RUDY VAN GELDER REMASTERED EDITIONS - SONNY ROLLINS AT THE VILLAGE VANGUARD COMPLETE - MEDIOCRE AT BEST
JC Martin
-JC
It Never Entered My Mind wrote in message
<381fb68a...@news.total.net>...
>Just listened to a few numbers on this, and all that pops in my mind
>is the wasted opportunity to put forward a quality product.
>
>The sound is almost a PARODY of quality...sounding like it was
>recorded with the microphone stuck in someone's toilet, or some
>boxed out closet.
>
>ARE THESE RUDY EDITIONS JOKES ?
>
>The same lameness was the case with the SCANDALOUS edition of Miles
>Davis "Complete Birth of the Cool" 1998 which coupled the CD with
>Live sessions from the Royal Roost 1948. In the latter bonus track
>CD's, the numbers were great, but Capitol had coupled them with a
>cement-truck full of hiss, pops, clicks and noise. Scandalous. Rip
>off. sob's.
>
>And now this Rudy edition .... no dynamics whatsoever....almost like
>a mono recording coming from a single speaker. A joke. Very sad. The
>cymbals : no quality....no satisfaction to the listener. A pathetic
>release.
>
>WILL THOSE PEOPLE EVER GET IT RIGHT ?
>
>Maybe if they listened to the fantastic and sensational remastering
>job done by DENON on the GROOVIN' HIGH Dizzy Gillespie CD for Savoy
>Jazz, they'd learn how utterly stupid and lame the RUDY REMASTERS
>are. Unbelievable !
>
>I bet I could do better on my 16 bit Soundblaster card, with my
>iNTEL Celeron CPU, with Cool Edit, Dart Pro, Soundforge, etc.
>
>Bastards !
>
>
hea...@in-tch.com
Rollins' Vanguard CDs vs the RVG you should notice a huge improvement. I
like them very much and am pleased with how they sound. They are not as
great as other RVGs but they were "live" recordings.
Heath
CosmicSlop
Herbie Hancock "Empyrean Isles " it was awful!!!
CosmicSlop
CosmicSlop
BN should leave the marginal projects alone and concentrate on the
ones the can REALLY improve. Oh but that would not yield them as much
corporate revenue from us Jazz lovers willing to buy dupes would it?
CosmicSlop
I JUST HAD TO ANSWER WHEN On Mon, 01 Nov 1999 21:07:40 -0700,
hea...@in-tch.com wrote:
>I have to disagree. If you listen to the original CD reissues of the
>Rollins' Vanguard CDs vs the RVG you should notice a huge improvement. I
>like them very much and am pleased with how they sound. They are not as
>great as other RVGs but they were "live" recordings.
>Heath
>
JC Martin
>I have to disagree. If you listen to the original CD reissues of the
>Rollins' Vanguard CDs vs the RVG you should notice a huge improvement. I
>like them very much and am pleased with how they sound. They are not as
>great as other RVGs but they were "live" recordings.
But...they only sound better because of the 24 bit process. Anyone decent
engineer could have done a better job than Rudy with the imaging and levels.
It's just too damn hot! Compare them to any other 20 or 24bit BN CD's and
they aren't in the same league.
-JC
Gremal
JC Martin <subs...@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7vn77c$m7u$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
couldn't disagree more. McMaster gives a generic treatment to each BN
session. Van Gelder's work is much more vibrant, more detailed. they were
recorded hot, so any remaster will reveal this. These are stunning
remasters given the proper playback system.
Brian
It Never Entered My Mind wrote in message
<381fb68a...@news.total.net>...
>Just listened to a few numbers on this, and all that pops in my mind
>is the wasted opportunity to put forward a quality product.
>
>The sound is almost a PARODY of quality...sounding like it was
>recorded with the microphone stuck in someone's toilet, or some
>boxed out closet.
>
I'm not as concerned with sound quality as most people, so I can't really
comment on the sound of the RVG CDs, but they do have at least one advantage
over previous editions: The track listing is in the original order, with the
alternate versions at the end. What really annoyed me about older Blue Note
reissues was having to sit through two versions of the same song in a row.
It's redundant and it breaks up the flow of the album, in my opinion. And
I'm too lazy to program my CD player everytime I want to hear these CDs as
they were originally meant to be heard.
Gremal
> I agree. Some of them are simply terrible. I listened to a friends
> Herbie Hancock "Empyrean Isles " it was awful!!!
There was a flaw in this and the JuJu RVG pressings that have nothing to do
with Van Gelder's remastering effort. The JuJu domestic version has been
corrected, according to someone who's talked to Cuscuna. The Japanese RVG
versions
of these titles sound terrific but have fun listening to the McMaster
versions if that's what you prefer.
Jack Woker
> have fun listening to the McMaster
> versions if that's what you prefer.
McMaster's versions of these titles are 10-15 years old. I suggest you
listen to some of McMaster's recent projects (especially the superb
sounding new unissued series) to hear what he can do with modern 24-bit
technology. He hasn't played havoc with the stereo imaging (my pet
peeve), for one thing. At first I was impressed with the RVG's I heard,
but have actually come to dislike them. I first heard this music on LP
30 years ago, and while I admit that the early CD's are lacking
somewhat, I still think that they were remastered with greater respect
for the sound of the originals than RVG's revisionist releases. People
seem to be impressed with the RVG's because they are louder. Compare
any RVG with a previous CD version after matching volume, and see if you
still like it better.
In regards to Rollins at the Vanguard, this session has always sounded
like shit in every incarnation, and I've tried them all! Haven't heard
the RVG yet, but since it is mono, I think it may be safe to say that he
can't have fucked it up too badly! :-)
jack
Gremal
Jack Woker <ste...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:38206E...@ix.netcom.com...
> Compare any RVG with a previous CD version after matching volume, and see
if you
> still like it better.
This is a valid request, but I've done that already. I still say the RVGs
provide better detail and treble dynamics, but then again I'm listening on a
nice integrated tube amp and a pair of B&W N802's. While these components
don't lie, they also don't accentuate the harshness that plagues many solid
state systems. I admit that it's painful to listen to the RVGs in my car,
which requires that I turn up the bass all the way. Van Gelder cannot
control the fact that most systems handle treble with harshness, but if he
backed off the treble present on the master tapes, he'd be doing a
disservice to everyone.
> In regards to Rollins at the Vanguard, this session has always sounded
> like shit in every incarnation, and I've tried them all! Haven't heard
> the RVG yet, but since it is mono, I think it may be safe to say that he
> can't have fucked it up too badly! :-)
no, he didn't fuck it up at all. i fail to see what the criticisms are
about. this recording sounds very good. short of inviting you all over to
listen to it on my system I can't convince you, so here's the white flag. I
hope Van Gelder gets the opportunity to transfer more of the master tapes he
originally recorded.
Jack Woker
> provide better detail and treble dynamics, but then again I'm listening on a
> nice integrated tube amp and a pair of B&W N802's. While these components
> don't lie, they also don't accentuate the harshness that plagues many solid
> state systems.
> about. this recording sounds very good. short of inviting you all over to
> listen to it on my system I can't convince you, so here's the white flag.
RVG has made use of the latest technology, so a direct comparison with
an old 16-bit CD is a bit unfair. I only made the point to demonstrate
that RVG's supposed "improvements" are overrated, and seem to hinge on
the fact that they are louder. Remember the old hi-fi salesman's trick
of turning the system up to demonstrate a pair of speakers?
I'd be happy if Ron McMaster were to revamp the catalog, but then Blue
Note would not have the "RMM" sales gimmick to draw new customers in!
There's no point in comparing systems, Greg. I've spent a lot on money
on stereo gear in the last couple of years, and I can only say that I'm
still learning about what constitutes good sound. It's about more than
detail, treble, bass, etc, and has to do with factors such as room
ambience, stereo imaging, and things that bring us closer to a "natural"
listening experience. I'll accept that you are not listening on a
Walkman, and presumably have the resources to really hear a recording.
