Frantz-I am still waiting for someone to give me the name of a jazz album recorded with all of the latest digital doo-dads that is sonically superior to what was laid down in 1957 with Way Out West.
as your system improves do you hear more and more flaws in recordings?
- Thread starter Mike Lavigne
- Start date
Frantz-I am still waiting for someone to give me the name of a jazz album recorded with all of the latest digital doo-dads that is sonically superior to what was laid down in 1957 with Way Out West.
Hi Mep
We are doing modification with tubes and silver transformers in Studer A80's record amp, almost done, so far we use tube mic, tube pre amp no mixer,silver mic cable can get pretty good sound recordings + later with tube record amp to have all tube set and let see if it can be as good as the old time's recording. but we can only record classical music in two microphones, also no chance to make copy in vinyl all we can do just copy in tape in future, we have two A80 to make small quantity of tape copies
tony ma
We are doing modification with tubes and silver transformers in Studer A80's record amp, almost done, so far we use tube mic, tube pre amp no mixer,silver mic cable can get pretty good sound recordings + later with tube record amp to have all tube set and let see if it can be as good as the old time's recording. but we can only record classical music in two microphones, also no chance to make copy in vinyl all we can do just copy in tape in future, we have two A80 to make small quantity of tape copies
tony ma
i think the predictable direction Mark is going in turns this thread into a digital-analog spiral. Which we all want to avoid.
OTOH i've been listening to a low generation master dub of a 1961 live Jazz club with an 'Icon' playing at his peak. i have a CD of this recording but not an Lp. this particular master dub is 'other-worldly real' sounding.
i have many many digital hirez master files including HRx's from Keith Johnson. i have a number of very very good Jazz SACD's. i've listened to Bruce Brown's 2XDSD files of his own recordings.
no way any of those modern recordings get in the ballpark of this 49 year old 'live to 2-track' analog recording.
maybe there are better tools available to the recording engineer today than there was 49 years ago. if there is; i have not heard a result that tells me that. i have a master dub of one of one of Chad Kassem's Blues albums, 'Little Hatch, Rock With Me Baby', TP-017 from the Tape Project. i think it was recorded in 2005. it's maybe close to this 1961 recording but not quite there.
i have maybe 500 45rpm reissues from the 50's and 60's. most sound as good as any modern recording.
not every vintage recording is as good as the best modern recording; but some/many are.
I love Way Out West. Wonderful recording, even if the stereo panning is a bit extreme. For sheer recording quality, though, I'll take some of Miles' late 50s/early60s stuff over it myself, but it's close enough to be a pretty moot point. But for modern recordings, if you listen to Herbie Hancock's "Gershwin's World," just to give one example, there is something there in the textures and dynamics that's not in the wonderful old analog stuff. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of the small jazz combo recordings of the era we're talking about. But from a sheer recording quality standpoint, they can, and have been bettered. With that said, I have no idea if Gershwin's World was recorded digitally or not. What I do know is that it is pretty heavily multi-tracked and doesn't suffer from any of the grunge build-up that is common to the multi-track analog recordings of the 60s and 70s. Analog can hold its own on "live in studio" style recordings or even simple ones with minimal overdubbing. But heavily multi-tracked recording holds its clarity and integrity much better in digital.
Tim
Perhaps it's just that the recording engineers either don't care that the ultimate quality is there (remember most listeners are on mp3 and earbuds), or that they feel that they can let their improved technology do the work for them. Rather than painstakingly set microphone placement and levels at the start, they may feel that they'll just fix it all on the mixing board later. What do you all think?
Lee
Lee
Perhaps it is useful for our discussion about old DMP recordings to remember this excerpt from a Tom Jung interview to Soundstage in 2002 :
"JF: What would you deem the most significant advances in recording technology over the course of your career?
TJ: It would have to be the switch from analog to digital. Unfortunately, it took me several years to figure out what was wrong with PCM. I went from 16-bit to 18-bit to 19-bit to 20-bit, and even 24-bit digital before I realized PCM had some inherent problems. I came away from almost every PCM session less than satisfied technically and couldn’t figure out why. Then along came DSD (Direct Stream Digital), which seemed to address most of the problems I was having trying to get PCM to sound right. "
I also never liked the old DMP CDs - they sounded sterile to me, may be I should try listening to a recent one.
"JF: What would you deem the most significant advances in recording technology over the course of your career?
TJ: It would have to be the switch from analog to digital. Unfortunately, it took me several years to figure out what was wrong with PCM. I went from 16-bit to 18-bit to 19-bit to 20-bit, and even 24-bit digital before I realized PCM had some inherent problems. I came away from almost every PCM session less than satisfied technically and couldn’t figure out why. Then along came DSD (Direct Stream Digital), which seemed to address most of the problems I was having trying to get PCM to sound right. "
I also never liked the old DMP CDs - they sounded sterile to me, may be I should try listening to a recent one.
Tony-Please sign me up for a copy of the tape when you are ready. I have an Otari MX-55 2 track mastering deck and a pair of Ampex 350s so I am ready for any 15 ips 2 track tape you can throw my way.
Sorry Mike-I didn't mean to head down that road. The intent of my original posts were to detail how I think that real advances in your system brings out more of the music which is why I referenced a tape that was made in 1957 and how outstanding it sounds with modern playback gear as an example. Anyone who thinks they have *improved* their system to point of unlistenability has driven down a dirt road with one or more of their purchases. They need to reflect back to the time when they thought their music sounded really good and what gear they had then and get rid of the bunk that ruined their system.
Who gets to decide if it's superior or not?
