WeenieCampbell.com
Country Blues => Super Electrical Recordings! => Topic started by: unezrider on January 10, 2013, 09:28:46 PM
-
hello friend,
looks like those who have record players will be able to enjoy some newly remastered Lps of some of the early blues greats pretty soon.
http://thirdmanrecords.com/news/view/document-records-reissues (http://thirdmanrecords.com/news/view/document-records-reissues)
sound samples sound pretty nice, too.
-
Not too sure I like the artwork by the "Grammy-award winning" artist... However, this would appear to be a fine project.
-
Not too sure I like the artwork by the "Grammy-award winning" artist... However, this would appear to be a fine project.
Agreed; it's great to see the old stuff re-released. I'm not sure I get the connection between Lawrence of Arabia and the Mississippi Sheiks, though. Maybe he was a fan? ;)
-
That's what, 2 or 3 labels now re-releasing prewar blues on vinyl? Not counting some of the postwar country blues, field recordings and gospel being released as well.
-
It seems the universe wants me to start listening to records again . . . this series looks very cool, this fish may bite.
-
The Third Man Records Vault is great. These look really good. I would suppose the cover art is to appeal to a newer audience.
It seems the universe wants me to start listening to records again . . .
There are people in the universe who don't listen to records??
-
Is there any indication that these are taken from non-CD sources? I have been a part of discussions at this website before on this topic. The consensus seemed to be, as I recall, that LPs taken from CDs do not achieve the same quality as 78-->analog tape-->LP recordings. I think I would buy the latter, but not the former. To me, the failure of any manufacturer to note the lineage means that the recordings are suspect in this regard.
-
good point misterjones.
(what is happening here?) ;D
i'll definitely be looking into that myself. because i am really tempted to pick these guys up. plus the price is right.
also, i agree about the artwork. not my thing...
-
I think this looks awesome. I'm looking forward to it.
-
Mighty cool! Love playing vinyl and buys new ones regularily.
-
There are people in the universe who don't listen to records??
Ha! Yep. Got the records, ain't got the player :(
-
There are people in the universe who don't listen to records??
Ha! Yep. Got the records, ain't got the player :(
Quick! We should start a fund raiser for the reinstatement of Cheapfeet's turntable..................
-
More:
http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/scotland/jack-white-to-spread-the-blues-with-scots-document-records-husband-and-wife-team-1-2747915#.UPxQD61WRic.facebook (http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/scotland/jack-white-to-spread-the-blues-with-scots-document-records-husband-and-wife-team-1-2747915#.UPxQD61WRic.facebook)
http://www.nme.com/news/jack-white/68265 (http://www.nme.com/news/jack-white/68265)
http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/music/news-and-features/pining-for-the-blues-1-1106594 (http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/music/news-and-features/pining-for-the-blues-1-1106594)
-
Now ready for preorder:
http://www.document-records.com/index.asp (http://www.document-records.com/index.asp)
-
Not getting much of a response regarding lineage at the website thread dedicated to a discussion of these vinyl reissues. Some are curious, but others seem to think it isn't a necessary line of inquiry (and wonder why would I assume Document Records would be involved in anything but a 100% analog reissue desipte the fact that they are silent on the issue). I am not a vinyl audiophile, so my views generally are via what others have said on the subject. But someday - perhaps soon - I would like to start a vinyl collection that would include old blues and I want to be sure I get more from an audio standpoint than what I already have on CD.
What dio you all think of the importance of ensuring that such reissues do not have any digital steps in their creation?
-
I'd like to know the details. I remember reading Nick Perls saying something to the effect that the best re-issues sometimes come from several different 78s, the best sections being taken from each and spliced together before being pressed to a LP. Obviously, things have changed in the 35+ years since I read this, but it's still going to require several intermediate steps before the music gets to the LP and I'd like to know the specifics of those steps.
-
I hear what people like you are saying, which is why I'm pushing it at the Third Man Records forum. I don't have personal experience (or audio engineering expertise), so I'm limited in this regard.
I didn't want to say anything at the other forum because a lot of people there seem have a blind love of Document Records, but Document Records doesn't seem to me to be the best for assembling the best 78s or subsequent remastering. Overall, Yazoo is still the best in this regard and I would like to seem them issue some non-digital vinyl.
-
Hi all,
Speaking only for myself, I've never been able to wrap my mind around an audiophile approach to listening to historic blues recording. It seems like an oxymoron: country blues audiophile. Much of the very best music is so aurally compromised in the first place, either through being acoustically recorded (though some acoustic recordings sound great), having been made on inferior material, or most often, being available only on one or two very heavily played or damaged copies. Except in instances of the only surviving copy of a record being absolutely whupped, I think many or most people who listen to this music for an extended period of time soon get to a place where they unconsciously edit out the noise on a re-issue and listen for and hear the musical sound they want to hear. I think there is a danger in confusing the fidelity of a recording with the music. They're not the same thing at all, whether you're talking about blues, early jazz or historical Classical recordings. If you can hear a singer's vocal tone and a player's tone on his/her instrument, you can hear the music.
All best,
Johnm
-
I hear you, John. Again, it's in the specifics. If the restoration process removes noise that detracts from the music, that's one thing, but beyond a certain point, it seems to be done only for the sake of doing it--and churning the market.
