CIMP sound

[Guest Bill Barton]

Playing several CDs from CIMP on the radio a few hours ago again reminded me of my extreme distaste for the so-called audiophile, "minimalist" approach they use to recording creative improvised music.

Each time the pot was cranked wide open on the control room console and the levels going to the transmitter didn't even reach 0db most of the time, much less anything in the ideal broadcasting range. What utter pieces of crap these CIMP discs are! If you don't have a $25,000+ stereo rig you may not be able to hear anything at points on these things.

There was a "spirited" discussion about this many moons ago on the old BNBB. Any other opinions on CIMP? Does anyone actually like the sound?

[JohnS]

I only have ordinary playing gear but I can't say that the few Spirit Room CIMPS I've heard have impressed me soundwise.

[Claude]

Here's their blurb:

Engineering

All engineering and recording is done by Marc Rusch, whose audiophile reputation extends worldwide. Marc works meticulously to capture each musician's true sound. The artists involved have all raved about CIMP's sound: Mark Whitecage echoed his peers when he wrote, "...I've been recorded by some of the best engineers in the business -- David Baker, Rudy Van Gelder, Jon Rosenberg, but Marc Rusch is the first one to give me back exactly what I put in."

CIMP records are produced to provide music that rewards repeated and in-depth listenings. These records are not intended to be background music. Treat CIMP recordings as your private concerts. Give them your undivided attention and they will continually reward you.

CIMP records are digitally recorded live to two tracks. Digital recording allows for a vanishingly low noise floor and tremendous dynamic range. There is no compression, homogenization, eq-ing, post-recording splicing, mixing, or electronic fiddling with CIMP performances. Compressing the dynamic range is what limits the "air" and life of many recordings. Our recordings capture the full dynamic range one would experience in a live concert; many of them have a dynamic swing of over 85dB.

We set our levels so that the maximum signal will not overload the recorder. This means that the average level will be much lower than you are used to. If you set your levels during the loudest passages to be reasonably loud, the rest will fall into place. You may find passages where the signal is almost inaudible. Resist the temptation to turn the volume up; this is the way it sounded when it was recorded and was the dynamic intention of the musicians. In this regard these recordings are demanding. The quieter your system and the lower the noise floor of the listening area the more impressive they will be.

This method is demanding not only for listeners, but for the performers as well,. Musicians must be able to play together in real time. They must understand the dynamics of their instrument and how it relates to the others around them. There is no fix-it-in-the-mix safety; either it works or it doesn't. What you hear is exactly what was played. Real musicians in a real space, interacting musically in real time, recorded for your enjoyment. Though they'll sound great on any system these recordings have not been produced to cater to the limitations of radio airplay and rack systems, but to reward those who have taken the time and energy to assemble a quality playback system.

http://www.cimprecords.com/about/ (my emphasis)

The few CIMP CDs I have (Khan Jamal - Balafon Dance, The Mystery of Prince Lasha, maybe some others) sound very realistic, but not necessarily as transparent and easy on the ear as some multitrack recordings which have more possibilities to tweak the sound of every instrument after the recording was taped.

I can imagine that the high dynamics of the recordings can cause problems for radio play, but isn't that why radio stations use compression and other things?

Edited May 20, 2008 by Claude

[Stefan Wood]

I have a few CIMPS. Overall I think they sound fine, but yes, I agree, they are not the high quality audiophile sound that they toot on about.

[robviti]

what i want to say is in no way directed at bill. i totally appreciate his conumdrum of trying to broadcast uncompressed recordings. that being said, i own quite a few cimp recordings, and i'm glad they've chosen to present improvised music in this particular manner. it seems like some people place more importance on sound reproduction than on the music itself. for me, the "cimp sound" comes closer to capturing the experience of a live performance, a setting in which people are more likely to focus on the the art and communication unfolding before them, and less on minute technical details. i used to love doing a/b and a/b/c comparisons of different reissues with my friend kevin. but things changed for me a few years ago. i don't own a single sacd, and i no longer buy remastered reissues of titles i already own. this change of attitude doesn't make me better than other people. that's already taken care of by my superior intellect and my devilishly good looks. what it has done is to free me and my wallet to explore different forms of improvised music, rather than revisit the same material again and again. i understand that new reissues may attract new listeners, and that's a good thing. but this buying and rebuying is something different, i think. of course, people have the right to search for the holy grail of the "perfect recording." they just shouldn't don't bother themselves with cimp or other similar labels that have a different goal in life.

