutes an album and made them into one album (boasting over 60 minutes of music on one record). Those were typically very compressed, to fit so much music on one album.
There are others who can comment more. One final point - Mercury originals typically spaced their grooves more widely, allowing greater stylus excursion for bigger bass. But that also meant they ran the grooves very near the label, meaning more inner groove distortion.
The labelling system of Mercury in their deadwax is quite arcane - with different overlapping series, pressed by different companies. I can go over this at some point if people are interested. I'm sure somewhere there is a link to a great explanation. It took me some tutoring by the late, great Richard Foster and buying lots of Mercury albums to get it straight in my head. Not directly related the 35mm issue.
Ron, I know a highly regarded recording engineer who has owned and used some of the best professional tape machines made and he has always wanted to use the 35mm film format.
I have many mercury 35mm transfers on cd and most can be stunning. Command and Everest records also used the 35mm film format. I also think 2 inch tape comes close to 35mm film.
Who likes the LPs and reissues thereof mastered from 35mm film? Is the sound quality of pressings mastered from 35mm film superior to the sound quality of pressings of the same classical music performances mastered from magnetic tape?
Who has compared the same musical performances on LPs mastered from 35mm to LPs mastered from tape? Are direct comparisons even possible (were any of the Living Presence sessions recorded simultaneously to both 35mm film and to magnetic tape)?
Hi Ron,
35mm was magnetic tape also.
Quote below found in SH forum.
“The 35 MM system was magnetic film. Ran at 18 IPS with special low impedance heads. Had 1/4" tracks with a goodly amount of guard band. This system was pioneered by the late Bert Whyte and Harry Belock of Everest Records fame. After Everest left the recording field, the system was purchased by C. Robert Fine of Fine Recording Studios and used on Mercury Records sessions and Command Records sessions. A superb system which was the finest sounding available and had superb transient response, low distortion, and wide frequency range. Fell out of use due to expense as it was an expensive system to use.”
The 35mm system belonged to Everest but it was sold to Mercury afaik. They were not succesful with it and people say it was because of the poor transfers to vinyl was the cause.
Now the Everest 35mm records, which were previously issued by Classic Records at 33rpm are being reissued on AP at 45rpm. I ordered two of them, they would be here in a few days. If they are as good as I hope them to be, I will get the rest of the titles as well. I will let you know. However, direct comparisons can not be made as it is the first time they are being released on 45rpm and I do not have the classic records everest reissues. I have single sided 45rpm classic records and other reissues they made, they may give an overall idea or a loose base for comparison.
I am far from an expert, but for me, the 35mm mastered records are some of the best older classical recordings out there, if you like the music and if the mastering was good. Can't say I like all of them but some are definitely great. I have heard several presentations about Mercury Living Presence and it seems to me there was a lot of additional "love" besides the film mastering that made them great.
If you dig around enough there are a few presentations about the process if interested. A quick search turned up this one;
Who likes the LPs and reissues thereof mastered from 35mm film? Is the sound quality of pressings mastered from 35mm film superior to the sound quality of pressings of the same classical music performances mastered from magnetic tape?
Who has compared the same musical performances on LPs mastered from 35mm to LPs mastered from tape? Are direct comparisons even possible (were any of the Living Presence sessions recorded simultaneously to both 35mm film and to magnetic tape)?
Hi Ron,
35mm was magnetic tape also.
Quote below found in SH forum.
“The 35 MM system was magnetic film. Ran at 18 IPS with special low impedance heads. Had 1/4" tracks with a goodly amount of guard band. This system was pioneered by the late Bert Whyte and Harry Belock of Everest Records fame. After Everest left the recording field, the system was purchased by C. Robert Fine of Fine Recording Studios and used on Mercury Records sessions and Command Records sessions. A superb system which was the finest sounding available and had superb transient response, low distortion, and wide frequency range. Fell out of use due to expense as it was an expensive system to use.”
What is SH? Steve Hoffman? I, too, have scoured his forum for information on the 35mm transfers.
Interestingly, Steve Hoffman on his forum has taken a dim view of the transfers from 35mm. I saw his post there about his personal conspiracy theory that master laquers were never cut directly from the 35mm Westrex machine Leo Horowitz rehabilitated for the transfers. I never knew what to make of that assertion because it is inconsistent with everything the high-end audio magazines ever reported and with any quote I have ever seen from Wilma Cozart.
The 35mm system belonged to Everest but it was sold to Mercury afaik. They were not succesful with it and people say it was because of the poor transfers to vinyl was the cause.
Now the Everest 35mm records, which were previously issued by Classic Records at 33rpm are being reissued on AP at 45rpm. I ordered two of them, they would be here in a few days. If they are as good as I hope them to be, I will get the rest of the titles as well. I will let you know. However, direct comparisons can not be made as it is the first time they are being released on 45rpm and I do not have the classic records everest reissues. I have single sided 45rpm classic records and other reissues they made, they may give an overall idea or a loose base for comparison.
Thank you for your kind words, Mr. G. Preternaturally modest as always I suspect that you, Mr. G., know as much about those 35mm recordings as anyone alive today.
Great! I looked on the Acoustic Sounds website and left unanswered is from what, exactly, is Chad pressing these new LPs. I wonder if he is making a new mother from an original, old Classic Records master, or if he is using an original, old Classic Records "mother"?
Great! I looked on the Acoustic Sounds website and left unanswered is from what, exactly, is Chad pressing these new LPs. I wonder if he is making a new mother from an original, old Classic Records master, or if he is using an original, old Classic Records "mother"?
When classic records worked on these recordings they have made both 33 and 45rpm mothers but only used the 33rpm ones. Chad uses the 45rpm masters as a source that were done back then
When classic records worked on these recordings they have made both 33 and 45rpm mothers but only used the 33rpm ones. Chad uses the 45rpm masters as a source that were done back then
I read somewhere that some of the tapes used by Classic were suffering from Wow and Flutter and only subsequent masters made for the latest releases were rectified. Something to do with a laser guided sprocket system.
If Classic are using the old 45rpm masters then there is a possibility they still have this flaw. Don’t recall which albums were affected.
Perhaps Zerostargeneral knows the truth.
BTW Ron, there is so much information out there about Everest for your research. Try Wikipedia first and follow the links.
Hobson, Horowitz and Grundman worked for three years to bring 20 of the 26 titles to full release with six titles, which were cut, remaining unissued.
Great! I looked on the Acoustic Sounds website and left unanswered is from what, exactly, is Chad pressing these new LPs. I wonder if he is making a new mother from an original, old Classic Records master, or if he is using an original, old Classic Records "mother"?
Yesterday night I gave a listen to Villa Lobos - The Little Train of Caipira. I can not make comparisons as I do not have any other editions of this. This was one of the reasons I got it, I did not have Villa-Lobos in my collection prior to this one. It is nice to have an impressionistic work from Brazil.
The 35mm recordings of Mercury are more to my liking but this recording had the classic late 50's, early 60's hifi classical sound. I enjoyed listening to it. It is dynamic, open but not like the the early sixties Decca, Living stereo or their ORG 45rpm and AP 45rpm reissues that I really like.
