By Bill Heck
Record company vaults are filled with analog tapes ofclassical music performances. As with performances found on contemporarydigital recordings, many are nice enough, but only vaguely worthy ofpreservation for posterity, while some others are eminently forgettable. Butthen there are those performances that are exceptional, that deserve specialtreatment to bring the performances to current listeners in the best soundpossible. For High Definition Tape Transfers (HDTT), that means providing thebest possible transfers of classic performances from the best analog tape theycan find. These transfers are then made available in several formats, from CDto high resolution downloadable files.
John Puccio has already reviewed a number of performances onCDs from HDTT. But HDTT offers most of their transfers in multiple formats,ranging from CD resolution (PCM encoding, 16 bit / 44.1 KHz sampling rate) toPCM 24/352.8 and DSD 256. (For the uninitiated, with PCM files the firstnumber, e.g. 16, refers to the number of digital bits per sample; the second,e.g., 44.1, refers to the number of thousands of samples per second. John does not have theequipment to play downloaded high-resolution files, i.e., greater than CDresolution, so he suggested that I try a few HDTT transfers in one of thehigh-res formats. My NAD C 658 can handle up to 24/192 resolution, so I wentwith that level.)
For those who have the capability to play high-res files,the process for HDTT files is quite simple. You order a recording, specifyingthe resolution that you would like; once you order, you receive a link viaemail that allows you to download the file. Note that high resolution files arelarge, and the higher the resolution, the larger the files; for example, thethree 24/192 files that I downloaded each were around 1.7 GB. All this meansthat you need a decent internet connection so that the download doesn’t takeforever, and you need plenty of disk space. Once you have downloaded the files,you can play them from your PC (if you connect the PC to your audio system), orcopy them to a flash drive (to plug into the USB port of your DAC), or copythem to another drive (that you connect to your network where it can be read byyour DAC). The main thing is that you need a DAC that can handle files of theresolution that you chose. If you have no idea what any of this means, youpresumably don’t have a DAC/preamp to play high-resolution files.
Now, back to those performances that are worth preserving.
The major labels have reissued loads of classic – and not soclassic – performances. Some of the reissues have been done with attention todetail, resulting in good to great sounding CDs; others perhaps not so much.However, in many cases, reissues from the early days of CDs have gone out ofprint, making those performances difficult to find at all.
Enter HDTT with the goal of providing better versions of arecorded performances from decades ago. On the surface, that sounds simple, butit must be a difficult business. To start with, you need to find early-generationtapes from which you can transfer and digitize the performances. You wouldthink that “finding” would be simple, but alas, it may not be: in the worstcase, the best tapes may have been destroyed; in other cases, the ravages oftime may have damaged them even to the point of unplayability. In other cases,the desired tapes may be…well, somewhere, but not to be found among thethousands upon thousands of poorly inventoried reels. On the assumption thatyou indeed have access to an early generation tape, you need to have theequipment not just to play it any old way, but to play it in such a way as torecover its full musical potential. If you were starting with high resolutiondigital copies, that would be easy; with old analog tapes, it can be quite achore.
All this means that the final product may indeed be the bestpossible, but may still involve compromises. On the other hand, with luck, theresults can be amazingly good. Let’s review a couple of examples.
Andres Segovia: The Unique Art of Andres Segovia(HDTT9328)
In his day, Andres Segovia was the acknowledged master ofthe classical guitar, perhaps single-handedly (or perhaps we should saytwo-handedly) making the guitar respectable as a classical concert instrument.A Spaniard himself, many of Segovia’s performances are of works by Spanishcomposers, and his style remained what we might think of as “Spanish”throughout his very long career. But Segovia was hardly a one-trick pony: forexample, he transcribed works by a number of composers, most notably J S Bach.(By the way, if you have never heard transcriptions of any of Bach’s music forguitar, be aware the some pieces can be revelatory, uncovering aspects of themusic that are more difficult to hear when the music is played on the instrumentsfor which it was written originally.) Post-Segovia, a number of great classicalguitarists have arisen, but Segovia’s work still is well worth hearing.
At least in the modern period, Segovia recorded for Decca.Decca was quite well-regarded in the early period of stereo recording for their“ffrr” (Full Frequency Range Recording) technique.[i]So how did this set turn out?
For this particular album, comparison to a commerciallyavailable CD is complicated by the fact that the CD version is no longeravailable; I could not find even a used copy in a quick search. Discogs doeslist four used copies of the LP for sale at prices from $5 – 10, but as I nolonger have a turntable, that was a non-starter, and anyway this review issupposed to compare the file to a readily available CD. To make things moreperplexing, the album in question is not to be confused with the two-CD setreleased by DG called “The Art of Andres Segovia.” Nor should you confuse itwith the 8 (?) CD series previously issued on MCA, then on DG, then on IDIScalled “The Legendary Andres Segovia”. So far as I can tell, Segovia’s manyrecordings have been chopped up and repackaged in various combinations fordecades. Sadly, most of these recordings have fallen out of their respective catalogs.Moreover, there is the distinct possibility that some, many, or all of theDecca master tapes of Segovia’s recordings were destroyed in the UniversalStudios fire of 2008.
So what did I use for a CD to compare with the HDTT versionof this album? Absent this exact album, I searched my few Segovia disks andfound that Volume 7 of the aforementioned “Legendary” series on MCA began withthe Milan Pavanas (Pavanes), and that the series of six pavanascomprise tracks 6 and 7 on the HDTT file. From what I can tell, the sameoriginal recordings were sources in both cases, so I used them as my standardof comparison.
In the discussion above, I mentioned some potentialcompromises because of imperfect sources. That concern applies here: the veryfirst thing that I noticed in listening to this file was the result of one ofthe vagaries of the process. I cued up Milan’s Pavana 1 on the HDTT fileand immediately heard a tape issue: the first note’s on pitch, then a weird“wow” in which the pitch dips, as if the tape had been damaged – stretched? –then a return to normal. The episode lasts less than a second, but my goodness,what a sound to open the listening session!
Listening to the HDTT version immediately suggests that thisis an old recording. First, there’s a slight resonance that lends an “aw”quality to the sound. I won’t make too much of this: while noticeable, theresonance is not too distracting – but it is there. In addition, lower notes fromSegovia’s guitar sound considerably duller than the higher ones – but this isonly partly, and perhaps not at all, an issue with the recording. One needs toremember that Segovia was a master instrumentalist and colorist: he is usingthis thumb to play those lower notes in counterpoint to the higher ones playedwith fingers and, in some cases, perhaps struck with fingernails, thus creatingdifferent voicings for different parts. (This is especially noticeable ontracks of music by Bach later on the album, as the music is more contrapuntalin nature.) One also needs to take account of the characteristics of Segovia’sinstrument, the type of strings that he would have used, and his own technique.All in all, the more I listened, the more comfortable I felt that I was hearingtonal balance fairly close to what I would have heard in person,notwithstanding that resonance mentioned earlier.
The Decca recording engineers brought the microphones ratherclose; the tape technology available at the time probably made that advisable,if only to keep the signal to noise ratio high. The close mic placement leavesone wishing for a little more air around the sound, but the apparent size ofthe guitar remains natural. Decca’s approach is pretty consistent in the worksthroughout the album, even though the recordings may have been made atdifferent times, so we don’t suddenly and jarringly jump from performance spaceto space. Meanwhile, the good news about the upfront presentation is that wecan hear the subtle details of Segovia’s performance – and Segovia providesdelectable details aplenty.
Turning to the Pavanas as they appear on the MCAdisk, the most obvious point of contrast is that these reissues “civilize” theoriginal recordings. Tonal balances are more tipped up, which at first soundsmore natural, and there seems to be an attempt to put some distance betweenSegovia’s guitar and the listener. However, there are downsides to thesechanges. First, the MCA versions lean toward the dreaded “eight-feet-wide guitar”effect. Second, the de-emphasis of the bass end robs the lower registers oftheir power, thus obscuring the harmonic structure that should be present.Third, the enhanced treble emphasizes finger noises. All guitarists, classicaland otherwise, produce finger noises – squeaks, if you will – as their fingersmove on the strings of the instrument. In the HDTT transfers, these noises areaudible but subdued, simply a natural part of the background. On the MCA disk,however, these same noises are far more obvious, to the point of beingobnoxious. In fact, the finger noises were such as to suggest steel strings onthe guitar. (I hope that no classical guitarists reading that last sentencefainted in horror….)
