3562Re: NEW KING OLIVER REISSUE
- Nov 10, 2006--- In RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com, "David Brown" <johnhaleysims@...>
> David implied that the King Jazz and Retrieval sets are synonymous. This
> never was so and I've just relistened. The Retrieval is far far
> More body, resonance, space, detail and dynamics, albeit at theacceptable
> cost of more surface.sound as
> If indeed these are from the same JRT tape --- and they certainly
> if from the same copies -- and assuming that no further filteringand I
> /equalising etc, digital or otherwise, was imposed by King Jazz -- (
> suspect it was ) --then this indicates just how influential the actualThe implication perhaps wasn't intentional, but the use of the
> digitalising process is.
singular word "set" could cause someone to think the two CDs were the
I've noticed a somewhat similar dichotomy between King Jazz and
Retrieval CD issues of Morton's 1923-1924 solos, which I'm guessing
came from identical transfers. King Jazz does have more surface
noise, and the sound varies a bit from track to track. In a few
cases, this may provide a greater opportunity for equalization "to
taste," at the lisener's discretion. I like the character of the
Retrieval sound, which seems more uniform--usually something achieved
King Jazz credits John R.T. for "Transfers," Cesar Garcia for
"Pre-mastering Re-recording," and Digipro for "DAT Mastering."
Retrieval simply credits John R.T. with "Audio Restoration."
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>