A frame of reference

[DaveyF]

In the thread -what's spinning tonight, I posted about my mild disappointment with the CD "Bennie Wallace, the old songs" which was originally recorded by Audioquest and re-released by JVC on their XRCD label. ( which was the pressing that I was listening to). Bob ( Northstar) correctly pointed out to me a very interesting fact....this piece was recorded more recently ( I think in the 80's) and because of that, was less well recorded and realistic sounding than an earlier recording of Kenny Dorham that I was also listening to ( also on the JVC XRCD label)...that was recorded in the 50's. The earlier recording had far greater dynamics, warmth and overall palpability. The later recording was somewhat veiled in comparison and had a mildly fatiguing quality when listening through ( at least on my system).
OTOH, I'm not sure that some listeners and recording engineer's would not prefer the newer recording. This is the interesting question...depending upon your a) expectation of what sounds more realistic to you, the more "analytical" pressing would be preferred, b) your exposure to the sound of 'live' tenor sax'es could lean you towards the newer pressing, or c) I suppose IF your system was able to somehow either increase the dynamics of the later pressing ( via your recording/playback process) and you did not have access to any of the IMO superior sounding older pressings, you may prefer the later pressing.
Which brings me to my question...are we all hearing the same thing when we go to a 'live' performance, or are we perhaps zeroing in on some aspect of the performance/sound that another listener is giving no credence to? Same goes for the recording engineer's value in what they believe to be an important aspect of the recording that they are trying to capture. Important to them, BUT is it important to you??

 

[JackD201]

I, and I don't think anybody else for that matter, listen to the same piece the same way twice. I think we all zoom in and out of different aspects of the performance each and every time. So for me, I strive towards balance. It should be easy to zoom in and out of whatever you wish too including things that might be more buried in the mix than others.

Frankly, I don't think much about things sounding more or less realistic. To me it either is or isn't and if it isn't I can actually live quite well with that. Because I do like to zoom in and out following a musical thread here, its counterpoint there and zooming out to take everything all in at once, what bothers me is stuff that can break what should be a freewheeling activity.

I guess what I'm saying is that I have an easier time listening past sonic deficiencies provided that the musical performance is compelling enough.

 

[DaveyF]

So that I understand what you are saying, Jack...you are not that concerned with the piece sounding like what you perceive as realistic That seems odd to me, as this is one of the most important, if not THE most important aspect when I listen to an audio system. Am I confusing what you are trying to say?

 

[JackD201]

Maybe just a little Davey. I'm definitely concerned but in the overall scheme of things, not as much as I am with the song writing and musicianship. Of course it is great when you can have your cake and eat it too. Too bad that that is the exception in my case rather than the rule. My formative years were the late 70's and 80s after all. As such, I like a lot of music that is recorded in less than stellar fashion and I might as well change hobbies if I have to limit what I listen to only really live sounding recordings (music before my time and audiophile specialty recordings).

There was a time when I was pretty anal about music and film sound. That was the time I just got out of Full Sail U. It's hard to turn off that switch when day in and day out you've had pretty much all control of what goes onto a dub. Back in domestic listening, you've got practically a whole different set of tools with much less control. You just make the best of things (on average) and try to just enjoy it.

I mean, I'm at a point where more than one element can be very, very realistic both in tone and in level but even with a big system getting the whole enchilada gets close at brief moments but never through and through. I can live with that. It's not like I'm in a continuous state of musical nirvana if I'm in the best seat in the house in a great venue either. There are always distractions, just different ones.

One thing for sure is that I don't have the talent to make a recording that isn't realistic sound realistic. Just a little bit more perhaps and always at the expense of something else but the big emphasis would be on little. Again, that's okay. There are a couple of members here that have benefitted from my not liking music on some very highly regarded and sought after LPs. I've let go of original wide band DECCAs, M&Ks and even an S-9 because I felt they should go to people who appreciate it rather than just have them collect dust in my collection or be relegated to "demo" duty. I do a lot of demo-ing so you can imagine what a chore that would be if I had to play stuff I didn't like myself.

