Re: [ARSCLIST] Pristine's rework of Robert Johnson

[Ryan Jurison <du_box@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tom:
 
That makes a good deal of sense to me. I listened to the Johnson sample earlier this evening, and it just sounded generally "off" to me. I hadn't listened to the CBS/Sony reissue in some time, so when I got home, I A/B'd the c.d.'s with the online sample, and could really tell the difference. 
 
I simply asked myself, "If I were to play one of the two versions for someone who had never heard of Robert Johnson before, which would I choose to play?" The answer was clearly the CBS/Sony version. 
 
I guess my question is this: when most companies are preparing older records for reissue on CD, how much thought is given to the end user? Do they generally process the recordings more heavily for a commercially-oriented release, and more conservatively for archivists and "serious listeners?" Or do companies try and strike as much of a compromise as possible between the two groups?
 
The reason I ask is that, while a pretty young person, myself, I was exposed to quite a lot of older recordings growing up. My parents were always playing old Louis Armstrong records, and most of the music I heard as a child was recorded before 1950, but reissued on cassette, and then CD. As I grew older and started picking my own music to listen to, I've found that I still tend to listen to older music. Consequently, I became quite used to a certain level of fidelity that many people my age probably couldn't stand. 
 
I'll have to see if I can't corral some friends my age and have them A/B the two versions, to see which they prefer. 
 
Thanks for your opinions on these matters. While new to this world, it is something I'm very highly interested in
pursuing professionally.
-Ryan
 
> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 20:10:43 -0500> From: tflists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Pristine's rework of Robert Johnson> To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Hi Ryan:> > The fool's errand by tin-eared computer jockeys posing as audio engineers is to try and convert > these old disks to "having very clean and more modern sound." It can't be done. When you try you get > all sorts of junk artifacts like are heard on that Robert Johnson sample. I would question the > qualifications of an audio "professional" who finds that work acceptable and I certainly would never > trust their ears or taste on any project with which I was involved. Some casual listeners -- I would > suggest people with damaged hearing -- may find it strangely pleasing.> > A better approach was taken for the CBS/Sony reissue of the complete Robert Johnson, which became a > surprise heavy-seller in the early 1990's. They tracked down as good sources as existed (as I > understand it, few if any metal parts of these recordings exist anymore), cleaned them properly and > played them back on the right equipment. And they used minimal digi-tools like CEDAR so the life > isn't sucked out of them. The "penalty" for being more musical and thus technically conservative is > a good dose of surface noise. However, the surface noise is a consistent pattern in the background, > so the brain ignores it. Johnson's voice and guitar stand out above the din and are not corrupted > and further distorted by digi-hash at the most annoying frequencies. The digi-hash in the > over-processed sample is akin to fingernails on a blackboard and of an inconsistent pattern so it > jumps right out and distracts the brain.> > The key knowledge to transfer work and remastering old source material, in my opinion, is to > understand the limits of the source medium and try to maximize its sonic good points and minimize > its sonic problems. This does not mean try to make something of limited frequency range and limited > fidelity sound like a "modern" recording. With 78's,
Art Shifrin -- start with the best source material available, clean it properly, play it back > properly (speed, stylus, EQ), transfer it cleanly in a non-complicated transfer chain, manually > "write out" the worst pops and ticks and ... do little else!> > -- Tom Fine> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ryan Jurison" <du_box@xxxxxxxxxxx>> To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 6:40 PM> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Pristine's rework of Robert Johnson> > > I generally stick to reading most of the discussions on this list, but this brought up some > interesting thoughts for me. Now, it should be noted that I have extremely limited experience with > audio engineering, and absolutely no professional experience, so I come from the vantage point of > someone who, at this time, merely enjoys listening to vintage records, primarily through CD > reissues. I have, however, recently begun collecting 78's, but am still quite new to that.> > With that preface in mind, I do think that having very clean and more modern sounding versions of > these old records is sort of a mixed blessing. For all the increased clarity, and ability to pick up > subtleties that might have been previously obscured by the limitations of records that are 70 + > years old, there will be a loss of a certain charm. I'm 24, so I have no nostalgic feelings about > "shellac noise," having rarely and only recently heard it in person, but even on the CD reissues, > the surface noise transferred over retains an approximation of fact, for me... you're listening to > an old record on a modern CD, but it still sounds like an old record!> > Particularly when it comes to guys like Robert Johnson, Blind Willie Johnson, Charley Patton, and > many other great bluesmen and women, the records wouldn't sound "right" all perfectly cleaned up, in > my opinion. While I can appreciate the academic and otherwise useful nature of a perfect and > blemish-free sound, at what point does it liken to trying to photograph a child's finger paintings > with
a-half.> > -Ryan> > > > > Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:19:31 -0800> From: rodbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: [ARSCLIST] > > Pristine's rework of Robert Johnson> To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Folks,> > Regarding the > > sample track of Robert Johnson's "Ramblin' On My Mind" > on the Pristine Classical website, I > > listened to it several days ago > when it was first brought to our attention. I liked it well > > enough. I > didn't take time that day to compare it with other versions I had on > hand, but it > > seemed to me the XR remastered version sounded clearer > and truer, overall a bit closer to > > "hi-fi", than the reissues I'd > heard in the past. I was well aware of the digital hash, but I > > didn't > consider it a deal-breaker necessarily.> > I love doing freelance audio restoration of > > older audio sources, > usually using Audition or Sound Forge. I look forward to being able > to > > afford better software some sweet day. Meanwhile, I apply my noise > reduction tools > > conservatively. I'm 54, and old enough to find that > shellac noise sometimes offers me pleasantly > > nostalgic feelings. I > don't feel a need to remove it all. I've been doing this for over ten > > > years now, and have contributed noise-reduction work to a > well-regarded local re-issue label.> > > > In doing audio restoration, one will often be faced with trade-offs. > For example, I can have > > less background noise and an arguably better > overall sound on a given recording, if I can live > > with some slight > artifacts. That quandary is more likely to arise when the source > recording > > supplied is in pretty bad shape. In such a case, > particularly where the client is not a highly > > sensitive audiophile, > it can be tempting to go with the clearer version, and accept slight > > > evidence of digital processing as a reasonable price to pay.> > Although it hasn't come to this > > yet, I can imagine offering a client > two finished products, at negligible cost beyond that > > quoted for one. > They would get both an artif
 > > one that includes transient digital flaws.> > I can also foresee doing the same when restoring > > recordings from my > own collection. When I'm feeling more ethically strict, or simply > more > > nostalgic, I might choose the noisier file. On a more > forward-looking day, or perhaps when > > playing music in the car, I > might choose the quieter copy that has a few artifacts.> > The point > > being, sometimes the price one has to pay to hear a > significantly quieter/clearer restoration of > > an old audio source is > exorbitant in terms of artifacts, and sometimes it is reasonably > > > payable.> > What I liked about the XR "remastering" of Robert Johnson was that he > sounded closer > > and more real, less distant in both time and location. > I suppose some slight reverb was added. > > At first I wondered if this > was an exciting revelation of real echo existing in the original, > > > though long obscured by the various limitations of a shellac > pressing. Having listened a few > > more times, and comparing this > version to a near-mint vinyl LP, I'm pretty sure the > > reverberation I > hear was added in. I don't believe it's a digital artifact, the other > possible > > explanation.> > Okay, I've gone on long enough. Just wanted to say a few words in > defense of > > this remaster. It's got some nice, live-sounding presence > and an absence of traditional fog. The > > added scritch in the high end > is unfortunate, but I can see how someone might choose to live > > with > it, in order to hear Robert Johnson sounding a bit less cloaked by > the intervening > > decades.> > Best wishes,> Rod Brown> _________________________________________________________________> i’m is proud to present Cause Effect, a series about real people making a difference.> http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/MTV/?source=text_Cause_Effect 
_________________________________________________________________
i’m is proud to present Cause Effect, a series about real people making a difference.
http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/MTV/?source=text_Cause_Effect