June 2006 Connoisseur CDs

[paul secor]

All recorded music is "about" illusions.

That pretty much says it all. Some illusionists are just more skillful than others.

[paul secor]

All recorded music is "about" illusions.

That pretty much says it all. Some illusionists are just more skillful than others.

And some posters are more skillful than others - apologies for the duplication.

Edited April 7, 2006 by paul secor

[Morganized]

I don't think you can say that (people not noticing). Compression and noise reduction alter the sound; apart from reducing dynamics, compression often makes bass and other instruments sound weird, while noise reduction kind of strangles the higher frequencies in a way that I can't describe very well in English. I can assure you that it's noticeable on good systems. I'm not saying that I'm not listening to processed music anymore, I just don't like (OK, I said "hate") what's been done to it. And if music is heavily processed like in the "Caravan" example above, it does make it unlistenable, at least to me.

Don't want to jump into the middle of this debate but Hans made a point here about noise reduction that I would like to share. I "rediscovered" Dexter Gordon through the live recordings on Black Lion. Started with "Both Sides of Midnight" and loved it so much I wanted to get the whole set. I picked up another recording of the session on Black Lion and one on the Jazzhaus label I believe(which is Black Lion I think). Anyway, the last recording of the session that I found was the 24 bit version of "Body and Soul" put out by 1201 Records. I hope I am not stepping on any toes here, because for all I know the recording engineer for 1201 is a member, but I found the sound on the 1201 to be considerably different than on the Black Lions. To me it was almost muffled. It didn't have the tinkling glasses in the background of the live set, but it also lost a lot of its punch and cut off Gordon's style. It was one of the few times that I can remember actually searching out a recording of the same session on another label just because of the mastering. I did find "Body and Soul" on the Black Lion label. It was improved I thought. Not drastically, but noticeably IMHO.

I did end up with the entire set and it is a wonderful set. Love the music.....but remastering can make a difference.

[connoisseur series500]

Why is everybody posting twice?

[Kalo]

Why is everybody posting twice?

I hadn't noticed.

[Kalo]

Why is everybody posting twice?

I hadn't noticed.

[Kalo]

Actually, I did notice, and I know why. They hit the back button to correct their post, but neglected to delete the previous version of their post. If you look at each "duplication" you can see that they differ and that the second post corrects a mistake in the first.

[J.A.W.]

Music is the ultimate issue, not engineering.

True, so why not leave it alone.

No mastering engineer (lp or cd) can afford to "leave it alone" since the recording engineer didn't. Choices are made ALL the time. You seem to be a big fan of Hoffman - he doesn't "leave it alone".

Every person in the "illusion" chain has their own needs and agendas.

Whether or not I'm a big Hoffman fan is not the point and has got nothing to do with this discussion, and of course I know every mastering engineer is doing something. My point is that they should do as little as possible, at least that's what I prefer; they shouldn't bother others with their "own needs and agendas". To my ears the best sounding CDs are generally the ones that have not or hardly been tampered with.

[robert h.]

Unfortunately Hoffman's site - VERY heavily censored and controlled to favor Hoffman - is a fountain of misinformation and just plain flat out wrong attitudes that have one sole purpose - to promote Hoffman and his particular views. It's also getting to be a fairly mean spirited site too often.

Nessa is right on here. I always laugh when I see these posts regurgitating the Hoffman mantra verbatim. It's all about HIS own needs and agenda. As Nessa says, it's about the music and these attitudes that the Hoffmanites recite like Moonies are simply anti-music.

Hoffman uses EQ, will do compression, and so on. It's all a matter of CHOICES when presented with a master - as Hoffman has admitted in the past, there are virtually no masters that require nothing to be done.

[Kevin Bresnahan]

Mostly every Connoisseur CD has been mastered by Ron McMaster. I have not had any problems with the sounds on them.

However, if Ron McMaster starts pushing his levels up past 0 dB and the resulting waveform looks like the one posted in this thread, I know it's going to sound crappy.

The mastering engineer does not matter. If Hoffman, Dennis Drake, Bob Ludwig, Bob Norberg, Vic Ansemi... ANY of them pushes the levels up that high, it will sound worse. Many of the people who dig Hoffman's remasters don't always agree with his EQ choices but he does give you a very dynamic sounding CD. He does not believe in compressing the music.

If every remastering engineer would stick to this, we'd get much better CDs.

BTW, the worst thing about this recent trend of "maximized CDs" is that most people are keeping their ancient masterings. So now, people are forced to keep a first generation digital remaster that probably causes ear bleeding in some animals because the latest remaster is so maximized that you get fatigued listening to it after about 10 minutes.

Want an example? The beautifuly clear-sounding Jimi Hendrix remasters from the Hendrix Experience team. They sound great. But yet, they have no dynamic range. It's all one wall of sound. No quiet parts, only loud. After a few minutes, I can't listen to them. It's worse with headphones.

