upcoming Jelly Roll Morton set?

[J.A.W.]

I finally tracked down that Retrieval cd of the '23 solos (only to find it's now available for half of what I paid at World Records!), and I must say I don't think the finished product is what I would have expected from Davies. I find it overfiltered on the top end......and it ends up about as muffled as the Milestone cd I set out to replace!

I think Retrieval subjected a number of his master tapes to excessive filtering, including the "King Oliver's Creole Jazz Band" set. They are still worth picking up, certainly, but the sound is quite different from Davies acoustic material heard on other labels (Timeless, Forte/Oracle), and ends up being a bit lifeless in comparison.

Listened to the Oliver Retrieval set for the first time in quite a while and you're right, it's lifeless. Great music, and I wish they hadn't manipulated it... Is this material available elsewhere in better sounding CD transfers?

Anyone interested in the fabulous sounding (Davies engineered) Forte 3cd set of the Armstrong/Fletcher Henderson should run to the Roots and Rhythm web site. Even though it's OOP, they have a few copies (I just got mine!).

I've been looking for that set for ages, and I immediately ordered a copy. Thanks for the tip!

Edited August 25, 2006 by J.A.W.

[LAL]

Anyone interested in the fabulous sounding (Davies engineered) Forte 3cd set of the Armstrong/Fletcher Henderson should run to the Roots and Rhythm web site. Even though it's OOP, they have a few copies (I just got mine!).

I've been looking for that set for ages, and I immediately ordered a copy. Thanks for the tip!

Just placed an order - thanks!

[J.A.W.]

TM, if you don't have any Morton at all, you should definitely start with the JSP box:

This 5-CD box sells for around $25 or less, has received many rave reviews, and features excellent remastered sound by the late John R.T. Davies, one of the most respected 78-restoration engineers. While the JSP label and its owner, John Steadman, have more recently been embroiled in a lot of controversy (and litigation), this earlier legitimate issue is the real thing, and a credit to Davies' famous engineering skills. As I said, it's a terrific, and relatively inexpensive, place to start. Here's the page on Amazon with reviews and sound samples.

The Morton JSP is indeed a great set. To my ears it's much better than the RCA box.

Edited September 3, 2006 by J.A.W.

[J.A.W.]

Anyone interested in the fabulous sounding (Davies engineered) Forte 3cd set of the Armstrong/Fletcher Henderson should run to the Roots and Rhythm web site. Even though it's OOP, they have a few copies (I just got mine!).

I've been looking for that set for ages, and I immediately ordered a copy. Thanks for the tip!

Just placed an order - thanks!

I got a message from Roots and Rhythm's Frank Scott last week that all their copies are sold

[jazzbo]

TM, if you don't have any Morton at all, you should definitely start with the JSP box:

This 5-CD box sells for around $25 or less, has received many rave reviews, and features excellent remastered sound by the late John R.T. Davies, one of the most respected 78-restoration engineers. While the JSP label and its owner, John Steadman, have more recently been embroiled in a lot of controversy (and litigation), this earlier legitimate issue is the real thing, and a credit to Davies' famous engineering skills. As I said, it's a terrific, and relatively inexpensive, place to start. Here's the page on Amazon with reviews and sound samples.

The Morton is indeed a great set. To my ears it's much better than the RCA box.

I dont know I like them both, and I find them different. The RCA has advantage of original parts and that makes a difference in the final product to my ears. The JSP sounds good, maybe a bit thinner in comparison. Everything is relative I guess.

The booklet that comes with the RCA set makes the JSP set appear the cheap knockoff that it is.

[Stereojack]

The booklet that comes with the RCA set makes the JSP set appear the cheap knockoff that it is.

I think "cheap knockoff" is a bit harsh as applied to this set. This material was remastered by John R. T. Davies in the 1980's, before the RCA box, and was originally sold as full price individual CD's. JSP began their box program by repackaging their original discs in low priced boxes. Admittedly they have seriously lowered their standards in recent years to compete with Proper, and their shameless Carter Family, Bob Wills, and Jimmie Rodgers sets, lifted wholesale from Bear Famiuly, have rightfully gotten them into trouble, but to my ears this set, booklet or no, is the best way to have this music.