Overall, then, it is clear to me that the HDTT transfersprovide a better listening experience. No, they are not perfect – but thatbrings us to the issue of availability. Simply finding this album – and manyother Segovia recordings – is a challenge. If you are a classical guitar fan,and you want to hear the father of modern classical playing (as you should),and you don’t want to spend your time haunting second-hand record stores, justget the HDTT transfer and enjoy the closest thing to the original that we’reever likely to have.
In the review above, I had to elaborate on details and closecomparisons to elucidate the virtues of the HDTT transfer of the Segovia album.Now I get to relax: my job is way easier with the recording here. Theperformance is universally recognized as great, perhaps definitive. As we shallsee, it’s also an easy call in favor of the HDTT transfer.
In keeping with my “easy job,” I do not have much to sayabout the Reiner/Chicago performance, not because the performance is unworthyof description, but because everything that I might write already has beenwritten, and likely written multiple times. Suffice it to say that Bartok andReiner were friends who surely communicated deeply about this music, and it showedin the performance. Moreover, the RCA recording team, with producer RichardMohr and the legendary engineer Lewis Layton, was at the top of its game inthis era, producing recordings that even today are considered masterpieces.That praise applies especially to the recordings of the Chicago Symphony underFritz Reiner, and this recording, made in 1958, is perhaps one of their best.
On to the second easy part of my easy job. As with other RCAclassics, this performance has been released in a variety of formats andcombinations in the CD era. I have a copy from the 1990’s in which the couplingis Bartok’s Concerto for Orchestra. That will serve as my standard ofcomparison for the HDTT transfer, but I also was able to stream the sameperformance from a few other albums (thank you Idagio and Qobuz); so far as Icould tell in quick comparisons, these latter versions all were identical tothe aforementioned CD.
We can go right to bottom line: the HDTT transfer wins. Inthis case, despite the age of the recording, there are no issues with obnoxiousbalance or weird tape noises. Granted, at what we might call a “sonic glance,”the HDTT version sounds rather like the CD: sonic qualities such as the overalltonal balance, the perspective on the orchestra, the noise level (very low),and so on initially sound similar. But even a short listen reveals that theHDTT version has more depth, with clearer placement of instruments, than theRCA CD. The result is a more natural, realistic sound.
I could drone on for a while, but to what end? Theperformance is a must-have for anyone interested in this music, and the HDTTtransfer just sounds better than the easily available CD. To put this inperspective: the original RCA recording is so good that the “standard” CD does soundquite lovely when considered on its own. If I had never heard the HDTTtransfer, I could have lived happily with the CD. But the fact is that I didhear the HDTT transfer and now I’m spoiled. The differences are, in the greatscheme of thing, subtle, but differences there are, and to my ears the HDTTversion just sounds better.
What’s the Difference?
The question remains as to what is responsible for thesuperiority of the two HDTT transfers that I auditioned as compared to themajor label CDs. Is it the transfer or the high resolution?
As mentioned earlier, John Puccio has noted the superiorsound of several HDTT transfers at CD resolution as compared to major labelCDs, thus suggesting that the careful transfers themselves have a significanteffect even when playback is at the same resolution. Looking further afield,various sources in audioland sing the praises of high resolution, and the HDTTfolks certainly feel that the higher resolution versions sound more like theanalog originals. Then again, dissenting voices claim that it is very difficultin practice to hear differences between CD and higher resolutions.
But we’re really asking the wrong question: It’s not whethersomeone can hear the difference, it’s whether you can hear thedifference – given the limitations of your audio system and of your hearing –and, if so, whether it’s worth paying extra for that difference. Fortunately,you can easily answer this question for yourself. Order the Bartok / Reiner /Chicago performance reviewed here in the highest resolution that your systemwill support, then spend a few extra bucks and buy the HDTT CD of the sameperformance. (You can even buy the budget CD with no box; you just need it fortesting). Listen to them both: take your time, I’ll wait. Can you hear adifference, and does the difference justify the extra expense? Congratulations.You’ve just found the best sound available! No difference, or not enough tojustify a higher price? Congratulations. You’ve just found great sound andsaved some cash!
BH
[1].I can’t resist this tidbit: a number of the British Invasion rock bands of theearly to mid 60’s, including the Rolling Stones, were on the Decca label inBritain – London Records in the US – with their album covers proudly displayingthe ffrr logo. Seeing a thumbnail promo on the paper record sleeve for,say, the Rolling Stones right next to one for Andres Segovia was, to say theleast, interesting.
To listen to samples of these HDTT products, here are linksto the HDTT Web site:
