|
Post by gregorythefish on Sept 3, 2015 18:58:08 GMT
well, i have not found any Bjork vinyl yet, alun, but i will keep my eyes peeled, though i rarely dig anywhere but the jazz sections these days, and occasionally metal, if it is separated from rock and is not simply 400 used "krokus" albums. :::shudder:::
|
|
|
Post by bassman on Jan 22, 2016 10:15:08 GMT
Hi Rich, "... the principle of hearing the music 'as it was intended to be heard' ... " sounds convincing at first sight, but may result in endless debate. How should a 1957 Blue Note record be listened to? It may have been recorded in two-track, but mastered in mono and designed sonically to sound best on 1957 mono equipment. It will, of course, sound much more impressive on modern high-end gear - but was it intended to be heard that way? First thing I would do (theoretically), I would start fiddling with the bass register because I don't like that "original" RVG bass sound. I say theoretically, because I don't have to. I listen to a decent stereo CD version instead. Only thing I regret is it doesn't come in a decent 12 inch cardbaord sleeve ...
|
|
|
Post by alunsevern on Jan 23, 2016 11:31:45 GMT
Bassman, Now you have opened a can of worms! I don't really take a position because I'm not a mono/first pressing/kabuki cover/ear-RVG-in-the-dead-wax kind of collector or indeed listener, although on balance I prefer to hear music on decently pressed LP rather than CD, but beyond that will pretty much take what I can find and afford. In addition, my ears (increasingly) don't help. Those *are* 1954 vintage and most days they sound it too....
|
|
|
Post by gregorythefish on Jan 23, 2016 16:58:51 GMT
i don't think it's a can of worms at all. the extent to which you collect original pressings or modern hi-fi reissues or just any ol' thing you can find is just your own preference. it's not like any of this stuff sounds BAD in any format, so why hassle each other?
|
|
|
Post by bassman on Jan 23, 2016 17:58:37 GMT
i don't think it's a can of worms at all. the extent to which you collect original pressings or modern hi-fi reissues or just any ol' thing you can find is just your own preference. it's not like any of this stuff sounds BAD in any format, so why hassle each other? Thanks for answering my post, GTF and Alun. I'm delighted to find that none of you folks are holding any extreme views on what's "right" and what's "wrong" in this matter. I like to listen to my jazz both ways, as long as the vinyl is in acceptable condition.
|
|
|
Post by alunsevern on Jan 23, 2016 21:45:29 GMT
All true, GTF and bassman, but having said that just this afternoon I was playing mono Vocalion of Billy Strayhorn's CUE FOR SAXOPHONE, in which Strayhorn's leads a small Ellingtonian septet, with Hodges disguised as Cue Porter through half a dozen effortlessly graceful and swinging tracks in an example of wonderful late fifties (1959) mainstream jazz at its finest. aNd I found myself thinking, My God, this sounds especially marvellous, knowing that I had picked it up for a few quid a decade or more back when I used to go to record fairs and records (especially at the particular record fair I have in mind) seem in retrospect to have been cheap...
Of course, it would sound great however you heard it, but this beautifully preserved Vocalion, with an old style alpha-numeric KNIghtsbridge phone number on the back has charms all of its own that would not and could not be replicated in a remastered CD....
|
|
|
Post by bassman on Jan 24, 2016 8:10:16 GMT
All true, GTF and bassman, but having said that just this afternoon I was playing mono Vocalion of Billy Strayhorn's CUE FOR SAXOPHONE, in which Strayhorn's leads a small Ellingtonian septet, with Hodges disguised as Cue Porter through half a dozen effortlessly graceful and swinging tracks in an example of wonderful late fifties (1959) mainstream jazz at its finest. aNd I found myself thinking, My God, this sounds especially marvellous, knowing that I had picked it up for a few quid a decade or more back when I used to go to record fairs and records (especially at the particular record fair I have in mind) seem in retrospect to have been cheap... Of course, it would sound great however you heard it, but this beautifully preserved Vocalion, with an old style alpha-numeric KNIghtsbridge phone number on the back has charms all of its own that would not and could not be replicated in a remastered CD.... I can understand that, Alun. Though I can be very picky about sound when people start to argue in absolute terms, I am still fascinated by the vinyl (and older shellac) media as such. For instance: To me, the best version of Coleman Hawkins's "Body And Soul", soundwise, is the CD edition by Dreyfus who did an incredible job in restoring frequency range and eliminating surface noise. I also own the original Victor 78 RPM disc. Can it cope with Dreyfus? No way. I rarely put in on at all, but whenever I do I fully enjoy listening to it the way it is. It's a different experience, no doubt. The Strayhorn record is a beauty. If you happen to be an Ellington expert, forgive me for recommending two truly great albums that are very much in the "Cue for Saxophone" vein: "Side By Side" and "Back To Back", both on Verve, alternately featuring Strayhorn and a stunning Duke Ellington on piano.
