i used to have a later riverside copy and thought the whole thing sounded dull. When i got a first pressing, I guess i got lucky. It's mono but the sound is clear and open. It went form being a record I thought sounded lousy to a really great record sonically. The fine quality of the music goes without saying.
Why does "Monk's Music" vinyl sound strange?
I just opened and played an Analogue Productions 45-RPM stereo copy of Thelonius Monk's “Monk's Music” and I have to admit being a little vexed by both the production and - well, I'm not sure if its the pressing or the recording quality or what? I'll mention up front that this is with out question my favorite record of all time without any consideration given to fidelity whatsoever. I've owned three different versions of it starting with a stereo OJC redbook CD, a 20bit mono CD and now the 45RPM vinyl. While I've been very impressed with the other 45RPM pressings I've heard, this one seems a bit off and I'm not sure what the problem is. On the detail side, I get the impression that there were only two mikes in the room when they recorded. This puts the horns hard-left with the piano hard-right and the drums, and especially the bass to fend for themselves in the background. This works OK for the piano and drums which come off as right-middle and middle respectively, but the bass is almost inaudible.
There's a really odd phenomena listening to it as a whole. It is readily apparent that I'm getting more resolution than on the CDs, with real depth to the recording. The piano, unlike so many recordings of the era, has some real sense of scale to it. There is some detail of people making noise in the background that I've never heard before. But yet as a whole the record sounds a little veiled leaving me feeling as though I want to turn the volume way up to be able to hear it better. This is particularly apparent with the horns, even though they are by far the most forward within the soundstage, they actually sound a little reticent. I put the 20bit CD in after I listened just to compare, and indeed the bass and horns sound a little more etched as individual instruments (even in mono), but the rest of it just falls flat by comparison. The vinyl is clearly superior, but still....
So I guess my question is this: Has anyone else heard this pressing and what did you think? Is the quality of the pressing so good that its revealing flaws in the original tapes? Riverside is not always a great recording label. What's wrong with this record, or am I just being nuts?
There's a really odd phenomena listening to it as a whole. It is readily apparent that I'm getting more resolution than on the CDs, with real depth to the recording. The piano, unlike so many recordings of the era, has some real sense of scale to it. There is some detail of people making noise in the background that I've never heard before. But yet as a whole the record sounds a little veiled leaving me feeling as though I want to turn the volume way up to be able to hear it better. This is particularly apparent with the horns, even though they are by far the most forward within the soundstage, they actually sound a little reticent. I put the 20bit CD in after I listened just to compare, and indeed the bass and horns sound a little more etched as individual instruments (even in mono), but the rest of it just falls flat by comparison. The vinyl is clearly superior, but still....
So I guess my question is this: Has anyone else heard this pressing and what did you think? Is the quality of the pressing so good that its revealing flaws in the original tapes? Riverside is not always a great recording label. What's wrong with this record, or am I just being nuts?