And that's exactly the dilemma, and the failing of such claims.
Regardless, I stand by my assertion that great recordings from long ago were great despite the gear and not because of it. This could be a book length treatise, for example discussing how affordable mass-produced audio gear these days allows millions of incompetent newbies to make "records" that sound like ass. That doesn't mean affordable mass-produced audio gear sounds bad. Another reason some older recordings sound great is because they were made in large rooms with great acoustics. Versus the 10x12 bedrooms so many use today with predictable lame results. And so forth.
--Ethan
we will put it up for a vote with a panel of experts.
Actually I see no dilemma here. You can either name a great jazz recording that can go toe to toe with Way Out West that others will give the vertical head bob to or not.
I see no logic to your statement. A recording can only be as good as the gear used to make it in the hands of a skilled engineer. Obviously the gear used to record Way Out West was very good. What do you want to credit the quality of the recording to? It doesn't just magically sound good for no reason Ethan. It has to be a combination of the recording venue, quality of the musicians, skill of the engineers, and the quality of the record chain. For you to say it sounds good despite the gear just flys in the face of common sense because it can only sound as good as the recording gear can allow it to. I think it is just your way of slamming the gear that was used to make the recording as you certainly don't want to give it any credit for the outstanding results that were achieved by using it.
You will wait a long time - they are too busy dissecting bad digital recordings to show their system capabilities!
I have asked for a similar list in another thread and got many justifications and no tittles.
IMHO some of the best quality current digital jazz recordings come from the german ECM label - some of their latest CDs are very well recorded - I am listening now to "The astonishing eyes of Rita" by Anouar Brahem.
Happily the previous generation was competent - Revox did not sell millions of A77 and we got "Jazz at the Pawnshop" , "Cantate Domino" and some other treasures that really prove something!
Thanks Microstrip. The last thing that MikeL wants on this thread (and it's his thread) is another analog/digital food fight and that was never my intent. So, we really need to get back to the question that Mike asked at the beginning of the thread.
And speaking of flaws in your recordings, I have mentioned one recording before on this forum that has more than its share of flaws but I can't say I hear them any better now than I did 25 years ago. That recording would be Miles Davis "Kind of Blue." I first heard the horn overloading the recording gear the first time I played the LP over 25 years ago. I was sort of afraid to say anything at the time as KOB has achieved Holy Grail status in jazz circles. And I am still mystified as to why the horn overloads the way it does. There are certainly other brass instruments playing very loudly at times and I don't hear them overload. Most of the time the recording sounds great. I only have original Columbia pressings in mono and stereo for LP, but I also have a 15 ips 2 track master tape dub as well. But to get back to Mike's point, since I heard the same flaws 25 years ago on lesser gear than I own now, I guess that points to a conclusion for me that as my stereo has gotten better that I don't detect new flaws in recordings. I usually detect flaws in recordings the first time I play them, and they will stick with me through system upgrades.
And speaking of flaws in your recordings, I have mentioned one recording before on this forum that has more than its share of flaws but I can't say I hear them any better now than I did 25 years ago. That recording would be Miles Davis "Kind of Blue." I first heard the horn overloading the recording gear the first time I played the LP over 25 years ago. I was sort of afraid to say anything at the time as KOB has achieved Holy Grail status in jazz circles. And I am still mystified as to why the horn overloads the way it does. There are certainly other brass instruments playing very loudly at times and I don't hear them overload. Most of the time the recording sounds great. I only have original Columbia pressings in mono and stereo for LP, but I also have a 15 ips 2 track master tape dub as well. But to get back to Mike's point, since I heard the same flaws 25 years ago on lesser gear than I own now, I guess that points to a conclusion for me that as my stereo has gotten better that I don't detect new flaws in recordings. I usually detect flaws in recordings the first time I play them, and they will stick with me through system upgrades.
I find some of the recent Chesky jazz recordings to be very good. I've not heard too many modern recordings that have the "close-miked" perspective of Way Out West (which is superb, BTW).
Lee
Lee
Ethan,
i disagree with even trying to come to any conclusion we might all agree on. i have no illusions that you would percieve things the same as me listening to the same music side by side. and there is nothing wrong with that. it might even be the nature of art.
OTOH what is doable is for you (or anyone who cares to) to offer specific recordings which you consider superior to these (or other) vintage gems. be very specific as far as to the particular media and number. be specific as to the gear and general room environment your perceptions are based on.
then anyone can investigate for themselves whether they agree or disagree with whoever's opinion.
obviously there are practical challenges for some to hear analog recordings in an ideal setting. it might take some time before those opportunites presented themselves. but there is no hurry.
the hardest thing for me in this environment is to pin down objectivisits on their actual listening reference as they rarely describe their perspective in those terms.
here we have an opportunity for it to happen.
and there is no right, wrong, or sideways. there is only a bit greater insight into each other's subjective perspectives.
maybe it might lead to some common truth we could agree on; but i would be surprised if that happened.
i would gladly offer my room for anyone to compare any of the reference vintage or modern recordings.
FYI, why is it that the mikes used in those recordings bring a premium today? That is even with all the "great" new mikes being made? Those mikes whose claim to fame is that they're trying to capture the mikes of yesteryear? Despite these new mikes have flat FR from 20 to 20?
Last edited:
Bruce B
WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
I've heard several recordings done on Sonoma's and such that I'd be perfectly fine with. And yes, I have a safety copy of "Way Out West" given to me by Roy DuNann.
Here's an interesting thread on GS talking about the topic.
Speakers too revealing
Last edited:
Similar threads
