June 2006 Connoisseur CDs

[Shawn]

I find myself caring less and less about remastering and "constantly upgrading" my CD rack with new versions of things I already own. I just don't have the time, patience or money to stay up to date with what's been reissued, etc.

Being an audio engineer, you'd think I'd be the pickiest person on the planet...but I can listen to just about anything. I have 2 stereo systems in my apartment, they sound almost entirely different from each other. RVG's sound great on my main system...they are too bright on my secondary. But for the most part, discs will sound okay on one system or another.

TOCJ's seem to be the most "mellow" presentation, but not necessarily the most accurate.

RVG's are very "in your face" and direct, instruments right up front, but often I hear things on them that I didn't notice on earlier versions.

Conn's/Mosaics seem to be somewhere in the middle. The only thing that gets "grating" to me about the McMaster jobs are the constant "sizzle" of the cymbals.

I buy discs from all the series, I tend to prefer the RVG's so that's the version I'll buy if it's available. But I only upgrade discs that are from the old 80's masterings.

[J.A.W.]

(...) But I only upgrade discs that are from the old 80's masterings.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that most 1980s Blue Note CDs are just transfers from analog to digital, nothing else/more.

This is what it says on many 1980s Blue Note CDs that Ron McMaster transferred:

The classic Blue Note albums which span the mid 1950s to late 1960s were recorded directly on to two track analog tape. No multitrack recording was used and consequently no mixing was required. Therefore, this CD was made by transferring the one step analog master to digital and Digital transfer by Ron McMaster.

[Jazzdog]

This is all dancing about architecture anyways.

I can't wait for the summer and all the Blue Note Reissues I'll be devouring! !!!

[Shawn]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that most 1980s Blue Note CDs are just transfers from analog to digital, nothing else/more.

Well, more or less..but the analog to digital converters that were available in the 80's are absolute "crap" compared to the models available today. So even a straight "re-transfer" to tape would improve the sound.

Also keep in mind that it took awhile for engineers to get used to the whole "digital" thing. The early CD's were often transferred directly from the vinyl masters...or they were transferred to tape and then sent to a mastering plant that was still using techniques left over from the vinyl era that no longer applied.

You "master for the medium", at least that's the idea. With CD's, the medium has continued to evolve and change since it's inception....and engineers have to re-think their strategies with each new advance.

Edited April 8, 2006 by Shawn

[couw]

Thanks for contacting Ron Kevin.

Maybe someone can provide a good mp3 of (part of) the Donaldson Caravan from the Mosaic set, so we can all hear what the problem is? Anyone with the set reading this?

[jazzbo]

I know this thread is meandering here but who cares...

Lon, I think we've discussed this a bit, but I think all listening preferences are system dependent.

I still think your system has a bit of a roll off at the high end since your preference is RVG remasters, which many people find too bright. The fact that your system may have this roll off DOES NOT mean that it is a "bad" system, and you've made it perfectly clear that you like it the way it is. All it means is that you & I have to take each other's recomendations on sound with a grain of salt.

FWIW, from what I hear in your listening preferences and what I've read over on the Hoffman forums, you & Steve Hoffman have very similar home systems. He also shows a definite preference for brighter mastered CDs. It's because of this that I rarely follow his recommendations for preferred pressings too.

BTW, to give an analogy, I love jammy red Zinfandel wine from California. Black in color with huge, sweet fruit like strawberry jam in your mouth. The reviewers at The Wine Enthusiast hate this style of Zin and they always give these "fruit bombs" very low scores. I usually have my local wine shop bring in a couple of these low scoring wines and I almost always love them. The sad thing is, many Zin makers have tried drying out their wines so they get the better rating. It's getting harder for me to get fruit bombs. I hope this doesn't happen with my music.

Kevin

Kevin, no I don't have a rolled off system but it is flexible and I have padded it down, as I do have hearing that has not been damaged and I listen in very nearfield, but on every system I have except my crappy computer system at work.. ..the McMasters are thin and edgy sounding.

