David Chesky needs little introduction to audio people. In 1984 he and his brother Norman started Chesky Records, one of the first audiophile labels to make a serious effort at reissuing Golden Age classical music recordings, later branching out into original music releases. David is also a renowned musician and composer with countless albums to his credit. We’ve known each other for decades and spent a July morning getting caught up.
Frank Doris: It’s been documented but, going back for the benefit of Copper readers, can you tell me what motivated you and Norman Chesky to start Chesky Records in 1986?
David Chesky: First of all, we sold Chesky Records a year ago, Norman wanted to retire, and I started a new label called The Audiophile Society with a focus on making even more spacious [sounding] recordings. I've always been a musician. I was a studio musician. I had a big band back in the day. We played at Storyville and Newport Jazz Festival, Monterey, all those places. And I was a studio conductor and arranger and always was into audio. I just loved audio. But the thing is, when we were making recordings in the studio, we had a hundred microphones out there. Everybody had a microphone.
We were doing mostly movies, films, whatever. And I would [think] where I'm standing on the conductor's podium, it's got the best sound. Why do [multi-miking]? Then I got the idea to start a record label [using] one point miking with a stereo mic [for recording], and that's been our thing ever since. We were about [capturing the sound of] real musicians in a real space.
Okay, here's a little story for you. This is how we started the label. I'm a piano player and there's a great pianist named Earl Wild. And when I wrote one of my early piano concertos, my uncle knew Earl, and I took piano lessons from him. One day Earl said, “here are my Rachmaninoff concertos.” And he gave the records to me and they were on a budget label, and I took 'em home and they just sounded awful. And then I read the liner notes and saw that they were produced by Charles Gerhardt and recorded by Ken Wilkinson. And I thought, this is the guy who recorded with the Decca Tree (famous microphone recording technique). How can they sound awful? This is the best recording engineer of his time.
So I went to [the original Reader’s Digest label] with Earl and asked if we could hear the master tape. And it sounded amazing. Right then and there, that's when I decided to start my label. I called my brother [Norman] and said, “I want to start a label.” We got permission to put out the Rachmaninoff Concerto No.2 as our first record, Chesky Records CR-2. It was just a fluke. If I didn't have that piano lesson with Earl Wild and he didn't give me his records, I wouldn't be sitting here. I'd be working at SpaceX or maybe more like a toll collector in the exact change lane.
[For our original music recordings], we started out with Johnny Frigo Live From Studio A with an AKG C24 in a stereo Blumlein setup, then we modified it with David Manley, then with George Kaye and made it OTL(an output transformerless mic). Later we got a Calrec soundfield microphone. That was a one-point [microphone]. Then we modified that to sound even better. Everything we’ve had, we’ve totally modified. And then we went from that to binaural [recording] about 10 years ago, where we started doing things with Edgar at Princeton, (Dr. Edgar Choueiri, inventor of the BACCH Labs spatial processing system).So our entire history of Chesky Records has always been [about] one-point micing, everybody standing around the microphone. It had limitations, but you really captured real people in a real space, with no editing or anything like that.
FD: I think you were the first label to reissue the RCA Living Stereo albums, or at least the first to do it in some kind of good way. The Chesky Records RCA Living Stereo reissues were a sensation. It was pioneering, because RCA would re-press on Dynagroove or whatever and some of the reissues were just not very good-sounding.
DC: When we did [the reissues], we cut right off the master [tape]. The thing is,[most] records are cut from copies of copies of copies because no one's going to give you the master. But in those days, we grabbed the master. We made a special machine to cut the RCAs. The [masters] were three tracks, and we built an Ampex three-track [tape machine], and we mixed it live on the fly and right into the cutter head [of the recording head]. RCA would take the three-track, mix it to a two-track for the two-track master, then they would make a copy of that master, and that would be the running master to cut records with. And they would make a master for Europe. So, you were getting third generation. But what we did is, we talked the guys into [giving us the original three-track master]. We made a little mixer [to mix to stereo] and that was it. It was done clean as you could do it back then.
So that was my thing [with Chesky Records] until we sold it. Then I started a new label, The Audiophile Society, which is taking that philosophy, but using all the things we have available in technology today to improve on it. We create super-holographic spaces, but can control the spaces and really tailor it with computers. When we started this 50 years ago, there were no computers, so we just had to do what we did and edit on tape, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. But now with DSP, if I'm in a church and I want to make the church a little smaller or bigger, I can do this. I can really control and fine tune it, which makes it better. If you live on the 41st floor you can walk up every day as a purist, or take the elevator.
With The Audiophile Society, I'm [recording] with all custom-made ribbon microphones and custom mic preamps, to go after the [correct] tonality. The first half of my career was about spacious realistic imaging, but the tonality wasn't as locked in. And I think the most important thing in music is the tone, whether you're Sonny Rollins practicing your whole life to get a great sound or Eric Clapton rolling tubes all day to get a great sound. They’ve got the tone.
