Oooh, that Horenstein Mahler 3 HDTT release!

[Kjetil]

I bought and downloaded the PCM 24/192 2.0 and 4.0 bundle:

Mahler Symphony No 3 & Strauss Death and Transfiguration - Jascha Hore

Title: Jascha Horenstein, Conductor London Symphony Orchestra Norma Procter, Contralto Ambrosian Singers, John McCarthy, Conductor Wandsworth School Boys Choir, Russell Burgess, Conductor William Lang, Flugelhorn solo Dennis Wick, Trombone solo John Georgiadis, Concertmaster, and violin solo

www.highdeftapetransfers.ca

This particular recording has maybe the best sound of a large orchestra (plus two choirs and a vocal soloist) that I have ever heard. And in 2.0 you hear what two microphones picked up. In 4.0 you hear what four microphones picked up (I haven't heard that one yet).
Things don't get much more minimalist audiophile than this. Props to High Definition Tape Transfers for making a commercial offering of the recording Jerry Bruck did beside the official Unicorn/Nonesuch back in 1970. He really was on to something.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

And in 2.0 you hear what two microphones picked up. In 4.0 you hear what four microphones picked up (I haven't heard that one yet).

N.B.: The 4.0 was not miked with the commonly-expected quad layout as it was recorded in 4 channels with the microphones in a tetrahedral array. Default routing will offer a nicely expanded soundspace with a multichannel playback system but that is not exactly how it was intended.

In the delivered multichannel files, left and right front are as expected. What is conveyed by the right rear channel is from a third microphone that was above the first two and aimed straight up. The left rear channel is from the fourth microphone in the same horizontal plane as the L/R but aimed towards the back of the hall, away from the orchestra. Proper rendition of this requires some rerouting of the signals.

 

[Kjetil]

I was hoping to get to hear the 4.0 played through a normal 4.0 setup this week, but it will have to wait to find out if TM to RR and RM to RL is confusing or not. I doubt it is since these returns should quite diffused, but it should be proven.
(My friend’s rear speakers are not easily moved. All his speakers are heavily modified Maggies with four extra 12” in a baffle, all DSP crossovers, plus a DBA below 120 Hz.)

 

[Kal Rubinson]

I was hoping to get to hear the 4.0 played through a normal 4.0 setup this week, but it will have to wait to find out if TM to RR and RM to RL is confusing or not. I doubt it is since these returns should quite diffused, but it should be proven.
(My friend’s rear speakers are not easily moved. All his speakers are heavily modified Maggies with four extra 12” in a baffle, all DSP crossovers, plus a DBA below 120 Hz.)

Your premise is correct and you will enjoy what it delivers. However, remapping is an improvement.

I don't move my speakers but I have the ability (via a mapping matrix) to reroute channels, sending TM to my center channel speaker and RM to both my SR/SL speakers.

 

[Kjetil]

The same should be possible at my friends’ place. I’m not quite sure if routing TM to C yields the best result one could achieve. I think I would try to route both TM and RM at -6 dB to RL+RR as a test.

I very much look forward to comparing the sound and placement of the off stage Flügelhorn in the third movement. In 2.0 it’s completely diffuse, maybe not so in 4.0.

 

[jhaleyesq]

I did the editing and restoration of the Jerry Bruck Mahler 3. I suspended a matching speaker with matching electronics overhead when working on this, so I could hear it exactly as recorded. I found that routing the "up" and rear channels to the L and R rear channels sounded just as good as having a channel overhead. There is really no audible difference to the listener. Here's why. Both of the "ambiance" channels (with one exception, noted below) are capturing only reflected sounds in the hall, as reflected back to the listening position (not as captured from the rear or ceiling, as from mics placed in those distant locations, which makes little sense). The exception is the flugelhorn, which was placed in a balcony in the hall at the recording, so its sound is captured directly by the ambiance channels. Otherwise, all direct signals are coming from the front, as captured in wonderful detail by the front L and R channels (which is what is heard in the 2 channel version). The distance from the rear wall to the listening position (where the tetrahedral mic array was located) was almost the same as from the ceiling to the listening position, so what we are getting is the reflected sound coming to the listener as reflected from two vantage points out in the hall. The two ambient channels are very similar in nature--there is nothing that can be identified as "uppiness" in the up channel. So putting the two ambient channels as the L and R rear channels works really well. Listening today on a conventional arrangement with separate rear speakers (very few systems have a speaker mounted overhead), we are still getting all of the hall reflections that were captured, in the same balance as if hearing the up channel from above. I do not recommend routing one of the ambient channels to a center speaker located in the front. I tried this, and all it accomplished was muddying up the almost perfect phase coherence Bruck captured in the front channels, which as recorded resulted in a very detailed and specific sonic soundstage. The sound as reflected to a listener in the hall (or in this case his or her substitute, the tetrahedral mic array) is utterly different from the sound coming off the stage in the hall (the front in the recording). This is why we rejected attempts to mix any of the rear signal into the front channels to create the two channel version. That always resulted in a loss of clarity with no corresponding benefit. The rear ambiance channels are of course way out of phase with the two front channels. The effect of hearing the four channel version is experiencing the hall "filling up with sound" in loud passages, and otherwise, perhaps unexpectedly, an added dimension of clarity overall. This is due to excellent phase coherence Jerry Bruck captured. If you want to hear what extensive multi-miking accomplished, just compare to the murky Unicorn recording, which was recorded in something like 16 channels. It is also noticeably compressed, which of course we did not do.