 

[puroagave]

imo, the difference between todays jazz recordings and those form the 1950's - RVG material in particular - was the stripped down and live in studio nature of the recordings themselves. the vintage hardware used sounds it (warm, lush, foreshortened freq extension). When i hear a vintage BN, Prestige, Impulse or whatever LP it always sounds vinatge to me inspite of the great sonics. that said, much of the new recordings have the edge with modern mics and tape/digital gear but tend to be over-engineered. i also believe there is a fundimental difference in sound between SS and tube gear used to record and master with, one has a flatter perspective the other more 3-d, etc.

 

[TBone]

OTOH, I'm not sure that some listeners and recording engineer's would not prefer the newer recording.

I don't know of the record you speak, but I had a similar experience with the re-mastered & remixed CD version of Deep Purple's Machine Head. I consider this CD one of the best sounding rock albums I've ever heard irrespective of format.

However, it comes in two flavours ...

The Remix version (by Roger Glover) is not only different (tracks) at times, it's tonally leaner in balance compared to the original or re-mastered version. The remaster has the same tonal balance as the original, but with greater definition. One seems to build from the top down (remix) while the other builds from the bottom up (remaster). It kinda reminded me of how two different cartridges might play the same LP differently; one warm & dark (Grado), the other lean & sunny (Lyra).

Funny, I listened to the remix first; I was so impressed I simply assumed it would be superior, but I quickly changed my mind after hearing the remaster. Neither is really superior to each other, although they are very different tonally. Because they are so different, like different carts, amps or whatever, differences tend to separate opinions.

Which brings me to my question...are we all hearing the same thing when we go to a 'live' performance, or are we perhaps zeroing in on some aspect of the performance/sound that another listener is giving no credence to? Same goes for the recording engineer's value in what they believe to be an important aspect of the recording that they are trying to capture. Important to them, BUT is it important to you??

Perhaps we learn to appreciate things with a different perspective as we attain experience. Audiophiles often possess different judgmental criteria. An example; my bud & I went to an Australian Pink Floyd The Wall concert years ago, before they got really popular, in a big dance club. We stood by the mixing booth, figuring it would represent the best positional sound area. It certainly did, the concert proved spectacular, especially from an instrumental / dynamic point of view. Not long after that, we ventured to Roger Waters The Wall concert (which I've seen twice) and although visually excellent, I considered the music a bit too formula, although fine sonically. That said, to my ears, not only did it not compare to the Aussie rendition in terms of musicianship, it didn't compare in terms of overall dynamics & fidelity. However, my bud thought very different, he preferred Rogers rendition on both counts. To this day, I have no idea what he was focusing-in on in terms of listening criteria.

tb1

 

[JackD201]

I remember when we were in mixing classes. There would be six of us each on his own cute little Tascam board mixing from MDR tapes of either rock or jazz sessions. Each and every mix sounded markedly different but you could tell the two older guys mixes from the 4 young 'uns. The instructor said my mixes had sounded 70's. I found that funny The young guys were really crunching things up. Really grungy but full of strong emotions. By contrast us older guys used very little of the outboard gear. In my case, I grew up on my folk's standards, classic rock and new wave. The other guy was from Kentucky, he said he listens mostly to Country so his frame of reference was acoustic music. I think there are generational as well as cultural influences at play, in fact, I'm sure of it.

 

[Andre Marc]

I don't know of the record you speak, but I had a similar experience with the re-mastered & remixed CD version of Deep Purple's Machine Head. I consider this CD one of the best sounding rock albums I've ever heard irrespective of format.

However, it comes in two flavours ...

