Although, I will say these should be AAA all the way, so I don't know about the dithering claim.
They are definitely AAA except for occasional circumstances where the master reels had an issue. But that would only be a song or 2.
SRX Vinyl 2019 Blue Note Reissues, total Audiophile P.O.SHIT!!
- Thread starter ddk
- Start date
They are definitely AAA except for occasional circumstances where the master reels had an issue. But that would only be a song or 2.
Although, I will say these should be AAA all the way, so I don't know about the dithering claim.
I don't know if they are AAA or not just mentioned that the fake air is similar to to adding dither in digital which is just noise or maybe it's just white noise, don't claim to know how it was done just that it's fake too like the backgrounds. Was there a claim of all AAA through out the process?
david
Last edited:
To date, I have not heard a re-processed re-issue of a vinyl record that I have not found wanting compared to a good thrift copy of the original. It doesn't mean they don't exist, and I have only heard a handful of the re-issues, but the stuff ddk talks about did seem to haunt the ones I have heard.
Neither have I, the same reason why I don’t generally buy them or shop audiophile labels.
david
Not that I read Stereophile, but here's an article: https://www.stereophile.com/features/408rti/index.html
Some interesting tidbits:
Gray began building the transformerless room in the late 1970s, and has recently installed top-of-the-line AudioQuest cables. "I stayed away from this audiophile stuff until Joe Harley convinced me to try it, and I've been very happy." Soon will come aftermarket power cables.
I also find it strange to see that audiophile cabling is creeping in to the studio.
On the life in the music...
Other mastering engineers have their own ideas of what sounds best. Our philosophy is not to play God. We're not trying to reinvent history, not trying to make something sound modern. And we're certainly not going to resort to digital restoration, which kills the life as it kills the hiss."
So, he actually thinks he has not sucked out the ambience. But clearly he has EQ'd differently than the original LPs. This is generally where the air is going to come from: a boosting of the "air frequencies" and maybe some addition of high frequency distortion. (The latter being a possibility, but not necessarily employed here).
Finally, they believe their result is true to the master tape as opposed to the original LP:
We give audiophiles the master-tape sound, not the original Blue Note LP sound. You can't tell me that the audiophile wants to hear sound as it was compromised back then. You'd have to play it on a Zenith. They were very scared to leave too much bass, treble, or dynamic range on the record, because the tonearm would jump out of the groove. Nowadays, we can finally accomplish what Rudy Van Gelder would have only dreamed of hearing 40 years ago.
Some interesting tidbits:
Gray began building the transformerless room in the late 1970s, and has recently installed top-of-the-line AudioQuest cables. "I stayed away from this audiophile stuff until Joe Harley convinced me to try it, and I've been very happy." Soon will come aftermarket power cables.
I also find it strange to see that audiophile cabling is creeping in to the studio.
On the life in the music...
Other mastering engineers have their own ideas of what sounds best. Our philosophy is not to play God. We're not trying to reinvent history, not trying to make something sound modern. And we're certainly not going to resort to digital restoration, which kills the life as it kills the hiss."
So, he actually thinks he has not sucked out the ambience. But clearly he has EQ'd differently than the original LPs. This is generally where the air is going to come from: a boosting of the "air frequencies" and maybe some addition of high frequency distortion. (The latter being a possibility, but not necessarily employed here).
Finally, they believe their result is true to the master tape as opposed to the original LP:
We give audiophiles the master-tape sound, not the original Blue Note LP sound. You can't tell me that the audiophile wants to hear sound as it was compromised back then. You'd have to play it on a Zenith. They were very scared to leave too much bass, treble, or dynamic range on the record, because the tonearm would jump out of the groove. Nowadays, we can finally accomplish what Rudy Van Gelder would have only dreamed of hearing 40 years ago.
The originals were not made with audioquest cables. Electrons don’t change speed. They are just doing silliness, not knowing the ers of their way.
While I am not a fan of stereos that are basically studio gear, the hardened measurement based gear and cables is very good at capturing the signal, even they aren’t great at the playback.
If they want something better I wish they’d chat with me :/ They really don’t even know what advantages old gear had... to contrats.
While I am not a fan of stereos that are basically studio gear, the hardened measurement based gear and cables is very good at capturing the signal, even they aren’t great at the playback.
If they want something better I wish they’d chat with me :/ They really don’t even know what advantages old gear had... to contrats.
Last edited:
And...
They were released in mono because stereo albums cost a dollar more," he says. "They felt there wouldn't be enough interest to justify the effort. We're not going to keep anyone from enjoying the full sound by collapsing the soundstage and hiding their wonder. There aren't many—10 to 20—people on the planet who have heard these master tapes. Any critic who says that the only good Blue Note is a mono Blue Note hasn't heard the masters.
Can't say I've ever fallen in love with mono, myself. Good mono with one of the better mono carts is intriguing for sure, and I certainly get the nostalgic aspect to it. But I do prefer the stereo soundstage most of the time. Even when "stereo" consists of a couple hard-panned instruments surrounding a dead center instrument, as in a trio.
David, I can better understand your definition of 'hyped' based on this discussion. I did listen to an original blue note last night and compared to a reissue. Your preference for Ching Chengs falls perfectly in line as well.
They were released in mono because stereo albums cost a dollar more," he says. "They felt there wouldn't be enough interest to justify the effort. We're not going to keep anyone from enjoying the full sound by collapsing the soundstage and hiding their wonder. There aren't many—10 to 20—people on the planet who have heard these master tapes. Any critic who says that the only good Blue Note is a mono Blue Note hasn't heard the masters.
Can't say I've ever fallen in love with mono, myself. Good mono with one of the better mono carts is intriguing for sure, and I certainly get the nostalgic aspect to it. But I do prefer the stereo soundstage most of the time. Even when "stereo" consists of a couple hard-panned instruments surrounding a dead center instrument, as in a trio.
David, I can better understand your definition of 'hyped' based on this discussion. I did listen to an original blue note last night and compared to a reissue. Your preference for Ching Chengs falls perfectly in line as well.
Good mono is fantastic even with a good stereo cart and the soundstage doesn't collapse. Whoever made that quote doesn't know or more likely is just spinning the story to justify the product.
I actually like mono recordings a lot, find them more natural in some ways and less distracting without the stereo's spacial cues.
You're right about the CC.
david
Not really. Good mono, at least as processed by my brain, has incredibly stunning depth. More so than stereo, most of the time. But the strong center image is correctly described as a collapsing of the soundstage, in my opinion. And naturalness is also a matter of opinion. I find stereo more natural, but I do understand the "less distracting" comment. It seems to fit David's preferences to a tee. Just not mine. Horses for courses, as the great Keith R says...
Might not work in yours. You can't just pop on a mono record and expect it to sound good. Best is to visit a set up where the owner likes both mono and stereo, because he will have taken care to ensure mono works in his set up as well as stereo.
Have done so plenty. I have jazz loving acquaintances, and have heard excellent mono playback. My preference for stereo consistently survives. I like the things that distract @ddk
.
In reality RVG boosted the high end when he mastered for LP to compensate for the equipment being used for playback at the time which was generally rolled off at the high frequencies. He also cut the low bass to prevent mistracking but boosted the bass at about 100 Hz to keep the feel of the bass.
I like some of that too, as long as it sounds natural I like to both stereo and mono.Have done so plenty. I have jazz loving acquaintances, and have heard excellent mono playback. My preference for stereo consistently survives. I like the things that distract @ddk
david
By mid-1958 everything RVG recorded was in stereo. All the mono releases after that point were fold downs.
I prefer mono for quartets so that the instruments aren't randomly placed in the left or right channel. For quintets with 2 horns, let's say, I think stereo can be nicer if the piano, bass and drums are fairly well centered and the horns are split, like on stage.
Yes I totally understand that. That's the hard panned placement I was talking about earlier. But the dynamics and detail of some of the stereo remasters draw me in more than the sometimes hard panned placement deters me.
There is definitely an “air” in some stereo pressings that is missing in the mono. And then there are some monos that are just perfect. I like them both.