FD: I agree. Some audiophiles go on and on about imaging and soundstage and detail. To me, the most important thing is the tonal balance. If that's right, I can almost not care about everything else.
DC: So now I can get the tone really lifelike and accurate. Look, a lot of people may not like it. They want salt and sugar and maple syrup or they want the high end tilted up and everything bright. No, our recordings are real-life. What we can do now is have an extra-wide soundstage with a realistic tone. I learned how to get past the 60-degree triangle, take it [to maybe] 110 degrees, really big. It's immersive and the tonality is correct. It's not this hyped-up bright thing. Most “audiophile” records, to me, sound like…it's like when you turn up the contrast on a TV. It's apparent resolution. It's not resolution.
FD: I was binge-listening to your music this week and was really struck by a kind of consistency of presentation, if you want to call it that. Whether it was a classical recording, or you playing solo piano, it had a consistency and the spaciousness of not being exaggerated. In my room I'm listening relatively in the near field.
DC: Well, that's perfect. Our recordings are made to be [listened to] in the near field. We want you in the equilateral triangle. We want you to not near the walls. Your room looks [well]-treated.[Editor’s Note: my room is filled with records, books, and other “stuff” in a somewhat haphazard arrangement. David had a look at it on our Zoom call.] I don't care if you have a million-dollar stereo; if you set it up with glass walls and a stone floor, what's the point? The room is important, so you hear the speakers, not the room.
FD: Are you using the BACCH system in your recordings?
DC: No, BACCH is a playback system which cancels [interaural] crosstalk (and crosstalk can negatively affect stereo imaging). It takes it to another level of “holography.”
We are still in the Flintstones ages of hi-fi. We have this theme. We like what we like, but it's not really accurate. What I'm trying to do and what BACCH is trying to do is to create virtual reality. The day will come when you don't even know if you're in your room or if it is a real concert hall. And we're getting near that. Audiophiles have to be open-minded about that.
FD: When I first started out in the audio industry in the 1980s, I was an analog guy, and well, digital didn't sound very good. But now I listen to it for pleasure.
DC: Well, you have two things [at work]. Look, people can listen to your 1960s jazz recordings that for me are very bright, tilted up. They can dig it, but it's okay, but it's not what we can do today. Today we can put you in a real concert hall in front of it. So it depends on what your trip is. If you want to listen to old recordings and play with cartridges all day, that's cool, because I can't tell people what to enjoy. But I'm saying if you really want to hear what the state of the art and recordings are today, I think what we're doing at The Audiophile Society is presenting what we are capable of. I mean, we're 70 years past these classic jazz records, and I hope that in 70 years we've learned something.
FD: I think the possibilities for technology are really exciting. I mean, I love vintage gear. I love the way it sounds, this warmth and sweetness and seductiveness. But on the other hand, maybe it’s not “accurate.”
DC: I understand. Look, it's fun. It's a hobby. It's fun.
It's sort of like, look, when you go to a restaurant, some people want to put a lot of mayonnaise or ketchup on their meal. It's their prerogative. The chef is the recording engineer, and then he puts it out there and you say, “I want more ketchup.” I'm the recording engineer and I put [a recording] out and people say, “well, I want to turn up the tone control. I want a little more bass.” I don't even mind people having equalizers or tone controls. It's your [system] and if you want to have fun with it, and if your house is bass-shy or you have room problems, by all means correct it.
FD: People sometimes lose the fun aspect. I know I do. I'll listen to the same six records and try five different cables and this and that. You lose sight of why we got into high-end audio, which is to hear the music that we love sound as good as it can.
DC: Exactly. That's kind of what it's about for me. Get closer to the music and enjoy it more. Look, you can take a drive in an old car and a Beatles song can come on the AM radio, and you totally enjoy the song. I have this iPhone right here. I can watch Star Wars on this iPhone and then go watch it on a big IMAX screen. It's the same movie, but it's a different experience. And that's what high-end audio is. It's the same music, but it's just a different experience. Music is just sound and the sound is more compelling. When it's really good, it draws you in.
FD: When I go to an audio show and listen to a system, that's my immediate criterion. Does the room draw me in or does it push me away? If it pushes me away, it's usually too bright or too gritty. Even though my hearing is not what it used to be, I think you can still tell if the tonality is right or wrong.
DC: Well, I have this philosophy: I think humans are very sensitive in the midrange, 1 to 3 kHz, because a baby's cry is right there. If the record is too “rich,” nobody really complains. But brightness irritates us for some reason. I think as human beings, we are attracted to a certain type of sound, just like we're attracted to sugar. We like the taste of sugar. We like the taste of bass, and lower-midrange richness.
In Part Two in the following issue, David and I talk about his musical career, speculate on the future of high-end audio, and more.
Header image courtesy of Greg Hark.
0 comments