HOLY sh*t (by Bill Evans)

[Calibrator]

I think Mani is on the Dark Side of the World now and is sleeping, so in the interim, have a look here ......

http://www.dynamicrange.de/free-downloads

It's a plugin for Foobar. It's OK though ... you don't have to listen to the tracks and the process is nice and quick. Further explanations of what the DR value means on that site also.

Cheers,

Russ

[crisnee]

Hey thanks a lot Russ,

I figured he might be on the dark side, so I had resigned myself to a bit of a wait.

-Chris

[PeterSt]

Stratus ...

And not coincidentally this is one of my test albums because it is so hard to sound right on the cymbals ...
(these days working infinitely better than a few years back)

Peter

[Flecko]

There was a time when I used the first track of the cd for testing purposes. It sounds very much like a real drum set. Somehow I did not included that track in my music test library. And to my shame there are some tracks in the list which have a DR of only 6 to 10. These tracks are electronic music and one metal track. This kind of music always seems to be in the 6db dynamic range. If sombody knows electronic musik with a DR>10 I would be interested. But there also are 5 tracks with DR 10-13 to save my reputation.  I am really surprised that no DR13-17 was included. But I was more looking for very clean recordings. The high DR files I have, are in that respect maybe not state of the art or my ears are tainted by all the low DR music. I think one problem with high DR tracks is, that they are really more demanding for the stereo system and they need to be listened with a higher volume, which I can not do in my flat (luckily this will change).

[manisandher]

Mani, if you don't mind, what program are you using to measure the dynamic range? And what exactly do the numbers mean?

Chris, you've no doubt already looked at the link that Russ provided. But just in case you haven't had a chance to yet, here is the main description:

"The DYNAMIC RANGE METER displays the inner dynamics of a recording in whole numbers or more precisely the inner grade of compression (micro dynamic). The macro dynamic (difference from pianissimo to the fortissimo in a song) is not considered, because it wouldn´t deliver usable information about the degree of density.

... this is the average cumulative difference between peak and loudness (RMS) over a specific period of time (duration of a song or album) and is a whole number value given in decibels. Just the top 20% of the loudness are taken into consideration to ensure that songs with a long intro and and over compressed refrain doesn´t appear with a too high DR value."

The highlight is mine.

So it's not the difference between the loudest and the softest but rather the loudest and the RMS, which is a more useful number... and also explains why it's nowhere near as high a number as the actual medium can accomodate (e.g. 96dB for CD).

Mani.

[manisandher]

I think one problem with high DR tracks is, that they are really more demanding for the stereo system and they need to be listened with a higher volume, which I can not do in my flat (luckily this will change).

In the past, I've blown up the bass drivers of pretty expensive speakers a couple of times playing the 1812 SACD. This has artificial (I believe) cannons that really are waaaay too loud compared to the 'real' music. I think this sort of dynamic range is ridiculous. The Reference Recording 24/176.4 that I cited earlier (DR 15) is verging on too much DR for practical listening (especially because the very dynamic bits are pretty low frequencies).

I tend to agree with the PMF guys - a DR of 14 is a good target to aim for for (non-techno/dance) music.

EDIT: From the PMF site - "Because of the not considered macro dynamics, values higher than DR14 doesn´t make much sense."

Mani.

[crisnee]

Mani, Thanks for your second reply, that's the info I was looking for, but somehow missed. I did go to the site right away (downloaded the plugin) but somehow managed to miss the info. I'll have to hunt it down, in case there's more.

In fact I was surprised by how little info there seemed to be, as I was pretty sure the Dynamic Range Meter had to be using some pretty specific and specialized criteria to come up with such small numbers. I think it might be useful if the meter also gave the complete dynamic range (excluding something like the lowest 5% and the the first and last few seconds of each track--to avoid fade outs/ins and the like). It would help differentiate all those 11-13 Dynamic range recordings.

-Chris

[crisnee]

Here's an interesting quote from the DR website (Our Aim page).

"The DR system is intended to avoid black and white judgment of dynamic quality. While DR7 is low for rock music or very low for Jazz, it is quite acceptable for electronic club music which has nowadays often values below DR4. All values above DR12 have generally a high dynamic quality."

Also I was reading about some digital remaster guys from MCA and Rhino in particular, guys who cared and had a sterling reputation. One of them (Steve Hoffman) said that tapes from before 1967 were bullet proof, from 1967 - 1974 they were less so and from 1974 on they would often deteriorate significantly within two years. He was talking about this in the early 90's I think. I mention this because tape deterioration has been mention a few times in this thread. Evidently the older the tape the better the chance it is still good.