|
|
|
Post by alunsevern on Jan 24, 2016 15:39:40 GMT
I'm an Ellington enthusiast, bassman, and by no means an expert. There is a lifetime's study there. I know the two records you mention and have them both in early UK HMV versions, which when I bought them could still be picked up very cheaply. I imagine they still can. I like and enjoy them both, but to me the asteroids are the post-war suites (although none of the ones that involve singing!) and especially AND HIS MOTHER CALLED HIM BILL, the Duke's lament for Strayhorn, a record which still after numerous listens still makes my eyes prickle.
One other Duke I am very fond of and one of the relatively few records I have in really original pressings, is BLUES IN ORBIT. I'm not a great blues fan and generally tire of blues-based music quickly, but ORBIT is machine-tooled playing of the highest order. There are a couple of tracks on there - I don't remember which exactly - that end with wonderful moments: a deep dark plunk on the bass and a high strongly damped plink in the highest registers of the piano. Simple but somehow thrilling, possible because you can almost see it being played out before your eyes.
|
|
|
Post by gregorythefish on Jan 24, 2016 16:26:37 GMT
as much as a shithole as the internet is for opinions in general, it is good to see people remembering that enjoyment of the music, as opposed to recreation of the music, is what's important, and doing it civilly.
i always say that i like good audio quality. i have nice headphones in my office, i listen to records on decent speakers and keep everything nice and clean, but the way EXTREME audiophiles, even occasionally our gracious host, speak about music, i get the sense that they could listen to a sine wave generator and get the same level of enjoyment because it SOUNDS SO CLEAN. not that there's anything wrong with that. but i like the best of both worlds. if i worry about every crackle or about whether my cables have a resistivity of 10 or 11, how much am i really enjoying the music? and similarly, if i listen to 15kbps mp3s through cell-phone speakers, how much am i able to appreciate the music? it's a balancing act.
|
|
|
Post by bassman on Jan 24, 2016 20:33:55 GMT
as much as a shithole as the internet is for opinions in general, it is good to see people remembering that enjoyment of the music, as opposed to recreation of the music, is what's important, and doing it civilly. i always say that i like good audio quality. i have nice headphones in my office, i listen to records on decent speakers and keep everything nice and clean, but the way EXTREME audiophiles, even occasionally our gracious host, speak about music, i get the sense that they could listen to a sine wave generator and get the same level of enjoyment because it SOUNDS SO CLEAN. not that there's anything wrong with that. but i like the best of both worlds. if i worry about every crackle or about whether my cables have a resistivity of 10 or 11, how much am i really enjoying the music? and similarly, if i listen to 15kbps mp3s through cell-phone speakers, how much am i able to appreciate the music? it's a balancing act. Gregory, the point is that "extreme" audiophiles - the ones who claim that they can hear what neither you, nor me, nor anyone else can hear - should, in fact, be able to hear the shortcomings of vinyl better than anyone else! So, what I have always found ridiculous is when audiophile aspirations combine with a near-religious conviction that vinyl is the epitome of sound quality. It isn't. Nor are classic movies the epitome of high-resolution photography. To a degree, it just doesn't matter. Depends on the mood I am in. - But as a musician, I am very, very happy about all the high-tech gear at my disposal. Just for one, we can record music without the slightest wow and flutter these days - something we would never have dreamed of!
