Prestige 20 bit Remasters -Better than RVG?
MindSpring User
anniversary of the Prestige record label. I've purchased Saxophone Colossus,
Django & Soultrane. I prefer the Prestige remastering over the Bluenote
RVG's they are not as bright/hot as the RVG's. Also, I think on a whole the
DCC Jazz remasters are the best available.
Chuck Nessa
attached to your messages.
CN
Gremal
news:7vvp29$6v5$1...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net...
> Fantasy has started releasing 20 bit remasters to commemorate the 50th
> anniversary of the Prestige record label. I've purchased Saxophone
Colossus,
> Django & Soultrane. I prefer the Prestige remastering over the Bluenote
> RVG's they are not as bright/hot as the RVG's. Also, I think on a whole
the
> DCC Jazz remasters are the best available.
I disagree. If you want to hear what's on the master tapes, nothing beats
the RVG series, although the DCC sound good--they're remastered by Steve
Hoffman using VAC Rennaissance tube amplifiers.
JC Martin
<801q9u$e8b$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
Since much digital manipulation took place on the RVG remasters, I don't see
how you can say that they most represent their analog sources. Digital and
analog in fact do not sound alike and warmth is an important factor in
duplicating any analog source.
-JC
MindSpring User
> MindSpring User <mv...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:7vvp29$6v5$1...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net...
> > Fantasy has started releasing 20 bit remasters to commemorate the 50th
> > anniversary of the Prestige record label. I've purchased Saxophone
> Colossus,
> > Django & Soultrane. I prefer the Prestige remastering over the Bluenote
> > RVG's they are not as bright/hot as the RVG's. Also, I think on a whole
> the
> > DCC Jazz remasters are the best available.
>
> I disagree. If you want to hear what's on the master tapes, nothing beats
> the RVG series, although the DCC sound good--they're remastered by Steve
> Hoffman using VAC Rennaissance tube amplifiers.
>
>
From reading the Audio Critic magazine I was very skeptical of tube amps the
info Germal has provided forces me to be somewhat more open minded.
Eric Daniel Barry
> > the RVG series, although the DCC sound good--they're remastered by Steve
> > Hoffman using VAC Rennaissance tube amplifiers.
> >
> >
> I did not know that Steve Hoffman uses tube amplifiers in the remastering.
> From reading the Audio Critic magazine I was very skeptical of tube amps the
> info Germal has provided forces me to be somewhat more open minded.
>
ideology more than sound. His integrity has also been questioned on the
audio NGs based on having an undisclosed financial interest in a product
he recommended. Also has the worst publication schedule in the audio
press.
--Eric
Gremal
news:801ur2$7gu$1...@oak.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Since much digital manipulation took place on the RVG remasters, I don't
see
> how you can say that they most represent their analog sources. Digital
and
> analog in fact do not sound alike and warmth is an important factor in
> duplicating any analog source.
The Sonic Solutions workstation used by McMaster digitally manipulates the
music far more than Van Gelder's approach. If you are unhappy with the
warmth (or lack thereof) provided by your system on highly detailed analog
to digital transfers, perhaps it's time to start blaming the real
culprit--your system.
JC Martin
*L* Maybe it's your system that colors and makes better a sound that isn't
that great in the first place. RVG in fact manipulated the imaging via
computer from what I heard. Take that for what it's worth.
Look man, many jazz fans and folks with high-end systems agree. The new
RVG's sound like garbage and that RVG, while putting together great
sessions, often recorded levels so hot that they would distort. He's
butchered many a great session with unnecessary distortion, and that is a
fact no high-end system can hide.
-JC
Gremal
JC Martin <subs...@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote in message
> RVG in fact manipulated the imaging via
> computer from what I heard. Take that for what it's worth.
Your comments betray your own ignorance on this topic. What do you think
Sonic Solutions is? Tthe digital workstation (read "computer") that
McMaster works with to "manipulate the imaging" (your phrase, not mine as I
think it's woefully undescriptive--I'm more concerned about his equalization
adjustments at certain frequencies). Every analog recording that is being
transfered to the digital domain ends up on a workstation, so if that's your
beef with the RVGs you have to have a beef with all digital recordings, as
they're all done on workstations. From what I've read, Sonic Solutions and
SBM are among the least effective of the current workstation tools that
provide analog to digital transfers.
> Look man, many jazz fans and folks with high-end systems agree. The new
> RVG's sound like garbage and that RVG, while putting together great
> sessions, often recorded levels so hot that they would distort. He's
> butchered many a great session with unnecessary distortion, and that is a
> fact no high-end system can hide.
That is all a bunch of BS. Let's get something straight--I have a very
high-end system. For speakers I'm using B&W Nautilus 802s, possibly the
most neutral, "clinical" reference-quality speaker ever made. To drive
these I use a high-end modern integrated tube amp designed in 1998 and
purchased just a few months ago. For speaker cable I'm using Alpha-core
Goertz MI2 flat cable to biwire the N802's.
Together, the amp, cable and speakers reveal every limitation of the source
material. So obviously my high-end system is revealing a fact that YOUR
system is hiding, not the other way around, ok?
