I wish I had more 47 W 63rd Blue Notes...

[doubleM]

Why bother?

[wolff]

Please ----someone explain the differences (every step along the way) between Lexington Ave pressings and Liberty pressings, deep groove and non deep groove, etc.

What is an original, what is a repressing, what is a reissue?

Please explain all the reasons for your answers.

"Bout you time you showed up. I know you hate this shit and expected your comments much sooner.

I'm in the minority in thinking a lot of Blue Notes do not sound that great when compared to some other LP's I have from this era. Most notably, Contemporary Records. To me, even the good sounding ones sound distorted, etc.. When I noticed an absense of this on some original W 63rd's it lead me to start this thread.

I just wanted to get some feedback on sound differences (probably resulting from engineering and mastering changes) people had noticed between 47 W 63rd's, NY USA and Liberty's.

I've read Steve Hoffman's thoughts on Blue Note engineering/mastering. Now, I'd like to hear what Bernie Grundman has to say, as he's been working with the tapes for the last 3 or 4 years.

Edited July 2, 2004 by wolff

[Chuck Nessa]

I'm waiting..............

Wolfie, tell us your perspective beyond your prejudices. Tell us the facts you know, especially about "sound differences (probably resulting from engineering and mastering changes) people had noticed between 47 W 63rd's, NY USA and Liberties."

[wolff]

I'm waiting..............

Wolfie, tell us your perspective beyond your prejudices. Tell us the facts you know, especially about "sound differences (probably resulting from engineering and mastering changes) people had noticed between 47 W 63rd's, NY USA and Liberties."

Frankly, Mr. Nessa, you sound like the one with prejudices. I believe you have met and worked with the Blue Note recording engineer. Sorry, if this rubs you the wrong way.

I just hear what I hear. I never implied any of this was fact or objective, unless you consider differences in hearing objective.

I said, "probably caused by...", all of this is just my opinion. If you want to read what the Blue Note recording engineer actually did to the tapes go to Hoffman's site.

Quick example: Silver's Blowin the Blues Away- original W 63rd. Very pure tone on the sax and trumpet. New York copy: that tone and presense is changed to one that is less real or accurate.

For differences this big, IMO something changed in mastering process. What? Console, monitors, amps...I have no idea.

Many people here disect sound differences between different Blue Note CD mastering jobs(Japanese, Conn's, RVG's) and they hear a difference.

Do you know for a fact none of the Blue Notes recording engineers equipment and techniques changed over the years.

In an earlier post I mentioned I do hear a certain consistancy to most Blue Notes, but the sound from my few W 63rd's was so much better I was compelled to question why or if anyone else had noticed.

[JSngry]

Maybe the stamper was cleaner.

[brownie]

Just my two cents.

Two BN 47W63 I have cherished for years: Blue Train and Somethin' Else.

I have the original mono LPs. The sound on those two is everything good engineering should be. No distorsion even on the shrill passages (the trumpet and drums sound all natural). The balance on all instruments is respected. The dynamics grab the listener. There is that perfect feeling of being right there next to the players.

I have bought several other versions of these classics on vinyls and CDs and never got this perspective.

When I want to enjoy these sessions, I go back to the originals!

[Alfred]

I recently found "Sheila Jordan - Portrait of Sheila" on eBay in mint- condition. It's the NY, USA mono pressing. Fantastic sound.

[jazzhound]

If anyone is suggesting that people pay big bucks for original Blue Notes just because they have to have the first pressing, they are mistaken. First pressings sound consistantly better than later ones, this has been discovered to be true over and over again by record collectors.

While there may be a lack of certainty over what is a first pressing in some cases, this does not eclipse what the marketplace is telling us.

There is real value in first pressing jazz records, and they will continue to appreciate.

[desertblues]

If anyone is suggesting that people pay big bucks for original Blue Notes just because they have to have the first pressing, they are mistaken. First pressings sound consistantly better than later ones, this has been discovered to be true over and over again by record collectors.

While there may be a lack of certainty over what is a first pressing in some cases, this does not eclipse what the marketplace is telling us.

There is real value in first pressing jazz records, and they will continue to appreciate.

I absolutely agree with that! While I don't think the W 63rd's are incredibly better-sounding than the NY USA's in every case, there is something to be said for the sound quality of those 1st pressings! Two good examples are the monos of Blue Train (W63rd) and Idle Moments (NY USA)-it's like hearing the music for the first time compared to later issues, at least for me. B)

[wolff]

First pressings sound consistantly better than later ones, this has been discovered to be true over and over again by record collectors.

