Terrific restoration. Thanks. Good performance overall, despite some ragged spots. The somewhat elastic tempi in the 3rd movement are much like the 1938 and 1951 Furtwangler versions, and not entirely to my liking. For me, Mravinski and the Leningrad Philharmonic 1983 live release is the gold standard for this work.
One of the best(as for me the best) performance of Tchaikovskys 6th! To my mind even better than Stokies gorgeous 1973 recording with the London Symphony! Especially the "Adagio Lamentoso" I never listened more poignant! So so much thanks for make alive this (sadly) almost unmemoried recording again! And as always your restoration is absolutely stunning!!!!
I also love the Cantelli Philaharmonia on Warner/EMI from 1952 and NBC Symphony from 1953. The Toscanini Philadelphia from 1942 and NBC broadcast from 1947 are also superb. The Silvestri 1957 Philharmonia doesn’t quite compare to these others, but I have a Bournemouth Symphony broadcast from 1965 that I bet will be stunning if I ever get around to trying to restore it. At first, I thought the Toscanini penultimate concert performance was rather bland, but then after listening to it several times, I think he actually got the meaning and intention of the music better than most, and him knowing that his career was ending and that his orchestra was going to be disbanded, might have captured Tchaikovsky’s true meaning better than anyone else. That said, I have only one recording in my iTunes library now and it is this one.
I have this album. Best rendition I've heard so far. I believe that this album consists of 6 12 inch discs, too, so 12 sides total, here, masterfully edited together. The max time space of a 12 inch 78 RPM disc is about 5 minutes. A few of the sides are only partially filled. My only complaint of this album is the heavy volume compression that Victor was using on their records at the time. I find that when I play this album, I tend to operate the volume control a bit to give parts emphasis or de-emphasis. A rare feature of the period was an auto-expressionator tube, which was essentially a bulb with a tungsten filament that was connected across the speaker. A tungsten filament will drop in resistance greatly as it heats, so this would load down the speaker circuit on quiet passages, and unload the circuit progressively as the passage got louder, exaggerating volume changes. This was useful with AM radio, which tends to be compressed due to the automatic gain control circuit in a typical receiver.
Yep 12 sides and the album weighs a ton! With four movements that meant 8 joins. Sometimes there are quite large differences at a join. The worst type of join is when the orchestra just stops playing, they change sides, and then start back again. The ones where they have two cutters and switch over aren’t as bad. I guess I’m giving away one of my tricks, but since you seem interested. One of the problems is that the high frequency response deteriorates as the you get to the end of the side. I take the end of the side and the start of the next side and determine the amount and type of high frequency boost needed to match the end to the start. I then create a second copy of the side with the highs boosted and cross fade the flat copy to the boosted copy over the length of the side so that the end result has highs at the end that will match those at the start of the next. As for the compressed sound, I have the RCA Radiation handbook that has the light bulb circuits from the ’40’s that were used to first compress the sound and then supposedly uncompress it. Of course DBX and Dolby noise reduction were based on this principle but were somewhat more sophisticated than a light bulb. I’ve always wondered what sort of results I would get if I built one of the original expander circuits. Sometimes you get recordings where the engineer just gain rides and I often, but not always, try to correct that. In the past I have tried to use modern expander software, usually to mixed and unnatural results on recordings with electronic compression since the original characteristics aren’t known. Sometimes you just have admit that these are crunchy old 78’s that have been enjoyed many times over the years and the engineers were generally doing the best they could with the equipment available. I don’t pretend that I am trying to make these recordings into modern imitation stereo marvels complete with added hall ambience. If I were to have a motto it would have to be “Well I guess the sound doesn’t suck as much”. All that being said, kudos to Maestro Stokowski for one heck of a fantastic performance.
@@GlensAudioRestoration I've yet to try to match frequency response. You do it well. I've just dubbed sides together with pretty decent results even if the response obviously changes. These mid -40s Victors also play very cleanly with a good stylus. I believe that somewhere in this time they switched from more of a U groove to more of a V groove, which is more forgiving as far as stylus matching goes.