-
My experience listening to 78s over many years is that after a while the noise and other recording limitations fade into the background and the music moves to foreground. It's remarkable, really, and when it happens it can be quite striking. It's a brain function, not an ear function.
-
I guess I am just looking for a different listening experience that (I'm hoping) would combine the earthiness of the 78s without any digital changes that would reduce that experience. I, too, cannot vouch for the notion that vinyl (with or without a wax source) is better than CDs. Though it was a 1951 recording, I was blown away by the sound of my Miles Davis 78 (Morpheus b/w Blue Room) on my cheap record player in comparison to the CD versions I had. I also recall the depth of the sound of the Velvet Underground's VU when listenting to an LP version. Based on these two limited experiences, I thought maybe there was something to the notion that CDs were inferior, which I originally dismissed as nonsense.
My brother-in-law has a lot of old LPs, like Johnson's King of the Delta Blues, so maybe I should just buy a turntable and get cracking. But that doesn't solve the issue of whether the Third Man Records releases would measure up to pre-digital vinyl or wax. I don't want to buy a vinyl version of the CDs I already have.
-
On the other hand, you could try a couple of these ;D:
http://boingboing.net/2005/11/07/astronomically-overp.html (http://boingboing.net/2005/11/07/astronomically-overp.html)
-
What do you all think of the importance of ensuring that such reissues do not have any digital steps in their creation?
To me, it's not important at all. With the current state of digital technology (and the current state of my ears) a careful digital remaster should not be audibly different from a careful analog remaster.
Now that John R. T. Davies is gone, Doug Benson is probably the best in the world at remastering from 78s. I love his comment on remastering that was included in the Off The Record release of the Wolverine Orchestra's complete recordings. I don't have the CD at hand, so I'll have to paraphrase. In essence, he said "My most basic belief when remastering is to get the best possible sound off the existing record and let that sound speak for itself without any digital massaging or filtering. Some of the records here were recorded so badly, and survived in such a deteriorated state, that I felt I couldn't get an acceptable sound from purely analog techniques. So my basic belief went out the window. I have judiciously used digital filtering and processing to enhance the sound on these recordings." Pragmatism rules.
Document Records doesn't seem to me to be the best for assembling the best 78s or subsequent remastering.
Johnny Parth's goal, when he was assembling the Document CD catalog, was to make the recordings available in a (relatively) short amount of time, not to spend years tracking down the best available source and carefully remastering that source. As I understand it, a lot of Document's "source" was tapes that various collectors sent Parth. So the "subsequent remastering" involved, at most, whacking the eq a bit. That Document put out the repertoire that it did, and that it continues to make that repertoire available, is a miracle. The sound on a lot of Document CDs is a bit less than miraculous.
-
Notwithstanding any audio manipulation and/or remastering, vinyl has a larger dynamic range than a CD. This is why many prefer the sound of vinyl, right (besides maybe nostalgic reasons or the hipness factor)? So, if you recorded vinyl to a CD (loosing dynamic range) and then to vinyl again, you would still have that loss of dynamic range right? So you would have vinyl with the compressed sound of a CD? Verses recording vinyl to vinyl would yield no change in the dynamic range?
-
On the other hand, you could try a couple of these ;D:
I'll recycle this one for those who missed it:
http://www.needledoctor.com/Clearaudio-Goldfinger-Statement-Phono-Cartridge?sc=2&category=270 (http://www.needledoctor.com/Clearaudio-Goldfinger-Statement-Phono-Cartridge?sc=2&category=270)
http://www.needledoctor.com/ (http://www.needledoctor.com/)
And an article from the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/technology/personaltech/a-sound-system-as-resonant-a-concert-hall-tool-kit.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1356978001-cc7GD5rUg6LW+CjTyDfY0w&_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/technology/personaltech/a-sound-system-as-resonant-a-concert-hall-tool-kit.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1356978001-cc7GD5rUg6LW+CjTyDfY0w&_r=0)
-
vinyl has a larger dynamic range than a CD
No, it's the other way around. Too much bass or too loud and the needle's path is compromised with vinyl. No such problems with CDs.
Vinyl has an infinite number of data points, because the signal comes from a continuous line, while any digital medium will necessarily have a finite number. But at some point, the ear can't hear the difference. The analogy is with digital photography. It used to be that film was superior to digital, but virtually all cameras now record sufficient pixels so that one can't tell the difference.
The real problem with digital "remastering" of old 78s is when people use too much noise reduction to try to get a "clean" sound and end up leaving the resulting music free of pops and clicks but sounding hollow and distorted.
-
On the other hand, you could try a couple of these ;D:
I'll recycle this one for those who missed it:
http://www.needledoctor.com/Clearaudio-Goldfinger-Statement-Phono-Cartridge?sc=2&category=270 (http://www.needledoctor.com/Clearaudio-Goldfinger-Statement-Phono-Cartridge?sc=2&category=270)
http://www.needledoctor.com/ (http://www.needledoctor.com/)
And an article from the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/technology/personaltech/a-sound-system-as-resonant-a-concert-hall-tool-kit.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1356978001-cc7GD5rUg6LW+CjTyDfY0w&_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/technology/personaltech/a-sound-system-as-resonant-a-concert-hall-tool-kit.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1356978001-cc7GD5rUg6LW+CjTyDfY0w&_r=0)
I certainly don't want to go anywhere near that extreme. I should have mentioned that if I cannot achieve better quality (and/or more interesting/dynamic) sound for less than $500, the issue is moot.
