HOLY sh*t (by Bill Evans)

[PeterSt]

Ok, I don't think I am like this title. Or at least not in writing. But this time I feel it is necessary.

In the other topic (Peter's best Classic Rock recordings/cds/remasters) somewhere along the lines I started to talk about the actually crazy good SQ coming from older material. We talked about the nature of sound of recordings from end 60's early 70's. And how it seems to be much better than today.

Phasure NOS1 owner already know : Yes, that old stuff suddenly seems to sound "great" while before it just sounded bad to today's well recorded material. But to be honest "great" only means that we can suddenly normally listen to it, and nostalgic values come across.
In that other topic -maybe a week ago- I already mentioned that the my current NOS1 USB apparently is still breaking in. I'm not even sure anymore on what parts exactly, but in the past month(s) I had to exchange DAC board and I/V, and on the USB board too there are some elco's which need breaking in. And, day by day it gets better and better, up to the extreme of that old stuff now (still seemingly) sounding BETTER than today's good recordings. But, they too improve, and I'm not sute what will be happening each other night pressing play for the first time ...

But now there was yesterday;
It was by accident that I went back in time even further; AlainGr pointed me indirectly at Waltz for Debby by The Bill Evans Trio, because a HiRes version of it popped up at HDTracks, and listening to AlainGr who said that sounds superb, I thought to play the CD version of it (I don't have the HiRes ... yet).

WOW

I have never ever heard anything like this. It is my miles and miles and miles the far best recording I have ever experienced. Recording ? man, sheer live !!
Ehm, this is from 1961.

Dinner was postponed by half an hour, because we both listened with complete open mouth to what was happening and how it could be. Yes, imagine two people standing with real open mouth of amazement. Heck, I wouldn't even know how to describe this. All normal properties lack. Must find new properties. Drool-factor or something.

In that other topic I talked about brushes being so difficult but with today's playback means all so apparent. But apparent. Not live yet. But now this ? wow wow wow
And I thought I knew a few things ...

For the very first time suddenly all was in complete balance. Yes, including cymbals being as loud as they should be. And you know what ? they didn't disturb one single bit. Loud as can be, and completely normal. Maybe for better judgement sticks should have been used too, because as far as we listened through the album this was brushes only.

I really, really don't know what is happening. How can this be ? what did they use for recording ? what could they use for recording means back then ?
I am totally flabbergasted ...

Peter

[GerardA]

Tubes?

[PeterSt]

For sure no FETs.

[Gerard]

Something as simple as your own recording? Did you tried that again?

 

[PeterSt]

I did not try that again, but already the other day (that day it was so increadibly hot here I recall) I explicitly said that this "own recording" wasn't the best anymore. So, somehow "it" is able to catch up. Why something like that "my own recording" doesn't need to catch up but is so very ok right from the start ... maybe some day we will understand ...

[Nick]

Peter,

I was looking out of interest to see if the LP is a direct to vinyl disk mastered recording and came across this.

"The trio recorded four albums: Portrait in Jazz (1959); and Explorations, Sunday at the Village Vanguard, and Waltz for Debby, all recorded in 1961. The last two albums are live recordings from the same recording date, and are routinely named among the greatest jazz recordings of all time."

(Quote from Wikipedia on Bill Evans 1960 recordings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Evans)

It seems the recording is generally very highly rated, its still amazing how this could be captured so well in the very early 1960s.

Nick.

[manisandher]

Hi guys, I'd like to get hold of this myself to have a listen. But which version are you listening to? Is it the 2010 remastered addition as shown in the attachment?

I would get hold of the HDTracks hidef version, but I'm refusing to buy anything else from them until they can ensure that none of their 'high def' stuff has been derived from 16/44.1 PCM originals.

Cheers,
Mani.

[manisandher]

According to the the Steve Hoffman website (http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/archive/index.php/t-249217.html) the 24/96 and 24/192 versions were transferred from the original master tapes to digital by Paul Stubblebine... using a PM2. In which case, I stongly suspect they'll be the real deal.

Oh well, it looks like I'm buying the 24/192 version from HDTracks today... Both my NOS1s are down at the moment (being prepared to be shipped back to their Master for an upgrade), but I'll let you know how it sounds on my PM2

Mani.

[PeterSt]

Hey Mani,

I was talking about the original 1961 version (but don't ask me when the transfer to CD happened).

If I were you I would not buy the Hires version. I will be back later about this ...