@@td3993 If you try my trick for matching the highs at the join, be sure to use a linear phase EQ! Acoustic recordings are definitely “U” shaped and need a 3 mil or larger conical or elliptical. Over on my Centennial Oldies channel my primary cartridge is an Audio-Technica VM750SH w/ VMN 70SP 3.0 mil conical. Sometimes my Stanton 500 w/ Rek-o-kut D5135 3.5 x 0.8 mil elliptical is better. Don't even think of playing an Edison disc with a 78 stylus! In the early electrical era I think the Westrex cutters were fairly "V" shaped. For 1930’s and later, if the disc is flat and well centered I use a Shure V15IV with the original 78 stylus VN78E 2.5 x 0.5 hyperelliptical, but since it is tracking at such a low weight the disc needs to be FLAT. Otherwise I use an Ortofon 2M 78 (stereo) with their 2.6 mil spherical, which still tracks very light, or the Audio-Technica.
@@GlensAudioRestoration I actually also didn't bother matching response between sides because I like to leave things pretty wide open. The frequency response at the beginning of the records is actually quite impressive. A couple of others that I've dubbed together are a 1942 Kostelanetz version of Grand Canyon Suite, and a 1940s Stokowski cut of Firebird Suite. Both impress quite well if left wide open. I might trim at 12 to 15 KC on playback.
Excellent restoration of an interesting recording. The dynamic range for the period is surprisingly wide. I really liked the clarinet work, nice sound. And the portamentos in the last movement, though passé these days, and maybe not as the composer intended, just suit the music so well. Stokowski also pays close attention to phrasing by using rubato and dynamics, drawing out melody after melody from the texture without stopping the forward momentum- more beautiful treatment that has become somewhat old fashioned unfortunately. What a remarkable conductor.
When you listen to many but not ALL of the current conductors and soloists today it is like they all have been beaten into some mold that says "This is the way this work MUST be performed!!!" From what I have heard of the earliest recordings, or the writings of the composers, they would not approve of the blandness and slavish dedication to their scores that is so common with modern recordings. The Stokowkis, Toscaninis and Silvestris of today would never get a job. It is like having Siri recite Shakespeare.
Although no Stokowski' recording of the Pathétique would be considered as my desert Island disk, this and the NBC account from 1944 never fail to provide stimulation and enjoyment. My reference point for this recording is a 1996 Cala CD. As a whole your restoration sound's pleasantly softer hued (Less boxy) and Wow! the winds sound terrific! Bravo Glenn and thanks for sharing your superb restoration it may well be the best one out there.
I have a Pearl pressing of this performance on CD. I never made any notes in my database about it or must have thought much about it. My impression was probably it was just another grim overly processed old recording compared to the Phase 4. Now I’m not dumping on the Pearl transfer. Software for cleaning up old recordings has improved dramatically since then and if the goal is to remove all of the clicks, pops, and surface grunge, they certainly did the best they could with the technology available. Was there a Cala release of this performance? I have a lot of the early Stokowski on Cala but not this one. Then again my response would be, not to be immodest, that if I had good condition copies of these early Stokowski recordings, I could do a better job now than they could back then.
There was apparently a Leopold Stokowski Society LP in 1984, but I don't have it. There was also a Pearl CD transfer. I transferred this from 78s that were in really nice condition. He recorded the T6 again with the London Symphony in 1973.
@@GlensAudioRestoration the sound is great, and the performance is superb. I have to ask, do you think you could do something with the audio from this performance: th-cam.com/video/CYFi706Wqyw/w-d-xo.htmlsi=WAsB9SyKBTOZJ9Sy I love this concerto, but there isnt any source of it with good audio quality, i would love to hear it with a better quality
I will admit that was the best sounding set of 78s I have worked with yet, even though a couple of sides were rather problematic. I only found the one copy so I don't know if the hash was from the master. I'm guessing that the superior sound was due to the fact that Stokowski was always deeply involved in the engineering and sound quality of his recordings. As for the performance - "BEST PATHETIQUE EVER!!!"
@@GlensAudioRestoration Glen, you work magic. You notice things that we don't because you're a perfectionist at what you do. Between u and Stokowski, we have a #6 to reckon with.👍👍👍🐶
Terrific restoration. Thanks. Good performance overall, despite some ragged spots. The somewhat elastic tempi in the 3rd movement are much like the 1938 and 1951 Furtwangler versions, and not entirely to my liking. For me, Mravinski and the Leningrad Philharmonic 1983 live release is the gold standard for this work.
I have several Mravinski recordings and I definitely need to explore more of his catalog.
@@GlensAudioRestoration I think that would be well worth your time.
One of the best(as for me the best) performance of Tchaikovskys 6th! To my mind even better than Stokies gorgeous 1973 recording with the London Symphony! Especially the "Adagio Lamentoso" I never listened more poignant! So so much thanks for make alive this (sadly) almost unmemoried recording again! And as always your restoration is absolutely stunning!!!!
I also love the Cantelli Philaharmonia on Warner/EMI from 1952 and NBC Symphony from 1953. The Toscanini Philadelphia from 1942 and NBC broadcast from 1947 are also superb. The Silvestri 1957 Philharmonia doesn’t quite compare to these others, but I have a Bournemouth Symphony broadcast from 1965 that I bet will be stunning if I ever get around to trying to restore it.
At first, I thought the Toscanini penultimate concert performance was rather bland, but then after listening to it several times, I think he actually got the meaning and intention of the music better than most, and him knowing that his career was ending and that his orchestra was going to be disbanded, might have captured Tchaikovsky’s true meaning better than anyone else.
That said, I have only one recording in my iTunes library now and it is this one.
I have this album. Best rendition I've heard so far.
I believe that this album consists of 6 12 inch discs, too, so 12 sides total, here, masterfully edited together. The max time space of a 12 inch 78 RPM disc is about 5 minutes. A few of the sides are only partially filled.
My only complaint of this album is the heavy volume compression that Victor was using on their records at the time. I find that when I play this album, I tend to operate the volume control a bit to give parts emphasis or de-emphasis. A rare feature of the period was an auto-expressionator tube, which was essentially a bulb with a tungsten filament that was connected across the speaker. A tungsten filament will drop in resistance greatly as it heats, so this would load down the speaker circuit on quiet passages, and unload the circuit progressively as the passage got louder, exaggerating volume changes. This was useful with AM radio, which tends to be compressed due to the automatic gain control circuit in a typical receiver.
Yep 12 sides and the album weighs a ton! With four movements that meant 8 joins. Sometimes there are quite large differences at a join. The worst type of join is when the orchestra just stops playing, they change sides, and then start back again. The ones where they have two cutters and switch over aren’t as bad.
I guess I’m giving away one of my tricks, but since you seem interested. One of the problems is that the high frequency response deteriorates as the you get to the end of the side. I take the end of the side and the start of the next side and determine the amount and type of high frequency boost needed to match the end to the start. I then create a second copy of the side with the highs boosted and cross fade the flat copy to the boosted copy over the length of the side so that the end result has highs at the end that will match those at the start of the next.
As for the compressed sound, I have the RCA Radiation handbook that has the light bulb circuits from the ’40’s that were used to first compress the sound and then supposedly uncompress it. Of course DBX and Dolby noise reduction were based on this principle but were somewhat more sophisticated than a light bulb. I’ve always wondered what sort of results I would get if I built one of the original expander circuits.
Sometimes you get recordings where the engineer just gain rides and I often, but not always, try to correct that. In the past I have tried to use modern expander software, usually to mixed and unnatural results on recordings with electronic compression since the original characteristics aren’t known.
Sometimes you just have admit that these are crunchy old 78’s that have been enjoyed many times over the years and the engineers were generally doing the best they could with the equipment available.
I don’t pretend that I am trying to make these recordings into modern imitation stereo marvels complete with added hall ambience. If I were to have a motto it would have to be “Well I guess the sound doesn’t suck as much”.
All that being said, kudos to Maestro Stokowski for one heck of a fantastic performance.
@@GlensAudioRestoration I've yet to try to match frequency response. You do it well. I've just dubbed sides together with pretty decent results even if the response obviously changes. These mid -40s Victors also play very cleanly with a good stylus. I believe that somewhere in this time they switched from more of a U groove to more of a V groove, which is more forgiving as far as stylus matching goes.
@@td3993 If you try my trick for matching the highs at the join, be sure to use a linear phase EQ!
Acoustic recordings are definitely “U” shaped and need a 3 mil or larger conical or elliptical. Over on my Centennial Oldies channel my primary cartridge is an Audio-Technica VM750SH w/ VMN 70SP 3.0 mil conical. Sometimes my Stanton 500 w/ Rek-o-kut D5135 3.5 x 0.8 mil elliptical is better.
Don't even think of playing an Edison disc with a 78 stylus!
In the early electrical era I think the Westrex cutters were fairly "V" shaped.
For 1930’s and later, if the disc is flat and well centered I use a Shure V15IV with the original 78 stylus VN78E 2.5 x 0.5 hyperelliptical, but since it is tracking at such a low weight the disc needs to be FLAT. Otherwise I use an Ortofon 2M 78 (stereo) with their 2.6 mil spherical, which still tracks very light, or the Audio-Technica.
@@GlensAudioRestoration I actually also didn't bother matching response between sides because I like to leave things pretty wide open. The frequency response at the beginning of the records is actually quite impressive. A couple of others that I've dubbed together are a 1942 Kostelanetz version of Grand Canyon Suite, and a 1940s Stokowski cut of Firebird Suite. Both impress quite well if left wide open. I might trim at 12 to 15 KC on playback.
Excellent restoration of an interesting recording. The dynamic range for the period is surprisingly wide. I really liked the clarinet work, nice sound. And the portamentos in the last movement, though passé these days, and maybe not as the composer intended, just suit the music so well. Stokowski also pays close attention to phrasing by using rubato and dynamics, drawing out melody after melody from the texture without stopping the forward momentum- more beautiful treatment that has become somewhat old fashioned unfortunately. What a remarkable conductor.
When you listen to many but not ALL of the current conductors and soloists today it is like they all have been beaten into some mold that says "This is the way this work MUST be performed!!!" From what I have heard of the earliest recordings, or the writings of the composers, they would not approve of the blandness and slavish dedication to their scores that is so common with modern recordings. The Stokowkis, Toscaninis and Silvestris of today would never get a job. It is like having Siri recite Shakespeare.
Although no Stokowski' recording of the Pathétique would be considered as my desert Island disk, this and the NBC account from 1944 never fail to provide stimulation and enjoyment. My reference point for this recording is a 1996 Cala CD. As a whole your restoration sound's pleasantly softer hued (Less boxy) and Wow! the winds sound terrific! Bravo Glenn and thanks for sharing your superb restoration it may well be the best one out there.
I have a Pearl pressing of this performance on CD. I never made any notes in my database about it or must have thought much about it. My impression was probably it was just another grim overly processed old recording compared to the Phase 4. Now I’m not dumping on the Pearl transfer. Software for cleaning up old recordings has improved dramatically since then and if the goal is to remove all of the clicks, pops, and surface grunge, they certainly did the best they could with the technology available.
Was there a Cala release of this performance? I have a lot of the early Stokowski on Cala but not this one. Then again my response would be, not to be immodest, that if I had good condition copies of these early Stokowski recordings, I could do a better job now than they could back then.
Was this performance released on lp?
There was apparently a Leopold Stokowski Society LP in 1984, but I don't have it. There was also a Pearl CD transfer. I transferred this from 78s that were in really nice condition. He recorded the T6 again with the London Symphony in 1973.
@@GlensAudioRestoration the sound is great, and the performance is superb. I have to ask, do you think you could do something with the audio from this performance:
th-cam.com/video/CYFi706Wqyw/w-d-xo.htmlsi=WAsB9SyKBTOZJ9Sy
I love this concerto, but there isnt any source of it with good audio quality, i would love to hear it with a better quality
Another epic restoration from Glen. Stokowski at that. Amazing sound. Amazing performance. As I say, WOW.
I will admit that was the best sounding set of 78s I have worked with yet, even though a couple of sides were rather problematic. I only found the one copy so I don't know if the hash was from the master. I'm guessing that the superior sound was due to the fact that Stokowski was always deeply involved in the engineering and sound quality of his recordings.
As for the performance - "BEST PATHETIQUE EVER!!!"
@@GlensAudioRestoration Glen, you work magic. You notice things that we don't because you're a perfectionist at what you do. Between u and Stokowski, we have a #6 to reckon with.👍👍👍🐶