Shelby Lynn just a little lovin’

[mep]

Ok. I bought the LP and the vinyl quality was so terrible I couldn’t take it. Now I have the CD and I listened to it. I’m going to stick my neck out here and say I don’t think the recording is all that great. I also don’t care for Shelby singing Dusty Springfield songs and doing her best to sound like Dusty Springfield. I would rather hear Dusty Springfield singing Dusty Springfield songs any day.

Back to the recording-it’s sounds very good overall, but I don’t think it is outstanding. I think the bass is more than a little fat, but I suppose that was an effect that someone wanted. It does help give a big, rich sound to the music. I understand why many like the recording, but either it doesn’t stand up as well on a pretty good system, or the recording is showing up my system. I’m betting on the former. I won’t be standing in line waiting to buy the 200 gram version of this LP. I think I’ve heard enough. I am ready to hear some Dusty Springfield though.

 

[RogerD]

Ok. I bought the LP and the vinyl quality was so terrible I couldn’t take it. Now I have the CD and I listened to it. I’m going to stick my neck out here and say I don’t think the recording is all that great. I also don’t care for Shelby singing Dusty Springfield songs and doing her best to sound like Dusty Springfield. I would rather hear Dusty Springfield singing Dusty Springfield songs any day.

Back to the recording-it’s sounds very good overall, but I don’t think it is outstanding. I think the bass is more than a little fat, but I suppose that was an effect that someone wanted. It does help give a big, rich sound to the music. I understand why many like the recording, but either it doesn’t stand up as well on a pretty good system, or the recording is showing up my system. I’m betting on the former. I won’t be standing in line waiting to buy the 200 gram version of this LP. I think I’ve heard enough. I am ready to hear some Dusty Springfield though.

Mark,

I purchased a Dusty Springfield tape at 7 1/2 and sounds very good,a long with taking me back in time,very nice.

 

[flez007]

Ok. I bought the LP and the vinyl quality was so terrible I couldn’t take it. Now I have the CD and I listened to it. I’m going to stick my neck out here and say I don’t think the recording is all that great. I also don’t care for Shelby singing Dusty Springfield songs and doing her best to sound like Dusty Springfield. I would rather hear Dusty Springfield singing Dusty Springfield songs any day.

Back to the recording-it’s sounds very good overall, but I don’t think it is outstanding. I think the bass is more than a little fat, but I suppose that was an effect that someone wanted. It does help give a big, rich sound to the music. I understand why many like the recording, but either it doesn’t stand up as well on a pretty good system, or the recording is showing up my system. I’m betting on the former. I won’t be standing in line waiting to buy the 200 gram version of this LP. I think I’ve heard enough. I am ready to hear some Dusty Springfield though.

I just have the CD, and agree with you, it sounds over-treated (simiar to the Eagles Live CD).. Nice tunes thou...

 

[slowGEEZR]

Glad to read someone else who thinks the vinyl quality is poor on this album. With so many writers saying this is such a quality product, I had thought that maybe I just had a bad pressing.

 

[NorthStar]

It must have some' to do with the VTA/SRA, VTF perhaps?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Glad to read someone else who thinks the vinyl quality is poor on this album. With so many writers saying this is such a quality product, I had thought that maybe I just had a bad pressing.

Can't speak for anyone else, but my impression that it's a really good product is based on the arrangements, the performances and the recording. I've never heard the vinyl. Over-treated? A matter of perspective, i suppose, but it's buck naked compared to the originals, most of which are bordering on wall of soud 60's style, pretty heavily compressesed (analog), and smothered in bad string arrangements. I know many people love these old recordings, but they sound very over-produced, like much of the era, to me. YMMV.

But anyone who believes anything about these recordings, other than the songs themselves, is trying to sound like dusty springfield, needs to listen to some dusty Springfield. They're nothing alike. And the Shelby Lynn tracks are much better recordings by audiophile standards. But hey I dunno, maybe it's hard to hear that on a pretty good system.