He also mentioned how amazingly many masters, eq'd masters and copies etc. of given material there is, and how most of them are cr*p. And that the most difficult part, by far, of creating a good remaster is finding the original, about 90% of the effort. He also mentioned that tape deterioration was never a problem for him when dealing with pre 1967, and only a minor problem pre '74.

-Chris

[PeterSt]

Very interesting Chris. Thanks for letting this know.
(and yes, Steve Hoffman is really to be trusted. Btw, he likes the JVC remaster of Debby the best, and what I got from it this is not about an XRCD version (which also exists)).

[pedal]

Also I was reading about some digital remaster guys from MCA and Rhino in particular, guys who cared and had a sterling reputation.

Interesting! I have been digging into these matters too. Do you have a link?

[Scroobius]

Hi All

I have been away and missed this thread (unfortunately!! what a thread). I have to say that Bill Evans Waltz for Debby is outstanding and right up there as one of the great recordings of the era (some transients are startling) as you have pointed out here. BUT what about all those other great sounding albums from the same era. I made the point in http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=1740.0 it seems that just about every album I listen to from that era (late 50's to mid / later 60's) are really great sounding through NOS1. Those old Ella recordings clear, dynamic, stage depth, details never heard before - I am still shocked (pleasantly) when I listened to them and all my other old recordings.

All would be recording engineers (that care about sound quality - probably not many granted) and all hi-fi manufacturers should be made to listen to these recordings via NOS1 to hear a how music should be recorded and b. how they should be played back. It is just such a great shame that so many enthusiasts may never know the quality that lurks within those old recordings.

I am listening to Stravinsky-L'histoire Du Soldat & Respighi Rossiana a 24/96 download from High Definition Tape Transfers. I know about the controversy about HiRes downloads but all I know is this sounds great - really great. It is a 1957 2 track recording. I think it would probably sound good in 16/44 the point for me is the basic quality of that 1957 recording. Just superb.

As I said before the biggest shock about NOS1 is how it plays old recordings.

Interestingly I have only come to fully appreciate the above after replacing my expensive speaker cables with really stupidly cheap d.i.y. replacements I will be commenting soon in "Gainclone Heaven" - and I have only taken the first step there is much more to come - mouthwatering.

And then again again my NOS1 has not been upgraded to the latest USB version yet - what a thought 

All the best

P

[crisnee]

Also I was reading about some digital remaster guys from MCA and Rhino in particular, guys who cared and had a sterling reputation.

Interesting! I have been digging into these matters too. Do you have a link?

Sorry, no link. It's a book published for the Kindle. Really it's three interviews conducted in the early 90s or late 80s. The two main interviews are of Steve Hoffman and the guy from Rhino at the time. The book is "The Men with the Golden Ears," by Tom Graves.

-Chris

[Flecko]

Thinking about this old recordings and the DR problem, it is very interesting and somehow mind opening. I am just about to realize, how good this old records could be and I am so surprised what was possible back then. Still, for me the reference is zappas "one size fits all" but I will listen to the bill evans record and as much other advices from you too, for sure. There is a trend for more than one band I know of ->the older the record ->the better the sound, which already I noted earlier. But I didn't expected that this trend could be followed so far in the past, like the 60's.

In the beginning of the thread there was a speculation about how the mastering of the Bill Evans record was done. It seems obvious that it must have been tubes but just to have some prove and it is interesting. Here is the picture of one CD where is an advertisement on the cd, saying it is mastered with tube electronics by Doug Sax. http://pixhost.me/pictures/1084394

In the past, I've blown up the bass drivers of pretty expensive speakers a couple of times playing the 1812 SACD. This has artificial (I believe) cannons that really are waaaay too loud compared to the 'real' music. I think this sort of dynamic range is ridiculous. The Reference Recording 24/176.4 that I cited earlier (DR 15) is verging on too much DR for practical listening (especially because the very dynamic bits are pretty low frequencies).

I do not listen to the DVD-A often. I don't like this artifcial dynamic too. The soundquality of the music is very much reduced to make this BOOM possible and the fear to destroy the bass, makes it also not so pleasent to listen to it.

"The DR system is intended to avoid black and white judgment of dynamic quality. While DR7 is low for rock music or very low for Jazz, it is quite acceptable for electronic club music which has nowadays often values below DR4. All values above DR12 have generally a high dynamic quality."

