Art Tatum CD Reissue - June 3rd

[gmonahan]

Did you listen in mono?

I prefer mono, especially with LPs. The idea of stereo being some sort of an "improvement" over mono is a myth.

Stereo is better if stereo was meant. For example, the Ellington/Basie album "First Time" uses stereo with one piano on left, one on right, but I agree with you where mono recordings are simply re-processed into stereo. That makes no sense to me.

And of course, the ancients among us remember the horrors of the awful and artificial stereo reprocessing in older LP series like the old Decca Jazz Heritage series!

Greg Mo

[Adam]

You sound a bit confused. First you counter our critique of this set, then you proceed with your own criticism. The Zenph Tatum thing is a gimmick, no better than such old "enhancements" as artificial stereo, reverb, or heavy equalization. Have the Zenph people improved the Tatum recordings? I don't think so.

He doesn't sound at all confused. He critiqued the criticisms based on the idea of the recording, and then gave a critique based on actually listening to the recording. And I thought in a straightforward and well-explained manner. The question you raise about "improving" the original is a separate question, which he addressed indirectly in his critique. But I think your question isn't quite right - Zemph wasn't trying to "improve" the Tatum; they were trying to "recreate" it in a manner that "listeners today" would theoretically find more palatable. The answer, for people who care about the original, is apparently not (I haven't listened to the new recording, nor do I intend to buy it.)

It might be interesting to get the opinion of someone who doesn't know the original and find out if they like the new recording, just to see if the new recording works as a new recording of these pieces.

[Christiern]

It might be interesting to get the opinion of someone who doesn't know the original and find out if they like the new recording, just to see if the new recording works as a new recording of these pieces.

If I misunderstood the poster, I apologize, but I still think they were out to improve (in their mind, at least) the recording--of course I was not talking about the music. The music is, however, what motivates most people to purchase a recording (segment of the Steve Hoffman posters exempted), isn't it? I think anyone with a reasonably good ear could hear the artificiality, even if they have never heard the original recording. In other words, to me, the Zenph stands on its own as mission not accomplished. It is amazing how many ticks and pops our ears can ignore when the music behind them is good, but I guess it makes a difference if one grew up in an era when surface noise was unforgivable

[adhoc]

narrow minded, adhoc? there's nothing wrong with MANY recordings of the 1940s and 1950s; as a matter of fact, if you've ever heard "live" music, you'll know that we hear more in mono than stereo,

Quick question. When you're sitting in a concert, and close your eyes, can you tell WHERE the music is coming from? Can you tell - roughly - where the instruments are in relation to each other? Can you "hear" the hall?

If the answer to any of the above is yes, you ARE listening in stereo. You have 2 ears, and live music doesn't originate from a "point source" directly right smack in front of you - you MUST be listening in stereo. Do jazz musicians stand on each other and play? No! They are spread out all over a bandstand, and the music sounds like that - SPREAD OUT. Not "point source".

A well done stereo recording will always sound more better than a well done mono recording.

I prefer mono, especially with LPs. The idea of stereo being some sort of an "improvement" over mono is a myth.

...which is why this statement is complete and utter BS.

and that the sound on some of those old recordings is more faithful to "the real thing" than many a multi-track/isolated/digitally processed CD - for example - the Savoy's, the Verves. the Capitols, the Victors - try Hawkins/Tatum/Nat Cole/Bird/Bud Powell/Lester Young - beautiful sound, little surface noise, sounds like THE REAL THING -

You're confusing things - multimiking is NOT the same as digital is NOT the same as processed is NOT the same as stereo.

For every one of your "multi-track/isolated/digitally processed CDs" I can show you a Mercury or Decca STEREO that is realistic and fantastic sounding. For every one of your incredible sounding monos (I own many, btw) I can show you a terrible sounding mono.

See what I'm getting at here?

Of course you have, because you listen to the music. Some don't.

And another time, you miss the point. The point is - why have to "listen around", why have to "filter out", when there are better sounding versions available? If your glasses are dirty and I offer you a cleaner pair, are you going to decline it because you've grown "used" to seeing through filthy lenses?

