GG: Humming, DSP & musical reductionism

[John Hill <jphill@home.com>]

Thomas W. Conklin wrote:
 
> I have read many comments on "improving" Glenn's recordings.  I have
> collected and listened to recorded classical music (and live) for more than
> 50 years including most of Glenn's LP's.  It is my conviction that any
> electronic manipulation, including analog to digital, is going to take away
> from something that was there in the original and/or replace it with
> something that was not there before.  Mainly, what is taken away is
> ambiance.  Such detraction will reduce the actual recorded information that
> carries with it the perception of musical stage width, height and depth.

Hi, Tom......and Greetings to the Collective!

As a music recording engineer and one who is something of an audio purist,
I have to concur with your argument above.  Anyone who has struggled to craft
a good recording knows that it rarely gets better than the first generation master
tape.  In many cases, things get audibly worse.  Does everybody remember
back in 1983 when Sony and Philips promised that digital audio would provide
"Perfect Sound....now and forever"?  Many of us have been less than thrilled with
that promise for the past.......oh, fifteen years or so.

However, new developments in digital audio and DSP show great promise.
High resolution digital encoding at the 96k, 24-bit level *can* sound very good,
when done correctly.  The new SACD (Super Audio CD) system from Sony is
also opening many eyes and ears.  Telarc has a number of releases out already
and, when compared directly to standard red book CD, the new format is really
an astonishing step forward in sound quality.  Interestingly, each new development
in digital technology seems to elicit the response among critical listeners that
"this sounds more like *analog*".  Hmmmmm....

Restoration and remastering of old analog master tapes (most of GG's catalog)
is another area where great strides are being made.  Several hard-disk editing
systems offer "de-noising" algorithms that can be quite effective in making older,
noise-laden master tapes sound more musical.  But these manipulations are
not trivial.  Musical results will only be obtained (as always) by editors who have
musical ears/training and who respect the integrity of the master tapes with
which they're working.

> Sadly, we cannot bring Glenn back, but even if we could, I suspect he would
> still hum because the intensity of his musical expression could not be
> limited even by him.  Do we really want to yoke him in?
> Bless him.

As to the question of removing GG's signature humming.....I'm with you all the way.
I view GG's humming as an organic part of his performance.  I wouldn't *want* it
removed and I see this as a completely separate argument from the question of
digital transcription or noise reduction.  Improving and updating limitations
of the
original *media* is one thing;  tampering with GG's performance is quite another.
He made that sound at the session;  I'd like to hear it from my playback medium.

There were, of course, some attempts made at various times to reduce the audible
level of Gould's humming.  On one record jacket, I remember reading about the
engineers fitting GG with a gas mask and some kind of baffling system to try
to keep
this sound from reaching the primary mics.  Not surprisingly, what they ended
up with
on tape was a slightly quieter, but more muffled and bizarre-sounding hum that
probably drew more attention to itself.  I wonder if maybe GG hummed even louder
at those sessions...

cheers, 
jh