Rudy Van Gelder mastering notes for a BLUE NOTE LP from 50 years ago.

A perfect distillation of the reason for this forum.

 

Present.

Actually the 8:1 compression ratio is not by itself such a bad thing. If the threshold is set high enough there will only be compression (or limiting in this case) above that point. In words this can be used to just trim a few high peaks without altering the bulk of the content. Of course I can't say for sure with the info given, but it's not necessarily as bad as it sounds.

You could have a 100:1 ratio (if there was such an option) and it wouldn't (in theory) matter a bit as long if the threshold is set high enough. If set higher than the peaks, all the peaks will get through before the limiter acts.

Then again, if the threshold is set low enough then you will end up with a brickwalled mess.

Now the frequency limiting is another matter. Perhaps there was a bunch of out of band garbage he wanted to eliminate. Once again, hard to say without hearing the LP but that does seem a bit extreme for a well recorded session.

 

The notes weren't dated April 1st, were they?

 

Thanks, Doug. I guess we have some of the information to go on, at least.

While it might be my age, I feel that most listeners give the top octave (10-20KHz) as much musical weight as the rest of the spectrum (40-10KHz) which is nonsense. I think this is due to the logarithmic presentation of FR curves. It just looks like there's a lot there.

I have a couple of 50s albums that demonstrate the effects of filters on music, very interesting and on par with the few demonstrations of bit depth on digital music for all the number fans out there.

 

Yikes! The frequency bandwidth is the shocking part.

But, I have come across albums from even the 60s that seem to be cut off at around 35 cycles.

 

To veer off slightly, what about the Mercury Living Presence and RCA Living Stereo lps that collectors spend big $$$ for - how much tinkering was required to make them playable back in 1959?

 

There isn't much content that resides down there anyway. Unless it's something like a pipe organ or a synthesiser.

 

Too many audiophiles are concerned with data or processes -- rather than the presentation of the music as performed by the media and/or their system.

One thing I've learned here which I didn't expect: listen to the music.

 

I would surmise the treble boost would be the most audible, perhaps done to compensate for the microphones or tape formulation or the playback speakers.

 

That and the fact that the "mastering chain" in those days was hardly lossless...

 

Well the microphones used in those days are in many cases the same microphones that are cherished today.

As for the tape forumlations there were plenty of great sounding recordings from that time that used similar tape formulations. The upper range of the original Ampex recorders rolled off around 16k, but after a few years that went up to 20k and beyond.

As for the speakers, my guess is that he used Altec 604s. I used to mix with them all the time. They have plenty of high frequcncy response to well beyond 15k. Now it's entirely possible that the amplifiers driving them had high frequency issues, especially if they monitored at high volume levels.

I think the issues on these types of recordings may have been compromises that were considered important in order for these recordings to sound as good as possible on the playback systems of the time. Even if the studio speakers had wide bandwidth, the assumption was that the playback systems of the consumers would have not had much response in the extreme octaves. No sense wasting amplifier power on low frequency info that most would not hear, but whose amps would have struggled with.

Times are different these days. This is not so much in the professional side of things as much as they were in the consumer end of things. Professional recordings made in the 50's are capable of sounding almost nearly as good as modern recordings even though many didn't know that in the day. Now many people want full bandwidth and can hear it on their systems. What worked well for consumers in the 50's doesn't necessarily bode well for modern audiophiles.

 

working on original landmark recordings back in the 50s.. about 2-3 a week..he would do one landmark one week and another the next- just for blue note- and then he also did impulse and prestige as far i know... amazing track record.. and the greatest recording engineer in the history of jazz if not music.

 

If people had tried to cut records made 50 years ago using today's audiophile standards, they would have been returned as defective as today's mastering techniques would have made the tonearms and stylus of the day jump right out of the grooves and mis-track insanely...goes to show you how much vinyl playback equipment has evolved over the past half-century!!!

 

I mean, I love Blue Note records so much man, cause ive looked at it as a more direct link to Hank Mobley, it being analog and all, compared to the McMaster Cds i grew up on. a title like "Roll Call", i can see how compressions could "boost" that one, it is an intense song and i can understand it requring intense mastering, to make it punchier or whatever.

but what you guys are saying about "neceessary for the limitations of the time" eg like sherwood schwartz over lighting the Brady Bunch set, that makes perfect sense. its like of like the time steve had to find a pair of the same studio monitors the Eagles used mixing hotel california in order to properly play back the master tapes to hotel california. Do you think the ideal Blue Note setup would be to have a "period" setup? if so, how many setups will i need, one for the 1500 series, one for the 4100 series, et al?

but what you were saying in an earlier thread about steve chopping off the lows and cranking the hi's and squashing the mid range, was it- i just still would rather hear that i guess than the cd version, i have never heard a blue note cd sound as good as Rosie Vela- Zazu (A&M) or Camel- The Single Factor (Deram) or Fleetwood Mac Tango in The night W. German. i have never stated this publically before but i have not been trying to hide that, ive known it for a long while. if you can name one (1) blue note cd which matches the SQ of these named cds...

 

i don't know man about cds..


but i have some original blue notes.. for example a blue train and it sounds fabulous...

i have 8000 records.. i think i know what sounds good... somewhat

i used to have an original dex 4112 and it sounded amazing..i had to sell it which sucks..but it sounded great..i'd have people over and play it- i remember one new years eve- and people were crowing about how great it sounded..


i guess steve makes it sound even better..

 

I used to talk/argue with Japanese collectors who used to say the original LPs were better than any vinyl reissue or CD because "Rudy cut them". All of my original Lexington and West 63rd Blue Notes all went to Japan ages ago when I put them on Ebay to pay the rent. The new reissues are the best...period!

 

That hasn't been my experience.

 

Compression is important and a neccessary part of the production process. compressors smooth out your sounds! they allow you to hear the full sound (ie the low amplitude "tails" or quieter sections that you might not normally hear are brought out).

A compressor is the tool you use in a studio is basically a dynamic limiter/volume limited when a recording has a variaty of dynamics. A compressors evens the audio out and when used correctly, still shows the dynamics but in a leveled fashion.

 

its certainly convenient to think so now that you've paid your rent, no?

 

It certainly debunks the old "the original vinyl is always better" line!

 

That album came out in 1959. What cartridge was considered audiophile-quality back then? A General Electric VR-II? Shure M3D?

Apples and oranges, don't you think? I wouldn't compare a post-1968 recording to a 1950s recording.

 

Because you listen to Soul/Funk with artificial compressed bass . Recently bass programming and drum machines go lower than any natural instrument, which by design can't reach below 45 hertz.
Maybe an electric bass guitar can go lower/amplified, too.
But Blue Note never dealt with electric bass guitars but stand ups or double basses.
Grrr.

 

Wouldn't save it from this dull performance

There are still some original RVG mastered vinyl releases that sound really good and better than the 45 rpm remasters. None of these are Blue Note mind you, and aren't mastered by SH/KG or KG.

 

While this is a mastering thread, it's never wrong to give some love to the 3 Sounds. The Audio Wave has become my go to version for this title.