The downfall of Rhino?

Friends,

I do think that we need to remember that the re-mastering community is more tight knit that it might appear on the surface. In that regard, I respect Bill's passion for uncovering the correct master tapes, for delivering us Mono single versions for the historical record and enjoyment on CD and for holding the torch in order to ensure that masters of some older material are not irretrievably lost. Occasionally, I have not agreed with his mastering style but, then again, without his efforts, I would not have that recording at all.

Bob

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The downfall of Rhino

Now Beagle, I have done A/B comparisons of Inglot CDs and others, and there are many times where he has NOT boosted the treble. A little of this may be psychological. We know it's Bill's work, so we want to hear, or think we hear more treble.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The downfall of Rhino

Yes, I'm generalizing too much. Sometimes Inglot completely loses the treble, like he (and Ken Perry) did with one of my all-time faves Nick Heyward's "North Of A Miracle", when it was released on CD around 1990.

Rolled off all the low bass too, Pino Palladino's bass and Dave Mattacks kick drum are gone, totally AWOL. All Geoff Emericks fine work completely butchered. He likes the bottom a few dB up, leave it that way.

So yes, perhaps I carry a grudge. I hate it when someone cuts a great records balls off and throws a tarpaulen over the high end. At the time, I had just purchased my first CD player and was so excited to hear this record on CD!! Don't you hate it when you buy into a new format expecting improvement and you get, uh, crap? Left a sour taste.

I did give him props for the Tommy James and the Shondells "The Essentials" and I do give him props for his work on 60's and early 70's stuff. He obviously is not in this just for the money. He's obviously a total music nut like we are.

 

Doesn't Inglot use normalization when making compilations? That would bother me way more than any spiked treble.

A HUGE no-no!

 

What about Jon Astley? He's given Who fans previously unreleased material, after all.

All hail Jon Astley!

 

What would you prefer? Super soft to super loud? I don't quite understand why normalization is a no-no.

-D

 

Steve, be sure to take care of your golden ears!

 

Again, guys, there is a difference between simple normalization of PEAKS and normalizing the AVERAGE LOUDNESS, or RMS.

Many times, EQ will be used along with maximizing because the limiting/compression action alters the frequency response.

And, as I also stated elsewhere, it is a fact of life that modern CDs are gonna have extra boosted levels. The customer expects it. The avarage consumer does not want to have much variation between CDs on his or her CD changer. Blame the CD changer!

 

Steve, when I normalize my CD-R compilations, I use the mathmatical methods in Cool Edit Pro 2.0. It can be configured compensate for the way we hear if I wish. But, of course, I usually double check with my ears to make sure.

For some reason, Sound Forge's RMS normalization doesn't work as well as Cool Edit's. I can configure SF to work under the same parameters as Cool Edit, but I get different results. I don't use SF or CD creator for this function.

Ah, never mind, you're not into digital. What am I rambling on about?

 

Well, if I set my RMS to about -16.0, the peaks usually stay intact. Even then, if I peak to 0 FS or go over in 32-bit floating point, i'll usually just limit those peaks to -0.3db. That tiny bit is inaudiable to humans.

 

Hey Steve, I've often wondered what age group Bill is in, what he looks like, what music he's into, whether he is/was a musician, whether he's as cool as Steve Hoffman etc etc.

Any chance of a brief bio?

 

Well, you know what I mean, your claim to fame has been with the CD format, and you do use a DAW if you have to, I suppose, but for some reason, I think most of us see you as a retro-analog kind of guy. It's probably because of the way you approach mastering tapes. Most guys these days dump the tapes into a DAW and work on them there.

 

My guess, based on what I have seen and read, BI is:

around 6 foot, 1 inch tall, a big guy

dark hair

late 40s

digs 60s and early 70s rock and especially soul music, listened to lots of top 40 radio and collects 45s

Why do I think this last part is so true? Because his philosphy of preserving the unique mono mixes is very in tune with my philosophy, and because of his labor of love put into the Stax/Volt and Motown catalogs, and 60s soul music in general.



If he reads this, i'll bet he's getting a kick out of this!

 

To be "fair" to Bill, I'm not sure how much of a choice he has sometimes in regards to mono/stereo. I think often that's a "corporate heads" issue.

 

Well I'm only guessing but the mono fixation sounds more like an act of an enthusiast than an administrator.

 

No, in the past he has stated that it is HE, HIMSELF who want's the mono.

 

Exactly. An old comment I recall from Gary Stewat reinforces this. He says Rhino A&R (himself) picks the tracks, Bill Inglot gets the tapes, and he trusts his judgements. In other words, Bill, as chief engineer, was allowed to do his job.

I also would not use the word "fixation". It sounds derogatory in this sense, especially since many people feel getting mono mixes is a positive thing.

 

One more thing, IF I am right about Inglot's particular fondness for soul music, it could also in part, explain the need for mono.

Most soul music of the 60s was specifically produced for mono, and many classic soul tunes only exist in mono. Until the 70s, the soul market was focused on the 45 RPM single, where the rock market shifted to albums around 1967.

 

-16dB total RMS is a good rule of thumb for 16/44.1. It is at the outer edges of an acceptable limit.

For the most part, that is how the recent Peter Gabriel collection was remastered, which everyone seems to have liked.

For most modern music, my own personal preference is somewhere in the range of -20 to -21dB total RMS.

 

Now, that's what I consider way too low for any music! Gunshots, maybe...

The reason I think that's way too low for moder music? Most modern music, by it's very nature, doesn't have a lot dynamic range.

 

Yep,you could get James Brown monos up to about '73.
Anyone who hears Otis Redding's "I Can't Turn You Loose" in stereo The mono has all the cajones.

 

1973 mono 45s:

"Pillow Talk"-Sylvia
"Why Can't We Live Together"-Timmy Thomas
"Doin' It To Death"-Fred Wesley & The JB's