Which 50s and 60s Van Gelder Blue Note recordings have the best AUDIO QUALITY?

Why? Are you saying that the best CD masterings out there (some original McMasters, Analogue Productions, XRCDs) do not reproduce the sound on the tapes well enough ?

 

Basically because it is like comparing apples to oranges. I took the original topic question as referring to the recordings issued by BN in the 50s and 60s. To me this is the basis for any claims of recording quality (or lack of). To then bring in recordings that have been changed ("remastered") and issued in a new medium (CD/digital) that did not even exist at the time of the original recordings deems to me to badly cloud the issue and breed confusion.

Now you ask another and different question: "Are you saying that the best CD masterings out there (some original McMasters, Analogue Productions, XRCDs) do not reproduce the sound on the tapes well enough ?" First of all, I don't understand what you mean by "original McMasters." If you are talking about the 50s and 60s recordings, McMaster only remastered what RVG had done before him. Most people don't like his work.

Anyway, as for APO and MM and XRCD etc etc, I'll stick my neck out as usual and say a lot of these sound very nice indeed (I have some) but they are in fact different from the original recordings. Maybe a touch more bass here, a little less treble there, etc. They are very pleasing in themselves, but they have nothing to do with the original recording quality. If you think about it, they actually form a critique of the original recording. That's their reason for existence. It's a delicate balancing act for AOP, MM etc. They have to say that the original recordings are so valuable that they need to be presented in luxurious form, but not so great that they don't need to be improved a bit. In the case of 45rpm reissues, that option wasn't open to RVG.

 

Steve, are you talking about the master tape? and the master tape versus the LP? All I can say is that the LP is how that sound was delivered to us (the record buyers then and now). Who else has the option of hearing the master tape? Rudy and others represented these LPs as the sound as he heard it. He even says that on his RVG CDs. Legions of record buyers have thought so too. My point was (and I do think it makes sense) is that the original LPs are the standard we have. No one at BN, RVG, no one discredited them, and that is what we judge BN on.

 

You could also make the point that, since RVG was involved in the cutting of the original LPs, that THEY sounded how he wanted them to sound, and that the 2-track original session tapes ("masters") represent something different altogether.

Although I guess the objection is, the LPs in theory sound as close to the session tapes as it was possible for them to sound given the limitations of the format at the time, and that the session tapes are thus what the "recording" sounds like (as opposed to the "album").

 

The whole thread is about the RVG recordings which were captured on tape. That sound was changed for the LPs and it was changed and changed again for the various CD releases. I don't see why the LPs should be held as the reference medium here, and my opinion is that the best of the released CDs sound a lot closer to the master tapes than the 1950 / 1960 LPs.

I was referring to the original CDs, i.e. the first time those recordings were mastered for a digital release. I like his 1980s work and most often do not like his 1990s work.

Every release is different from the original recording, especially the first LP release. You can view remasters as a critique of the first LP release, I view it as repeated attempts to show the original recording in the best light. Some succeed at that, some not so much.

 

Thanks for the comment, and for trying to see my point. As you point out, Rudy then and now, demands to have complete control over the recording process. Read the numerous interviews with him, and you know he is a control freak (in a good way). Rudy has always stated that he wants complete control so that the final product represents his recording. I have never read anywhere where Rudy has said that the recordings as issued either did not represent his best work, or the quality of the recording session. Why should he really? Have you ever heard a deep groove BN LP? They're fantastic! I'm not sure what limitations there were. Most LPs sound a lot worse today than they did back then. As I said, that is why BN has such an awesome reputation. Now what I think Steve was getting at is the session tapes are something like the "true RVG," and that the current crop of reissues are recapturing that. I have two responses: Rudy has never so much as indicated that there is a deficiency between the session tapes and the issued recordings. And, these reissues, fine as they are (and they are), are not the same in terms of sound and dynamics as the BN LPs that were issued over time in the 50s and 60s and so they cannot be the measure of the original question.