Tim

 

[mep]

Somebody missed my point. I never tried to make a comparison between Shelby Lynne’s album and the quality of the original Dusty Springfield recordings because I don’t own any of her LPs or CDs. The only recording I have of Dusty is the “The Look of Love” from the famous or infamous Casino Royale LP. What I did say is that I would prefer to hear Dusty singing Dusty songs instead of Shelby singing Dusty songs.

And I did say I think the bottom is too fat. On speakers that are bass shy by design, the bass you can hear might sound good.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Somebody missed my point. I never tried to make a comparison between Shelby Lynne’s album and the quality of the original Dusty Springfield recordings because I don’t own any of her LPs or CDs. The only recording I have of Dusty is the “The Look of Love” from the famous or infamous Casino Royale LP. What I did say is that I would prefer to hear Dusty singing Dusty songs instead of Shelby singing Dusty songs.

And I did say I think the bottom is too fat. On speakers that are bass shy by design, the bass you can hear might sound good.

Well, I don't think anyone missed that point, but I took...

I also don’t care for Shelby singing Dusty Springfield songs and I also don’t care for Shelby singing Dusty Springfield songs and doing her best to sound like Dusty Springfield. I would rather hear Dusty Springfield singing Dusty Springfield songs any day.

"doing her best to sound like Dusty" to mean, well, doing her best to sound like Dusty. My apologies if you meant something else. And yes, the bass is a bit fat, or, to put a finer point on it, the lower midrange is a bit fat. Somewhere at or above 60 cycles, I assume, because I can hear it. I can also understand how you really wouldn't be able to understand it compared to the original productions you'd evidently much rather listen to, given that your Dusty Springfield frame of reference is just one song from a James Bond movie. You should pick up Dusty in Memphis. It's really good, in spite of the cheesy 50's pop production.

Oh, and regarding your preference for Dusty singing Dusty's songs, none of the songs on just a Little Loving', or Dusty in Memphis, for that matter, were actually written by Dusty. Hers and Shelby's covers are both interpretations.

Tim

 

[mep]

Now that we are into the weeds of song writing credits, I guess I need to make another clarification. When someone makes a song famous through their version of playing it/singing it, I consider it *their* song. If you say “Son of a Preacher Man,” I think Dusty. If you say “Look of Love,” I think Dusty. If you say “You Don’t Have to Say You Love Me,” I think Dusty. With rare exceptions, I usually like the version of the song that someone made more famous than the original song writer/singer version. For example, Roll Over Beethoven-I think Beatles. You Really Got a Hold On Me-I think Beatles. I think you get the point.

The bottom line here besides you trying to find points of argument is that the vinyl copy is trash and I don’t find myself swooning over the CD version. And it has nothing to do with it being digital. It just sounds like a fat recording to me because of the way it was recorded and mastered.

 

[NorthStar]

Ain't a big fan of Shelby myself. ...Dusty? Oh ya! :b

 

[flez007]

The bottom line here besides you trying to find points of argument is that the vinyl copy is trash and I don’t find myself swooning over the CD version. And it has nothing to do with it being digital. It just sounds like a fat recording to me because of the way it was recorded and mastered.

It was clear since the begining mep, and I agree on the fact that the mastering on several "audiophile-approved" titles are over-engineered, this album is a good example so as Michael Jonaz (Mr. Swing) that comes to my mind. In a way, we are still victims of the recording/mastering studio chain.

 

[mep]

Thanks Fernando, I'm glad it's clear to somebody! I think Slowgeezer got it too.

 

[mep]

I appreciate your perspective Mike. We all like different things which keeps things interesting. It would suck if all we had to eat was vanilla ice cream.

I don’t find the bass to be wooly, but I do find it to be fat. I usually equate wooly bass with tube amps that don’t have good control over the woofers. I don’t know if there is some magic combination of SRA/VTA/VTF that can make noisy vinyl somehow quiet. If all of my LPs had this much grunge in them, I would have given up LPs long ago. Since you have had your copy for several years, you might have a different vinyl formulation than I do. I just bought mine a couple of weeks ago and the vinyl is just not high quality. I would be glad to send you my copy if you want to compare it against yours.

 

[garylkoh]

Mark, is your copy the QRP re-issue? I also find that one way too fat. Sounded like the re-mastering for QRP put a "smiley face" on the equalizer. Might have been designed to impress, but the fat bass also made the bass lose pace and slowed the music down.

I have an original pressing with noisy surfaces, but the clear vinyl Lost Highway anniversary issue is fantastic.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Mark, is your copy the QRP re-issue? I also find that one way too fat. Sounded like the re-mastering for QRP put a "smiley face" on the equalizer. Might have been designed to impress, but the fat bass also made the bass lose pace and slowed the music down.

I have an original pressing with noisy surfaces, but the clear vinyl Lost Highway anniversary issue is fantastic.

We may just be caught up in vague audio terminology again, Gary. I find some of the tracks a bit ...bass rich?...even in digital media, on small monitors. I've always taken it to be an artistic decision.

Tim

 

[rblnr]

I find some of the tracks a bit ...bass rich?...even in digital media, on small monitors. I've always taken it to be an artistic decision.

Tim

I take it to be an artistic decision too. The initial run or two of the original vinyl had some hiss issues which was taken care of on subsequent runs. Haven't heard the clear vinyl.

 

[jazdoc]

My original black vinyl pressing and the recently reissued clear vinyl both suffer from poor quality vinyl as seems typical for Lost Highway pressings. Both pressings are noisy with many pops and tics. Despite this, I prefer the vinyl to the CD; the vinyl seems more visceral and realistic. Although to date I've been disappointed by the QRP releases, I am looking forward to comparing to the upcoming QRP release available tomorrow.

As to the languid sound quality of the bass on the recording; I believe it was a conscious decision at it matches the ambiance of song interpretations. Personally I think it took some guts to tackle this iconic material and IMO, Shelby does a great job and her renditions can stand on their own.

 

[garylkoh]

We may just be caught up in vague audio terminology again, Gary. I find some of the tracks a bit ...bass rich?...even in digital media, on small monitors. I've always taken it to be an artistic decision.

Tim

I bought the album as a result of reading an interview with Shelby Lynn in a jazz magazine - and she talked about the warm, rich sound that she was trying to convey with tubes, analog, and vintage microphones. She produced the album herself, and I took a chance, and was very happy with her artistic decisions. If there was any bass rich tracks, they weren't overblown or 'fat', so it's down to vague audio terminology. However, I did find the QRP test pressing I got to be fat and slow.

Side B which was Dusty in Memphis at 45rpm, however, was excellent!!

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I bought the album as a result of reading an interview with Shelby Lynn in a jazz magazine - and she talked about the warm, rich sound that she was trying to convey with tubes, analog, and vintage microphones. She produced the album herself, and I took a chance, and was very happy with her artistic decisions. If there was any bass rich tracks, they weren't overblown or 'fat', so it's down to vague audio terminology. However, I did find the QRP test pressing I got to be fat and slow.

Side B which was Dusty in Memphis at 45rpm, however, was excellent!!

Yeah, I don't think the bass is fat or imprecise. It's just a tone decision. And I think she made great decisions throughout. The thing I love most about it is the sense of intimacy. I think that is a combination of many things -- interpretation of the songs, arrangements, the singing itself, and the production. It is so different from the originals that at times they barely sound like the same songs.

I love Dusty in Memphis, too. The arrangements are cheesy, the production is almost a Phil Spector "wall of sound," but the songs and performances are so good that it's really hard to care.

Tim

 

[mep]

Gary-I bought my copy from Elusive Disc and here is their catalog/part #:Item Number: UNILP75142

Brand/Label/Format: *UNIVERSAL 180g LP*

The vinyl is crap. When I talk about the bass being fat, I'm specifically referring to the CD version that I'm listening to over my digital rig because I couldn't get past the noise on the vinyl to keep playing it. I can understand why Tim doesn't think the bass sounds fat, but I damn sure think the bass on the CD is fat. It's just a little too much of a good thing IMO. And why do I think it sounds fat? Because I have lots of recordings with lots of bass, and it doesn't sound like *that* bass. There is a big difference between clean, smooth, extended, and powerful bass vice bass that you know has been goosed up in level for effect. Or at least I think there is.