That's why I started this thread; to get some first hand feedback other than my own experiences.

Thank you, Brownie. and Sidewinder.

What Brownie heard is exactly what I noticed.

Anyone else lucky enough to be able compare orignal w63rd's to their later re-issues.

[Shrdlu]

How sad that, with all of the technology available today, there seems to be no way to produce that original sound. Most of the session reels are still in good condition. There ought to be some way to use these to issue that great sound.

But, and this is not sour grapes, I am happy with nearly all of my BN CDs.

[JSngry]

I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure that the reason first pressings have the best sound is a simple one - the stamper was fresh, had been used less (or not at all) and produced a more fully accurate copy of the master. This is dealt with a little bit in the cd reissue of the LOUIS ARMSTRONG PLAYS W.C. HANDY album. I don't think it's anything as elaborate as new remasterings for different pressings or anything like that. BNs (and other jazz labels) didn't exactly press in voluminous quantities, so the same set of stampers probably got used for quite a while, which could indeed very well lead to a little bit of deterioration of quality in later pressings.

OTOH, I'm tempted to say that any system that brings out radically different sound between a first pressing and a later one might be a little TOO good, if you know what I mean.

[Jazzmoose]

While there may be a lack of certainty over what is a first pressing in some cases, this does not eclipse what the marketplace is telling us.

Huh? If the first pressings "consistently sound better than later ones", how can there be any confusion over which ones are the first pressings?

And if don't think the collectors market in any collecting field isn't affected by whether or not an item is the first issue or not, well...

[wolff]

I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure that the reason first pressings have the best sound is a simple one - the stamper was fresh, had been used less (or not at all) and produced a more fully accurate copy of the master. This is dealt with a little bit in the cd reissue of the LOUIS ARMSTRONG PLAYS W.C. HANDY album. I don't think it's anything as elaborate as new remasterings for different pressings or anything like that. BNs (and other jazz labels) didn't exactly press in voluminous quantities, so the same set of stampers probably got used for quite a while, which could indeed very well lead to a little bit of deterioration of quality in later pressings.

OTOH, I'm tempted to say that any system that brings out radically different sound between a first pressing and a later one might be a little TOO good, if you know what I mean. 

You are probably right about the new/old stamper effect. that's why many people covet test pressings, also. That being said, a change in mastering can make huge a difference from pressing to pressing. Just listen to an original Contemporary, Prestige or New Jazz LP, then to an OJC re-issue remastered using totally different methods.

Never thought of a system that exposed these differences as being too good, but I know what you mean. If a system brings these details out, but leaves the music and emotion behind, then it's too good. There are many systems that can be very revealing, yet completely musical.

Edit: Too bad BN's do not have stamper numbers like RCA Living Stereo's and other labels. Things would get even more anal.

Edited July 2, 2004 by wolff

[JSngry]

You are probably right about the new/old stamper effect. that's why many people covet test pressings, also. That being said, a change in mastering can make huge a difference from pressing to pressing. Just listen to an original Contemporary, Prestige or New Jazz LP, then to an OJC re-issue remastered using totally different methods.

Well, yeah. That's a whole 'nother thing there, absolutely. What I'm talking about is the difference between various pressings of original masterings.

I don't think that BN albums got truly remastered until the reissues of the early 1980s (somebody correct me if I'm wrong about this). So that would mean that quality differences between various pressings would be more likely to do with things like the quality of the stamper (and again, I suspect that the original stampers got fully used, if you know what I mean), quality of vinyl (the 70s were notorious for the introduction of lower quality vinyl, some of it recycled, and some of it actually containing debris from old labels and stuff like that - an extreme example, but true!).

All I'm really saying is that the "first pressings sound better" line has some validity, definitely, but it's not really a mystery or a product of "behind the scenes" manipulations of the master tapes. It's just a function of the LP manufacturing process. Second pressings are going to sound better than third pressings, and on down the line. By the same token, if you get a later pressing, chronologically, but it's made from a new stamper that's replaced an old, worn one, you're going to get a higher quality product that might well rival or equal the very first pressings, assuming that everything else in the manufacturing chain remains the same, which is far from a given.

[wolff]

Interesting. If true, it would explain it. I just can't imagine same stamper being used from 1957 until 1967 or so when the mother could produce another new one. I just assumed from info in dead wax that a few re-masterings were done over the years 1956-1969 or so. Most notably, the change from handwritten RVG to stamped RVG to stampoed van Gelder in dead wax would indicate new mastering. I could be wrong. Anyway, thanks for info. Too bad the Blue Note recording engineer does not explain it, like the guys at RCA and Mercury did.