Kevin

Edited April 7, 2006 by Kevin Bresnahan

[J.A.W.]

Unfortunately Hoffman's site - VERY heavily censored and controlled to favor Hoffman - is a fountain of misinformation and just plain flat out wrong attitudes that have one sole purpose - to promote Hoffman and his particular views. It's also getting to be a fairly mean spirited site too often.

Nessa is right on here. I always laugh when I see these posts regurgitating the Hoffman mantra verbatim. It's all about HIS own needs and agenda. As Nessa says, it's about the music and these attitudes that the Hoffmanites recite like Moonies are simply anti-music.

Hoffman uses EQ, will do compression, and so on. It's all a matter of CHOICES when presented with a master - as Hoffman has admitted in the past, there are virtually no masters that require nothing to be done.

Here we go again... This is exactly what I was afraid of, that this discussion was going to turn into a pro- or anti-Hoffman debate or worse. Again, that is NOT the point, I'm NOT discussing Steve Hoffman and/or his site here, I'm talking about how I feel about "modern" mastering techniques. What is it you people don't understand about that?!

By the way, I think Kevin put it very well.

[couw]

Hans, part of the problem seems to be that you refer to compression as a bad thing per sé. It is not. If applied moderately, it can make a recording sound better. Your problem is with the modern "pop music" way of *A LOT* of compression, which makes listening a fatiguing experience and which can make things sound really bad. Your problem with modern masterings and their love for compression is not a qualitative, but a quantitative one.

[J.A.W.]

Hans, part of the problem seems to be that you refer to compression as a bad thing per sé. It is not. If applied moderately, it can make a recording sound better. Your problem is with the modern "pop music" way of *A LOT* of compression, which makes listening a fatiguing experience and which can make things sound really bad. Your problem with modern masterings and their love for compression is not a qualitative, but a quantitative one.

You may be right, and yes, I do have a big problem with the amount of compression that is applied to a lot of jazz recordings, let alone other kinds of music these days. To my ears it makes the recordings sound horrible. As for noise reduction, Morganized gave a good example of what I mean; the same goes for other 1201 releases, including their Lee Konitz Storyville reissues, which sound NRed to death.

[robert h.]

Unfortunately Hoffman's site - VERY heavily censored and controlled to favor Hoffman - is a fountain of misinformation and just plain flat out wrong attitudes that have one sole purpose - to promote Hoffman and his particular views. It's also getting to be a fairly mean spirited site too often.

Nessa is right on here. I always laugh when I see these posts regurgitating the Hoffman mantra verbatim. It's all about HIS own needs and agenda. As Nessa says, it's about the music and these attitudes that the Hoffmanites recite like Moonies are simply anti-music.

Hoffman uses EQ, will do compression, and so on. It's all a matter of CHOICES when presented with a master - as Hoffman has admitted in the past, there are virtually no masters that require nothing to be done.

Here we go again... This is exactly what I was afraid of, that this discussion was going to turn into a pro- or anti-Hoffman debate or worse. Again, that is NOT the point, I'm NOT discussing Steve Hoffman and/or his site here, I'm talking about how I feel about "modern" mastering techniques. What is it you people don't understand about that?!

By the way, I think Kevin put it very well.

Well, there is no such thing as "modern" mastering techniques, at least not as a homogenous thing as you imply. And EVERY recording is compressed!! Did you know that a classical recording without compression is virtually unlistenable? indeed, a jazz recording that is not compressed would not be terribly great either. And before anyone jumps in and points out cleverly the handful of recordings in those genres not compressed - great, I know about thm, in reality, the miking techniques used are a form of natural compression.

Every time I hear someone cry "compression" I just want to scream, it's NOT a bad thing, just like it's not a bad thing to have a drink or to have a candy or a burger for God's sake - it's EXCESS - of anything - that is bad, but that's so obvious it's not worth even talking bout, a bloody schoolkid knows that. Every time Is see someone post a waveform it makes me laugh - there's one knob on the Hoffman board who must spend more time doing wave comparisons than just enjoying music (actually, his equipment is so bad it's no wonder he just looks at waveforms! But he follows the party line VERY strongly so Hoffer love him!) - it's sad.

I know why there are a bunch of lemmings that pass around this notion that compression is bad, noise reduction is bad, eq is bad, etc. - they just blindly follow that silly breath of life poser.

Like I said - almost all CD's must be eq's and compressed. Hoffman uses EQ and compression. They all do because they all have to. I don't dislike Hoffman's mastering style but it is far from neutral (whatever that means) - it tends to be a bit tubby and too fat sounding, but that's his style and choices and I respect it, nobody can please everyone, and his stuff is generally very musical - why quibble about style? But the self serving dogma passed around like this - it's just plain wrong.

