Are there any box bargains currently available?

[neveronfriday]

I chime in here every 12 months or so ...

I had the mouse pointer hover over the "buy me now" Complete Evans boxed set several times now.
What stopped me is this (without wanting to ruin it for anyone, especially completists who don't give a hoot): The mastering is quite bad, IMHO.
I know there are people on here who like to twiddle knobs to make the stuff sound better, but the Suhar Guhr (spelling?) and similar remasters (think Verve Master Edition and, partially, Verve Elite) ... suck in comparison to earlier editions.

It pisses me off every single time I put those editions on ... harsh, brittle, trebbly, etc.
Bill Evans and a ton of others deserve better.

AND ... NO ... I'm not the audiophile geek (anymore) and I'm not a Hoffmanite (a**hole).
It's just that those Verve remasters really do suck the life and ambiance out of the music.

*sorry*

Edited April 9, 2014 by neveronfriday

[jazzbo]

Deus,

Have you ever listened to this set and other Verves with the phase/polarity inverted?

I have a button on my DAC which makes this very easy. I have a theory that somewhere along the mastering/pressing chain the phase/polarity has been inverted on many Verve releases that came out at this time. When the phase/polarity is inverted (corrected perhaps) they sound much better, not harsh, with presence.

[neveronfriday]

@jazzbo

Like I said above, I'm not the type to expect electronic gear to save the day.

I have a (comparatively) cheap (Marantz PM-78 and Dynaudio 1.8MKII) setup which I chose that time to make mediocre stuff sound a bit warmer and better, but comparing those Verve masters mentioned above to earlier editions (the ones available) on my system just tells me that they aren't worth the money.

I know I sound like a Hoffmanite, which I'm not, but it really comes down to this: Comparing the Verve Master (and whatever they cooked up subsequently or previously) editions to, f.ex., the Dennis Drake Ella Fitzgerald and Oscar Peterson remasters just shows how bad the recent Verve editions were/are. I wasted a sh*tload of money on that stuff and no amount of knob twirling and whatnot will save them. It just makes them sound marginally better, at best.

I guess a tube amp might improve things beyond my (warm) Marantz (A-class), but no amount of tweaking will give you back the soundstage ... which is completely ruined on most newer Verve editions which have a center-focused sound.

In the end though, it all comes down to personal preference, and Verve later remasters don't even come close to mine.

I have several hundred of those remasters lined up to be shot, sold or simply trashed (since nobody wants to pay more than a few cents for them anymore anyway ... unless they are rare and shrink-wrapped).

YMMV (and probably will).

Volkher (deus62)

Edited April 9, 2014 by neveronfriday

[mjzee]

You know, even if the sound isn't stellar, there is simply no other way to get the material on this box (without spending insane prices). I'll reserve judgement until I receive it, and will be quietly hopeful.

[JohnT]

I couldn't afford the metal box version of the Bill Evans on Verve when it came out years ago and I've been looking/hoping for an affordable version so I jumped on it from Amazon.de at that price! A friend of mine has the original metal box version so if this one sounds similar to that one, I can more than live with that as well as the lack of liner notes at that price!

However, I hope their shipping is better than Amazon.uk --- I'm still waiting for my MIles Box!!!

[neveronfriday]

I don't want to knock the music. Huge Evans fan here who likes every scrap he finds.

Hell, I bought a ton of the stuff just for the extras, the additional takes, etc. (lots of Verve editions)

Doesn't change the fact that Verve has done injustice (soundwise) to a load of material they regurgitated since 2000+

[Fer Urbina]

About the sound, I'm no audiophile, but FWIW the box says

"Released after 1997 Verve 07314 527 9532 8" and "22-bit remastering"

I don't know if that's a new remaster, or if they've taken the 1997 masters verbatim.

EDIT: The 1997 was 22-bit too, so my guess is that it is exactly the same sound as the original, rusty one.

F

PD Even the blurb has been copied verbatim

Edited April 9, 2014 by Fer Urbina

[neveronfriday]

22-bit - in the case of Verve - are 21 bits too many.
Always.

Edited April 9, 2014 by neveronfriday

[Fer Urbina]

22-bit - in the case of Verve - are 21 bits too many.

Always.

Question: the sound on the 1997 box wasn't very good, then? (I haven't had the chance to play my 2014 box yet, and I'm no audiophile - I've been listening to pre-1920 stuff lately, so "bearable" is enough for me).

F

[neveronfriday]

22-bit - in the case of Verve - are 21 bits too many.

Always.

Question: the sound on the 1997 box wasn't very good, then? (I haven't had the chance to play my 2014 box yet, and I'm no audiophile - I've been listening to pre-1920 stuff lately, so "bearable" is enough for me).

F

Really, it's a matter of personal taste.

Personally, I would choose other editions.

BUT: My collection - and I hope I'm exaggerating here - consists of 50% stuff I bought to have the music (and I'm happy to have it), no matter what the sound quality. What really irks me though is that a lot of it I could have had in better quality. I was impatient, gullible, stupid. And today I don't want to reinvest the money. I'm not the type to buy seven editions of some CD to find the best-sounding one (and I don't have the cash either). Maybe you remember (don't know if you were around way back when) the mass of "24 BIT remastered" ZYX OJC CDs. When they were available from 2001 (German cheapo retailer) I bought several bags full of those. To be quite honest, a 20-year old herring in a 30-year old can sounds better than that shite. A true abomination. I didn't listen to good advice, bought it all ... and hate the world for it today.

The same goes for the Verve Master editions. People on here warned me, time and again, and I bought them all. Dumb. The Bill Evans Complete set basically holds all of that stuff. If someone told me today to avoid it, I would (probably ignore him/her to have the music).

It's all schizophrenic, really.

There's a book in all of this somewhere.

Edited April 9, 2014 by neveronfriday

[erwbol]

For what it's worth, the Clifford Brown Complete Master Takes tin can from 2009 I bought the other day has a nice warm sound. Not harsh. It was done by Kevin Reeves.

I agree the Verve Master Edition digipaks and jewel cases are generally crap sound wise (or at least the ones I've heard). I'm no Hoffmanite either, but I hate bright remasters. It looks like I won't be getting the Evans box then.

Edited April 9, 2014 by erwbol

[Fer Urbina]

22-bit - in the case of Verve - are 21 bits too many.

Always.

Question: the sound on the 1997 box wasn't very good, then? (I haven't had the chance to play my 2014 box yet, and I'm no audiophile - I've been listening to pre-1920 stuff lately, so "bearable" is enough for me).

F

Really, it's a matter of personal taste.

Personally, I would choose other editions.

BUT: My collection - and I hope I'm exaggerating here - consists of 50% stuff I bought to have the music (and I'm happy to have it), no matter what the sound quality. What really irks me though is that a lot of it I could have had in better quality. I was impatient, gullible, stupid. And today I don't want to reinvest the money. I'm not the type to buy seven editions of some CD to find the best-sounding one (and I don't have the cash either). Maybe you remember (don't know if you were around way back when) the mass of "24 BIT remastered" ZYX OJC CDs. When they were available from 2001 (German cheapo retailer) I bought several bags full of those. To be quite honest, a 20-year old herring in a 30-year old can sounds better than that shite. A true abomination. I didn't listen to good advice, bought it all ... and hate the world for it today.

The same goes for the Verve Master editions. People on here warned me, time and again, and I bought them all. Dumb. The Bill Evans Complete set basically holds all of that stuff. If someone told me today to avoid it, I would (probably ignore him/her to have the music).

It's all schizophrenic, really.

There's a book in all of this somewhere.

THANKS!

F

[jazzbo]

@jazzbo

Like I said above, I'm not the type to expect electronic gear to save the day.

