Print

Print


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Don Cox" <[log in to unmask]>
> On 01/06/07, Tom Fine wrote:
> > Was anyone ever able to use digital tools and make those recordings
> > anything approaching decent sounding? All I have is the Book of the
> > Month Club reissue of the the Milestone LP produced by Orrin Keepnews
> > and remastered for BOMC at Fantasy in 1974. The sound quality is so
> > poor that I consider it unlistenable. I understand the limitations of
> > the original source material but wonder if any digi-magic was later
> > invented that improved the listening experience at all?
> 
> I suggest "King Oliver's Creole Jazz Band - The Complete Set", a 2 CD
> set on the Retrieval label. (RTR 79007).
> 
> These transfers by John R T Davies are probably as good as we are going
> to get. I think the crucial part of the process happens at the analog
> stage, in the choice of turntable, stylus size, playback speed and
> pre-amp. No amount of digital processing will help if the initial
> transfer is sub-standard.
> 
> Played through good equipment, I find these transfers to be
> definitely listenable, although not of course as good as electrical
> recordings from a few years later. 
> 
> I think the main problem with these and similar recordings is an effect
> like limiting. Somehow the acoustic process seems to reduce the dynamic
> range above a certain level. Possibly processing with a limiter set to
> expand would help - it would need some experimentation. Often it is
> better to leave the sound alone and let your brain do the processing.
> 
> 
> > The awful-sounding Gennett records were made in 1923. Just 2 years
> > later, Okeh made some decent-sounding Armstrong Hot Fives records in
> > Chicago. I have those on a Columbia reissue LP "The Louis Armstrong
> > Story Vol 1", I seem to have a very late (70s) pressing of this
> > record, which the notes indicate was issued at the dawn of the LP era,
> > so back in the late 40's the Columbia engineers must have done
> > disk-to-disk transfers, I would guess from Okeh metal parts.
> 
> Those are electrical recordings. There was an enormous improvement in
> quality when electrical recording replaced acoustic. 
> 
> Again, the best transfers are those by JRT Davies. They are in a bargain
> 4-CD box on the JSP label. Sony have a similar box but it is not as
> good.
> 
Okeh..."for the record" (to make an apalling pun...!)...

It is quite possible that the Okeh sides were NOT electric! In the
1924-25 period, Brunswick, Okeh, and (oddly enough) Columbia made
substantial improvements to their acoustic recording processes...to
the point it is sometimes hard to tell whether a recording of that
period is acoustic or electric!

The applicable question here is not too hard to define...though
difficult to answer! "Is it possible, using a recording of
admitted (but not accurately defined) sonic inaccuracy, to
recreate using digital methods an accurate recreation of
EXACTLY what was recorded using earlier inaccurate methods?!"

Comment ca va?

Steven C. Barr