But sometimes we listen with different expectations, and Rudy's current
"in-your-face" approach has little to do with listening to music in a
real space. For me, anyway.
jack
Eric Daniel Barry
>
> There's no point in comparing systems, Greg. I've spent a lot on money
> on stereo gear in the last couple of years, and I can only say that I'm
> still learning about what constitutes good sound. It's about more than
> detail, treble, bass, etc, and has to do with factors such as room
> ambience, stereo imaging, and things that bring us closer to a "natural"
> listening experience. I'll accept that you are not listening on a
> Walkman, and presumably have the resources to really hear a recording.
> But sometimes we listen with different expectations, and Rudy's current
> "in-your-face" approach has little to do with listening to music in a
> real space. For me, anyway.
You present one view of the goals of hi-fi reproduction, but one that IMO
has nothing to do with musical goals. Ambiance and imaging are tertiary
effects of stereo reproduction. I want to hear the immediacy, life, tonal
color, dynamics, clarity and rhythm of musicians playing. RVG's stated
goals and classic recordings seem to fit this mold as well. He has stated
that he preferred mono, and his mixes of the RVG cds certainly prove that.
His recordings have always been seen as bright and punchy, focusing on
drums and horns to the detriment of piano and bass. These new cds go some
way towards rectifying that IMO, offering superior piano and bass sound to
the recent McMasters and the few RVG vinly lps I own. They offer superior
clarity, immediacy, and punch. They lack the warmth of the 20bit
McMasters or the recent reissue lps, which sound fantastic too.
If I were to speculate, I would say that the RVGs are closer to the
original intent of the recordings. I think we are lucky that Van Gelder
recorded so much during the tube era, where he was able to achieve a
clarity and punch that no one else could at the time. The tubes
compensated by capturing warm tone. On the other hand, I don't think much
of Van Gelder's 70s solid state recordings. The RVG cds may lack in
warmth, and they sound brash, but then horns and cymbols are pretty brash
in real life (did the word brash come from brass?). Many high end systems
make everything sound pretty, which can be a nice effect, but is not
truthful. The RVGs sound hot and expolosive, which is nice too, even if
fatiguing. So take your pick--smoothed out and warm, or ultra-clear and
dynamic. Either is a valid way to listen, but only one is the vision of
RVG (and Alfred Lion).
--Eric
Jack Woker
> You present one view of the goals of hi-fi reproduction, but one that IMO
> has nothing to do with musical goals.
You seem to have a low opinion of audiophiles. I am a vinyl dealer, and
I assure you many of them are boneheads who have no interest, knowledge,
or taste in music. Some of us however, have balanced a well-developed
taste in meaningful music with a desire for good audio.
When we listen to recorded music, we must evaluate everything that is
coming from the speakers. God knows I've enjoyed a lot of music over
the years that was poorly recorded, and when I was much younger I
discovered many of the classics on very modest equipment. However, as I
have reached a point in my life where I can afford superior equipment,
it is important to me that the reproduction be as accurate as possible,
and also, and this may be where we differ, I look for that which is
sonically pleasing to the ear. To say that the quality of the
reproduction has nothing to do with musical goals is IMO wrong. The
goal of the team that brings you the recording (the musicians and the
engineer) is to provide you, the listener, with the best listening
experience possible.
> Ambiance and imaging are tertiary
> effects of stereo reproduction. I want to hear the immediacy, life, tonal
> color, dynamics, clarity and rhythm of musicians playing.
There is nothing secondary or tertiary in wanting the music to sound the
best it can possibly sound. It adds to the listening experience.
> His recordings have always been seen as bright and punchy, focusing on
> drums and horns to the detriment of piano and bass.
I disagree here. Van Gelder's best recordings always placed the piano
center stage, quite prominent in the mix. The bass was never amped-up
or dominant, but always felt natural, like a string bass has always
sounded.
> They lack the warmth of the 20bit
> McMasters or the recent reissue lps, which sound fantastic too.
I didn't care for the recent LP's I heard - seemed rather high in
distortion, and fuzzy in definition.
> If I were to speculate, I would say that the RVGs are closer to the
> original intent of the recordings.
Well, that certainly is what Rudy says, so I don't think this is
speculation. In my opinion, an engineer should be neutral - he should
capture the musicians as they sound. To make somebody sound punchy, or
mellow, or whatever, is what rock producers do. In jazz, the musicians
should be able to create their own sound, and it should be the
engineer's job to capture that sound as accurately as he can, not to
create a sound that has more to do with him, not them (the musicians).
> Many high end systems
> make everything sound pretty, which can be a nice effect, but is not
> truthful.
Says who? The best systems capture what it in the grooves, period.
Lesser systems don't capture it as well.
> The RVGs sound hot and expolosive, which is nice too, even if
> fatiguing.
They are louder - I don't hear this as being punchier or more explosive
- just louder.
> So take your pick--smoothed out and warm, or ultra-clear and
> dynamic. Either is a valid way to listen, but only one is the vision of
> RVG (and Alfred Lion).
This is not an either/or situation, the way I see it. You seem to think
that if one is looking for a pleasant sounding audio experience, then
one is not dealing in reality. My system does not smooth out anything -
it reproduces with great clarity what is being sent into it. A harsh,
overattenuated mastering job is unsatisfying to my ears. If you need to
turn up the volume to enjoy your music more, then by all means, go for
it. Blue Note's accountants are counting on you.
jack
Eric Daniel Barry
clarify...
On Thu, 4 Nov 1999, Jack Woker wrote:
> Eric Daniel Barry wrote:
>
> > You present one view of the goals of hi-fi reproduction, but one that IMO
> > has nothing to do with musical goals.
>
> it is important to me that the reproduction be as accurate as possible,
> and also, and this may be where we differ, I look for that which is
> sonically pleasing to the ear.
I like pleasing to the ear, I just think a lot of equipment overemphasizes
(i.e. in reference to reality) this at the expense of things like the
piercing brashness of massed horns.
> To say that the quality of the
> reproduction has nothing to do with musical goals is IMO wrong.
I never said that and I never would. I said that imaging is a secondary
priority to me.
> The
> goal of the team that brings you the recording (the musicians and the
> engineer) is to provide you, the listener, with the best listening
> experience possible.
I agree, but I think that different people have different sets of
priorities. What I said exactly is below:
>
> > Ambiance and imaging are tertiary
> > effects of stereo reproduction. I want to hear the immediacy, life, tonal
> > color, dynamics, clarity and rhythm of musicians playing.
And you replied:
> There is nothing secondary or tertiary in wanting the music to sound the
> best it can possibly sound. It adds to the listening experience.
>
Where did I say I don't want "the best it can possibly sound"? I just
laid out a list of qualities that were more important to me than imaging.
To put it more simply, I want a stereo that makes it sound like a band is
playing real instruments, and is playing together, more than I want to
hear the drum kit 77 inches behind the trumpeter, who is 34 inches to the
left of center.
> In my opinion, an engineer should be neutral - he should
> capture the musicians as they sound. To make somebody sound punchy, or
> mellow, or whatever, is what rock producers do.
I agree recording should be as transparent as possible, but I believe all
equipment is compromised in some way, so subjectivity plays a role. In
particular, when dealing with recordings of this vintage (but microphones
are all so far from flat that it's still true today) it seems impossible
to talk about neutral, rather than a melange of wrongs that hopefully make
some right. RVG had an extremely identifiable sound, and it wasn't
exactly reality, just his version of it. That version included echo,
for instance.
>
> > Many high end systems
> > make everything sound pretty, which can be a nice effect, but is not
> > truthful.
>
> Says who? The best systems capture what it in the grooves, period.
> Lesser systems don't capture it as well.
I said "many", not "the best". Why did you make this switch?
> > So take your pick--smoothed out and warm, or ultra-clear and
> > dynamic. Either is a valid way to listen, but only one is the vision of
> > RVG (and Alfred Lion).
>
> This is not an either/or situation, the way I see it. You seem to think
> that if one is looking for a pleasant sounding audio experience, then
> one is not dealing in reality.
To clarify, I think that real instruments can sound brash and piercing,
which many systems smooth out, while they also sound very pure and
beautiful, which many systems cannot portray. Most systems of course do
neither. But ideally we would hear both the beauty and the brashness
(itself beautiful). IMO, the RVG cds miss some of the body of real
instruments, while McMasters capture a good bit of this but sound more
homogenous and lack the uncompressed sound of the RVGs.
> My system does not smooth out anything -
Never said one word about your system or about mine.
--Eric
Gremal
> This is not an either/or situation, the way I see it. You seem to think
> that if one is looking for a pleasant sounding audio experience, then
> one is not dealing in reality. My system does not smooth out anything -
> it reproduces with great clarity what is being sent into it. A harsh,
> overattenuated mastering job is unsatisfying to my ears. If you need to
> turn up the volume to enjoy your music more, then by all means, go for
> it. Blue Note's accountants are counting on you.
I think the point Eric was making was that Van Gelder's transfers really
squeeze every bit of detail off the master tapes. Tape hiss and other
anomalies of the masters are a necessary evil if you want that level of
detail, especially considering Van Gelder's tendency to record hot back in
those days. I suspect you'd listen with much more welcoming ears if Van
Gelder had gone ahead with the generic panning rather than attempt to put
add his vision to the transfers.
It is an issue of personal preference, you're right. But to dismiss the
RVGs as harsh and overattenuating is to stick one's head in the sands of
audio quality because while your system may not smooth out anything, Jack,
the system McMaster uses to transfer these tapes sure as heck does. And
with that filtering comes an audible loss in detail. If you think that this
filtered work is a "pleasant sounding audio experience" you are obviously
not interested in the level of detail provided by the Van Gelder transfers.
That's fine, but let's not pretend the RVGs are trash just because they
don't sound as smooth or have the fake stereo spread of the McMaster
versions. Since when are horns not supposed to have an edge to them?
What gets me is the vehemence with which fans of Blue Note music
attack RVGs that they don't like. McMaster has taken a stab at the majority
of the catalog and continues his work with the label, so there is no
shortage of non-RVG titles for chrissake. No doubt McMaster will continue
for many more years with true 24/192 DVDs and whatnot, so fear no McMaster
fans.
The Japanese BN producer (who originally contracted Van Gelder for the RVG
series) and Cuscuna himself think highly enough of Van Gelder's work to
release it on both sides of the world, and some fans love the sound. Even
if you don't like the RVGs, why be so staunchly critical? No one is asking
you to buy the material. No one is even asking you to listen to it.
With Lion and Wolfe gone, Van Gelder is the only one besides the musicians,
who was present at these sessions. We would choose wisely to hear his
versions of as many of the titles as possible. If all you hear is harshness
and a collapsed stereo spread you are missing something special.
Steve Berman
> [The RVG CDs] are louder - I don't hear this as being punchier or
> more explosive - just louder. [...] A harsh, overattenuated
> mastering job is unsatisfying to my ears. If you need to turn up the
> volume to enjoy your music more, then by all means, go for it. Blue
> Note's accountants are counting on you.
I'm not an audiophile and am not familiar with this use of
'overattenuated'. I looked at a few relevant websites and found a
definition of 'attenuate' as 'reduce in amplitude', which suggests to
me that an 'overattenuated mastering job' would make the volume too
low, just the opposite of what Jack complained about here. So what
does 'overattenuated' mean here?
--Steve Berman
Tom Walls
says...
SNIP
Even
>if you don't like the RVGs, why be so staunchly critical? No one is asking
>you to buy the material. No one is even asking you to listen to it.
>
I don't see the mystery in Jack expressing his opinion. I happen to like the
RVGs that I've heard, but it doesn't surprise me that there is a divergence of
opinion. The RVGs sound quite different than the previous issues. Blue Note
marketing is, in fact, asking people to buy the material, and not only are we
being asked to listen, but, here on RMB, we are asked our opinion. This is as
it should be.
--
Tom Walls
the guy at the Temple of Zeus
http://www.arts.cornell.edu/zeus/
Gremal
Tom Walls <tw...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:7vup7q$cje$1...@news01.cit.cornell.edu...
> > Even if you don't like the RVGs, why be so staunchly critical? No one
is asking
> >you to buy the material. No one is even asking you to listen to it.
> I don't see the mystery in Jack expressing his opinion. I happen to like
the
> RVGs that I've heard, but it doesn't surprise me that there is a
divergence of
> opinion. The RVGs sound quite different than the previous issues. Blue
Note
> marketing is, in fact, asking people to buy the material, and not only are
we
> being asked to listen, but, here on RMB, we are asked our opinion. This
is as
> it should be.
Well there is a divergence of opinion and of course that's not surprising.
What surprises me is the constant bitching about Van Gelder--the attitude of
Jack, JC Martin and others that Van Gelder is not a "decent" audio engineer.
Every time this subject comes up there is such an outcry against the RVG
series, above and beyond anyone's opinion of a given title. And as Jack
says, there are huge differences from system to system and listening room to
listening room. I never said there was mystery in Jack expressing his
opinion. It's a question of how many people want to put their feet in their
mouths by saying that Van Gelder doesn't know what the hell he's doing. The
reality is he knows more about what he's doing than McMaster and that's why
he was hired by the Japanese BN producer--at great cost i might add.
Jack Woker
> What surprises me is the constant bitching about Van Gelder--the attitude of
> Jack, JC Martin and others that Van Gelder is not a "decent" audio engineer.
> Every time this subject comes up there is such an outcry against the RVG
> series, above and beyond anyone's opinion of a given title.
I've been away for a couple of days, and here are all these reactions to
my diatribe. :-)
Obviously, people are not going to agree about this, and we can piss and
moan all we want, and probably not get anywhere. I say that those who
place RVG on a pedestal probably will not accept that he is fallible,
which in my opinion he has demonstrated with this series. I don't hear
greater detail or better resolution on these CD's. If others do, that
says something about the differences between our systems, or simply what
we want from a recording. I will reiterate that I object to the
revision of these classic recordings, in the name of "improvement". New
listeners will come along, and all of this nitpicking will be no big
deal to them. Just because Japanese Blue Note and Cuscuna hired him
doesn't mean he is the best man for the job, regardless of any history
he has with the label or with these recordings. They can sell his name,
and that's what this is about. If this will get more new listeners to
buy these classics, then it can't be a bad thing.
> It's a question of how many people want to put their feet in their
> mouths by saying that Van Gelder doesn't know what the hell he's doing. The
> reality is he knows more about what he's doing than McMaster and that's why
> he was hired by the Japanese BN producer--at great cost i might add.
That's your opinion, not supported by the facts. Of course, your
interpretion of the facts and mine are clearly different. Because I
have a negative opinion of what the God RVG has done doesn't mean I have
put my foot in my mouth. I'm entitled to an opinion, even if it does go
against the tide.
It has been pointed out that my use of the term "overattenuated" may
have been incorrect. I would hope that my meaning was clear. If not, I
meant "overprocessed", for lack of a better word.
jack
It Never Entered My Mind
wrote:
> Van Gelder [...] knows more about what he's doing than McMaster and that's why
>he was hired by the Japanese BN producer--at great cost i might add.
Too bad they didn't hire one of their own .... the remastering
specialist at DENON by the name of Yujiro Kasai.
JC Martin
<8004m4$j8d$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>
>Tom Walls <tw...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
>news:7vup7q$cje$1...@news01.cit.cornell.edu...
>> In article <7vtuj1$pt5$1...@oak.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
>"gre...@earthlink.net"
>> says...
>> SNIP
>
>> > Even if you don't like the RVGs, why be so staunchly critical? No one
>is asking
>> >you to buy the material. No one is even asking you to listen to it.
>
>> I don't see the mystery in Jack expressing his opinion. I happen to like
>the
>> RVGs that I've heard, but it doesn't surprise me that there is a
>divergence of
>> opinion. The RVGs sound quite different than the previous issues. Blue
>Note
>> marketing is, in fact, asking people to buy the material, and not only
are
>we
>> being asked to listen, but, here on RMB, we are asked our opinion. This
>is as
>> it should be.
>
>Well there is a divergence of opinion and of course that's not surprising.
of
>Jack, JC Martin and others that Van Gelder is not a "decent" audio
engineer.
>Every time this subject comes up there is such an outcry against the RVG
>says, there are huge differences from system to system and listening room
to
>listening room. I never said there was mystery in Jack expressing his
their
>mouths by saying that Van Gelder doesn't know what the hell he's doing.
The
>he was hired by the Japanese BN producer--at >great cost i might add.
So how do you feel about RVG and his need to record levels so hot, that
they're often distorted? And I'm not talking about the re-masters.
-JC
-JC
Eric Daniel Barry
>
> So how do you feel about RVG and his need to record levels so hot, that
> they're often distorted? And I'm not talking about the re-masters.
>
> -JC
First let me go on record as an admirer of RVG, but one who thinks he gave
a very personal interpretation of how music sounds, which has it's plusses
and minuses. For instance, he got a punchier sound than most of his
contemporaries, at the cost of some distortion. It's surely annoying, but
the dynamic sound is some compensation. I also think his recordings are a
bit bright, and have tinny piano sound.
Second, some months back I said I heard distortion on a lot of RVG
recordings and no one backed me up. Where were you then?
--Eric
Jack Woker
> > > Ambiance and imaging are tertiary
> > > effects of stereo reproduction. I want to hear the immediacy, life, tonal
> > > color, dynamics, clarity and rhythm of musicians playing.
>
And I replied:
> > There is nothing secondary or tertiary in wanting the music to sound the
> > best it can possibly sound. It adds to the listening experience.
To which Eric said:
> Where did I say I don't want "the best it can possibly sound"? I just
> laid out a list of qualities that were more important to me than imaging.
I can't separate imaging from the other sonic qualities of a recording.
They are all components in the audio spectrum. Your ridiculing of
stereo imaging tells me that you do not recognize (or consider) this to
be important. Well, I do, and this is where we differ. When we listen
to music, sometimes we close our eyes. In my mind I like to be able to
feel the illusion of a real space. Good stereo imaging can create that
illusion. The idea that mono is more realistic doesn't wash with me.
With mono you have the whole band sitting together in the middle of the
room.
> To put it more simply, I want a stereo that makes it sound like a band is
> playing real instruments, and is playing together, more than I want to
> hear the drum kit 77 inches behind the trumpeter, who is 34 inches to the
> left of center.
In a performance space or club this kind of spatial placement is exactly
what you get. Don't you want this in a recording?
Eric:
> > > Many high end systems
> > > make everything sound pretty, which can be a nice effect, but is not
> > > truthful.
Jack:
> > Says who? The best systems capture what it in the grooves, period.
> > Lesser systems don't capture it as well.
Eric:
> I said "many", not "the best". Why did you make this switch?
Now you're splitting hairs. The idea of a high end system is to most
faithfully capture what is in the recording, and reproduce it
accurately. I don't buy that any high end systems make anything pretty
in an artificial way. If the signal is doctored or in some way altered
to be more "pretty" (your word), then it would not fit my definition of
"high end".
> To clarify, I think that real instruments can sound brash and piercing,
> which many systems smooth out, while they also sound very pure and
> beautiful, which many systems cannot portray.
Again, I see an either/or here, which I don't buy. Brash piercing brass
should sound brash and piercing, if that's what the musicians want. A
good system and a good CD should capture those qualities without
distortion. I'm looking for accuracy, not smoothing out. But
distortion is another issue, and I can't tolerate it.
jack
Gremal
> I can't separate imaging from the other sonic qualities of a recording.
> They are all components in the audio spectrum. Your ridiculing of
> stereo imaging tells me that you do not recognize (or consider) this to
> be important. Well, I do, and this is where we differ. When we listen
> to music, sometimes we close our eyes. In my mind I like to be able to
> feel the illusion of a real space. Good stereo imaging can create that
> illusion. The idea that mono is more realistic doesn't wash with me.
> With mono you have the whole band sitting together in the middle of the
> room.
Jack, as someone sensitive to room and individual stereo differences, you
seem open to a friendly suggestion to perhaps reconsider your take on the
stereophonics of the RVGs. Granted, they are much more narrow in stereo
spread, but they are not mono. Listen to the RVG Unity. The horns arein
the center, but the drums are on the right and the keyboard images on the
left. The RVGs forced me to really tweak my speaker placement and toe in my
speakers more. Perhaps similar adjustments can help you appreciate the
soundstage of RVGs.
> In a performance space or club this kind of spatial placement is exactly
> what you get. Don't you want this in a recording?
the limitations of two-channel (stereo) music make this sort of exact
placement an inexact science, but that does not mean you have to have a fake
stereo soundstage.
> Again, I see an either/or here, which I don't buy. Brash piercing brass
> should sound brash and piercing, if that's what the musicians want. A
> good system and a good CD should capture those qualities without
> distortion. I'm looking for accuracy, not smoothing out. But
> distortion is another issue, and I can't tolerate it.
Well unfortunately for us, Van Gelder recorded his sessions a little hot.
Whether you buy it or not, this does force something of an either/or
situation in that a transfer cannot fully deliver the details that are on
the master tape without also delivering the small amount of distortion on
hot passages. Van Gelder's remasters sound bright to you on those passages
because they ARE accurate. McMaster on the other hand backs off the hot
passages at certain frequencies, but the distortion is still there--if you
turn up your system you can hear it and it's more obnoxious than anything on
the RVG discs because of the loss of detail.
Eric Daniel Barry
> I can't separate imaging from the other sonic qualities of a recording.
> They are all components in the audio spectrum. Your ridiculing of
> stereo imaging tells me that you do not recognize (or consider) this to
> be important. Well, I do, and this is where we differ. When we listen
> to music, sometimes we close our eyes. In my mind I like to be able to
> feel the illusion of a real space. Good stereo imaging can create that
> illusion.
It's a nice illusion, but unless the music was recorded in a purist
fashion (Blumlein or ORTF) with no EQ or anything that would alter the
phase, and unless your speakers and your head define a right isoceles
triangle, any imaging you get is luck and not accuracy. I still consider
the snap of the snare, the overtones of the muted trumpet, the texture of
distortion in an electric guitar, and the resolution of everything the
musicians are doing to their instruments to be the most important part of
audio reproduction. If a sax doesn't sound like a sax, I don't care
(much) where it is placed. Tonal balance is another attribute that is
more important to me than imaging.
>
> In a performance space or club this kind of spatial placement is exactly
> what you get. Don't you want this in a recording?
>
Unfortunately, most clubs I've been to have a PA, so imaging is
artificial. I did recently see
Little Huey Creative Music Orchestra with no PA (but Wm. Parker's bass was
through an amp) and I didn't hear anywhere near the spatial specificity I
just heard on my stereo playing Duke Ellington's Blues in Orbit (Classic
lp). Especially with everyone going at full boar, the sound was a big
mass that washed over me. I've also seen the four-piece Test several
times without amplification, and though I can localize the sounds to a
degree, it doesn't sound like a high end stereo, where the placements of
the instruments are much more etched.
How often do you see unamplified jazz? Do you hear imaging like at home?
By the way, since RVG was forced to do hard panning in the stereo mixes
originally, that was processed and the new versions probably have more
accurate imaging. As someone pointed out in another venue, if you look at
the pictures of RVG's studio, the instrument placement is not so wide as
the original stereo mixes.
I think that imaging has become the sine qua non of American high end
because it is much easier to objectify than correct timbre. It is easy to
judge that the soundstage of one or another component is wider, deeper, or
higher. Sorry, like I say it's a neat trick, but I think it should be
secondary to other goals.
--Eric
It Never Entered My Mind
wrote:
>
>> I can't separate imaging from the other sonic qualities of a recording.
>> They are all components in the audio spectrum. Your ridiculing of
>> stereo imaging tells me that you do not recognize (or consider) this to
>> be important. Well, I do, and this is where we differ. When we listen
>> to music, sometimes we close our eyes. In my mind I like to be able to
>> feel the illusion of a real space. Good stereo imaging can create that
>> illusion. The idea that mono is more realistic doesn't wash with me.
>> With mono you have the whole band sitting together in the middle of the
>> room.
>
>Jack, as someone sensitive to room and individual stereo differences, you
>seem open to a friendly suggestion to perhaps reconsider your take on the
>stereophonics of the RVGs. Granted, they are much more narrow in stereo
>spread, but they are not mono. Listen to the RVG Unity. The horns arein
>the center, but the drums are on the right and the keyboard images on the
>left. The RVGs forced me to really tweak my speaker placement and toe in my
>speakers more. Perhaps similar adjustments can help you appreciate the
>soundstage of RVGs.
I recall what the late iconoclast of American rock music Frank
Zappa, suggested as his favorite settings:
For the rock 'n' roll stuff, we've been using split plate a lot.
That program simulates the old EMT steel plate reverb chambers, and
seems to give much better stereo definition. When you add echo to a
mix, it makes the thing sound more expansive, but in a way it
narrows your stereo width. Things tend to bunch up, but with the
split place, they don't. Things retain their position in the mix a
little bit better.
Certain other things we do as just a matter of course -- standard
operating procedure here. The snare always goes into a 949 on a
certain setting that we use. The kick and the toms are always gated
and EQed a certain way. The drum set layout in terms of its
position in the mix is always the same, consistent from tape to
tape. High hat is always mid-right, kick is always center, snare is
always split, the castanets and the rototoms are always hard left
and right.
Paul Christie
the material issued under McMasters name on CD is from a period when
the technology was under-developed - even Super Bit Mapping, used by
McMaster on numerous discs over a number of years, has its
limitations. The harshness of some of these CDs is due to the
limitations of the technology, not to Mr McMaster. You can argue over
the differences in stereo spread between McM and RVG issues. the RVG
series is not consistent in that respect, in that some are more
narrowly staged than others - perhaps this is because of RVGs vision
or recollection of the recording setups.
I have bought quite a few RVGs, include US and Japanese editions. The
24-bit process is undoubtedly a great improvement over earlier
processes. However, I have been disappointed with the sound of a
number of RVGs, eg. Grant Grren's "Latin Bit". Perhaps the RVGs reveal
problems with tapes that have not survived well, or highlight problems
with particular recordings.
I bought the US RVG of Herbie Hancock's "Empyrean Isles", and it had
horrible digital distortion on the trumpet on "One Finger Snap". I
swapped it for a Japanese RVG of same disc, which doesn't have the
distortion. This is a quality control issue, and I'm not blaming RVG
for that.
Sure, RVG himself is the best man to try and use the latest
technology to capture the original ambience and sound of the Blue Note
sessions, because he was there. But I don't think he's necessarily any
better than McMaster in the mastering stakes.
Paul
On Sat, 06 Nov 1999 16:50:27 GMT, o...@stockholm.com (It Never Entered
My Mind) wrote:
>On Fri, 5 Nov 1999 18:20:10 -0800, "Gremal" <"gre...@earthlink.net">
>wrote:
>
>> Van Gelder [...] knows more about what he's doing than McMaster and that's why
>>he was hired by the Japanese BN producer--at great cost i might add.
>
Paul Christie
Jack Woker
> > feel the illusion of a real space. Good stereo imaging can create that
> > illusion.
> It's a nice illusion, but unless the music was recorded in a purist
> fashion (Blumlein or ORTF) with no EQ or anything that would alter the
> phase, and unless your speakers and your head define a right isoceles
> triangle, any imaging you get is luck and not accuracy.
I concede that perfect room ambience is a goal that may be impossible to
achieve in a recording, but since all recorded music is an illusion, I
at least like the idea that someone has tried to create a soundstage,
realistic or not.
> I still consider
> the snap of the snare, the overtones of the muted trumpet, the texture of
> distortion in an electric guitar, and the resolution of everything the
> musicians are doing to their instruments to be the most important part of
> audio reproduction. If a sax doesn't sound like a sax, I don't care
> (much) where it is placed. Tonal balance is another attribute that is
> more important to me than imaging.
Of course. When did I say otherwise? I just look for good stereo
imaging as part of the package. Good stereo imaging in and of itself
without concern for other issues is idiotic. I believe that is possible
to have good timbre AND good stereo imaging. Don't you agree?
> > In a performance space or club this kind of spatial placement is exactly
> > what you get. Don't you want this in a recording?
> >
> Unfortunately, most clubs I've been to have a PA, so imaging is
> artificial.
Well, I'm talkng about perfect scenarios. Admittedly, one can't always
be center front at the Village Vanguard with no amplification. But
wouldn't it be nice if the recordings we buy try to create that
illusion?
> I did recently see
> Little Huey Creative Music Orchestra with no PA (but Wm. Parker's bass was
> through an amp) and I didn't hear anywhere near the spatial specificity I
> just heard on my stereo playing Duke Ellington's Blues in Orbit (Classic
> lp). Especially with everyone going at full boar, the sound was a big
> mass that washed over me.
Admittedly, the Ellington LP is probably a bit exaggerated, but I think
this was recorded at Columbia's 30th Street studio, a notoriously
spacious room which is often audible on recordings made there.
> How often do you see unamplified jazz? Do you hear imaging like at home?
> By the way, since RVG was forced to do hard panning in the stereo mixes
> originally, that was processed and the new versions probably have more
> accurate imaging. As someone pointed out in another venue, if you look at
> the pictures of RVG's studio, the instrument placement is not so wide as
> the original stereo mixes.
Your points are well made, and maybe "accurate imaging" is impossible in
remastering 30-40 year old 2-track tapes. I just don't think that
Rudy's "folded in" stereo is any more accurate than the wide-panned
stereo of the earlier releases.
> I think that imaging has become the sine qua non of American high end
> because it is much easier to objectify than correct timbre.
I won't debate this. As I have already said, I don't find the RVG's to
be any more accurate in timbre than previous releases. Gremal most
certainly does, and I guess you do too. I don't.
jack
Jack Woker
> seem open to a friendly suggestion to perhaps reconsider your take on the
> stereophonics of the RVGs. Granted, they are much more narrow in stereo
> spread, but they are not mono.
I haven't heard them all. The ones I've heard are either mono, or very
close to it.
> The RVGs forced me to really tweak my speaker placement and toe in my
> speakers more. Perhaps similar adjustments can help you appreciate the
> soundstage of RVGs.
I have to consider all of the recordings in my collection in deciding on
speaker placement. The way I have it now brings about the stereo
imaging I like in most stereo recordings. The RVG's, being such narrow
stereo, sound nearly mono to me. Many other recordings deliver glorious
stereo with a nice soundstage, and it is the sound of these recordings
that helped me decide on the best speaker placement for my room.
> > In a performance space or club this kind of spatial placement is exactly
> > what you get. Don't you want this in a recording?
> the limitations of two-channel (stereo) music make this sort of exact
> placement an inexact science, but that does not mean you have to have a fake
> stereo soundstage.
It's all fake. But from the two channels, we can hear three dimensions,
and this is what I strive for.
> Well unfortunately for us, Van Gelder recorded his sessions a little hot.
> Whether you buy it or not, this does force something of an either/or
> situation in that a transfer cannot fully deliver the details that are on
> the master tape without also delivering the small amount of distortion on
> hot passages.
I disagree here. "Hot" does not automatically mean distorted. "Too
hot" means distorted.
> Van Gelder's remasters sound bright to you on those passages
> because they ARE accurate. McMaster on the other hand backs off the hot
> passages at certain frequencies, but the distortion is still there--if you
> turn up your system you can hear it and it's more obnoxious than anything on
> the RVG discs because of the loss of detail.
You keep using the phrase "loss of detail". I'll say again that I don't
hear any less detail on the McMasters. It's all there, and I have no
trouble sorting it out. And it's in stereo. You keep lumping all of
the McMaster recordings together. His old ones were made with old
technology, and are not germaine to this discussion. His newest work,
however, is superb. I'll concede that the old titles were ready for an
upgrade. Rudy has done more than upgrade them - he has revised the
original concept under which the music was recorded, and that is my
objection. If you consider what he has done to be an improvement over
the original LP's, then I strongly disagree. You feel that since he is
the original engineer, he has that right. I say that the proof is in
the pudding, and Ron McMaster is more likely to have done a better job,
with more respect for Rudy's original work that Rudy himself has.
jack
Eric Daniel Barry
> However, I have been disappointed with the sound of a
> number of RVGs, eg. Grant Grren's "Latin Bit".
>
> horrible digital distortion on the trumpet on "One Finger Snap". I
> swapped it for a Japanese RVG of same disc, which doesn't have the
> distortion. This is a quality control issue, and I'm not blaming RVG
> for that.
To turn this thread constructive, and to turn away from the general
assessment of RVGs work, which are the RVGs like these two that should be
avoided? I also think Empyrean Isles was botched, as was the Japanese
version of It's Time! by Jackie McClean. Out to Lunch, Moanin', Cool
Struttin', Something Else, and Blowing the Blues Away are some that
succeeded in my opinion. But given the variability, I am reluctant to pay
the big bucks for the Japanese imports.
BTW, I also have a K2 import of Brilliant Corners which sounds pretty bad,
but it predates the 50th anniversary series.
--Eric
brew ziggins
}Well, I'm talkng about perfect scenarios. Admittedly, one can't always
}be center front at the Village Vanguard with no amplification. But
}wouldn't it be nice if the recordings we buy try to create that
}illusion?
Here's where you can save a lot of money. Just paint your walls red, jam
more uncomfortable chairs than fit into your listening room, invite a
bunch of people off the street to talk while the music's playing, and
every time you take a beer out of the fridge, hand $7 to someone.
Bam! Instant Vanguard!
--
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."
Michael Fitzgerald
ziggins) wrote:
>In article <3826FB...@ix.netcom.com>, ste...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>}Well, I'm talkng about perfect scenarios. Admittedly, one can't always
>}be center front at the Village Vanguard with no amplification. But
>}wouldn't it be nice if the recordings we buy try to create that
>}illusion?
>
>Here's where you can save a lot of money. Just paint your walls red, jam
>more uncomfortable chairs than fit into your listening room, invite a
>bunch of people off the street to talk while the music's playing, and
>every time you take a beer out of the fridge, hand $7 to someone.
>
>Bam! Instant Vanguard!
Oh - wait a minute, you keep the beer in a fridge?
And ever since Max Gordon died, it seems it's the staff who are doing
the talking.
Mike
Gremal
> > The RVGs forced me to really tweak my speaker placement and toe in my
> > speakers more. Perhaps similar adjustments can help you appreciate the
> > soundstage of RVGs.
>
> I have to consider all of the recordings in my collection in deciding on
> speaker placement. The way I have it now brings about the stereo
> imaging I like in most stereo recordings. The RVG's, being such narrow
> stereo, sound nearly mono to me. Many other recordings deliver glorious
> stereo with a nice soundstage, and it is the sound of these recordings
> that helped me decide on the best speaker placement for my room.
Let me restate: by forcing me to make minor changes to the position of my
speakers, the RVGs helped me get better soundstaging for all discs--RVGs and
otherwise.
> > the limitations of two-channel (stereo) music make this sort of exact
> > placement an inexact science, but that does not mean you have to have a
fake
> > stereo soundstage.
>
> It's all fake. But from the two channels, we can hear three dimensions,
> and this is what I strive for.
agreed
> > Well unfortunately for us, Van Gelder recorded his sessions a little
hot.
> > Whether you buy it or not, this does force something of an either/or
> > situation in that a transfer cannot fully deliver the details that are
on
> > the master tape without also delivering the small amount of distortion
on
> > hot passages.
> I disagree here. "Hot" does not automatically mean distorted. "Too
> hot" means distorted.
Hot does mean at a recording level high enough to cause distortion.
> > Van Gelder's remasters sound bright to you on those passages
> > because they ARE accurate. McMaster on the other hand backs off the hot
> > passages at certain frequencies, but the distortion is still there--if
you
> > turn up your system you can hear it and it's more obnoxious than
anything on
> > the RVG discs because of the loss of detail.
>
> You keep using the phrase "loss of detail". I'll say again that I don't
> hear any less detail on the McMasters. It's all there, and I have no
> trouble sorting it out. And it's in stereo. You keep lumping all of
> the McMaster recordings together. His old ones were made with old
> technology, and are not germaine to this discussion. His newest work,
> however, is superb. I'll concede that the old titles were ready for an
> upgrade. Rudy has done more than upgrade them - he has revised the
> original concept under which the music was recorded, and that is my
> objection.
> If you consider what he has done to be an improvement over
> the original LP's, then I strongly disagree.
In terms of stereophonics, yes, I would say I like the RVGs better. They
have a more natural, deeper soundstage. That's just my opinion, but one
that has let me listen to the RVGs with open ears and I'm telling you I hear
significantly greater detail. And I'm almost certain you would hear this
detail too if you listened with open ears.
> You feel that since he is
> the original engineer, he has that right. I say that the proof is in
> the pudding, and Ron McMaster is more likely to have done a better job,
> with more respect for Rudy's original work that Rudy himself has.
Rudy's original work did not create such a wide stereo spread. That was
added from the original two-track at the insistance of Capitol executives at
a time when Stereo was new and all the rage. Maybe if it wasn't a new fad,
Van Gelder would have had the pull to make the original LPs sound the way he
wanted them to sound. Now that he has the opportunity everyone is so
addicted to the hard panning that his vision is unappreciated. It's ironic
and unfortunate. But there are those of us who recognize the vision that
went into these remasters.
Jack Woker
> Let me restate: by forcing me to make minor changes to the position of my
> speakers, the RVGs helped me get better soundstaging for all discs--RVGs and
> otherwise.
Oh this is good - RVG CD's as an audio standard for all recorded music!
Talk about myopia!
> > I disagree here. "Hot" does not automatically mean distorted. "Too
> > hot" means distorted.
>
> Hot does mean at a recording level high enough to cause distortion.
Let's see if any engineers can set us straight here.
> In terms of stereophonics, yes, I would say I like the RVGs better.
Better than what? The older CD's? How many original Blue Note LP's
have you heard on your magnificent high end system?
> And I'm almost certain you would hear this
> detail too if you listened with open ears.
IF I listened with open ears???? Jesus Christ.
> Rudy's original work did not create such a wide stereo spread. That was
> added from the original two-track at the insistance of Capitol executives at
> a time when Stereo was new and all the rage.
This is just plain wrong, and you don't know the facts. Capitol did
not acquire the Blue Note catalog until the 1980's. All of the classic
Blue Note recordings were made when Blue Note was a small independent
label, owned and operated by two guys, Alfred Lion and Frank Wolff.
Admittedly, when stereo was new in the late 50's, some companies made
recordings that exaggerated the effect. But some, like Rudy Van Gelder,
Roy DuNann, David Jones, Lewis Layton and a few others made magnificent
stereo recordings, many of which still sound fantastic today.
> But there are those of us who recognize the vision that
> went into these remasters.
That would be you, right? Or would it be that there are those who are
being led down a garden path? Why not accept that there is more than
one way to skin a cat, and that just because your preferences are such
doesn't mean that you are right and others are wrong just because they
disagree with you?
jack
Murphy McMahon
Larry Young: Unity
McCoy Tyner: The Real McCoy
Sonny Rollins: Night At The Village Vanguard
Bad RVG's I have:
Art Blakey: Moanin'
(why do I hear distortion when Blakey does a heavy-handed drum roll? Why is
Bobby Timmons' glorious piano solo actually easier to hear and listen to on
the 1988 version?)
I'm convinced from what I've read that when I finally buy JuJu, I should go
with the non-RVG. Any other titles that actually sound better in their
original (cheaper) Blue Note form? I'm not terribly picky... (unless we're
talking about the way Atlantic Records miked drums, which is just a
tragedy).
--
Murph
Gremal
> Gremal wrote:
>
> > Let me restate: by forcing me to make minor changes to the position of
my
> > speakers, the RVGs helped me get better soundstaging for all discs--RVGs
and
> > otherwise.
>
> Oh this is good - RVG CD's as an audio standard for all recorded music!
> Talk about myopia!
When did the word standard come up?
> > > I disagree here. "Hot" does not automatically mean distorted. "Too
> > > hot" means distorted.
> >
> > Hot does mean at a recording level high enough to cause distortion.
>
> Let's see if any engineers can set us straight here.
It's well known audio terminology. Ask your engineer friends.
> > In terms of stereophonics, yes, I would say I like the RVGs better.
> Better than what? The older CD's? How many original Blue Note LP's
> have you heard on your magnificent high end system?
You asked. I answered. Now you're asking a bunch of nonsense. My system
isn't the issue. People usually compare CDs to CDs--use McMaster's recent
24-bit work if you'd like.
> > And I'm almost certain you would hear this
> > detail too if you listened with open ears.
>
> IF I listened with open ears???? Jesus Christ.
I didn't mean to imply you have closed ears but the stereophonics of the
RVGs have tainted your view of the series and biased you against Van
Gelder's quality work. That's all i meant.
> > Rudy's original work did not create such a wide stereo spread. That was
> > added from the original two-track at the insistance of Capitol
executives at
> > a time when Stereo was new and all the rage.
> This is just plain wrong, and you don't know the facts.
i do know the facts but my post was wrong, and I admit that. My point is
valid, however.
> Capitol did not acquire the Blue Note catalog until the 1980's. All of
the classic
> Blue Note recordings were made when Blue Note was a small independent
> label, owned and operated by two guys, Alfred Lion and Frank Wolff.
> Admittedly, when stereo was new in the late 50's, some companies made
> recordings that exaggerated the effect. But some, like Rudy Van Gelder,
> Roy DuNann, David Jones, Lewis Layton and a few others made magnificent
> stereo recordings, many of which still sound fantastic today.
Van Gelder contends this is the first time that he has gotten to mix the
stereo tapes of the material recorded in
Hackensack, as opposed to the studio built in Englewood Cliffs. He says
that only mono mixing and mastering was done at Hackensack. BN was an
independent label at the time but that doesn't mean there wasn't pressure to
produce only pronounced stereo work.
> Or would it be that there are those who are
> being led down a garden path? Why not accept that there is more than
> one way to skin a cat, and that just because your preferences are such
> doesn't mean that you are right and others are wrong just because they
> disagree with you?
To me, this isn't about who is right or wrong. This is about trying to talk
to some people who have convinced themselves that RVGs suck. I'll bow out
now and just chalk it up to my inability to say the right things to you so
you might feel like evaluating other RVG titles. You have convinced
yourself that the RVGs are terrible, possibly without listening to Van
Gelder's most successful transfers.
Gremal
news:Pine.GSO.4.10.991108...@ciao.cc.columbia.edu...
> On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Paul Christie wrote:
> > However, I have been disappointed with the sound of a
> > number of RVGs, eg. Grant Grren's "Latin Bit".
> >
> > I bought the US RVG of Herbie Hancock's "Empyrean Isles", and it had
> > horrible digital distortion on the trumpet on "One Finger Snap". I
> > swapped it for a Japanese RVG of same disc, which doesn't have the
> > distortion. This is a quality control issue, and I'm not blaming RVG
> > for that.
>
> To turn this thread constructive, and to turn away from the general
> assessment of RVGs work, which are the RVGs like these two that should be
> avoided? I also think Empyrean Isles was botched, as was the Japanese
> version of It's Time! by Jackie McClean. Out to Lunch, Moanin', Cool
> Struttin', Something Else, and Blowing the Blues Away are some that
> succeeded in my opinion. But given the variability, I am reluctant to pay
> the big bucks for the Japanese imports.
Well, the RVG JuJu and Empyrean Isles were botched. JuJu has been fixed
according to BN, although I don't see how you'd tell the botched from the
nonbotched version except to get the Japanese version. By the way, these
botched versions had nothing to do with Van Gelder's work, just like the
botched Soothsayer had nothing to do with McMaster's work. (Soothsayer is
fixed now too).
Jack Woker
> My system
> isn't the issue.
components you have, and how accurate they are. You have made it an
issue.
> People usually compare CDs to CDs
Which people? Sound is sound, regardless of format. If you choose to
ignore that these were once LP's, then you are not getting the big
picture. Listening to RVG CD's should only be one facet of the audio
experience.
> --use McMaster's recent
> 24-bit work if you'd like.
I have, and McMaster's more closely resemble the sound of the original
LP's.
> the stereophonics of the
> RVGs have tainted your view of the series and biased you against Van
> Gelder's quality work.
In my opinion, Van Gelder did all his quality work in the 1950's and
60's. Today he is resting on his laurels, and seems to be damaging the
reputation he once had.
> Van Gelder contends this is the first time that he has gotten to mix the
> stereo tapes of the material recorded in
> Hackensack, as opposed to the studio built in Englewood Cliffs. He says
> that only mono mixing and mastering was done at Hackensack. BN was an
> independent label at the time but that doesn't mean there wasn't pressure to
> produce only pronounced stereo work.
Van Gelder's Hackensack recordings are not in what I would call great
stereo. They represent a time when Rudy clearly had not figured out
what constitutes a good stereo image. However, he opened his Englewood
Cliffs studio in July, 1959, and the majority of titles in the RVG
series are from Englewood, so your point is moot.
> To me, this isn't about who is right or wrong. This is about trying to talk
> to some people who have convinced themselves that RVGs suck.
I haven't convinced myself. Rudy has. Have a nice day.
jack
Eric Daniel Barry
Which would you prefer to listen to (disregard all other factors):
Mono Deep Groove originals on a high end turntable
Mono 24/192 transfers on DVD-A (when available)
Later stereo lp copies (Liberty, DMM, Japanese, 180gm--your pick) on a
high end turntable
24 bit stereo cds by McMaster and a high end digital system
RVG cds and high end digital
(Assume for any particular title all were available).
A second question:
Would you prefer to listen to the mono master tapes on a suitable R2R deck
or stereo lps or cds (your pick)?
Personally, I'd choose the mono in each case because all other aspects of
the sound, besides imaging, would be superior.
--Eric
hea...@in-tch.com
purchased the early versions get to trade for the new versions?
Heath
JC Martin
>Gremal wrote:
>
>> Let me restate: by forcing me to make minor changes to the position of my
>> speakers, the RVGs helped me get better soundstaging for all discs--RVGs
and
>> otherwise.
>
>Oh this is good - RVG CD's as an audio standard for all recorded music!
>Talk about myopia!
>
>
>
>> > hot" means distorted.
>>
>> Hot does mean at a recording level high enough to cause distortion.
>
>Let's see if any engineers can set us straight here.
Well, I have a 16-track studio in my home (Murph has seen it) and have
worked with some pretty decent rock engineers. It does not mean distortion.
Generally an engineer looks to record a track as hot as he possibly can
without breaking up the signal.
-JC
Jack Woker
> This is for Woker especially, but anyone else can chime in:
Since you are calling me by my last name, I detect a tone of hostility,
which may refect the tone in which I have spoken to Gremal, but not to
you, Eric. Still, I'll answer.
> Which would you prefer to listen to (disregard all other factors):
> Mono Deep Groove originals on a high end turntable
> Mono 24/192 transfers on DVD-A (when available)
You neglected to mention original New York stereo pressings, which would
be my first choice.
> Later stereo lp copies (Liberty, DMM, Japanese, 180gm--your pick) on a
> high end turntable
For later stereo pressings (those that were only issued in mono
originally) I will opt for the earliest pressing, the Liberty, but this
can vary from title to title. I would place the Japanese, DMM, and 180g
pressings below the Liberty Blue & White labels.
> 24 bit stereo cds by McMaster and a high end digital system
This would be my third choice, above the later stereo vinyl.
> Would you prefer to listen to the mono master tapes on a suitable R2R deck
> or stereo lps or cds (your pick)?
I can't answer this question - would have to make a comparison I haven't
made.
jack
Gremal
JC Martin <subs...@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:809p9s$7jq$1...@oak.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Jack Woker wrote in message <382795...@ix.netcom.com>...
> Well, I have a 16-track studio in my home (Murph has seen it) and have
> worked with some pretty decent rock engineers. It does not mean
distortion.
> Generally an engineer looks to record a track as hot as he possibly can
> without breaking up the signal.
Hot means distorted. You are confused. You really mean you look to record
a track with the level set as high as possible without recording hot.
