PristineAudio

You're thinking more or less along the right lines - the complexity of the EQ curve is such that it's not possible to derive it by ear, hence the use of references - and a good deal of professional judgement as well. However, it's taken over a year and many thousands of hours of remastering work to hone the techniques involved down to their current level within the classical music sphere, and several hundreds of hours have now been spent further adapting and fine-tuning this to work with other genres, so I hope you'll forgive me if I don't give away too much either here or elsewhere. I do invite you to listen not only to the small amount of jazz (and blues) material on our site but also to the many classical recordings which have also been remastered this way. There's an up to date listing of XR releases here (excluding XR work done on Music and Arts Programs of America reissues): http://www.pristineclassical.com/XR.html

I've reproduced the history of the original release as currently available at Wikipedia on our website page here: http://www.pristineclassical.com/LargeWorks/Jazz/PAJZ002.php This includes details about Mingus' attempts to re-record his bass parts.

I don't know the first thing about audio, but I'm curious to know what you mean by "identical if not similar material"--the songs themselves (the key they're in, etc.), the style? For example, the Massey Hall concert was a bebop quintet with alto sax, trumpet and rhythm section, featuring songs that bebop quintets covered often. I would think there has been plenty of stuff "quite like it" in general terms, so what about it makes it hard to find "similar material"? I mean similar to the extent of the same pieces being played by the same instrumental forces, including replication of the solos, albeit by different musicians in a different venue. This equates to the degree of similarity I look for when working on classical recordings. Thus with this kind of material we move to slightly less similar material, as you describe...

I've just updated the online notes with regard to what XR is - which may be a little clearer than the explanation above: Pristine Audio XR remastering explained

Not a simple question to answer! Perhaps I'll come at it from an unusual angle: Right now we're used to recordings being cleaned up - clicks and crackles removed, noise reduced; thereafter though maybe in some cases some pretty basic enhancement of treble response, mild use of artificial regeneration of harmonics, in some cases the use of digital hard compression, to make a recording somehow sound more 'alive'. A lot of this is perhaps more sophisticated but no less artificial than the old 'slap a bit of reverb on it and fake some stereo' approach. What XR aims to achieve is rather different, and takes place post-restoration. So I deal with the clicks, crackles and some of the hiss first using regular restoration techniques. Then we turn to XR, which I believe is necessary due to specific flaws in just about every 'vintage' recording I've come across - the tonal deficiencies in the recording equipment of the day. The standard approach to this is to wheel in a graphic equaliser or similar, and keep tweaking until it sounds better. Subjective, dependent on the whims of the person in control, and a pretty blunt instrument at best. The XR approach is to analyse the overall tonal characteristics of a flawed recording, compare this to a modern recording of preferably identical, or if not, very similar material, and use this as the basis to correct the tonal imbalances of the original. At its crudest it offers little more than giving the chap with the graphic equaliser some sort of visual clue. At its best it can operate with microtonal precision and completely transform an old recording, to the extent that it has been shown to more than double the accepted frequency range of 78rpm-source material, pinpointing harmonics otherwise buried within noise. It's been applied to EMI metal masters from 1930/1 and lifted the upper frequency limit from ~6kHz to >13kHz. Even more surprising was the application to a 1925 acoustic transfer of Bessie Smith with Louis Armstrong, where the accepted upper limits of acoustic recording of about 3kHz were shattered by the discovery of usable Armstrong cornet harmonics at 9kHz. This is currently work in progress, due to see issue later this year. The XR technique was developed for classical music. Here the reference material is straightforward to find - a number of modern recordings of a specific symphony, for example, can be digitally averaged out and provide an excellent guide to a 1930's or 1940's recording of the same. Similar orchestral forces playing the same score will provide excellent accurate information for XR to work. Where I've diverged into Blues and Jazz I've been aiming to expand the already highly critically acclaimed classical application of the concept into more difficult territory, with some success as well as a lot of (unseen) hard work and experimentation. For example, the 1928 blues recordings of Mississippi John Hurt were in many cases re-recorded by him in the 1960s, providing an excellent resource of reference material. But for those he transposed a considerable amount, or never played again, a modified approach is required. When it comes to the Quintet concert material at Massey Hall there's clearly never been anything quite like it since, so again, a further modification of the process is required, as well as a good deal of careful adjustment, tweaking, call it what you like, it's professional judgement derived from many years of professional experience (I may appear to have popped up from nowhere on some folks' radars but I do have what I think is a reasonably impressive track record in the audio engineering profession). So going back to the start of this ramble - we effectively identify the problems by defining scientifically (if sometimes relatively roughly) what the sonic outcome should be, and then apply whatever is required to achieve that outcome. In the case of the Massey Hall recordings, which I've known for years, the end result is as much a pleasant surprise to me as I hope it will be to you. Just because I know how something should look on a graph, doesn't mean we can get it all the way to that sound. But when it is possible to make that difference - and it works as a listener - for me it's magic! FWIW I've also been working on the Miles Davis/Tadd Dameron Quintet 1949 Paris Festival recordings, which are really dire in their commonly-known release. Because of the nature of the original source they're never going to be anywhere near as good as the Massey Hall material, but I do think there's a significant advance to be made. Nobody else seems to be really bothered about trying it - least of all Columbia - so watch this space. Meanwhile, here's a small excerpt of the first number - it's work in progress, so is still rough around the edges. You'll here the original start, then crossfade into the ongoing remastering, and then back again. The aim is to bring out Miles' stunning trumpet playing - see what you think: Rifftide - Davis/Dameron Quintet, Paris '49