You do not know what you are talking about and statements like "so hot that
they would distort" reveal just how ignorant you are. "Hot" means
distorted. In an effort to capture the full sound at a session, Van Gelder
recorded at levels that turned hot on some passages of some sessions. No
one says this is a great thing. But you're dead wrong that Van Gelder
"butchered" anything--not when he originally recorded the sessions, and not
now. Please show some constraing with your misinformed, misdirected
criticisms.
If you don't like RVGs, don't buy them, don't listen to them, and don't
plague those of us who know more about digital transfers than you and have
better systems than you with your ignorant rants.
JC Martin
>
>JC Martin <subs...@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:805c2d$5l6$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
>> RVG in fact manipulated the imaging via
>> computer from what I heard. Take that for what it's worth.
>
>Your comments betray your own ignorance on this topic. What do you think
>Sonic Solutions is? Tthe digital workstation (read "computer") that
>McMaster works with to "manipulate the imaging"
McMaster leaves the imaging intact as was. Of course, any remastering job
going to have someone tweak it via a workstaion set-up. It's just that RVG
*obviously* did a *lot* more tweaking. As someone who own many
first-pressings Blue Notes, there isn't no doubt about that.
>(your phrase, not mine as I
>think it's woefully undescriptive--I'm more concerned about his
equalization
>adjustments at certain frequencies).
So I take it you like lots of high-end then.
>Every analog recording that is being
>transfered to the digital domain ends up on a workstation, so if that's
your
>beef with the RVGs you have to have a beef with all digital recordings, as
>they're all done on workstations.
Yep, I agree. It's *how* RVG used a technology is knows little about.
>From what I've read, Sonic Solutions and
>SBM are among the least effective of the current >workstation tools that
>provide analog to digital transfers.
My ears tell me differently. McMaster has done a great job on some of the
Mosaic sets I have.
>> Look man, many jazz fans and folks with high-end systems agree. The new
>> RVG's sound like garbage and that RVG, while putting together great
>> sessions, often recorded levels so hot that they would distort. He's
>> butchered many a great session with unnecessary distortion, and that is a
>> fact no high-end system can hide.
>
>That is all a bunch of BS. Let's get something straight--I have a very
>high-end system. For speakers I'm using B&W Nautilus 802s, possibly the
>most neutral, "clinical" reference-quality speaker ever made. To drive
>these I use a high-end modern integrated tube amp designed in 1998 and
>purchased just a few months ago. For speaker cable I'm using Alpha-core
>Goertz MI2 flat cable to biwire the N802's.
BFD. So you have to buy the best high-end system one could imagine to make
your RVG's sound good? Hogwash!
>Together, the amp, cable and speakers reveal every limitation of the source
>material. So obviously my high-end system is revealing a fact that YOUR
>system is hiding, not the other way around, ok?
Your system is *coloring*. RVG most definitely recorded large amounts of
distortion on a good third of BN recordings. Are you denying that? Time
for a friggin' reality check if you are.
>You do not know what you are talking about and statements like "so hot that
>they would distort" reveal just how ignorant you are. "Hot" means
>distorted.
You are revealing your ignorance here. I have an in-home 16-track studio.
It is common in recording-speak. "Hot", meaning how hard you saturate the
levels. In digital recording, recording a track "hot" would not make it
distort. So no, they are not the same.
>In an effort to capture the full sound at a session, Van Gelder
>recorded at levels that turned hot on some >passages of some sessions.
Try *entire* recording sessions.
>No
>one says this is a great thing. But you're dead wrong that Van Gelder
>"butchered" anything--not when he originally recorded the sessions, and not
>now.
Geez man. You really are living in a fantasy world. A good portion of BN's
catalog has distortion throughout the entire recording.
>Please show some constraing with your misinformed, misdirected
>criticisms.
>If you don't like RVGs, don't buy them, don't listen to them, and don't
>plague those of us who know more about digital transfers than you and have
>better systems than you with your ignorant rants.
Right. So we all need to buy system like yours in order to appreciate the
majesty of RVG 24-bit remasters. Gimme a break man. You're beyond arrogant
in sitting here telling us that we have the problem because we don't have
the system you do. Take your head out of your ass because it smells a lot
better out here.
-JC
Ron McMaster
wrote:
>Your comments betray your own ignorance on this topic. What do you think
>Sonic Solutions is? Tthe digital workstation (read "computer") that
>McMaster works with to "manipulate the imaging" (your phrase, not mine as I
>think it's woefully undescriptive--I'm more concerned about his equalization
>adjustments at certain frequencies). Every analog recording that is being
>transfered to the digital domain ends up on a workstation, so if that's your
>beef with the RVGs you have to have a beef with all digital recordings, as
>they're all done on workstations. From what I've read, Sonic Solutions and
>SBM are among the least effective of the current workstation tools that
>provide analog to digital transfers.
My association with the Blue Note label has been one of many
years, of which I am very proud. My association with Michael
Cuscuna has developed into a great working relationship and a
great learning experience.
