"Cafe Blue" on Tape!

TBone

New Member
Nov 15, 2012
1,237
1
0
Why?

My understanding is that Cafe Blue was originally recorded in 16/44 (or 48) format. To get the most out of this particular recording, hear the CD on a top CDP.

(I own the vinyl copy, CD and FIM HDCD version).
tb1
 

mep

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
9,481
17
0
$525.00??? :eek:

I know. I have a really, really good copy of this LP. But, and this is a big but, I have written several posts about her music and the pretentiousness of it all. I'm not a super fan by any means. I'm definitely not a $525 super fan.
 

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,236
81
1,725
New York City
Why?

My understanding is that Cafe Blue was originally recorded in 16/44 (or 48) format. To get the most out of this particular recording, hear the CD on a top CDP.

(I own the vinyl copy, CD and FIM HDCD version).
tb1
So why are tape and LP cut from the same sonic cloth and the CD sounds nothing like them. In fact, the CD pales.
 

TBone

New Member
Nov 15, 2012
1,237
1
0
So why are tape and LP cut from the same sonic cloth and the CD sounds nothing like them. In fact, the CD pales.

My idea of a hi-end turntable is to try and get the LP sound as close as possible to the master-tape from which it was originally recorded. In this case, I hardly think that R&R, SACD or LP would improve on this particular recording since it was in fact 16 bit. It might change it, it might make it sound different, or it might even sound identical for all I care. i know one thing, my Cafe Blue CD sounds virtually identical to my LP.

But then again, it's not my $500.

tb1
 

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,236
81
1,725
New York City
My idea of a hi-end turntable is to try and get the LP sound as close as possible to the master-tape from which it was originally recorded. In this case, I hardly think that R&R, SACD or LP would improve on this particular recording since it was in fact 16 bit. It might change it, it might make it sound different, or it might even sound identical for all I care. i know one thing, my Cafe Blue CD sounds virtually identical to my LP.

But then again, it's not my $500.

tb1

So you've never heard the tape and have no basis for judgement.
 

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,236
81
1,725
New York City
Never said that I have ...

tb1

It is curious since you claim that in your SOTA system the LP and CD sound the same. Even if they're cut from the same 16/44 recording transferred to tape, it's impossible with the steps involved in production of each medium for them to sound the same. Oh and 16/44 can sound pretty damn good.
 

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,236
81
1,725
New York City

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,236
81
1,725
New York City
I knew there had to be a caveat!

I guess what I'm saying is that something being high-rez doesn't guarantee that it will sound good either. I've heard plenty of awful sounding DSD, DXD and whatever recordings. In fact, when auditioning the DCS Vivaldi, my 44/16 CDs sounded worlds better than the high rez stuff that DCS played. Had I judged the sound of the Vivaldi based on what they played, I would have come to the wrong conclusion about the sound of their digital stack.
 

TBone

New Member
Nov 15, 2012
1,237
1
0
It is curious since you claim that in your SOTA system the LP and CD sound the same. Even if they're cut from the same 16/44 recording transferred to tape, it's impossible with the steps involved in production of each medium for them to sound the same. Oh and 16/44 can sound pretty damn good.

Well, I never claimed my system SOTA, my claim is that it's very good equipment that's been highly refined. Look, I can be just as analytical about the pro's & con's of my own system, as others.

As far as I'm concerned, CD, when done right, is better than many vinylphiles consider. I think 16/44 is a medium that's been misunderstood in some circles, perhaps let down by questionable musical practices/processing. I arrived at this conclusion relatively recently (I hated CD for nearly two decades) based on a few factors; one being that certain recordings can indeed sound amazingly natural within a very good system. However, the real ear-opener to me was when I started creating & sharing LP-CDRs with others, in which I (we) soon realized that one could in fact copy a LP to 16/44 (arguably, even on a sub-par recorder) and the result will be as good or better than many of the sub-standard CDs available.

Concerning the duplication of Cafe Blue to alternative mediums, well, I can understand how it might be better since perhaps the original 16 bit master was not well represented on the original CD. And the potential also exist that it might not have been properly represented on the FIM version, but I question that possibility considering FIM have a fine reputation of decent transfers.

When I claimed the CB LP & CD sound identical, I should have stated the original CD and the Premonition LP sound "virtually-identical". I have other digital recordings that are similar in nature. The Cowboy Junkees Trinity Sessions for example, yet another 16 bit "natural" recording. I claim "virtually identical" because although differences may exist (mix?), they are relatively small, especially in comparison to the overall difference between my analog rig in comparison to my digital player. In other words, in a blind test (which I'm no fan) I doubt most could reliably tell Cafe Blue or Trinity Sessions apart (CD vs LP) within my system. I've actually done just that (on a very limited basis) with visitors in the past, and the outcome was much the same. That said, I'm certain that even a death mute could decipher the general differences between a great LP on my turntable compared to a great CD on my CDP (most vinyl based audiophiles who visit refuse to entertain anything digital for that very reason (sigh)).

Although the FIM version is certainly better than the original CD, I wouldn't consider it jaw dropping. Perhaps some of the difference could be based on the mix. If my LP sounds different to the original CD in any way, it doesn't do so from purely a sonic point of view, again, perhaps more of a mix issue.