JSP entered the CD era as a quality reissue label, but they have since deteriorated into another inconsistent Proper clone.

[J.A.W.]

The booklet that comes with the RCA set makes the JSP set appear the cheap knockoff that it is.

I think "cheap knockoff" is a bit harsh as applied to this set. This material was remastered by John R. T. Davies in the 1980's, before the RCA box, and was originally sold as full price individual CD's. JSP began their box program by repackaging their original discs in low priced boxes. Admittedly they have seriously lowered their standards in recent years to compete with Proper, and their shameless Carter Family, Bob Wills, and Jimmie Rodgers sets, lifted wholesale from Bear Famiuly, have rightfully gotten them into trouble, but to my ears this set, booklet or no, is the best way to have this music.

JSP entered the CD era as a quality reissue label, but they have since deteriorated into another inconsistent Proper clone.

I compared the JSP to the RCA before I sold that one, and preferred the former by a large margin.

SJ, I agree with what you're saying about JSP.

Edited September 3, 2006 by J.A.W.

[jazzbo]

Well, I'm tired of arguing about sound on reissues as it's just full of arrogance and vinegar in some instances and not something objective and qualifiable in most and I'm just so weary of some of the categorical statements made.

I agree that the individual volumes of the JSP were good work, but in comparison to the RCA box I feel that their banding together in a slipcase does make them seem a knockoff in comparison to the well produced RCA set, that I think sounds as good if not a hair better. Again that's just a personal opinion. I own both sets. I listen to the JSP at work, the RCA at home.

[J.A.W.]

Well, I'm tired of arguing about sound on reissues as it's just full of arrogance and vinegar in some instances and not something objective and qualifiable in most and I'm just so weary of some of the categorical statements made.

I couldn't agree more, especially in instances where incorrect statements on someone else's opinions are made.

For the record: my opinion on the sound of the RCA versus the JSP is just a personal one, based on listening experiences.

Edited September 3, 2006 by J.A.W.

[Chuck Nessa]

Don't think anyone mentioned the JSP set ignores the 2 sessions from 1939 giving the RCA eleven more tracks and Sidney Bechet to boot.

[Ron S]

Don't think anyone mentioned the JSP set ignores the 2 sessions from 1939 giving the RCA eleven more tracks and Sidney Bechet to boot.

You're talking about this set, right?

Isn't it OOP?

[J.A.W.]

Don't think anyone mentioned the JSP set ignores the 2 sessions from 1939 giving the RCA eleven more tracks and Sidney Bechet to boot.

You're talking about this set, right?

Isn't it OOP?

It is.

[Stereojack]

Well, I only participate in these discussions as a long time fan of the music, to which I was first introduced back in the LP era. I offer no arrogance or vinegar, and certainly wouldn't want to be taken that way. Mine is only one of many opinions that are out there. I find it interesting that there is more discussion of sonic issues than there is of the music. I guess we should be thankful that we actually have choices. Some of us remember a time when we didn't have these choices (old fart talking here).

So much of this is completely objective. I find the RCA Morton and the Columbia Armstrong sets a little too piercing, others praise the clarity. As a longtime 78 collector, I would stack the sound of a clean 78 up against any reissue, and I guess I'm drawn to the reissues that replicate the curve of a 78 more closely.

[kulu se mama]

did the rca box come in an actual box?

i've only ever seen the 5 cd's in 2 double sized jewel cases.

[Stereojack]

did the rca box come in an actual box?

i've only ever seen the 5 cd's in 2 double sized jewel cases.

It did come in a long cardboard box, as pictured.

[tatifan]

That long box for the RCA set was pretty much for cosmetic use only. The 2 jewel boxes were shoved inside, and needed to be pried out. I tossed mine.

Oh well, I'll add my .02 to the sound issue. I think the source material might be better on the RCA, and the EQ is fine to my ears. I'm abnormally sensitive to the overuse of Sonic Solutions No-Noise program, which RCA used on all of their 78 rpm jazz transfers at that time. To me, the artifacts are audible as a kind of swishing out-of-phase sound. To me, the "air" is sucked ouf of the sound also. To others, this stuff may not even be audible. The JSP, while not perfect, is more honest, perhaps a tad noisier, and has a better bass presence (perhaps TOO much, at times). The RCA booklet is certainly a notch in RCA's favor, and the '39 sessions missing from JSP shouldn't be overlooked.

BTW, back on the subject of this thread.....are we to assume the discs in the new issue of the Rounder set are exactly the same? I know there was plenty of flack about their noise reduction method, and I though (or was it someone's wishful thinking) that they had plans of a remastering?? Perhaps someone noticed the original piano-shaped box had been withdrawn and thought it might be due to a remastering??

[AllenLowe]

"Sonic Solutions No-Noise program, which RCA used on all of their 78 rpm jazz transfers at that time. To me, the artifacts are audible as a kind of swishing out-of-phase sound. To me, the "air" is sucked ouf of the sound also. To others, this stuff may not even be audible. "

actually, you are incorrect in terms of the processing done at that time - in its early stages Sonic Solutions' program did very little, good or bad - some basic de-clicking and de-crackling, absolutely no de-hiss (there was no de-hiss program yet) - the de-crackle and de-clicking they did had nothing to do with the sounds you heard - those were either the results of bad transfers, bad original sources, or poor A to D (analog to digital) conversions - I have listened to that set and what you are hearing as swooshing is actually sounds from old 78s that are masked by other noises like crackle - when the crackle is removed, that's what you often hear - but I know with absolute certainty that the deadness on a lot of the Morton had nothing to do with "No Noise" which, at that point, was a new program with little real application. I have taken some of those tracks from the RCA/BMG box and re-Eq'd them, and the differnece is nothing short of astonishing - I even convinced Larry Gushee of this, and Larry, as the world's foremost authority on Morton, has heard just about every release and transfer -

[tatifan]

"Sonic Solutions No-Noise program, which RCA used on all of their 78 rpm jazz transfers at that time. To me, the artifacts are audible as a kind of swishing out-of-phase sound. To me, the "air" is sucked ouf of the sound also. To others, this stuff may not even be audible. "

actually, you are incorrect in terms of the processing done at that time - in its early stages Sonic Solutions' program did very little, good or bad - some basic de-clicking and de-crackling, absolutely no de-hiss (there was no de-hiss program yet) - the de-crackle and de-clicking they did had nothing to do with the sounds you heard - those were either the results of bad transfers, bad original sources, or poor A to D (analog to digital) conversions - I have listened to that set and what you are hearing as swooshing is actually sounds from old 78s that are masked by other noises like crackle - when the crackle is removed, that's what you often hear - but I know with absolute certainty that the deadness on a lot of the Morton had nothing to do with "No Noise" which, at that point, was a new program with little real application. I have taken some of those tracks from the RCA/BMG box and re-Eq'd them, and the differnece is nothing short of astonishing - I even convinced Larry Gushee of this, and Larry, as the world's foremost authority on Morton, has heard just about every release and transfer -

That's interesting, thanks. My only hands-on experience has been with fairly recent versions of CEDAR de-clicking and de-noising, so I'm interested to hear about this. I think it's interesting how some people talk about what CEDAR does, like it's an absolute thing. Of course, it can be applied with a light touch, or absolutely ruin a recording, since it starts removing musical attacks (as noise) when to much of it is applied. Also, many (perhaps most, these days) transfers are issued without credit to CEDAR, but the majority ARE using it. The power of suggestion is such that I've seen reviews and comparisons between one CEDARed transfer and one that supposedly did not use it (but was in fact, used uncredited), where the CEDARed cd was denigrated because of the process. It may indeed have been inferior, but NOT because of the program itself.

As to early "No-Noise" use, that's interesting to hear how minimal it was. I'm not sure how to explain its extremely poor interaction with other elements of mastering then, because across the board, I feel the Philips historical series (classical only), Milestone & RCA reissues using it in the late 80s & early 90s are some of the worst sounding remasterings in existence! Perhaps using that No-Noise logo and the promise of a certain digital "perfection" caused the engineers to rolloff any high frequencies that they felt sounded like noise, and the house of cards collapsed under poor EQ decisions. Is it possible that the use of the program just interacted poorly with other equipment used at the time?

Edited September 3, 2006 by tatifan

[J.A.W.]

As to early "No-Noise" use, that's interesting to hear how minimal it was. I'm not sure how to explain its extremely poor interaction with other elements of mastering then, because across the board, I feel the Philips historical series (classical only), Milestone & RCA reissues using it in the late 80s & early 90s are some of the worst sounding remasterings in existence! Perhaps using that No-Noise logo and the promise of a certain digital "perfection" caused the engineers to rolloff any high frequencies that they felt sounded like noise, and the house of cards collapsed under poor EQ decisions. Is it possible that the use of the program just interacted poorly with other equipment used at the time?

Which Philips historical series discs are you referring to?

[Chuck Nessa]

I bet he's referring to the "Legendary Classics" series of the late '80s. I still have the Monteux Eroica (plus rehearsal) from that program and is should sound much better.

[J.A.W.]

I bet he's referring to the "Legendary Classics" series of the late '80s. I still have the Monteux Eroica (plus rehearsal) from that program and is should sound much better.

I have the 1994 reissue of the Monteux Eroica in the Philips "The Early Years" series. I must admit that it's been years since I last heard it and I don't remember how it sounds.

[AllenLowe]

"Is it possible that the use of the program just interacted poorly with other equipment used at the time?"

there are a lot of possibilities - but I tend to think that those early reissues (I remember the Bixx single-cd was awful as was the Morton single cd collection) were badly transferred, possibly from bad sources or using the wrong equipment (styli, turntables, etc) - I know people who witnessed engineers throw metal masters on the turntable and begin recording without regard to stylus or eq -

another tricky area, as I mentioned, is A to D transfer, which we've learned is so essential - I am certain that many of the bad-sounding European reissues CDs of jazz were/are related to this aspect - and I can relate this from personal experience, as I did my share of so-so transfer work in the early days. The built-in A to D converters in early DAT machines were generally mediocre at best, and the conversion back to analog than back to digital than back to analog etc etc etc (because many engineers were not yet aware of how important it was to keep things in the digital domain once the first conversion had occured) was sonically destructive. The graininess you may hear on bad reissues is the result of this. Another issue is digital clock stability, jitter, and digitial clicking

Of course, as any transfer engineer will tell you, if the original source sucks, the sound will suck no matter how well transferred and restored. I remember doing one transfer, for That Devilin Tune, at Rutgers, of a Fletcher Henderson 78 that was in absolutely mint condition (My Pretty Girl). I transferred it to DAT on their turntable using a generic stylus and it sounded great than and it sounds great on the CD. Remember, also, that during the beginning of the CD age record companies were either unaware of where their original sources were or did not give a shi#, and rushed things and just used whatver the hell they could find. They have learned better now - though the majors still don't know the full extent of their holdings and have specifically declined any suggestions that they do an inventory; personally, my mouth waters at the thought of the existence of master recordings of early country musicians and early jazz musicians and early pop singers; we know they are there, but we don't know to what extent.

One thing I started doing about 15 years ago was to buy up old historical LPs that were clearly done by the majors from master recordings - I own some AMAZING reissues of 1920s Brunswicks, old Deccas, Victors from as early as 1925, things that would astound you, that are so clear you feel like you are in the same room. I will go to my grave holding these things, as they are the best real link we have between that old music and today's world -

Edited September 3, 2006 by AllenLowe

[Harold_Z]

ALLEN SAID:

"I own some AMAZING reissues of 1920s Brunswicks, old Deccas, Victors from as early as 1925, things that would astound you, that are so clear you feel like you are in the same room. "

Allen, would you say the "RCA Victor Encyclopedia of Recorded Jazz" is a good example of that?

I would.

I've had that set since I was a teenager and I still think the sound on that set surpasses most of what I've heard in reissues since.

Edited September 4, 2006 by Harold_Z

[Chuck Nessa]

Most comments about No Noise (Sonic Solutions) and Cedar are broad strokes without understanding they are both "suites" with multiple tasks and different possibilities. Each of the tasks can be controlled like a rheostat. All kinds of possibilities are available. I have used parts of No Noise and Cedar on the same piece of tape.

[tatifan]

I bet he's referring to the "Legendary Classics" series of the late '80s. I still have the Monteux Eroica (plus rehearsal) from that program and is should sound much better.

Yes, that's it. It's also no easy task to figure out if subsequent issues used those same poor masterings again.