Which is also why I don't understand your constant references to those "Steve Hoffman forum" people - they seek out best sounding versions of music they already know and love. It's not as though they only listen to "good sounding" things.

You almost seem to pride yourself in your "ability" to listen to poor recordings as though its something good - why?

Edited June 25, 2008 by adhoc

[AllenLowe]

"Quick question. When you're sitting in a concert, and close your eyes, can you tell WHERE the music is coming from? Can you tell - roughly - where the instruments are in relation to each other? Can you "hear" the hall?"

when the acoustics are right there is a natural separation - but the separation is NOT by location but by frequency, pitch, tone, timbre, etc - IMHO -

nothing wrong with stereo - when I mix, I mix with separation, which is why I like to do "live" multi track - HOWEVER, I try to give it a more "natural" spread than some stereo division, so that everything seems to be coming from the same place - in a great old mono recording there is PLENTY of separation, by, as I mentioned just above, pitch, frequency, tone, timbre, et al -

and any way you look at it, that Tatum re-creation is just awful -

and as I said, there is something closer to the actuality of "live" performance in all of the Savoys and a lot of the Verve's than in a host of current recordings - too much close miking, not enough "room" -

more examples - hear the IMPACT of the old King country, blues, and soul recordings - here the IMPACT of the 1950s Sun recordings - all have space and acoutics and separation and a room sound - and are 50 years old in mono -

listen to the old Deccas - and the old Victors - you feel like you are in the same room as Armstrong, Duke, even Jelly Roll - something I rarely experience today - usually I feel like I am listening to somthing recorded in one of those environmental domes -

Edited June 25, 2008 by AllenLowe

[Christiern]

adhoc: "And another time, you miss the point. The point is - why have to "listen around", why have to "filter out", when there are better sounding versions available? If your glasses are dirty and I offer you a cleaner pair, are you going to decline it because you've grown "used" to seeing through filthy lenses?"

Bad analogy, imo. If the lens in the "cleaner" pair distorts my vision, I'll take the dirty glasses. Same goes for audio work--the reason I don't like the Zenph Tatum "sound" is because it is essentially a distortion of the original--cleaner? perhaps, but obviously dickered with.

adhoc: "Which is also why I don't understand your constant references to those 'Steve Hoffman forum' people - they seek out best sounding versions of music they already know and love. It's not as though they only listen to "good sounding" things."

I should not have generalized, but you have to admit that many of the posters clearly seem more focused on the technical rather than the musical aspects of a recording. I sense that in your post, as well. Mind you, this is not to say that these poster haven't an affinity for the music, obviously they do, but I think they often show warped priorities, as it were.

adhoc: "You almost seem to pride yourself in your "'ability' to listen to poor recordings as though its something good - why?"

I have never suggested that I can hear "poor" recordings are "good," but it is possible to listen and in one's mind minimize such things as surface noise. It rather depends on what one focuses on--I focus on the music. Am I against "restoration"

per se

? Of course not. Recently, fantastic work has been done on recordings by Bessie Smith, King Oliver, and others--I'm all for it. I and an engineer spent some 3 years working, nightly, to eliminate extraneous sounds from old Columbia recordings, and to do so without employing the established procedures (equalization, etc.). The most important thing, as we saw it, was to

not

alter the original signal. Even in the pre-microphone days, some engineers were able to capture music with extraordinary faithfulness, and the pressings of the day often did not do their work justice.

[clarke68]

You sound a bit confused. First you counter our critique of this set, then you proceed with your own criticism.

As Adam pointed out, I only countered the critiques of people who judged the album based on theory, who hadn't really heard it beyond the Amazon samples.

The Zenph Tatum thing is a gimmick, no better than such old "enhancements" as artificial stereo, reverb, or heavy equalization.

Whether it's better or not I'll leave to you, but ya gotta admit this is completely different than any of the "enhancements" you mention.

Have the Zenph people improved the Tatum recordings? I don't think so.

