John R. T. told someone...I cannot recall who it was now, that both
King Jazz and Retrieval were from the same tapes. I agree that the
Retrieval set sounds better than the King Jazz.
I'll never forget the one time I visited John and he played me the
tape of his restoration of Oliver's "Mandy Lee Blues" -- it was
thrilling! He was a brilliant man.
--- In RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com
, "spacelights" <spacelights@...>
> --- In RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com, "David Brown" <johnhaleysims@>
> > David implied that the King Jazz and Retrieval sets are
> > never was so and I've just relistened. The Retrieval is far far
> > More body, resonance, space, detail and dynamics, albeit at the
> > cost of more surface.
> > If indeed these are from the same JRT tape --- and they certainly
> sound as
> > if from the same copies -- and assuming that no further filtering
> > /equalising etc, digital or otherwise, was imposed by King Jazz --
> and I
> > suspect it was ) --then this indicates just how influential the
> > digitalising process is.
> The implication perhaps wasn't intentional, but the use of the
> singular word "set" could cause someone to think the two CDs were
> 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
> through mastering.
> 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."