Grimace, I'm with you. I research and try to do my due diligence not to purchase any more RVG remasters. It is amazing to me how much more presence, fullness and bass some cd's can add or take away from system performance. When I land a sonically-well extended Jazz cd , I say "yeah" and then I research the person doing the remastering and the label. I start looking for more of the classics remasterd by that individual. Recently a good sounding Jazz cd I purchased is "Tetragon" by Joe Henderson remastered by Phil de Lancie on the Fantasy label. Compared to my Blue note RVG remsaster of Joe Henderson "Page One," "Tetragon" has much more presence, fulness bass extension etc. I really dislike thin sound. The paricular software I use truly makes a big difference in my system performance. At the reverse, a Kenny Dorham Cd "Quiet Kenny" that I purchased in error(missed the RVG remaster label), lacks mid and low end weight-sounds rather thin on my system. I said before, for a fan of true classic jazz, hard bop etc. some of the greatest recordings of all time are part of the Blue note RVG series. It's unavoidable. I have quite a few of these recordings. I try to listen and just enjoy the artistry and forget about bass and mids weight. And for vinyl guys who would suggest I go vinyl- going vinyl is impossible for me right now. I don't have room for a turntable in my setup. In the future maybe.
Beating the RVG Horse
I wanted to throw yet another question out there related to the Rudy Van Gelder re-masters.
If you read any of the previous threads on this topic you might recall that I'm not a huge fan of the sound quality, generally finding the recordings to sound thin and tinny.
Ordinarily I try to stay away from the tone controls on my pre-amp, or as Rotel calls it “tone contouring” (I guess it’s sort of an internal EQ with four pre-set levels plus neutral). I try to stick with the sound as originally recorded on the grounds of trying to get a sound as true to originally played as possible. I do confess that this position is born out of some sort of ‘don’t mess with mother nature’ philosophy rather than any consideration to whether or not it sounds any better. Neurotic or not, I generally equate these things to touching up the Mona Lisa because you don’t like the color of the dress.
On the other hand, I have recently started playing around with the tone control on my pre-amp and found that –particularly with some of these thin RVG recordings, they do help to fill out the sound, even if it is by artificially boosting the bass.
Anyone have any thoughts on this kind of fiddling?
If you read any of the previous threads on this topic you might recall that I'm not a huge fan of the sound quality, generally finding the recordings to sound thin and tinny.
Ordinarily I try to stay away from the tone controls on my pre-amp, or as Rotel calls it “tone contouring” (I guess it’s sort of an internal EQ with four pre-set levels plus neutral). I try to stick with the sound as originally recorded on the grounds of trying to get a sound as true to originally played as possible. I do confess that this position is born out of some sort of ‘don’t mess with mother nature’ philosophy rather than any consideration to whether or not it sounds any better. Neurotic or not, I generally equate these things to touching up the Mona Lisa because you don’t like the color of the dress.
On the other hand, I have recently started playing around with the tone control on my pre-amp and found that –particularly with some of these thin RVG recordings, they do help to fill out the sound, even if it is by artificially boosting the bass.
Anyone have any thoughts on this kind of fiddling?
- ...
- 27 posts total
- 27 posts total