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?
grimace
Another thing, many of these early recordings 1956-59 were Hi Fi NOT stereo. Instead of adjusting or contouring your system see if it isn't recorded in stereo and just switch your system to MONO. I just did this with Lush Life by Coltrane and the sound is fuller. It is a Hi Fi recording,
I find most of the RVG recordings to sound pretty darn good on my system. That said, I don't have any originals to compare them to.
Qdrone: I recently got the RVG CD of "Outward Bound" [New Jazz/Concord]. It's the only version I have, but I don't think the tonal balances sound all that natural and the ride cymbal can be downright annoying. The whole thing has a certain 'mechanical' quality -- some might say "sterile" -- that suggests to me it may have been tinkered with a bit too much in remastering, but since there's no indication that it's been remixed maybe the original wasn't that great sounding either. Wish I had an older vinyl to compare -- my guess, based on other Prestige vinyls I have, is that this edition would probably sound fairly different.
I started a topic about the RVG remasters last year sometime. My POV: they are excessively bright (I also agree with "mechanical" and "sterile"). No one agreed with me. I concluded I am losing my mind, but now I must reconsider.
I have only a scant few of the original vinyl, but quite a few Classic Records re-issues. I also have a small selection of XRCDs. Anyone that has heard any of these three knows that the quality of the original master, while not always fantastic, still is capable of better sound than usually evidenced on the RVG re-masters.

I think the person/s doing the RVG re-masters has a "frequency rolloff" in the higher frequencies of his/her hearing.

I try to stick with vinyl and XRCD (and the less expensive K2 process) for most of my purchases these days.