SwingDJs

Haydn wrote:

trev wrote: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?

Yes! Have You?

Haydn wrote:

Bob the Builder wrote: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?

Please try to understand that I am not giving any opinion on the editing of the above tracks. What I am saying is that some people would have a negative view to it. Some would have a positive view to it.
It is a very good idea to have a good understanding of what exactly is being done to the sound file. In knowing this you will know exactly what is being lost and or distorted.
If you prefer the end result great, if you don’t like it good for you. Just have an understanding.

Brian

Four things:

1) There is no universal answer to what a "good" sounding track is.
2) A track that sounds good in one context may not sound as good in another.
3) Processing (at least on a commercial product) cannot be undone.
4) All mastering and remastering is a compromise.

fwiw - I just listened to them both, switching between one and the other.

I can hear the second one sound brighter and a bit more opened up. The slight reverb didn't annoy me at all.

I don't know if I have a preference. I am used to the sound quality represented on the first one and can live with it. Same on the second one...which reminded me a bit of the infamous fake stereo of the 60s and 70s aka "Simulated Stereo", "Pseudo Stereo", "Rechanneled Stereo" "Cyclophonic Stereo" "Electronically Enhanced" and other names.

Question - was it a mono mix down or a multi channel mix down on the samples.

Both samples use two-channel stereo, which is how I ripped it from the CD. All I did with the second one was adjust the EQ and add a little reverb. No additional channels, compression, limiting, etc.

Personally, I'd rather buy the first one, because I, too, loathe that "1970s reverb" or other sounds added to older recordings, although I kept the reverb to a minimum in the sample. I was surprised, though, that the noise was there, because it was easy to remove.

I was asking if people had actually listened to the tracks because some people were writing about the theory of editing old tracks without making it clear whether they'd listened to them or giving an opinion on the actual tracks. It's clear that a few of you have listened to them and prefer the original. I do find this a little hard to understand, because to me the first one sounds dead, and the second sounds alive. (I'm talking about the sound quality, not the music, which I like.). Incidentally, another point is the source material - what CD was the track from, and is there a better CD or vinyl available, and what do they sound like?

The question, for me, is: which track do you prefer to listen to? I prefer to listen to the first one.

A different question is: which would you play at a dance? I'd probably play the second one at a dance instead of the first one. I can't understand how anyone would be happy to play the first one sounding like it does, because it has exactly the flat, dull sound that prompted me to start the thread. The only way I can understand someone using the first one at a dance is if they have the tools and ability to bring it to life.

In the downstairs room at Herrang this year, I noticed there was a problem with 30s music being played. You couldn't hear it! There is a noise limiter fitted. Everyone was complaining that they couldn't hear the music, but it was much better when 50s stuff was played. DJs were complaining that they couldn't get enough volume. Someone I know from London said that one of the DJs was playing stuff from 'the wrong decade'. It think he meant that 40s and 50s stuff sounds louder. One thing I am learning is that any dance music has to have a 'kick', you need to feel the beat. I read a 1930s ad which described the music as 'dance-compelling'. If the sound is flat, then I don't find it 'dance-compelling'.

Hi Haydn,

On Sunday afternoon I did have a good listen to both tracks. In your question to which would I play at a dance? - Neither.
I have a very good quality Ken Burns re-mastered version that has the clarity without loosing too much.

I think your discussion is starting to get into Low Fidelity Vs. High Fidelity.

There is one thing I've learned to spinning at our local noisy social lindy Club is that if the patrons and room are noisy, on less you want to crank the volume way to high, you are much better off using High Fidelity recordings. It's purely, clarity of hearing because of dynamic range.

Brian

Haydn wrote:A different question is: which would you play at a dance? I'd probably play the second one at a dance instead of the first one. I can't understand how anyone would be happy to play the first one sounding like it does, because it has exactly the flat, dull sound that prompted me to start the thread. The only way I can understand someone using the first one at a dance is if they have the tools and ability to bring it to life.

I can understand where you're coming from, but to me it's about clarity. To me the instruments in the original version are clearer and crisper. I'm no audio technician, but I want to DJ the cleanest version I have - the version that preserves as much of the instrumentation as possible. Depending on the setup, the hall etc will naturally add reverb, and some systems are already quite boomy etc, so the altered version takes away options. If it sounds too "hissy" for example i can drop the upper levels.

Haydn wrote: One thing I am learning is that any dance music has to have a 'kick', you need to feel the beat. I read a 1930s ad which described the music as 'dance-compelling'. If the sound is flat, then I don't find it 'dance-compelling'.

Again, to me it's more about clarity. I've been to dances where the music was hi-fi, yet played so loud that all the instruments were muffled out of the track and all you could hear was a booming sound that corresponded to the rhythm. You could feel the beat alright, but that was it, and there was no 'music' left to play with, which made for a really poor dancing experience.

Haydn wrote:

Eyeball wrote: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.

I heard them tonight for the first time. They are called 'The Shellac Sisters' http://shellacsisters.co.uk/. I like them and what they do, but in my view, it didn't work well as music for a swing dance. I believe they used old-fashioned wind-up gramophones. The sound quality was poor and there was lots of hiss and background noise . Eyeball, when you say how great a clean 78rpm record can sound on 'modern day reproducing machines' what sort of machines do you mean exactly? Will a modern 78rpm turntable produce much better sound than an old one?

Haydn wrote: Eyeball, when you say how great a clean 78rpm record can sound on 'modern day reproducing machines' what sort of machines do you mean exactly? Will a modern 78rpm turntable produce much better sound than an old one?

I should not have used a term like "modern day reproducing machines" since it sounds so old fashioned.

What I should have said was a clean 78 rpm record will sound great on most recent, quality stereos of the last few decades. Almost any good receiver or amp will work fine. Get yourself a turntable made during the last few decades that has a 78 rpm speed, make sure it has a good magnetic cartridge and that it has a 78 rpm stylus and not a 33 rpm stylus as the grooves on a 78 record are known as 'satndard groove' and the 33rpm LP record was knwn as "microgroove".

A truly essential thing is that the amp or recieiver has a mono mode switch. Playing a 78 im the stereo mode separates and male the surface noise much more prominent b/c it is separating the two sides of the record groove and sending out wear and tear from each side of the groove out to 2 speakers.

You need the mono mode switch to combine the 2 channels so that you do not hear both sides of the groove.

Your only other resort is to deal with it or to move the balance knob so that all the signal comes out of one speaker.

All in all, it is not a big endevour and you can pick up a lot of this stuff for a song on eBay b/c no one really wants it...or even a garage sale or someone's basement

Make sure your turn table is spinning at 78 rpm.

Simple as that.

The big challenge is finding super clean 78s. I had a Krupa Brunswick once that was true mint. It was left over "store stock" from the 1930s - never sold, never played...or maybe played once...hard to tell. It was as close to silent as far as surcface noise goes as you could hope to ever find.

Also - after a while you really learn or become used to the surface noise or the pops and crackles and you ignore them or hope someday to find a cleaner copy.

But even a average condition 78, when played on a good machine will have a presence that almost all transfers seem to lack. It's just the record and you with nothing in between. It may be partly self-delusion, but wait and hear and see what you think.

Also - and this is where it gets 'romantic' - you are playing an original 78 rpm recording, very likely pressed the month that the record was released. Living history in your hand. Magic! 3 minutes w/o any other hassles.

And it is cool to look at this black (usually) piece of shellac with an attractive label with legendary names on it. More magic.

Sweet!

Oh - regarding the Shellac Sisters - that just seems like some chicks who want to play records and just prance around.

No one plays electrically recorded records on old wind up phonographs from the 1920s....no collectors, that is.

If you really wanted to go retro, you get yourself a nice "radio/phonograph combination" or a phonograph from the 30s or 40s. Don't play your treasures on those machines, b/c they track far more heavily than a turntable and tone arm from the late 20th century does.

Our modern day turntables track in grams. Those old machnes from the 30s and 40s tracked in ounces! And the old wind-ups from the pre-electric era (1925) track even heavier. You can ruin or destroy a 30s or 40s 78rpm disc with just a couple/few plays on some ancient wind-up.

In any event, most 78 collectors are old or older men, plus a handfuls of younger guys getting interested in the hobby. Finding 'noirmal' people will be a challenge.....hahahahaha....too true, though. So many oddballs or 'rain man' type super scholars that you won't want over your house.

The Shellac Sisters-

Black label 1940s DECCA record on their web page.

I had my wife DJ from all 78's for a dance once. It worked quite well, and the sound quality was really good, all things considered.

Heard lots of music that you wouldn't hear otherwise

trev wrote:A quality restored/remastered release of Charlie Barnet's 30s work in particular is not currently available to my knowledge. I'm hoping that a label like HEP or Mosaic takes up the challenge.

This Artie Shaw set of radio broadcasts from 1938 and 1939 might be of interest if you haven't seen it before ...
http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sq ... a9qj1uojda

(I must be tired - confusing Artie Shaw and Charlie Barnet - but it's worth a look anyway)

trev wrote:
A quality restored/remastered release of Charlie Barnet's 30s work in particular is not currently available to my knowledge. I'm hoping that a label like HEP or Mosaic takes up the challenge.

Pretty unlikely that Mosaic would handle this.

When you say 'Barnet 30s", do you really want his pre 1939 work that much? Most of his best and strongest sides date from 1939 - 1942.