Hans, in a post of Kevin's posted on another thread McMaster himself said that he narrowed the stereo spread on the early Blue Note cds by about 40% I think and also admitted to some EQ. There's no way that they are pure straight tape transfers!

[robert h.]

(...) But I only upgrade discs that are from the old 80's masterings.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that most 1980s Blue Note CDs are just transfers from analog to digital, nothing else/more.

This is what it says on many 1980s Blue Note CDs that Ron McMaster transferred:

The classic Blue Note albums which span the mid 1950s to late 1960s were recorded directly on to two track analog tape. No multitrack recording was used and consequently no mixing was required. Therefore, this CD was made by transferring the one step analog master to digital and Digital transfer by Ron McMaster.

Sheesh Han, I hate to keep harping on the same line, but you are really struggling to get this.

1. In ALMOST EVERY CASE a straight analog master to digital will be TERRIBLE.

Let me say it again in big easy letters.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A STRAIGHT TRANSFER.

It's a myth largely created by someone for marketing purposes.

Those old tapes were never meant to be transferred to anything straight - if they were they would have been done differently. They were made in an era when they were the precursor to an eq'd master.

Why do you think Hoffman (correctly and to his credit) looks for original LP pressings, and first press matrix numbers at that, as well as various CD editions, to verify how a record should sound? It's to help him make the right choices, bud. And the fact that he has to do that should tell you that there are no "straight" transfers.

2. EQUIPMENT HAS BEEN HUGELY IMPROVED SINCE THOSE EARLY REMASTERS.

So in many cases the early remasters were done with a lack of knowledge of the medium and how to best prepare the tapes for transfer and were done on inferior equipment.

I know...I know. On the Hoffman board there are many people who claim a preference for the early remasters. I guess eventually there's a 'good old days' for everything. Despite a tendency to over compress and even some questionable EQ choices I can very rarely think of a case where an earlier remaster is superior on GOOD equipment - I note with some amusement that the Hoffmanite who most aggressively promotes this notion is using a $99 CD player as his reference, so from that perspective I suppose a sort of generally soft, diffuse, rolled off on top presentation is preferable. That's how I find the early Blue Note CD's , by the way. And as far as TOCJ's go - I think it's pretty well taken now that they could not possibly have been mastered from original tapes - eq'd cutting masters probably.

But... flat transfer? Straight transfer from analog to digital? I suppose the two track Blue Notes are as close as it gets to a master that requires little to no tinkering, but still, it doesn't take much knowledge to see that those are generally myths and extremely rarely possible, except on a wanker board!

Edited April 8, 2006 by robert h.

[J.A.W.]

Hans, in a post of Kevin's posted on another thread McMaster himself said that he narrowed the stereo spread on the early Blue Note cds by about 40% I think and also admitted to some EQ. There's no way that they are pure straight tape transfers!

Thanks for the info, Lon. I must have missed that post. So much for that statement on the 1980s Blue Notes, then...

[couw]

sheesh robert, what bug crawled over your liver then? Cool down man!

Venting your frustration with the "Hoffmanites" on Hans isn't fair. Particularly also because Hans obviously had some difficulties expressing his problem, which - believe it or not - are unlikely to stem from his having a below average IQ, but rather from his being a non-native speaker. It is really very sad to see native speakers punch on people for not grasping all the finesse of what is being written (often between the lines) or for not being able to express their thoughts with all the right adverbs and adjectives.

anyhoo, thanks much for your insights (really).

[jazzbo]

Here's what McMaster posted here on this board:

"I am frankly shocked and amazed at the statements being made on "McMaster Masters". It is hard to take on all of the issues that seem to be causing some of the authors to dislike the mastering work I have done. Let me start by saying that the early digital transfers of master tapes dubbed to 1610 and later 1630 format was the beginning of putting the Blue Note catalog into the digital format. It was not a matter of putting my sonic signature on the old masters but rather to do only a few sonic adjustments and present the original sound of the old masters as they were intended. The process and the digital equipment have changed very much since those early days of the first digital transfers. Today however, I still work with the same approach, keeping to the original sound of the master as it was intended.Let's set a few things straight, I do not hard pan the stereo spread on the original masters. I reduce it about 40%. I do not use digital noise reduction as a rule.Only in extreme cases and never without the permission of Michael Cuscuna. All masters are loaded into the Sonic Solutions after they are EQ'd and blended.There is no digital EQ or limiting ever done to them.I record them in 24 bit resolution and SBM2 for the output dither. The Sonic Solutions is merely a digital workstation from which we can assemble and edit the music program while staying in 24 bit. In addition, Sonic Solutions is not at all like Dolby noise reduction, and it does not color the audio program with processing and shaping techniques. We use the best converters available to assure pure audio signal conversion from analog to digital.For the LP purists on the Mosaic and Blue Note releases we take the masters and go straight to lacquer, never entering the digital domain.I would like to say that when you compare masters it is only fair to use songs that have been done at the same time and period of technology. To compare some of my old digital transfers with the new RVG releases is like comparing apples and oranges.We can't please everyone, but I hope that you will believe me when I tell you we want to deliver the best possible Blue Note CD.As Blue Note customers and fans you deserve the best possible product. Not every tape is perfect, not every CD without its flaws. However, we never take the attitude "oh, it's good enough". I for one appreciate your comments and hope to continue to deliver the best quality music possible. Remember too that this is a team effort, and the producer must approve all of the mastering. Many times when there is a major flaw and we cannot find a correct version then Michael Cuscuna will put a producers note on the jacket and try to keep the customers informed of the problems on the master. This by no way a cop out statement, it is merely to reflect the whole of the workings of all of these wonderful recordings. The implications of some of the authors are that I just carelessly master theoriginal songs and then the label just puts out the product. Not caring at all about the customer or the sound of the music.That couldn't be farther from the truth. Blue Note is and always has been a very intelligent and customer based label, they care about the consumer and they care about the music.

"Regards,Ron McMaster"

Up to 40% reduction of the sound stage and "a few sonic adjustments" and he mentions EQ specifically. . . this could represent quite a bit of manipulation . . . .

"The original sound of the master as it was intended." I think RVG is in a better position to know that.

[J.A.W.]

Here's what McMaster posted here on this board:

"I am frankly shocked and amazed at the statements being made on "McMaster Masters". It is hard to take on all of the issues that seem to be causing some of the authors to dislike the mastering work I have done. Let me start by saying that the early digital transfers of master tapes dubbed to 1610 and later 1630 format was the beginning of putting the Blue Note catalog into the digital format. It was not a matter of putting my sonic signature on the old masters but rather to do only a few sonic adjustments and present the original sound of the old masters as they were intended. The process and the digital equipment have changed very much since those early days of the first digital transfers. Today however, I still work with the same approach, keeping to the original sound of the master as it was intended.Let's set a few things straight, I do not hard pan the stereo spread on the original masters. I reduce it about 40%. I do not use digital noise reduction as a rule.Only in extreme cases and never without the permission of Michael Cuscuna. All masters are loaded into the Sonic Solutions after they are EQ'd and blended.There is no digital EQ or limiting ever done to them.I record them in 24 bit resolution and SBM2 for the output dither. The Sonic Solutions is merely a digital workstation from which we can assemble and edit the music program while staying in 24 bit. In addition, Sonic Solutions is not at all like Dolby noise reduction, and it does not color the audio program with processing and shaping techniques. We use the best converters available to assure pure audio signal conversion from analog to digital.For the LP purists on the Mosaic and Blue Note releases we take the masters and go straight to lacquer, never entering the digital domain.I would like to say that when you compare masters it is only fair to use songs that have been done at the same time and period of technology. To compare some of my old digital transfers with the new RVG releases is like comparing apples and oranges.We can't please everyone, but I hope that you will believe me when I tell you we want to deliver the best possible Blue Note CD.As Blue Note customers and fans you deserve the best possible product. Not every tape is perfect, not every CD without its flaws. However, we never take the attitude "oh, it's good enough". I for one appreciate your comments and hope to continue to deliver the best quality music possible. Remember too that this is a team effort, and the producer must approve all of the mastering. Many times when there is a major flaw and we cannot find a correct version then Michael Cuscuna will put a producers note on the jacket and try to keep the customers informed of the problems on the master. This by no way a cop out statement, it is merely to reflect the whole of the workings of all of these wonderful recordings. The implications of some of the authors are that I just carelessly master theoriginal songs and then the label just puts out the product. Not caring at all about the customer or the sound of the music.That couldn't be farther from the truth. Blue Note is and always has been a very intelligent and customer based label, they care about the consumer and they care about the music.