I am frankly shocked and amazed at the statements being made on
"McMaster Masters". It is hard to take on all of the issues
that seem to be causing some of the authors to dislike the
mastering work I have done. Let me start by saying that the
early digital transfers of master tapes dubbed to 1610 and
later 1630 format was the beginning of putting the Blue Note
catalog into the digital format. It was not a matter of putting
my sonic signature on the old masters but rather to do only a
few sonic adjustments and present the original sound of the old
masters as they were intended. The process and the digital
equipment have changed very much since those early days of the
first digital transfers. Today however, I still work with the
same approach, keeping to the original sound of the master as
it was intended. Let's set a few things straight, I do not hard
pan the stereo spread on the original masters. I reduce it
about 40%. I do not use digital noise reduction as a rule.Only
in extreme cases and never without the permission of Michael
Cuscuna. All masters are loaded into the Sonic Solutions after
they are EQ'd and blended.There is no digital EQ or limiting
ever done to them.I record them in 24 bit resolution and SBM2
for the output dither. The Sonic Solutions is merely a digital
workstation from which we can assemble and edit the music
program while staying in 24 bit. In addition, Sonic Solutions
is not at all like Dolby noise reduction, and it does not color
the audio program with processing and shaping techniques. We
use the best converters available to assure pure audio signal
conversion from analog to digital. For the LP purists on the
Mosaic and Blue Note releases we take the masters and go
straight to lacquer, never entering the digital domain.
I would like to say that when you compare masters it is only
fair to use songs that have been done at the same time and
period of technology. To compare some of my old digital
transfers with the new RVG releases is like comparing apples
and oranges.
We can't please everyone, but I hope that you will believe me
when I tell you we want to deliver the best possible Blue Note
CD.
As Blue Note customers and fans you deserve the best possible
product. Not every tape is perfect, not every CD without its
flaws. However, we never take the attitude "oh, it's good
enough". I for one appreciate your comments and hope to
continue to deliver the best quality music possible. Remember
too that this is a team effort, and the producer must approve
all of the mastering. Many times when there is a major flaw and
we cannot find a correct version then Michael Cuscuna will put
a producers note on the jacket and try to keep the customers
informed of the problems on the master. This by no way a cop
out statement, it is merely to reflect the whole of the
workings of all of these wonderful recordings. The implications
of some of the authors are that I just carelessly master the
original songs and then the label just puts out the product.
Not caring at all about the customer or the sound of the
music.That couldn't be farther from the truth. Blue Note is and
always has been a very intelligent and customer based label,
they care about the consumer and they care about the music.
Regards, Ron McMaster
Gremal
> McMaster leaves the imaging intact as was. Of course, any remastering job
> going to have someone tweak it via a workstaion set-up. It's just that
RVG
> *obviously* did a *lot* more tweaking. As someone who own many
> first-pressings Blue Notes, there isn't no doubt about that.
Before lathing the original vinyl, the remasters had a fake stereo spread
forced on them by the powers that be at Capital Records. McMaster loves to
use that fake stereo spread. But if Van Gelder sees fit to relax the
stereophonics (what you mistakenly refer to as "imaging") I have no problem
with that. If you do have a problem w that, it's a separate issue than the
contention that Van Gelder is somehow adding distortion to the masters.
This is a truly idiotic shortsightedness on your part.
> So I take it you like lots of high-end then.
huh?
> Yep, I agree. It's *how* RVG used a technology is knows little about.
Chuck Nessa, a career audio engineer, will tell you that Van Gelder in fact
knows a lot about digital transfers and has a lot of experience with them
prior to the RVGs. If you don't believe me, ask him.
> BFD. So you have to buy the best high-end system one could imagine to
make
> your RVG's sound good? Hogwash!
Right. You totally missed the point. RVGs are not the greatest sounding
discs in the world, but they are the best remasters of the BN material. A
high end system will reveal why. If you'd like to be an audio ostrich and
listen to your McMaster titles on your cheap system and pretend it has
wonderful detail, that's fine with me. Just don't convince yourself you
know what you're talking about.
> Your system is *coloring*. RVG most definitely recorded large amounts of
> distortion on a good third of BN recordings. Are you denying that? Time
> for a friggin' reality check if you are.
Here's reality: my system is not coloring anything--it's totally transparent
and extremely accurate in its reproduction and amplification properties.
Again, you don't know what you're talking about and you don't know how
ignorant you sound. Van Gelder did not record large amounts of distortion
on ANY sessions. Loud passages were recorded hot as a general rule, which
resulted in some slight distortion that is not great, but does not ruin
anyone's enjoyment of this fantastic music.
> You are revealing your ignorance here. I have an in-home 16-track studio.
> It is common in recording-speak. "Hot", meaning how hard you saturate the
> levels. In digital recording, recording a track "hot" would not make it
> distort. So no, they are not the same.
Reminder: you used the phrase "so hot that they would distort". "Hot" means
"distorted", as we all know. So what your phrase basically tells me is that
you have poor understanding of what we're talking about. It's like saying
"so large they would be big". Get a clue.
> Geez man. You really are living in a fantasy world. A good portion of
BN's
> catalog has distortion throughout the entire recording.
Name one title.
> Right. So we all need to buy system like yours in order to appreciate the
> majesty of RVG 24-bit remasters.
No, all you need is a transparent system to be able to compare two digital
transfers of the same title. If you don't have a transparent system--and
obviously you don't--then your comparison doesn't count for much.
> Gimme a break man. You're beyond arrogant
> in sitting here telling us that we have the problem because we don't have
> the system you do. Take your head out of your ass because it smells a lot
> better out here.
Resorting to bathroom humor isn't helping your argument. You just don't
know what you're talking about. Maybe that sounds arrogant, but based on
all your posts to this board to try to badmouth Van Gelder you definitely
lack the knowledge to know what analog to digital transfers are about and
you lack the system to be able to compare them.
JC Martin
do. You've convinced yourself that your view of the RVG remasters is a fact
and nothing else. Do you realize how silly you sound? Calling me ignorant
in this situation is laughable. I not claiming that there's only one way to
look at this situation. You seemingly are. I don't have a problem with
your viewpoint. It's your attitude that sucks.
-JC
JC Martin
way.
Take care,
JC
Ron McMaster wrote in message <38283a2...@news.total.net>...
Jack Woker
> My association with the Blue Note label has been one of many
> years, of which I am very proud. My association with Michael
> Cuscuna has developed into a great working relationship and a
> great learning experience.
Ron, I can only say that it is a pleasure to see you weigh in on this
newsgroup. There are those who think they have golden ears becuase
they've invested a few bucks in fancy gear, and therefore think they
know what they are talking about. There are those who worship at the
shrine of the omnipotent and infallible Rudy Van Gelder, with the
illusion that his must be the best remastering jobs. Others of us who
actually listen to music with open ears applaud your efforts to provide
the best audio possible, and hope that you continue to bring us quality
product.
jack
jwd
...or is it Hear, Hear!
Either way keep up the great work, Ron!
You too, Jack. ; )
Regards
Jeff
Murphy McMahon
Note boxset? Make sure you use all that fancy equipment. I want to hear
Elvin blink.
Long live Blue Note,
--
Murph
JC Martin
>JC Martin <subs...@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:806u5o$3q2$1...@oak.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
>> McMaster leaves the imaging intact as was. Of course, any remastering
job
>> going to have someone tweak it via a workstaion set-up. It's just that
>RVG
>> *obviously* did a *lot* more tweaking. As someone who own many
>> first-pressings Blue Notes, there isn't no doubt about that.
>
>Before lathing the original vinyl, the remasters had a fake stereo spread
>forced on them by the powers that be at Capital Records. McMaster loves to
>use that fake stereo spread.
I'm sure Ron is in awe of you, given that you know more about his practices
than he does.
>But if Van Gelder sees fit to relax the
>stereophonics (what you mistakenly refer to as "imaging") I have no problem
>with that. If you do have a problem w that, it's a separate issue than the
>contention that Van Gelder is somehow adding distortion to the masters.
>This is a truly idiotic shortsightedness on your >part.
BTW, I never said that RVG *added* distortion to the masters. Distortion
was a result of RVG (at times) over-saturating the levels during a given
session. His current remasters highlight brightness and high-end, thereby
making the distortion more apparent to my ears. But given your superior
system with its clinical-like detail, I must be hallucinating of course.
The funny thing is that it's possible that the reference monitors used for
re-mastering jobs are cheaper than your ultra-cool clinical and colorless
system.
-JC
Gremal
JC Martin <subs...@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote in message
> Gremal, you just have a problem when people see things differently than
you do.
that's inaccurate. i feel the need to chime in when Van Gelder's work is
being slammed for no intelligent reason.
> You've convinced yourself that your view of the RVG remasters is a fact
> and nothing else.
Absolutely not. I've convinced myself that my system doesn't lie, my ears
don't lie and most of the RVG remasters did the rest.
> Do you realize how silly you sound? Calling me ignorant
> in this situation is laughable.
Laugh away. The joke's on you.
> I not claiming that there's only one way to
> look at this situation. You seemingly are. I don't have a problem with
> your viewpoint. It's your attitude that sucks.
You bet you've had a problem with my viewpoint every step of the way through
this thread and the other one. The only reason you think my attitude sucks
is because i don't roll over and play dead when you dole out your "Van
Gelder butchered the master tapes" crap. Vive la difference.
Gremal
the differences between your approach to remastering vs. Van Gelder's
approach could have filled in the gray areas for me. Instead you have
simply pasted your post of several months ago from the BN board into a
thread where your work isn't being criticized so much as Van Gelder's. I
find it out of place in this thread, though we all would appreciate your
direct input on Van Gelder's work. Thank you.
JC Martin
Ummm...*you* were criticizing Ron's work and giving out false information.
Most of us, I would guess are happy that Ron came here to correct any
misinformation that you have given us. He has proven your ignorance without
a doubt.
You get the last word. Enjoy listening to your RVG's on your clinical and
colorless system. We should only be so special.
-JC
Eric Daniel Barry
> The funny thing is that it's possible that the reference monitors used for
> re-mastering jobs are cheaper than your ultra-cool clinical and colorless
> system.
>
> -JC
Very unlikely these days. In fact the next model up from his
speakers, the B&W 801, is a studio standard.
--eric
Dennis J. Kosterman
wrote:
>Reminder: you used the phrase "so hot that they would distort". "Hot" means
>"distorted", as we all know.