[sjarrell]

I have a Byrd 1201 that is the ONLY jazz CD I own that I can't listen to. I have very tolerant ears, but that disc (I forget the title 'cause I never pull it out) is crap.

How 'bout them new Conns?

[Chuck Nessa]

I'm talking about how I feel about "modern" mastering techniques. What is it you people don't understand about that?!

Time for you to tell me what I don't understand. Guess I'm just dense.

[J.A.W.]

I'm talking about how I feel about "modern" mastering techniques. What is it you people don't understand about that?!

Time for you to tell me what I don't understand.

No thanks, I've wasted enough time here.

[RDK]

If I may speak for Hans - and explain to Robert H. - the problem with "modern mastering techniques" (and how it's different from, say, ten years ago) is not in the compression per se - for both Robert and Chuck are absolutely correct in that virtually all music is compressed, at least as recorded and often as it's mastered onto vinyl and/or CD as well. The problem is that over the last decade or so there's been a "loudness war" going on - mostly in rock/pop, but now creeping into jazz/acoustic music as well - that's caused the mastering engineers (either on their own or in service to the artists or labels) to essentially make the CDs "louder" in order to punch through the crowded marketplace and/or play louder on some kid's boombox. One way of doing this is to compress the music during the mastering stage, squashing the dynamics and taking a very natural-sounding waveform and effectively evening out the highs and lows. If done well, this can impart a "punchy" sound to rock music, but if done to excess (imo) it can ruin the sound of more acoustic material, such as jazz and classical. I dunno, maybe you guys can't hear - i often can't unless it's extreme - but a waveform like Couw posted earlier is a perfect example of how the music is compressed to the point where the dynamics are squashed and the transients destroyed.

Noise reduction is another thing entirely, of course. Like any tool (even compression), it can be a force for good or a force for evil. Personally I prefer less NR in theory, though I hold to the belief that it's overused only when I can actually hear it in action.

[J.A.W.]

Hans, part of the problem seems to be that you refer to compression as a bad thing per sé. It is not. If applied moderately, it can make a recording sound better. Your problem is with the modern "pop music" way of *A LOT* of compression, which makes listening a fatiguing experience and which can make things sound really bad. Your problem with modern masterings and their love for compression is not a qualitative, but a quantitative one.

If I may speak for Hans - and explain to Robert H. - the problem with "modern mastering techniques" (and how it's different from, say, ten years ago) is not in the compression per se - for both Robert and Chuck are absolutely correct in that virtually all music is compressed, at least as recorded and often as it's mastered onto vinyl and/or CD as well. The problem is that over the last decade or so there's been a "loudness war" going on - mostly in rock/pop, but now creeping into jazz/acoustic music as well - that's caused the mastering engineers (either on their own or in service to the artists or labels) to essentially make the CDs "louder" in order to punch through the crowded marketplace and/or play louder on some kid's boombox. One way of doing this is to compress the music during the mastering stage, squashing the dynamics and taking a very natural-sounding waveform and effectively evening out the highs and lows. If done well, this can impart a "punchy" sound to rock music, but if done to excess (imo) it can ruin the sound of more acoustic material, such as jazz and classical. I dunno, maybe you guys can't hear - i often can't unless it's extreme - but a waveform like Couw posted earlier is a perfect example of how the music is compressed to the point where the dynamics are squashed and the transients destroyed.

Noise reduction is another thing entirely, of course. Like any tool (even compression), it can be a force for good or a force for evil. Personally I prefer less NR in theory, though I hold to the belief that it's overused only when I can actually hear it in action.

Thanks John and Ray, you've explained much better what I mean than I could.

[Kevin Bresnahan]

I contacted Ron and gave him the gist of our discussion here, including the graphic of "Caravan". We've talked about the industry trend toward loud CDs before. He replied once again that there is pressure to up the levels.

FWIW, Ron does appreciate criticism if it's justified, so don't think he's upset at us for talking about his work. Like any professional, he is striving to do the best job he can.

BTW, in my E-mail to him, I also complimented him on his recent work on the Ike Quebec "45 Sessions" Connoisseur. I think these CDs sound very good.

I will post some of the pertinent stuff from his E-mail.

Later,

Kevin

From Ron McMaster:

The "Level Wars" as they are called have been going on since the early days of 45's. Everybody wants their song to be louder than the other guys. What makes today's levels go beyond the limits is the technology and equipment that makes the music that the consumer buys. I told you that as mastering engineers we are always getting demands to raise the level or make it "hotter".

I hold the line at a reasonable level and DO NOT give in to levels that flatten and distort the files. That means that in no way do I Maximize the files! I cannot stand that program/software. What you must realize is that comparing CD's that were made by engineers in the mid 90's verses CD's that were made more recently is that you will see more overall level gain. Equipment has improved and consumers expect a certain degree of louder overall volume level. Why they can't use the volume control is beyond me.