The Remix version (by Roger Glover) is not only different (tracks) at times, it's tonally leaner in balance compared to the original or re-mastered version. The remaster has the same tonal balance as the original, but with greater definition. One seems to build from the top down (remix) while the other builds from the bottom up (remaster). It kinda reminded me of how two different cartridges might play the same LP differently; one warm & dark (Grado), the other lean & sunny (Lyra).

Funny, I listened to the remix first; I was so impressed I simply assumed it would be superior, but I quickly changed my mind after hearing the remaster. Neither is really superior to each other, although they are very different tonally. Because they are so different, like different carts, amps or whatever, differences tend to separate opinions.



Perhaps we learn to appreciate things with a different perspective as we attain experience. Audiophiles often possess different judgmental criteria. An example; my bud & I went to an Australian Pink Floyd The Wall concert years ago, before they got really popular, in a big dance club. We stood by the mixing booth, figuring it would represent the best positional sound area. It certainly did, the concert proved spectacular, especially from an instrumental / dynamic point of view. Not long after that, we ventured to Roger Waters The Wall concert (which I've seen twice) and although visually excellent, I considered the music a bit too formula, although fine sonically. That said, to my ears, not only did it not compare to the Aussie rendition in terms of musicianship, it didn't compare in terms of overall dynamics & fidelity. However, my bud thought very different, he preferred Rogers rendition on both counts. To this day, I have no idea what he was focusing-in on in terms of listening criteria.

tb1

Similar but different experience with the Pearl Jam TEN remaster. The remix is very, very good. But I grew up with the original mix.

The original mix, remastered by Bob Ludwig is terrible. Brittle, edgy, and unpleasant. I expected much, much better. The remix sounds better simply because it does not have that edge.

 

[Andre Marc]

Similar but different experience with the Pearl Jam TEN remaster. The remix is very, very good. But I grew up with the original mix.

The original mix, remastered by Bob Ludwig is terrible. Brittle, edgy, and unpleasant. I expected much, much better. The remix sounds better simply because it does not have that edge.

PS..I have that Deep Purple CD remaster/remix too. Richie Blackmore is among my top ten.

 

[TBone]

Similar but different experience with the Pearl Jam TEN remaster. The remix is very, very good. But I grew up with the original mix.

The original mix, remastered by Bob Ludwig is terrible. Brittle, edgy, and unpleasant. I expected much, much better. The remix sounds better simply because it does not have that edge.

Interesting ...

I "think" (need to check) I have both the original CD and LP of Ten. If memory serves, I don't recall Ten as being one of my better sounding R&R albums, considering both the CD & LP have too much "digital" edge for my liking. I'll check if my LP was a BL / Masterdisk master.

tb1

 

[TBone]

Richie Blackmore is among my top ten.

Big fan also ... perhaps the best R&R "arpeggio" based player of all time. Richie had the meanest sounding guitar/rifts in the business, but he was a destructive influence on the band for a very long time. His choice of lead singers was questionable, especially Turner, who should never have been associated with Purple according to Glover (I agree).

Speaking of rifts, the rift between he and Gillan was a classic R&R skirmish, but unlike Gillan, in those days, only Blackmore seemed irreplaceable (although in retrospect, Ian Paice proved most important). Steve Morse proved Blackmore wasn't irreplaceable, and Deep Purple has been touring successfully, and in peace, ever since ... while Blackmore continues to play "fairy" music.

tb1

 

[TBone]

Still can't believe that DP, considered one of the most influential R&R bands by peers, isn't in the R&R Hall of Fame ... but of course, they ain't no Donna Summer.

(sigh)
tb1

 

[Andre Marc]

Interesting ...

I "think" (need to check) I have both the original CD and LP of Ten. If memory serves, I don't recall Ten as being one of my better sounding R&R albums, considering both the CD & LP have too much "digital" edge for my liking. I'll check if my LP was a BL / Masterdisk master.

tb1

I did not think the original CD sounded too bad. But it was doomed from the start. I believe it was mixed to DAT.
And I hate the sound of DAT. I don't know if anyone else hear has any information on this.

