*I'd would like to see people make the distinction between LP or CD *reissue* being of 'poor quality' vs simply labeling it as "the recordings are poor quality".
Usually the original recordings themselves sound great. It is oft-times, however, that the reissue medium sounds poorly.
I hope that this would lead to less people (not on here, but elsewhere) simply dismissing out of hand all older recordings as being 'poor quality'.
Thanks.
Accurate terminology~ poor sounding recordings v poor CDs
Moderators: Mr Awesomer, JesseMiner, CafeSavoy
Accurate terminology~ poor sounding recordings v poor CDs
Will big bands ever come back?
-
Toon Town Dave
- Posts: 661
- Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2002 2:52 pm
- Location: Saskatoon, Canada
Katie, I think recording is probably the more universal term for our discussion. The term track means different things if we're talking about commercial compact discs versus what goes on in the recording/mastering facility.
At the same time, it's also worth distinguising between "original" recording and the re-master "source". One label may re-master from a not so great 45 while another may have access to original, pristine masters from the vaults.
At the same time, it's also worth distinguising between "original" recording and the re-master "source". One label may re-master from a not so great 45 while another may have access to original, pristine masters from the vaults.
I understand and agree with using the distinction... when we can. But when all we hear is crap sound coming out of the box, we simply cannot routinely distinguish between whether the poor sound comes from the recording or the mastering. The Blanton-Webster era Ellington recordings are one of the few "recordings" of which I own and have compared multiple different "masterings," which are widely available due purely to the significance of that time period of Ellington's band. The sound quality differs tremendously among the different masterings, but I still don't know how I would know that it was the mastering rather than the recording if I only had one copy.
I usually just say that the sound quality is poor without clarifying.
I usually just say that the sound quality is poor without clarifying.
Take it as a pretty steadfast rule of thumb - all the recordings from the 30s and 40s were recorded with state of the then art equipment.
There are very few exceptions, especially after the mid 1930s.
Anyone who has heard clean 78 rpm copies of these recordings knows how clean they can sound...and that is w/o any remastering beyond what you do on your own.
There are a few sessions in big band history were the sound quality is bungled for reasons now lost to time.
Woody Herman said he once recorded in a dead, fur-lined studio for Columbia in Chicago. He said the sides were very flat sounding.
The Benny Goodman & Helen Forrest recording of "Nobody" seems to be the victim of the negineer. She is so far off mike....on all the takes that still exist...the issued 78 rpm also is subpar.
In any event - when the recording is reissued and comes out sounding good, kudos to the original engineer 70 years ago and kudos to the people who did not mess up the sound for the LP or CD reissue.
OTOH, if it sounds lousy, you can almost entirely blame the reissue people. They have screwed up many hundreds of times over the decades...thousand of times, likely.
There are very few exceptions, especially after the mid 1930s.
Anyone who has heard clean 78 rpm copies of these recordings knows how clean they can sound...and that is w/o any remastering beyond what you do on your own.
There are a few sessions in big band history were the sound quality is bungled for reasons now lost to time.
Woody Herman said he once recorded in a dead, fur-lined studio for Columbia in Chicago. He said the sides were very flat sounding.
The Benny Goodman & Helen Forrest recording of "Nobody" seems to be the victim of the negineer. She is so far off mike....on all the takes that still exist...the issued 78 rpm also is subpar.
In any event - when the recording is reissued and comes out sounding good, kudos to the original engineer 70 years ago and kudos to the people who did not mess up the sound for the LP or CD reissue.
OTOH, if it sounds lousy, you can almost entirely blame the reissue people. They have screwed up many hundreds of times over the decades...thousand of times, likely.
Will big bands ever come back?
In which case you are doing a disservice to everyone for people need to learn to not dismiss older recordings as having poor sound quality over-all.Lawrence wrote: I usually just say that the sound quality is poor without clarifying.
And as the years go by there is every chance that things will sound better and better.
Will big bands ever come back?
To me, there seems to be three basic sound quality disussions on this board.
1. SOUND QUALITY COMPARISON BETWEEN DIFFERENT ERAS. When searching this forum for information on certain artists or tracks, for me it's not that important to get information about sound quality of a 1934 track compared to a 1955 track since the 1955 track will win almost all those comparisons regardless of reissue company. The importance is getting info on the specific 1934 track on one reissue compared to the same 1934 track on another. I can realise myself that most tracks recorded in 1925 will not sound as good most tracks recorded in 1940, which in turn will not sound as good as most tracks recorded in 1955. This discussion can therefore be left fairly quickly. It's like comparing apples and oranges.
2. SOUND QUALITY COMPARISON BETWEEN DIFFERENT RECORDINGS OF THE SAME ERA. To, me this will be a very difficult discussion since for example comparing a good sound quality transfer of a recording you don't like probably will lose out to a bad sound quality transfer of a recording you love. There are simply too many variables. It's like comparing apples and oranges, just in a different way than when comparing between eras.
3. SOUND QUALITY COMPARISONS BETWEEN DIFFERENT TRANSFERS OF THE SAME RECORDING. To me, this is the most relevant sound quality discussion. But is has to be done with comparisons to make sense.
Most often, I think talking about sound quality when it comes to 1920's-1940's recordings without comparing between diffent sources ("original" 78, "reissue" 78, reissue LP, reissue CD from Hep, reissue CD from GRP, reissue CD from Proper, etc), is sometimes close to pointless, since we are very different in our opinions about what is poor sound quality and what is good.
One problem with talking about sound quality without to making comparisons can be that if you like and dj mostly vintage music, you're probably bound to find more 1930's recordings having ok sound quality than if you like and dj mostly later jazz (from 50's and onwards), which will give you different answers on the sound quality issue if no comparisons are made between different reissues of the same material. This is probably then an unaware comparison between eras.
Though, even if you have two different reissues to compare (for example the same songs on a Proper release and a GRP/Decca release), tastes can differ on what is important in sound quality.
For example, while I find that most GRP releases have more clarity and life than Proper, which I find muffled and dull, thus giving the "sound quality" crown to GRP, someone else might find the GRP release too light on the bass and with too much surface noise, and the Proper having more bass and less surface noise, thus giving the "sound quality" crown to Proper.
This comparison between different transfers of the same recordings will still be the most important to me.
Then also, it seems that over time everyone will find the reissue labels that are the closest to their liking, as I enjoy GRP/Decca, others enjoy Proper, even others Classics, etc. And in the end, often we don't have a choice with older recordings, there migt be only one reissue out on the market, so that I'll have to settle with Proper, when GRP, Hep, Masters of Jazz, Mosaic, etc haven't reissued the songs I'm looking for, or are out of print. Enter second hand...
Well, I've ramled on long enough, I'll escape while I still can find my way out of my own web of words. Damn english language...
/Jonas
1. SOUND QUALITY COMPARISON BETWEEN DIFFERENT ERAS. When searching this forum for information on certain artists or tracks, for me it's not that important to get information about sound quality of a 1934 track compared to a 1955 track since the 1955 track will win almost all those comparisons regardless of reissue company. The importance is getting info on the specific 1934 track on one reissue compared to the same 1934 track on another. I can realise myself that most tracks recorded in 1925 will not sound as good most tracks recorded in 1940, which in turn will not sound as good as most tracks recorded in 1955. This discussion can therefore be left fairly quickly. It's like comparing apples and oranges.
2. SOUND QUALITY COMPARISON BETWEEN DIFFERENT RECORDINGS OF THE SAME ERA. To, me this will be a very difficult discussion since for example comparing a good sound quality transfer of a recording you don't like probably will lose out to a bad sound quality transfer of a recording you love. There are simply too many variables. It's like comparing apples and oranges, just in a different way than when comparing between eras.
3. SOUND QUALITY COMPARISONS BETWEEN DIFFERENT TRANSFERS OF THE SAME RECORDING. To me, this is the most relevant sound quality discussion. But is has to be done with comparisons to make sense.
Most often, I think talking about sound quality when it comes to 1920's-1940's recordings without comparing between diffent sources ("original" 78, "reissue" 78, reissue LP, reissue CD from Hep, reissue CD from GRP, reissue CD from Proper, etc), is sometimes close to pointless, since we are very different in our opinions about what is poor sound quality and what is good.
One problem with talking about sound quality without to making comparisons can be that if you like and dj mostly vintage music, you're probably bound to find more 1930's recordings having ok sound quality than if you like and dj mostly later jazz (from 50's and onwards), which will give you different answers on the sound quality issue if no comparisons are made between different reissues of the same material. This is probably then an unaware comparison between eras.
Though, even if you have two different reissues to compare (for example the same songs on a Proper release and a GRP/Decca release), tastes can differ on what is important in sound quality.
For example, while I find that most GRP releases have more clarity and life than Proper, which I find muffled and dull, thus giving the "sound quality" crown to GRP, someone else might find the GRP release too light on the bass and with too much surface noise, and the Proper having more bass and less surface noise, thus giving the "sound quality" crown to Proper.
This comparison between different transfers of the same recordings will still be the most important to me.
Then also, it seems that over time everyone will find the reissue labels that are the closest to their liking, as I enjoy GRP/Decca, others enjoy Proper, even others Classics, etc. And in the end, often we don't have a choice with older recordings, there migt be only one reissue out on the market, so that I'll have to settle with Proper, when GRP, Hep, Masters of Jazz, Mosaic, etc haven't reissued the songs I'm looking for, or are out of print. Enter second hand...
Well, I've ramled on long enough, I'll escape while I still can find my way out of my own web of words. Damn english language...
/Jonas
It's a hard life, Jonas.
Basically, everything you say is true.
Within the collecting community. much is taken as common knowledsge, such as 50s recordings almost always souding better - higher fideilty - than 30 recordings.
Some theory killing exceptions - Columbia/CBS apparently popped for all new recording equipment around 1939/1940 and began using better studios, mics, whatever...no ones seems to have nailed it for sure, but the sound on their recordings from that time forward is phenominal.......on their LP and CD reissues...when done properly. The 78s did not sound aywhere near as good. Why? According to a historian (in print, amen - on the back of the old Frank Sinatra in Hollywood Columbia LP) - all Columbia 78s from that era were dubs from the 16 inch platters that Columbia kept going during the entire recording session capturing *everything* that was said in played in the studio.
Many of the Columbia 78s from that era are very muffled, yet many are not. The LPs over the years frequently were great - like the old Woody Herman 3 LP box set and the 2 LP set God Bless the Child by Billie Holiday.
OTOH, the 2 LP sets by Goodman/Forrest and Krupa/O'Day were nightmares of bad sound and engineering by the reissue producers.
Semi bottom line - whgen Columbia stuff is done properly, the sound quality is toitally amazing...you would not know you are hearing a side from 1941, like say the Krupa recording of Tuxedo Junction. - clear as a bell, no surface noise to be heard and a very natural and open acoustic sense.
All the companies have their histories
"OK...we're running a little long tonight, folks...."
Basically, everything you say is true.
Within the collecting community. much is taken as common knowledsge, such as 50s recordings almost always souding better - higher fideilty - than 30 recordings.
Some theory killing exceptions - Columbia/CBS apparently popped for all new recording equipment around 1939/1940 and began using better studios, mics, whatever...no ones seems to have nailed it for sure, but the sound on their recordings from that time forward is phenominal.......on their LP and CD reissues...when done properly. The 78s did not sound aywhere near as good. Why? According to a historian (in print, amen - on the back of the old Frank Sinatra in Hollywood Columbia LP) - all Columbia 78s from that era were dubs from the 16 inch platters that Columbia kept going during the entire recording session capturing *everything* that was said in played in the studio.
Many of the Columbia 78s from that era are very muffled, yet many are not. The LPs over the years frequently were great - like the old Woody Herman 3 LP box set and the 2 LP set God Bless the Child by Billie Holiday.
OTOH, the 2 LP sets by Goodman/Forrest and Krupa/O'Day were nightmares of bad sound and engineering by the reissue producers.
Semi bottom line - whgen Columbia stuff is done properly, the sound quality is toitally amazing...you would not know you are hearing a side from 1941, like say the Krupa recording of Tuxedo Junction. - clear as a bell, no surface noise to be heard and a very natural and open acoustic sense.
All the companies have their histories
"OK...we're running a little long tonight, folks...."
Will big bands ever come back?
The biggest issue for me in sound quality of the original recording is dynamic range. Pretty much every major advance in sound recording technology has increased the range of frequencies that the equipment can record. In addition...
On 30s recordings the horns (mid-range frequencies) often drown out the cymbals and bass (high and low frequencies). Some notable exceptions include a few Chick Webb and Count Basie tracks. Between a remastered CD and an original 45, the relative volume of the instruments is not going to change very much, although you can de-emphasize instruments that fall mainly in a certain frequency range (which is why cymbals get erased when you remove hiss).
On 30s recordings the horns (mid-range frequencies) often drown out the cymbals and bass (high and low frequencies). Some notable exceptions include a few Chick Webb and Count Basie tracks. Between a remastered CD and an original 45, the relative volume of the instruments is not going to change very much, although you can de-emphasize instruments that fall mainly in a certain frequency range (which is why cymbals get erased when you remove hiss).
I don't think it's a matter of the saxes and brass 'drowning out' the rhythm section. It is just the way the recordings were recorded and balanced in the studio.julius wrote:The biggest issue for me in sound quality of the original recording is dynamic range. Pretty much every major advance in sound recording technology has increased the range of frequencies that the equipment can record. In addition...
On 30s recordings the horns (mid-range frequencies) often drown out the cymbals and bass (high and low frequencies). Some notable exceptions include a few Chick Webb and Count Basie tracks. Between a remastered CD and an original 45, the relative volume of the instruments is not going to change very much, although you can de-emphasize instruments that fall mainly in a certain frequency range (which is why cymbals get erased when you remove hiss).
If you really want to hear the best possible sound recorded at the time in the 1940s, you need to explore the 'secret world' of Columbia Records of that period - lots of great bands on Columbia then - Krupa, Goodman, Basie, James, Kyser, Spivak and more.
Also - the world of transcriptions which were yielding a more natural sound.
- 'original 78s', right?
Will big bands ever come back?
I think sound quality restoration will get better and better.Haydn wrote:What do you mean?Eyeball wrote:And as the years go by there is every chance that things will sound better and better.
Check the progress of the King Oliver Gennetts over the decades. From babely audible to fairly listenable last time I checked.
I use the word 'depth' - a lot of 1930s tracks I have heard just don't have enough depth to make the band sound alive. Some tracks (notably transcriptions, which I believe were recorded in a different way) sound great, others sound frustratingly narrow and flat. The question is how do we get the music to sound as good as possible.julius wrote:The biggest issue for me in sound quality of the original recording is dynamic range.
I hope you're rightEyeball wrote:I think sound quality restoration will get better and better.Haydn wrote:What do you mean?Eyeball wrote:And as the years go by there is every chance that things will sound better and better.
. Hopefully the decreasing cost of sound restoration technology will help.
I think it's more about the skills of those undertaking the restorations: Taking the time to track down the best sources of the original material; preparation of that source material; and then skilled processing – that's what makes the tracks sound better.Haydn wrote: I hope you're right