 

[Kjetil]

My friend died this March, and as usual in such circumstances the equipment is realized piecemal.
Over the winter and before his death I got to hear the whole recording in his room once, and the Comodo Scherzando a couple of more times, comparing 4.0 and 2.0. The 4.0 routed as intended by @jhaleyesq sounded fantastic in my friend's room and so does the 2.0 both in his room and (to a lesser extent I admit) in mine. Of course the sense of envelopment is far greater in 4.0 than 2.0, and it is especially noticeable when the off stage Flügelhorn does it's magic.
I've played the Bruck recording to Mahlerites (and nonesuch), people who know the Unicorn (I don't and I don't care.) and they've been over their heads, at least those with an ear for what a stereo can do. This recording really is something and the interpretation too of course.
Anything I want different? Yes. I want to move Norma Procter from her position at the Unicorn soloist microphone front right, where Bruck's FR mic was pointing, to a spot between the orchestra and the choirs. Too late of course, and also not something Bruck could do.

A heartfelt thank you to everyone involved.

 

[jhaleyesq]

Dear Kjetil, My condolences for the loss of your friend. Thanks very much for your kind words, and it is gratifying to hear that so many people are enjoying this recording. I sure like it myself, but I might be just a little prejudiced. RE the location of Norma Procter, Unicorn may well have had a solo mic on her, I don't know, but in Jerry Bruck's recording, there were no solo mics. Everything is as captured by his array of four mics located close together, two pointing forward, one up and one back. All the mics were about a meter apart, and because of their tetrahedral positioning (like a pyramid but with a triangular bottom), they captured a hemisphere of sound with no nulls, one mic picking up where the nearest ones left off. There is a photo from the sessions showing that Norma Procter was located right where we hear her in the Bruck recording, to the mid-right, actually up in the orchestra a bit. I don't know why they put there there, but I have seen a number of comments from listeners saying that she sounds noticeably better as captured by Bruck than she does in the Unicorn recording. BTW, anyone can download the 16 page booklet for free, here: https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0778/3319/files/Mahler-3rd-Horenstein-Booklet.pdf?v=1707833794 .

 

[Kjetil]

Thank you.
A comment on the dynamics of this release: This recording is one of the very few that I play at full volume. The calculated system peak RMS is 107 dB in the listening position.

 

[jhaleyesq]

Both Bob Witrak at HDTT and I were astonished by the complete absence of audible distortion in the original Bruck-recorded tapes, at every dynamic level, so the sound at "full blast" remains as clean and clear as it does at all other times. Things like the harmonics of the bass fiddles remain audible even in loud parts, and likewise the harps always remain audible (moving the harps to the front was the one concession that was made at the recording sessions in the seating of the orchestra, probably at Horenstein's request but certainly with his approval). The result is a recording that is without any kind of "listening fatigue." Remember that these tapes are more than 50 years old, recorded at a time when digital recording did not exist. The lack of distortion is a tribute to two factors: (1) Bruck's complete mastery as an audio engineer in understanding exactly what was possible using the analog equipment of the day, including his favored Schoeps microphones, and (2) the outstanding playback of the tapes today using dual Merrill tape preamps (for the four channels) to reveal the full glory that is captured on the tapes, unlike most other electronic options available today for dubbing tapes, including of course the decades-old electronics found in the old tape transports of choice still in widespread use today.
We are very close to releasing another great Horenstein/LSO Mahler recording, unfortunately not recorded by Jerry Bruck but still caught in fine stereo sound, the historic 1959 live performance of Mahler 8 in London's Royal Albert Hall. We have a superior tape source, and with careful restoration, the sound quality is quite noticeably better than in any prior release of this famous performance. I will post it here when it is available. We have already released a fine live 1969 performance of Horenstein's Mahler 9 with the American Symphony Orchestra, a first release that is a much better performance than the one from the day before released in past years by M&A and others. We restored it to good sound from the original tapes recorded surreptitiously in Carnegie Hall; it does not boast Bruck-like sound quality but is nevertheless enjoyable. It can be found here, with a free download of a sample: https://www.highdeftapetransfers.ca...ra?_pos=1&_psq=Horenstein+Mahler&_ss=e&_v=1.0