Peter

[Flecko]

I listened a lot to frank Zappas "one size fits all" in the last weeks. The music is great, but it is also one of the most involving and best sounding records I have. It is from the 70s. My theory: Today it is very easy to make recordings in a very good quality. And it is even easier to ruin the sound by usage of to much effects and processing. At the moment I am mixing the recordings of my band with a friend who is also in the band. We made a mix with just the minimum effects needed. On many instruments we used no effects or just slight equaliser settings. Because we both are no professionals, we asked a guy who is studiing "Sound Engineer". We wanted to learn how some effects are used or what we can do to improve the record. So, we gave him the tracks of a song. What we got back: A mix with unnatural sound, too much reverb, too much highs and so on... It was nice of him to help us and I am thankfull to learn but it showed me, that something is wrong in the education of our sound engineers. They lost the sense for the music. He send his library of 300 effects to my friend, so we can play a little. I mean, 300 effects??? Who the hell needs this?
If the engineer does not ruin the sound, it will happen when the cd is pressed. I made an interesting experience at an hi-fi dealer who showed me a master cd and the version for the market. There was an obvious difference in sound quality. After all, I do not wonder why old recordings can sound very good. People were more concentrated on the music itself and not in 300 effects they like to try. Plus Frank was a genius and I am sure he did the mix by himself, as he "controlled" everything in the band

[crisnee]

Flecko, I think you've got something there.

I did some recording of me as a one man band back in the 80's. I recorded onto a 4 track TEAC 3.5 speed cassette deck (not exactly super quality  ) Guitars (electric and acoustic) bass, flute, some percussion and voice with some overdubbing and minimal effects. I even lost the original and only had a copy on regular cassette to transfer (cheaply) to digital. I'm still amazed how decent it sounds. Noisy of course--tape hiss and such, but more musical sounding and enjoyable to listen to then some "professional," big act recordings. And I'm not talking about the quality of the music itself, just the sound.

I've also often heard the story that many recording engineers listen to poor quality speakers, so that they hear what they expect their audience to hear (what it might sound like in a car or an mp3 player) and then equalize and add effects accordingly. If that's true, or when it's true, that would also have a considerable affect. One would probably exaggerate things to make them more noticeable for the lesser quality systems. After all audiophiles don't listen to er, say Black Sabbath, or Rap master so-and-so. 

-Chris

[AlainGr]

Hi,

I did not have the chance to listen to the redbook CD from the Bill Evans Trio ("Waltz for Debby"), bit I am quite sure that it is fabulous, because the sound recording is.

I admit I am an hi-res addict. Something happend 4 days ago though and I am not sure I will stay on that track, unless there is a good description about where it comes from, when it was done and what was done. Keep clear of the Deep Purple "Machine Head" offered in a 24/96 flavour ! It is a surround downmixed in 2 channels and there are a lot of flaws in the spatial representation of the instruments. The sound is good, but the reste if awful.

I was so angry that I wrote to them about my perceptions and the results of my findings. The first person who answered me did not do anyting, but the second offered me to pick another album. At least there is customer service out there.

As for the Bill Evans Trio, while I can't compare with redbook, the hi-res version is good, very good. If all hi-res were like this one, I would not have the slightest distrust to go buying those that interest me.

I leave 2 links: one leads to the Hdtracks page where the Bill Evans Trio is. Read the paragraph about what was done with the master tapes.

https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=catalogdetail&valbum_code=HX00888072330030

As for the other, there is an interview with Ted de Paravicini. The guy is quite interesting ! He can take a professional reel to reel that has a standard frequency response of 20 hz to 15 khz and bring it back with a frequency response of 7 hz to 35 khz. We are talking about an analog reel to reel tape here...

http://ear-usa.com/timdeparavicini.htm

Quite amazing !

Alain

[PeterSt]

Had the opportunity to try a next one. Just searched for 1961 ...

First one was from Art Blakey. Same story. As good. But, I don't like Art Blakey that much, so turned that off after a few minutes, and went on for the next one.

Next in sequence was a Dave Brubeck. Great again.
One thing, I had difficulties with recognizing the lead instrument. Same instrument as always (with Brubeck), but suddenly I couldn't tell. This doesn't seem a good thing, BUT, I am used to how this instrument normally sounds through my speakers.
Anyway, it appeared to be an alt-sax.


Before this all, I experimented with Bill Evans from yesterday again. So, let's say I got used to that sound for an hour or so. Right after that I thought to play anything "normal" again. Normal, but older (70's).
Hmm ... that sounded digital.
Can be a coincidence, and I only tried two. Then I was fed up with that, and hopped to the 61's I wrote about above ...

[PeterSt]

Waltz for Debby - HiRes ...

Ok, I could get hold of some test tracks, and these are the results. Of course it is my perception of it, and you may perceive it differently.

First idea : Totally unrecognizeable.
Second : Cymbals are too tihin.
Third : What the heck happened.
Fourth : Graphs from the tracks I could compare almost look like they are different tracks.
Fifth : Denoising noise audible.
Sixth : All the balance has gone.
Seventh : Nice all that audience, but this is too much of it.
Eight : No freshness anymore.
Nineth : where are the piano harmonics.

