Goon tapes question for Ted Kendall

[Ted Kendall]

As John Culshaw said of his first session with Pavarotti - " he grasped straight away what it takes some artists a lifetime to learn, which is how to work a microphone intelligently, and that includes a sense of when to keep a good distance away from the thing."

The Mr Toad syndrome is rampant in some sectors of the remastering world, unfortunately. Judiciousness is all.

[TIMTAPE]

Ted,
Thanks for the reply.

"To suggest that The Goon Show suffers from not being on multitrack is bordering on the absurd."

Well then absurd I must remain. I suspect if the Goon Show producers had had access to multitrack in its day they would have used it. Just like in the 1974 show where they used 8 track. The one that you helped remix!

Let's imagine that the shows had been recorded to 2, 4 or more tracks. Would it have taken the spontaneity out of the performances? Of course not. It wouldnt have made any difference to the performers. They would have still read their lines into microphones just as they always did. It would merely have given the producers more cards up their sleeves later on, including to this day. It was after all a pre recorded programme, but since it was only a single track recording they basically had to get the balance right first time. It was basically a live to air programme but time delayed by virtue of being taped.

Re the imbalance between interviewer and interviewee I thought you might say that. You are quite right but in this instance commercial realities also had to be faced. I've done exactly what you suggested in other contexts (manual slicing up of the separate speaking parts and gain alteration) but I didnt on this one because the time involved (there were 14 hours of interviews) would have blown out, and the person paying me wasnt going to come up with the money and I dont blame him. I struck a real world compromise.

I have done other work requiring more precise DAW editing to remove as much tape print through as possible in all silences of more than 100mS, in an 8 hour program! and reinserting equivalent studio ambience. Little tricks such as cutting very close to the head of the next word or phrase can work wonders in masking slight changes in ambience and gain. Of course I didnt have the problem of dealing with the audience applause/laughter continuity which can further complicate such editing choices as I'm sure you know. And then there is the issue of the performer's breathing on edit points!

Misapplication of compression falls under the category of misuse of any tool. We dont blame the tool when the real problem is the person holding it!
You went on to pride yourself on your use of compression on a recording. I can hardly argue with your using the very tool I was advocating in the first place, now can I!

I'm all for gain riding too. In my other life I work as a muso in live performances and constantly come across the problem of amateurs who dont understand why the operator cant just "set and forget" the faders on the FOH mixer when there are a number of instruments alternating between solo and backup. What might be an appropriate mix for the chorus is quite inappropriate for the verse of the same song! Or one vocalist who moves an inch closer to or further from the mic, or off axis, can change the gain radically.

I'm glad the Goon Show was recorded to tape with quite a bit of dynamic range. It gives people like yourself, and now the public, options that wouldnt have been there had it initially been compressed. We can now use compressers with features that probably werent available back in the 50's.

I heartily agree with your quote of Culshaw. Microphone technique is an art which is invaluable especially in a live context. These days with great stage foldback including wireless in-the-ear monitoring, performers can in a way do their own voice gain riding which is an enormous help. That again would have been a great asset in the Goons days but of course in those days, as we know, stage foldback speaker systems had not even been worked out.

Regards Tim

[TIMTAPE]

Kat,
Squeezing the dynamics of the original Goon Show tapes onto a CD is of course not problem at all. Ted himself tells us the tapes of the time had a S/N of 65db max. CD's can do 90 plus. For CD's it's a breeze. Remastering as a term in its original sense is almost irrelevent in this context.

In my view the CD as a consumer release medium is excellent. The reason it has stayed with us for so long and that newer, higher res formats havent caught on ought I think to be a salutary lesson. As Ted said in another context, if it aint broke dont fix it! As you can perhaps tell, I'm not impressed by the people who swear by SACD's or DVD A's. I sometimes think about calling their bluff in a real double blind test.

Strangely you seem to decry the CD because it is 29 years old and yet equally decry modern techniques of remastering old material! Generally speaking I have no problem with the remastering work of reputable companies. Mind you the bigger companies have incredible technical and skill resources at their disposal. Plus they usually have access to the best quality audio sources - a slight advantage!

On the compression/limiting in AM and FM radio, and I'm sure now in digital radio too, this is a subject not always well understood. Broadcasters are trying to satisfy a number of conflicting demands including people listening in very different environments, from a quiet sitting room to a noisy tube station, and everything in between. As someone once said, you cant please all the people all the time. It's not simply the dynamic range limitations of the radio medium itself, though that too is a factor.