 

Back to the original question, one of my favorite Blue Notes for sound is Jackie McLean's DESTINATION . . . OUT! But I'm a sucker for film noir horns over vibes.

Of course, Cannonball Adderly's SOMETHIN' ELSE has been an audiophile favorite for a long time.

My personal favorite Blue Note performance is Andrew Hill's JUDGMENT, which features the idiosyncratic pianist with vibes player extraordinaire Bobby Hutcherson, over a roiling rhythm section of Elvin Jones and Richard Davis. Just writing about it makes me want to queue it up! This one has a hypnotic effect on me, like watching the ocean crash and wash on the beach.

 

Steve, I don't know if you want a response or not, but I'm happy to leave it where I did in my preceding post. If you do, I can go that way too. Thanks for taking the time to express your point of view.

 

Yes the Wayne Shorter LPs from the 60s have the most impact along with Blakey. There may be others but those are the artists I am most familiar with. Maiden Voyage was close to bad sounding in my view but of course that is keyboard dominant music. Stick with LPs that have prominent brass and sax parts and you will be satisfied. I hope.

Strangely enough RVG did some of the classical Voxbox issues including Bach keyboard music (harpsichord). These are some of the Least annoying harpsichord pressings of the era. Go figure.

 

Steve I get what you are saying, but some of us still like the sound of some of those RVG cut LPs. I can still derive pleasure from some of them even if it's not an absolute audiophile experience.

 

That's fine. NO ONE denies you the right to love the sound of those original LP's. I can enjoy them to - for what they are.

BUT, Steve is absolutely correct that those original LP's do not represent the sound Rudy "wanted" them to display due to the limitations of the equipment of the day. While we talk of the "improvements" in the reissues over the originals - it isn't so much "improvements" as it is, finally, hearing what Rudy captured all those years ago more accurately.

 

I agree Steve. I've heard your demo's at CES, and the differences are startling. Now hearing those MM 45 LP's I can finally hear more closely what Rudy wanted everyone to hear.

 

To say that Van Gelder's records are "badly flawed" is pretty extreme. On the contrary, I think near mint--mind you, near mint--vintage Van Gelder-mastered records sound absolutely spectacular. I am aware that you detest the idea of a recording engineer mastering their own work (in principle, I agree with this), but I don't think you give Van Gelder enough credit as a mastering engineer. His most obvious flaw as a vinyl mastering engineer IMO is that he did go a little too hard on the limiter but, I don't say that because the records don't sound good with all that limiting, I honestly think they sound great. The problem with him limiting so much is that distortion from groove wear onsets much faster when you have such a hot signal on the record (I'm sure you are 100% aware of this). So he's made it really hard to find unworn copies of his original work essentially. But after reading up on your general approach to mastering, I realize that you and I have different philosophies of mastering at the outset though.

To be honest, I don't think he has ever suggested which issue of his recordings he prefers, but I think it's pretty safe to say that if he was put to the question he would pick his original LPs or his CDs. If I had to bet? I'd actually guess that he'd pick his CDs...

Ok, these numbers seem to be coming in. I thought they were 45 Hz and 12 kHz in that note you found? And I don't believe that the topic of limiting is as simple as you have been presenting it. Feel free to respond, of course.

Anyway, as discerning as I believe I am about sound, I have zero problems with any of these adjustments Van Gelder made insofar as how they have affected the actual sound of the records and what I am hearing. I don't share the typical audiophile's strict distaste for compression and limiting in the mastering process, and *takes deep breath* I think his CD remasterings sound fine--totally fine (unless the tape had degraded, and mind you I haven't heard every single one). I think the McMasters stuff sounds great too, different frequency curve of course, but both sound fine. End of the day, the only thing that is a real deal breaker between all these different masterings, the thing that gives each version it's most "character", if you will, is the panning.

Well, what was he going after then? Was he going after what Music Matters did? Or was he going after what he did with his CD remasters? Cuz it's funny: strangely, people complain about the same things with his CD remasters and his original LPs... *scratches head*

What I'm dying to know is this: why wasn't Van Gelder involved as a consultant on the Music Matters project?

