In Search of the Holy Hi-Fi Grail

[porcy62]

Let's see if understood you.

You mean that between serious classical listeners the point is on the performance, so if you have a new historic recording of Schnabel on cd, you're more thrilled then with the best re-re-re-mastered Kempff. Is it correct?

[GA Russell]

If a producer/engineer revisits an old recording and can bring something out that was lacking in the original, why not?

Thanks for posting this Ray!

When CDs came out I disagreed with TTK's point. It was my feeling at that time that remastering was akin to the "improvements" made circa 1970 to rechannel mono recordings into "stereo". My feeling was, "Thanks, but no thanks."

My opinion has changed because today we have engineers who do a great job in their remastering. What really changed my mind was the Complete Village Vanguard 1961 box of Bill Evans which came out in '05. Joe did a great job on that, and now I am not at all reluctant to see what the remaster sounds like.

[jazzbo]

I've got about 30 SACDs now, classical, jazz, rock. . . some sound spectacular. Some not so much.

There's a lot of plain personal opinion in how we evaluate remasters.

I really myself like Fenton, he's done amazing work, and I like Tarrantino and DeLancie and others. . . really like what the Sundazed Studios folk have been doing lately, and Jeff Irwin, etc.

Still, and I'm not a blind RVG worshipper, but the work he's done on the RVGs of the last few years just has something, some immediacy and impact, that sets them apart from other work and I must say I really like them. I'm enjoying giving away previous cd issues of material that I'm now replacing with RVG editions to jazz curious persons.

[jazzbo]

I can't honestly say I prefer a CD to a SACD of any one title, but some SACDs just don't sound as good as they potentially could, TO ME, and I don't know if that is because of the engineering, the source material or some other factor.

Two that I feel didn't live up to their potential are Kind of Blue and Live/Evil. The Japanese DSD remastered cd I have of Kind of Blue is almost as good, a little different but in good ways. And the material on the Cellar Door box set sounds really really good, the two SACD set of Live/Evil I have doesn't necessarily sound much better.

Oddly a few other Columbia/Sony SACDs sound fantastic even in comparison with really nice cd remasters. For example "For the First Time" and the great "Louis Armstrong Plays W. C. Handy". . . .Fantasy SACDs sound considerably better than the cd counterparts from the same company, and I think the Love Supreme and John Coltrane and Johnny Hartman RVG remastered SACDs sound great.

Edited February 19, 2007 by jazzbo

[porcy62]

Summing all the previous posts: the Holy HI FI Grail does not exist, and if it exists ask Indiana Jones for it, forget sound engineers.

Indiana Jones and the Great Tonmeister.

Edited February 20, 2007 by porcy62

[Larry Kart]

The problem I've always found, if "problem" is the way to put it, is that if you're listening to a recorded performance as a performance of some music rather than as a sound test, the ear (within limits) usually adjusts, and you find yourself pretty much listening to the same thing you thought you were listening to before and in the same way -- "before" being the version or versions prior to the new re-mastered one. I had a recent confirmation of that when I performed a satisfying little "tweak" on my system, trimming the length of my speaker cables until they were a short as could be while leaving the speakers in my preferred position. The gain in sound quality was obvious (tighter bass, better imaging. etc.), and I thought "Oh boy -- everything I have is going to sound new again." But that feeling went away after a day or two; also, most of the first day was spend in ansty "sound" listening, not listening to music. I'm sure there are a few albums and CDs where the tweak I made will allow me to her something really crucial that I never really made out before, but otherwise, as I said, IMO the ear adjusts.

[Chuck Nessa]

The problem I've always found, if "problem" is the way to put it, is that if you're listening to a recorded performance as a performance of some music rather than as a sound test, the ear (within limits) usually adjusts, and you find yourself pretty much listening to the same thing you thought you were listening to before and in the same way -- "before" being the version or versions prior to the new re-mastered one. I had a recent confirmation of that when I performed a satisfying little "tweak" on my system, trimming the length of my speaker cables until they were a short as could be while leaving the speakers in my preferred position. The gain in sound quality was obvious (tighter bass, better imaging. etc.), and I thought "Oh boy -- everything I have is going to sound new again." But that feeling went away after a day or two; also, most of the first day was spend in ansty "sound" listening, not listening to music. I'm sure there are a few albums and CDs where the tweak I made will allow me to her something really crucial that I never really made out before, but otherwise, as I said, IMO the ear adjusts.

Gee Larry, I was agreeing with you and then you went into "green magic marker land". What a bunch of crap.

[Larry Kart]

The problem I've always found, if "problem" is the way to put it, is that if you're listening to a recorded performance as a performance of some music rather than as a sound test, the ear (within limits) usually adjusts, and you find yourself pretty much listening to the same thing you thought you were listening to before and in the same way -- "before" being the version or versions prior to the new re-mastered one. I had a recent confirmation of that when I performed a satisfying little "tweak" on my system, trimming the length of my speaker cables until they were a short as could be while leaving the speakers in my preferred position. The gain in sound quality was obvious (tighter bass, better imaging. etc.), and I thought "Oh boy -- everything I have is going to sound new again." But that feeling went away after a day or two; also, most of the first day was spend in ansty "sound" listening, not listening to music. I'm sure there are a few albums and CDs where the tweak I made will allow me to her something really crucial that I never really made out before, but otherwise, as I said, IMO the ear adjusts.