 

[tony22]

Both Bob Witrak at HDTT and I were astonished by the complete absence of audible distortion in the original Bruck-recorded tapes, at every dynamic level, so the sound at "full blast" remains as clean and clear as it does at all other times. Things like the harmonics of the bass fiddles remain audible even in loud parts, and likewise the harps always remain audible (moving the harps to the front was the one concession that was made at the recording sessions in the seating of the orchestra, probably at Horenstein's request but certainly with his approval). The result is a recording that is without any kind of "listening fatigue." Remember that these tapes are more than 50 years old, recorded at a time when digital recording did not exist. The lack of distortion is a tribute to two factors: (1) Bruck's complete mastery as an audio engineer in understanding exactly what was possible using the analog equipment of the day, including his favored Schoeps microphones, and (2) the outstanding playback of the tapes today using dual Merrill tape preamps (for the four channels) to reveal the full glory that is captured on the tapes, unlike most other electronic options available today for dubbing tapes, including of course the decades-old electronics found in the old tape transports of choice still in widespread use today.
We are very close to releasing another great Horenstein/LSO Mahler recording, unfortunately not recorded by Jerry Bruck but still caught in fine stereo sound, the historic 1959 live performance of Mahler 8 in London's Royal Albert Hall. We have a superior tape source, and with careful restoration, the sound quality is quite noticeably better than in any prior release of this famous performance. I will post it here when it is available. We have already released a fine live 1969 performance of Horenstein's Mahler 9 with the American Symphony Orchestra, a first release that is a much better performance than the one from the day before released in past years by M&A and others. We restored it to good sound from the original tapes recorded surreptitiously in Carnegie Hall; it does not boast Bruck-like sound quality but is nevertheless enjoyable. It can be found here, with a free download of a sample: https://www.highdeftapetransfers.ca...ra?_pos=1&_psq=Horenstein+Mahler&_ss=e&_v=1.0

I'm a big fan of HDTT releases, but I'm a little confused by this one and hope you can clarify. On the site it says

"Transfer of session tapes by Robert Witrak, Chief Engineer, HDTT, at 24/192 (late 2020)"

And a bit lower it says

"Analog: Transferred using an Otari 1/2" 4-channel Professional tape deck modified by JRF Magnetics feeding two Merrill Tape Preamps
Digital: Merging Hapi Analog to Digital Converter clocked by an Antelope Audio 10MX Atomic Clock"

Does the latter refer to the 24/192 of 2020? IOW, is the native digital capture from the tape 24/192? It wasn't done again later at a higher res (or DSD)?

 

[jhaleyesq]

Hi, Tony. The 2020 digital dub of the session tapes was done at 24/192--yes, that is the native digital capture. The norm for HDTT is either an initial digital dub at DSD256 or PCM 24/352.8. In this case, however, it was decided to do the initial dub at 24/192 because of (1) the length of this symphony (plus the Strauss D&T)--the Mahler 3 is the longest symphony in the symphonic canon and Mahler's longest work, (2) we necessarily had to deal with this project at every step of the way in all four channels, and (3) the resulting restoration had to be manageable as a download by HDTT's customers. And keep in mind that the session tapes were for three days of sessions--there were more than a dozen large tapes that had to be dealt with. in the editing, to come up with the correctly edited final recorded performances. Consequently, the highest resolutions in which this release is offered are PCM 24/192 and DSD128. For the various options, please see the drop-down menu on the webpage, near the top, under "Order a Digital Download or Physical Disc." The webpage is here: https://www.highdeftapetransfers.ca...enstein-lso?_pos=1&_psq=Mahler+3&_ss=e&_v=1.0
Thanks, John

 

[tony22]

Thank you John.

 

[jhaleyesq]

You're very welcome!