Volkher (deus62)

I don't expect electronic gear to save the day either but IF something has phase/polarity inverted, correcting it does improve the sound, reverses the treble/bass balance, restores the ambient information which defines a lot of the soundstage, etc.

Sucks that these get released that way, but being able to correct it can improve enjoyment of the sound. At least it stopped me kvetching about these releases and allows me to actually use what i spent money on in these cases.

[neveronfriday]

@jazzbo

Like I said above, I'm not the type to expect electronic gear to save the day.

Volkher (deus62)

I don't expect electronic gear to save the day either but IF something has phase/polarity inverted, correcting it does improve the sound, reverses the treble/bass balance, restores the ambient information which defines a lot of the soundstage, etc.

Sucks that these get released that way, but being able to correct it can improve enjoyment of the sound. At least it stopped me kvetching about these releases and allows me to actually use what i spent money on in these cases.

____

Absolutely valid point, certainly, but - as far as I know - reversed polarity is really the least (and altogether almost negligible) problem. Happens, but it is comparatively rare. What is common is mastering that just turns music into tin can sound. And THAT is only marginally (is that a word?) fixable. If a mastering engineer (one who was probably forced to do so ... that's why I would refuse to pile on him/her together with others) boosted the treble and applied all kinds of weird EQing to a recording there is only comparatively little you can do. Yes, I also try to make up for it by twiddling the knobs but, really, what's lost won't magically reappear. What you/I are doing is masking mastering/engineering decisions and there's only so much you can do to alleviate the problem(s) (plural, because usually there's more than one).

Edited April 9, 2014 by neveronfriday

[erwbol]

@jazzbo

Like I said above, I'm not the type to expect electronic gear to save the day.

Volkher (deus62)

I don't expect electronic gear to save the day either but IF something has phase/polarity inverted, correcting it does improve the sound, reverses the treble/bass balance, restores the ambient information which defines a lot of the soundstage, etc.

Sucks that these get released that way, but being able to correct it can improve enjoyment of the sound. At least it stopped me kvetching about these releases and allows me to actually use what i spent money on in these cases.

No offence intended, Lon, but instead of kvetching there is a danger you sometimes end up praising remasters that are subpar.

[Bigshot]

It's hard to know how good a remastering is unless you know the condition the elements they were working with were in.

[jazzbo]

Well one persons's "subpar" may not be another's if one has a flexible system. I do and I'm so glad I do.

Edited April 9, 2014 by jazzbo

[jazzbo]

@jazzbo

Like I said above, I'm not the type to expect electronic gear to save the day.

Volkher (deus62)

I don't expect electronic gear to save the day either but IF something has phase/polarity inverted, correcting it does improve the sound, reverses the treble/bass balance, restores the ambient information which defines a lot of the soundstage, etc.

Sucks that these get released that way, but being able to correct it can improve enjoyment of the sound. At least it stopped me kvetching about these releases and allows me to actually use what i spent money on in these cases.

____

Absolutely valid point, certainly, but - as far as I know - reversed polarity is really the least (and altogether almost negligible) problem. Happens, but it is comparatively rare. What is common is mastering that just turns music into tin can sound. And THAT is only marginally (is that a word?) fixable. If a mastering engineer (one who was probably forced to do so ... that's why I would refuse to pile on him/her together with others) boosted the treble and applied all kinds of weird EQing to a recording there is only comparatively little you can do. Yes, I also try to make up for it by twiddling the knobs but, really, what's lost won't magically reappear. What you/I are doing is masking mastering/engineering decisions and there's only so much you can do to alleviate the problem(s) (plural, because usually there's more than one).

I agree, bad mastering is a real problem. In the case of these Evans recordings in the box though I think the mastering is less at fault and the phase.polarity is incorrect and when corrected the mastering sounds decent. Anyway to me, on my system.

Edited April 9, 2014 by jazzbo

[erwbol]

I gues in this day and age, when a man orders a burgundy red sweater and is sent a bright orange one, it is his fault he is not wearing the right kind of contact lenses that would cause the sweater to appear red. He should stop nitpicking since the sweater is obviously the right size anyway.

Edited April 9, 2014 by erwbol

[neveronfriday]

To close this particular train of thought down: Some of the material is available in (much) better quality. The problem is that it does not include alternate takes, bonus material, etc. So, if you want it all, like I do, you're stuck with what's currently available. I just decided to refrain this time ... once burned, twice shy.

And, jazzbo, the polarity is definitely not the only problem if you try to reverse it. You're still stuck with mastering that pushes the trebbly aspects and narrows the soundstage ... when the polarity is reversed, only minor deficiencies get ironed out (a minor improvement in overall sound, plus, if you are lucky, a somewhat improved soundstage). That is on my system though, and many people's much more revealing ones, decent ones, better ones and whatnot might and will differ.

A last thought: Most people who buy this stuff don't have the possibilty to do anything but twist a maximum of three knobs, at best ... and that's it. All of those are stuck with sub-par mastering. So, is music produced for those who have the ability to tweak the sh*t out of stuff or for those who can't, won't and haven't even thought of doing so? One step further: Is this mastered for the "elite" (with the right system) or for the average audience? The former can live with it, perhaps, the latter has to and will simply never know better. It's the latter aspect that contributes to a decline in "artistic", "sonic" or whatever value. To be quite brunt (and, I repeat what others have said before me), if you have only seen the Mona Lisa covered in fluorescent color by some hack, you won't know what it is/was really like, will you? In the end, it's really an academic question which most people couldn't give a sh*t about. I think it is depressing that sonic deficiencies aren't even recognized anymore today. But that's a whole different train of thought.

[jazzbo]

I find the change with polarity correction more profound than you seem to if you've tried it. But regardless, I don't disagree that there's no excuse for bad mastering and that it's awful that these are put out this way. But so much is put out this way that I have decided to have choices in tube biasing, NOS or over-sampling filters of various types, upsampling or not, tube-rolling and "riding the gain" in order to enjoy as best as possible what IS put out. And this has led me to be less upset about these things and granted I enjoy futzing with things but I'm having a lot more fun with the listening than I would otherwise. What else are we going to do? We are not going to change the industry's mind, and the "audiophile" releases are never going to be comprehensive or selected as we choose.

Mona Lisa? This stuff was not made to be in a museum or a cathedral.

So I make no apologies for working with what I ahve and what is released.

Edited April 9, 2014 by jazzbo

[JSngry]

This being Bill Evans on Verve, I had planned on listening to it in my car, maybe with even the top down. So...should I plan on driving in reverse if it sounds bad under those conditions?

I just wanted some ok music at a cheap price, I didn't want to have to relearn how to drive, Should I ask for a refund once it gets here? If so, how does that work in Italian, because I'm getting bombarded (literally!) with Amazon emails in Italian, and I'm like, uh, perhaps not, please?

Also, Texas not being a particularly forward looking state in any regard except legal driving position, should I stick to the toll roads, figuring that I might have a shot at the "hey, I'm paying for this drive, I can go any damn way I want to, this is TEXAS Your Honor!!!!!" argument in court and hope that my cry of desperation-induced personal liberty violations is taken seriously?

I should note at this point that I do not have money to pay for an expensive attorney, just a cheap amazon.it Bill Evans Verve box. So all directives should be framed accordingly, please.

[MomsMobley]

Also, Texas not being a particularly forward looking state in any regard except legal driving position, should I stick to the toll roads, figuring that I might have a shot at the "hey, I'm paying for this drive, I can go any damn way I want to, this is TEXAS Your Honor!!!!!" argument in court and hope that my cry of desperation-induced personal liberty violations is taken seriously?

[JSngry]

Well sure, if you got a bus.

[Bigshot]

Are you talking a simple reversal of absolute phase, or is it one channel out of phase to the other?