The reality is, depending on the listening environment and the listener's own hearing acuity, not enough compression can be just as irritating and fatiguing as too much compression. Both of these phenomena need to be acknowledged.

I can have the strange experience of listening to FM radio and not really being too bothered about the compression until a song is played which I have at home on CD. All of a sudden the compression stands out like the proverbial sore thumb because I'm familiar with the dynamics that are there in the CD! So I think it's also partly what we are used to as well, if we are honest with ourselves.

Yes I think you have a point about the "preservation/archival" angle. In a way, thanks to the CD the whole world can own the equivalent of the studio session tape in their many private collections.
But again this is not the point I was making that a live complex mix to a single track is always going to be a compromise to some degree. You speak of my 'personal preference' but the reality is a multitracked Goon Show, or any other relatively complex live production would always allow for a better quality sound balance than could possibly be achieved going to a single track. The need for some compression that I spoke of (or if time and money allowed a complete manual gain riding using digital techniques) is admittedly a poor substitute for the ideal which is multitracking the shows in the first place, and doing the sound balance later on, but which of course in the 50's was impossible.

Multitracking didnt just take off to satisfy the needs of lousy musicians who took 10 takes to get it right, or who had to splice together one 30 second solo out of 10 separate insert edits!
So often people who really have little experience in sound recording and mixing say; "you cant beat those old recordings done in one take to a single track". Usually I dont say what I would like to say which is "oh yes you can!"
Even if the musical performance was stellar, the greater the number of channels in the mix, the more unlikely it is humanly possible to mix them live to one track without significant balance compromises. There is just too much going on in too quick a time, at the time.

Why did George Martin and the Beatles start with 1 or 2 tracks and end up on eight tracks? Why did Martin very early on put the instruments on one track and the voices on the other of a stereo machine? Stereo releases? No way. The intention was to have more post production control in a mixdown to mono. Overdubbing? Sure that was part of it but by no means the whole story.

I appreciate being able to toss these ideas back and forth in this forum.

Regards Tim

[Kat Manton]

Hi,

Originally Posted by TIMTAPE

Squeezing the dynamics of the original Goon Show tapes onto a CD is of course not problem at all. Ted himself tells us the tapes of the time had a S/N of 65db max. CD's can do 90 plus.

That being exactly the point I was making.

Ted also tells us:

Originally Posted by Ted Kendall

My point all along has been that The Goon Show was compressed as much as necessary in the first place - manually. The dynamic range broadcast by the BBC at the time took account of reception conditions and was restricted to 22dB, the difference between PPM"6" and PPM"1".

"Nation shall peak six unto nation"

Ted, I'd meant to ask about that specifically. So the tapes were 'broadcast ready' (by the BBC standards of the time) and little (no?) further dynamic processing would have been applied in the transmission chain? In other words, what I'll hear when I listen to the CDs is about as close as I can get to what I would've heard when the shows were first broadcast, if I'd been born somewhat earlier and was listening on true 'high-fidelity' equipment?

Well, better still; there isn't a transmission chain and VHF tuner 'in the way' and my equipment is (arguably and subjectively) 'better' than the best available at the time. On top of that, mistakes have been corrected and defects rectified; what I'll hear is what was intended to be heard. Excellent!

Originally Posted by Ted Kendall

The avowed aim of the series is to bring the listener as close as possible to the original performances, and that includes preserving the original intended dynamics.

In my opinion, that should be the aim of remastering. Correct mistakes, rectify deficiencies; bring the listener closer than previously possible to the original performance. If no compromises need to be made, then none should be made.

That was the point I was (trying to) make earlier; CD will easily accommodate the dynamics of the original tapes so there is no need for compromise in this specific case.

Contrast this with, say, an orchestral performance recorded 'straight' with 24-bit converters; some compression/limiting is likely to be needed if it's to be issued on CD. Whether that's done with hardware, software or manual gain-riding; if it's done well and can't be heard, it's a necessary compromise but one which shouldn't affect the discerning listener's enjoyment of that performance.

Now, Tim; I've re-read your posts in an attempt to understand and appreciate your perspective before responding.

Originally Posted by TIMTAPE

Most people who buy such CD's havent a clue even what dynamic range is except in the most general terms and would be at a loss to pick a specific example of limiting in a recording, far less to estimate just how much limiting in db's was used.

[...]

For many, audio processing issues such as this are largely a mystery.