In my bit above I left out the thing I most liked about the Zenph recording: it's really incredible that now you can hear every note. In all of the early Tatum recordings I've heard, his 32nd & 64th notes are either obscured by noise or they run together due to hall ambiance; here each is articulated & distinct. The Zenph thing may be the best demonstration yet of what a freaking monster Tatum really was.

Now, whether or not that's an "improvement" is debatable. I suspect that Tatum's intent was to get as close to glissando as possible on the piano...I don't buy for a second Zenph's marketing materials that say this is "the way Tatum heard it". If he would have had sound like this, he probably would have stepped it up to 128th notes! I can see this recording being of real value to a serious student of Tatum. For a regular Joe like me, switching between this and the original recordings is a very enjoyable way of getting to know his music, although not the way I'd listen every day.

It might be interesting to get the opinion of someone who doesn't know the original and find out if they like the new recording, just to see if the new recording works as a new recording of these pieces.

That could be me...I actually never really listened to Tatum before yesterday. Edited June 25, 2008 by clarke68

[adhoc]

I and an engineer spent some 3 years working, nightly, to eliminate extraneous sounds from old Columbia recordings, and to do so without employing the established procedures (equalization, etc.). The most important thing, as we saw it, was to not alter the original signal. Even in the pre-microphone days, some engineers were able to capture music with extraordinary faithfulness, and the pressings of the day often did not do their work justice.

That's quite interesting - could you tell me more about it? I am all for good music, and if possible, good sound at the same time. Good sound, is for me, the final finishing touch, and the most relevant and proper way to "honour" an artist's work. Like how the right frame can really bring out the beauty in a piece of magnificant art - it really can make a difference.

As for the issue at hand, I'll just state my beliefs here:

To be dogmatic in a belief that the sepia-toned past is the absolute pinnacle of acheivement and/or cling resolutely to the obsolete (declaring for example, that "mono is best") despite there being an option with the clear potential to be far superior/realistic/true, is something that I cannot accept.

Ditto when I encounter people who apply different standards to different formats - if I passed the average listener a modern CD recording that somehow sounded like a 78rpm, most people would bin it in a flash. Yes, many 78rpms sound startlingly realistic for their age, but seriously, when was the last time you heard a real piano sound like a piano recorded on a 78rpm? Or noticed that 78rpms have neither top end above 12-14k or discernible bottom end below 80Hz? I challenge anyone to find me a solo piano 78rpm that sounds as good as Thelonious Monk's Alone In San Francisco, where if you close your eyes, you can actually "see" him playing. And I wouldn't even attempt to compare 78rpm orchestral recordings to anything that came after it - the outcome would be farcical; a complete trouncing.

Yes, the graininess and starkness of B&W film has its charms, but does the appeal then arise solely from the content, or does the medium play a role?

Yes, 78rpms have a startlingly realistic midrange, historical significance and a full warm sound that can be very attractive, but does the appeal then arise solely from the content, or does the medium play a role?

Just because you've managed to tune out the hiss/crackle/pops/ticks doesn't mean they aren't there. Falling in love with someone makes that person more beautiful to you only. Which is what I think a lot of "music lovers" have done - fallen in love with the nostalgia, pomp and circumstance of "vintage" formats, "vintage" recording techniques, etc and become blind to their shortcomings. Yes, what they did was amazing and remarkable for their time, but we have moved on to better things. I'm not saying that new automatically that new = better. All I'm saying is that "new" gives us the potential to have better sounding, more realistic recordings. Christiern wouldn't even be able to contemplate noise removal without modern technology. And that to claim old = best is just as much a fallacy as new = better.

This Zenph re-performance is just that, a re-performance. While it does not replace the original recording for me, it has made me appreciate Art Tatum's work more. Like how getting hold of the design blueprints of your car helps you understand better the effort, compromises and imagination that went into it. Notes that were a blur on the original recording or even indiscernible, are now clear to me. It makes no claim to replacing the original recordings, and the PR focuses on the sound, not any perceived superiority to Tatum. To lambast people for desiring better sound ('oh, we listen to the music'), or declare this whole affair pointless is... missing the point. To lump it together with "fake stereo" and/or dismiss it out of hand as a "gimmick" or some perceived disrespect to Tatum's legacy, is to me, breathtaking idiocy and narrow-mindedness.