"Regards,Ron McMaster"

Up to 40% reduction of the sound stage and "a few sonic adjustments" and he mentions EQ specifically. . . this could represent quite a bit of manipulation . . . .

"The original sound of the master as it was intended." I think RVG is in a better position to know that.

Thanks for posting this, Lon.

[robert h.]

sheesh robert, what bug crawled over your liver then? Cool down man!

Venting your frustration with the "Hoffmanites" on Hans isn't fair. Particularly also because Hans obviously had some difficulties expressing his problem, which - believe it or not - are unlikely to stem from his having a below average IQ, but rather from his being a non-native speaker. It is really very sad to see native speakers punch on people for not grasping all the finesse of what is being written (often between the lines) or for not being able to express their thoughts with all the right adverbs and adjectives.

anyhoo, thanks much for your insights (really).

Hey, I appreciate your comments and coming to Hans defense - really, I do.

But this has nothing to do with his not being an english speaker, I think that actually doesn't give him the credit he's due - he has many, many posts here and his communication skills in English are actually much better than many native english speakers do.

My beef is continually not being able to get out of reciting the same (wrong) stuff over and over that he gets off someone's publicity board. Hans brought up the Hoffman stuff here, not I, and since he did, it's fair to comment on it.

Anyways, I get your point - probably no point in more venting over this one.

Edited April 8, 2006 by robert h.

[J.A.W.]

sheesh robert, what bug crawled over your liver then? Cool down man!

Venting your frustration with the "Hoffmanites" on Hans isn't fair. Particularly also because Hans obviously had some difficulties expressing his problem, which - believe it or not - are unlikely to stem from his having a below average IQ, but rather from his being a non-native speaker. It is really very sad to see native speakers punch on people for not grasping all the finesse of what is being written (often between the lines) or for not being able to express their thoughts with all the right adverbs and adjectives.

anyhoo, thanks much for your insights (really).

Hey, I appreciate your comments and coming to Hans defense - really, I do.

But this has nothing to do with his not being an english speaker, I think that actually doesn't give him the credit he's due - he has many, many posts here and his communication skills in English are actually much better than many native english speakers do.

My beef is continually not being able to get out of reciting the same (wrong) stuff over and over that he gets off someone's publicity board. Hans brought up the Hoffman stuff here, not I, and since he did, it's fair to comment on it.

Anyways, I get your point - probably no point in more venting over this one.

This has been going on for far too long and I get the feeling we're going round in circles here, so let me say just this: you're right when you say that I should have used the adjective "excessive" when I was talking about compression etc.; I should also have made clear that I meant "loudness" as (later) described by Couw and Ray but I didn't exactly know how to describe it, and I should have made clear that I wasn't talking about compression that is applied in order to make CDs listenable. But I did not bring up any Hoffman stuff here, I was merely trying to put into words what I don't like when I'm listening to CDs; the Hoffman site has got nothing to do with that. Chuck Nessa was the one who mentioned Hoffman here first, not me, and you jumped right at it, in a way that I really don't appreciate. Whatever you think of that site, I think it's out of line to call people names like you did, the more so since they can't defend themselves.

Edited to correct an error.

Edited April 8, 2006 by J.A.W.

[jazzbo]

Can't defend themselves. . . or can't slap their accuser upside the head with a 1988 Manhattan Records distributed longbox copy of "Adam's Apple"?

Hans, I'm glad your command of English was defended, which is exemplary.