It's interesting to stumble on a topic where you're being discussed - especially by some who've apparently not listened to your work! Anyway, perhaps I can interest some of you in taking a moment to listen to the following: The Quintet - The Trio - Massey Hall 1953 "XR Remastered by Andrew Rose, January 2008" Considered by many to be the greatest recorded jazz concert in history, I'm delighted to announce a 'new' issue which achieves a previously unheard sound quality, and includes all of the numbers recorded by both 'The Quintet' (Parker, Gillespie, Powell, Mingus, Roach) and 'The Trio' (Powell, Mingus, Roach) as well as Roach's solo spot: 1. Perdido 2. Salt Peanuts 3. All The Things You Are 4. Wee (Allen's Alley) 5. Hot House 6. A Night In Tunisia 7. Drum Conversation 8. Cherokee 9. Embraceable You 10. Hallelujah (Jubilee) 11. Sure Thing 12. Bassically Speaking 13. Lullaby of Birdland 14. I've Got You Under My Skin 1-6: The Quintet 7: Max Roach 8-14: The Trio Notes on this issue In assembling this release I've tried to bring together all of the available tracks of this historic concert, which has resulted, in the case of the Trio section, in some variation in sound quality. On this recording you will hear only the original recordings, with the bass part as originally played and restored to something closer to an appropriate level by the XR remastering process. One may ask as to why this concert needs another release? My answer is that, for such a historic recording, all of the previous issues have failed to convey, through their sonic flaws, the full impact of the playing and overall sound. That five men - who'd never rehearsed together or played together as a group, could arrive at a two-thirds-empty hall, missing a saxophone (so playing a plastic one bought that day), half drunk (and more drunk after the interval) with one member on release from a psychiatric hospital, with the two lead players apparently not speaking to each other - can conjure up such magic is incredible. To finally hear it in this quality of sound more than justifies the hours of painstaking work it's taken me to bring this project to fruition. Despite owning copies of this recording for many years, I've heard it anew over the last few weeks, and since its completion it has rarely left my CD player. I hope you'll find similar inspiration from it! Additional notes Editing: It became clear when working on the restoration of these tracks that a small amount of editing had taken place in at least two tracks. It seems that the opening of the very first track was not properly recorded - we hear the opening theme twice but it is clear from the applause in the background that at least one of these is a direct copy of the other. Likewise that applause is heard a short time later when the theme returns. After a degree of experimentation I decided to leave these repeats in place and tidy up the slightly rough edges of the original cuts. Likewise, applause has been lifted and reinserted elsewhere, and some announcements show clear signs of editing. In each case I opted to tidy up and smooth the joins to provide a believable continuity for the listener. Track order: The original LP release of this set featured only the Quintet recordings. Other issues have inserted the Trio between the two halves of the Quintet sets (as per the original running order, though not necessarily with all tracks present). I have opted to present the music as two separate sets, joining the two halves of the Quintet's set together and separating it from the smaller group's set, which begins with Roach's solo piece before the announcer brings on the two other members of the Trio. This provides a more comfortable continuinty for the home listener to what was essentially two overlapping concerts. Content: This issue contains all of the material performed by The Quintet and all of the material performed by The Trio. Also present at the evening's concert was The Graham Topping Band, who preceded The Quintet with an set running to eleven pieces, and closed the night with a further four titles after the return ot The Quintet in the second half. The final number featured all of the evening's musicians and is not included in this recording - as far as I can tell it was never recorded. Overdubs: None of the material presented here contains any of Charles Mingus' somewhat notorious double bass overdubs. What you hear is the original material as played and recorded on the night. Available on our website: Complete free MP3 download of "Wee (Allen's Alley)", plus 1-minute samples of all fourteen tracks. The album can be purchased as a high-quality LAME-encoded VBR MP3, or lossless FLAC download or on CD. PDF covers are available to download and print. Best regards Andrew Rose