Chuck Nessa Posted September 19, 2006 Report Share Posted September 19, 2006 No offense meant toward you, Chuck. However, I thought you were a record producer, not a recording/mastering engineer. Now I'm not sure why I even bothered...because the point you make is a valid one, regarding a mono tape on a stereo deck. I'm not sure how to posit your question to SH...I sure as hell don't want to direct him to this thread... Producers are the guys who are supposed to direct the engineers. Done plenty of this. I'm sure SH will give you an impressive answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parkertown Posted September 19, 2006 Report Share Posted September 19, 2006 And here it is: We are playing the mono tape on a stereo deck so we can find the undamaged parts and use them only. Why else? Understand what I mean? We always do that with damaged mono tapes. If you split the signal chances are you can eliminate most of the problems because head wear, etc. usually happens towards the top of the tape or the bottom. --------------------- I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm just trying to understand what happened with the RVG cd... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Nessa Posted September 19, 2006 Report Share Posted September 19, 2006 (edited) And here it is: We are playing the mono tape on a stereo deck so we can find the undamaged parts and use them only. Why else? Understand what I mean? We always do that with damaged mono tapes. If you split the signal chances are you can eliminate most of the problems because head wear, etc. usually happens towards the top of the tape or the bottom. --------------------- I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm just trying to understand what happened with the RVG cd... Good answer. Why not play it on a 4 track machine for even more flexibility? I know the answer which is the same as the reason to avoid a simple stereo playback. FWIW, I think the highest quality transfer can be made by transferring on a full mono machine and patching problems by picking undamaged bits via multitracking. It takes more work but pays sonic results. You do have to deal with matching tape noise beds but it works very well. I certainly hope someone is paying for high quality copies of these original masters as they whip by the tape heads. I told you he'd have an impressive answer. Edited September 19, 2006 by Chuck Nessa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Songer Posted September 19, 2006 Report Share Posted September 19, 2006 But if you'd like to hear it sound good, you do have an option... Buy a nice old slab of VINYL!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parkertown Posted September 19, 2006 Report Share Posted September 19, 2006 Okay, Chuck. Okay. I'm so done with this topic... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJ Shearn Posted September 19, 2006 Report Share Posted September 19, 2006 (edited) interesting thread, I'm laying back. As far as I known, isn't there distortion on the "Workin" tracks? when I had the XRCD I certainly heard distortion particularly on Philly Joe's kit, now that I have the Concord Quintet box, the Joe Tarantino mastering, almost like the SH "Full House" job (again major props to someone on this thread for hooking me up , it sounds a lot smoother, and nice and round to my ear. I don't notice the distortion as much on the tracks that make up "Workin" on the 4 CD box. As far as Prestige RVG's I have Kenny Burrell and John Coltrane and nothing is really wrong with that to me. As long as the treble isn't jacked to the point where cymbals cause fatigue I'm cool. I don't use the treble knob very often on my system's amp, usually it stays in the default setting. Edited September 19, 2006 by CJ Shearn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDK Posted September 19, 2006 Report Share Posted September 19, 2006 And here it is: We are playing the mono tape on a stereo deck so we can find the undamaged parts and use them only. Why else? Understand what I mean? We always do that with damaged mono tapes. If you split the signal chances are you can eliminate most of the problems because head wear, etc. usually happens towards the top of the tape or the bottom. --------------------- I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm just trying to understand what happened with the RVG cd... Good answer. Why not play it on a 4 track machine for even more flexibility? I know the answer which is the same as the reason to avoid a simple stereo playback. FWIW, I think the highest quality transfer can be made by transferring on a full mono machine and patching problems by picking undamaged bits via multitracking. It takes more work but pays sonic results. You do have to deal with matching tape noise beds but it works very well. I certainly hope someone is paying for high quality copies of these original masters as they whip by the tape heads. I told you he'd have an impressive answer. The proof, though, is in the pudding as they say. I've heard some of Steve's work on these tapes (not the MJQ specifically, but others from the OJC catalog) and they are by far the best sounding versions of this material that I've ever heard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichL Posted September 19, 2006 Report Share Posted September 19, 2006 So far I have bought the Etta Jones, Dolphys, Lateef, Workin, Quiet