 

What WAS he after? Why, the sound on the master tapes of course (isn't that the reason he recorded to a master tape? To get a certain sound?). The compromises he had to make to ensure his music played on vinyl in the 1950's era tables/cartridges meant that he COULDN'T get close to master tape sound on the original LP's. I do believe THAT is what Steve is trying to say.



What I'm dying to know is this: why wasn't Van Gelder involved as a consultant on the Music Matters project?[/quote]



For that, you'll have to ask MM......

 

It depends, I have a decent number of original BN and Liberty era RVG mastered LPs and a handful in both the AP and MM 45 rpm variety. Yes I am including the infallible MM45's in those comparisons. The latter are not always my preferred version (I am not alone in thinking this), but more times than not I will pick those 45 rpm reissues. Remember 50 years of tape aging is not always the most flattering thing on a super high resolution format.

 

That seems like the obvious answer, right? But again, why didn't he remaster in digital himself in a way that better reflected the (unprocessed) master tape sound? For those who don't like his remasterings (or his original masterings), the obvious theory is that he was too old to do a good job of remastering his own work. I wholeheartedly do not believe this to be true. Rudy Van Gelder believes in these recordings being heard in a fashion similar to the way they were heard by Alfred Lion, the musicians and himself in the studio. He has said this. Now, you might think that implies that a mastering that more accurately reflects the original master tapes would accomplish this, but the guy himself didn't master them that way...right?

It's a whole other issue to prefer the sound of the tapes to the original LPs or his digital remasters. But I don't think the evidence is there for the claim to be made that the Music Matters or Ron McMasters remasterings "more accurately" reflect "the way Rudy (or anyone else for that matter) believe the music was meant to be heard."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From the liner notes of a 1999 Japanese CD compilation, Rudy Van Gelder:

"Beginning in 1986, I am told, the Blue Note two-track tapes form the vault were transferred to CD by other trying to simulate the stereo LP's I made prior to 1972. The result of this depends on which album you were listening to. Most people today have never heard this music in its original form. What is happening today is that people are listening to these earlier CD's with at least two speakers (or stereo headphones). What they are hearing is a "Live-To-Two-Track" mix that was monitored in mono on one speaker. The sole purpose of the original two-track setup was not placement in space but to make the mono sound better." (Italics added at Rudy Van Gelder's request)."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From the 1999 All About Jazz interview with C. Andrew Hovan:

AAJ: Please discuss your approach to the new Rudy Van Gelder Edition Blue Notes in terms of working with the stereo and mono tapes and deciding which format to use for the new master.

RVG: My approach was totally different from what I had heard in the previous CDs. This was first time I had any opportunity to deal with those tapes. Once or twice they sent to me both the mono and stereo versions, which I described to you a minute ago, and the mono would sound much better for obvious reasons, because no one who had been involved in the creation of the original session had ever listened to stereo, but everyone had listened to mono. So I tried to convince them to release the mono version even though it had previously been issued as stereo because I felt that the mono version sounded as if Alfred would have wanted it to be that way. And that is really my goal here. However, there are plenty of albums in this series that are in very good stereo. Until now no one has heard my version of what these early recordings should sound like on CD.

AAJ: Some have said that these new remasters possess a sound that is warmer and much more akin to the original vinyl. How do you feel about that?

RVG: I was so happy to hear you say that because that's my goal. I really want it to sound like that because that's what Alfred heard. No one heard it off a CD. I want people to hear the music with the warmth and the energy and all the things that Alfred and Francis Wolff put into it. I really feel that I'm commissioned to do that. I'm driven by that. That's exactly what I'm trying to do and if someone says that then they understand what I'm trying to do and that's really gratifying.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From an interview in April 2009 with Andy Karp:

Jazz.com: When remastering your original recordings for CD release, how have you used digital technology to enhance the sound of your original analog recordings?