If I may quote Fremer:


Taken on its own, the new mix features a far superior and better integrated reverberant field, which is not surprising. The original's backdrop now sounds a bit hokey and too intense. It calls attention to itself and gives Barber's voice a harsh and sometimes brittle quality, while pushing her further into the backdrop than it should be. Sometimes the reverberant field overwhelms her voice. The new reissue's vocals are far smoother and much better integrated within the context of the atmospherics. You'll hear it immediately on the opening track "What A Shame" when Barber raises her voice to sing the line "fast on that track to decay." I noted that the bongos on that track "popped" better too.

However, if you already have the Mo-Fi 45rpm edition, you needn't buy this one, though the gatefold packaging is obviously superior to Mo-Fi's black box. Overall, these two multi-disc editions sound different from one another in a few key ways.

While the new mix using a superior reverb chamber is better integrated and "cleaner" overall in a modern way, I prefered listening to the Mo-Fi box at 45rpms. For whatever reason or reasons, the Mo-Fi exhibits greater stage depth (could be the amount of reverb). The new mix is flatter-sounding. But what really surprised me—and I noted it immediately—was the loss of transient definition when bassist Michael Arnopol plucks the bass strings with his fingers. What's a clear "pluck" on the Mo-Fi 45 becomes on the new mix, a somewhat muted, less than well-defined transient. It almost loses altogether the sensation of a finger being involved. The instrument itself also sounds somewhat fuller and richer on the Mo-Fi set—more "woody." The remixed cymbals are also either further forward in the mix, or just sound as if they are and they exhibit a harder edge that makes you want to lower the volume.


So ... while I understand the potential for better, often better is just different. And considering the extra processes involved with converting digital to tape, I find it highly unlikely that the RtR version would be anything but different, and potentially it might not be as good. I could be wrong (wouldn't be the first time), but I found this quote interesting ...


This time, Anderson transferred the multitrack tape to Pro-Tools 96/24 (the extra resolution can only help) and then mixed it down to 192k/24 bit two channel. From that he also produced a 15IPS Dolby SR analog tape, both of which Bob Ludwig received for mastering.

Jim says he believes Bob used the 192k/24 bit file, which he mastered and sent (at what resolution remains unclear) to Doug Sax for lacquer cutting.


... in that they used the digital file (which makes sense to me) ... and it also makes me wonder if the RtR tape that is now available was based on the 15IPS tape?

tb1
 

TBone

New Member
Nov 15, 2012
1,237
1
0
I guess what I'm saying is that something being high-rez doesn't guarantee that it will sound good either. I've heard plenty of awful sounding DSD, DXD and whatever recordings. In fact, when auditioning the DCS Vivaldi, my 44/16 CDs sounded worlds better than the high rez stuff that DCS played. Had I judged the sound of the Vivaldi based on what they played, I would have come to the wrong conclusion about the sound of their digital stack.

I've had a few "hi-end" SACD players in my system, and yet I found most recordings were sub-par. I only heard a few recordings in which I truly found 'em worthy of the SACD hype. Admittedly, my experience with SACD software is limited, but I can safely state that some of the early Stones & Dylan disks that many claimed were "superior", even to the LPs, were in my books ... OK at best. In comparison to my turntable on an overall basis, the much heralded and over-hyped original Sony 777 didn't remotely come close (the Linn Akurate proved much better), even my CDP (esp in HDCD) proved superior the vast majority of time (esp in terms of noise floor, grain & transparency).

tb1
 

jonathanhorwich

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2010
68
46
923
Chicago
I thought I might comment on several things as I'm the one who told Ki about the Cafe Blue release. I am a jazz producer from Chicago. I now have the Cafe Blue tapes here and have listened to them. As a disclaimer right from the get go, I very much respect the producer, Michael Friedman, and I am doing the one to one tape duplication from the production masters for him for Cafe Blue. So, I'm not as objective as I would be normally when commenting (every six months or so). 1) Firstly, I believe Patricia Barber is a major talent. For instance, her CD Verse is stunning. Listen to "Pieces" on that CD which I believe it is a modern classic with phenomenal work by Dave Douglas on trumpet as well as the other musicians. The words are brilliant. And the playing in all cases avoid the usual cliches so often found in singers and musicians. I cannot speak for Cafe Blue as I have just started listening to it. I don't comment on jazz I haven't listened to many many times. Verse I have listened to over and over and it shows that Patricia is a brilliant performer and she gathers the highest quality musicians to her. Most modern singers are very derivative, although very talented in many cases. Patricia is truly original. All of this is my opinion as a listener. 2) Secondly my favorite jazz trio recording of all time (I'm talking audio quality now) is Standards put out by the wonderful jazz drummer Peter Erskine. Recorded with one stereo microphone it is a blow away in my opinion. To my shock I found out it was recorded directly to a CD recorder on a very questionable digital recorder (not even close to the amazing Nagra VI digital recorder). I became friends with the recording engineer of this performance later and he assures me it was normal 44/16. I say this only to let others know that I prefer A) tape B) then vinyl C) then CD. But here is my favorite jazz trio recording of all time and it is 16/44. I could not tell as the microphone, mic placement, hall, etc. make it stunning. All in my opinion of course. What would it have been like recorded directly to a 1/2 inch two track Levinson Studer A 80 or other killer analog machine I don't know. 3) I have heard the Cafe Blue tapes and to my taste they kill the CD I have. They just sound more immediate and real. To me there is no question. I have not heard the vinyl so cannot speak to that. But this CD I have of it isn't even close to the tapes. The tape is just wonderful and I would be happy with this just as I am with some other tape purchases I have made. That's my unobjective view for what it is worth.
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing