Quick Lp vs. CD comparison

[wolff]

Overall, I find the current US RVGs the best representation of the material.

Really? Of this particular title?

[Chuck Nessa]

Really? Of this particular title?

Yes Wolfie I was talking about the Feb, '54 Birdland recordings of the Art Blakey quintet. I have, and like, both volumes of the current RVG remastering. Is that specific enough?

Geez!!!!!!!!!

[wolff]

Glad you enjoy the RVG of this title. Seriously, it matters not to me, that you disagree with me. Any flaws, that bug you, on this RVG?

[Leeway]

OK, at risk of life and limb, I decided to enter the great RVG LP vs CD comparo

I don't have the Blakey on LP, so went with Horace Silver, "Blowin' the Blues Away." The vinyl is a blue label, black "b," which I think is a 70s era pressing. The CD was an RVG edition. Here was my elaborately scientific method:

I played 2 cuts each from the vinyl and CD. First I played "Sister Sadie" on vinyl. I then played the same cut on CD.

Then I continued with the CD and played "Baghdad Blues" (in keeping with the tenor of the times). I then played the same cut on LP. In the interests of audio science, for the duration of the session, I refrained from drinking alcoholic beverages My results:

As you might know, I tend to prefer vinyl. However, I thought the CD acquitted itself quite well. The brass is pretty "loud" on both the vinyl and CD, perhaps slightly brighter on the CD, but, if so, marginally. The piano seems to have better definition on the CD, but a shade less warmth. I thought the cymbals were pretty much the same; certainly, nothing intrusive or obstrusive. I felt the vinyl gave a little more space or "air," but I tend to see this as a vinyl trait in general. In general, I thought the CD was well-balanced and engaging. My view is that RVG likes an "up-front," very immediate sound, and I think this comes through on both LP and CD.

My own views on this issue is that it's hard to make any general statements. As "hockman" put it nicely, "it all depends"- on the listener, the equipment, the particular vinyl copy, the particular title.

Edited November 23, 2004 by Leeway

[Chuck Nessa]

Glad you enjoy the RVG of this title. Seriously, it matters not to me, that you disagree with me. Any flaws, that bug you, on this RVG?

Yes, there are a bunch of flaws in the original recording from 1954. I like the choices Rudy made in 2001 for this reissue.

BTW, if it don't matter why keep this going?

My only point is, considering the 1954 tapes/RVG technology, the current versions are wonderful.

Sorry you can't hear the great stuff happnin'.

[RDK]

I'll take whatever's cheaper...

[sheldonm]

I've been listening to this RVG for the past 20 minutes or so as I've made my way through these posts. I like the recording a lot, but don't have anything to compare it to. Sounds pretty damn good for something recorded almost 51 years ago!

[wolff]

My only point is, considering the 1954 tapes/RVG technology, the current versions are wonderful.

I can see that.

My only point is/was, I enjoy the LP more than the RVG for the reason I stated. Just a subjective opinion. I can have one, right Chuckie?

If you do not like 'what I keep going', log off and quit stalking me. Thanks. Geez!!!!

Edited November 23, 2004 by wolff

[wolff]

I've been listening to this RVG for the past 20 minutes or so as I've made my way through these posts. I like the recording a lot, but don't have anything to compare it to. Sounds pretty damn good for something recorded almost 51 years ago!

Glad you like it and thanks for your sane contribution to this thread.

[Leeway]

I'll take whatever's cheaper...

Now THAT is a viable working philosophy

[RDK]

I'll take whatever's cheaper... 

Now THAT is a viable working philosophy

Well, it works for wine, women, and music anyway...

[wolff]

I'll take whatever's cheaper...

In this case it would be the LP.

[porcy62]

Hey guys, you forgot the Mosaic version! Lets start the thread again!

[mikeweil]

I'll throw in what Hoffman has said.

Remember folks,

Rudy Van Gelder recorded stuff to sound good THEN, not now. THEN is what counted! People had cheap phonographs or Hi-Fi's, nothing like what we have now.

