SH Spotlight QUESTION: Vintage Van Gelder BLUE NOTE LPs, stereo or mono titles. Which are better?

Virtually all of the 1500 and 4000 series LP's were recorded either at the Hackensack studio or the Englewood Cliffs studio. Go here:

http://www.jazzdisco.org/bluenote/

 

why did he record blue notes in stereo for five long years before they actually issue an album in stereo?

 

I'm not sure that that's the case. Blue Note started putting out stereo LP's by 1959 at the latest, afaik. But the reason they recorded in stereo and no LP's were put out until much later is that they were recorded in stereo to accommodate the reel to reel market. See this post from Steve: http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showpost.php?p=1110005&postcount=19

 

No. Stereo didn't exist when those sessions took place (1949 and 1950)

 

man, you gotta love the information on this forum. we can all secretly laugh at those with their expensive original issue Beach Boys lps and mono blue notes when mr hoffman has given us the true story.

 

I knew that was coming.

Ok, so Blue Note wasn't keen on getting into the open reel market. Why did they record binauraly in 1957 and not put out stereo LP's until 1958 or 1959?

 

When "binaural" is used in this thread, I assume we're not talking dummy head recordings, so do we just mean 2 mics to 2 tracks?

 

True enough. In my above post I should have said "in stereo".

 

I know why they only want the mono LP's. It's just a collector's fetish like anything else. These LP's were not pressed in huge quantities, so they are somewhat rare.

But you're right, I have no idea why the Lions put out some of the stereo recorded albums only in mono, while others received stereo releases.

 

I raised this question in the "Blue Train" thread.
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=123791

I suspect that there are collectors with mono only systems. That means a mono cartridge on their turntable. So, this Bud's for them, so to speak. These reissues are targeted to a small enough group to begin with, so targeting the mono collector might make sense to them. Just a guess. (edit: Another Side beat me to it).

As for why Rudy might record on two tracks, well he was a gear guy, right?. So, it may have been foresight on his part or just more goodies for the studio. Perhaps he wanted to issue them in stereo, but Lion and/or Wolff did not see it as marketable enough at the time? I am talking about the stuff that was not reased as stereo until 1960 or so (i.e. Blue Train). Just another guess.

 

What kind of mic set-up was used? Looks like it might be a close spaced pair in the studio photo, but I can't tell for sure. Or maybe they just treated it like two track, the way some band did their first two albums (sorry).* Thanks.

*http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/article.php?id=1116

 

The same reason why many prefer solely stereo mixes to surround and stereo mixes on their discs today?

Sorry, I just couldn't help saying this.

 

You're right in pointing out that difference, Steve. Yet, there are some things in common in both cases:

a) in both cases the albums were originally released in a format (mono in this case, stereo in my example)

b) the multichannel versions (stereo in the case we are talking about here) benefit from one being able to hear more into the recording because some things aren't piled up on top of the others. The same usually happens in surround: given that the instruments are more spread out you can notice more detail in the playing of each instrument.

and, c) the recordings we are mentioning here were originally recorded in stereo. I understand and completely agree with the thrill of the type of recording RVG was after. Yet, most of the stereo pop/rock (or even jazz in certain cases) recordings of most recent years were originally recorded to multitrack recorders, from which - as I see it - the resulting stereo or surround mixes are simply 'interpretations'.

Finally, I highlighted the word and between stereo and surround to signal that I have nothing against the stereo mixes. Just that well-made surround mixes give you a look into the recording that is impossible with the still piled up imaging delivered by created-from-scratch stereo. So, I see them as a different - often interesting - take on a recording. But I am all for having the stereo mix also. In fact, whenever present I listen to both depending on the moment.

Get my point?

 

Hmm, I thought binaural referred to a specific recording process in which a dummy head was utilised for recordings that would then have ideal playback over headphones. Hmmm.

 

Good shot of Coltrane in Englewood 1964. Mic placement quite clear on this one..

 

These days (starting in the 1970s) binaural refers to the mics/dummy head recording technique to get a particular spatial effect, but way back when multitrack recordings first started being made the 2 channel recordings had a wide variety of names like Steve mentioned.

 

Can you see what he was using? They look pretty small to me.

dan c

 

They ain't Neumanns whatever they are. Neumanns are mounted differently (straight up or straight down) because of the position of the diaphragm in the headshell.

edit: I'm referring to U47s, 48s, 67s, etc.

 

Yeah, these look almost like hand-held dynamics. Of course I'm sure they aren't, they just don't look familiar from what I've seen in photos of that era.

dan c