[mike casinghino]

now don't anyone slap me upside the haid with a long box,at my age i bruise very easily. i just want to say that i have never had a problem with ron mcmaster,and it looks like neither has lundval or cuscuna. they must like what he is doing,or else he would not still be working for bn. everyone should have their own opinion, but bn must be quite satisfied with his work. that said, if i can get my paws on any unissued bn recording, i don't care if it is a connoisseur,rvg,toshiba,water release,or anything inbetween. just remember, that any recording is still second hand, it will never sound as good as the original recording date or live show, no matter what the hell they do to it. i'm just grateful to have copies of many great sessions from the past. and this post will NOT be edited for errors, cause i don't care.

[Chuck Nessa]

Chuck Nessa was the one who mentioned Hoffman here first, not me, and you jumped right at it, in a way that I really don't appreciate. Whatever you think of that site, I think it's out of line to call people names like you did, the more so since they can't defend themselves.

Edited to correct an error.

Just want to point out my Hoffman mention was "in passing" and not an "attack" on Hans, Hoffman, RVG, McMaster, Scientology or any other religion.

Don't think I have complained about or praised any mastering "engineers" in this thread. I'm just bugged about the whole situation and all the bitching.

Some folks throw around terms like compression, noise reduction, NoNoise and Cedar the way "talk radio" folks talk about bird flu. I just get really irritated.

Whatever happened to tone controls, equalizers, etc. In the days of vinyl (the golden age of audio - right?) the freaks had "plots" for each of their favorite records. Now folks just bitch about the newest edition and if you don't like it they tell you your equipment isn't "good enough" to reveal the flaws.

HORSE SHIT!

Edited April 9, 2006 by Chuck Nessa

[sjarrell]

(...) But I only upgrade discs that are from the old 80's masterings.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that most 1980s Blue Note CDs are just transfers from analog to digital, nothing else/more.

This is what it says on many 1980s Blue Note CDs that Ron McMaster transferred:

The classic Blue Note albums which span the mid 1950s to late 1960s were recorded directly on to two track analog tape. No multitrack recording was used and consequently no mixing was required. Therefore, this CD was made by transferring the one step analog master to digital and Digital transfer by Ron McMaster.

I A/B'd an 80s CD and a clean original vinyl pressing of the first BN Johnny Griffin a couple years ago. They sounded identical.

[Late]

At any rate ... I'm excited about the Blackburn. Nice pick (despite the Fresh Sounds reissue) Cuscuna!

It's great that this kind of music can make it to compact disc form.

[Shawn]

HORSE SHIT!

THANK YOU CHUCK!!!!

[Daniel A]

"The original sound of the master as it was intended." I think RVG is in a better position to know that.

The odd thing then is that RVG CD remasters often sound very different from the original LPs. It could be that Lion and the artists would have wanted the music to sound like the current CDs, but that it was impossible to achive this particular sound in those days. ("Rudy, ain't there no way to make the music sound... a bit louder?")

But even if that's true, does that make narrowing the stereo spread and using compression any better? I'm not pro- or con- any of the mastering engineers by priciple. I've just observed that I like the sound of the original LPs, and that non-RVG CD remasters (Japanese pre-compression era remasters in particular) are generally closer to that sound - based on listening experiences from several hifi setups.

[robert h.]

"The original sound of the master as it was intended." I think RVG is in a better position to know that.

The odd thing then is that RVG CD remasters often sound very different from the original LPs. It could be that Lion and the artists would have wanted the music to sound like the current CDs, but that it was impossible to achive this particular sound in those days. ("Rudy, ain't there no way to make the music sound... a bit louder?")

But even if that's true, does that make narrowing the stereo spread and using compression any better? I'm not pro- or con- any of the mastering engineers by priciple. I've just observed that I like the sound of the original LPs, and that non-RVG CD remasters (Japanese pre-compression era remasters in particular) are generally closer to that sound - based on listening experiences from several hifi setups.

Yes - the RVG's sound nothing like the original LP's. I doubt he even tried to use any LP's as a reference.

There's nothing wrong with a preference for the original LP's and no one could argue with that.