|
|
|
Post by Rich on Jan 25, 2016 6:13:57 GMT
Hi Rich, "... the principle of hearing the music 'as it was intended to be heard' ... " sounds convincing at first sight, but may result in endless debate. How should a 1957 Blue Note record be listened to? It may have been recorded in two-track, but mastered in mono and designed sonically to sound best on 1957 mono equipment. It will, of course, sound much more impressive on modern high-end gear - but was it intended to be heard that way? First thing I would do (theoretically), I would start fiddling with the bass register because I don't like that "original" RVG bass sound. I say theoretically, because I don't have to. I listen to a decent stereo CD version instead. Only thing I regret is it doesn't come in a decent 12 inch cardbaord sleeve ... Well, at this point in my time collecting and listening to jazz, I'd say the 'as it was intended to be heard' line for me only really goes as far as listening to the music in mono instead of stereo, and even then I like to break 'the rules' sometimes. I definitely like hearing those recordings with modern mastering, but I think the difference between mono and stereo is dramatic; it's the choice that has the most dramatic effect on the listening experience. Van Gelder has always been passionate about his stuff being listened to in mono and most of the time (not all of the time but most of the time) I prefer to honor his and Alfred Lion's vision. Van Gelder has explained that the stereo presentation of a lot of those recordings is pretty much track 1 of a mono mix on the far left and track 2 on the far right. No matter how much we like how that sounds, it's not how it was intended to be heard. Van Gelder doesn't like how it sounds and that's why in most interviews he's conducted he begs modern listeners to listen in mono. The early Beatles in stereo is a good analogy. I cannot begin to approach understanding why people enjoy hearing all the vocals in one speaker and the entire band in another, completely disjointed. Those album were recorded to two-track tape with the intention of being mixed down to mono. Though they were released in stereo, it was an afterthought and at the time merely fulfilling the stereo market's desire for that new yet odd and unnatural experience. Van Gelder used his two-track tape machine in the same way, but lucky for us he (usually) panned the instruments in a way that made them sound fairly balanced and evenly spread in the stereo field.
|
|
|
Post by Rich on Jan 25, 2016 6:26:02 GMT
as much as a shithole as the internet is for opinions in general, it is good to see people remembering that enjoyment of the music, as opposed to recreation of the music, is what's important, and doing it civilly. i always say that i like good audio quality. i have nice headphones in my office, i listen to records on decent speakers and keep everything nice and clean, but the way EXTREME audiophiles, even occasionally our gracious host, speak about music, i get the sense that they could listen to a sine wave generator and get the same level of enjoyment because it SOUNDS SO CLEAN. not that there's anything wrong with that. but i like the best of both worlds. if i worry about every crackle or about whether my cables have a resistivity of 10 or 11, how much am i really enjoying the music? and similarly, if i listen to 15kbps mp3s through cell-phone speakers, how much am i able to appreciate the music? it's a balancing act. Gregory, the point is that "extreme" audiophiles - the ones who claim that they can hear what neither you, nor me, nor anyone else can hear - should, in fact, be able to hear the shortcomings of vinyl better than anyone else! So, what I have always found ridiculous is when audiophile aspirations combine with a near-religious conviction that vinyl is the epitome of sound quality. It isn't. Nor are classic movies the epitome of high-resolution photography. To a degree, it just doesn't matter. Depends on the mood I am in. - But as a musician, I am very, very happy about all the high-tech gear at my disposal. Just for one, we can record music without the slightest wow and flutter these days - something we would never have dreamed of! Man, I loved the last five or so posts in this thread. I am in 110% agreement regarding audiophiles. Indeed, there seems to be a sentiment among the majority of them that vinyl is a superior medium, and many use vapid language to attempt to communicate the difference. It's quite laughable to me. I've been making a lot of points over at the Steve Hoffman forum that compliment what both of you (Greg and bassman) have to say here. For example, for me, there's no denying the incredibly low noise floor and low levels of distortion with digital playback, not to mention that it's more consistent and reliable than vinyl and analog in general. But that doesn't change the fact that I have a lot of fun hunting down copies of albums that are simply manufactured works of art, and at the end of the day I can safely say I have more fun listening to vinyl. Digital may sound more accurate and 'perfect' but vinyl is more fun, not to mention that the best vinyl can rival digital's low noise floor.
