Also, forgot to mention, for cd’s try MArecordings.....they are among the best recorded. Just one example. On their webpage there are both stereophile and audiophiliac recommended selections...I would also highly recommend to you to try the Hana el or sl cartidges... they have Alnico magnets and sound absolutely wonderful with most anything at reasonably sane prices.
Badly recorded albums needing upgrading
My new music system is in place, fairly well burnt in, and speaker placement and other tweaks are coming along. In the process I’ve been learning how much variation there is in the quality of both CD and vinyl recordings. This range in quality was not apparent on my old equipment.
For example, as I go through my old records, I’ve noticed a couple of favorites that are terribly recorded. A well known sub-par recording, Eric Clapton’s (Derek and the Dominoes) "Layla and Other Love Songs" is virtually not listenable. The Stones "Let It Bleed" I’ve had to replace with a Japaneses SACD as Jagger’s vocals sounded like he recorded them with a garbage can over his head. That SACD does sound considerably better, although the vocals on "Gimme Shelter still sound muffled. After some research on site and elsewhere, I just ordered another Japanese SACD of Layla out of the myriad available, which the reviewers said made Layla at least listenable.
Here’ the obvious problem. Both replacements were expensive as CD’a and records go, and I only want to spend that kind or resources on absolute favorite records. I am filling in the rock and roll and R&B portion of my record and CD collection of artists ranging from the Beatles up through the Sex Pistols. Are there any other well known albums like "Let It Bleed" or "Layla" I should avoid, or might already have, that will need to be purchased or bought again in upgraded formats. I’m not asking about obscure groups, but instead more well known artists like the Dead, Hendrix, Aretha Franklin, anything Motown, Janis Joplin, Dylan, Joni Mitchell, Bowie, Roxy Music, The Clash, Talking Heads, etc.
I’ve also been purchasing a lot of vintage jazz, from Ellington through the Weather Report and would like to avoid bad recordings there too. In the jazz realm I’ve been acquiring economical Redbook CD sets like Bill Evans’ 12 Classic Albums, and most recently Wayne Shorter’s entire Blue Note recordings made with RVG (Rudy Van Gelder ) remasters. What I’ve learned so far I to do when purchasing these sets it to avoid those that are made of re-recorded MP3 files. Those sets don’t advertise they are MP3 file based, so I dig around reviews by purchasers who after after getting bilked, expose these recordings labels on Amazon,com Music . If you’ve any of these classic jazz sets or albums or reissue labels I should be avoiding, please let me know.
For example, I’m currently looking to purchase economical multiple album sets of Billie Holiday’s Commodore, Verve, and Decca recordings and would like to know which sets to avoid or conversely which sets are well done.. I like among others Miles Davis, Coltrane, Lester Young, Mingus, Charlie Parker, John McLaughlin, Art Blakely, Chet Baker, Ella Fitgerald, Gerry Mulligan and the like. Again, not obscure recordings or artists. I’d really like to not get burned on substandard recordings too. Si Iif you could forewarn of any particular recordings, or any reissue labels to avoid, please do. Next year I might start to get more Classical Music recordings, but that’s another ball of wax for another day
Maybe this question is too broad or poorly defined but I’d appreciate any help you could provide to avoid disappointment or throw any more cash in the garbage. Thanks, and I’d be pleased to answer any questions to clarify this rambling post.
Mike
For example, as I go through my old records, I’ve noticed a couple of favorites that are terribly recorded. A well known sub-par recording, Eric Clapton’s (Derek and the Dominoes) "Layla and Other Love Songs" is virtually not listenable. The Stones "Let It Bleed" I’ve had to replace with a Japaneses SACD as Jagger’s vocals sounded like he recorded them with a garbage can over his head. That SACD does sound considerably better, although the vocals on "Gimme Shelter still sound muffled. After some research on site and elsewhere, I just ordered another Japanese SACD of Layla out of the myriad available, which the reviewers said made Layla at least listenable.
Here’ the obvious problem. Both replacements were expensive as CD’a and records go, and I only want to spend that kind or resources on absolute favorite records. I am filling in the rock and roll and R&B portion of my record and CD collection of artists ranging from the Beatles up through the Sex Pistols. Are there any other well known albums like "Let It Bleed" or "Layla" I should avoid, or might already have, that will need to be purchased or bought again in upgraded formats. I’m not asking about obscure groups, but instead more well known artists like the Dead, Hendrix, Aretha Franklin, anything Motown, Janis Joplin, Dylan, Joni Mitchell, Bowie, Roxy Music, The Clash, Talking Heads, etc.
I’ve also been purchasing a lot of vintage jazz, from Ellington through the Weather Report and would like to avoid bad recordings there too. In the jazz realm I’ve been acquiring economical Redbook CD sets like Bill Evans’ 12 Classic Albums, and most recently Wayne Shorter’s entire Blue Note recordings made with RVG (Rudy Van Gelder ) remasters. What I’ve learned so far I to do when purchasing these sets it to avoid those that are made of re-recorded MP3 files. Those sets don’t advertise they are MP3 file based, so I dig around reviews by purchasers who after after getting bilked, expose these recordings labels on Amazon,com Music . If you’ve any of these classic jazz sets or albums or reissue labels I should be avoiding, please let me know.
For example, I’m currently looking to purchase economical multiple album sets of Billie Holiday’s Commodore, Verve, and Decca recordings and would like to know which sets to avoid or conversely which sets are well done.. I like among others Miles Davis, Coltrane, Lester Young, Mingus, Charlie Parker, John McLaughlin, Art Blakely, Chet Baker, Ella Fitgerald, Gerry Mulligan and the like. Again, not obscure recordings or artists. I’d really like to not get burned on substandard recordings too. Si Iif you could forewarn of any particular recordings, or any reissue labels to avoid, please do. Next year I might start to get more Classical Music recordings, but that’s another ball of wax for another day
Maybe this question is too broad or poorly defined but I’d appreciate any help you could provide to avoid disappointment or throw any more cash in the garbage. Thanks, and I’d be pleased to answer any questions to clarify this rambling post.
Mike
- ...
- 75 posts total
When it comes to badly recorded CD's, I'm more likely to listen to them in the car instead of my home system. I agree about "Layla" and I always thought the Blind Faith album also sounded terrible. I recently read Richard Barone's (Bongos) autobiography: "Frontman, Surviving The Rock Star Myth" and it contained the following: "There was now a difference in mixing an album primarily for CD (even though "Primal Dream" would also be issued on cassette and vinyl). In the past, when mixing primarily for vinyl, one had to exaggerate the effects a little. Tape or digital delay effects, and especially reverb, would often be eaten up by the vinyl surface noise. So we would always add a little extra. That's why, when you hear CD's of albums made pre - 1987 or so, they sometimes sound a bit too "wet." Those mixes were intended to be heard on vinyl. Digital reproduction gives a much more "literal" reading of the mix when played back. When recording for a CD or any other digital format, we use the actual amount of effect that sounds right at the time of mixing. Paradoxically, when recording digitally, it is wise to add a little natural ambience or room sound when tracking, because the digital recording seems to eat up, or discard an unnecessary, much of the "natural air" in a recording (the way vinyl did with effects on playback). It seems to seek just the signal, ignoring the "space" as undesirable. The sound is often more "in your face" and, again, more "literal" than you would want. In my opinion, many current recordings are spoiled by this effect. For that reason, I make lavish use of room mics. Remember, when making a recording, we are creating an illusion. Use your ears and know the rules so you'll know when to ignore them.. The mastering, at the recommendation of Lou Reed during a lengthy and wonderful phone conversation about guitar tones, was by the legendary Bob Ludwig, and raised the end result to a new level for me. At one point, Bob even came downtown to my Perry Street apartment in the middle of a session uptown to hear how it sounded on my home system. That kind of dedication to one's work is what inspires me most." [Page 134] |
Maybe this is the right time to ask. There is a dynamic range of records database: http://dr.loudness-war.info/ Is it possible to just look there for the widest dynamic range for either the CD or vinyl if that is what you want? For example, there are 24 entries for Derek and the Dominoes "Layla and other Love Songs." The maximum range goes from 10 which is rated a bit mediocre to 15 which is rated excellent. |
For some people, yes. I think georgehifi from this forum picks his cds that way. Other people, including me, believe that there are other factors to consider. As the post from mitchagain states, often early cds, which have higher dynamic range numbers, were mastered for vinyl. A new mastering for cd can sound better in spite of lower dynamic range numbers. If the bass is turned up in a remastering, it will lower the dynamic range numbers even if the album sounds better with a little more bass, for example. It is generally agreed that a dynamic range difference of a couple of points is not significant. Albums with really low dynamic range numbers like dr 5, 6 or 7, should be avoided. dr 10 and above are generally OK, but you have to find out where your tastes lie through experience. The dynamic range numbers for Lps are not directly comparable to cds. In other words an Lp that has higher dynamic range than the album on cd is not necessarily more dynamic. I can’t explain why but I have read this in discussions on the matter. Often times Lps are more dynamic than cds because of the loudness wars though, which started in the 90s. Cds were and are often dynamically compressed because people listen to them in cars and through ear buds in noisy places. |
- 75 posts total