 

[Andre Marc]

Big fan also ... perhaps the best R&R "arpeggio" based player of all time. Richie had the meanest sounding guitar/rifts in the business, but he was a destructive influence on the band for a very long time. His choice of lead singers was questionable, especially Turner, who should never have been associated with Purple according to Glover (I agree).

Speaking of rifts, the rift between he and Gillan was a classic R&R skirmish, but unlike Gillan, in those days, only Blackmore seemed irreplaceable (although in retrospect, Ian Paice proved most important). Steve Morse proved Blackmore wasn't irreplaceable, and Deep Purple has been touring successfully, and in peace, ever since ... while Blackmore continues to play "fairy" music.

tb1

Not an unusual scenario with groups filled with amazingly talented and dominant forces. The same applies to the multiple incarnations of Yes, Van Halen,
RHCP, Santana, and countless others.

To me Deep Purple is meaningless without Blackmore, Lord, Paice, Glover, and Gillan. Everything else is second best.

Interestingly, the Coverdale years were not terrible because the material was acceptably strong.

I actually liked Turner in Rainbow.

 

[TBone]

I did not think the original CD sounded too bad. But it was doomed from the start. I believe it was mixed to DAT.
And I hate the sound of DAT. I don't know if anyone else hear has any information on this.

Well, Cowboy Junkies Trinity Sessions was a critically acclaimed DAT based recording ... which transferred superbly to 16/44.

tb1

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

What Jack said. Whether listening to recordings or live performance or even to my own group when playing, my attention is constantly moving, bringing different things into focus. Therefore my ideal recording/system has good balance, and great clarity so I can even concentrate on the stuff that is further back in the mix. If you're listening to sound instead of that, try to stop. Or become the recording engineer.

Tim

 

[TBone]

Not an unusual scenario with groups filled with amazingly talented and dominant forces. The same applies to the multiple incarnations of Yes, Van Halen, RHCP, Santana, and countless others.

Agreed, but the Blackmore / Gillan rift I considered especially poisonous.

Jon Lord distorted keyboards (direct high gain to Marshall amp) made DP, in my opinion, a very different type R&R band. Many who don't know the band today, "think" the keyboards were but another guitar player. In fact, one could argue that they influenced bands, such as the original Alice Cooper lineup, who included two rifting guitar players.

Seen Yes in concert during their prime ... Chris Squire remains one of my all time favorite bass players.

To me Deep Purple is meaningless without Blackmore, Lord, Paice, Glover, and Gillan. Everything else is second best.

Perhaps, but Don Airey is excellent, and I consider Steve Morse (Dixie Dreggs, G3/Steve Vai/Joe Satriani) to be an amazingly gifted guitar player. I wouldn't hesitate to attend DP current line-up today, even thought I realize it's not DPmII, it's 60% DP + 40% replacement excellence.

tb1

 

[DaveyF]

One observation that I have is that there seem to be precious few great sounding Rock recordings, particularly if you compare to jazz. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that so much rock relies on electric instruments, whereas jazz ( at least the more Bop orientated jazz) does not.

 

[JackD201]

Clean and Rock don't usually go hand in hand except for some vocals and solos. I think Rock is supposed to have raw qualities so it can best communicate. That's the reason when it comes to rock, I still think the best loudspeakers for it use large paper cones. The way these break up is just so complementary to my ears. I still LOVE L series JBLs for Rock. Just LOVE 'EM!

 

[DaveyF]

Clean and Rock don't usually go hand in hand except for some vocals and solos. I think Rock is supposed to have raw qualities so it can best communicate. That's the reason when it comes to rock, I still think the best loudspeakers for it use large paper cones. The way these break up is just so complementary to my ears. I still LOVE L series JBLs for Rock. Just LOVE 'EM!

I love the JBL L series for rock as well....plus some of the Big Altec horn based systems also work well. OTOH, I still believe that a great rock recording can and does sound great on a good a'phile speaker.