I can't disagree with that. I'd go further and suggest that many people will buy CDs, encode them at 128kbit/s to mp3, shove them on their mobile 'phone or mp3 player, then listen to them on extremely nasty cheap earphones. That or play them back on a cheap 'stereo' with small plastic-cased speakers placed either side of it, one blown tweeter and a 'smiley curve' on the 'graphic'...

Originally Posted by TIMTAPE

The reality is, depending on the listening environment and the listener's own hearing acuity, not enough compression can be just as irritating and fatiguing as too much compression. Both of these phenomena need to be acknowledged.

Here too, I think we agree. I think that where our opinions diverge concerns what, having acknowledged these factors, we should do about them. We have no control over the listener's environment, equipment or hearing acuity.

Isn't the 'trick' here to produce results which sound acceptable to the average listener with average equipment, while sounding good to the discerning listener with high-quality equipment?

What you seem to be suggesting, though, is to ignore the discerning listener with high-quality equipment and cater solely for the majority? At the very least, I'm going to disagree over how much compromise should be made.

As you say yourself, "Most people who buy such CD's havent a clue [...]"; however I'd say that is a good enough reason to give discerning listeners something which sounds good on high-quality equipment. Since "most people" wouldn't either notice or care; doesn't that mean one is free to make as few compromises as are necessary and consider one's audience as primarily those who do notice and care?

Sticking my 'musician/producer/engineer' hat on for a moment, I have used and will continue to use compressors/limiters to produce the sound I desire. If it's played back on equipment comparable to mine, what the listener hears is what I intend them to hear. Meanwhile I'll acknowledge that it may be played back on iPods and car stereos etc. and at least ensure it doesn't sound bad, blow people's heads off or rip their speakers to shreds. Tim, let's get this straight; I'm not against the use of dynamics processing; I use it myself!

Returning to the subject of The Goon Show reissues; may I assume that the BBC standards at the time these recordings were made accounted for factors such as 'typical' listening environments and 'typical' reception equipment and so on?

If that's the case then Ted's work has produced Goon Shows as the BBC intended them to be heard, dynamic range included. Tim, if you feel that the dynamic range is too great, doesn't that mean you're arguing that the the BBC's standards were wrong?

Regards, Kat

[Kat Manton]

Tim,

Originally Posted by TIMTAPE

Strangely you seem to decry the CD because it is 29 years old and yet equally decry modern techniques of remastering old material!

You've managed to misinterpret me (again); that would explain why you find it strange.

I'll spell it out for you, clearly and concisely:

1. In my opinion, CD as a consumer release medium is excellent.
2. In my opinion, modern techniques used for remastering old material are excellent.
3. In my opinion, compressors/limiters are useful tools.

With the following caveats, in order:

1. - except when what's on the CD has been compressed to within a gnat's chuff of 0dBFS.
2. - except when they're abused to "enhance [my] listening pleasure" rather than bring me closer than ever before to the original performance. If the processing distracts me from the content, the engineer screwed up.
3. - except when they're abused. See all of the above. But cancel that exception when they're abused creatively.

Now, if those statements have left you confused, please re-read my posts but ditch the inaccurate assumptions you appear to have made about me; you might then understand what I'm getting at. Then we can continue this discussion without potentially arguing about things we actually agree about. Hopefully.

Regards, Kat

[TIMTAPE]

Kat, re your last post, I'm sorry if I misinterpreted what you said.

When you spoke of the original Goon tapes as having limited dynamic range and being converted to CD's "themselves having limited dynamic range re modern technology" (or similar wording), you seemed not to understand that CD's limited dynamic range re modern technology is irrelevent if they are only being asked to reproduce the Goon Shows. , a point which you now say you totally agree with. But if that is so, for you to mention their limited dynamic range re modern technology was, to me, confusing. If you understood perfectly that for the Goon Shows they were perfectly up to the task, why mention their inadequacies re higher resolution media? I couldnt follow your train of thought.
Similarly with your mentioning that CD's are 29 years old. I was struggling to understand the point you were trying to make about CD's by mentioning how long they had been around.

Yes I agree we are in basic agreement. It's been an interesting discussion and I appreciate being part of it.

I hope to type another post after this one to focus in more closely on what I've been trying perhaps inadequately to say about the Goon Show CD's.

Regards Tim

[Kat Manton]

Hi,

Out of curiosity I've done a little analysis of one of the few pieces of Goons material which I can play at present. My off-air recordings are all on 1/4" half-track and the machine closest to functional (Leevers-Rich Proline 2000) has tape-tension 'issues' and I'm not playing anything on it until I've fixed it.

So, I've gone for 'The World Of The Goons', an 'Eclipse' CD, (c) 1990 The Decca Record Company. Specifically track 4, 'The Ying Tong Song', chosen as:

• I remember it as being a particularly good example of The Goons' creative use of dynamic range.
• I remember it as being representative of the dynamic range used in the radio shows.
• This CD release doesn't appear to be afflicted with 'Loudness Wars' over-compression; my father has the original release on 78 of Bluebottle Blues/I'm Walking Backwards For Christmas; these tracks on the CD are as I remember them from the 78.
• It's in a digital format which I can easily shove on my workstation

Listening to it on my monitoring system at my typical 'listening to something' level (my 'music production' level is significantly higher) in a less-than quiet environment ('featuring' three computers which I desperately need to quieten down a bit) I can make the following observations:

• The 'quiet bits' are clearly audible without any strain.
• The 'loud bits' are significantly below a level I'd find uncomfortable. (No, you probably wouldn't want to live next door to me, especially if I'm listening to organ recitals or dubstep...)
• The dynamic range of the performance matches my recollection of the shows themselves.

Now, the 'analysis' bit. I patched in a software implementation of the BBC PPM, launched with PPM "4" corresponding to -18dBFS and observed the following:

• 1:56 Milligan Raspberries peaking over "7"
• 2:40 Distant "Ying Tongs" not registering on PPM
• Overall, creative use of dynamic range exceeding that of BBC transmission standards.

Originally Posted by TIMTAPE

The Goon Show is not the 1812 Overture complete with fortissimo's and canon blasts. It's a comedy show. The most important thing is hearing all the voices clearly, following the story and getting all the gags. Big dynamics mitigate against this. Or is there something I have missed here?

I think that what you've missed is that The Goon Show is not just a comedy show. It's a groundbreaking comedy show which used sound effects and dynamics like nothing that had gone before it. They use dynamics to "paint pictures in the mind" of things which are far away, and things which are quite near (and many things which are very, very improbable.)

Originally Posted by TIMTAPE

Maybe it's partly because much of my listening to them over the years has been over local and national AM radio where dynamics are limited [...]

I think you've answered your own question.

I first experienced The Goon Show (The First Albert Memorial to the Moon) in my teens, via VHF radio, on an all-valve mono system I'd cobbled together from bits of radiogram, featuring around 15W RMS and a 3-way speaker using sixties-vintage Goodmans drivers. Not 'hi-fi', but still pretty good!

Memory can play a large part in whether we think a recording sounds subjectively 'right' or not. I always remember The Goon Show as using dynamics creatively. The 'sound design' is as much a part of it as the gags.

Tim, might I respectfully suggest that you draw the curtains, dim the lights, crank the volume, lose the compressor then close your eyes, sit back, and enjoy the remastered shows as you've never heard them before. You may find a new level of appreciation for the talent and effort that went into them.

I love radio drama. The pictures are brilliant!

Regards, Kat

[TIMTAPE]

Kat,
I see what you are saying but it only begs a question.

If the original session tape dynamics are so critical to the enjoyment of the Goon Shows (and I'm not saying it's completely unimportant) then the millions of people all over the world, including myself, who came to love the Goon Shows, via usually AM radio with significant dynamics compression, have been missing out on a huge amount of what they should have been enjoying.

I'm sorry but I just dont believe that is so. Common sense at least says it cant be true.

I agree that listening to a Goon Show on AM radio and then on one of Ted's CD's can be a quite different experience. For one, the significant compression on AM hugely magnifies the audience laughter and applause, down to that guy in the back with that weird laugh who seems to be there every week! You get a much bigger sense of audience involvement.

With the CD's that audience presence largely disappears. Instead of feeling like you are almost next to the microphone itself that Peter Sellars is speaking into, you feel more like 15 rows back, right amongst the audience.

Now whether you or I think that is a good or a bad thing is another matter. But the fact is most people have experienced and come to love the Goons that AM radio way. And it certainly didnt seem to stop them becoming totally hooked.

I suppose you could argue that if the millions of fans had heard the shows with no compression and full dynamics they would be even more delighted. But I think that is for you to demonstrate. It appears at present to be only a hypothesis at best.

