20-bit remastered CDs worth it?
Todd Michael BILLECI
Monk with Coltrane, Monk with Sonny Rollins, and Evans' Waltz for Debby.
Has anyone tried the new CDs? Are they substantially better when played on
decent equipment?
Many thanks, Todd
AllanFunt
Depends on what you mean by substantially. For instance on the Evans CD you
can hear this pale genius snorting coke off the piano keys. If you listen real
close you can hear him mutter "how come miles is the only colored guy who digs
me, i thought becoming a junkie would endear me to the brothers." If that's
the kind of detail you crave, go for it.
Daniel
remastering has proven to sound worse than the original. The question often
is, if the improvement is substantial to justify purchasing it again.
Me and a friend of mine have compared the old Blue Notes with the RVG
edition and we found that some CDs were enormously improved (Addlerly's
Something else and Mobleys Soul Station), meaning you could hear the bass
and the drums much better and the sound was fuller and had more details,
whereas on others (all Hancock CDs for instance) the improvement was not so
great.
As for OCJ records, I know that the remastering of Brilliant Corners on the
Rollins-Freelance box is much better than on the Monk Riverside Box.
Columbia/Legacy usually are doing a great job on their remastered albums and
as OJC they add bonus tracks that were not on the first generation CDs. I
think that most remasterings are really a improvement over the
first-generation CDs, so usually they are a wothwhile buy.
Take care
Daniel
Gremal
news:92q0ef$5bp$00$1...@news.t-online.com...
I generally agree with Daniel, although I find the RVG Hancock remasters
enormously improved along with the others. The OJCs are significant
improvements too. I have been enjoying a number of Columbia SACD versions
of Duke, Miles, Mingus, Monk and Brubeck titles and these SACDs have much
more dynamic impact, inner detail and tonal realism compared to even the
best CD remasters.
steve...@my-deja.com
have to eventually mix down to 16 bit. Take the RVGs for instance. They
were terrible. They had up to 90 - 95% less dynamic range than the older
Ron McMaster issues. They also had much less highs. On systems that
can't handle the greater dynamics, the compressing of dynamics sounds
better. But on a real reference system, there is no contest. For the
uninitiated, less dynamics is often interepreted as more detail when in
reality there is much less detail.
SteveR
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Daniel
have to look at every single case. However I dont know of any case where the
remastering sounds worse than the first generation CD. I actually dont
understand your comment about the dynamic range, so I wont comment on it. If
you care to explain I would be interested of course. I am also curious to
understand how less dynamic range can be interpreted as more detail.
About the highs, I have to disagree entirely. On some of the old remasters
you could not hear the drums clearly for instance and the whole sound was
like as if it was recorded under a blanket. So the highs were much less
discernable of course.
I know that the RVG were generally hailed as great examples of remastering
and I am wondering why all these very competent people (along with my own
ears, which are not unexperienced either) could be entirely wrong. I mean if
you had said that old vinly was better, I would not bother arguing, but I am
wondering how you can experience first generation cds as being better than
remastered cds from the late 90s.
Daniel
> 20 bit 0r 24 it mastering does not guarantee any improvement since you
steve...@my-deja.com
technicians measure 5 RVGs vs the original Blue Note CDs and there was
consistently about 90-95% less dynamic range. When the dynamic range is
compressed in this way, parts of the recording that were originally
recorded at a very low level compared to other parts now have there
level increased in relation to the rest of the music. This increase can
be interpreted as more detail because it sounds "louder" than on the
original. Many people confuse loudness with detail. A friend of mine, 20
years ago, had a company that tested sensory perception; taste, smell,
hearing etc, so I had to learn about psychoacoustics and perception of
sound. Sound level which is the correct term for what is often called
"loudness" can cause people to be confused about what they hear. I know
the gang at StereoShill lauded the RVGs. Among most people that I know,
they were definitely shunned to the point where Blue Note severely
dropped the price and eventually dumped most of them. Now I'm talking
about the original batches of RVGs from 1999 and early 2000. I won't
comment on the newest ones. I won't even listen to them. As far other
people's ears; I conducted a blind listening test among 3 RVG fans that
I knew. Using a pre-amp with mono and careful level matching (this is
difficult due to the great difference in dynamic range). The results
confounded the listeners who prefered by a small margin the older CDs.
Then after having there prejudice removed about the older masterings, I
had them re-listen in stereo. All three of them were blown away. In an
acurate blind test, the difference in dynamics was so obvious. The older
masterings sound MUCH more like the vinyl originals. I have about a
hundred of them. I've always offered to let any one else try this test,
but I usually don't get any takers.
In article <9301a0$a9u$00$1...@news.t-online.com>,
PAUL MACCA
>20 bit 0r 24 bit mastering does not guarantee any improvement since you
>have to eventually mix down to 16 bit.
Yes.
>Take the RVGs for instance. They
>were terrible. They had up to 90 - 95% less dynamic range than the older
>Ron McMaster issues. They also had much less highs. On systems that
>can't handle the greater dynamics, the compressing of dynamics sounds
>better. But on a real reference system, there is no contest.
But in the area of dynamics, range isn't the only factor you have to listen for
to determine the quality of a recording (or an audio reproduction system, for
that matter.) Does the recording convey fine gradations of dynamics when it's
called for? Or are there abrupt changes in level when, in fact, the actual
loudness level of a performance had loudness changes that ran along a smoother
continuum?