[JSngry]

I just assumed from info in dead wax that a few re-masterings were done over the years 1956-1969 or so. Most notably, the change from handwritten RVG to stamped RVG to stampoed van Gelder in dead wax would indicate new mastering.

That could be true as well.

[Chuck Nessa]

My remarks had nothing to do with Rudy.

I’m continually bothered by incomplete and/or inaccurate information fostered by “audiophile/collector” fans. This is usually the result of a lack of understanding of the processes record labels used. As a result, people begin “hearing” nonexistent differences

To me this thread implies every time BN moved and printed labels with the new address, Rudy remastered all dates before they were pressed again, giving all records with the “new” label a new set of metal parts.

No record label would incur this needless expense. A NY, USA pressing of an earlier title could be pressed from the same mothers/masters as a Lexington Ave, 63rd, or “whatever” if they were still in good condition. You need to examine the etching in the groove runoff to see if it has been remastered. The label address tells you nothing for sure.

Records would be remastered when the mother can produce no further stampers AND the master can produce no further mothers. For some some slow selling titles one well cared for master could produce “originals” for over 10 years.

Variables can be many, such as the age of the plating bath when stampers are made, the consistency of the vinyl resins, etc.

The variations are almost endless.

[JSngry]

Chuck, what are the odds that Rudy would dramatically alter the sound (or even alter it at all) when making a new metal master? Especially when Alfred was around?

And for clarification, am I wrong to use the term "remastering" for the process of "redoing" the master tapes, which is how I meant it in my previous posts? In other words, can the term "remastering" apply to both the re-creation of a master tape and the creation of the metal master from those tapes?

[Chuck Nessa]

Test pressings are rarely as good as production samples. Test pressings almost always have anomolies - that's why they would send the label 5 to 10 copies. You would check them against each other to see if the flaws occur in the same place.

[couw]

I'm a bit of a nitwit here, but how does this stuff work? I always thought there would be a mix/master - let's call it the Ploink for lack of a better word from my side - made of the original studio recordings. The Ploink would be stored and used to make mothers to make stampers. From Chuck's post I know understand that the Ploink would have to be remade too? That is if his "master" is my Ploink. Does that mean they would go back to the original recordings and mix/master a new Ploink?

[Chuck Nessa]

Chuck, what are the odds that Rudy would dramatically alter the sound (or even alter it at all) when making a new metal master? Especially when Alfred was around?

And for clarification, am I wrong to use the term "remastering" for the process of "redoing" the master tapes, which is how I meant it in my previous posts? In other words, can the term "remastering" apply to both the re-creation of a master tape and the creation of the metal master from those tapes?

Rudy told me Alfred would supervise the mastering (disc cutting). He said he was the only producer to do this. He said he stopped coming near the end because he didn't have the time.

I don't understand what you mean when you say "recreation of a master tape".

[JSngry]

I don't understand what you mean when you say "recreation of a master tape".

I mean the remixing of the session tapes to create a new master tape. Isn't that what happened/happens a lot these days? Re-E.Q.ing, panning, etc? Is that called "remastering" or is that just "remixing"? And are the terms used interchangably, if carelessly?

[Chuck Nessa]

OK, here goes.

One record has many MASTERS. B)

A master TAPE is prepared for production.

The tape is used to cut an "ACETATE" master.

The "acetate" is sent to be electroplated. When you peel the plating off the acetate, you have a negative called the MASTER or father. This master is electroplated to produce a positive called the mother. The metal master is filed away and the mother is plated to produce stampers. A mother can usually be plated a number of times for more stampers without any measurable degradation. When a mother shows wear, it is discarded and the master/father is retrieved to make another mother, etc, etc.

The initial pressing for a jazz record might be in the 1000-2500 range depending on advance orders from the wholesale customers.

Depending on the busyness/capacity of the plant, they may make many stampers the first day to press the order on multiple presses.

I pressed most of my records at a plant called Wakefield Mfg in Phoenix. I pressed there because I considered them the best "day in, day out" plant in the US. I happened to visit the plant while they were making the initial run of one of my projects and they had 9 presses running on my job.

If you have more questions, please ask.

[couw]

so the "father" wears out as well after so many times and you'd have to return to the acetate or the actual mixed tape to produce a new one, introducing many more factors that may affect the sound again?

(edited to add questionmark)

Edited July 2, 2004 by couw