|
Post by essayceedee on Sept 14, 2018 12:48:39 GMT
The thing I don't understand about the RVG remasters is that most of the albums already have excellent mono mixes. If the tapes still exist, it seems like using them would have been a better option than narrowing the stereo versions.
|
|
|
Post by audiopro on Sept 14, 2018 13:31:16 GMT
As I understand it, once RVG started recordng using the stereo machine, there were no mono "mixes" to speak of. RVG monitored in mono but had a split feed going to his stereo tape recorder. When he cut the mono lacquers, he used the stereo tape.
|
|
|
Post by essayceedee on Sept 14, 2018 13:50:14 GMT
As I understand it, once RVG started recordng using the stereo machine, there were no mono "mixes" to speak of. RVG monitored in mono but had a split feed going to his stereo tape recorder. When he cut the mono lacquers, he used the stereo tape. Interesting info, thanks.
|
|
Flat Transfer
Terry Kath
Providing DR numbers for the EK 34188, DIDP 20006
Posts: 484
|
Post by Flat Transfer on Sept 14, 2018 15:03:08 GMT
The old stereo pressings with the RVG stamp often do sound unbalanced, because of the hard panning. Plus, I know at least some of the mono editions of Coltrane's Impulse era are edited slightly differently to their stereo counterparts. They may have been sourced from the twin-track but they were not just straight reductions of the stereo album masters.
|
|
bradman
Better than Steve
Posts: 5,136
|
Post by bradman on Sept 14, 2018 15:56:27 GMT
Would that be why Impulse hasn't tried to do a Trane mono box?
|
|
Felonious Spunk
Grant
Digitals downstairs to push the anal logs upstairs
Posts: 1,192
|
Post by Felonious Spunk on Sept 14, 2018 16:15:55 GMT
Would that be why Impulse hasn't tried to do a Trane mono box? My guess would be they don’t have the tapes. ABC purged their vaults a couple of times in the 70s to save storage costs and tons of stuff is gone. I think they put out a mono Love Supreme recently but they had to use a UK copy tape, for instance. Related to that, all the unreleased Coltrane stuff that’s come out since the 70s has only been because either RVG had copies at his place or Trane had personal copies made that were found. I’m pretty sure there’s nothing left at Universal.
|
|
bradman
Better than Steve
Posts: 5,136
|
Post by bradman on Sept 14, 2018 16:41:30 GMT
That's right, I think I read that ABC destroyed or reused some of those tapes.
|
|
|
Post by screendump on Sept 14, 2018 18:33:41 GMT
The '78 Atlantic warehouse fire, so much original session stuff was lost.
|
|
Felonious Spunk
Grant
Digitals downstairs to push the anal logs upstairs
Posts: 1,192
|
Post by Felonious Spunk on Sept 14, 2018 20:05:49 GMT
The '78 Atlantic warehouse fire, so much original session stuff was lost. Between Atlantic's fire (which is why they couldn't do a complete Coltrane in Mono set) and ABC tossing stuff because they didn't want to pay to store it, it's kind of a miracle any Coltrane outtakes survived.
|
|
|
Post by dccblowup on Sept 14, 2018 23:29:06 GMT
We need renowned expert Kevin Bresnahan here.
I am having a flashback to the old Blue Note Board and then Organissimo. Endless fucking debates about this shit. Best comment upthread about owning the music already. That's all that matters. That being said, glad I have 8 zillion versions of this shit, various CDs, Mosaics and Music Matters. Same for Trane of course.
|
|
|
Post by Sanjay Gupton on Sept 15, 2018 15:20:21 GMT
I think most music in general is like that, COLA. Shite's complain that something is "unlistenable," and when push comes to shove, they probably would never be able to tell the difference if you didn't tell them which was which or compare them side by side. I talked to a guy one time about the recent Replacements boxed sets, and he went off about how he wasted his money on them, and was getting original pressings of the records. The biggest offender was Pleased to Meet Me. I've got the boxed sets, and I have an original Pleased to Meet Me (I don't have multiple copies of all my records, just a couple), and they do sound different. Not much and if you're not comparing them back to back, I bet you couldn't pick one from the other. He said the new one has no bass, but that's just not true. They both sound good, they just sound a little different.
I know that's the Shite's bread and butter, picking minute differences and taking offense but most recorded music sounds pretty good, especially if it was recorded in a real studio and mixed and mastered by professionals. These days there's some homemade recordings that sound pretty professional.
|
|
|
Post by AnalogRearEnd on Sept 15, 2018 18:08:03 GMT
Clearly you don't have the ears/Your system isn't resolving enough/fill out Your Equipment profile/blahblahblahblah
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2018 18:30:56 GMT
I think most music in general is like that, COLA. Shite's complain that something is "unlistenable," and when push comes to shove, they probably would never be able to tell the difference if you didn't tell them which was which or compare them side by side. I talked to a guy one time about the recent Replacements boxed sets, and he went off about how he wasted his money on them, and was getting original pressings of the records. The biggest offender was Pleased to Meet Me. I've got the boxed sets, and I have an original Pleased to Meet Me (I don't have multiple copies of all my records, just a couple), and they do sound different. Not much and if you're not comparing them back to back, I bet you couldn't pick one from the other. He said the new one has no bass, but that's just not true. They both sound good, they just sound a little different. I know that's the Shite's bread and butter, picking minute differences and taking offense but most recorded music sounds pretty good, especially if it was recorded in a real studio and mixed and mastered by professionals. These days there's some homemade recordings that sound pretty professional. I was reading a thread about a new Bob Seger release of his early material, great reviews on it. Then some SHiTEhead jumps in and says. “According to such and such website it looks like it sounds bad, skipping.” First is the fact no one gives a fuck if you buy or skip. Second, and this is what I think is so stupid, is looking at something to determine you don’t like it the sound before you even listen? God, each and every day I hate SHiTE people and audiophools more and more.
|
|
bradman
Better than Steve
Posts: 5,136
|
Post by bradman on Sept 15, 2018 18:46:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hoffa_nagila on Sept 15, 2018 21:28:54 GMT
There was a time when I was pretty strict about bootleg recordings, as far as sound quality. I remember deleting many tracks because I found them "unlistenable." Now? Doesn't even bother me. Sure, I do want to hear something in it's best possible form. Do I make comparisons between masterings? Sure, a quick a/b in audacity does the trick. And I completely accept that ultimately, either the choice is subjective, or there is an objective better and worse and that I don't care what everyone else is listening to so long as I'm happy with what I have.
And there are some shitty masterings and issues out there. Far fewer than the shites would lead you to believe, but they exist. I was listening to some tracks from SC favorite Yoko Ono, from Onobox. Many tracks are exclusive remixes, but a few are original mixes, and are shit quality, particularly from the first album (and a few other tracks along the way.) In comparison, the 1997 individual albums all sound excellent, so good in fact that the new "remasters" recently put out are just clones of them. Even so, if the only option I have to hear an album is a low bitrate vinyl rip slathered in no-noise, I'll make do. But I will keep on the lookout for an improvement. And with downloading (that new fangled thing), it's easy to maintain a collection that I'm happy with.
It's of course funny that they defend STeVE's work when his versions are often shitty compared to others.
|
|