I think a lot of folks concentrate too much of their attention on
macrodynamics. Now while it is important that a recording get the
macrodynamics right in order to avoid sounding squashed, microdynamics are also
just as important.
With all that said, though, it's been quite some time since I've done serious
comparisons between various pressings of the same recording. Too much great
music to listen to and too little free time to take it all in. However, I
might take the time to actually compare the K2 20 bit CD of Monk w/ John
Coltrane to the CD in the Riverside Tenor Sessions *and* the CD in the Complete
Riverside Recordings. and hear for myself whether the differences are worth
raising a hoopla over. And yes, I think my audio system (Rega Planet CD
player, Audio Research SP-11 preamp and D-115 power amp, and Paradigm Reference
Studio 100 loudspeakers) is more than capable of revealing even subtle
differences.
Steve Emerson
> However, I
> might take the time to actually compare the K2 20 bit CD of Monk w/ John
> Coltrane to the CD in the Riverside Tenor Sessions *and* the CD in the Complete
> Riverside Recordings. and hear for myself whether the differences are worth
> raising a hoopla over.
If you have them both, a report would be much appreciated. Isn't that
Monk Complete Riverside from about 1988? My guess is there might be
improvements in the more recent work; at least that would be my hope. I
was not that impressed with most of the transfers coming out of Fantasy
in the late '80s.
Does anyone have an opinion on the transfers for the Monk "Complete
Prestige" set?
SE.
Daniel
first-generation CDs. I have take this into account when I tested the sound
of the CDs by turning down the volume of the new CDs. They still sounded
better on my stereo system, which is good, but probably pales very much in
comparison with your system. And this might be the reason for our different
opinions. On my system we could not clearly hear some instruments on the old
CDs. I mentioned the drums, I think it was on Mobley's Soul Station (or on
Adderly's Something Else) that we could not hear clearly on the old, but
very clearly on the new cds. We also agreed that "the blanket was lifted",
meaning it did not sound any more as if it was recorded under a blanket, but
the instruments sounded very clear and immediate. Maybe your superior system
makes it possible to hear the drums on the original cd better, but if you
heard what I heard I dont think you would have liked that. I am attributing
this difference to the difference of equipment we have and on your superior
knowledge of this matter. However I am wondering if dynamical range is
all-important, especially if it means that you cannot hear the instruments
clearly on a normal system or at least only if you have an extraordinary
stereo system.
I am also wondering about something else: You were saying that the RVGs did
not sell well. Well if you consider that they were a Japan-only project in
the beginning and were released later on in the Western World, they have
been much of a success. The number of the RVGs is 100 in Japan, and about 40
in the rest of the world. I was very happy that they lowered their price to
mid-price, because that means that you can get them for $7-9 here in
Germany, the same price that the old Blue Notes had.
Finally, I want to point out that these records have been remastered by the
person, who originally recorded the sessions and therefore has a legendary
reputation. I am not saying that he is perfect, but maybe he has reason for
what he is doing. However you cannot say that he is just a clueless guy who
is allowed to mess with the great masterpieces.
Well I dont know who your friends are, I guess they are comptetent as well,
but Richard Cook and Brian Morton hail the RVGs in the new edition of their
Penguin Jazz Guide, and even upgrade some CDs on the basis of the RVGs
sounding so much better (check out: Rollins: Vanguard). So I am not all
alone with my opinion :)
Daniel
PS: I would like to make this test, maybe I will one day :)
steve...@my-deja.com
the five I tested and it was the only one that I bought. I can hear the
drums clearly. they are vibrant and dynamic. Dynamic range is VERY
important. All of the micro dynamics depend on it. On the older
recordings they sound like a live performance in my room. On the RVGs
they sound very flat. RVG was a great recording engineer, but digital
mastering is new to him. I've heard many others attribute his failing
ears for these poor CDs. I don't know, I won't try to speculate on that.
I also tend to not trust reviewers. I remember the Penguin guide saying
how much better the Shelly Manne at the Black Hawk CDs were than the
LPs. I was amazed, the LPs are tremendous, the CDs are only very good.
The strange part about the RVGs is that because they were 24 bit masters
I would have expected MORE dynamic range not 90 - 95% less. Thats an
awfully big difference. Not only that but it doesn't sound like the
LPs. The Ron McMaster CDs have about the same or slightly less dynamics
than the LPs, but 90 - 95% less. If it goes down any further, you'll
just have pink noise! I only measured the dynamic range after listening
to Soul Station and thinking how pooor this recording is. The soundstage
had about 80% less width and 90% less depth in it wasn't dynaic. But how
could it be over 90% of the dynamics were removed from the orignal
recording. There seems to be a big move in a lot of recording companies
to reduce dynamics and highs rather than produce better mastering. After
purchasing the Mosaic Donald Byrd and Pepper Adams box set. I asked them
why "Off To The Races" was done in Mono. They told me that they had mono
tapes and a Japanese master in stereo. They thought the mono was better.
Well I have the Japanese CD from that master and it's as close to the
original LP as you can get. It's about time that Blue Note and Mosaic
and the others started using HDCD as there A/D converter it is orders of
magnitude better than any of the other mass market conversion systems.
In article <931iat$hcu$03$1...@news.t-online.com>,