DCC Archive Bill Inglot on ALL Rhino?

First, I love Rhino for what they do: researching and releasing long lost material. But I truly hate their sound. High end, tinny, tin can, plastic sound. I have recently been A/B'ing some Rhino stuff versus other label's releases of the same material and it makes me want to (to borrow a phrase from SH) throw those CDs out the window. Is it Bill Inglot? Are ALL the Rhino released messed with by him? I was going to get the new Alice Cooper compilation until I saw it was on Rhino. They must have received complaints about this.

 

Actually, while Inglot has been known to be heavy on the treble and compression in years past hie work on the WB and Elektra catalog has been very good. The Alice Cooper set/CD is very clean, albiet thin in the bass. But that could be attributable to the tapes.

Inglot is not the only engineer at Rhino, as others have also done remastering jobs, mainly on the hip-hop, rap titles. And, they have come up, for the most part, terrible-sounding. Witness the "Grandmaster Flash & The Furious Five" CD. The KC & The Sunshine Band CD's are sloppy as well, and he didn't do them. But Inglot is still the chief engineer and usually the sound producer, so I guess it's still his fault. Maybe he's losing his hearing.
But I love his work on the Motown and Stax/Volt boxes. Excellent work.

[ November 25, 2001: Message edited by: Grant T. ]

 

Grrrrr. Don't get me started!

Isn't the "Sound Producer" the original producer and engineer?

Shee-iiT! So, Jon Astley is the sound producer of all the Who music? Gimmie a break!

 

Unfortunately I think we have to take the good with the bad-- great material, lost masters found, etc. BUT the Bill Inglot sound. Maybe Doctor Steve can take us back to school and prescribe a medicine for what ails us.
Steve, in a previous seminar you taught us about problems with the sound of many CDs. Can you prescribe some remedies for the "Rhino-itis". I would think some general settings for those with graphic and/or parametric Eq's would sooth some of the pain while a cure is being researched by scientists at the "just put on the CD flat cause we'll fix it ourselves" institute.

 

The role of "producer" is varied, always has been. Mant times, a producer will have an engineer that does the actual remastering while he/she supervises or makes final decisions.

 

Since each track is processed individually, that is impossible.

Bill Inglot is not a bad engineer. In fact, all engineers do some EQ, it's just that Inglot is jumped on most because Rhino is perhaps responsible for the lion's share of oldies out there, and many people didn't like his releasing MONO mixes. I am one who happens to agree with him on the mono issue. Mono mixes were usually unique, enough to warrant being issued on CD. If someone doesn't put them out they may never come out. People in the future will have a distorted view of what history really was if all they get are the different stereo mixes.

Too bad he doesn't feel the same way about EQ and compression.

BUT, to be fair, Inglot & co. don't always enjoy the privalige of having first generation masters to work with, nor the time.

But, at least Inglot does NOT believe in NR, unlike Jon Astley.

 

There's a difference between "using EQ" and "using EQ properly". Inglot does the former. Steve does the latter. Nobody is angry with Bill because he uses EQ. They are angry with him because of the *way* he uses it.

As far as mono goes, releasing a mono mix if it's unique or different is fine. However, releasing mono just for the sake of releasing mono is dumb. Which is often what Rhino does.

 

True...but anyone who does as many releases as Bill starts to show some sort of pattern in that he tends to crank the highs in the same general frequency range to get the same general sound he tends to like. Trying to do something about the compression would be futile, but I still think Steve could give us a little help in counter acting some of the EQ. I liken what Bill does to pressing the LOUDNESS button on a stereo receiver. It is fine to have one, but lets leave it to the owner of the receiver to push it, not to the CD to already have it on there.
Dough

 

<<As far as mono goes, releasing a mono mix if it's unique or different is fine. However, releasing mono just for the sake of releasing mono is dumb. Which is often what Rhino does.>>

Of course, the logical response to this comment is that it's just as dumb to release something in stereo simply because it's in stereo. There are plenty of lousy stereo mixes out there, and some of the early stereo mixes are particularly dodgy. Many stereo mixes don't contain all the instrumentation found on the original mono single versions. Sometimes the stereo mix was prepared long after the single was released, and without the involvement of the original producer. And in some cases, albums were either weren't initially available in a true stereo mix, or were available only in very limited qualities. So there is often a perfectly legitimate reason for including a mono mix as opposed to a stereo mix. So I think you have greatly oversimplified matters. And the fact is, Rhino has in the past included some kind of disclaimer regarding the inclusion of mono mixes (just check the liner notes for the Love and Rascals anthologies) and every statement I've seen from Rhino on this point is that they include the mono mix when they believe it sounds better. So it's all a matter of taste. You obviously disagree with their choices, but I think it's possible to respectfully disagree on this.

Of course, if it were up to me, reissues would always include both the mono and the stereo mixes. Or at the very least, the labels could reissue albums in stereo and include the mono single mixes on compilations.

 

Kim,
Thanks for the info!! Actually, you can get a professional parametric EQ that would suffice for home use for about $350 on Ebay when they are available. I've got an old Orban 622b that I bought at an auction for $75 that I use all the time.

 

Simply put, IMHO, the CDs that were done by Bill Inglot in the 1980s were superior to what he is putting out today. The British Invasion series was really good and commands high prices on eBay. Nuggets was also very nice. Has he changed his "work ethic" over the years or is he just "over using" the latest sonic gadget?

The MONO reasoning is "pure bunk". The In Season-4 Seasons Anthology is a weird combination of stereo and mono. Rhino couldn't find Stereo versions of Girl Come Running, Ain't That A Shame and Rag Doll. Time Life had these songs back in the 80s on their compilation! Dawn and Let's Hang On are harder to come by, but are available in Stereo on CD. Little Boy In Grown Up Clothes is from a poor (mono) vinyl dub...come on!

The Foreigner Anthology is really poor as well and...well, let me stop there!

 

I can't speak for the Four Seasons reissues, but I for one and glad that Rhino chose to include the mono mixes of the songs from the first two Love albums on the Love Story anthology. The stereo mixes aren't paritcularly bad, they just aren't nearly as powerful as the mono mixes. Love Story is also one of the better sounding Inglot mastered releases.

I agree with the person who said that the Rhino releases from the 80s generally sound better than what they're putting out today. Just compare the single disc Yardbirds greatest hits CD with the two disc anthology released earlier this year. They may have tracked down better sources tapes for the news release, but you'd hardly know it from the painfully bright mastering.

 

I disagree.

 

I cannot speak for the Foreigner or the Four seasons discs but it is NOT bunk when it concerns the Three Dog Night, the Rascals, Motown,. and Stax. In fact, on the Three Dog Night "Celebrate" on MCA, it was the producers and the band that wanted the mono singles added.

As far as the EQ thing is concerned, Rhino does not have audiophiles in mind. They gear most of their CDs to the "average", or mass consumer who will play their stuff on cheap boom boxes. That could explain the bass cuts and treble boost with the parametric EQ. This EQ/compression mess all bothered me the most on their "Have A Nice Day" and "didn't it blow your mind" series, which were all done in the late 80s, early 90s, right when Rhino started flodding the market with product.

As for mono for mono's sake, if you grew up in the 60s with the 45s, you really appreciate the unique mono mixes. It IS a valid argument, too! Like Steve H. says, it isn't about the soundstage, imaging, or all that, it's about proper TONAL BALANCE, something that seems to be lost on most audiophiles and stereo hounds.

 

I usually listen to CDs thru my cheap computer speakers and my discman. I can still hear the crappy EQ on these discs on these mass market 'delivery systems'. It wouldn't be so hard to master their CDs properly and please both types. Check out their website: they brag about their mastering and have an elitist attitude, which sounds like they're pandering to audiophiles to me. (disclaimer: not all audiophiles have an elitist attitude
)

 

Yeah, but most "average" consumers don't care about sound quality or know what good sound quality is if it bit them in the ass! So, the fact that you can hear the EQ with cheap playback systems means NOTHING! I guess Rhino turns up the treble so you don't have to.

While listening to a certain KC & The Sunshine Band Anniversary CD I got the feeling that they are trying to make things sound like it did on FM radio. That could explain a lot.

Let's face it, most people are NOT audiophiles. Most people do not own good playback systems. I know people who do not even want radios in their cars. That is an alien thing to me, no music in the car!

I still consider myself an "audiophile" but i'm not anal about it. I don't go looking for everything to sound like a live mic feed.

[ November 27, 2001: Message edited by: Grant T. ]

 

The argument that Rhino masters CDs so they sound great on cheap equipment is completely bogus. It's not as if DCC gold CD's sound bad on cheap equipment -- to the contrary, they sound really good on all types of equipment. The argument that proper mastering yields disappointing results on cheap consumer equipment simply doesn't hold water.

 

David, I'm not sure that is exactly what is being argued here. Of course Steve's work sounds good no matter what you play it through. The time, effort, expertise and attention to detail that goes into a DCC gold disc is enormous from a comparitive standpoint. Priorties are different. Who's to say exactly what Rhino's priorities are, but productivity is definitely a larger part of the equation there than at DCC. Their production list is bigger, and they cater to a much larger audience. The lowest common denominator has got to be a factor to some extent or another.

[ November 27, 2001: Message edited by: pigmode ]

 

I understand that Rhino has a greater run of a given title than DCC. But David's point is well taken. I don't expect any major record label to spend the kind of time, money or effort on their mastering as DCC. However, getting a chief engineer that knows what sounds good and can use EQ properly wouldn't require unreasonable time or effort. Too bad Rhino doesn't seem to get it.They're also not getting my money as much as I'd like to give it to them.

 

That's just the point. They don't have to get it. They have a formula that works for them--why change? The record labels must be happy enough.

 

One good reason to change is to get my money and others like me. It wouldn't alienate their existing customer base, and would almost certainly expand it.

 

The suits who make the business decisions will never understand these things. We have to rely on the people who do the mastering -- these are the people who have actually listened to the master tapes, and most likely reference LPs, and should know how the music ought to sound on CD. But all too often they don't, which is a shame. I really don't know what Bill Inglot's problem is. I happen to think that many of the older Inglot-mastered titles sound just fine -- like the Stax singles box set.

 

His 1989 mastering of the Kinks' music is an abomination. I read a thread recently about discs that are painful to listen to and these are among them. I wish there was another way to get the Kinks' mono early singles without the jet screeching fingernail-on-chalkboard treble.

 

I think DCC was looking into doing the Kinks this past year of so. Even if they don't find the original master tapes, I hope they still do it, at least on an aluminum CD so as not to violate their 'original tapes only' policy for gold CD's.

If they ultimately do a compilation, I hope they use a track listing similar to the "Singles Collection" that's available in the UK right now. With the exception of "Long Tall Sally," there's not a track there I'd skip:

1. Long Tall Sally
2. You still want me
3. You really got me
4. All day and all of the night
5. Tired of waiting for you
6. Everybody's gonna be happy
7. Set me free
8. See my friends
9. Till the end of the day
10. Where have all the good times gone
11. Dedicated follower of fashion
12. Well respected man
13. Sunny afternoon
14. Dead end street
15. Waterloo sunset
16. Death of a clown
17. Autumn almanac
18. David Watts
19. Susannah's still alive
20. Wonderboy
21. Days
22. Plastic man
23. Victoria
24. Lola
25. Apeman

(taken from amazon.co.uk)

 

I just picked up Rhino's Sam the Sham & The Pharoahs "Pharoahization" and of the 24 cuts only 4 are in stereo. The sound quality is fine (at least to my untrained? ears) but I was hoping for more stereo. I do like the disc and I am glad the single versions have been given their proper due. First time I've ever heard many of these songs and one that really stands out is "Big Blue Diamonds" (stereo). I do have a later pressing of the Greatest hits album which is in stereo (except JuJu Hand and Lil' Red Riding Hood). "Wooly Bully" on Warner Special Products CD "Highs Of The Sixties" is in stereo and sounds great BTW.