Kenny. Haven't had time to listen to Workin yet, but the others sound very good to me. There maybe a drop out on Outward Bound, but I need to listen to it again to make sure. A month or so ago I compared the SACD and RVG of Out There. Over all I preferred the SACD, because its sound was richer with more presence. However I prefer the mix on the RVG. Same goes for Outward Bound RVG mix. I compared it to a K2 super coding red book version. Sound wise there wasn't a huge difference between them, but again the RVG mixes I liked better. Generally I prefer the RVG mixes--narrower stereo-- to the wide L/R panning of the OJC. Does anyone else find some of the RVG cover art too dark? I find the covers on Outward Bound and the Lateef to be way too dark. Particularly on OB where the crossed sax and clarinet in the middle are hard to see. In photographic terms I would say these covers are under exposed. I noticed this on several titles in this series. I can only conclude it was an aesthetic decision by the RVG series art director. I am looking forward to future issues in this series. Sure wish these were SACDs though. One can dream.! Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Nessa Posted September 19, 2006 Report Share Posted September 19, 2006 And here it is: We are playing the mono tape on a stereo deck so we can find the undamaged parts and use them only. Why else? Understand what I mean? We always do that with damaged mono tapes. If you split the signal chances are you can eliminate most of the problems because head wear, etc. usually happens towards the top of the tape or the bottom. --------------------- I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm just trying to understand what happened with the RVG cd... Good answer. Why not play it on a 4 track machine for even more flexibility? I know the answer which is the same as the reason to avoid a simple stereo playback. FWIW, I think the highest quality transfer can be made by transferring on a full mono machine and patching problems by picking undamaged bits via multitracking. It takes more work but pays sonic results. You do have to deal with matching tape noise beds but it works very well. I certainly hope someone is paying for high quality copies of these original masters as they whip by the tape heads. I told you he'd have an impressive answer. The proof, though, is in the pudding as they say. I've heard some of Steve's work on these tapes (not the MJQ specifically, but others from the OJC catalog) and they are by far the best sounding versions of this material that I've ever heard. I'm not really choosing sides or picking a fight here, just presenting options as I see 'em. I just want all to see there are no friggin' absolutes. I do think all these companies are damaging the "historic" master tapes by remastering again and again. Get it right with current technology and do it again when the technology improves significantly. Use technology for something other than a marketing opportunity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMP Posted September 20, 2006 Report Share Posted September 20, 2006 The cover art (which, I guess, isn't all that important in the big picture) IS too dark - Jack McDuff's "The Honeydripper," for example, is almost embarassing. Do I need to keep my older version just for the cover? (But, in general, I do like the new liners - Joe Goldberg's enjoyable but wacky notes for the McDuff are something - at one point he confuses the tenor sax with drums!) And the above technical discussion about the sound is interesting, although over my head. I didn't realize these engineers had fan clubs. (I'm a Ron McMaster guy myself...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude Posted October 27, 2006 Report Share Posted October 27, 2006 (edited) I did an A/B comparision with volume compensation between the Yusef Lateef RVG and the OJC (1991 remastering by Kirk Felton). The RVG is very loud. On bass solos, it sounds maximized ("BOOM BOOM"), losing all the subtlety of the notes. Apart from that the tonality (well balanced) and stereo spread (slighlty narrower) are OK, but this ruins it for me. Well, the good thing about the RVG reissue is that this essential album remains in print for some more time. Edited October 27, 2006 by Claude Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niko Posted October 27, 2006 Report Share Posted October 27, 2006 I did an A/B comparision with volume compensation between the Yusef Lateef RVG and the OJC (1991 remastering by Kirk Felton). The RVG is very loud. On bass solos, it sounds maximized ("BOOM BOOM"), losing all the subtlety of the notes. Apart from that the tonality (well balanced) and stereo spread (slighlty narrower) are OK, but this ruins it for me. Well, the good thing about the RVG reissue is that this essential album remains in print for some more time. this is interesting to hear, i didn't get the the OJC (could have taken it at 2001 but had already found 5 pr 6 things that day:angry: ) but did notice the unusual bass on the rvg which i've been listening to frequently these days Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T.D. Posted October 27, 2006 Report Share Posted October 27, 2006 Thanks for the Lateef info. I already own the OJC, and didn't intend to "upgrade". Now I won't kick myself for the decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.