Yes, I think it's fair to say that was his biggest "hit." To this day there are at least 370 known recordings of that song. I was trying to keep that detour about Jones short, but I might add that info. Thank you David!
I have several observations with respect to the restoration of this track. First, because I listen to a lot of historical material having widely varying spectral balance, I have a small Yamaha mixer between my computer audio playback, with separate feeds to Sennheiser HD650 headphones and a pair of small Mackie loudspeakers. The music sources, an outboard CD player and whatever the computer gets from the internet, go through a pair of inputs (for stereo), which have 3 bands of boost-cut EQ -- a 100 Hz shelf, a broad band centered at 2.5 kHz, and a 10 kHz shelf. I do virtually all of my serious listening with the phones.
The most commonly needed EQ is the 100 Hz shelf, which compensates for the LF response of whatever the recording or mastering engineer was listening to; it is also quite helpful with poorly recorded speech. Boosting the 2.5 kHz band also helps with speech and vocals. The 10 kHz shelf sometimes recovers missing cymbals, and restores the HF rolloff that the mastering engineer used to kill record scratch.
I found that this track was greatly improved by maximum LF boost (15 dB), a few dB cut of the mid, and I'd guess 6 dB boost of the 10 kHz shelf. What this seems to have accomplished is to partially compensate for the mid-rangy response of the horn. Aurally, I found that having more of the lows not only helped trombone and bass sax a lot, but also helped the brass stand out (because it gave the ear some contrasting sound). The mid and HF EQ improved the presence of the band.
My second observation is to pass along what I learned around 40 years ago from the late Richard Heyser, who revolutionized pro audio with invention of very advanced instrumentation to measure sound systems, mics, loudspeakers, and even the sound in rooms; and equally important, by teaching of the practical application of mathematical transforms. One of his predictions, which I would love to see some grad students tackle, is that if the mathematical complex response of those horns could be computed or measured, music recorded through it could be convolved with that response to restore what had actually been recorded! What I did with my ears on the track was a very primitive attempt at that without instrumentation. What Heyser was talking about was the "complex" response of the horn, which includes small time differences between different notes that result from the exact shape of the horn. And that's a bunch of grad students publishing really important (meaning USEFUL) work.
And this aside. About 20 years ago, I put together a CD collecting all of the recordings of Prez on clarinet from the late 30s. I owned most of the material on various CDs, but their sound balance varied widely, thanks to differing EQ used by various labels and even individual engineers, and also to the practice of rolling off the lows to get rid of turntable rumble and the highs to eliminate record scratch and hiss. I also chased down some rare air checks. I typically spent a day or more on each track, in attempt to get closer to what transpired in the studio. I've shared this with several friends and musicians (including Buddy DeFranco, who loved it).
Thanks much Jim for this very detailed and fascinating information. I'd appreciate if you removed the quotes around "restoration" in your first sentence, because that can be misunderstood (might look like you are making fun of their work, but I think you simply mean that the word "restoration" is a funny one to use for this kind of work). That Pres on clarinet project sounds great! (I spent an afternoon with DeFranco in Florida--very likable guy.) I have two questions for you: 1. For those of us with only "bass" and "treble" controls, are there settings that will help to make this sound better? 2. Do you have a file using your improvements that you'd be willing to share? If so please email it to me, and I'll post it later with a little intro, your explanation, etc. THANKS AGAIN!
I used the quotation marks to make the point that many saying they are doing restoration are not doing so. I don't know how to edit an existing post. With only bass and treble controls, I would suggest first boosting the bass as you listen, then doing the same with the treble. It's really nothing more than using our ears and whatever controls are available to us. I'll try to figure out a way to generate a file -- my computer setup for audio is pretty primitive. Lots going on here -- I'm in the mountains near Santa Cruz, CA, and the storms have disrupted our lives -- closed roads, no power for nearly 5-6 days at a time.
Hi Jim, mine has ... at the end of each post and if I click on them one of the options is "edit." Please check as I do have a rule about not "dissing" other members. Yes, I've been reading about the storms --crazy! And yes, I have noticed that sometimes just boosting the bass creates more "presence." THANKS!
I found the ... earlier today and made that and another one or two edits. No "dissing" intended, but far too much historical material has been poorly treated by the technicians involved. Almost 40 years ago, I consulted on audio for a major company in the business of duplicating video cassettes for commercial release. In addition to their in-house problems, which were easy to solve, was a much more serious one -- really bad transfers from film to the videotape master by another very large company who had most of the transfer work for most of the companies in that industry. The thing they were doing that was so disastrous was automatic "noise reduction" that dumped the audio level when it fell below a certain level, to eliminate any perceived hiss. In addition to any very small hiss, they were also killing all the sound effects and most of the musical scoring. One of the most extreme examples I encountered was the complete destruction of Duke's wonderful score for "Anatomy Of A Murder."
About a year ago, I bought a 2-CD set of a major soloist touring in Europe that combined several live sets with a studio session. The overall tonal balance of the sets differed greatly from each other -- the listening EQ I did for each was radically different from the others. A competent mastering engineer would have used his/her ears to get them all much closer to what was happening in the studio or onstage; for this set, it seemed that he/she played the master, punched record, let it roll, and called it done. I'm not talking about re-mixing, this is nothing more EQ.
I'm also disappointed by how careless many producers of jazz films and videos are with audio. Many don't seem to have hired anyone competent to record music or dialog, or to do the tweaks to spectral balance I've been talking about. One of the most common issues is that speech is whatever is picked up by whatever mic is present, and it's often bass-heavy, muffled by poorly placement, and/or too much echos from room reverberation. I can roll off the lows to help a lot, but I've got to change it for the music. :) A competent sound tech would do that either in the recording or the mastering.
I think I've figured out how to send you the Armstrong file with my listening EQ. Do you have the track in un-compressed form? That is, .wav or FLAC? I'd prefer not to use an .mp3, because it will get un-compressed when I play it and re-compressed when I save the change. Each time sound goes through this process it degrades.
On the same trip West the well-known "on the street" photo of the Oliver band was taken on San Francisco's Market Street, with Oliver in denim, Baby Dodds in overalls and Lil holding her hands over her ears. Great post, Lewis.
Jones was also the composer of the blues standard "Trouble In Mind", and played piano on the first known recording of it.
Yes, I think it's fair to say that was his biggest "hit." To this day there are at least 370 known recordings of that song. I was trying to keep that detour about Jones short, but I might add that info. Thank you David!
I’m curious about this New Strand Theater in the ad, since that’s about half a mile from my house. No sign of a theater in that location these days.
That's fascinating, Rob. I'll be curious to know if you find out anything.
I have several observations with respect to the restoration of this track. First, because I listen to a lot of historical material having widely varying spectral balance, I have a small Yamaha mixer between my computer audio playback, with separate feeds to Sennheiser HD650 headphones and a pair of small Mackie loudspeakers. The music sources, an outboard CD player and whatever the computer gets from the internet, go through a pair of inputs (for stereo), which have 3 bands of boost-cut EQ -- a 100 Hz shelf, a broad band centered at 2.5 kHz, and a 10 kHz shelf. I do virtually all of my serious listening with the phones.
The most commonly needed EQ is the 100 Hz shelf, which compensates for the LF response of whatever the recording or mastering engineer was listening to; it is also quite helpful with poorly recorded speech. Boosting the 2.5 kHz band also helps with speech and vocals. The 10 kHz shelf sometimes recovers missing cymbals, and restores the HF rolloff that the mastering engineer used to kill record scratch.
I found that this track was greatly improved by maximum LF boost (15 dB), a few dB cut of the mid, and I'd guess 6 dB boost of the 10 kHz shelf. What this seems to have accomplished is to partially compensate for the mid-rangy response of the horn. Aurally, I found that having more of the lows not only helped trombone and bass sax a lot, but also helped the brass stand out (because it gave the ear some contrasting sound). The mid and HF EQ improved the presence of the band.
My second observation is to pass along what I learned around 40 years ago from the late Richard Heyser, who revolutionized pro audio with invention of very advanced instrumentation to measure sound systems, mics, loudspeakers, and even the sound in rooms; and equally important, by teaching of the practical application of mathematical transforms. One of his predictions, which I would love to see some grad students tackle, is that if the mathematical complex response of those horns could be computed or measured, music recorded through it could be convolved with that response to restore what had actually been recorded! What I did with my ears on the track was a very primitive attempt at that without instrumentation. What Heyser was talking about was the "complex" response of the horn, which includes small time differences between different notes that result from the exact shape of the horn. And that's a bunch of grad students publishing really important (meaning USEFUL) work.
And this aside. About 20 years ago, I put together a CD collecting all of the recordings of Prez on clarinet from the late 30s. I owned most of the material on various CDs, but their sound balance varied widely, thanks to differing EQ used by various labels and even individual engineers, and also to the practice of rolling off the lows to get rid of turntable rumble and the highs to eliminate record scratch and hiss. I also chased down some rare air checks. I typically spent a day or more on each track, in attempt to get closer to what transpired in the studio. I've shared this with several friends and musicians (including Buddy DeFranco, who loved it).
Thanks much Jim for this very detailed and fascinating information. I'd appreciate if you removed the quotes around "restoration" in your first sentence, because that can be misunderstood (might look like you are making fun of their work, but I think you simply mean that the word "restoration" is a funny one to use for this kind of work). That Pres on clarinet project sounds great! (I spent an afternoon with DeFranco in Florida--very likable guy.) I have two questions for you: 1. For those of us with only "bass" and "treble" controls, are there settings that will help to make this sound better? 2. Do you have a file using your improvements that you'd be willing to share? If so please email it to me, and I'll post it later with a little intro, your explanation, etc. THANKS AGAIN!
I used the quotation marks to make the point that many saying they are doing restoration are not doing so. I don't know how to edit an existing post. With only bass and treble controls, I would suggest first boosting the bass as you listen, then doing the same with the treble. It's really nothing more than using our ears and whatever controls are available to us. I'll try to figure out a way to generate a file -- my computer setup for audio is pretty primitive. Lots going on here -- I'm in the mountains near Santa Cruz, CA, and the storms have disrupted our lives -- closed roads, no power for nearly 5-6 days at a time.
Hi Jim, mine has ... at the end of each post and if I click on them one of the options is "edit." Please check as I do have a rule about not "dissing" other members. Yes, I've been reading about the storms --crazy! And yes, I have noticed that sometimes just boosting the bass creates more "presence." THANKS!
I found the ... earlier today and made that and another one or two edits. No "dissing" intended, but far too much historical material has been poorly treated by the technicians involved. Almost 40 years ago, I consulted on audio for a major company in the business of duplicating video cassettes for commercial release. In addition to their in-house problems, which were easy to solve, was a much more serious one -- really bad transfers from film to the videotape master by another very large company who had most of the transfer work for most of the companies in that industry. The thing they were doing that was so disastrous was automatic "noise reduction" that dumped the audio level when it fell below a certain level, to eliminate any perceived hiss. In addition to any very small hiss, they were also killing all the sound effects and most of the musical scoring. One of the most extreme examples I encountered was the complete destruction of Duke's wonderful score for "Anatomy Of A Murder."
About a year ago, I bought a 2-CD set of a major soloist touring in Europe that combined several live sets with a studio session. The overall tonal balance of the sets differed greatly from each other -- the listening EQ I did for each was radically different from the others. A competent mastering engineer would have used his/her ears to get them all much closer to what was happening in the studio or onstage; for this set, it seemed that he/she played the master, punched record, let it roll, and called it done. I'm not talking about re-mixing, this is nothing more EQ.
I'm also disappointed by how careless many producers of jazz films and videos are with audio. Many don't seem to have hired anyone competent to record music or dialog, or to do the tweaks to spectral balance I've been talking about. One of the most common issues is that speech is whatever is picked up by whatever mic is present, and it's often bass-heavy, muffled by poorly placement, and/or too much echos from room reverberation. I can roll off the lows to help a lot, but I've got to change it for the music. :) A competent sound tech would do that either in the recording or the mastering.
All good points Jim. Thanks for cleaning up your first post, and especially for sharing your expertise. THANKS!
I think I've figured out how to send you the Armstrong file with my listening EQ. Do you have the track in un-compressed form? That is, .wav or FLAC? I'd prefer not to use an .mp3, because it will get un-compressed when I play it and re-compressed when I save the change. Each time sound goes through this process it degrades.
On the same trip West the well-known "on the street" photo of the Oliver band was taken on San Francisco's Market Street, with Oliver in denim, Baby Dodds in overalls and Lil holding her hands over her ears. Great post, Lewis.
Thanks John. Yes, that's a very cool photo, from before Louis joined the band. Thanks!