In fact in all the comments I've ever read about the history of the Goon Shows and their production methods, including TV documentaries and analyses, I've never once come across anything about big audio dynamics being central to their success, or even any mention of it at all as a factor. Have I just not been looking in the right places? Can you point me to the relevent articles?

Regards Tim

[Kat Manton]

Originally Posted by TIMTAPE

If the original session tape dynamics are so critical to the enjoyment of the Goon Shows (and I'm not saying it's completely unimportant) then the millions of people all over the world, including myself, who came to love the Goon Shows, via usually AM radio with significant dynamics compression, have been missing out on a huge amount of what they should have been enjoying.

I'm sorry but I just dont believe that is so. Common sense at least says it cant be true.

I'd argue otherwise, but I don't personally know those millions of people. Practically everyone I do know (or knew) who loves Goon Shows either heard them first on VHF FM radio or during the 27-hour long 'Goon-A-Thons' I ran while at university in the early nineties (using my off-air VHF recordings, mostly 7.5ips half-track, played through a 150W PA system.)

You're welcome to state that my 'everyone' is a biased sample. I would agree with you

Originally Posted by TIMTAPE

I agree that listening to a Goon Show on AM radio and then on one of Ted's CD's can be a quite different experience.

I agree; this difference being so marked that I can't listen to the small number of recordings I made from AM. The soundscapes so vividly conjured by the use of dynamics are utterly destroyed, the audience is too loud... To me, via AM radio, they sound totally and utterly 'wrong'.

Originally Posted by TIMTAPE

In fact in all the comments I've ever read about the history of the Goon Shows and their production methods, including TV documentaries and analyses, I've never once come across anything about big audio dynamics being central to their success, or even any mention of it at all as a factor. Have I just not been looking in the right places? Can you point me to the relevent articles?

The very first place I looked after reading your post (Wikipedia) mentions, "Peter Eton, from the BBC's drama department, replaced Dennis Main Wilson as producer. Eton brought stricter discipline to the show's production. He was also an expert at sound effects and microphone technique, ensuring that the show became a far more dynamic listening experience."

Regards, Kat

[TIMTAPE]

Kat,
We really are giving it a good old shake arent we! If you dont mind, neither do I...

I just got up from listening to one of my favourite Goon Shows, The Great Trans Africa Canal. One of the joys of getting older is that failing memory means one has forgotten most of the gags by the time it comes around to hearing the shows again. And of course there are so many Goon shows it would be impossible to remember all the scripts anyway. I found myself laughing as hard as I ever did. To me it was fresh as a daisy.

That in spite of the tape having a fair bit of compression from it having come off our ABC AM radio network. Yes the compression was annoying I must admit. But the humour and the story was so good, so bizarrely funny, it didnt really matter. The Goons are so good they can transcend technical limitations like that, and that again is a mark of their enduring genius, to me and I suspect millions of others.

But getting back to the original productions on the original tapes. You seem to have an almost religious veneration for the productions as productions as if they are inerrant, containing no audio production flaws. But even by the standards of the day they were not perfect. I'm sure the original producers were aware of that.
They were ambitious productions and pushed the limits of the technology. Thankfully magnetic tape and machines were available and had got to a pretty good standard by the early to mid 50's.

When I put on my audio production critic's hat and listen to some of Ted's CD's of the original session tapes I hear rough edges in voice level matching and consistency that while hardly catastrophic, and quite understandable given the racy, ambitious live format, cry out for a bit of what these days we call "audio sweetening". Not that we could totally fix the level inconsistencies, but it would help somewhat.

I'm talking about unintended dynamic variations, ones like Neddy Seagoon's throwaway "Allo folks" coming across far too loud compared to what precedes and what follows. (Probably Harry was a bit too close to the mic when he said it) Or many of Spikes quiet off-mic mutterings which the audience heard because they laughed but are indistinct on the tape for us because he was too far off mic to be loud enough. Many such examples have no dramatic purpose because they werent meant to be there in the first place. If the producers had had the wherewithall at the time they would have fixed them then and there, I'm sure.

I'm sure if the original producers were still with us they would say exactly the same thing, and say that anything that could be done to fix these anomolies would be worthwhile and would bring the productions back closer to their original intent.

Dynamics have to have a dramatic purpose. They cannot be just accidental. It's the accidental dynamic rough spots that I would have tried at least to smooth out. For they serve no purpose other that to distract and annoy - just like inappropriate compression.

