RVG Reissues - Sound Quality
BSirius
I picked up "Somethin' Else" and "Midnight Blue" yesterday and I have to say
that I am *very* impressed with the sound of these recordings. I own a pretty
decent system and quite a fair number of "audiophile" recordings, and I'll tell
you what... for the price (I paid $13.99 each) these are pretty amazing. The
only reissues I'd place over these in regards to overall quality would be the
xrcds and maybe a few of the DCC's. And those run 30 bucks a piece! Granted,
I've only heard 2 of these, but if those 2 are any indication... I'm going to
have to pick up a few more of these than I had originally anticipated.
"Midnight Blue" just sounded awesome! Right 'in-your-face' sound. Seems like
RVG squeezed every ounce of detail he could get out of these recordings. Only
heard a minimal amount of tape hiss. (Really only noticed it on Kenny's guitar
solo cut - "Soul (something)." And I have not heard a better sounding
"Somethin' Else" CD including the Mobile Fidelity release. Does anyone know if
these are being released on a limited basis? If they are, I'd say grab 'em
while you can!
Bill Rose
bsi...@aol.com
Overland Park, Kansas
e
BSirius wrote in message <19990312105404...@ng-fp1.aol.com>...
>Just wanted to add my 2 cents regarding the sound quality of this series...
>
>I picked up "Somethin' Else" and "Midnight Blue" yesterday and I have to
say
>that I am *very* impressed with the sound of these recordings. I own a
pretty
>decent system and quite a fair number of "audiophile" recordings, and I'll
tell
>you what... for the price (I paid $13.99 each) these are pretty amazing.
>have to pick up a few more of these than I had originally anticipated.
Regarding RVG Reissue sound quality:
Have you done any A/B tests with older CD releases of these albums? I'm
just curious. I picked up the RVG Larry Young "Unity". At first listen I
think it sounds very nice. Silkier sound, the horns and cymbals aren't as
harsh and definitely have more "air" around them. Then I went back and did
some A/B testing with a few other CD versions; the mid-90's blue note
Limited Edition series (CD transfer credited to Ron McMaster), the Mosaic
Complete Larry Young CD set and a track, "If", from the Joe Henderson 4-CD
"The Bluenote Years" (no CD transfer credits for Mosaic or Bluenote Years).
The first thing we (I had help) noticed was a definite change in the imaging
on the new release. The horns don't seem to be panned as drastically to the
right and left as on the other releases. Possibly some ambience was added?
I very much like the "sound" of the new release better, EQ-wise, but not the
imaging. It doesn't seem as stable.
I'd be interested in hearing comments from anyone else A/B-ing this or other
RVG releases against the previous CDs (or, better yet VINYL!). As secretive
as RVG is known to be we may never know what all was involved in this new
transfer process other than the fact that it used 24-bits.
e.
Erinn Thorp
er...@bellsouth.net
James Mason Dye
choice issue of Unity is truer to the original lp. The RVG edition sounds
mushed together. Also, the high end sounds very harsh in the RVG edition. I
was very disappointed. Unity has always been one of my favorite albums.
Jim Dye
>
>The first thing we (I had help) noticed was a definite change in the imaging
>on the new release. The horns don't seem to be panned as drastically to the
>right and left as on the other releases. Possibly some ambience was added?
>I very much like the "sound" of the new release better, EQ-wise, but not the
>imaging. It doesn't seem as stable.
>
>Erinn Thorp
>er...@bellsouth.net
>
>
Steven Sullivan
>
>BSirius wrote in message <19990312105404...@ng-fp1.aol.com>...
>
>on the new release. The horns don't seem to be panned as drastically to the
>right and left as on the other releases. Possibly some ambience was added?
>I very much like the "sound" of the new release better, EQ-wise, but not the
>imaging. It doesn't seem as stable.
I could be wrong, as I haven't yet purchased any of them, but aren't the
RVG editions re*mixed* as well? If so, it would be easy to alter the
imaging. I'm actually *hoping* he ameliorated some of the hard left/right
imaging on 'Out to Lunch', myself.
--
'Common sense' is nothing more than childhood prejudice -- attr. to Albert Einstein
Jack Woker
>
> The imaging (hard left and right of Shaw and Henderson) in the collectors
> choice issue of Unity is truer to the original lp. The RVG edition sounds
> mushed together. Also, the high end sounds very harsh in the RVG edition. I
> was very disappointed. Unity has always been one of my favorite albums.
The use of Rudy Van Gelder's name on these releases is a marketing
ploy. Are we to assume that because Rudy recorded these sessions, he
and only he knows how thay are "supposed to" sound? Personally, I abhor
remixing or reimaging of classic recordings. Rudy's legendary skill as
a recording engineer have nothing to do with remastering - they are
separate issues and separate skills. He may be a master of microphone
placement, but I'd trust tape remastering to others. Rudy has not
demonstrated any expertise in this area in the past.
jack
XJ32
>remixing or reimaging of classic recordings. Rudy's legendary skill as
>a recording engineer have nothing to do with remastering - they are
>separate issues and separate skills.
Is there documented history of who originally mixed these sessions ? Was it
any one person or different people per album ?
- Paul
Chuck Nessa
stereo. Rudy did not record multi track sessions until the late '60s.
The first one was Quincy Jones "Walkin' in Space". So, in effect, Rudy
"mixed" them all. Blue Note originally had him cut the lp masters as
well, so that he controlled the sound "from mike to groove". Rudy did
lots of adjusting ("mixing") during the cutting process. This is just
the sort of thing he is doing now for the cd masters.
CN
Tom Kelley
<cne...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Actually all of the "original" Blue Notes were either mono or 2 track
>stereo. Rudy did not record multi track sessions until the late '60s.
>The first one was Quincy Jones "Walkin' in Space". So, in effect, Rudy
>"mixed" them all. Blue Note originally had him cut the lp masters as
>well, so that he controlled the sound "from mike to groove". Rudy did
>lots of adjusting ("mixing") during the cutting process. This is just
>the sort of thing he is doing now for the cd masters.
>CN
Also, I understand that RVG did not put "tones" on the tape for any of the
BN sessions (these tones, generated by the tape recording machine itself,
are used as a reference so the tape can be played on another machine and
calibrated accordingly). Without tones on the tape, it's hard for someone
else to re-master from the original tapes. With RVG doing this
remastering on the original machine he recorded on, he is able to
calibrate correctly (since he is the only one who knows how the machine
was originally calibrated).
Of course, why he didn't put tones on the tape is another question, and
one can only speculate...
I'm quite impressed with the sound quality of the new RVG Re-masters.
--
Tom Kelley
datap...@earthlink.net
D Royko
reissues sounded similar to the LPs in terms of the stereo separation.
I bought one RVG this weekend--Cannonball's. I did about a dozen quick-switch
a/b-ing with excellent (not 'walkman') headphones, and also played it all the
way through using speakers. My own verdict: I'm not going to be buying any more
RVGs. Not that I think there's anything wrong with them. To my ears, they sound
good, and compared to the older, standard BN CDs, they are different, but not
neccessarily better. One difference I can hear is on Blkey's cymbals, which are
now too 'hot' for my taste, sizzling into distortion. They sizzled plenty on
the older edition, and had plenty of definition. Again, ymmv.
But the main difference, as others have already pointed out, is the stereo
image, and the RVG Cannonball disc practically sounds like mono, the seperation
has been collapsed so much. If I were coming fresh to these recordings having
not spent the better half of a lifetime listening to them already, I might
think that the new version sounds more natural, but I always liked BN's
relatively hard pans, and still do.
I'm glad these these albums are available, whatever the marketing campaign. My
curiosity's been satisfied as to the RVGs, and I won't be replacing any more of
my old discs, which continue to bring me plenty of pleasure.
Dave Royko
Ross Lipman
us do (or other re-mixers appearantly). RVG is on record as saying that
he prefers the sound of digital and wherever and whenever it is
possible, he converts to digital at the earliest possible moment.
It is a fact, the best sounding remasters are the ones that stay
analogue as long as possible before going to digital. (Classic Sounds,
DCC, XRCD, Mosaic etc).
Hardening of the treble, bluring of transients, colapse of image and
soundstage are all aritifacts of digital conversions.
RVG may have been a genius with the original recordings, but his work at
remastering has not been very good.
Ross Lipman
Steven Sullivan
Ross Lipman <rl1...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>RVG does not cherish the integrity of the originals as much as some of
>us do (or other re-mixers appearantly). RVG is on record as saying that
>he prefers the sound of digital and wherever and whenever it is
>possible, he converts to digital at the earliest possible moment.
>
>It is a fact, the best sounding remasters are the ones that stay
>analogue as long as possible before going to digital. (Classic Sounds,
>DCC, XRCD, Mosaic etc).
What do you mean here? Playback of the analog tapes that are the master
sources of most of DCC, XRCD releases is on analog equipment, of course,
as it must be; these labels don't remix as a rule. This is also true of
standard remasters. The amps and preamps are all 'analog' of course
because AFAIK there's no 'digital' amps or preamps. DCC likes to use tube
equipment at this step, but that's not an 'analog vs digital' thing.
They all master in the digital domain; CDs have to be. I'd say the
reason these labels put out superior product is because they care enough
to locate the best master tape and to do the digital transfer lovingly.
>Hardening of the treble, bluring of transients, colapse of image and
>soundstage are all aritifacts of digital conversions.
It'd be interested to see what response you'd get if you were to post that
claim to rec.audio.high-end. I'd say, if you want to test the idea, send
the output from your turntable to a digital recorder, then play back the
digital copy. I'll bet your treble, soundstage, transients will all be the
same in a blind test, if you used your recorder correctly.
IMO, the artifacts you cite, where they exist, reflect the skill (or lack
of skill) of the recording and mastering engineers or the state of the
recording facilities and the master tape, not deficiences of the digital
medium per se.
XJ32
>analogue as long as possible before going to digital. (Classic Sounds,
>DCC, XRCD, Mosaic etc).
>
Wow the ignorrance of thsi statement is staggering. Sorry for my flaming, but
as a mastering engineer myself you could not be totlaly more wrong.
I have heard almost every decent remaster in the past 5 years of jazz and like
alot on this list have a CD collection numbering in the thousnads.
1. If RVG recorded and remastered the originals, he has EVERY right to
re-master them now. I have heard, vinyl, older cd and the new reissues and
there is a clearity to them now that was just not possable even a mear five
years ago.
2. Digital mastering when done "Right" enhances and in most circumstances shows
off most nuances of the source master.
3. How long do you think these 30 & 40 year old master tapes will keep sounding
good !!!
Get them saved to digital as quick as possable.
Each play from the master tape degrades that tape just alittle more each time.
4. If RVG or Blue note choose to change the imaging or levels, trust there
ears. Are you getting paid $$$ to be a mastering enginer or producer ?
5. This is my own personal pet peave and just my opinion. Change is good! I
think if Adderly heard what was done to his cd and how good and clear it sounds
now he would wet him self. The public at large thinks they own too musch of an
artists works. Just because a recording is historic does not mean it is
perfect or even what the artist intended. And much more importance has been
added to these recordings by way of nostalgia and romantacism than was
originally intended.
So if an artist or even technolgy can give us a better sounding and more true
representation of a moment in time than so be it. I think on some of the RVG's
it sounds as if you are in the room with them, especially the Burrell CD.
6. And to assume that RVG cares nothing about the final sound quality of
something he has devoted 40 or more years to is sheer aragance and ignorance.
If you dont like the remasters...keep the old ones and enjoy them. Or be a
purist and buy the records.
Thanks for reading my rant now get off line and go listen to some good jazz.
- Paul
bruce higgins
}I bought one RVG this weekend--Cannonball's. I did about a dozen quick-switch
}a/b-ing with excellent (not 'walkman') headphones, and also played it all the
}way through using speakers. My own verdict: I'm not going to be buying any more
}RVGs. Not that I think there's anything wrong with them. To my ears, they sound
}good, and compared to the older, standard BN CDs, they are different, but not
}neccessarily better.
Well said. I, too, opted for a potential upgrade of "Somethin' Else", did
a fair amount of A/B'ing and was left with the same impression.
Different? Yes. Better? Maybe, in some respects. Justified in spending $15
for a disc I was already pleased with? Nah, I don't think so.
B___
--
bruce higgins ~ lbh2 at cornell dot edu ~ http://tigermtn.dev.cornell.edu
"I come very briefly to this place. I watch it move. I watch it shake."
henry schmidt
up
are they equal to the orginal sound or are they better.
I do agree with Jack in his comments or remixing WHY is they being done, there is
no reason for it.
Henry Schmidt
Jack Woker wrote:
> James Mason Dye wrote:
> >
> > The imaging (hard left and right of Shaw and Henderson) in the collectors
> > choice issue of Unity is truer to the original lp. The RVG edition sounds
> > mushed together. Also, the high end sounds very harsh in the RVG edition. I
> > was very disappointed. Unity has always been one of my favorite albums.
>
> The use of Rudy Van Gelder's name on these releases is a marketing
> ploy. Are we to assume that because Rudy recorded these sessions, he
> and only he knows how thay are "supposed to" sound? Personally, I abhor
> remixing or reimaging of classic recordings. Rudy's legendary skill as
> a recording engineer have nothing to do with remastering - they are
James Mason Dye
----------
In article <19990316015059...@ng-fd1.aol.com>, xj...@aol.com
(XJ32) wrote:
> 4. If RVG or Blue note choose to change the imaging or levels,
>trust there ears.
I'll trust MY ears thank you very much.
>Are you getting paid $$$ to be a mastering enginer or producer ?
No, but I am paying for a supposedly superior version of a recording. often
times for a third or fourth time. (ok, I'm a sucker for good marketing)
> 5. This is my own personal pet peave and just my opinion. Change is
>good! ..<snip>.. The public at large thinks they own too musch of an
>artists works.
I do own it. Not the original master, or the songs themselves of course, but
I own it in my head. My grey matter contains copies of thousands and
thousands of works of music. Each individual brings a different meaning to
each and every recording. To alter or change what is in our collective heads
in the name of progress or change is just wrong. Be true to the originals!
>And much more importance has been added to these recordings by way of
>nostalgia and romantacism than was originally intended.
Maybe true, but these recordings mean so much to so many. Any artist would
be moved to tears if they knew how much their art would affect us all.
James Dye
Nealon Bloeme
On 14 Mar 1999 13:59:24 -0500, sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Steven
at
Steven Sullivan wrote:
> In article <36EDD2...@ix.netcom.com>,
> Ross Lipman <rl1...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >RVG does not cherish the integrity of the originals as much as some of
> >us do (or other re-mixers appearantly). RVG is on record as saying that
> >he prefers the sound of digital and wherever and whenever it is
> >possible, he converts to digital at the earliest possible moment.
> >
> >It is a fact, the best sounding remasters are the ones that stay
> >analogue as long as possible before going to digital. (Classic Sounds,
> >DCC, XRCD, Mosaic etc).
>
> I'd say the
> reason these labels put out superior product is because they care enough
> to locate the best master tape and to do the digital transfer lovingly.
>
> >Hardening of the treble, bluring of transients, colapse of image and
> >soundstage are all aritifacts of digital conversions.
> I'd say, if you want to test the idea, send
> the output from your turntable to a digital recorder, then play back the
> digital copy. I'll bet your treble, soundstage, transients will all be the
> same in a blind test, if you used your recorder correctly.
>
> IMO, the artifacts you cite, where they exist, reflect the skill (or lack
> of skill) of the recording and mastering engineers or the state of the
> recording facilities and the master tape, not deficiences of the digital
> medium per se.
The main deficiencies, to my mind, of the digital medium are that the medium is
constantly changing, so each time you do an analog to digital conversion, it is within
the "paradigm" of the system you are using, whether it's HDCD, 24bit, straight 16 bit,
soft limited, or whatever. It is naive to think that the digital copy of an analog
source sounds the same as the original- otherwise, why change the technology? To make
it even more the same? Well, either it's the same or it isn't... I work with
several mastering engineers and the general consensus is that they want me to a) give
them analog tape to work with, and b) that they will do most of their processing (EQ,
compression) in the analog realm... The didgital portion of mastering is best
relegated to sequencing tracks and spaces, and making minute volume adjustments track
to track for continuity... It is possible to change the imaging without remixing, but
not likely- unless by collapsing the two sides slightly inward so there is more of an
overlap. But every mastering step: a-d conversion, eq, compression, has an effect on
the perceived image of a stereo recording.
Not all digital is created equal, and it's no doubt getting better. Each time these
recordings get mastered doen't bring us any closer to a "definitive" version...
Audio-quality is extremely subjective........ How many "definitive" "Kind of Blue"s
have we been fed...
andy
Steven Sullivan
at <palmbay...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>--------------0331F623EF85C13E5BF293ED
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To make it as true to the master tape as possible? It's not always
the technology that prevents that from happening -- a mastering engineer
might decide the tape 'needs' a bit of treble boost, or bass boost, or
noise reduction....these days remasters often remove the 'improvements'
made during previous attempts.
> Well, either it's the same or it isn't... I work with >several
mastering engineers and the general consensus is that they want me to a)
give >them analog tape to work with, and b) that they will do most of
their processing (EQ, >compression) in the analog realm... The didgital
portion of mastering is best >relegated to sequencing tracks and spaces,
and making minute volume adjustments track >to track for continuity...
It is possible to change the imaging without remixing, but >not likely-
unless by collapsing the two sides slightly inward so there is more of an
>overlap. But every mastering step: a-d conversion, eq, compression, has
an effect on >the perceived image of a stereo recording.
At issue is whether A-D conversion does it; the other steps, when they are
employed (and they are not always employed in mastering or remastering a
CD) will have the effect you cite regardless of whether they are done
digitally or via analog technology. In fact their whole purpose is to
affect the stereo sound (though necessarily the imaging), whereas A-D
conversion's goal is *not* to affect the sound. A-D conversion, done
well, should result in a digital copy indistinguishable from an analog
master tape.
>Not all digital is created equal, and it's no doubt getting better.
Each time these >recordings get mastered doen't bring us any closer to a
"definitive" version... >Audio-quality is extremely subjective........
But fidelity to the master tape is not, beyond a certain point.
>How many "definitive" "Kind of Blue"s >have we been fed...
Two? Again , reflecting changes in digital mastering philosophy at least
as much technological advances.
--
______
"As far as Sullivan goes, I wouldn't slam him ever again. He is the soul
of this NG."
at
> A-D conversion, done
> well, should result in a digital copy indistinguishable from an analog
> master tape.
>
i said
>
> >Not all digital is created equal, and it's no doubt getting better.
> Each time these >recordings get mastered doen't bring us any closer to a
> "definitive" version... >Audio-quality is extremely subjective........
he said
>
>
> But fidelity to the master tape is not, beyond a certain point.
This is insanely wrong, i'm afraid. 1> Then why do different A to D converters sound
different?
2> The "sound" of an analog master differs from machine to machine (RGV used ampex and later,
studer tube machines as did the beatles), brand of tape to brand of tape, and through the
mastering process to vinyl- [Vinyl had a number of requirements placed on the master that got
used (ie you had to make sure there was not so much bass in a recording that the stylus didn't
just literally jump out of the groove), that cd's just do not have]. All of these factors go
into making a digital master- Just by virtue of a sound being on tape it is going through post
emphasis eq (inherent in the tape deck) which differs machine to machine... So it can really
be said that a master tape does not have a sound of its own except in playback which differs
instance to instance... thus, a dig copy of a playback differs instance to instance.
3> If there was already a "perfect digital copy" of the analog master tape, then why bother
going back to the original master to do a remaster?... Your assertion is based in ignorance.
There is no such thing as fidelity to the master tape, because the playback situation is always
different, and the a to d (whether via an increased sample rate or higher bit resolution) still
leaves holes and uses interpolation in its information.
Steven Sullivan
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>
>> A-D conversion, done
>> well, should result in a digital copy indistinguishable from an analog
>> master tape.
>>
>
>i said
>
>>
>> >Not all digital is created equal, and it's no doubt getting better.
>> Each time these >recordings get mastered doen't bring us any closer to a
>> "definitive" version... >Audio-quality is extremely subjective........
>
>he said
>
>>
>>
>> But fidelity to the master tape is not, beyond a certain point.
>
>This is insanely wrong, i'm afraid. 1> Then why do different A to D converters sound
>different?
Beats me. THe statement was that fidelity to the master tape is not
subjective, beyond a certain point: i.e., that it's not hard to measure
the difference between the signal coming off the master tape and that
produced by playing a copy, if the copy is done suboptimally. There's a
point beyond that -- the realm of audiophilia, apparently, where different
CD players are described as sounding 'vastly' different, which is where
subjectivity comes in.
>2> The "sound" of an analog master differs from machine to machine (RGV used ampex and later,
>studer tube machines as did the beatles), brand of tape to brand of tape, and through the
>mastering process to vinyl- [Vinyl had a number of requirements placed on the master that got
>used (ie you had to make sure there was not so much bass in a recording that the stylus didn't
>just literally jump out of the groove), that cd's just do not have].
But comparing a digital copy of the master tape is not the same as
comparing it to the master tape processed for vinyl, which involves
compromising the original master tape's sound to suit the vinyl medium and
expected listening conditions.
> All of these factors go >into making a digital master- Just by virtue of
a sound being on tape it is going through post >emphasis eq (inherent in
the tape deck) which differs machine to machine... So it can really >be
said that a master tape does not have a sound of its own except in
playback which differs >instance to instance... thus, a dig copy of a
playback differs instance to instance.
But again, the question is whether a good *digital copy* of that master
tape -- whatever tape deck it's played over, but preferable one like the
that used to create it in the first place -- is distinguishable from the
tape itself. The reason for the difference you describe above is not
'digitalness' per se, it's the use of a different playback deck.
>3> If there was already a "perfect digital copy" of the analog master
tape, then why bother >going back to the original master to do a
remaster?...
Because making a high-fidelity digital copy of the *original master tape*
was not always the first priority of record companies rereleasing their
material onto CD. Often the original master was not used. And the actual
CD production master may have been subjected to processing, as cited in my
previous post. In the real world it's rare that albums go 'direct to
disc' straight from the original master tape without some sort of
tweaking; my understanding is that in the old days this was due to the
need to accomodate the limitations of vinyl and the way people listened to
music (radio, cheap home systems) and to give the collection of tracks on
an album a 'common sound' across the album. To what extent these
considerations still operate in the world of CD, I can't say; I would
assume the last function, at least, is still operative. The phrase I often
read from the lips of masterers is that they attempt to 'bring out the
best' in the master tape. That's where subjectivity comes in, big time.
To some it means increasing the signal-to-noise ratio, adjusting EQ, etc;
to others it means 'do no harm'.
>Your assertion is based in ignorance. >There is no such thing as fidelity
to the master tape, because the playback situation is always >different,
and the a to d (whether via an increased sample rate or higher bit
resolution) still >leaves holes and uses interpolation in its information.
May I repost this to rec.audio-high-end or rec.audio.opinion? I suspect
from my reading that your last assertion is flat-out wrong in that using
data interpolation does not rule out achieving high fidelity to the master
tape, but here we are moving into technical matters beyond my competence.
greg pavlov
wrote:
>Steve Sullivan wrote
>
>There is no such thing as fidelity to the master tape, because the playback situation is always
>different, and the a to d (whether via an increased sample rate or higher bit resolution) still
>leaves holes and uses interpolation in its information.
>
I am not going to argue with you whether analog or digital is
"better": I have recordings in one, the other, and - in the
recording/processing stream - all sorts of mixtures of both -
and I find that there is no correlation between my level of
enjoyment and attraction to them and how they were
recorded. On the other hand, there is a high correlation with
the artists that made the music in the first place. But I do
wonder about the interpolation issue. Ultimately, the sound
is produced by a mechanical diaphragm device of one sort
or another. What is the practical resolution (assuming that
there are bounds involving some measure of accuracy) of
the average speaker ? Is it, in fact, higher than the resolution
of a 20 bit or 24 bit recording ?
greg pavlov
[not affiliated with DFCI or Harvard]
***************************************************************************
For the definitive intro guide to rao, see:
http://members.aol.com/whosbest54/
**************************************************************************
Gremal
<36f98f01...@news.dfci.harvard.edu>...
[snip]
> wonder about the interpolation issue. Ultimately, the sound
> is produced by a mechanical diaphragm device of one sort
> or another. What is the practical resolution (assuming that
> there are bounds involving some measure of accuracy) of
> the average speaker ? Is it, in fact, higher than the resolution
> of a 20 bit or 24 bit recording ?
you are trying to compare digital bit-depth with the physical properties of
an analog device. alls i can say is in the analog world, audio and video
properties can be mapped out in curves that have an infinite number of
values. in the digital world, those properties are not true curves but
stair-step progressions due to the binary nature of digitized media. the
more bit-depth, the smaller each "stair-step" in these progressions and the
greater the approximation to the original [analog] resolution. so what i
am trying to say is that speakers are analog devices that don't care what
bit-depth was encoded to provide the signal being fed to them. they just
produce sound from that signal. does that answer the question at all?
Marc Sabatella
>so what i
>am trying to say is that speakers are analog devices that don't care what
>bit-depth was encoded to provide the signal being fed to them. they just
>produce sound from that signal. does that answer the question at all?
Yes, but the intent behind the question is still relevant. The
difference between, say, a 20 bit digitization of an analog signal and a
21 bit digitization of that same signal is measurable in terms of
dynamic range, aliasing, etc. The question is, would this difference be
*audible* played on a "typical" set of speakers? And the question isn't
just if human ears could hear the difference, but whether or not the
difference would even be measurable. We could start at, say, 16 bit
sampling, then keep increasing the sample width until the difference was
no longer measurable, and get an "effective" resolution for the speakers
in question. We could do the same for sample rate.
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
Check out my latest CD, "Second Course"
Available on Cadence Jazz Records
Also "A Jazz Improvisation Primer", Scores, & More:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
at
of an analog source... One of the main issues nobody has mentioned is the filtering
required to make an accurate digital copy. To make a digital copy (44.1k) of an analog
source, at whatever bit res. the source material must be filtered fairly hard (ie, cut
off) at half the sample frequency (to avoid unpleasant artifacts in the sound)- one of
the main benefits of analog is that you don't need this filter, so there is reaction that
takes place well above that cutoff frequency to that aids in the appearance of "warmth"
we perceive with analog... basically, we're going to be fed new "definitive" master
editions in a couple more years when the consumer technology changes... Also, remember
that even though the masters were transferred 24 bit, we're still only hearing 16 bit off
the cd's... That sucks.
Marc Sabatella wrote:
-- ............................................................................
to reply, remove fart
ma...@micro.ifas.ufl.edu
> But, dig. The original statement somebody made was that a digital
> copy is an exact copy of an analog source... One of the main issues
> nobody has mentioned is the filtering required to make an accurate
> digital copy. To make a digital copy (44.1k) of an analog
> source, at whatever bit res. the source material must be filtered
> fairly hard (ie, cut off) at half the sample frequency (to avoid
> unpleasant artifacts
My hearing is such that I doubt that
I can hear anything over 15kHz, much
less anything over 22kHz!
On the other hand, I dunno who would
make the statement that a digital copy
is an "exact" copy. But for my ears
it's probably good enough. And really,
what is probably more important is
how well a performance was recorded
rather than any digital/analog choice.
As an example, the Bill Holman Band's
_Brilliant Corners_ sounds great, IMO,
and it was a direct to 2 track recording.
I'd guess if somebody else had recorded
it and mixed it down, it probably would
not have come out nearly as good-sounding.
--mark.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Mark Henteleff
HOW do the RVG remasters compare to the original CD releases?
For example, has anyone done a side by side comparison of the
original CD release of *Out to Lunch* with the RVG 24-bit
re-issue? Is it REALLY worth re-buying? Or is it, as I
suspect, another marketing scheme for record companies to
get people to by the same stuff over, and over, and over
again?
Mark H.
Tom Kelley
Henteleff) wrote:
Here's my "Out To Lunch" comparison between the original cd and the new
RVG editition (not so easy when you only have 1 cd player); there
certainly are differences in the sound:
The original cd is at a slightly lower volume and has a bit wider stereo
separation, though I wouldn't call the RVG narrow, and it's nothing like
mono-sounding (which some of the RVG's have been called). The recording
levels on the original are a bit hot, as drums and vibes distort in places
where they are played very hard. They sound more realistic on the RVG,
no distortion (though I have to admit that the dry sound of the drums on
the original disc is something that I loved about this recording in the
first place). I never noticed the edit before on the track "Out To Lunch"
just after TW's drum solo at 11:21; it's a bit more apparent on the RVG,
though in no way a problem.
The bass suffers on the original, sounding a bit pinched at times. On the
RVG, the bass is very full, in any range. Dolphy's bass clarinet has a
much richer, fuller sound on the RVG, really beautiful. There seems to be
a clarity and cleaness on the RVG that is a bit pinched and dirty sounding
on the original. I was a bit ambilivent at first, since I had no qualms
with the sound of the original, but now I would say I perfer the RVG for
clarity and the sheer beauty of the sound of Dolphy's bc and Davis' bass,
both of which are much improved.
Still no alternate takes for this session? With the edit it makes you
wonder, but I guess we'll never know...
Also, whatever happened to the Dolphy session that was going to be
released on BN with Herbie Hancock on piano and I think Richard Davis on
bass and J.C. Moses on drums?
--
Tom Kelley
datap...@earthlink.net
Chuck Nessa
original (lp) version of "Out to Lunch" with a previous japanese cd and
the RVG edition. First of all, all the new RVGs I've heard are louder
than the previous issues. We used 2 cd players, a dat recorder and a
turntable, and adjusted the volume. The earlier cd sounded extreme in
stereo sep, and the new cd sounded exactly like the lp (minus groove
noise). This is the first time either of us could say that a cd sounded
as good as an original lp issue on the "classic" BN. We had the same
experience with Larry Young's "Unity" and Adderley's "Somethin' Else".
Hank Mobley's "Soul Station" was another story - Terry preferred the lp
(the original was mono only), and liked the Japanese cd (early edition)
better than the RVG. He felt that the new issue added an unwelcome edge
to Hank's sound. I could go either way.
CN
Tom Kelley wrote:
>
> In article <7dh84q$f...@news.Hawaii.Edu>, ma...@pbrc.hawaii.edu (Mark
> Henteleff) wrote:
>
> >.......blah, blah, blah....let's get to the point:
> >
> >HOW do the RVG remasters compare to the original CD releases?
> >
>
> Here's my "Out To Lunch" comparison between the original cd and the new
> RVG editition (not so easy when you only have 1 cd player); there
> certainly are differences in the sound:
>
> The original cd is at a slightly lower volume and has a bit wider stereo
> separation, though I wouldn't call the RVG narrow, and it's nothing like
> mono-sounding (which some of the RVG's have been called). The recording
> levels on the original are a bit hot, as drums and vibes distort in places
> where they are played very hard. They sound more realistic on the RVG,
> no distortion (though I have to admit that the dry sound of the drums on
> the original disc is something that I loved about this recording in the
> first place). I never noticed the edit before on the track "Out To Lunch"
> just after TW's drum solo at 11:21; it's a bit more apparent on the RVG,
> though in no way a problem.
>
> The bass suffers on the original, sounding a bit pinched at times. On the
> RVG, the bass is very full, in any range. Dolphy's bass clarinet has a
> much richer, fuller sound on the RVG, really beautiful. There seems to be
> a clarity and cleaness on the RVG that is a bit pinched and dirty sounding
> on the original. I was a bit ambilivent at first, since I had no qualms
> with the sound of the original, but now I would say I perfer the RVG for
> clarity and the sheer beauty of the sound of Dolphy's bc and Davis' bass,
> both of which are much improved.
>
> --
> Tom Kelley
> datap...@earthlink.net
James Mason Dye
After listening to Moanin' and Blowin the Blues Away
RVG, Original CD and LP versions, I have come to the same conclusion that
Chuck has,
they sound closer to the original LP's than the 80's CD issues.
The presence is great, and the imaging is true to life.
My ears must have been Out To Lunch when I heard Unity.
I stand corrected.
----------
In article <37017FAE...@earthlink.net>, Chuck Nessa
Eric Daniel Barry
lp reissues, some connoisseur cds and lps, and a number of other lp issues
(some NY USAs, some blue label van gelders, some 80s). The quality of the
RVG cds seems to me a matter of some debate. As far as cd bluenotes, I
have to say that the pre-SBM cds sound horrible to me--the worst is Song
for My Father which is a case study of why audiophiles hated cd. The
drums sound muffled and cardboardy, the piano is threadbare, the treble is
both rolled off and very harsh, the bass is MIA, and the horns are etched.
Some of the other early cds I have (Our Man in Paris, The Big Beat) aren't
quite this bad, but are thin sounding and grainy. The 80s lps I have
range from quite decent (Blue Train) to cd-like (as in bad...I'm guessing
that these were digital transfers). I don't see how anyone could prefer
these to the RVG cds, much less the RVG vinyl.
However, Van Gelder's approach to sound is itself a matter of controversy.
Original lps sound extremely alive, in particular the drum kit, but piano
is down in the mix, bass is lightweight, and horns are overly bright and
present, at the expense of body. However, I am consistently pleased by
the sound of Van Gelder mastered Blue Notes, Impulses, Prestiges, and
Verves. To my ears, the new RVG cds lack a little in "bounce" and sound a
little drier, but I suspect that may be slightly truer to the tapes or at
least the intentions of Van Gelder. However, bass quality is improved,
now sounding more solid, deep, and melodic. Piano especially is much more
clean and clear, lacking a bit in absolute weight, but much improved. The
drum kit sounds drier, but cymbals sound very nice especially compared to
earlier cds. Horns, however, have less body than they do on the original
lps and sound more etched, a bad thing.
The sound of recent Connoisseur cds and of the 180g vinyl reissues is
possibly not as true to the originals, but is quite pleasing. I hear a
wetter, fuller, creamier sound. Cymbals sound very nice, with more of a
shimmering quality than the RVG cds and more extension than the original
lps. The weight of the low frequencies is also improved, and the drum
still have that snappy quality I enjoy. I would say on my system that the
bass is not as well-defined as the RVG cds, and the piano doesn't have the
solidity or clarity of the new cds, but the horns sound more realistic and
lifelike. Has anyone else compared the RVG cds to the 180g reissues? I
can't decide which i like better, and if it's worth it to rebuy the same
titles, or to buy cd or lp for the ones I don't have. Does anyone know if
the RVGs are limited? Are they going to replace the original cds in the
catalog?
Your thoughts and comments appreciated.
--Eric
Searcher
Tom Kelley wrote:
>
> The bass suffers on the original, sounding a bit pinched at times. On the
> RVG, the bass is very full, in any range. Dolphy's bass clarinet has a
> much richer, fuller sound on the RVG, really beautiful. There seems to be
> a clarity and cleaness on the RVG that is a bit pinched and dirty sounding
> on the original. I was a bit ambilivent at first, since I had no qualms
> with the sound of the original, but now I would say I perfer the RVG for
> clarity and the sheer beauty of the sound of Dolphy's bc and Davis' bass,
> both of which are much improved.
Pardon the off-RVG comment here but...
The audio police should be out for "Art Blakey and the Jazz Messengers
with Thelonious Monk" a fantastic recording which in typical Atlantic
fashion surfaces on CD like a dredge from a shipwreck. Spanky
DeBrest's bass is practically INAUDIBLE on this disc I have. Does
anyone own the original LP to save for Earl Brown's engineering
disaster???
Any news of this title being remastered a la Coltrane's "Things"
and "Giant Steps?" If not someone should alert Atlantic and rescue
this gem from its moribund depths immediately.
-Ryo
Steven Sullivan
Chuck Nessa <cne...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Taking it a step further, my friend Terry Martin and I compared the
>original (lp) version of "Out to Lunch" with a previous japanese cd and
>the RVG edition. First of all, all the new RVGs I've heard are louder
>than the previous issues.
This is common among recent (last 5-6 yrs) remasters, whether rock, jazz,
or classical; apparently mastering engineers are now more comfortable
exploiting the capabilities of the medium. CDs can be mastered 'hotter'
than other consumer audio media without introducing distortion, but
it seems there was a learning curve involved.
>We used 2 cd players, a dat recorder and a
>turntable, and adjusted the volume. The earlier cd sounded extreme in
>stereo sep, and the new cd sounded exactly like the lp (minus groove
>noise). This is the first time either of us could say that a cd sounded
>as good as an original lp issue on the "classic" BN.
This is good news.
--
________
Drssa! Drssa! Drssa!
Searcher
Searcher wrote:
>
> Pardon the off-RVG comment here but...
>
> The audio police should be out for "Art Blakey and the Jazz Messengers
> with Thelonious Monk" a fantastic recording which in typical Atlantic
> fashion surfaces on CD like a dredge from a shipwreck. Spanky
> DeBrest's bass is practically INAUDIBLE on this disc I have. Does
> anyone own the original LP to save for Earl Brown's engineering
> disaster???
>
> Any news of this title being remastered a la Coltrane's "Things"
> and "Giant Steps?" If not someone should alert Atlantic and rescue
> this gem from its moribund depths immediately.
This is the first time I'll ever respond to my own posts but thanks
to a quick fan who e-mailed me the problem has been solved.
Looked up CD Universe and Music Boulevard, heard the Real Audio
sample and I'm satisfied. The new Atlantic remaster has been out
since 2/16.
Thanks to the person who wrote back,
Ryo
Marc Sabatella
>>First of all, all the new RVGs I've heard are louder
>>than the previous issues.
>
>This is common among recent (last 5-6 yrs) remasters, whether rock, jazz,
>or classical; apparently mastering engineers are now more comfortable
>exploiting the capabilities of the medium. CDs can be mastered 'hotter'
>than other consumer audio media without introducing distortion, but
>it seems there was a learning curve involved.
I think it is just as likely that remastering jobs that seem louder than
previous versions are in fact simply compressed more.
ADRobin
>the RVGs are limited? Are they going to replace the original cds in the
>catalog?
According to a source over at the Blue Note BBS, the RVGs are not going to be
limited editions as was once suspected. If this is true, it would seem to make
sense that they would replace the earlier editions but I have not heard
anything from a reliable source as to whether this will be the case or not.
Apparently there will be thirty RVGs in all released this year. We know what
the first 24 are. I'll be curious to see which ones they choose for the final
six spots.
ADR
The Devoted Jazz Fan(atic)
OneSixteen
>> According to a source over at the Blue Note BBS, the RVGs are not going to
be limited editions as was once suspected. If this is true, it would seem to
make sense that they would replace the earlier editions but I have not heard
anything from a reliable source as to whether this will be the case or not. <<
-------------------------------
So this is a way for Blue Note to raise their price on the Blue Note mid-price
items. Or they might drop the price of the RVG editions after the initial sales
period. In either case, not good for the consumers.
Doyle Carmody
Would you prefer to save $3.00 or $4.00 a title and have the (in many cases)
same dull and listless masters?
-Doyle
Greg
It appears you are saying the remaster is worthwile. True?
Greg
OneSixteen
I -highly- disagree. Would you prefer to save $3.00 or $4.00 a title and have
the (in many cases) same dull and listless masters?
=======================
Of course, the improvement in sounds should count for something. But we're
talking about investing in the same titles two or more times. At least they
should keep it at the same price level if the new editions are to replace the
old ones ... like Columbia does for its Legacy reissues.
Searcher
Greg wrote:
I'll have to let my ears do the beholding when I run out to get this
maybe next week. I just heard the samples of the new remastering
from Music Boulevard -- from the looks of it, it's good. You can
actually hear a bass in the band now. Wow.
Anyone who's also heard the alternate takes of "Purple Shades,"
"Blue Monk" and others let me know how they compare?
-Ryo
Jeff Miller
news:7dv63u$m4m$1...@camel15.mindspring.com...
>
>
> Searcher wrote:
>
> >
> > Pardon the off-RVG comment here but...
> >
> > The audio police should be out for "Art Blakey and the Jazz Messengers
> > with Thelonious Monk" a fantastic recording which in typical Atlantic
> > fashion surfaces on CD like a dredge from a shipwreck. Spanky
> > DeBrest's bass is practically INAUDIBLE on this disc I have. Does
> > anyone own the original LP to save for Earl Brown's engineering
> > disaster???
> >
> > Any news of this title being remastered a la Coltrane's "Things"
> > and "Giant Steps?" If not someone should alert Atlantic and rescue
> > this gem from its moribund depths immediately.
>
> This is the first time I'll ever respond to my own posts but thanks
> to a quick fan who e-mailed me the problem has been solved.
> Looked up CD Universe and Music Boulevard, heard the Real Audio
> sample and I'm satisfied. The new Atlantic remaster has been out
> since 2/16.
Wow, this is great news... I had no idea the remaster was available (the
original CD release is truly horrible). One question though: Why the
miniscule cover reprint? Is it reprinted larger in the booklet?
--
The opinions expressed in this message are my own personal views
and do not reflect the official views of the Microsoft Corporation.
(Remove SPAMFREE from address to send replies)
Eric Daniel Barry
> In article <7duq0u$h...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu>, sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Steven Sullivan) wrote:
>
> >>First of all, all the new RVGs I've heard are louder
> >>than the previous issues.
> >
> >This is common among recent (last 5-6 yrs) remasters, whether rock, jazz,
> >or classical; apparently mastering engineers are now more comfortable
> >exploiting the capabilities of the medium. CDs can be mastered 'hotter'
> >than other consumer audio media without introducing distortion, but
> >it seems there was a learning curve involved.
The "learning curve" was no more important than new technology. On the
one hand, recent reissues have been done with more care, finding original
tapes instead of safety copies. Secondly, many early cds were marred by
improper use of digital filtering and dither. But just as important, the
improvement in noise-shaping in the A/D conversion have wrought a
tremendous improvement in sound quality, to my ears. By about 1990, cds
sounded decent if done top flight, but not until noise shaping (cds which
are "20-bit" or "super bit mapped" did cd rival vinyl. I think its
important to recognize that the Sony 1610 on which most early cds were
mastered sounded pretty bad no matter how much skill the engineer had.
>
> I think it is just as likely that remastering jobs that seem louder than
> previous versions are in fact simply compressed more.
Though compression is a variable in sound (and of course more compression
will sound more "lp-like", for better or worse) I think the differences
in maximum loudness which I hear are not due to compression but to having
more guts (or patience) in setting levels. In digital, if the levels
overload, you get a click instead of distortion, but if you don't run high
enough, you are losing bits, ie dynamic range, so the higher the better.
With vinyl, on the other hand, higher levels gave more dynamic range, but
cutting a bit lower made for easier tracking, and many top cutting
engineers chose the latter method.
--eric
Searcher
Jeff Miller wrote:
> Searcher <rykatagiri@*remove*hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7dv63u$m4m$1...@camel15.mindspring.com...
> >
> >
> > Searcher wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Pardon the off-RVG comment here but...
> > >
> > > The audio police should be out for "Art Blakey and the Jazz Messengers
> > > with Thelonious Monk" a fantastic recording which in typical Atlantic
> > > fashion surfaces on CD like a dredge from a shipwreck. Spanky
> > > DeBrest's bass is practically INAUDIBLE on this disc I have. Does
> > > anyone own the original LP to save for Earl Brown's engineering
> > > disaster???
> > >
> > > Any news of this title being remastered a la Coltrane's "Things"
> > > and "Giant Steps?" If not someone should alert Atlantic and rescue
> > > this gem from its moribund depths immediately.
> >
> > This is the first time I'll ever respond to my own posts but thanks
> > to a quick fan who e-mailed me the problem has been solved.
> > Looked up CD Universe and Music Boulevard, heard the Real Audio
> > sample and I'm satisfied. The new Atlantic remaster has been out
> > since 2/16.
>
> Wow, this is great news... I had no idea the remaster was available (the
> original CD release is truly horrible). One question though: Why the
> miniscule cover reprint? Is it reprinted larger in the booklet?
Great news indeed.
I believe the packaging --outside only-- is to make the purchase as
'black-tie' as possible, the tiny reprint only to tantalize and make
you feel once you become a member, you're in with the Biggies.
I've found the reverse to be true at most restaurants though...
I'm kidding of course, but the cover art should be found in all
its full-size glory in the package inside the package : )
I'm waiting to hear if anyone has heard the outtakes from this
session on the remaster. Anyone?
-Ryo
Steven Sullivan
Eric Daniel Barry <ed...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>On Thu, 1 Apr 1999, Marc Sabatella wrote:
>
>> In article <7duq0u$h...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu>, sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Steven Sullivan) wrote:
>>
>> >>First of all, all the new RVGs I've heard are louder
>> >>than the previous issues.
>> >
>> >This is common among recent (last 5-6 yrs) remasters, whether rock, jazz,
>> >or classical; apparently mastering engineers are now more comfortable
>> >exploiting the capabilities of the medium. CDs can be mastered 'hotter'
>> >than other consumer audio media without introducing distortion, but
>> >it seems there was a learning curve involved.
>The "learning curve" was no more important than new technology. On the
>one hand, recent reissues have been done with more care, finding original
>tapes instead of safety copies. Secondly, many early cds were marred by
>improper use of digital filtering and dither. But just as important, the
>improvement in noise-shaping in the A/D conversion have wrought a
>tremendous improvement in sound quality, to my ears. By about 1990, cds
>sounded decent if done top flight, but not until noise shaping (cds which
>are "20-bit" or "super bit mapped" did cd rival vinyl. I think its
>important to recognize that the Sony 1610 on which most early cds were
>mastered sounded pretty bad no matter how much skill the engineer had.
No question about the importance of all these factors to *overall quality*
-- e.g., I've lost count of the number of times I've mentioned the
importance of finding the best source tape on threads of this sort on
Usenet -- but here we are talking specifically about the increase in
*loudness* of recent remasters compared to the first few generations of CD
analog-to-digital remasters. And that has mainly to do with becoming
comfortable and 'fearless' about mastering at higher levels. I'm not an
audio engineer, but I base what I said about this aspect of the remasters
on what I've read of interviews in audio mags with mastering engineers.
>> I think it is just as likely that remastering jobs that seem louder than
>> previous versions are in fact simply compressed more.
>Though compression is a variable in sound (and of course more compression
>will sound more "lp-like", for better or worse) I think the differences
>in maximum loudness which I hear are not due to compression but to having
>more guts (or patience) in setting levels.
Exactly -- 'guts' or the equivalent are what I've seen masterers refer to
in the interviews I'm thinking of. Maybe I should have referred to a
'courage curve' as well as a 'learning curve'?
JC Martin
>I've really come around on the RVG's
>After listening to Moanin' and Blowin the Blues Away
>RVG, Original CD and LP versions, I have come to the same conclusion that
>Chuck has,
>they sound closer to the original LP's than the 80's CD issues.
>The presence is great, and the imaging is true to life.
>My ears must have been Out To Lunch when I heard Unity.
>I stand corrected.
Not mine...I still think the Mosaic version sounds better (re: Unity) by
far.
-JC
JC Martin
>.......blah, blah, blah....let's get to the point:
>
>HOW do the RVG remasters compare to the original CD releases?
>
>original CD release of *Out to Lunch* with the RVG 24-bit
>re-issue? Is it REALLY worth re-buying? Or is it, as I
>suspect, another marketing scheme for record companies to
>get people to by the same stuff over, and over, and over
>again?
Yes, I've made the comparison. Personally I don't like the RVG reissues.
Somehow the imaging seems different which really bothers me. The sound is
clearer, but certainly not warmer. I tested Larry Young's "Unity" side by
side and my Mosaic copy sounds much better to me.
-JC
Marc Sabatella
>here we are talking specifically about the increase in
>*loudness* of recent remasters compared to the first few generations of CD
>analog-to-digital remasters. And that has mainly to do with becoming
>comfortable and 'fearless' about mastering at higher levels. I'm not an
>audio engineer, but I base what I said about this aspect of the remasters
>on what I've read of interviews in audio mags with mastering engineers.
I'd like to see these quotes, because this just doesn't make sense to
me. From the very beginning, there was no reason to fear mastering at
as ahigh a level as possible, because it is trivial to detect if you've
clipped. Furthermore, it is trivial to record at a comfortable level
then "normalize" during mastering. The only people might have been
hesitant to do this is concerns over the noise floor, and this is indeed
where more recent advances in technology may be what is addressing this
concern.
Speaking to the issue of compression, I've had some pretty interesting
experiences lately in converting CD audio into WAV files and then
editing them. Seeing the file laid out in front of you graphically, it
is pretty easy to see which ones were compressed heavily.
Unfortunately, I am mostly finished with this aspect of the project I am
working on, and I wasn't paying attention while I was doing it to see if
there really was a correlation between date of mastering and amount of
compression. The trend I thought I was noticing was that older
*recordings* (ones done on analog master tapes, or with even older
technology) tended to be more compressed than more modern ones.
OneSixteen
>> Yes, I've made the comparison (of two diff'ent issues of "Out to Lunch").
Personally I don't like the RVG reissues. Somehow the imaging seems different
which really bothers me. The sound is clearer, but certainly not warmer. I
tested Larry Young's "Unity" side by side and my Mosaic copy sounds much better
to me. <<
===========================
Is imaging supposed to be a part of the artistic decision? Does it come to
account when one judges the merit of the recording?
Should we consider anything but the original master recording as a reprint, a
fake? What is (or are) the "original" work(s) when it comes to Recording Arts?
I guess what I'm asking you is your opinions on the artistic role of the
producers and engineers in jazz.
I think in some cases the producers and the engineers do contribute more to the
creative process. For example, I would venture to say the imaging decision on
"Bitches Brew" was more a part of the process than did the imaging on "Kind of
Blue." What do you think?
Steven Sullivan
Marc Sabatella <ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
>In article <7e1c6s$7...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu>, sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Steven Sullivan) wrote:
>
>>here we are talking specifically about the increase in
>>*loudness* of recent remasters compared to the first few generations of CD
>>analog-to-digital remasters. And that has mainly to do with becoming
>>comfortable and 'fearless' about mastering at higher levels. I'm not an
>>audio engineer, but I base what I said about this aspect of the remasters
>>on what I've read of interviews in audio mags with mastering engineers.
>
>I'd like to see these quotes, because this just doesn't make sense to
>me. From the very beginning, there was no reason to fear mastering at
>as ahigh a level as possible, because it is trivial to detect if you've
>clipped. Furthermore, it is trivial to record at a comfortable level
>then "normalize" during mastering. The only people might have been
>hesitant to do this is concerns over the noise floor, and this is indeed
>where more recent advances in technology may be what is addressing this
>concern.
I'm afraid I can't help you with the exact sources, since I do most of my
browsing of Absolute Sound, Mix, EQ, Stereophile, etc standing in the
store and that's where I remember seeing them. However, what I can do is
ask over on the audio.pro newsgroup and find out if my recollection is
absurd, true, or something in between.
>Speaking to the issue of compression, I've had some pretty interesting
>experiences lately in converting CD audio into WAV files and then
>editing them. Seeing the file laid out in front of you graphically, it
>is pretty easy to see which ones were compressed heavily.
>Unfortunately, I am mostly finished with this aspect of the project I am
>working on, and I wasn't paying attention while I was doing it to see if
>there really was a correlation between date of mastering and amount of
>compression. The trend I thought I was noticing was that older
>*recordings* (ones done on analog master tapes, or with even older
>technology) tended to be more compressed than more modern ones.
Well, yes, one of the virtues touted for CDs from the beginning was that
the full dynamic range of recordings that had been compressed during the
LP era could be restored. In many cases, though , the record companies,
more interested in getting product out than making the best CD transfers,
simply used compressed LP production master tapes as the source tape for
the CDs, instead of the original master tapes.
Phil Saunders
compression, and the value of 20/24 bits. The articles are slightly
technical, but give a good perspective.
Jimmymule
"Is imaging supposed to be a part of the artistic decision? Does it come to
account when one judges the merit of the recording?"
A similar debate has been raging over motion pictures which are re-released
with additional footage not seen in it's original theatrical release. The
so-called "director's cut." Often these can be very valuable as in the case of
Peckinpah's THE WILD BUNCH, but other times these cuts are supervised by
persons other than the director. The recent re-release of Orson Welles' TOUCH
OF EVIL restored much footage and recut huge chunks of the film---and although
the work was done based on notes Welles left behind, it was not done by Welles
himself. There are also at least three different cuts of CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF
THE THIRD KIND floating around out there. How do we assess these? Which version
is the "official" version? How do critics and historians deal with all these
different cuts? It seems to me that these various reissues and remixes pose a
similar dilemma. Will the next Penguin Guide review have ratings for the
original cd release of SPEAK NO EVIL and the RVG remix? How does one judge what
the musicians and producers originally intended when the companies keep
tinkering with their work? Will future generations grow up thinking that this
latest batch of RVGs are the "official" versions? I wonder what Wayne Shorter
thinks of the remixes of his albums.
XJ32
>original cd release of SPEAK NO EVIL and the RVG remix? How does one judge
>what
>the musicians and producers originally intended when the companies keep
>tinkering with their work? Will future generations grow up thinking that this
>latest batch of RVGs are the "official" versions? I wonder what Wayne Shorter
>thinks of the remixes of his albums.
>
>
As has been in the past each new release will circumvent the last. As it
should be.
Most artists back in the 50's and 60's had absolutely NO say in the final
mixing and "Imaging" of an album. It was there job to show up, compose,
improvise, and play.
All mixing and marketting decisions were 80% of the time out of their hands.
Hell Alfred Lion picked & approved most of the material to be played at most
blue note sessions. And he could veto an albums direction in a heartbeat had
he so desired.
I am glad to see some listeners of these cds actually enjoying them and the
"DRASTICLY" improved sound.
Bitching about how the imaging is changed and who's decision was it, is like
thinking we have a say in government.
At the end of the day record companys only care about.. will people buy
this?..and will it sell?
So we should be considered fortunate that they we have people like Cascuna who
actually care about the sound and presentation of the past.
I still think the RVG's are ten times better than any older counterparts.
- Paul
Marc Sabatella
>"Is imaging supposed to be a part of the artistic decision? Does it come to
>account when one judges the merit of the recording?"
>
>A similar debate has been raging over motion pictures which are re-released
>with additional footage not seen in it's original theatrical release.
I think there are some pretty significant differences, though - much
more than similarities. The debate over re-editing of films is more
akin to the debate over the sequencing of tunes on an album and the
inclusion of alternate tracks.
>How does one judge what
>the musicians and producers originally intended when the companies keep
>tinkering with their work? Will future generations grow up thinking that this
>latest batch of RVGs are the "official" versions? I wonder what Wayne Shorter
>thinks of the remixes of his albums.
I think this assumes a lot more involvement on the part of the musicians
than was probably typical. The musicians were responsible for *playing*
the music, the engineers for capturing it on tape and reproducing it on
vinyl or CD. If changes in technology have made it possible to perform
this reproduction in a manner that is more true to life than was
originally possible, so much the better.
Jimmymule
remixed or reissued. The question is, how does one assess a work of art when,
periodically, it is reconfigured, altered, and re-released into the marketplace
in a form different from the original? Which version is the "official" version?
Should historians and critics judge each subsequent reissue against the one
that preceeded it? This doesn't happen with paintings or sculptures or novels
(usually), but it's become incredibly common with music and films.
OneSixteen
>> How does one judge what the musicians and producers originally intended when
the companies keep tinkering with their work? <<
---------------------------------------------------
I think these "tinkerings" should be considered a part of the preservation
efforts.
OneSixteen
>> As has been in the past each new release will circumvent the last. As it
should be. Most artists back in the 50's and 60's had absolutely NO say in the
final mixing and "Imaging" of an album. It was there job to show up, compose,
improvise, and play. All mixing and marketting decisions were 80% of the time
out of their hands. <<
>> Hell Alfred Lion picked & approved most of the material to be played at most
blue note sessions. And he could veto an albums direction in a heartbeat had
he so desired. <<
So are you telling us that you consider Alfred Lion a jazz recording artist?
I understand the reality of the record business, that not many artists enjoy
the creative autonomy in every facet of the process. However, the term
"recording arts" suggests the active involvement of the producers and
engineers. So we may have to give more artistic credit to these people ...
bruce higgins
> The question is, how does one assess a work of art when,
> periodically, it is reconfigured, altered, and re-released into the
> marketplace in a form different from the original? Which version
> is the "official" version?
Why does there need to be one "official" version?
--
L. Bruce Higgins \\ lbh2 at cornell dot edu \\ http://Tigermtn.dev.cornell.edu
"perhaps my brains have turned to sand"
Nekosan73
loved pieces of music just illustrates the fact that art like life is not a
fixed thing but always changing and ever fluid.
Johnny N
OneSixteen
>> Why does there need to be one "official" version? <<
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I just wish to identify what indeed is the original art when it comes to
Recording Arts.
Is Michael Cuscuna an artist? In some way, yes. He's been making several
decisions that shaped many works of art we call reissues.
The first issue of "Kind of Blue" LP, for example, didn't have it quite the
same as the CD I'm listening to now. As we know, the Sony technology even made
the pitch adjustment so that we hear the correct sound. We also have an
alternate take of Flamenco Sketches as a part of the artistic presentation.
These are minor (compared to the original music) alterings -- or enhancements.
But they are now parts of the work of art.
The most important part of the work was done on two days in 1959, when the
Miles Davis sextet recorded the songs that comprised "Kind of Blue." But did
the creative process end there and then? Has it even ended yet? Since the
technology will keep changing, we might indeed have another version of "Kind of
Blue" in 2059 (the Centennial Edition!) By then we might have over a hundred
people who should be able to claim a hand in the creative process. How should
we view these people's roles?
Coming back to Cuscuna, what do we make of all these box sets and compilations?
We know the roles of the musicians (and even the original producers and
engineers). But the decisions of musical presentation are made by the so-called
reissue producers. Can you tell me why Cuscuna's roles in many reissues and
boxed sets don't merit artistic credit?
Finally, how important is the programming (i.e. sequencing, decisions to add
alternate takes, and so on) decisions in making records? Could somebody have
screwed up "Kind of Blue" by starting the record with Flamenco Sketches and
ending it with So What?
mark webber
(snip bulk)
> Can you tell me why Cuscuna's roles in many reissues and
> boxed sets don't merit artistic credit?
You know, I'm as happy as the next guy that Cuscuna is putting so much
energy into reissuing so much music. He may even merit some sort of
official appreciation or award some day. But I doubt he sees his role in
all this as artist, and I don't think we should make this confusion
either.
Mark
JC Martin
>>Will the next Penguin Guide review have ratings for the
>>what
>>the musicians and producers originally intended when the companies keep
this
>>latest batch of RVGs are the "official" versions? I wonder what Wayne
Shorter
>>thinks of the remixes of his albums.
>>
>>
>
>should be.
>Most artists back in the 50's and 60's had absolutely NO say in the final
>mixing and "Imaging" of an album. It was there job to show up, compose,
>improvise, and play.
>All mixing and marketting decisions were 80% of the time out of their
hands.
>
>Hell Alfred Lion picked & approved most of the material to be played at
most
>blue note sessions. And he could veto an albums direction in a heartbeat
had
>he so desired.
>"DRASTICLY" improved sound.
>
>Bitching about how the imaging is changed and who's decision was it, is
like
>thinking we have a say in government.
Some of us are bitching because they *don't* sound "drastically better".
They sound different...even cleaner. But for 24 bit, these aren't the
warmest sounding recordings. And yeah, the imaging stinks. You may like
it. But I'm not going to sit around here recommending that people replace
an older CD copy with a newer one just because it has RVG on the label.
-JC
JC Martin
> jimm...@aol.com (Jimmymule) wrote:
>
>> The question is, how does one assess a work of art when,
>> periodically, it is reconfigured, altered, and re-released into the
>> marketplace in a form different from the original? Which version
>> is the "official" version?
>
There doesn't. But at the least, we can expect of the record companies to
maintain the previous standard set. The RVG recordings haven't done that.
-JC
Gremal
<19990403183200...@ng-fw1.aol.com>...
> I just wish to identify what indeed is the original art when it comes to
> Recording Arts.
> Is Michael Cuscuna an artist? In some way, yes. He's been making several
> decisions that shaped many works of art we call reissues.
cuscuna is in no way an artist, at least not after he put down his
instrument and became a vault investigator and subsequently a producer.
his decisions have led to the availability and packaging of a great deal of
jazz on CD. this in no way qualifies him as an artist nor does it qualify
anything he does as art. gimme a break.
> The first issue of "Kind of Blue" LP, for example, didn't have it quite
the
> same as the CD I'm listening to now. As we know, the Sony technology even
made
> the pitch adjustment so that we hear the correct sound. We also have an
> alternate take of Flamenco Sketches as a part of the artistic
presentation.
digital remastering of analog recordings continues to improve as technology
improves. this does not have anything to do with art. the goal of all
recorded music is to trick the ears into believing that live instruments
are being played. i certainly find the RVG discs to be a step in that
direction, but if anyone doesn't then they can just avoid buying them.
spare us the "don't mess with art" stuff, because it's not applicable. the
music is not changing in its artistic value; the digital remastering of
analog recordings is changing and will continue to change as technology
improves.
> These are minor (compared to the original music) alterings -- or
enhancements.
> But they are now parts of the work of art.
yeah, like a museum is part of a painting. get over it.
> The most important part of the work was done on two days in 1959, when
the
> Miles Davis sextet recorded the songs that comprised "Kind of Blue."
this is when the creation occurred; when the jazz was performed. how can
you confuse remastering with jazz?
> But did
> the creative process end there and then? Has it even ended yet?
yes.
> Since the
> technology will keep changing, we might indeed have another version of
"Kind of
> Blue" in 2059 (the Centennial Edition!) By then we might have over a
hundred
> people who should be able to claim a hand in the creative process. How
should
> we view these people's roles?
we'll have several more verions of kind of blue by then. but you used two
key ideas above. "creative process" and "technology". why does the
distinction seem to elude you?
> Coming back to Cuscuna, what do we make of all these box sets and
compilations?
> We know the roles of the musicians (and even the original producers and
> engineers). But the decisions of musical presentation are made by the
so-called
> reissue producers. Can you tell me why Cuscuna's roles in many reissues
and
> boxed sets don't merit artistic credit?
because the man hasn't created anything but plastic and metal discs. he
has reissued (in some cases) ingenius performances by artists who do
deserve the credit because they performed and composed the music. or
perhaps Lion is deserving of some too, as the original producer, but only
insofar as he put the musicians together, paid for their rehearsals, acted
as a catalyst in the sessions, and helped decide the appropriate takes to
use. cuscuna wasn't even there. and, to my deep regret, has not even
bothered to reissue many essential sessions even though his job is to do
just that.
> Finally, how important is the programming (i.e. sequencing, decisions to
add
> alternate takes, and so on) decisions in making records? Could somebody
have
> screwed up "Kind of Blue" by starting the record with Flamenco Sketches
and
> ending it with So What?
if a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, does it make a sound?
i'm sorry but you're getting way to philosophical. art is art. jazz is
jazz. digital remastering is digital remastering. Cuscuna is not Lion.
it's simple. cuscuna as a creator? misplaced values. render to musicians
what is music and to producers what is production.
XJ32
>
No I was merely pointing out that Alfed Lion (as do most producers today) had
just as much say if not more than the artists themselves when it came to
"Artistic Direction". So there for to bitch continuously about changing
production values in regards to an artist is a mute point.
and if it were not for people like Lion, or Cascuna we would not have had alot
of this great music in the first place.
- Paul
OneSixteen
No I was merely pointing out that Alfed Lion (as do most producers today) had
just as much say if not more than the artists themselves when it came to
"Artistic Direction". So there for to bitch continuously about changing
production values in regards to an artist is a mute point. and if it were not
for people like Lion, or Cascuna we would not have had alot of this great music
in the first place.
---------------------------------------------------------
Now, I'm confused. Lion "had as much say if not more than the artists
themselves when it came to artistic direction" but you don't consider him an
artist. Well ... ?
OneSixteen
>> [Cuscuna's] decisions have led to the availability and packaging of a great
deal of jazz on CD. this in no way qualifies him as an artist nor does it
qualify anything he does as art. gimme a break. <<
You're having a tough time differentiating music and recorded music.
>> but you used two key ideas above. "creative process" and "technology". why
does the distinction seem to elude you? <<
Why does the idea of "technology" contributing to arts seem to offend you?
>> Because the man hasn't created anything but plastic and metal discs. <<
So that's how you see it. Stop screaming, will ya?
>> ... perhaps Lion is deserving of some too, as the original producer, but
only insofar as he put the musicians together, paid for their rehearsals, acted
as a catalyst in the sessions, and helped decide the appropriate takes to use.
cuscuna wasn't even there. and, to my deep regret, has not even bothered to
reissue many essential sessions even though his job is to do just that. <<
Wow, where did this come from? Getting personal with Cuscuna, huh?
Again, my question concerns the recorded music. If you feel the recording
process is not an artistic, creative process, that's your prerogative.
>> if a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, does it make a sound? i'm
sorry but you're getting way to philosophical. <<
You should be sorry. You don't have any right to prohibit me from being "too
philosophical" or from trying to share my thoughts in this forum. And treating
my well-intentioned question like this is simply not nice. As I do with some of
the discussions going on, if you don't have anything to say but insults,
sarcasms, and screams, check your temptation.
>> Cuscuna is not Lion. it's simple. cuscuna as a creator? misplaced values.
render to musicians what is music and to producers what is production. <<
Now we're getting somewhere. We have music. We have production. Then we have
the record, which is the subject of discussion.
Without screaming and trying to insult my intelligence, you just could have
said that the records themselves are not the works of art and that only music
is.
Gremal
> Without screaming and trying to insult my intelligence, you just could
have
> said that the records themselves are not the works of art and that only
music
> is.
this statement seems self evident--i didn't scream or try to insult your
intelligence.
XJ32
>themselves when it came to artistic direction" but you don't consider him an
>artist. Well ... ?
>
>
>
Sure he was an artist in a "visionary" sense.
Producers are just as important to recorded music as the musicians themselves.
- Paul
ADRobin
>"creative process" and "technology". why does the
>distinction seem to elude you?
I agree that a newly remastered version of "Kind of Blue" does not constitute a
separate piece of art. I also agree that Cuscuna can not realistically be
described as an artist. However, I think that the case with Alfred Lion is a
much closer call.
The dichotomy between "creative process" and " technology" that you are
pointing to often breaks down in practice.
An example is found in the creative process for the creation of Miles Davis'
"Live Evil" album. At this point in his career Miles' was in to heavily
editing his band's recorded output to create the final product that would end
up on the album. This was the antithesis of his approach in the mid 50's for
his prestige sessions with the classic quintet where he had marathon "one-take"
sessions which appeared "as is" on the classic albums from those sessions.
In contrast, for "Live Evil", Miles Davis and Teo Macero, Miles' producer from
Columbia records, took thirty reels of tape of live performances by Miles group
and "cut and pasted' it into 100 minutes of final product which appeared on
the album.
Macero's comments on the process that created the album are interesting: "Both
of us have learned from the things we have done together. I learned from the
standpoint of editing, shifting the compositions around so that the front
becomes the back, the back becomes the middle, the middle something else. Its
a creative process being a producer with Miles. In fact, it's more of a
creative process than it is with any other artist. You have to know something
about music. You really need to be a composer, because for a lot of it he
relies on you and your judgment". (Quotes taken from "Milestones" by Jack
Chambers").
Granted, this example is an extreme one. But it does raise the issue of the
considerable impact that a producer of a session can have on the artistic
creation that emerges, separate and apart from the music that is played in a
session.
Do Alfred Lion's contributions to the classic Blue Note albums of the 50s and
60s rise to a level which would justify designating him as part of the
"artistic" process? I don't know, but I don't think the idea can be dismissed
out of hand.
ADR
The Devoted Jazz Fan(atic)
greg pavlov
>
>Do Alfred Lion's contributions to the classic Blue Note albums of the 50s and
>60s rise to a level which would justify designating him as part of the
>"artistic" process? I don't know, but I don't think the idea can be dismissed
>out of hand.
>
Isn't it at the end of "Autumn Leaves" on "Somethin' Else" that
you hear Adderley (??) say "Is that what you wanted, Alfred ?"
greg pavlov
Gilbertrod
>Isn't it at the end of "Autumn Leaves" on "Somethin' Else" that
> you hear Adderley (??) say "Is that what you wanted, Alfred ?"
>
>
> greg pavlov
It's at the end of 'One for Daddy-o', but it sounds like Miles isn't it?
Rod
Chuck Nessa
CN
greg pavlov wrote:
>
> On 5 Apr 1999 14:58:40 GMT, adr...@aol.com (ADRobin) wrote:
>
> >
> >Do Alfred Lion's contributions to the classic Blue Note albums of the 50s and
> >60s rise to a level which would justify designating him as part of the
> >"artistic" process? I don't know, but I don't think the idea can be dismissed
> >out of hand.
> >
>
Paul Christie
bought four of them from the first batch (Sonny Rollins, Horace
Silver, Cannonball Adderley, Kenny Burrell). It's interesting to note
that they don't say anywhere on the packaging (at least that I could
find) that the recordings are stereo. On one of them (I think the
Rollins) is states that it is mono. The stereo imaging is such that it
is not that far removed from being mono, in my opinion. I compared the
RVG version of "Somethin'Else" by Adderley with the Mobile Fidelity
Gold disc of some years ago. The RVG is mastered at a higher level.
The Mobile Fidelity has extreme separation of left and right channels.
Both sound very good. I would prefer the sound- staging to be
somewhere between the two versions. However, I find the two versions
equally listenable via speakers - the differences in channell
separation are much more evident via headphones.
I found similar differences in imaging with the Japanese RVG version
of Stanley Turrentine's "Look Out" and the US Collector's Choice
version. Both sound fine - the older US discs has the advantage of
extra tracks.
In general, I would say that the most obvious improvements in RVG
reissues compared to older issues is a clearer and smotther top end
(cymbals sound nicer), and deeper bass. I have been disappointed with
a couple of the Japanese RVG's that I've picked up - eg. Grant
Green's "Latin Bit" and Wayne Shorter's "Juju", but then I wasn't that
familiar with earlier issues. I suspect that there is quite a degree
of variation in RVG's original recordings - some sound magnificent,
and some sound like they were taped from inside an iron lung (slight
exaggeration).
Cheers,
Paul
On 2 Apr 1999 22:35:25 GMT, onesi...@aol.com (OneSixteen) wrote:
>JC writes:
>
>>> Yes, I've made the comparison (of two diff'ent issues of "Out to Lunch").
>Personally I don't like the RVG reissues. Somehow the imaging seems different
>which really bothers me. The sound is clearer, but certainly not warmer. I
>tested Larry Young's "Unity" side by side and my Mosaic copy sounds much better
>to me. <<
>
>===========================
>
>Is imaging supposed to be a part of the artistic decision? Does it come to
>account when one judges the merit of the recording?
>
>Should we consider anything but the original master recording as a reprint, a
>fake? What is (or are) the "original" work(s) when it comes to Recording Arts?
>
>I guess what I'm asking you is your opinions on the artistic role of the
>producers and engineers in jazz.
>
>I think in some cases the producers and the engineers do contribute more to the
>creative process. For example, I would venture to say the imaging decision on
>"Bitches Brew" was more a part of the process than did the imaging on "Kind of
>Blue." What do you think?
Paul Christie
greg pavlov
>Greg Pavlov said:
>
>>Isn't it at the end of "Autumn Leaves" on "Somethin' Else" that
>> you hear Adderley (??) say "Is that what you wanted, Alfred ?"
>>
>>
>> greg pavlov
>
>It's at the end of 'One for Daddy-o', but it sounds like Miles isn't it?
>
!!! I never imagined that that is how Miles would sound
(or that he would ask that question.....)
thanks,
greg pavlov
Gremal
<370c4893...@nntp.sa.gov.au>...
> In general, I would say that the most obvious improvements in RVG
> reissues compared to older issues is a clearer and smotther top end
> (cymbals sound nicer), and deeper bass.
in other words, the instruments sound more like they do in real life.
that's a pretty significant improvement IMO.
> I have been disappointed with
> a couple of the Japanese RVG's that I've picked up - eg. Grant
> Green's "Latin Bit" and Wayne Shorter's "Juju", but then I wasn't that
> familiar with earlier issues.
i've read the warnings about latin bit at JCS and would stay away from it,
but Ju Ju is greatly improved over the earlier version. It has a tonal
problem with the piano occassionally, but it's even worse on the domestic
release and the improvement in drums, sax and bass--even piano--are very
notable.
Dim Izhak
know who "RVG" is, but am not sure what are the specific CDs this
thread talks about. E.g. recently (a couple of weeks ago) I bought
Juju (Blue Note). The CD has 2 bonus tracks (juju & house of jade),
(c) Capitol Records 1996. I take it this is not an "RVG reissue",
right? In which case - how do they look like, which label issues them?
Thanks.
--
Later,
--Dim.
Gremal
Dim, on both sides of the atlantic, Blue Note has launched a series of
reissues 24-bit remastered by recording engineer Rudy Van Gelder. The
Japanese RVG series are packaged in imitation LP sleeves, while the
domestic series, which was initiated more recently and includes fewer
titles, is packaged in jewel cases within a slipcase. they are remastered
at a higher level but with much less stereophonics. Many of us are still
trying to figure out if this is a bona fide attempt to make these albums
sound better or just a marketing ploy for blue note to get our money.
probably a little of both.
Steven Sullivan
The latest issue of ICE Magazine has comment by Van Gelder on the new
sound of the RVG reissues. At the risk of over-paraphrasing, Van Gelder's
claim is that the new, 'collapsed' soundstage of the remasters is much
more like what the artists originally heard and approved during studio
playback of the sessions, versus what the record company subsequently
demanded (i.e., unsubtle left-right panning in order to display the
virtues of the then-new 'stereo' effect). While all the reissues were
taken from stereo two-track masters, obviating true remixing, apparently
RVG has used some sort of digital trickery to 'fold in' the stereo image.
--
-S.
Shut up, he explained.
Chuck Nessa
since the advent of stereo.
CN
Steven Sullivan
Chuck Nessa <cne...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>No "digital trickery" needed, just a mixing board. This has been done
>since the advent of stereo.
Maybe so, but that's not how the article made it sound. It implied that it
was a combination of RVG's own 'secret' techniques and the use of digital
technology.
Dennis J. Kosterman
wrote:
>No "digital trickery" needed, just a mixing board. This has been done
>since the advent of stereo.
How is it done? I'm not being a smart-ass here -- I really don't know
that much about this stuff, but it seems to me that, while you can
shift the stereo image from left to right with a mixing board
(remember, we only have 2 tracks to work with here, one for each
stereo channel), you can't collapse it -- if you decrease the volume
in both channels, you just decrease the overall volume; it shouldn't
affect imaging at all. How exactly would you go about simultaneously
moving *both* channels to the center?
Dante Sawyer
dante
Marc Sabatella
>How is it done? I'm not being a smart-ass here -- I really don't know
>that much about this stuff, but it seems to me that, while you can
>shift the stereo image from left to right with a mixing board
>(remember, we only have 2 tracks to work with here, one for each
>stereo channel), you can't collapse it -- if you decrease the volume
>in both channels, you just decrease the overall volume; it shouldn't
>affect imaging at all. How exactly would you go about simultaneously
>moving *both* channels to the center?
Take the original L & R from the too-wide mix and assign them each
to an input channel on your mixer. Pan both to the center for the
output. This would result in the output L&R channels both containing an
equal mix of the original L&R channels, and hence being identical to
each other. In contrast, panning the original L channel hard left and
the original R channel hard right would result in a new mix that was
identical to the original mix. Presumably, for these releases, the
original L was panned to maybe 10:00, and the original right to 2:00,
which would put *some* of the original L signal in the right speaker,
and some of the original R in the left - the effect being a "narrowing"
of the stereo separation.
The danger in doing this is probably that you will affect the actual
perceived mix as well, although it actually seems to me if you pan the
two input channels to mirror image positions, then all relative volume
levels would be preserved. Still, just moving them in the mix might
change the *perception* of relative loudness. A trumpet that stood out
just fine panned hard left might get a little lost moved to center. I
don't know. Anyhow, the "digital trickery" referred to might have been
to correct for this.
Or, the person who wrote that "digital trickery" was involved might
simply have not realized how simple the process was.
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
Check out my latest CD, "Second Course"
Available on Cadence Jazz Records
Also "A Jazz Improvisation Primer", Scores, & More:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
Dim Izhak
> In article <371d53ef...@news.tds.net>, den...@tds.net (Dennis J. Kosterman) wrote:
<the explanaion of the digital trickery snipped>
> The danger in doing this is probably that you will affect the actual
> perceived mix as well, although it actually seems to me if you pan the
> two input channels to mirror image positions, then all relative volume
> levels would be preserved. Still, just moving them in the mix might
> change the *perception* of relative loudness. A trumpet that stood out
> just fine panned hard left might get a little lost moved to center. I
> don't know. Anyhow, the "digital trickery" referred to might have been
> to correct for this.
So, how do you like the sound of the RVGs? Overall, and specifically
the way the stereo base is (seems to be?) narrowed?
--
Later,
--Dim.
R. Lynn Rardin
> does anyone know how to get intouch with ICE magazine?
-Lynn (rar...@orion.rose.brandeis.edu)
Steven Sullivan
: In article <371CECB1...@earthlink.net>,
: Chuck Nessa <cne...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:>No "digital trickery" needed, just a mixing board. This has been done
:>since the advent of stereo.
: Maybe so, but that's not how the article made it sound. It implied that it
: was a combination of RVG's own 'secret' techniques and the use of digital
: technology.
Let me correct myself here, with the relevant article in front of me. It
says:
//
Since these sessions were recorded live to two-track tape, there was no
opportunity to "mix" once the mikes were placed and the levels were set.
Van Gelder won't reveal his studio techniques, but he says modern
technology now gives him the tools to "fold in" the separated instruments.
The result, he says, is not mono but rather "stereo with less separation,
less spread" -- ICE #146, p 17.
//
I interpreted 'modern technology' to mean, digital, but since RVG has been
in the business for forty or more years, and given what I've learned on
this thread, he may well have meant, more modern than what he had
available in the early 60's. ;>
Marc Sabatella
>Since these sessions were recorded live to two-track tape, there was no
>opportunity to "mix" once the mikes were placed and the levels were set.
>Van Gelder won't reveal his studio techniques, but he says modern
>technology now gives him the tools to "fold in" the separated instruments.
>The result, he says, is not mono but rather "stereo with less separation,
>less spread" -- ICE #146, p 17.
>//
>
>I interpreted 'modern technology' to mean, digital, but since RVG has been
>in the business for forty or more years, and given what I've learned on
>this thread, he may well have meant, more modern than what he had
>available in the early 60's. ;>
I'm not familiar with the magazine in question, so I don't know if their
writers tend to be technically adept or not, but it seems to me that Van
Gelder may be having a little laugh at the writer's expense. Or,
perhaps Van Gelder simply couldn't be bothered to explain something he
felt should have been obvious. Again, there is nothing particularly
complex or even modern about the technology I described - it has been
around as long as stereo has been. But it is possible that the "modern"
advances has been in dealing with correcting for the perception that
instruments moved closer to center may *seem* louder than they are.
D Royko
light of comments I've read from some listeners who hear the new RVGs as being
the closest CD masterings yet when it comes to the old stereo LP sound, is that
RVG states:
"I did not approach this project in an attempt to reproduce the original sound
of the LPs. I felt I should remaster these albums the way Alfred Lion would
have wanted them to sound on CD. These CDs are an accurate representation of
what the musicians listened to upon playback at the sessions."
Van Gelder goes on to disown the original stereo spread of the original LPs as
basically a concession to the 1960s demand to have a wide stereo spread. He
also claims that Lion didn't like the spread, and Van Gelder himself states
that the seperation of instruments in the early LP, as well as the original CD
transfers, always bothered him (Van Gelder), too. He also implies that the
reason Lion issued mono and stereo versions was, at least as I read it, because
of Lion's dislike of the wide stereo spread.