Sez who? To me "hot" has always meant simply "loud". If someone tells
me that CD A was recorded "hotter" than CD B, all it means is that if
the two CDs are played on the same system with identical settings, CD
A will sound louder than CD B. Admittedly, this increases the chances
of distortion, but it doesn't guarantee it.
This is what the word means to me, and it seems that this is how Jack
and JC have been using it, too. In that context, "so hot that they
would distort" makes perfect sense.
Disclaimer: I've only heard one RVG (Kenny Dorham's "Una Mas"), and
I've never heard it in any other version, so I can't make a comparison
between the RVGs and previous issues. "Una Mas" sounds good to me, but
to be perfectly honest, I don't remember the sound quality calling
attention to itself one way or the other -- if it did, I was too busy
listening to the music to notice.
Because that's what matters to me -- the music. Unless the sound is
spectacularly bad, I just don't notice it. And I rarely buy something
I already have just because it's been re-mastered. Once I've got a
given piece of music in acceptable sound, I'm not interested in buying
it again. I'd rather spend the money on something else that I don't
already have.
Which is also why I only have a relatively modest stereo system
(Gremal would probably consider it downright primitive). Most of us
have only a limited budget for music -- this is certainly true for me.
I could buy an expensive "high end" system if I really wanted to, but
then all I'd be able to do with it is listen to the radio (a dismal
prospect: the intersection of what I like and what gets played on the
radio is a small, small set), because I wouldn't have any money left
to buy CDs. I'd much rather have a modest but acceptable system and be
able to buy hundreds or thousands of CDs to play on it.
Dennis J. Kosterman
den...@tds.net
(np: Mozart, Piano Concerto #9, K. 271 (Goode/Orpheus Ensemble))
PAUL MACCA
>> BFD. So you have to buy the best high-end system one could imagine to
>make
>> your RVG's sound good? Hogwash!
>
>Right. You totally missed the point. RVGs are not the greatest sounding
>discs in the world, but they are the best remasters of the BN material. A
>high end system will reveal why. If you'd like to be an audio ostrich and
>listen to your McMaster titles on your cheap system and pretend it has
>wonderful detail, that's fine with me. Just don't convince yourself you
>know what you're talking about.
>
I've been a lurker on this thread,.... until now. I must say that this even
among the denizens of rec.audio.high-end, I have rarely seen this kind of
snobbish attitude even among people who I know have even better systems than
Gremal has.
>> Your system is *coloring*. RVG most definitely recorded large amounts of
>> distortion on a good third of BN recordings. Are you denying that? Time
>> for a friggin' reality check if you are.
>
>Here's reality: my system is not coloring anything--it's totally transparent
>and extremely accurate in its reproduction and amplification properties.
>Again, you don't know what you're talking about and you don't know how
>ignorant you sound
Ditto for you. No home audio reproduction system is "totally transparent."
And I mean NO system, even one that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Why? Because unless you listen to your system in an anechoic chamber, every
loudspeaker that is on the market will not sound *exactly* the same in every
room. Yes, your precious B&Ws, fine speakers though they may be, will not
sound perfectly identical when moved from your listening room to JCs. Neither
will your speakers sound the same when moved from a recording studio control
room to your listening room. Unless you live in an anechoic chamber, every
"normal" room has its own sonic fingerprint. This is why a laundry list of the
latest in high-end equipment alone will not assure great sound. This is also
why having an identical inventory of hardware in a particular recording studio
does not mean that you will hear the exact same thing that an engineer hears in
his environment. Speaker/room interaction, whether you know it or not,
definitely has an impact on the comparisons you make on various pressings of
the same recording. For you to claim that your system and your system alone is
the final determiner on which pressing sounds the best and everyone else's
opinion be damned, is one of the most arrogant and ignorant sentiments I have
heard in a long long while.
>> Right. So we all need to buy system like yours in order to appreciate the
>> majesty of RVG 24-bit remasters.
>
>No, all you need is a transparent system to be able to compare two digital
>transfers of the same title. If you don't have a transparent system--and
>obviously you don't--then your comparison doesn't count for much.
>
Well let's take a look into what is in your "transparent system."
>>Let's get something straight--I have a very
high-end system. For speakers I'm using B&W Nautilus 802s, possibly the
most neutral, "clinical" reference-quality speaker ever made. To drive
these I use a high-end modern integrated tube amp designed in 1998 and
purchased just a few months ago. For speaker cable I'm using Alpha-core
Goertz MI2 flat cable to biwire the N802's.<<
Interesting that you should mention the brand of speakers and even cable. But
for some reason, you chose not to give the brand and model of your front-end
and amplification. Care to share what components you have in your "totally
transparent" audio chain?
PAUL MACCA
I don't know exactly what you mean by "studio standard." It's true that the
B&W 801 are used in *some* state of the art studios like Abbey Road's penthouse
studio. But I have been to other fine studios as well and they have used
systems that sometimes are quite different. For example, Tannoy, JBL, and
Yamaha are also quite common as studio monitors. I have even heard about
Martin Logan electrostatics being used in one studio in Georgia. My point is
that there is far from being any kind of single universal "standard" when it
comes to studio monitors.
JC Martin
<19991110122730...@ng-fr1.aol.com>...
...and a good engineer will mix on more than one set of monitors as well. I
know many pros who listen to their mixes through a cheap set of Events.
-JC
Eric Daniel Barry
> >> The funny thing is that it's possible that the reference monitors used for
> >> re-mastering jobs are cheaper than your ultra-cool clinical and colorless
> >> system.
> >>
> >> -JC
> >
> >Very unlikely these days. In fact the next model up from his
> >speakers, the B&W 801, is a studio standard.
>
> I don't know exactly what you mean by "studio standard." It's true that the
> B&W 801 are used in *some* state of the art studios like Abbey Road's penthouse
> studio.
But I have been to other fine studios as well and they have used
> systems that sometimes are quite different. For example, Tannoy, JBL, and
> Yamaha are also quite common as studio monitors. I have even heard about
> Martin Logan electrostatics being used in one studio in Georgia. My point is
> that there is far from being any kind of single universal "standard" when it
> comes to studio monitors.
>
My point was that the standard was more likely to be high end than ever
before. Of course then I looked at the Capitol Records page to see their
mastering equipment and find Yamaha NS10, Genelec, and Custom system with
JBL elements. Perhaps that is one root of the harsh treble of many BN
cds. Compare that to the Gateway mastering suite, for instance.
--Eric
Gremal
news:19991110121816...@ng-fr1.aol.com...
> For you to claim that your system and your system alone is
> the final determiner on which pressing sounds the best and everyone else's
> opinion be damned, is one of the most arrogant and ignorant sentiments I
have
> heard in a long long while.
Show me where I said that Paul. I think you seriously misread something.
> Interesting that you should mention the brand of speakers and even cable.
But
> for some reason, you chose not to give the brand and model of your
front-end
> and amplification. Care to share what components you have in your
"totally
> transparent" audio chain?
I'm using VAC's new integrated tube amp fwiw. you misread my purpose in
giving details about my system. I was accused of not being able to
reproduce the CDs accurately, so i chose to provide some details. Bad
judgement on my part since I was then accused of "bragging".
My only purpose in this thread was to try to convince people that Van Gelder
knows what he's doing. If I made an ass of myself by saying i have a great
system or criticizing McMaster's approach to remastering that's unfortunate,
but my goal was a valid one. I'm not a snob and my ears and my system don't
lie. Think whatever you want.
PAUL MACCA
>My point was that the standard was more likely to be high end than >ever
>before. Of course then I looked at the Capitol Records page to see >their
>mastering equipment and find Yamaha NS10, Genelec, and Custom >system with
>JBL elements. Perhaps that is one root of the harsh treble of many BN
>cds. Compare that to the Gateway mastering suite, for instance.
What I have found through my experience with specialty "pro" hardware and home
equipment is that many of the speakers designed for recording studios are meant
to be used for nearfield listening. This would be in keeping with the fact
that many studio control rooms are cramped with the engineers seated close to
the speakers and that the speakers are often-times mounted close to the walls.
OTOH, high-end home speakers (even smaller stand-mounted mini-monitors),
generally are meant to be used in larger rooms with the speakers placed farther
away from the back and side walls. This is why some excellent studio monitors
are not necessarily the best choice for home use. Or vice-versa, for that
matter.
PAUL MACCA
>> For you to claim that your system and your system alone is
>> the final determiner on which pressing sounds the best and everyone >else's
>> opinion be damned, is one of the most arrogant and ignorant >sentiments I
>have
>> heard in a long long while.
>Show me where I said that Paul. I think you seriously misread >something.
Here is what you actually said.
>>That is all a bunch of BS. Let's get something straight--I have a very
high-end system. For speakers I'm using B&W Nautilus 802s, possibly the
most neutral, "clinical" reference-quality speaker ever made. To drive
these I use a high-end modern integrated tube amp designed in 1998 and
purchased just a few months ago. For speaker cable I'm using Alpha-core
Goertz MI2 flat cable to biwire the N802's.
Together, the amp, cable and speakers reveal every limitation of the source
material. So obviously my high-end system is revealing a fact that YOUR
system is hiding, not the other way around, ok?<<
There it is. "Your" system is revealing something that JC's system was hiding,
"not the other way around,..." Also, you claimed that your system is "totally
transparent." If that's your claim, then ergo, if anyone else hears things
differently from you, their system must be wrong since your system is *the*
transparent one. No "misread" on my part. If all you have to defend yourself
is using a bunch of semantic garbage, be my guest. But the arrogant
implication you made earlier is clear.
>> Interesting that you should mention the brand of speakers and even >cable.
>But
>> for some reason, you chose not to give the brand and model of your
>front-end
>> and amplification. Care to share what components you have in your
>"totally
>> transparent" audio chain?
>I'm using VAC's new integrated tube amp fwiw.
A VAC integrated? Interesting. But surprising to me. All along, you were
claiming that your system is "totally transparent." In my experience with
their seperate power amps (I don't even bother with integrateds nowadays), VACs
are NOT the most transparent tube electronics on the market today. (This is a
sentiment echoed by the reviewers of Fi magazine [before they folded] and the
Absolute Sound.) In my own comparisons using Krell monoblocks and NAD 218THX
as references, the VAC 30/30 was slightly tilted more towards a warmer sound,
especially in the lower midrange to mid-bass. The 30/30 had a pretty deep
soundstage and precise image placement. But is it the most tonally transparent
tube amp out there? Nope. Not with the newer Sonic Frontiers and Audio
Research tube gear being sold.
And I notice that you still haven't mentioned what you are using as your
front-end.
Gremal
> There it is. "Your" system is revealing something that JC's system was
hiding,
> "not the other way around,..." Also, you claimed that your system is
"totally
> transparent." If that's your claim, then ergo, if anyone else hears
things
> differently from you, their system must be wrong since your system is
*the*
> transparent one. No "misread" on my part. If all you have to defend
yourself
> is using a bunch of semantic garbage, be my guest. But the arrogant
> implication you made earlier is clear.
you're the one using a bunch of semantic garbage. I never said my system
alone is the final determiner on which pressing sounds the best and everyone
else's opinion be damned--that was your inaccurate assertion.
> The 30/30 had a pretty deep
> soundstage and precise image placement. But is it the most
> tonally transparent tube amp out there? Nope. Not with the
> newer Sonic Frontiers and Audio Research tube gear being sold.
I don't share your opinion that SF and AR are the best of the crop. also, i
don't own the 30/30 and carefully chose an integrated amp over separates
because in listening to a variety of systems I came to the conclusion that
interconnects themselves can color reproduction. not to mention the
difficulty in mating pre's and amps. if you're comparing the Avatar to the
30/30 hoping it means anything, you've obviously got a lot of homework to
do.
I've already apologized to JC and Jack, both of whom i respect by the way,
about my hostility on this thread--it's sole purpose was to argue my belief
that RVGs sound better than McMaster's efforts. And the purpose of your
hostility is. . .?
PAUL MACCA
>> There it is. "Your" system is revealing something that JC's system was
>hiding,
>> "not the other way around,..." Also, you claimed that your system is
>"totally
>> transparent." If that's your claim, then ergo, if anyone else hears
>things
>> differently from you, their system must be wrong since your system is
>*the*
>> transparent one. No "misread" on my part. If all you have to defend
>yourself
>> is using a bunch of semantic garbage, be my guest. But the arrogant
>> implication you made earlier is clear.
>
>you're the one using a bunch of semantic garbage. I never said my system
>alone is the final determiner on which pressing sounds the best and everyone
>else's opinion be damned--that was your inaccurate assertion.
Then why did you make your outrageous claim that your system was "totally
transparent"? If it is, then it should indeed be *the* final determiner on how
various recordings should sound. (You do understand what "transparency" in
audio means, right?) Your insistence that I have made an "inaccurate
assertion" means that you have contradicted what you yourself said earlier.
>> The 30/30 had a pretty deep
>> soundstage and precise image placement. But is it the most
>> tonally transparent tube amp out there? Nope. Not with the
>> newer Sonic Frontiers and Audio Research tube gear being sold.
>
>I don't share your opinion that SF and AR are the best of the crop. also, i
>don't own the 30/30 and carefully chose an integrated amp over separates
>because in listening to a variety of systems I came to the conclusion that
>interconnects themselves can color reproduction.
Not to mention speaker cables, tubes, speaker enclosures, speaker placement,
and your listening room.
>if you're comparing the Avatar to the
>30/30 hoping it means anything, you've obviously got a lot of homework to
>do.
>
And if you think that any VAC (separate or integrated) makes your system
"totally transparent," you will find yourself laughed out of rec.audio.opinion
very quickly.
>I've already apologized to JC and Jack, both of whom i respect by the way,
>about my hostility on this thread--it's sole purpose was to argue my belief
>that RVGs sound better than McMaster's efforts. And the purpose of your
>hostility is. . .?
>
I guess you find anyone who questions ridiculous claims you make (like owning a
"totally transparent" audio system) to be hostile. Figures.
Jamey D. Aebersold
I would have to agree that the Fantasy 20-bits sounds very good and better in fact
than the RVG's.
Why would I say this, well I've listened to just about every single one of them and
my ears tell me that Fantasy's are more pleasing to my ears. Simple as that. I've
even spoken with Michael Cuscuna about several of the RVG's sounding harsh. He said
that they are going back to Rudy to re-do several of them. Is this common
knowledge? I don't know but I would assume they would not announce that they have a
problem with their premier line of recordings.
Having said that - you guys make your own judgement. Use your ears! Do the horns
sound natural and free? Not on some of them. They just sound down right harsh.
I'm not the only one who has quesioned the great Rudy Van Gelder's sound, he just
didn't get them all right this time around. Fact not fiction. Comments from many
customers of ours who have bought the RVG's from us.
Take care,
Jamey D. Aebersold
hea...@in-tch.com
trade them for the new and improved versions when they become available?
Thanks,
Heath
Jamey D. Aebersold
ones, off hand, they are re-doing. I went through and listened to all of them over a
couple of days.
Hope I haven't stirred up anything they can't make right. Which they really should do. I
mean who wants to pay out good money for what they are lead to believe is a better
sounding recording of their favorite sides only for them to not be.
I'm not saying all of them are bad, only a handful have problems as far as I can hear.
Take care,
Gremal
> I guess you find anyone who questions ridiculous claims you make (like
owning a
> "totally transparent" audio system) to be hostile. Figures.
You were hostile. don't sweat it. I was too.
Are you suggesting it's impossible to transparently reproduce source
material? There are many systems I could put together that would approach
total transparency. Mine is just one. If you want to talk speaker
placement, room limitations, imaging, tube choices, etc. etc. and how this
makes it impossible to have a transparent system, you'd have a good argument
but in terms of this thread I don't buy it. I challenge you, Jack, JC or
anyone else to listen to the RVG Basra for example and repeat your statement
that the domestic version sounds better and that Van Gelder doesn't know
what he's doing. He knows what he's doing and so does Cuscuna and Toshiba
Japan--otherwise
they wouldn't be released on both sides of the world.
Gremal
news:3830D50C...@doubletimejazz.com...
> Just thought I would put my two cents in on this one.
>
> I would have to agree that the Fantasy 20-bits sounds very good and better
in fact
> than the RVG's.
>
> Why would I say this, well I've listened to just about every single one of
them and
> my ears tell me that Fantasy's are more pleasing to my ears. Simple as
that. I've
> even spoken with Michael Cuscuna about several of the RVG's sounding
harsh. He said
> that they are going back to Rudy to re-do several of them. Is this common
> knowledge? I don't know but I would assume they would not announce that
they have a
> problem with their premier line of recordings.
>
> Having said that - you guys make your own judgement. Use your ears! Do the
horns
> sound natural and free? Not on some of them. They just sound down right
harsh.
>
> I'm not the only one who has quesioned the great Rudy Van Gelder's sound,
he just
> didn't get them all right this time around. Fact not fiction. Comments
from many
> customers of ours who have bought the RVG's from us.
Absolutely Jamey. That's common knowledge on the BN board too--that JuJu
and Empyrean Isles are being re-done. The post-production screwups were
more problematic with domestic RVGs and I've stuck mainly with the Japanese
ones, thus my attitude. McMaster'ed reissues were not free of these
problems btw. The Soothsayer sounded terrible through no fault of McMaster
and it was re-produced. The new version sounds great. People ought to
educate themselves before they say crap like "Van Gelder doesn't know what
he's doing". You think that level of brightness on some of the domestic
versions is Van Gelder's fault? Not so.
Gremal
> Does this mean that Blue Note will allow those of us who bought the
original RVG's to
> trade them for the new and improved versions when they become available?
> Thanks,
> Heath
Blue Note has no say in it. Develop a good relationship with a local
retailer. I know a clerk at a local Tower who is sensitive to the
situation.
jwd
> anyone else to listen to the RVG Basra for example and repeat your statement
> what he's doing.
I would be curious to hear people's opinion's on a head-to-head comparison of
these because I have the Jap. RVG and I think it is really really good sounding,
but due to the limited availability of the Conn.Ser. I have never heard it. As
anyone compared?
Regards
Jeff
PS- It seems like the new Jap. RVG's I have gotten have been better sounding
than the previous batches. Has anyone with an extensive sampling noticed
anything to that effect, or have I just gotten a few good sounding ones, e.g.
Basra, Demon's Dance, Gettin' Around. and Lastly wher can I find more of the
Jap. titles? My local tower is very inconsistent about getting them in.
Gremal
news:38339837...@mail.utexas.edu...
> I would be curious to hear people's opinion's on a
head-to-head comparison of
> these because I have the Jap. RVG and I think it is
really really good sounding,
> but due to the limited availability of the Conn.Ser.
I have never heard it. As anyone compared?
My comparison might be considered biased--just maybe! Seriously, the
C-Series versions sound very muddied compared to the RVG. The highs and
lows are shelved and subdued, "slower" than the RVG. I hear much greater
detail on the import. Henderson's sax is incredibly detailed and on the
ballad Lazy Afternoon you can actually hear his keys hitting the keyholes of
the sax as he trails off the notes he trills. You can hear his breath
moving through the sax even after he has stopped blowing hard enough for the
reed to produce sound on those notes. Amazing. You can kind of make
this out on the C-Series version, but even turning it up louder than the
import you can't quite make out the details of these sounds. Muddy. The
mids do sound adequate on the Larry Walsh version but not the highs and
lows, like I said before. I don't know if this is Walsh's problem or the
result of compression or pressing at some other stage of production.
Rejoice that you have the RVG and forget about the C-series version.
> PS- It seems like the new Jap. RVG's I have gotten
have been better sounding
> than the previous batches. Has anyone with an
extensive sampling noticed
> anything to that effect, or have I just gotten a few good sounding ones,
e.g.
> Basra, Demon's Dance, Gettin' Around. and Lastly wher can I find more of
the
> Jap. titles? My local tower is very inconsistent about getting them in.
I have those titles too Jeff. I think even the earliest RVGs are very high
quality remasters but maybe you're right and he did improve as he went
along. Even if true, it's a minor distinction. My local Tower is pretty
good
about getting these in. The other resources are mostly web retailers.
Towerrecords.com has decent prices and if you use a $10 coupon for cdnow.com
they carry most of these too.