Gee Larry, I was agreeing with you and then you went into "green magic marker land". What a bunch of crap.

Hey, at least the cables I trimmed weren't fancy ones.

[ghost of miles]

What you're describing, Larry, is something very similar to what my grandfather went through in the late 1970s and the 1980s... our family household was the beneficiary of several hand-me-down sound-systems as his ear continued to "adjust." Somehow it's rather reminiscent of that Steve Martin "Googlephonics" sketch.

Edited February 20, 2007 by ghost of miles

[mikeweil]

..... Not an easy thing to understand if you haven't been working in this area.

That may be the main reason for many remasterings' crappy sound.

[porcy62]

..... Not an easy thing to understand if you haven't been working in this area.

That may be the main reason for many remasterings' crappy sound.

Right, a lot of Pro Tools wizards and no experienced engineers.

[chewy-chew-chew-bean-benitez]

YOU KNOW WHAT THE BEST OF ALL WOULD BE:

IF YOU COULD COMBINE THE RUDY VAN GELDER "BLUE NOTE SOUND", BUT AUGMENT IT WITH THE PHIL COLLINS NOISE-GATED DRUM SOUND, THAT WOULD BE THE BEST

[Claude]

..... Not an easy thing to understand if you haven't been working in this area.

That may be the main reason for many remasterings' crappy sound.

Right, a lot of Pro Tools wizards and no experienced engineers.

At least as far as pop/rock is concerned, it's often the artist or labels that want the remasters to sound that way (loud and bright), even if the engineer knows better.

[porcy62]

..... Not an easy thing to understand if you haven't been working in this area.

That may be the main reason for many remasterings' crappy sound.

Right, a lot of Pro Tools wizards and no experienced engineers.

At least as far as pop/rock is concerned, it's often the artist or labels that want the remasters to sound that way (loud and bright), even if the engineer knows better.

Correct. I had the same feeling when digital video editing was introduced fifteen years ago. During the years they added a lot of tools, sophisticated digital effects, color correction, ecc. Every new effect had its moment of glory, and faded after one season, when another one was introduced. All the producers/directors acted like babies: Wow! Great!. Some more of this, some moreof that!

Worst of all, after a while, everybody in the industry believed that in post production everything was possible, (that is true for Lucas's movies, not for common broadcasting's budgets), worst even the cameramen believe it. To sum it all, when I got the shooted tapes in my editing room, I spend a lot of the time to settle bad shooted, and bad recorded, stuff, instead of focusing on the 'creative' part of my job. To simplyfy: if a bad cameraman doesn't know how to use the iris, filters, etc, I could try to correct it afterwards, but the true colors are lost forever.

Edited February 21, 2007 by porcy62

[AllenLowe]

I believe that, ultimately. it's in the speakers - whatever the engineer is mixing on - also, EQ, and few engineers, in my experience, are any good at this - I spent a fortune on audiophile speakers when I was doing remastering full time; the best $2500 I ever spent -

[porcy62]

I believe that, ultimately. it's in the speakers - whatever the engineer is mixing on - also, EQ, and few engineers, in my experience, are any good at this - I spent a fortune on audiophile speakers when I was doing remastering full time; the best $2500 I ever spent -

I am waiting for Chuck's reaction at the word "audiophile"...

Anyway I would expect that when someone put the hands on the original master tapes of Coltrane or Miles, he has the very best of top equipments that money could afford. I mean why should I buy A Love Supreme remastered on a cheap laptop with a cheap audioboard and 200 $ crappy loudspeakers? My old vinyl sounds better on my home equipments.

Edited February 21, 2007 by porcy62

[shaft]

Great article. Thanks!

It's great to read Steve Hoffmans comments he seems to me to be quite sincere and honest. Over the years I have aquired a dozen or so of his DCC-discs and I must say I'm very impressed by his work. In many cases the absolutely smoke other releases.

I was listening to some Miles DCC (Cookin and Musings) the other day and they just sound alive and "right". Not overly bright and artificial. Not bass heavy but just very very balanced and transparent. Clear and organic at the same time. Well done!

I know there is and has been a very strong almost cult like following to Mr Hoffman but I do not consider myself a part of that. I'm just an music lover audiophile since 25 years who really care how recordings sound on my system.

On the other hand Rudy VG has really screwed up so many of his RVG masters sometimes to an earshattering point. Very bright and hard on the ears sound and especially in the beginning of the RVG-series on Blue Note the soundstage was compressed to almost mono-sound. Didn't like that....just listen to the RVG of Lee Morgans Sidewinder or Hank Mobley's Soul Station.

For me it's not so much in the 20, 24-Bits marketing thing that the secret of good sound lays - more about the skills and ears of the remastering engineer.

/Shaft