[jazzbo]

I find the sound of the CIMPs I have fascinating. Like JazzShrink above I feel they come close to reproducing the live sound of the instruments and there are gradations of timbre etc. here that aren't found in many other recordings. It's closer to what I would like to feel is "audiophile" sound, accurate and real sound.

[jazz1]

[ Does anyone actually like the sound?

I got a fairly good audio system and I find CIMP cd's to be mediocre soundwise.

The recording venue must be very small, maybe to small to even fit a piano in it.

Did you ever hear a CIMP recording with a pianist?

I only have one CIMP cd (out of about 20) that sounds pretty good, it is the one of Rosella Washington, the voice is well captured and the bass although on the light side sounds pretty natural.

[robviti]

...Did you ever hear a CIMP recording with a pianist?...

CIMP 345 Ins And Outs - Burton Greene

CIMP 339 Signs Of The Times - Burton Greene

CIMP 338 The Music - David Haney

CIMP 337 Tuba Project - Lucian Ban

CIMP 333 Sanctuary - Bobby Few

CIMP 316 Isms Out - Burton Greene

CIMP 314 Inside Out - Mary Anne Driscoll

CIMP 298 Celebration of the Spirit - Soo-Jung Kae

CIMP 290 Birds of Baghdad - Charles Eubanks

CIMP 277 Premonition - Lucian Ban

CIMP 274 Somethin' Holy - Lucian Ban

CIMP 272 Poets of the Now - Ursel Schlicht

CIMP 251 Peace Beyond Conflict - Burton Greene

CIMP 250 New Beginnings - Charles Eubanks

CIMP 248 Tools of the Trade - Denman Maroney

CIMP 230 Recital - Dave Burrell

CIMP 229 Re-entry - Yuko Fujiyama

CIMP 202 Open Music - John Bickerton

CIMP 191 Changes & Chances - Dave Burrell

CIMP 182 Throptics - Burton Greene

CIMP 177 Gallery - Marc Sabatella

CIMP 175 Tag - Yuko Fujiyama

CIMP 162 Moon Flower -Joseph Scianni

CIMP 155 3 Plus 4 Equals 5 - Joseph Scianni

CIMP 140 Expatriate - Bobby Few

CIMP 125 Essence - Lee Shaw

CIMP 122 Big Onion - Joseph Scianni

CIMP 103 Human Flowers - Marilyn Crispell

[Jim Alfredson]

I haven't heard any CIMP recordings, but I have to agree with clem concerning "audiophile" labels in general. If you want to hear a live performance, go see a live performance. To eschew tools like compression and EQ, among others, in the name of some sort of purity (as if it is natural and pure to capture sound digitally to begin with) is like a painter deciding to never use yellow.

It is also antithetical to the entire concept of audio engineering itself. The mantra of audio engineers is to make a recording sound good on the widest variety of systems possible, not force the listener to invest in a prohibitively expensive stereo system just so the recording sounds good. In fact, if an engineer can't make a recording sound good on 99% of sound systems out there, than he or she isn't doing their job, imo.

Microphones do not "hear" like our ears. Speakers do not function like instruments. Tools like EQ and compression were invented to remedy these problems in as much as they can be remedied.

Again, if you want to hear something that sounds "live", then go see a live performance.

Of course, then you have to contend with what constitutes a live performance. Is it truly live if the instruments have to be mic'd and amplified through a PA system?

I got an audiophile label kick a few years ago before I realized that they mostly sounded like the stuff I used to record before I knew what I was doing.

[robviti]

I haven't heard any CIMP recordings...

perhaps you should before offering criticism. i think you'll find that cimp is not an "audiophile label," but one that takes a hands-off approach that a lot of musicians appreciate.

[Jim Alfredson]

I haven't heard any CIMP recordings...

perhaps you should before offering criticism. i think you'll find that cimp is not an "audiophile label," but one that takes a hands-off approach that a lot of musicians appreciate.

Well, to totally rule out any use of compression or EQ from the get-go tells me that it's an audiophile label. Recording should be about using the tools available to make the recording sound as good as it possibly can while retaining the musician's intent.

I get tired of folks that consider compression some sort of evil just because it gets over-used. Those who know how to use it do so in a very artistic manner. Those who don't start audiophile labels.

[tkeith]

In a word, the sound sucks. I have medium grade equipment from an audiophile's perspective, higher end for a typical listener, though dated (family dying off has built my system). The sound of the CIMP discs is flat and ugly. I understand what they're trying to do, I'm not convinced about the execution.