I also agree that Document Records did an amazing job of assembling 78s, but they have long since been trumped by better (and possibly cursory) remastering efforts. For example, I did extensive comparisons of BLJ CDs and I recall that JSP appeared to use the Document Records recordings as their starting point. But JSP - which may only have given them a minor audio haircut* and a sound equalization - sounds much better to me (i.e., less surface noise with no reduction in underlying sound quality).
____________
* I understand that nowadays with old 78s you can do this quickly and accurately without cutting into any of the underlying sound. Seth Winer, who remastered the recent RJ CD set, said that was the first step in his restoration process, which began in large part with new raw transfers. (For the record, he had no involvement in the vinyl faux 78s, which he said were unfortunately taken from the flawed early tapes used for the original LPs.)
-
vinyl has a larger dynamic range than a CD
No, it's the other way around. Too much bass or too loud and the needle's path is compromised with vinyl. No such problems with CDs.
Now I am confused? I was told what I stated earlier from the owner of a record pressing plant when I was having my bands records pressed. Maybe I used the wrong term and should have used "frequency range" instead of "dynamic range", or then again maybe I was given wrong information?
-
Yes, vinyl has a higher frequency range than CD/digital. But that's a big "so what?". Current CD encoding tops out at 22 kHz. Vinyl goes up to at least 45 kHz (that frequency was used by the CD4 quadrophonic system), but human hearing doesn't go above 20kHz. So even if your vinyl plays frequencies above 22kHz, you can't hear them.
But your dog will be disappointed at the lack of upper frequencies on your CDs. :P
-
So what are all these vinyl audiophiles hearing? Do they just think the quality is better? Or is there something besides frequency range and the like that makes for a different (if not better) listening experience? (I swear my Miles Davis and possibly even my Tommy McClennan 78s sound better! The thump and twang of McClennan's guitar, the three-dimensional sound of Davis' horn . . .)
-
So what are all these vinyl audiophiles hearing? Do they just think the quality is better? Or is there something besides frequency range and the like that makes for a different (if not better) listening experience? (I swear my Miles Davis and possibly even my Tommy McClennan 78s sound better! The thump and twang of McClennan's guitar, the three-dimensional sound of Davis' horn . . .)
Ok... this just triggered something in my memory! A trumpet teacher of mine once told me that it was better to listen to trumpet players on vinyl because of a better sampling rate (I think that's what he said) you can hear more of the "in between notes" (or something like that?) than can be heard on CD. Maybe this has something to do with why people like vinyl?
-
To make a long story short, the fact is that analog/vinyl audio chain reproduces frequencies far higher than the human ear/brain can hear. The digital specification throws them away.
So why does vinyl/analog sound better if you can't actually hear the lost frequencies above 18KHz? The answer is harmonics, the 'beat frequencies'. Although you can't hear them those inaudible frequencies interact with the audible frequency spectrum creating 'beats', vibrato, 'good' distortion, and other natural-sounding artifacts in the audible spectrum.
In the rush to reduce mechanical & electronic artifacts like hiss, wow, rumble (which were definitely problems associated with analog), the original architects of the digital spec made the wrong assumption, in the interests of packing as much audio info as possible into the digital format, that anything inaudible (except to a dog) in the upper range could be simply cut. This was a very bad decision.
-
Good points, Rivers, and not just the harmonics, either. Sound is packets of air hitting off each other as they travel. Those sounds that you can't hear still travel and we still recognise them. Only we do it because they bounce into us. We feel them. Litereally. Whether it's live or recorded. Want your mind blown. here's Evelyn Glennie, world class percussionist, who happens to be deaf ...
http://www.ted.com/talks/evelyn_glennie_shows_how_to_listen.html (http://www.ted.com/talks/evelyn_glennie_shows_how_to_listen.html)
-
In the rush to reduce mechanical & electronic artifacts like hiss, wow, rumble (which were definitely problems associated with analog), the original architects of the digital spec made the wrong assumption, in the interests of packing as much audio info as possible into the digital format, that anything inaudible (except to a dog) in the upper range could be simply cut.
Well, I think it had a lot to do with the limits of processing power and file storage when the CD spec was being formulated. It's really time for a new CD spec.
But lots of LPs were pretty compressed sonically. IMHO, LPs sound good to a lot of people because the compression on them emphasized the frequencies that humans hear best. That's the same theory that's behind Bose speakers - boost the ranges that humans hear best, don't worry about the rest, and the vast majority of people will think it sounds great.
-
To just talk about really good sounding vinyl for a moment, disregarding bad production decisions, and lord knows there were plenty of those.
Sounds are pressure waves. Low frequency pressure waves from a point source are far apart, high frequency waves are close together. The mathematical relationship between these wavelengths creates natural harmonics (peak amplification) in the audible spectrum, and at the same time may attenuate other frequencies. A particularly 'good sounding' vinyl album was usually a happy accident since nobody really had it it under control, though some rooms sounded better than others due to their dimensions, mathematical relationships reinforcing desired outcomes.