RVG: The advent of the CD allowed the listener to hear on his home system the sound of the speakers in the control room during the recording session, very closely, for the first time. Soon after that, when listening to other people's remastering of recordings I had made, I realized something was wrong. There was a disconnect between the sound of the CDs that were being made and my recollection of the original recording sessions with the original producers. The fact that I was listening in the digital domain made it very obvious to me. I would think to myself, 'Hey, that's not the way we did it.' Everyone listened to these early CDs, but there was very little relationship to the sound of the sessions. When I was asked to do the remastering, that was my first opportunity to give my version of it. My version, using digital technology, enables me to closely approach the way the speakers in the control room sounded during the original sessions.

 

As the person who started this thread, I'm somewhat disappointed that it seems to have veered off course. I am sincerely asking which of the 50s / 60s Blue Notes had the best sound. Not which ones had 'perfect' sound, or which ones sound 'better' than Jazz at the Pawnshop or a demo record of thunderstorms or locomotive sounds.

I'd really like to pick up more Blue Notes for my listening collection. Most likely they will be the 45rpm Music Matters and Analogue Productions vinyl, 'cause they sound great to my ears and are (relatively) affordable.

Man, if someone started a thread asking what are your favorite classic rock recordings to come out of Trident Studios in the 70s, would it turn into basically a bash fest saying that none of it sounded good? Would people be posting something like, "Yeah, they used a tinny sounding aggressively eq'd piano that was out of tune. "Hey Jude" and "Bohemian Rhapsody" sound 'bad' cause the soundstage is not 'convincing', etc."? No, not so likely on this board, because usually people seem to understand that all recordings have limitations. But for reasons unknown to me, the classic Blue Notes seem to be held to some standards beyond being simply enjoyable and fun to listen to.

It would be great to keep this thing on a positive track. Is that reasonable?

 

Sorry for hijacking, TL. Unfortunately, this thread carried with it the spirit of the deleted Lee Morgan thread.

 

Sorry Tom, I wish I could answer the thread topic's question. When I listen to either a BN reissue or original pressing the actual recording quality is at the back of my mind since it is out of my hands. I focus more on the mastering when doing a comparison, and if no comparison is being done I just enjoy the music. I have never put on a Blue Note and been gobsmacked by the sound quality, unlike the Contemporary originals and reissues I have where it's usually the recording quality before the music quality that impresses me (with some exceptions).

So this post isn't a complete wash I will nominate Soul Station. That is one I really like the sound and music on both my original stereo pressing and the MM45.

 

Hey Tim,

Have you heard The Magnificent Thad Jones? It's been a while since I listened to it, but I have the Music Matters release. It's mono, and I think it just sounds beautiful.

 

Reviving this thread because I was just listening to the Andrew Hill Point of Departure sessions from the Mosaic box set tonight. Haven't spun it in a long while; and while I still think the whole way of sticking Joe Henderson well to the right and Kenny Dorham and Eric Dolphy well to the left is a little weird, and I've never loved the drums to the left either, overall I think it's an excellent sounding session; sonically one of the best Van Gelder Blue Note sessions I'm familiar with -- great bass, those great you-are-there horn and reed timbres, and even decent piano with much more of the kind of cloud of harmonics that hang in the air when a piano sustains than you typically get from a lot of the Van Gelder sessions of the era. It also happens to be musically superb, of course. I nominate that as one of the best sounding dates of the period. Haven't heard the MM remaster.

 

"Judgement" is one of my all time favs too, alongside Grachan Moncur III's "Evolution" Something very special about that period in Blue Note's history when touches of the Avant Garde made for some very captivating music.

 

Add Larry Young, Sam Rivers and Tony Williams, and even a couple Cecil Taylor's as well. . . . Those Blue Note avant-bop records are always compelling. It's a tribute to the label that the owners were always pushing for the new thing, even when it (presumably) wasn't going to sell all that well. Thank goodness for the CD reissue boom.