Hot--"in the red"--get it???
Eric Daniel Barry
> Eric Daniel Barry wrote:
>
> > This is for Woker especially, but anyone else can chime in:
>
> Since you are calling me by my last name, I detect a tone of hostility,
> which may refect the tone in which I have spoken to Gremal, but not to
> you, Eric. Still, I'll answer.
Sorry, didn't mean any offense.
>
>
> > Which would you prefer to listen to (disregard all other factors):
>
> > Mono Deep Groove originals on a high end turntable
>
> > Mono 24/192 transfers on DVD-A (when available)
>
> You neglected to mention original New York stereo pressings, which would
> be my first choice.
I knew it would be, and it's mine too. My question, intended to establish
the importance of imaging vs. other factors, was to give a superior mono
source (DGs, or 24/192 transfers in mono for the digital loving) vs. an
inferior but high quality stereo source.
>
> > Later stereo lp copies (Liberty, DMM, Japanese, 180gm--your pick) on a
> > high end turntable
>
> For later stereo pressings (those that were only issued in mono
> originally) I will opt for the earliest pressing, the Liberty, but this
> can vary from title to title. I would place the Japanese, DMM, and 180g
> pressings below the Liberty Blue & White labels.
>
So, if you had to choose for a desert Island a collection of Mono DG 63rd
and NY USA lps in mint condition, or a complete set of Liberty Blue &
White RVG mastered stereo lps, which would you go for?
>
> > 24 bit stereo cds by McMaster and a high end digital system
>
> This would be my third choice, above the later stereo vinyl.
>
>
> > Would you prefer to listen to the mono master tapes on a suitable R2R deck
> > or stereo lps or cds (your pick)?
>
> I can't answer this question - would have to make a comparison I haven't
> made.
>
Of course I haven't heard these either, but based on what mastering
engineers say, I'd have to go with the master tapes.
> jack
--Eric
JC Martin
Recording "in the red" doesn't necessarily mean that a signal distorts
though. -0db is "in the red". Recording levels can go much higher before
distortion kicks in.
-JC
Jack Woker
> My question, intended to establish
> the importance of imaging vs. other factors, was to give a superior mono
> source (DGs, or 24/192 transfers in mono for the digital loving) vs. an
> inferior but high quality stereo source.
Of course, I would prefer the superior mono source. I don't like the
Pathe, DMM or 180g pressings, at least the ones I've heard, and I think
the early Liberty pressings are underrated. In some instances, not
necessarily Blue Note records, I have kept more than one version of
certain records, each having qualities lacking in the other. This can
have to do with factors such as condition, bonus tracks, etc, in
addition to the mono/stereo thing.
> So, if you had to choose for a desert Island a collection of Mono DG 63rd
> and NY USA lps in mint condition, or a complete set of Liberty Blue &
> White RVG mastered stereo lps, which would you go for?
As I've stated above, I like the Liberty pressings generally.
Disregarding the rechanneled stereo titles issued by Liberty, I'd go for
the stereo Liberty Blue & Whites over the mono originals. Of course, if
I was buying them for investment, I'd want the originals. :-)
Of course, not every title exists in every edition. Yes, original mono
NY pressings exist for every title, but in later editions, only select
titles exist. A good chunk of the catalog was already out of print by
the time Liberty took over, and many of these (mostly 1500's and early
4000's) do not exist in Liberty pressings. Those of us who did not have
the originals had to buy these either in Japanese pressings,
"International
Series" UA pressings (all mono), or CD's. The music is foremost, so my
collection, like most, is a mixed bag of originals, Liberty Blue &
Whites, Japanese LP's, US and Japanese CD's.
jack
Eric Daniel Barry
> >> Generally an engineer looks to record a track as hot as he possibly can
> >> without breaking up the signal.
> >
> >Hot means distorted. You are confused. You really mean you look to record
> >a track with the level set as high as possible without recording hot.
> >Hot--"in the red"--get it???
>
> Recording "in the red" doesn't necessarily mean that a signal distorts
> though. -0db is "in the red". Recording levels can go much higher before
> distortion kicks in.
>
> -JC
>
My understanding of hot means at high levels that may saturate the tape to
an extent (which compresses the signal and makes it sound punchier). Too
hot would mean audible distortion.
The levels at which a tape will saturate vary based on the tape
formulation, speed, and
quality of the deck. -Odb on the VU meters is only a guess of where this
point might be (unless the engineer has recalibrated the meters for his
deck and tape preference). Above this point, increase in levels means
increase in distortion. However, this distortion is often accepted as a
compromise (or even desired) by some engineers to have the softer sounds
more audible, and because a little saturation softens and compresses the
sound. Don't worry too much though, even high end speakers present at
least 10% THD from what I've read. Eventually, the tape will become so
overloaded that there will be audible break-up, which sucks. I hear it on
RVG recordings from time to time, esp. on piano. My guess is that RVG was
trying to get the levels as high as possible without audible break-up and
sometimes miscalculated.
--Eric
Eric Daniel Barry
> Eric Daniel Barry wrote:
>
> > My question, intended to establish
> > the importance of imaging vs. other factors, was to give a superior mono
> > source (DGs, or 24/192 transfers in mono for the digital loving) vs. an
> > inferior but high quality stereo source.
>
> Of course, I would prefer the superior mono source.
Ok, so maybe my contention that soundstaging is secondary is not so
ridiculous. I can't afford originals usually, but occasionally I'll come
across a VG ish original pressing in mono (not just Blue Notes) and will
play this in preference to pristince stereo reissues, because the other
aspects of fidelity are more important to me than space.
>
> > So, if you had to choose for a desert Island a collection of Mono DG 63rd
> > and NY USA lps in mint condition, or a complete set of Liberty Blue &
> > White RVG mastered stereo lps, which would you go for?
>
> As I've stated above, I like the Liberty pressings generally.
> Disregarding the rechanneled stereo titles issued by Liberty, I'd go for
> the stereo Liberty Blue & Whites over the mono originals. Of course, if
> I was buying them for investment, I'd want the originals. :-)
>
Interesting. I probably don't have enough to comment definitively, but
i'd put the Liberty stereos I own below the DG monos by a small but
significant margin--say 10-15%.
--Eric
Jack Woker
> i'd put the Liberty stereos I own below the DG monos by a small but
> significant margin--say 10-15%.
A fairer comparison would be mono to mono, stereo to stereo. In this
case, I hear little difference between NY and Liberty pressings. It
seems clear that you prefer mono in general. This is a matter of taste,
primarily. I like a little space, a little ambience in a recording, so
I will opt for stereo, except in a few cases where the stereo has been
screwed up for some reason. You're not the first person I've
encountered who prefers mono, by the way.
jack
Tom Walls
>A fairer comparison would be mono to mono, stereo to stereo. In this
>case, I hear little difference between NY and Liberty pressings. It
>seems clear that you prefer mono in general. This is a matter of taste,
>primarily. I like a little space, a little ambience in a recording, so
>I will opt for stereo, except in a few cases where the stereo has been
>screwed up for some reason. You're not the first person I've
>encountered who prefers mono, by the way.
>
> jack
>
>
FWIW, typically when a mono recording begins my first reaction is that it
sounds terrific, then given a little time I begin to miss the seperation and
space.
--
Tom Walls
the guy at the Temple of Zeus
http://www.arts.cornell.edu/zeus/
Eric Daniel Barry
> > Interesting. I probably don't have enough to comment definitively, but
> > i'd put the Liberty stereos I own below the DG monos by a small but
> > significant margin--say 10-15%.
>
> A fairer comparison would be mono to mono, stereo to stereo.
Yes, except I'm curious to find out how important stereo is to you.
> It seems clear that you prefer mono in general.
Not to me! I just prefer the best pressing. I would take stereos over
monos if they were the same issue (perhaps there are some where the mono
mix is superior though).
--Eric
Jack Woker
> Yes, except I'm curious to find out how important stereo is to you.
Well, I guess that's pretty obvious, by now. I guess we have slightly
different priorities. One word, though - I don't feel the need for a
punchy, in your face sound, and am often able to roll with the mellower,
spacier stereo image.
jack