To put it another way, the fact is that although you can't actually physically hear an upper freq in isolation does not mean that freq's pressure waves do not exist (basic physics, proveable, they are there!) and are not interacting with the audible spectrum. Of course analog sounds better, or in the worst case, at least more lifelike, with its native frequency reproduction capability up to and beyond 50KHz, versus a measly 18.8KHz [edit, sorry, brain fart, 44.1KHz] for CD digital!
Time for a new CD spec? Absolutely!
-
A wealth of insight here. Thanks.
I cannot follow all of the above, but it suggests to me that perhaps it does not matter if the blues CD is sourced from a CD . . . that they key is how we aurally react to the ultimate vinyl product. Is that true, or would any intervening digital step be problematic?
-
not quite misterjones - if the vinyl is a reproduction of a digital track then it's quite possible the extra frequencies have already been removed. However if it is the most recent stop on an analogue train line then all the bells and whistles are there for our listening (or proprioceptive) pleasure. Therein lies the rub.
-
Also, isn't a CD actually lacking snippets of audio? Because of a CD's sample rate, wouldn't a CD (in a sense) be more like a movie film? I mean in the sense that a movie is made up a bunch of still photos that move so quickly that we perceive them as moving. Isn't a CD made up of many audio "snap shots" that we perceive as nonstop audio and vinyl actually captures nonstop audio? At least this is how I understand sample rates. Hope this make sense!
-
I just did a google search and found this. It actually brings up trumpets as well! LOL!:
Is the sound on vinyl records better than on CDs or DVDs?
The answer lies in the difference between analog and digital recordings. A vinyl record is an analog recording, and CDs and DVDs are digital recordings. Take a look at the graph below. Original sound is analog by definition. A digital recording takes snapshots of the analog signal at a certain rate (for CDs it is 44,100 times per second) and measures each snapshot with a certain accuracy (for CDs it is 16-bit, which means the value must be one of 65,536 possible values).
This means that, by definition, a digital recording is not capturing the complete sound wave. It is approximating it with a series of steps. Some sounds that have very quick transitions, such as a drum beat or a trumpet's tone, will be distorted because they change too quickly for the sample rate.
In your home stereo the CD or DVD player takes this digital recording and converts it to an analog signal, which is fed to your amplifier. The amplifier then raises the voltage of the signal to a level powerful enough to drive your speaker.
A vinyl record has a groove carved into it that mirrors the original sound's waveform. This means that no information is lost. The output of a record player is analog. It can be fed directly to your amplifier with no conversion.
This means that the waveforms from a vinyl recording can be much more accurate, and that can be heard in the richness of the sound. But there is a downside, any specks of dust or damage to the disc can be heard as noise or static. During quiet spots in songs this noise may be heard over the music. Digital recordings don't degrade over time, and if the digital recording contains silence, then there will be no noise.
From the graph you can see that CD quality audio does not do a very good job of replicating the original signal. The main ways to improve the quality of a digital recording are to increase the sampling rate and to increase the accuracy of the sampling.
The recording industry has a new standard for DVD audio discs that will greatly improve the sound quality. The table below lists the sampling rate and the accuracy for CD recordings, and the maximum sampling rate and accuracy for DVD recordings. DVDs can hold 74 minutes of music at their highest quality level. CDs can also hold 74 minutes of music. By lowering either the sampling rate or the accuracy, DVDs can hold more music. For instance a DVD can hold almost 7 hours of CD quality audio.
Sampling Rate
?CD Audio = 44.1 kHz
?DVD Audio = 192 kHz
Samples per second
?CD Audio = 44,100
?DVD Audio = 192,000
Sampling Accuracy
?CD Audio = 16-bit
?DVD Audio = 24-bit
Number of Possible Output Levels
?CD Audio = 65,536
?DVD Audio = 16,777,216
DVD audio discs and players are rare right now, but they will become more common, and the difference in sound quality should be noticeable. To take advantage of higher quality DVD audio discs, however, you will need a DVD player with a 192kHz/24-bit digital to analog converter. Most DVD players only have a 96kHz/24-bit digital to analog converter. So if you are planning to take full advantage of DVD audio be sure to look for a 192kHz/24-bit DAC.
(https://weeniecampbell.com/yabbse/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi10.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa132%2Ffireonyoursleeve%2Fgraph_zps1d680856.gif&hash=8835223fbdbdb9b55b5f5d78a9dcc912477e2c86)
Comparison of a raw analog audio signal to the CD audio and DVD audio output
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm (http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm)
-
I cannot follow all of the above, but it suggests to me that perhaps it does not matter if the blues CD is sourced from a CD . . . that they key is how we aurally react to the ultimate vinyl product. Is that true, or would any intervening digital step be problematic?
Well actually, if you follow the argument so far, it would depend on the max top end reproducible frequency range available on a 78, right?
You may be surprised (I totally was) to learn that the potential audio response locked-up in a 78 record's groove actually exceeds the max potential response capability of a vinyl 33.3 rpm record! I say potential because of course it all depends on the capabilities of the transcription gear and downstream audio chain.