What your very valid comments bring up in my mind are two questions:

First - should we adhere to the original vinyl as some arbitrary reference, or should we try, as apparently RVG has, to simply get the most out of the tape? It seems to me that RVG has in some ways exceeded the limitations of the vinyl - and although I love the tonality and presentation of his remasters, I would have to agree that it is not the tonality originally conceived.

On sheer musical terms, the RVG's work big time for me, and that view seems to have some currency as the RVG's are a big success worldwide. But as a historical artifact, they are not accurate - if the position is that the ultimate arbiter of historical accuracy is the vinyl.

I would say that the only true original was what happened live in the studio on that date - but since RVG was the only one there still involved today for the most part, and his recollection is personal and not verifiable, it will remain a matter of opinion.

Second - even if we agree there is some reference standard, should we not try to improve or (more controversially for sure) reinterpret from that standard? The medium is the message as Marshall McLuhan said, and vinyl had it's own unique message and so does CD. I think it's a mistake to try to turn CD into vinyl, it seems to me to be a route to misery (as I see on that ...board...all the time - people expending a lot of negative energy and, as Nessa says, horseshit on trying to turn CD into something it's not, instead of encountering it on it's own terms) - instead of enjoying it for what it is, and the unique things it brings to the table, all too often the music- and the wonderful opportunities to re-examine and re-encounter the music anew are being lost in a pointless quibble about historical accuracy (as if that ever existed - artists in the vinyl era were just as frustrated with how vinyl distorted their intentions as they are with CD today) - and audiophile-obsessive concerns.

My take on this - the CD medium has given new life to massive amounts of music that we would never have had come to our attention again in the vinyl era. In certain genres, it has virtually rescued from oblivion - the massive resuccitation of the classical genre in the 80's with the rush to re-record for CD, and the massive amounts of previously unrecorded music that came with it - the massive reissue campaigns that have brought obscure and previously buried work to light and allowed a re-examination of many artists, both pivotal and peripheral - the indie movement that brought power to the garage bands again - and so on.

Simple fact is, so many people of an older generation who can't stop living in the past pine after that vinyl era and it's particular sonic palette as if it were some type of golden age - when the real evidence before us is that the golden age is RIGHT NOW - today - here and now - where we have vastly more music available, from a much more diverse artistic base, more accessible, and in general, sounding better than ever before. Not even at the absolute peak of the vinyl age was there anywhere near the amount of music available in any genre as there is today. Not even close. People tend to forget - for two decades now we have been bringing back stuff that went into the remainder bin in the early 70's and had been consigned to oblivion. And there are many, many artists for whom CD has revived a for all intents dead career.

Personally, I have too much fun enjoying it all to worry about the things that Hans and some others worry about, and would rather spend my time digging the music than bitching about whether I can hear any no-noise or not.

My two cents on a Sunday morning.

[Clunky]

It's all pretty confusing. I can honestly say that out of the 2000 odd CDs I have very few sound bad, differences certainly, but not bad or anywhere near unlistenable.

I am amazed that the damned 80s CD sound as good as they do and have upgraded very few as I'd rather hear some other recording that I've never heard than repurchase. LPs, RVGs, McMasters all generally sound excellent. Whilst I love LPs they were/are very inconsistent, much more so than CDs. I just dont see the point in much of the argument going on here. It's the music that matters.....

[CJ Shearn]

thank you Robert H. and Clunky!

[Chuck Nessa]

[Kevin Bresnahan]

There's lots of smiley faces and back slapping whenever anyone recites the mantra, "It's about the music". But what many contributors to this thread fail to realize is that most Jazz reissues have been somewhat immune to the "LOUDNESS WARS".

It's bad in the rock genre. So bad, that it's ALL about the music... sounding crappy! These new "maximized" CDs sound like dog doo doo in most cases. Almost anyone who hears one the first time thinks something is weird. The "sound" is there, but it's constant, loud & in your face. It's particularly bad on guitar.

If this trend makes it to Jazz, it'll be too late for us. We'll be stuck looking for older remasters too.

Kevin