So basically, it sounds like, if you like the stereo sound of those early
original LPs, then the "old" CDs are the ones to get. If you want to hear what
Rudy (and according to RVG, Lion and the musicians would have as well) thinks
is a better mix, then get the RVGs. But make no mistake--the RVGs, according to
Rudy, are a whole new animal, and not an attempt to replicate the old BN sound,
or at least the old BN sound of the original stereo LPs when it comes to the
stereo imaging.
One other statement RVG makes in the ICE piece, again in reference to his
dislike for the harder stereo spread, is: "Five-piece acoustic bands should
sound like they're playing together; it's supposed to be an ensmble."
I strongly disagree with this argument for a more collapsed spread, because how
a group sounds in person depends on where you are sitting! The collapsed spread
is more representative of sitting further back in the hall or club or wherever.
But where I've always liked to sit for an acoustic small group (whether jazz,
chamber music, bluegrass, whatever) is right up front. In that case, I am
hearing a very hard-panned stereo spread. For an orchestra, I like to be in a
front-row, first balcony seat, which gives a more blended, but still
wide-spread sound.
Anyway, the RVG piece is in the May, 1999 ICE, in the "CD Watchdog" column.
It's not long, but it is definitely food for thought. And call me a tin-ears, a
nostalgist, or simply a hard-pan stereo fetishist, but I own plenty of old BN
LPs, virtually all of the "old" BN CDs, and a few RVG BN CDs, and I like the
old CDs better. Sorry Rudy!
Dave Royko
Steven Sullivan
D Royko <dro...@aol.com> wrote:
>What I find most interesting about the ICE interview w/ RVG, especially in
>light of comments I've read from some listeners who hear the new RVGs as being
>the closest CD masterings yet when it comes to the old stereo LP sound, is that
>RVG states:
THis had me wondering too. Was the person or persons who felt the new
RVGs sounded more like the LPs than the old CDs did, referring to *mono*
versions of the LPs? Were Out to Lunch and Somethin' Else, for example,
released in mono as well as stereo? Or was the person referring only to
the 'naturalness' of the sound of the instruments, rather than their
placement in the soundstage? The clarinet does have a 'throatier' sound
on the new RVG compared to the old CD, to my ears, and the vibes are also
more resonant' the bass digs deeper as well.
>dislike for the harder stereo spread, is: "Five-piece acoustic bands should
>sound like they're playing together; it's supposed to be an ensmble."
>
>I strongly disagree with this argument for a more collapsed spread, because how
>a group sounds in person depends on where you are sitting! The collapsed spread
>is more representative of sitting further back in the hall or club or wherever.
>But where I've always liked to sit for an acoustic small group (whether jazz,
>chamber music, bluegrass, whatever) is right up front. In that case, I am
>hearing a very hard-panned stereo spread. For an orchestra, I like to be in a
>front-row, first balcony seat, which gives a more blended, but still
>wide-spread sound.
The old Out to Lunch CD sounds like all of Williams' kit is almost
*entirely* hard right, with Dolphy entirely hard left, which is an effect
I don't think you'd get even sitting in the front row. It's a dramatic,
and to some extent clarifying effect, but I don't think the drums would
have been that widely separated from the rest of the band either
physically onstage or virtually in the soundfield comeing off the stage at
a real show.
That said, RVGs new 'mixes' seem a little *too* compacted at times, but
I'm getting used to them. It helps that I hadn't heard Somethin' Else in
over a decade,a nd that Out to Lunch was still relatively new to me. No
ingrained old engrams to be erased ;>
Jack Woker
> So basically, it sounds like, if you like the stereo sound of those early
> original LPs, then the "old" CDs are the ones to get. If you want to hear what
> Rudy (and according to RVG, Lion and the musicians would have as well) thinks
> is a better mix, then get the RVGs. But make no mistake--the RVGs, according to
> Rudy, are a whole new animal, and not an attempt to replicate the old BN sound,
> stereo imaging.
A few weeks back, somebody (Chuck Nessa, I think) posted his opinion
that the new RVG releases most closely capture the sound of the original
LP's. Just prior to that, I posted a disclaimer inspired primarily by
my cynicism about the constant remastering, and therefore remarketing,
of the same titles in the Blue Note catalog. At the time, I had yet to
actually hear any of the RVG's, but I have finally heard "Midnight
Blue", first on my car stereo, and this week on my home system. My
first reaction in the car was that the thing was practically in mono,
with little or no separation, and the result was a different mix, one
that I was not used to. In the home, however, on a vastly superior
system, I have to say that sonically, there is just no comparison
between the RVG and the original CD. The RVG is very upfront and punchy,
the conga drum sounds magnificent. Unfortunately, there is very little
in the way of stereo separation. The old CD has the hard-panned left
and right that was present on the original LP, but the whole thing is
muffled and indistinct in comparison.
I have read the Ice article, and Rudy makes some good points about
stereo, especially as it existed in the early days, but the hard-panned
stereo is one of the characteristics I've always loved about Blue Note.
Still, I have to say that I am impressed with the sound on the new
"Midnight Blue", and if this is typical of the series, we could all do
worse than to have Rudy remaster the catalog.
jack
JC Martin
>Anyway, the RVG piece is in the May, 1999 ICE, in the "CD Watchdog" column.
>It's not long, but it is definitely food for thought. And call me a
tin-ears, a
>nostalgist, or simply a hard-pan stereo fetishist, but I own plenty of old
BN
>LPs, virtually all of the "old" BN CDs, and a few RVG BN CDs, and I like
the
>old CDs better. Sorry Rudy!
I couldn't agree more.
-JC
g_d...@my-dejanews.com
Rhino/Atlantic has reissued "Art Blakey's Jazz Messengers with Thelonious
Monk" in a "deluxe" edition, remastered and repackaged as per Coltrane's
"Giant Steps," "MFT," and "Coltrane's Sound."
I haven't heard it myself, but it's got to be better than the sludge-filled
nightmare that is the original CD issue. You are correct, Ryo; DeBrest's bass
IS practically inaudible on the original, which is especially frustrating
given that the liner notes say how wonderfully he plays. I stupidly bought
this original issue a couple of weeks ago without realizing that a deluxe
edition is available. As of now, I haven't worked up enough enthusiasm to buy
the same album twice within 14 days.
~~G-Dog!~~
In article <3702E8D8...@e-mail.com>,
seeb...@e-mail.com wrote:
>
>
> Pardon the off-RVG comment here but...
>
> The audio police should be out for "Art Blakey and the Jazz Messengers
> with Thelonious Monk" a fantastic recording which in typical Atlantic
> fashion surfaces on CD like a dredge from a shipwreck. Spanky
> DeBrest's bass is practically INAUDIBLE on this disc I have. Does
> anyone own the original LP to save for Earl Brown's engineering
> disaster???
>
> Any news of this title being remastered a la Coltrane's "Things"
> and "Giant Steps?" If not someone should alert Atlantic and rescue
> this gem from its moribund depths immediately.
>
> -Ryo
>
> rykat...@hotmail.co
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
JC Martin
>I have read the Ice article, and Rudy makes some good points about
>stereo, especially as it existed in the early days, but the hard-panned
>stereo is one of the characteristics I've always loved about Blue Note.
>Still, I have to say that I am impressed with the sound on the new
>"Midnight Blue", and if this is typical of the series, we could all do
>worse than to have Rudy remaster the catalog.
I agree that Midnight Blue now sounds really good, much better than the
older CD issues. But I would argue that this has more to do with the 24 bit
treatment and the condition of the masters as opposed to anything Rudy did
himself. If only they would have given us a choice between a stereo mix and
a mono mix, because IMO these new RVG's sound very much mono.
-JC
Gremal
<7fteot$h8a$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
i'd encourage you to listen more. none of the titles i've heard can be
characterized as mono. the new RVG maiden voyage has especially ample
stereo separation. there's no need for strong stereo separation in small
combo jazz records anyway, but no, the RVGs are by no means mono mixes.
Gremal
couldn't disagree more. Having listened to a handful of the RVG titles for
the past two months, i can hardly stand to hear the strong stereo
separation in the traditional mixes. i had never thought much about it
before, but now that the RVGs are out, the hard panning seems unnecessary
and distracting for small combo jazz recordings.
JC Martin
<01be8fb4$e4a73080$88671c26@greg>...
The in fact *do* sound practically mono even though technically they are
stereo. The "Blue Note" sound involves the separation you so much disdain,
yet that separation more approximates a jazz club (when have you ever seen a
drum kit or piano in the middle of the stage) up close.
-JC
Eric Daniel Barry
> >> a mono mix, because IMO these new RVG's sound very much mono.
> >
> >i'd encourage you to listen more. none of the titles i've heard can be
> >characterized as mono. the new RVG maiden voyage has especially ample
> >stereo separation. there's no need for strong stereo separation in small
> >combo jazz records anyway, but no, the RVGs are by >no means mono mixes.
>
>
> The in fact *do* sound practically mono even though technically they are
> stereo.
>
>
I hate to disagree but I just don't hear this "mono" quality you describe.
Except on Rollins Vol. 2 which IS mono. On the old cds I hear the drum
kit right at the right speaker. On the RVGs I hear the kit a couple of
feet behind the right speaker, maybe a foot inside. Are your speakers far
enough apart? Mine are about 5 feet from each other, and I listen from
about eight feet away.
--Eric
JC Martin
>I hate to disagree but I just don't hear this "mono" quality you describe.
>Except on Rollins Vol. 2 which IS mono. On the old cds I hear the drum
>kit right at the right speaker. On the RVGs I hear the kit a couple of
>feet behind the right speaker, maybe a foot inside. Are your speakers far
>enough apart? Mine are about 5 feet from each other, and I listen from
>about eight feet away.
*L* Yeah, they're far enough apart. Try a pair of headphones. You may
hear what I'm saying. Again, technically and even audibly to some degree
most of the RVG's are stereo recordings. They just sound closer to mono
than before.
Cheers,
JC
Gremal
<Pine.GSO.4.10.990427...@merhaba.cc.columbia.edu>...
> > The in fact *do* sound practically mono even though technically they
are
> > stereo.
> >
> > -JC
> >
> I hate to disagree but I just don't hear this "mono" quality you
describe.
> Except on Rollins Vol. 2 which IS mono. On the old cds I hear the drum
> kit right at the right speaker. On the RVGs I hear the kit a couple of
> feet behind the right speaker, maybe a foot inside. Are your speakers
far
> enough apart? Mine are about 5 feet from each other, and I listen from
> about eight feet away.
i have a terrible system at home, so i can't give as clear a discription as
eric, but in my car, the stereo separation is appropriate. Maiden Voyage
(RVG) is a great example. I don't see the need for channel separation
beyond what van gelder has done in remastering this one.
it's not that i disdain what i heard on the previous remasters--it just
seems silly after hearing the RVGs. i understand you JC, but c'mon. you
mean to tell me that you've sat at a club and heard panning as hard as on
the first-generation discs? i've seen shows at most famous jazz venues and
sat everywhere from the nosebleed area at carnegie hall to right next to
the piano at One Step Down and compared to the live music, those
hard-panned CDs sound downright unnatural. one of the great things about
live music is it fills the room--it's all around you--totally different
than stereo reproduction. the sad part is i never would have realized
how unnatural hard panning is until van gelder was commissioned to remaster
these things right. it's just an improved audio mix any way you cut it
IMO.
the RVGs only sound mono if you're addicted to the hard panning. stereo
effects are much more subtle in the RVGs but they're there.