I don't have the figures handy but somebody will.
-
An admittedly selective quote:
The recording/tracking ability of vinyl is easily at least 50 kHz and perhaps as high as 100 kHz
--- versus 44.1KHz for the CD spec, http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Myths_(Vinyl) (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Myths_(Vinyl))
I can't find any corroboration for my earlier statement that 78s are capable of higher freqs that LPs. But I read it on the interwebs so it must be true.
-
Several years back I was talking to a fellow who repairs vintage and high end audio equipment out here about this subject and he simply said, "It's an analog world." --meaning the one all around us and the one we listen to in real time.
Some musicians who have been around long enough to have recorded and released LPs in the analog only days, have never been 100% comfortable with Cds and digital reproduction. Neil Young is one of them and has been behind a supposedly superior technology called Pono.
Re: the original topic, it's still about individual performances that were recorded and issued on individual 78 RPM records. The goal should be (at least in my mind) to preserve and make available the performances in a format and in a way so that they faithfully reproduce the original performances in the best possible way. Technology is constantly evolving, but the process of audio remastering and reproduction is still only--and will continue to be only--as strong as its weakest link or step in that process.
-
To take this even further off-topic, :P what is the benefit of 180-gram vinyl? Is this simply a matter of being less flimsy, less subject to warp etc.? Or is there some sonic reason for it?
As for the record releases not currently under discussion in this thread, one would think if they were doing something like working from Document's original masters (whatever condition and format they happened to be in, since as dj points out, some of the original sources could simply be tapes sent in by collectors), doing some kind of restoration, remastering etc., you would think they'd say so.
-
. . . one would think if they were doing something like working from Document's original masters (whatever condition and format they happened to be in, since as dj points out, some of the original sources could simply be tapes sent in by collectors), doing some kind of restoration, remastering etc., you would think they'd say so.
Exactly my point over at the Third Man Records forum, which has almost entirely fallen on deaf ears. Here are typical responses I have received:
"The original source for this shit can't be digital by definition and if there has or hasn't been a digital stage in the process of producing these third man releases and you can't hear it than why should you be concerned? If you don't like the third Man releases there's always the Document stuff. Or the JSP stuff. Or Catfish. Or Yazoo. This music isn't hard to find nor is it expensive. Take your choice, buy the one you think sounds best."
"All I know is that Document have been in the game for years and do a damn good job. Based on other Document releases I own I could say they err more towards capturing as much of the original sound source as possible then towards cleaning up the sound. They're very much a "preservist" label rather than a "listeners" label."
"Jack would presumably have checked out basic information such as whether it was sourced from CDs, etc."
"Document Records source from either masters (where available) or, in this case, original 78s."
-
Yeah--ask a specific question that seeks a detailed response based on fact and receive uninformed generalities. Might as well ask for water and get gasoline... :P
-
Hello all,
This discussion has strayed from the title---and is more interesting for it.
Some pieces that I'd like to comment on: 180 gm vinyl---it is a better medium because, being thicker, it allows for a deeper groove. Record grooves in the 78 era were either lateral cut (side-to-side as favored by most American and British companies) or vertical cut (hill-and-dale as done by Pathe and that great contrarian Edison).
As well expressed earlier, the "wiggle" in the groove is the analog of the sound waves captured by the microphone, or recording horn in the purely acoustic era.
With the advent of stereo microgroove recording (i.e. LPs), both modes were employed to give two discrete playback programs...so the 180 gram vinyl allows for a more robust vertical signal.
As for Document: When Johnnie Parth, the well-known Austrian jazz collector, started the labels Wolf and Document, his plan was for Document to issue re-recordings of the entire Godrich & Dixon discography, at 1st on LP.
"Best available source" wasn't important to Parth. I know that several collectors (and institutions) sent him cassette tape of their 78s. This accounts for the wide disparity in quality of the individual tracks---sometimes the source was a ragged-out 78; sometimes the collector had a bad tape deck or turntable.
Lots of variables here.
I know less about the Scots couple who bought the business from Parth, though when I was in charge of the recorded sound collection at the Center for Popular Music, I ordered dozens of their CD issues of Parth's original programs (by artist, following G&D sequence). They were very nice and easy to deal with, but the CDs replicated all of the LP sonic flaws.
With the small number of these sold, a Sony-type Robert Johnson remastering expense is not feasible, I'd guess.
As for Jack White's operation just up the road from me, all I can say is it seems to be aimed at the twenty-something hipsters who like the White Stripes and all else Jack does. He can afford to indulge himself in anything (almost) that takes his fancy.
But as for getting pristine source material from Document?-- Probably not.
best,
bruce
-
Hmm. The old 'treat your customers like mushrooms' strategy. Doesn't sound very promising, does it? Actually more like PT Barnum on mushrooms. :))
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
-
If I had the bucks and wanted to indulge myself, I would try to team up with Yazoo to update and reissue some of their LPs. I've seen Yazoo LP reissues advertised - they may even be on 180g vinyl - but I have the same problem with those as I do with the Third Man Records LPs (namely, trying to determine what the LPs are sourced from). I'm not even sure they are Yazoo-authorized releases. By the way, with 180g vinyl, must I have a 180g-compatible needle for the deeper groove?