As an engineer that is very sensitive to this subject I try to walk the line and keep all parties involved happy, most of all myself, and not give way to distorted sounding albums! In looking at the file you sent me it does look full and over. I would have to hear it to judge if it went beyond the limit of excessive level. I have seen much worse. However, it still must be listened to for possible clipping and distortion on the track. Many times a file will look just as the picture you sent but it will in fact sound fine. I'm not making excuses, just stating a fact.

I'm sorry to hear that a critic of my mastering thinks "Caravan" sounds "absolutely awful, bright LOUD and no dynamics". I will have to pull this album out to see what this person is talking about. It's important to note that the producer has the final say so on any project. I know that Michael (in this case) would not approve any CD from any mastering engineer that was "absolutely awful, bright LOUD and had no dynamics". He knows how the music should sound and believe me when I tell you he will reject albums that are not to his liking.

Ron

[robert h.]

If I may speak for Hans - and explain to Robert H. - the problem with "modern mastering techniques" (and how it's different from, say, ten years ago) is not in the compression per se - for both Robert and Chuck are absolutely correct in that virtually all music is compressed, at least as recorded and often as it's mastered onto vinyl and/or CD as well. The problem is that over the last decade or so there's been a "loudness war" going on - mostly in rock/pop, but now creeping into jazz/acoustic music as well - that's caused the mastering engineers (either on their own or in service to the artists or labels) to essentially make the CDs "louder" in order to punch through the crowded marketplace and/or play louder on some kid's boombox. One way of doing this is to compress the music during the mastering stage, squashing the dynamics and taking a very natural-sounding waveform and effectively evening out the highs and lows. If done well, this can impart a "punchy" sound to rock music, but if done to excess (imo) it can ruin the sound of more acoustic material, such as jazz and classical. I dunno, maybe you guys can't hear - i often can't unless it's extreme - but a waveform like Couw posted earlier is a perfect example of how the music is compressed to the point where the dynamics are squashed and the transients destroyed.

Noise reduction is another thing entirely, of course. Like any tool (even compression), it can be a force for good or a force for evil. Personally I prefer less NR in theory, though I hold to the belief that it's overused only when I can actually hear it in action.

Ray - great job of restating exactly what I said before (and obviously I don't need you explaining anything to me) - it's the EXCESS of EQ, NR, compression which is bad, not some blind dogma like Hans recites.

Exactly what I said earlier. Nice to see you understood and internalized it!

[J.A.W.]

If I may speak for Hans - and explain to Robert H. - the problem with "modern mastering techniques" (and how it's different from, say, ten years ago) is not in the compression per se - for both Robert and Chuck are absolutely correct in that virtually all music is compressed, at least as recorded and often as it's mastered onto vinyl and/or CD as well. The problem is that over the last decade or so there's been a "loudness war" going on - mostly in rock/pop, but now creeping into jazz/acoustic music as well - that's caused the mastering engineers (either on their own or in service to the artists or labels) to essentially make the CDs "louder" in order to punch through the crowded marketplace and/or play louder on some kid's boombox. One way of doing this is to compress the music during the mastering stage, squashing the dynamics and taking a very natural-sounding waveform and effectively evening out the highs and lows. If done well, this can impart a "punchy" sound to rock music, but if done to excess (imo) it can ruin the sound of more acoustic material, such as jazz and classical. I dunno, maybe you guys can't hear - i often can't unless it's extreme - but a waveform like Couw posted earlier is a perfect example of how the music is compressed to the point where the dynamics are squashed and the transients destroyed.

Noise reduction is another thing entirely, of course. Like any tool (even compression), it can be a force for good or a force for evil. Personally I prefer less NR in theory, though I hold to the belief that it's overused only when I can actually hear it in action.

Ray - great job of restating exactly what I said before (and obviously I don't need you explaining anything to me) - it's the EXCESS of EQ, NR, compression which is bad, not some blind dogma like Hans recites.

Exactly what I said earlier. Nice to see you understood and internalized it!

I wasn't reciting some blind dogma; like I posted earlier Couw and Ray explained exactly what I meant but wasn't able to describe. Anyway, nice to see some very flattering comments in your posts...

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

[jazzbo]

Thanks for emailing and then posting that Kevin.

I don't know. . . may be system sensitive but even the 45 Sessions cds don't sound that great to me. His recent work just has a thinness and a treble tilt that creates an overall sound I find it hard to relax in to.

Anyway, to each their own I guess.

[Kevin Bresnahan]

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

[J.A.W.]

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.

On the other hand, Steve Hoffman is complaining a lot about CDs that are mastered too bright in his opinion