How do you get late 30s tracks to sound brighter at dances?

[Eyeball]

For instance, when watching "Sun Valley Jump," the tired Glenn Miller songs in that movie sounded much better and richer on my television than I ever imagined they could sound. Indeed, they sounded MUCH better than the very same recordings sounded on my CD of Glenn Miller movie songs ("Glenn Miller in Hollywood") when I played them on my home stereo. I even A/B compared the two, and the crappy television speakers ironically sounded MUCH better than the same songs on my rather-good home stereo. I suspect it is because the bad systems/speakers today better replicate the restricted dynamic range of the vintage players/recorders of the day, and don't try to play the high and low ends like better systems/speakers do.

No. It's b/c the sound quality on the film/vhs/dvd issues of the film, which is called, "SUN VALLEY SERENADE", btw, (with SVJ being one of the songs in the film) had better sound quality than the CD issue on Mercury.

[Eyeball]

Records were produced to play on 78rpm record players with relatively poor sound. The challenge is to get the same recordings to sound good on modern sound equipment. Otherwise, you could just get the 78rpm records and a 78rpm record player, and amplify it.

No. Records were made to sound as good as they possibly could which is why when you play a pristine copy of a 78 rpm recording on a modern music system, it sounds fan-frigging-tastic.

[Haydn]

when you play a pristine copy of a 78 rpm recording on a modern music system, it sounds fan-frigging-tastic.

I'll take your word for it. I know that 33rpm vinyl recordings can sound great. But why do so many CDs sound so dull and lifeless?

[Haydn]

This thread prompted me to try EQing an old track, which was something I'd been thinking about doing.

I used Fletcher Henderson's "Radio Rhythm" from the CD, Tidal Wave, because that's about all I had on the computer. I opened the .wav in Cubase, and EQed with three bands, then added a little reverb to make it sound more like a live orchestra. I wasn't really trying to make it sound brighter. I wanted it to sound more like a modern recording.

It made me think that, short of using expensive studio-equipment, tricking the ear into believing the sound is brighter may be the easiest option.

Here are the results of my quick test. Each is a 30-second, 5-megabyte .wav file.

Original (from the CD)

Doctored version

Impressive - the second one sounds much better and more lifelike. The first has that dull, flat sound that I keep talking about. Great music, by the way.

How long did the editing job take you?

[Eyeball]

when you play a pristine copy of a 78 rpm recording on a modern music system, it sounds fan-frigging-tastic.

I'll take your word for it. I know that 33rpm vinyl recordings can sound great. But why do so many CDs sound so dull and lifeless?

Too many middle men and perhaps middle masters, as well.

Lots of CDs are using transfers from older LP issues or whatever they can get their hands on.

None of these companies except the original 'master holders' will have access to the real first generation items....(with the rare and rarer exceptions of bootleggers who have had access to items that were flat out physically stolen from Victor, Columbia or Decca and then issued on bootleg labels.....like all that "Alternate Benny Goodman" material that came out on some 'Swedish' label.

So, technical aspects aside (and there may be many), you have CDs using sub standard multi-generational source material because that is all they can steal.

Is most of what you buy issued by the original copyright holders or is most of what you buy issued by 'other thans'?

Just for fun, you should try and hook up with some 78 collectors over there and maybe they can give you some ear opening demonstrations of how great a clean 78 rpm record can sound on modern day reproducing machines.

And one weird thing I noticed on a few CDs was that they had dubbed a monophonic recording and split it into 2 channels which separated the existing surface noise into 'stereo', thus creating the illusion of greater surfsace noise than really exists on the record by making you ears listen to both sides of the groove damage individually instead of blending both channels into one.

That is a problem I have on my one amplifier - it has no mono mode switch, so I have to play mono LPs in a stereo mode which produces the same ill sounding results.

[Matthew]

This thread prompted me to try EQing an old track, which was something I'd been thinking about doing.

I used Fletcher Henderson's "Radio Rhythm" from the CD, Tidal Wave, because that's about all I had on the computer. I opened the .wav in Cubase, and EQed with three bands, then added a little reverb to make it sound more like a live orchestra. I wasn't really trying to make it sound brighter. I wanted it to sound more like a modern recording.

It made me think that, short of using expensive studio-equipment, tricking the ear into believing the sound is brighter may be the easiest option.

Here are the results of my quick test. Each is a 30-second, 5-megabyte .wav file.

Original (from the CD)

Doctored version

Impressive - the second one sounds much better and more lifelike. The first has that dull, flat sound that I keep talking about. Great music, by the way.

How long did the editing job take you?

Not long at all. Ten to 20 minutes, and I saved the patch so I could apply it to other tracks.

[Haydn]

How long did the editing job take you?

Not long at all. Ten to 20 minutes, and I saved the patch so I could apply it to other tracks.

That makes me wonder - if you can do it in 20 minutes, why can't the record companies do it?

[Bob the Builder]

I think the "Digital Editing" of vintage recordings is a topic of huge debate.
I'm not trying to put a downer on Matthew little bit of work, but some jazz fans would not be soe happy with of some of that editing.
It's all to do with how good you are at listening to the sound itself. Any editing on a mono recording like that is manipulating it and deforming it. Thus you are loosing pieces of information. How much is an acceptable amount of information that is lost from the original is up to how good the listeners ears are trained and their personal view on the subject.

Some things to remember.
If you edit the material yourself, how are you going to play it:
ie - Via headphones, Home HiFi or Club PA.
They are 3 very different environments and how you would go about remastering it would change depending on your end use.
Eg - Adding “Reverb” might be fine for head-phones but if you played that on a large Club PA where the room all ready has reverb, it would sound very muffled.

Brian

[Haydn]

I'm not trying to put a downer on Matthew little bit of work, but some jazz fans would not be soe happy with of some of that editing.
It's all to do with how good you are at listening to the sound itself.

Have you listened to the tracks Matthew posted Brian?

[CMU Matt]

I listened to both tracks and preferred the unmastered version. The mastered one sounded tinny and strange to my ears.

[trev]

Yes, sorry - I much prefer the original. I'd rather have a clean unmanipulated version to DJ with, and then play with the settings if needed based on the environment it's being played at.

[Haydn]

Is most of what you buy issued by the original copyright holders or is most of what you buy issued by 'other thans'?

I'm not sure - how would I know?

Just for fun, you should try and hook up with some 78 collectors over there and maybe they can give you some ear opening demonstrations of how great a clean 78 rpm record can sound on modern day reproducing machines.

There is a group of DJs in London who use 78s, and I'm looking forward to hearing them.

[Haydn]

Yeah, sorry, I'd have to agree with Brian on this one. I much prefer the original. I'd rather have a clean unmanipulated version to DJ with, and then play with the settings if needed based on the environment it's being played at.

Have you listened to both of Matthew's versions?

[Eyeball]

Is most of what you buy issued by the original copyright holders or is most of what you buy issued by 'other thans'?

I'm not sure - how would I know?

Just for fun, you should try and hook up with some 78 collectors over there and maybe they can give you some ear opening demonstrations of how great a clean 78 rpm record can sound on modern day reproducing machines.

There is a group of DJs in London who use 78s, and I'm looking forward to hearing them.

The CD will be on a label that is either RCA, Columbia, Decca/MCA or Capitol (and associated labels like HMV or CAMDEN and a few others)...and now that SONY(?) controls all the old RCA Victor and Columbia masters..all that stuff will be on SONY. The only exceptions will be masters that have been legally leased from those companies. Virtually everything else is bootlegged/pirated from the original copyright owners.

Yeah...check out those 78 guys. Ummm...some of those 78 collectors can be very eccentric...friendly, but way eccentric.

[Eyeball]

Which CD is the "SmackTrack" from?