Yep, it must be like this. Record a drumset without anything else and you will get the "biggest" DR possible. Adding further instruments must reduce DR. So if you are ending up with high distortion staccato e-guitars and bass, the DR can not be that high.

[crisnee]

Re why the old recordings are often very good.

Given basic good quality equipment (which surprisingly they seemed to have had back in those late 50's and early 60's dark ages) I think basic recording techniques and simplicity were the key factors. They didn't have all the fancy options, funding to employ them, and as many marketing concerns and as much interference from the money men. So once they got the tracks down on tape, all the info was there in fairly unadulterated form ready for a good remasterer to bring to cd. And since audio systems are better today (for the most part) then they were back then, they can enable us to hear further into these old recordings.

Sure, new "masters" were created from those originals and they were often eq'd to death and denoised and what not, but a determined and vigilant remasterer (for lack of a better term) usually found the original and therefore had lots of good information to work with, and could come out with the very good cds we are lucky enough to find today on occasion. I say on occasion because unfortunately most of the remasterers were neither determined nor vigilant and often remastered from the most eq'd and denoised masters--or the first masters--they came across in the vaults (and apparently there are dozens or more per recording). So apparently it was not a question of poor tape quality or the like, but rather poor human quality.

According to something I was reading, sometimes when the good guys came across heavily eq'd masters and couldn't find the originals they were able to de-eq them, at least to a degree. I'm curious how they went about doing that. Did they just apply the opposite eq of what they determined was used on the tapes? If so, that sounds like a pretty messy process.

It would be nice if we could compile a list of high quality remasters somewhere (Here or at CA or...?) so that it wouldn't be such a hit and miss operation when it comes to finding/buying them. For instance Steve Hoffman from MCA or Bill Inglot from Rhino stuff is probably all very good, but they seemed to have done mostly oldies, and how does one find cds by remasterer (they were usually not even listed in the early cd days when these guys reigned).

-Chris
 

[Flecko]

I have organized three different version of Bill Evans Waltz for Debby record.
1. Analogue Production Gold CD, Remasterd by Doug Sax using Tube Equipment 1992
2. Riverside Remaster 2000
3. Riverside Remaster 2010

And I got the 2002 JVC remaster of Bill Evens Sunday at the village vanguard. It was recorded at the same place and, if I am right, at the same session. I could not find the JVC remaster of waltz for debby, so I used this one to make myself an oppinion about the quality of the sound.

1. Analogue Production:
I like this record the most. It has an incredible ambience. You have the feeling you are there, in the bar, drinking and listening. Somewhere people are talking. You sometimes hear a glas clanking. The room is deep and wide and completly coherent. From the first note I can relax, just listening. You hear it is an old record. The Piano has a slight distortion in the sound but it doesn't bother. The cymbals of the drumset sound very smooth. The contrabass is decent and natural. (DR~14)

2. Riverside Remaster 2000
The sound is more steril. The ambience is not as deep and involving. It sounds slightly unnatural due to its compression. Nothing more to say. (DR~11)

3. Riverside Remaster 2010
The instruments sound the most clean of all remasters. The drumset is quieter than on the AP record. All instruments have slightly more substance. But this comes at a price. The sound engineers try to make the record very quiet. They lowered the noise floor and also background noises. They did this too much in my opinion. The ambience got lost and it sounds more like a studio recording. The sound stage is weird. The piano and the drum set seems like they would be in different rooms. While I am listening, I have the feeling that "someone" tryes to surpress the background noises and so I can not relax. If you don't like background noises and you want to have the sound more like in a studio production than a live recording, this version could be your choice. (DR~13)

4. JVC Remaster 2002 of Sunday at the Village Vanguard
Now I am comparing a little apples and oranges because these are not the same songs. I would say, the JVC remaster is well done. It is not to dry, like the 2010 remaster, or to compressed, like the 2000 remaster. But it can not create this 3D soundstage as the AP record. It sounds a little cold. You are not as much there, you feel more like a spectator. (DR~14)

In general I would not say this is an aboslute benchmark for recording technology. I hear a slight overdrive especially in the sound of the Piano. Also the noise floor is a little higher. Modern records can do better in these respects. But in terms of "beeing there" and getting involved to the event, it can be taken as reference. First af all the Analogue Production mastering is strongly recommended. Beside recording and mastering, the music is just wonderfull. I am not a Jazz guy but this one is considered to be essential Jazz.