Rudy did all his "tricking" right on the master tape so he didn't have to redub and lose a generation.. In other words, he didn't record something and re-dub it adding compression, echo, EQ, etc., he did it all live in real time while the music was being recorded.

Roy DuNann and Howard Holzer at Contemporary recorded everything flat and dry and the "tricks" were added during LP disk mastering.

So, a Contemporary master tape today sounds amazing while a Prestige or Blue Note master tape needs a little "reverse trickery" to get it to sound better.

At the time though, the RVG recording technique made those Prestige and Blue Note LP's sing!

When I work with a Rudy Van Gelder master I have to spend a lot of time coaxing the breath of life out of there. It's lost in a maze of echo plate and high-end limiter distortion that drives me bonkers.

If a mastering engineer just ignores that stuff the end result is less than wonderful in my opinion.

That makes perfect sense to me - and this it what makes RVG recordings so controversial.

[jazzhound]

The distortion on the masters is made worse by the compression used in mastering the RVGs. Low level signals such as out of phase ambient signals and spring reverb noise are more prominent because of this.

Nessa's harping on mastering variables ignores a fact that every recording engineer working with analog tape knows; the sound deteriorates with every pass of the tape over the heads of the recording machine. And with time.

Anyone who thinks any mastering engineer can compensate for 50 years of tape deterioration is mistaken.

This is one reason near mint original vinyl continues to appreciate in value.

[porcy62]

I agree with Hoffman.

I work as editor for tv broadcast and I have the same problems every day with video and audio editing.

What will be the destination of the tape? A mono broadcast on tv, a multichannel home video o dvd? In other words what will be the system used by the listeners/viewers. It seems pretty obvious that at VG times you had to work on equalisation in order to achieve a live sound on the average hifi gear of the times.

For me it's useless an great mixing on my 10K $ studio monitors if the listeners will loose all my job because of their 200 $ loudspeakers, on the contrary you might loose informations, because in the studio the system is much more accurate than an average playback system, the voice can be mixed with music and a 10K system allow you to understand every single word. When I mix a documentary with oversound, music and live sound my goal is toward listener's playback system.

I know that low frequencies, usually under 100/130 Hz, are inaudible on normal broadcasting, when the wind hit the mic, I simply cut low frequencies and nobody will know that there was wind during the shooting, this would be impossible for a movie or dvd mixing.

Another problem I found working on edited tape depends on the previous editor. You must know how works your editing system. I can spot a mix on JBL monitors, because the editor attenuated low frequencies, (JBL monitors tend to bost them), on the contrary if a bad editor works with Tannoy or similar "thin" monitors you could have the opposite problem: "too much" low frequencies on edited tapes

The ageing and the use of tapes damage them, at least the video tape, analog, I use. Most of the old Ampex one inch videotapes in the italian archives are gone away forever and the restoration is a costly and difficult process.

To stay on the topic I have to say I did not listening at the RVG cd, I have the Mosaic that sounds pretty well for my ears.

For me too the RVG remasterings, and not only them, are a bit too "bright". I think it's more a matter of taste, and playback system, than a statement about the "real sound" of Art Blakey cymbals at Birdland 50 years ago.

[neveronfriday]

Some thoughts:

I often get the feeling that (not only) on Blue Note dates, the cymbals were recorded in a way that gave them that specific "pingy" sound so often audible on many recordings of the time. Is that because of microphone placement, the number and types of microphones used (maybe only overhead), was it the recording equipment, the engineer, or a combination thereof? Or could it be that our "ears" (meaning listening experience, resulting from, for example, simple things like a broader soundstage created by stereo) have also changed a bit since we are being more "spoiled" today by (some) sonically improved recordings (I'm not talking chart material here which more often than not has been equalized etc. to death)? Or was it simply intentional (taste of the person recording/mixing/mastering the stuff)?

From a recording 50 years old (and older) I certainly don't expect a sound which is alive and breathing as on many recordings today, but I'm sometimes surprised about how good, for example, some Contemporary dates sound in comparison.

Cheers!

On a similar but different note: I just had a lengthy e-mail exchange with a drummer who is currently touring with a big band throughout Europe. We were talking about recreating that sound of old big band recordings of the 30s and 40s. If you do want to create that sound, it's virtually impossible with today's quality drums which even in the cheapo range are lightyeras ahead in sonic quality. You'd have to go the electronic way to reduce the sound quality of today's equipment. To be quite honest, I miss that charme of those old recordings, and big band dates of, say, the 70s and thereafter tend too sound to "sterile" and "direct" to me. Yeah, I know. Old fart et al.

Edited November 23, 2004 by deus62

[porcy62]

Deus62, you're right.

Everything changed in recording industry, even musical instruments, like the guitarists who search today the sound of old tubed Marshall Amp know very well.

Hoffmann said RVG used the "tricks" during the recording, that means he equalized during the recording session. So, a part the decision about placing microphones, wich kind of mics, ecc.., the master tapes are already equalized for mastering LP suitable for the playback system they have at that time.

I think we will never know wich is was the "real sound" of Blakey's drums at the Birdland 50 years ago, maybe RVG or Chuck know it.

[Stefan Wood]

I don't give a damn about the RVG stuff -- I am glad I am able to hear the music! When I was in college, a good percentage of this material was OOP, so fellow music lovers and I could only dream of owning a copy. Now most of the stuff has been reissued.

One lp vs cd I do notice a difference are the Arista/Savoy Jazz lps and the subsequent cd reissues. I prefer the 70's reissues.

[wolff]

I don't give a damn about the RVG stuff -- I am glad I am able to hear the music!

and, it's nice to have a few options.

Another option besides the RVG's and the rest are the Grundman BN remasters. They have some very nice qualities. Too bad they are vinyl and $30 a pop.

Edited November 23, 2004 by wolff

[porcy62]

Another option besides the RVG's and the rest are the Grundman's BN remasters. They have some very nice qualities. Too bad they are vinyl and $30 a pop.

Well, original BN are far more expensive, in particular the Grundman reissued titles: Mobley and Morgan, just to name a couple.

[sidewinder]

I've got both volumes of the 'Birdland' LP on blue-label Liberty and (somewhere) the RVG CDs (which I enjoyed a fair bit) and will try to have a listen to both tomorrow. May even dig out the Brown Mosaic to check out that version too. My impression of this one is that for 1954 vintage both CD and LP versions sound pretty damn good and for a live recording at that.

[sidewinder]

I did a quick comparison for Vol 1 of this title. The LP is a blue lable 70s Liberty - 'rechanneled for stereo' (yuck). No contest - the LP is murky, has excessive top-end roll-off and is lacking in definition. Very one-dimensional. In contrast the RVG CD is just bursting with detail - a bit excessive in treble terms perhaps but Blakey's drumming is much clearer. The separation between the instruments is much more definitive on the CD too. Impressive !

I got the Brown Mosaic LP set out just to check out that mastering as well. A big improvement on the blue label, much less murky and Brown's trumpet sound comes through very nicely. Again, much more roll-off than the RVG CD and less instrumental separation. Both the Mosaic LP and the RVG CD though pass my test. With the LP you get the nice tonal reproduction, with the CD you get the dynamics.

The blue label Libertys are destined for the skip !

Edited November 28, 2004 by sidewinder

[DrJ]

Interesting info, thanks. One thing though - I doubt the Mosaic LP has the high end rolled off, rather I think we're all used to the "digital brightness" inherent in CDs...not saying it's a bad thing, necessarily, but I think our ears are accustomed to a slightly over-emphasized high end from CD rather than the other way around.

[sidewinder]

Yes, that's probably the case. In terms of roll-off I was using the CD as reference so my comments are just indicative of a difference. In addition, the roll-off on the Blue Label LP is noticeably more pronounced than the Mosaic (Blakey's cymbals are very indistinct).