[Nate Dorward]

Re: the room: no it hasn't got a piano, it's basically a living room I believe, which is why it sounds like a pretty dead space not like a concert space. You can hear the fire in the fireplace on some of the sessions recorded in winter. -- The few CIMP sessions recorded with a piano were done elsewhere, at an auditorium nearby if memory serves.

I'm no longer writing for Cadence & I suppose I could weigh in here (god knows that during my tenure there I had to tread very carefully every time I was assigned to review one of their own releases), but truthfully I think the topic's been covered ad nauseam over the years.

[porcy62]

A question: I have Marilyn Crispell' SPIRIT MUSIC on Cadence Jazz Record on vinyl, is it an example of 'CIMP' sound?

Because I really don't know of what you are talking about.

[porcy62]

porcy-- no, CIMP was set up to distinguish between house produced recordings & those done elsewhere & leased, purchased, etc. however the hell each deal works out. CIMP has never done vinyl either. ed&dc-- all analog, baby!

Thanks.

I am lucky boy then.

[jazz1]

...Did you ever hear a CIMP recording with a pianist?...

CIMP 345 Ins And Outs - Burton Greene

CIMP 339 Signs Of The Times - Burton Greene

CIMP 338 The Music - David Haney

CIMP 337 Tuba Project - Lucian Ban

CIMP 333 Sanctuary - Bobby Few

CIMP 316 Isms Out - Burton Greene

CIMP 314 Inside Out - Mary Anne Driscoll

CIMP 298 Celebration of the Spirit - Soo-Jung Kae

CIMP 290 Birds of Baghdad - Charles Eubanks

CIMP 277 Premonition - Lucian Ban

CIMP 274 Somethin' Holy - Lucian Ban

CIMP 272 Poets of the Now - Ursel Schlicht

CIMP 251 Peace Beyond Conflict - Burton Greene

CIMP 250 New Beginnings - Charles Eubanks

CIMP 248 Tools of the Trade - Denman Maroney

CIMP 230 Recital - Dave Burrell

CIMP 229 Re-entry - Yuko Fujiyama

CIMP 202 Open Music - John Bickerton

CIMP 191 Changes & Chances - Dave Burrell

CIMP 182 Throptics - Burton Greene

CIMP 177 Gallery - Marc Sabatella

CIMP 175 Tag - Yuko Fujiyama

CIMP 162 Moon Flower -Joseph Scianni

CIMP 155 3 Plus 4 Equals 5 - Joseph Scianni

CIMP 140 Expatriate - Bobby Few

CIMP 125 Essence - Lee Shaw

CIMP 122 Big Onion - Joseph Scianni

CIMP 103 Human Flowers - Marilyn Crispell

Are these recorded in Redwood?? how is the piano sound??

[hepcat1950]

... crap ... fucking ... worst ever ... missable ... hard-up musicians ... shittiness ... motherfucking ... goddamn ... asshat ... shit ... three-starving-fuckers-fighting-over-one-goddamn-chicken-bone world of free jass or improvised this/that ... shit.

I'm deeply impressed by your balanced reasoning.

I find the sound of the CIMPs I have fascinating. Like JazzShrink above I feel they come close to reproducing the live sound of the instruments and there are gradations of timbre etc. here that aren't found in many other recordings. It's closer to what I would like to feel is "audiophile" sound, accurate and real sound.

This description comes pretty close to my impression of the only CIMP recording in my collection, Loaded Basses by Joe Fonda's Bottoms Out [CIMP #343].

Joe Fonda in his artist's notes:

... I want to thank ... Marc for getting us a good sound ...

Listening to recorded and live music for more than 40 years I rather got the impression that the sound of studio recordings more and more departs from the live sound. Ok, there are bands touring with two or more trucks to carry the equipment they need to reproduce the sound their listeners are familiar with from listening to their CDs. On the other hand their are listeners who are disappointed when listening to the natural sound of a saxophone for the first time .....

It's similar to our food pattern nowadays. Our children are so accustomed to their yoghurt full of artificial flavors that they grimace when tasting a natural yoghurt with fresh, natural fruits.

Edited May 20, 2008 by hepcat1950

[Nate Dorward]

Speak for your own children, bub.

[porcy62]

... crap ... fucking ... worst ever ... missable ... hard-up musicians ... shittiness ... motherfucking ... goddamn ... asshat ... shit ... three-starving-fuckers-fighting-over-one-goddamn-chicken-bone world of free jass or improvised this/that ... shit.

I'm deeply impressed by your balanced reasoning.

I find the sound of the CIMPs I have fascinating. Like JazzShrink above I feel they come close to reproducing the live sound of the instruments and there are gradations of timbre etc. here that aren't found in many other recordings. It's closer to what I would like to feel is "audiophile" sound, accurate and real sound.