-
no, misterjones.
No special needle or cartridge or anything on the tone-arm end of the turntable is needed to playback 180 gram or other "audiophile" discs.
Of course the better your turntable, amp and, especially, speakers are, the more you'll notice the improvement.
And I'm not aware of Yazoo vinyl re-releases...if they are done by Yazoo, they're probably pretty great.
Rich Nevins (owner of Yazoo and Shanachie) is a serious 78 collector and famously-fussy about remastering quality.
best,
bruce
-
And I'm not aware of Yazoo vinyl re-releases...if they are done by Yazoo, they're probably pretty great.
Rich Nevins (owner of Yazoo and Shanachie) is a serious 78 collector and famously-fussy about remastering quality.
They're out there:
http://www.forcedexposure.com/labels/yazoo.html (http://www.forcedexposure.com/labels/yazoo.html)
http://beta.forcedexposure.com/Labels/YAZOO.html (http://beta.forcedexposure.com/Labels/YAZOO.html)
The catalog lists LP and CD formats of various albums.
I don't know anything about them--looks like an aftermarket/third party re-issue. Perhaps it would be best to ask Rich.
-
stuart,
It looks like a legit Yazoo product (same artwork; same issue #s), but not remastered---just a repressing (on heavier vinyl) of the original Yazoo LPs. Amazon has them.
Whether Yazoo went back to the tapes and had new stampers made or used the stampers from the original run of LPs makes no difference....heavy vinyl or no, the sound quality will be no better than the original LPs.
The Yazoo CDs DO sound better (despite digital drawbacks previously mentioned) than the original LPs. So if the CD masters were used to make new stampers, I guess this run of vinyl could be better. Quien sabe?
best,
bruce
-
Bruce, thanks for the lowdown on 180 gr vinyl.
I thought the "Yazoo" vinyl reissues were not from Yazoo despite the cover art and logo. Thought they were bootlegs from Scorpio, but the Amazon listing for one McTell LP says Hi Horse Records: http://www.amazon.com/Early-Years-1927-1933-Willie-Mctell/dp/B0084O8OJS/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1359743533&sr=8-6&keywords=blind+willie+mctell+vinyl (http://www.amazon.com/Early-Years-1927-1933-Willie-Mctell/dp/B0084O8OJS/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1359743533&sr=8-6&keywords=blind+willie+mctell+vinyl)
-
Unca Bud---
Yikes! very confusing....the 180 gram issues (see Amazon's vinyl Blind Willie Johnson, "Praise God I'm Satisfied") say Yazoo as issuing company.
http://www.amazon.com/Praise-God-Satisfied-Gram-Vinyl/dp/B00ASBH5IG/ref=pd_rhf_dp_p_t_2_5N5F (http://www.amazon.com/Praise-God-Satisfied-Gram-Vinyl/dp/B00ASBH5IG/ref=pd_rhf_dp_p_t_2_5N5F)
McTell reissue makes no mention of 180 gram pressing. Bootleg pressing? Looks like it.
caveat emptor, fer sure.
best,
bruce
-
Weren't the original Yazoo CDs - e.g., Jefferson's "King of the Country Blues" - mere digital reproductions (with no remastering) of their LPs? Were the original Yazoo LPs remastered at all?
I'm not sure what could have been done back in those days =- other than turning the treble down - but about 15 years ago I listened to the early (1970s) Milestone LPs of BLJ and I don't recall hearing an excessive amount of surface noise. (The Milestone CD version in the early 1990s indicated NoNoise was used, but I think that was only for the CD.)
-
hey misterjones--
Weren't the original Yazoo CDs - e.g., Jefferson's "King of the Country Blues" - mere digital reproductions (with no remastering) of their LPs?
I don't think so, the CDs came out after Nevins bought the company and he did do some sonic work on the original tapes made from the 78s.
Were the original Yazoo LPs remastered at all?
When Nick Perls started Yazoo in NYC, as you say, not much was possible other than a good clean 78, the proper stylus and a very good turntable and tape deck. Perls had all this.
I'm not sure what could have been done back in those days =- other than turning the treble down - but about 15 years ago I listened to the early (1970s) Milestone LPs of BLJ and I don't recall hearing an excessive amount of surface noise. (The Milestone CD version in the early 1990s indicated NoNoise was used, but I think that was only for the CD.)
Right, NoNoise was for the CD---the technology didn't exist until Lucas made the 1st Star Wars film (the technology was a spin-off). Like you, I love the Milestone transfers of BLJ---still my favorite. The LPs were made from the metal parts, I think. Someone at Fantasy Records (Orin Keepnews or his brother Peter?) acquired the original 78 stampers somehow, I've been told. This may only be Audio Engineer Folklore, though.
best,
bruce
-
Milestone's BLJs seem to have taken many forms. Which are the ones you prefer? This is the one I listened to:
(https://weeniecampbell.com/yabbse/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs.discogss.com%2Fimage%2FR-150-2301150-1321508250.jpeg&hash=853dd0bb6d1062865e2b95947c7716cee17d445a)
I don't think the CD version is very good.
-
I just bought the "Bundle" from 3rd Man... $40 plus shipping...