Edited June 25, 2008 by adhoc

[Christiern]

adhoc: "Christiern wouldn't even be able to contemplate noise removal without modern technology."

Is that so? Well, here's the modern technology we used to remove pops and clicks without shortening the tape (by cutting and splicing--the old-fashioned way). It worked very well.

adhoc: "And that to claim old = best is just as much a fallacy as new = better."

Show me where such claims were made. This is not about old or new, it's about techniques employed to achieve the best results.

BTW, I have known people who find nostalgia value in the typical extraneous sound of old recordings. I received a complaint from the late owner of Yazoo Records, Nick Perls, when he did not hear any surface noise on a Bessie Smith reissue series that I was responsible for. When I asked him if he heard an degradation in the original signal, he said that he didn't but that the recordings just didn't sound the same sans noise. I reminded him that there was no surface noise in the studio at the time of the original recording--he seemed to be mulling that one over when I left his house.

[AllenLowe]

well, with modern techniques (I use CEDAR and digital EQ) one can actually increase the highs and reduce the noise in old recordings - I've done this a-plenty, it takes some work; used well, CEDAR de-crackle is seamless; neither I nor Chris, I assume, oppose new tech -

[Christiern]

Allen is right, I certainly don't oppose new tech. In fact, I don't care what is used, voodoo dust, a lawnmower, goat milk, whatever--as long as the sound is not distorted I'm okay with it.

[clarke68]

I received a complaint from the late owner of Yazoo Records, Nick Perls, when he did not hear any surface noise on a Bessie Smith reissue series that I was responsible for. When I asked him if he heard an degradation in the original signal, he said that he didn't but that the recordings just didn't sound the same sans noise.

Bob Ludwig said as much in a BAS article back in the '80s. Quoting the relevant part:

I engineer many CD reissues of old recordings, and often the CD sounds to me far superior to the original LP. There are times, however, that the LP sounds not only better than the CD but also better than the original master tape! Sometimes the echo seems to last longer on the disc than the master; sometimes there is more spaciousness on the LP; sometimes the record sounds brighter or more "open" in the top end. Since I cut a lot of these LPs in the first place, I know there was nothing "artificial" done to them.

What is going on here? My CD master tape sounds identical to the original output of the analog recorder, but the LP sounds better than either of them!

To help answer that question for myself, I have done the following trick: I make a DAT recording of the surface noise of the particular pressing I'm comparing, perhaps from the 3 to 10 seconds of silence between movements. With a digital editor I make a long loop of that noise. Then I play back the loop of the surface noise and mix it through my console with the sound from the original tape. Presto! The CD master sounds nearly identical to the pressing. It is brighter and more spacious, and the echo seems longer! Take away the record noise from the CD and it again seems drier and more closed-in than the pressing. There are certainly some interesting psychoacoustic phenomena here! So potentially, in some areas, the LP can offer greater musicality than the CD. It is not more accurate, but in my opinion it is sometimes more musical.

Read the whole thing here.

I wondered yesterday if the differences I heard between Tatum's playing style and Zenph's Tatum's playing style could be simply the presence (or absence) of tape hiss & noise on the recordings. I don't think that's the case, based on listening to better Tatum recordings...but it crossed my mind.

[Christiern]

Thanks for that article--I now remember a forgotten discussion of this at Stereo Review, a magazine I contributed to for 28 years. At Columbia (around 1970) my engineer, the late Larry Hiller, did--in a couple of cases--reintroduce slight surface noise, enough to enhance the sound but not enough to be detected as such. We used Dolby, but it did not give satisfactory results when applied as prescribed--it worked when we only used it on one channel (we transferred all the 78s using 2-channel mono styli that were designed for us). Spending 2 years on Bessie Smith's 160 sides, we jst about tried anything we could think of.