|
|
|
Post by Rich on Jan 25, 2016 6:26:53 GMT
By the way, bassman, welcome!
|
|
|
Post by bassman on Jan 25, 2016 11:52:35 GMT
Hi Rich, "... the principle of hearing the music 'as it was intended to be heard' ... " sounds convincing at first sight, but may result in endless debate. How should a 1957 Blue Note record be listened to? It may have been recorded in two-track, but mastered in mono and designed sonically to sound best on 1957 mono equipment. It will, of course, sound much more impressive on modern high-end gear - but was it intended to be heard that way? First thing I would do (theoretically), I would start fiddling with the bass register because I don't like that "original" RVG bass sound. I say theoretically, because I don't have to. I listen to a decent stereo CD version instead. Only thing I regret is it doesn't come in a decent 12 inch cardbaord sleeve ... Well, at this point in my time collecting and listening to jazz, I'd say the 'as it was intended to be heard' line for me only really goes as far as listening to the music in mono instead of stereo, and even then I like to break 'the rules' sometimes. I definitely like hearing those recordings with modern mastering, but I think the difference between mono and stereo is dramatic; it's the choice that has the most dramatic effect on the listening experience. Van Gelder has always been passionate about his stuff being listened to in mono and most of the time (not all of the time but most of the time) I prefer to honor his and Alfred Lion's vision. Van Gelder has explained that the stereo presentation of a lot of those recordings is pretty much track 1 of a mono mix on the far left and track 2 on the far right. No matter how much we like how that sounds, it's not how it was intended to be heard. Van Gelder doesn't like how it sounds and that's why in most interviews he's conducted he begs modern listeners to listen in mono. The early Beatles in stereo is a good analogy. I cannot begin to approach understanding why people enjoy hearing all the vocals in one speaker and the entire band in another, completely disjointed. Those album were recorded to two-track tape with the intention of being mixed down to mono. Though they were released in stereo, it was an afterthought and at the time merely fulfilling the stereo market's desire for that new yet odd and unnatural experience. Van Gelder used his two-track tape machine in the same way, but lucky for us he (usually) panned the instruments in a way that made them sound fairly balanced and evenly spread in the stereo field. I am not a Beatles fan, but the way you describe those "disjointed" two-track versions I do not think I would appreciate them. As with RVG, I am in two minds about his two- track stuff. But basically it's no mistake to follow his advice and listen in mono where mono was intended. The bigger question with RVG is how long he followed his strategy of monitoring in mono, and why. Acoording to some experts (including you, Rich) he went on until the late sixties. Amazing, because what he was doing at that time was all in stereo, including some delicately balanced big band stuff. Still an enigma to me.
|
|
|
Post by gregorythefish on Jan 25, 2016 17:54:55 GMT
i am a mono fan, but by the time the 60's rolled around, stereo was more or less good to go. van gelder's stereo mixes for impulse are a great example. they are superb. nowadays, of course, stereo is perfected and glorious.
but i will say this, to the defense of stereo: stereo was NOT meant to be heard on multi-channel surround-sound systems. it was meant to be heard through two speakers, which the (formerly) mono consumers hopefully had only a few feet apart from each other. it was also not meant for headphones. so when some people listen to stereo recordings in headphones (especially straight off the turntable), of course it will be a weird experience). listen to music in surround sound, and then complain that a sax player is behind you? what did you expect!? and if mono devotees are so dedicated to their sound, i hope they do not have two speakers far apart! opposite sides of a TV are a good rule of thumb. any farther apart and you're BEGGING for stereo, if you ask me. i have stereo recordings from the era when they were standard (mid 60s forward), and on a nice setup designed to optimize mono but handle stereo, my experience is that they sound great, and often the same. though of course the same doesn't fly at all for late 50s van gelder blue note stereo mixes as you describe, rich. yikes.
and this comes from someone who prefers mono under all cirumstances!
|
|