This description comes pretty close to my impression of the only CIMP recording in my collection, Loaded Basses by Joe Fonda's Bottoms Out [CIMP #343].

Joe Fonda in his artist's notes:

... I want to thank ... Marc for getting us a good sound ...

Listening to recorded and live music for more than 40 years I rather got the impression that the sound of studio recordings more and more departs from the live sound. Ok, there are bands touring with two or more trucks to carry the equipment they need to reproduce the sound their listeners are familiar with from listening to their CDs. On the other hand their are listeners who are disappointed when listening to the natural sound of a saxophone for the first time .....

It's similar to our food pattern nowadays. Our children are so accustomed to their yoghurt full of artificial flavors that they grimace when tasting a natural yoghurt with fresh, natural fruits.

Most of the live music I attend usually suffers of bad amp (or bad acoustical enviromental), a part very few ULTRAMEGAPOWEREXTRA rockconcerts and classical ensambles in dedicated music halls. So I am not really sure what live music sounds alike.

I mean that it is some sort of Holy Gral: a concert is a concert, a record is a record.

I heard Zorn's Electric and Acoustic Masada in concert several times, when I came back home, I didn't spin a cd of John Zorn in order to compare, I asked myself if it was a good performance, maybe Greg Cohen was a bit lower or Marc Ribot too high or I couldn't hear well Cyro Baptista, but I loved the concerts.

As you pointed out bands touring with two tracks, so what? If Red Hot Chili Pepper or U2 want that sound, for me it's ok.

Said that there are records that has a meaning as 'record' (Sgt. Pepper's).

I find this issue pretty pointless. IMHO.

As for dairy products, we like matured original parmesan cheese over here.

[Jim Alfredson]

Listening to recorded and live music for more than 40 years I rather got the impression that the sound of studio recordings more and more departs from the live sound.

Yes and no. Most modern recordings are done with various instruments isolated from each other and mic'd with multiple mics so the musicians can overdub or otherwise fix mistakes and so that there will be a lot of flexability come mixdown time. Some records are even built up one instrument track at a time. I don't believe there is anything intrinsictly wrong with this approach. It does not nor should it work for all situations.

But before we even argue about that, we have to define our terms. What constitutes "live sound"? Any time you play an acoustic instrument, that instrument is affected tonally by the space that it's in. The performer, if he is worth his/her salt, is also affected by the space he/she is in, which affects how he/she plays the instrument. So the very idea of capturing "natural" sound is pretty much akin to chasing one's tail. To me, the most natural sound is the one that isn't captured, but rather is experienced in the moment at which it's conceived and then it's gone. Anything else is artificial.

So then it becomes a question of how artificial should it be. Again, to me, if it sounds good than it is good. The problem with most audiophile recordings I've heard (including Mapleshade, Chesky, and sometimes AudioQuest) is that they don't sound very good unless you play them on a top-of-the-line system. That's taking the concept of artificial to the other extreme. In this day and age it is an artificial limitation to deny any and all forms of EQ and compression (not to mention limiting, reverb, using multiple mics, etc.) in order to achieve some ideal of "purity" which doesn't exist in the first place due to the very nature of the situation! One's choice of microphone preamp, microphone, cable, cable length, mic position, mic polar pattern, room acoustics, AD/DA conversion, etc. is all going to color the sound in some way.

On the other hand their are listeners who are disappointed when listening to the natural sound of a saxophone for the first time .....

Who are these people? And again, what constitutes the "natural sound" of a saxophone?

It's similar to our food pattern nowadays. Our children are so accustomed to their yoghurt full of artificial flavors that they grimace when tasting a natural yoghurt with fresh, natural fruits.

As porcy62 said, speak for yourself. My daughter loves natural, unflavored yogurt.

But there is still nothing natural about the act of recording music.

[Chuck Nessa]

But there is still nothing natural about the act of recording music.

[RDK]

Haven't heard enough of the CIMPs to comment with any authority, but most of the Mapleshades that I have leave me cold. I still find it interesting that Roy DuNann got it right (and without really trying) over 50 years ago and few have gotten it better since then.

[Jim Alfredson]

Those recordings Roy did have compression. And EQ. They have to, due to the limitations of the medium (vinyl).

[Chuck Nessa]

Those recordings Roy did have compression. And EQ. They have to, due to the limitations of the medium (vinyl).

Lester Koenig cut the masters and was in control of all.

[Jim Alfredson]

Would the masters sound as good without compression or EQ?

DuNann also used more than two mics.