8) 8) :)
-
I just bought the "Bundle" from 3rd Man... $40 plus shipping...
8) 8) :)
If you or anyone else could do a "side-by-side" comparison of these vs quality CD issues and report your observations, it would be appreciated.
-
I seem to recall an apocryphal story of Nick Perls manually splicing clicks out of the tapes...
-
See attachment
-
I remain skeptical that the new "Yazoo" LPs are officially authorized by any of the old Yazoo people.
But I wouldn't mind listening to that Cliff Edwards collection.
(https://weeniecampbell.com/yabbse/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmobile.collectorsfrenzy.com%2Fgallery%2F250967887577.jpg&hash=835760f8fb58d0f50a7170468a6aa44f7e7a1b4e)
-
Someone at Fantasy Records (Orin Keepnews or his brother Peter?) acquired the original 78 stampers somehow, I've been told.
My "mind's eye" can visualise a report of this as a Blues Unlimited, Blues World or Living Blues news item.
-
I remain skeptical that the new "Yazoo" LPs are officially authorized by any of the old Yazoo people.
I don't think Yazoo "authorized" them, but they certainly are aware of them. In contrast, the Secret Museum "Yazoo" LPs were done with some cooperation from Yazoo.
But I wouldn't mind listening to that Cliff Edwards collection.
(https://weeniecampbell.com/yabbse/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmobile.collectorsfrenzy.com%2Fgallery%2F250967887577.jpg&hash=835760f8fb58d0f50a7170468a6aa44f7e7a1b4e)
I have that rekkid! the real one! :)
Re: sound quality between LP and CD - i'm not enough of an audio nerd to care too much about the difference, but MAN, would I rather HOLD and LOOK AT an LP... for sure! Not to mention that it's pleasing in a way just to have the natural "intermission" of the two (or more) sides.
-
not to mention.... an LP that's slightly warped, has a scratch or some surface wear is usually playable and has most, if not all, the information on it intact... a CD in the same condition? It can be a real crap shoot.
LPs are a much more interesting document, overall.
-
not to mention.... an LP that's slightly warped, has a scratch or some surface wear is usually playable and has most, if not all, the information on it intact... a CD in the same condition? It can be a real crap shoot.
That's something I like a lot about vinyl. Analog media always seem more likely to degrade while digital has a tendency to fail catastrophically!
-
That's a cute thing that Jack White is doing regarding the Document albums, retro'ing them back into LPs. Would that he or someone like that would give me a leg up with the 80+ albums embedded in my unreleased field recordings from the 70s, mainly from the SE and all excellent, worthy stuff. But the issued material didn't sell all that well back in the day and I don't believe in miracles. Life is unfair.
Peter B.
-
hello friend,
this little tid-bit was in todays document records email
Each recording, taken from the Document vaults, has been revisited and painstakingly sound restored whilst taking great care to preserve the integrity of original the recordings found on these incredibly rare and historic items. Many being only one known copy to have survived.
kinda answers the "source" question.
-
Each recording, taken from the Document vaults, has been revisited and painstakingly sound restored whilst taking great care to preserve the integrity of original the recordings found on these incredibly rare and historic items.
I'm not sure this answers the source question. Whereas "taken from the Document vaults" suggests that original non-digital sources were used, the subsequent sound restoration might just have been the creation of new digital versions.
But if one must digitize the recordings to maximize sound restoration and if, once restored, a vinyl playback creates a better sound than a digital playback, then Document Records might be appropriately ultizing the best of both worlds.
Of course, there's the separate issue of what's in Document's vaults to begin with. My experience has been that the quality of these recordings to a certain extent has been superseded by other labels (notably Yazoo).
This further raises the question whether the best LPs would be straight vinyl copies of Yazoo's more recent CDs.
-
It occurs to me that there really is never going to be a "best" version of any of this stuff. Take songs like Pony Blues or Down The Dirt Road by Charley Patton. I have those songs from three sources, all fairly well remastered: The Yazoo King Of The Delta Blues CD, the Revenant box, and the Blues Images CDs. But If I'm really listening carefully to figure out a word or a note, I find that some parts of a given song are clearer on one CD, some on another.
So I guess the only thing to do is to keep getting Patton/McTell/Sheiks issue as it comes out. Eventually one would have dozens of versions of each song and all would become clear. :P
-
But wouldn't it make sense that the best-sounding (say) Patton recording be an LP version of the two recent Patton CDs? Or would I not be able to sense a difference between that LP and the CD? If the manner of playback (as opposed to creation) does not matter, then I suppose I should stick with my CDs.
-
As has been pointed out before, what's in the "Document vaults" ranges from good to really shitty, and sound quality was not at all what was driving the original project, it was assembling the most complete catalogue of recordings possible. That's why I buy them, to have access to complete recordings, rather than some carefully selected, mastered and annotated anthology. The sound and mastering quality on almost all Document releases is highly variable, to put it politely. So taking Document as a starting point for a project like this will not result in any kind of best sounding release, no matter how much it's tinkered with nor how warm vinyl sounds.
There are lots of reasons to complain about Document releases and people do. But until some miracle worker with unlimited cash reserves convinces all the mildly to seriously deranged owners of prewar blues 78s to hand over everyone one of their babies for the proper treatment, Document's what we got and I'm happy we've got it.