So, in this sequence things came to me. Here are some additional remarks :

Ad 4.
Comparison is not easy because of the different bit depth and sample rate. But I tried.
What I seem to see from it is that the HiRes contains more (in audio band) noise. A dangerous thing to conclude (because of actually looking at apples and oranges).
Looking at the wave plot itself, it seems clear that the sharp dynamics have gone. Also see 8.

Ad 6.
Nothing is forward anymore. Someone is playing in the far back some piano. Drums are as far away. Interest has gone. Also see 7.

Ad 1/3.
In combination with not seeing the wave plot the same (like it's another performance) I don't see what happened. I see bursts in the wave which are not there on the original, and the other way around. I must add though that I heard strange clicks as well, and with the tracks not being being equal in length, possibly pieces have been cut out.
The track numbers are not the same either, hence the sequence of the tracks seem to have changed. Why ? beats me, as the original already had silence between each track (this is a live recording). Someone muct have thought he was smarter in the sequence.

Ad 5.
At stages there is quite loud noise audible which isn't in the original at all. At first I thought (and expected !!) to listen to a deteriorated tape (also see 4), but later (ear in speaker) I recognized it clearly as denoising noise. The most bad part of this is that it breaks up the sound at a high frequency. Also, it will cut out the higher frequencies, and this is very audible. Also see 8.
I also seem to recognize an unevenness in the appliance of the denoising, which in the end makes me thing again about deteriorated tape. Notice that tapes may wear more on one side of the reel than the other (not meaning top vs bottom).

Ad 7.
At some stage I thought there must have been a separate feed for the audience, and this was supposed to be a Jazz at the Pawnshop #34. Later I thought that they would be moving microphones closer and farther to/from the artists.
Again later I thought all would be moot, because something just ain't right anymore. Don't try to make logic out of that.

I can say more, but the most important is that the fun has gone.
Btw, when I yesterday posted "don't buy the HiRes", this was my brief message after being 20 seconds into the first track I listened to. It really doesn't need more, BUT, you'd have to have the original first. without that, I guess you can only wonder about how they got the quality together, and undoubtedly you will be sure it is about the HiRes thing.
But it is not at all.

If Paul Stubblebine did this, U may have a message for him : stay out of denoising, or don't accept the project at all.
And, get something decent to listen through !
I mean, I really don't see the reason to lower yourself with failing productions like this.

Besides te denoising, I'm not sure how harmful the (??) conversions may have been. I see other things in the plot which don't belong there. Otoh, the denoising makes proper judgement fuzzy. So I can't tell really.

About the 210 remaster ... I just looked, and the track sequence seems the same as the HiRes one (I am doing this by heart now). Maybe it says something. But I have the hunch these both are actually the same, though the "2010 remaster" is 16/44.1 of course.

After some search, this must be the one I have : http://www.bol.com/nl/p/muziek/waltz-for-debby/1000004001303909/index.html
Notice the 10 tracks on this 2006 reissue, while the original-original contained 6 tracks. But :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waltz_for_Debby_(1961_album) seems to tell that the various issues contain different takes of the same track (names) anyway. This may well explain how the tracks look totally different, and sound different as well.

Here's the Hires track sequence : https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=catalogdetail&valbum_code=HX00888072330030
And the 2010 Remaster tracks : http://www.amazon.com/Waltz-Debby-Bill-Evans-Trio/dp/B003YOMN68 (track 8 is additional).


I hope I did this all a bit right ...
Peter

[manisandher]

If I were you I would not buy the Hires version. I will be back later about this ...

Too late! But I wanted to compare the hires with the CD version you have anyway. I've just ordered the CD so haven't been able to listen to it yet. But even when it arrives, I won't have a NOS1 up and running, so I'm not sure if I'll be listening to it in its full glory.

But for now, the hires sounds very good through the PM2. BUT I discovered something that I think I will now need to look into further:

I downloaded the hires from HDTracks last night and wanted to listen to it. But it was late, and I didn't want to disturb my wife who was sleeping in the living room next door. So I switched on the Berning Siegfried amp and listened to the album through my AKG K-1000 headphones (I haven't used the Berning/AKG combo for months and months). I'm not meaning to 'show off' here, I just want to make it clear that the replay chain was about as transparent as I've ever heard. Now, the Berning has a built-in volume pot, so I set XXHE to -0dB and listened. The piano sounded so sweet. The bass just right. Yes, way too much audience noise, but otherwise very nice. And then I thought I'd try it with XXHE set to -3dB and the Berning pot increased just a little. The sound was pretty much destroyed. Dull, dull, dull. All the sweetness was gone.

I'm going to explore this further...

Mani.