I recently purchased a vinyl reissue of the 1960 Art Pepper album Smack Up. What a great recording, from every angle - musicianship, recording, production.
I’m going to make a statement here that will ruffle some feathers, but I don’t care anymore: I’m getting tired of trying to figure out what’s so great about Rudy Van Gelder. There, I said it. When I listen to many other engineers from around that time, I hear things I don’t like about RVG. I get it that there is a kind of “jazz sensibility” to his recordings, but when I listen to Smack Up, I hear a much better soundstage, better presence, beautiful bass, and especially better piano. The problem with the latter is constantly being discussed in reference to RVG - why his piano sound isn’t so great. And maybe my ears have gotten too “modern” for RVG.
Either way, I found out that the engineer for Smack Up is Roy DuNann, and the producer is Lester Koenig, so I looked on HDTT for other recordings under their direction and found a few - and they do not disappoint!
I haven’t listened yet to the Counce or Rollins (I do know the Rollins well), but the Benny Carter is remarkably good. “A Walkin’ Thing” is wonderful from a unique sound standpoint.
I agree that these HDTT releases are excellent. Lately, well for the past three years, I only buy DSD256. They connect with my emotions at a higher level.
Hey, so tell me what’s your problem with it? I really respect what you have written around here, so maybe there’s something I could listen for in a different way. The only thing I’m suspicious of in myself is that the recordings might be a little TOO out front, that maybe there’s a subtlety that gets lost in pushing a little too hard. Sure, it’s a matter of taste - so maybe I like more “in your face” than you do, but if there’s something you could describe, you won’t hurt my feelings I promise.
I’m not worried about anyone’s feellings. I just don’t like the general sound of these recordings, they are too hard-panned and closed in for the way I prefer to hear music recorded. When you look at the tiny space they recorded in I can understand why they seem congested and claustrophobic to me.
It’s just “taste” I guess. When I first started recording bands I played in I at first ended up with a similar “sound” to the recordings and bandmates and I didn’t really like it, and I worked with mic placement and spacing of the members and improved the sound. I had a bigger space to work with, and I used two omni-directional mics that I actually placed on opposing walls, to good effect. There’s a lot of clarity in these Contemporary recordings, but in general I don’t ease into the recordings, and I often wonder how they would have sounded in a different studio. But the economics of a small jazz label were what they were.
Thanks for the reply. I listened last night to HDTT Curtis Count Group’s Carl’s Blues. I agree with what you say about the panning being a bit hard and feeling closed - not quite claustrophobic to me, but certainly not spacious. But the reality of jazz performance is that it’s a lot more variable than classical. I’ve been to many clubs where they are cramming 15 musicians into a small space or a jazz trio in a cavernous hall. I guess I prefer a more intimate sound than spread-out, but great music with great audio gets done in all settings.
Like you, I have some previous experience actually engineering recordings, so I got the opportunity to deal with acoustic spaces and negotiate it in my head during recording, then play with it during post-production. For classical recordings I always wanted bigger and wider, but for jazz - even a big band - I wanted tighter and closer to the mic.
But what you say encourages me to listen with a more flexible set of ears. Sometimes I’ll hear a recording that at first seems way out of my preference, but when someone describes what they like about it, I hold my nose and give it a little time, then find myself really liking it based on what they say. So thank you.
I agree, but that line between “real” and “artificial” is very subjective. It reminds me of something I’m fascinated with about in our psychology. If you take a stereo microphone, even of very mediocre quality, and record a live performance, then play it back, typically you will say, “that sounds terrible - no soundstage, no separation, etc.” The truth is, that mic actually captured what came into your ears. The “soundstage” and all that was created by your brain and your other senses - the WHOLE emotional experience of being there. What engineers and producers have to do is manipulate the sound so it tries to simulate that experience and the only way to do it is to enhance things in the sound. The same thing happens with visual media - if you’re on a hike and take a photo with your smartphone, you might likely say, “that doesn’t have any of the power of that experience,” where the photo is actually pretty accurate as to what light particles were coming into your eyes - what it missed were the sounds, smells and other “feels” of the experience. Any good photographer or graphic artists knows is that you have to enhance it in a number of ways to bring it up to the emotional level. Think about music in movies - it would be ridiculous overkill to have that music playing during your hike, but during a hike in a movie, it makes sense. The challenge in recording is to find that line between faking realism and over-faking. So maybe for me, I need a little more intimacy and tightness than you do to sound “real.”
The magic is that I can try to hear what you like and apply it to my own sense of “realism” to see if it resonates, and I like it when it does.
Taking Cyber Monday sale at HDTT, I bought ten albums this morning. Some of them were not available in DSD256, but FLAC 24/352. I don’t have any music file in that format, and I want to hear how do they sound (as soon as I download them into SSD of MU2).
Recording capabilities and mastering have improved greatly since the RVG era. I too find myself wanting regarding Van Gelder’s ensemble recordings that include piano. The piano seems distant, with overtones lacking. The RVG CD re-masters to my ear were tipped up too much. I do find the Kevin Gray remasters to be a significant improvement. Regarding Contemporary recordings the detail provided is fine, but the hard right/left panning, bunching up instruments on each speaker can be annoying. Thus, regarding Contemporary recordings I tend to prefer the recent remastered Mono vice Stereo. Just my sensibilities.
I guess what I find valuable about RVG recordings and re-masters is what I call a “jazz sensibility” which is more of an historical thing than an audio preference thing, if that makes any sense. How I go into it is to say to myself, “this was recording technology at a period of time and handled by someone who really understood the state-of-the-art technology, the music, and his audience. So what is it about the recording that made it stand out at the time?” Sometimes I really get it, usually the same recordings that stand out for others interested in audio, but a lot of the time, I just shrug and think he was doing his job.