As for Third Man, comparing the Sheiks' sample on Soundcloud with the Document tells me at least some fiddling with EQ was done. Much brighter version of Jake Leg.
-
I remain skeptical that the new "Yazoo" LPs are officially authorized by any of the old Yazoo people.
I don't think Yazoo "authorized" them, but they certainly are aware of them. In contrast, the Secret Museum "Yazoo" LPs were done with some cooperation from Yazoo.
But I wouldn't mind listening to that Cliff Edwards collection.
(https://weeniecampbell.com/yabbse/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmobile.collectorsfrenzy.com%2Fgallery%2F250967887577.jpg&hash=835760f8fb58d0f50a7170468a6aa44f7e7a1b4e)
I have that rekkid! the real one! :)
Re: sound quality between LP and CD - i'm not enough of an audio nerd to care too much about the difference, but MAN, would I rather HOLD and LOOK AT an LP... for sure! Not to mention that it's pleasing in a way just to have the natural "intermission" of the two (or more) sides.
You said it Frankie. I found an lp by Man years back, it opens up with a huge self folding map of Wales. Try putting that in a jewel case. Cds don't smell either.
Adam.
-
I dug that LP out and played it yesterday. I inherited it from my late father-in-law who was a great crooner and played ukulele.
-
The Patton release has an alt take of 'Lord, I'm Discouraged' listed. There are apparently typos galore on these but I'm wondering if this is the real thing, I seem to be only able to see one take of that song on all my discs.
-
Great article here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2013/mar/07/jack-white-blues-artists (http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2013/mar/07/jack-white-blues-artists)
-
Volume 2 of the releases are now also available from the Document Records web site and The Third Man Records site. :-)
-
I have the first 3 Volumes, referred to at the top of the thread.
Honestly, from the "180 gram, super rich warm fidelity" angle - don't bother.
They sound fine, but not revelatory in any way if you already have and know these tracks. The "180 gram" thing is pretty much hogwash, the tracks are listed wrong on the Patton sleeve and the liner notes are embarrassing. Their author seemingly being a scribe-for-hire, having written books on the Stone Roses, Oasis, and Frankie Howerd(!). For a journalist, he is sadly unaware of the meaning of common English words such as 'infamous'.
"His highly stylistic guitar style soon started to gain infamous qualities..."
Vinyl is hip with 'the kids' - if sporting a modish beard and a few crates of vinyl at home, you're making a lifestyle statement that's both old-school hip and dramatically up-to-date.
Many of these kinds will buy any piece of crap that appears on the market as a 12" record, believing "it sounds better".
Because frequently old 1950's and 60s LPs *do* sound better than their washed out or artificially pumped-up CD or MP3 reissues, there's a reasonable basis for this assumption.
But there are companies the world over, far more interested in making some money from a credulous market segment than delivering any kind of fulsome musical experience.
One European company records commercially available CDs -for which it has no rights - and presses LPs from the CD recordings, then issuing the "warm, rich vinyl" in jackets that are a facsimile of the original. The company has a thriving business selling these titles in many parts of the world.
The ThirdMan/Document releases don't seem super-exploitative in that sense - but they are definitely appealing to the young vinyl hipster, and have not been very well done The inner labels excitedly claim "Made from VINYL. May Warp-Could Break!"
But if you can't even manage to get your track listing correct, the impression is of a pretty slapdash effort.
Having said all that, the Patton LP does have an alternate take of Lord I'm Discouraged which is not on the Revenant or JSP Patton sets.
I only know of it as being on one Document CD.
The Patton release has an alt take of 'Lord, I'm Discouraged' listed. There are apparently typos galore on these but I'm wondering if this is the real thing, I seem to be only able to see one take of that song on all my discs.
Worth the price of admission?
For Patton completists, maybe so.
-
I just listened.
There is no Alt Take - it's a different copy of the record is all.
Third Man list a 19 second difference between the "2 versions" - of the same recording!
Which is wrong and utterly bogus of them
There's "doing it right" and there's "doing it poorly".
This LP represents the latter.
-
Bruce, thanks for the lowdown on 180 gr vinyl.
I thought the "Yazoo" vinyl reissues were not from Yazoo despite the cover art and logo. Thought they were bootlegs from Scorpio, but the Amazon listing for one McTell LP says Hi Horse Records: http://www.amazon.com/Early-Years-1927-1933-Willie-Mctell/dp/B0084O8OJS/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1359743533&sr=8-6&keywords=blind+willie+mctell+vinyl (http://www.amazon.com/Early-Years-1927-1933-Willie-Mctell/dp/B0084O8OJS/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1359743533&sr=8-6&keywords=blind+willie+mctell+vinyl)
Anyone have any further information on the quality or sourcing of these Yazoo "reissues"?
-
Gary Atkinson Of Document Records ? Keeping The Blues Alive
https://downatthecrossroads.wordpress.com/2013/05/07/gary-atkinson-of-document-records-keeping-the-blues-alive/ (https://downatthecrossroads.wordpress.com/2013/05/07/gary-atkinson-of-document-records-keeping-the-blues-alive/)