Ideally one targets and fixes these accidental level mistakes while preserving the intended dynamic range overall. That is, you save your dynamic bullits for where they really count in the show's script.

Regards Tim

[Ted Kendall]

Strewth, somebody's out to make a name for himself, isn't he?

Look, dynamic range was strictly controlled on the BBC in the 1950s, and before, by Staff Instruction. This dynamic range was transmitted intact on VHF as several off-air tapes in my possession show. The dynamic range of said tapes matches those of the TLOs, where direct comparison is possible, although the raw S/N ratio is somewhat worse, in general, as one would expect.

SO, the original tape has the dynamic range of the original broadcast, and VHF was the medium of choice. AM transmission had about 8dB of peak limiting once FM became available.

Occasionally, levels fall out of bed, or a fade is late, or there is an intrusive bit of surface noise in a gag which does not involve the fact that the sound is coming off a record, or...a hundred other things

Be assured, there is not one bit of untoward level or extraneous noise which is not examined when I remaster these shows. Sometimes I go to enormous trouble to straighten something out. Other times, after careful consideration, I leave well alone. It is my judgment, and I stand by it. I've been doing this a long time and don't seek to polish my halo by second-guessing the guys who were there on the night.

It is universally acknowledged that one of the strengths of the Goon Show was its use of drama techniques - working microphones, adroit use of effects, variation of pace and so on. These subtleties are a delight. He that heareth, let him understand. He that doesn't can squash it flat for all I care, because it is not for him that I do what I do.

And yes, these shows aren't the 1812. They are a lot more valuable than that meretricious potboiler. Which is not to say that Piotr Illych didn't write some wonderful stuff, but that particular piece is Gebrauchsmusik. no more.

Sod this I'm off to the pub.

[TIMTAPE]

Ted,

What can I say?

Again, I just feel that as productions they would benefit with a little limiting. Obviously not nearly as much limiting as when I hear them on our local ABC AM radio where there's a lot of audible pumping, but just enough to soften that hard edge. That's all.

I'm also interested to know if I'm alone in this view or not. Can you say what has been the general listener feedback about the audio on these CD's?

Regards Tim.

[Kat Manton]

Originally Posted by TIMTAPE

Again, I just feel that as productions they would benefit with a little limiting.

Obviously I must be wrong to expect painstakingly remastered radio shows reissued on CD to have at least the same dynamic range as off-air recordings I made years ago...

[TIMTAPE]

Kat,
No it's not so obvious. The CD's might have more dynamic range, less dynamic range or the same dynamic range. As Ted would tell you, it depends on many factors.


You spoke of liking to have as close as possible to the original session tape on your CD's. Hence your dislike of any limiting because you cant unlimit it once it's done. Fine. Just remember that Ted has applied CEDAR denoising in various amounts, and exactly the same thing applies. Once you denoise you cant un denoise.

Be assured that in presenting the Goons or any other material to the public on CD, conscious decisions and choices are made.
I just happen to think Ted was too heavy handed, possibly in the use of denoising, resulting in a rather hard sounding program. And/or a little careful limiting wouldnt have gone astray.

But no, Ted assures me that it is I who lack appreciation of subtleties.

Oh well, to each his own opinion.

Cheers Tim

[TIMTAPE]

Kat and Ted,

What I said in the above post I'm basically happy with but a little more elaboration may help.

Unless we have access to the original tapes from which the CD's are made, or good unprocessed digital files of same, it's very hard to be definitive as to what those tapes really sound like.

My hunch is that the tapes would not be as hard/harsh sounding (dynamic if you like) as Ted's CD's but of course I cant prove it. I suspect that the processing that Ted employed has actually changed the dynamics of the tapes somewhat and that if we listened to the tape and the CD side by side we would notice a less expanded sounding programme on the tape. Put the other way, the tape would sound more compressed than the CD. Not because somebody necessarily compressed it but because the CD sound has been expanded relative to the tape.

As a general rule, noise reduction expands rather than compresses the dynamic range.

Kat, you are keen to hear the tapes presented as they really are. So am I. But I dont think that is what you are getting on the CD's. I suspect Ted's CD's would generally be better unexpanded back to what they possibly were on the tapes.
But again I cant prove this because I dont have access to the sound of those tapes to make the true comparison.

Regards Tim

[Station X]

The long play tape has now run out and the reels are turning in opposite directions. Time to switch off before the discusion moves on to recording "Napoleon's Piano".