And once in a while, I’m really disappointed, like with his piano sound. I honestly think a lot of it has to do with a holdover from earlier jazz, where the piano, along with drums and bass, was psychologically tucked back in a corner. it was allowed to shine from time to time, but in general, its job was to support others. There were also technological limitations caused by the piano - bleed-through with other instruments, so the piano’s mics had to be kept down. Later advances in technology allowed more control over the piano’s sound in the mix. I have heard some later RVG recordings where the piano was more present and full, but I’m not sure he ever got it completely. One thing I’m grateful for is that he didn’t do a lot of recording with Bill Evans. I would hate to have missed capturing what Evans did with sound, not just the notes he played.
The RVG CD re-masters to my ear were tipped up too much.
It was an interesting experiment. I read where Blue Note truly treated it as “give it a shot Rudy - if you honestly like it better, great, if not, that’s fine too.” He liked it better, but I wonder whether there were other incentives TO like it better, like more work, more recognition. And someone said we have to recognize that he was getting up there in years and one’s hearing changes and degrades over time, not to mention changes in the ears of the industry. I’m with you on the Kevin Gray remasters and several of the HDTT ones.
Tend to agree with you regarding the RVG re-masters. I approach the Blue Note CD reissues from the onset of CD as an opportunity to access the BN catalog, with reasonable sound qualiy with sensible pricing. I have many early BN recordings, some from the 70’s with the dark blue label, which I find sonically challenged, many Cadre rouge LP reissues, which are fine, many Toshiba 70’s era reissues, again fine but bass light. The Music Matters reissue program followed by Tone Poet have been a true joy. Come to think of it the Mosaic LP reissue program provided for a welcome improvement in sonics including piano.
Hard to say why Rudy didn’t get a great piano sound, my thought is similar to yours, piano was relegated to the rhythm section, and the focus was on horns, front and center. Glad to have them all the same.
My focus on the BN catalog started with Thelonious Monk’s Genius of Modern Music Volumes 1 & 2, as well as the early Art Blakey Jazz Messengers releases, for example At the Cafe Bohemia and Horace Silver and the Jazz Messengers…
Just want to note that the RVG remastering program was started by Toshiba Japan and then later picked up in the US.
I don’t seem to have issues with the RVG piano sound others do, or to that extent. I am so grateful for the flexible sound that tube-rolling, regenerator settings and my Decware ZROCK2 device allow me. . . I have been able to listen and enjoy recordings others seem not to. Alas, that does not help me with Contemporary sides that bother me as it’s not frequency related and a major aspect of the recordings themselves.
To my ear the 70’s Toshiba LP remasters are preferable to the US RVG remastered CD series. Piano overtones were lacking on many of the earlier recordings, and the piano was set back to far for my taste.
Needless to say having experimented with Decware’s offerings I was nonplussed.
That’s fine. I experimented with Pass and was non-plussed, and with other solid state high end brands. We’re all different–the system I have assembled this century is the best I’ve heard and I’m very happy with its version of audio reality. If I were to have to give up all my Decware components the ZROCK2 I would keep–it is as if it allows me a seat at the engineering console to make things better. (I don’t quite hear the piano sound in general as you seem to, but that too is fine by me).
I collect the Japanese ‘24 Bit by RVG’ lp facsimile cds released 20 plus years ago–to me they sound so much better than most other releases, and differ from the US versions–and sound to me more like the original LPs I have been able to hear. I really don’t do LP reissues . . . when Toshiba was releasing them there were no sellers near me, and since then they and the new reissues are priced far more than I value them.
Anyway, I’m out of the discussion, having hopefully made my own likes and reactions clear. Ever since a PM exchange months back I’ve tried to not engage with you in discussion and I’ll return to that practice.
The Toshiba 24-bit remastered CDs are a welcome step-up in comparison to their USA equivalents. Having easy access to the Japanese LPs as they were issued was a nice benefit. At the time I acquired many of them CDs weren’t an option. Going for the Japanese releases was a relatively easy upgrade compared to the BN LP reissues of the 70’s with this particular label:
I have many of the Blue Note Reissue 2lp sets, they were my introduction to artists like Cecil, Chick Corea/Arc, Jackie McLean. I think the first one I bought was ‘Canteloupe Island’ by Jean-Luc Ponty/Frank Zappa. Not particularly great-sounding sets as I recall.
So, how does the best FLAC format (24/352K) compared to DSD256? I was a bit disappointed frankly. To me the DSD256 is clearly superior. PCM24/352, although sounding clean and detailed, does not provide the fullness and depth of DSD256. These files I downloaded, one after another, do not make me tap my feet at all. They just sounded digital compared to DSD256!
The good news is HDTT all-in-one also provided DSD128 downloads, and I will download them the next.
I purchased the majority of them as they were released. Most were released directly to the cut-out bin for $3.79. At the price, and considering the availability of BN in the 70’s glad to have them all. Sonically nothing special.
Here is something interesting, I downloaded a “Cole Porter Swings Easy in Stereo” file from HDTT in both FLAC 24/352k and DSD128 formats. I like the sound from DSD much better. It is more musical and analog sounding than FLAC. They came from the exact same source, yet in my system they do not sound the same.
I believe in a high-resolution system; one will hear the difference easily. With my latest upgrades in streaming chain the DSD256 is the best sounding format, and DSD128 comes in second. All PCM formats sounded inferior. Even SACD from PST/MK2 could not match the DSD256 files from SSD in my Grimm MU2 anymore.
