Contributed by Azule Serape
May 3 2011 - Our thanks to Gonzo who has kindly (although he tells me he enjoyed the exercise!) carried out some remedial work on this post. There is a link in the comments if anyone would like to try the result. BJ
September 20 2011 - Brought to the fore today because a new rip acquired by Azule Serape. It is FLAC and may be an improvement even on Gonzo's. Subjective though so link here for you to try if you wish.
Tommy Whittle - tenor
Harry Klein - baritone
Eddie Thompson - piano
Ken Sprang - bass
Jackie Dougan - drums
01 Lady Bee
02 Howl
03 Lullabye
04 Mine Still
05 12 by 5
06 New Horizons
07 Blues in the Dark
08 Loving Man
09 Heard and Seen
Label: Tempo TAP 27
Recorded: May 1959
Lineage: CD>FLAC
More small-group British jazz, thanks!
ReplyDeleteMany thanks
ReplyDeleteNice... But can I ask question? Track 1 is sampled at 32k not the usual 44.1k, this will need to be re-sampled for anyone that wishes to make a CD.
ReplyDeleteLink to Gonzo's improved version of the music only
ReplyDeletehttp://rapidshare.com/files/460301439/0160_Tommy_Whittle__New_Horizons__TWNH-G.rar
Tommy always a fave. Thanks Azule....and to Gonzo for his "interference"
ReplyDeleteThanks Azule. Much appreciated.
ReplyDeleteI have to say Gonzo, while I think the "improved" versions are better in a number of respects, in my humble opinion the noise reduction has been overdone to the point where the dullness of the "originals" is preferable to the post-NR metallic shrink-wrapped sort of sound. I've heard that sound so many times following the "restoration" of vintage recordings, and I just can't bear to listen to them. Oh dear. Am I being controversial? No offence intended. It's just that it's so easy, in the attempt to rescue an original recording from the ravages of time, to go beyond what is required, and thereby sabotage the whole project. (whoever is approving these comments before posting — is that you BJ? — this is a revision of the last post which I mistakenly posted as from Eusabius. Obviously, that should be ignored)
ReplyDelete@Doc
ReplyDeleteTotally agree, no offence taken, actually I only just saw your comment, and welcome them as all our ears are different, and what I may like, other may not. The question of where to draw the line in restoration is one I have had considerable problems with in the past, I too have re-worked a few when on multiple listens I have been aware of sudden loss of anchor due to instantly disappearing noise level, this is in fact worse than hearing a click because for some reason the ear tends to ignore background when it is consistent, but notices it when it suddenly goes.
In view of your comments, for which I thank you, I will re-work the first example with slightly less of a threshold reduction, but for the moment I will check out this new rip, you never know, I MIGHT be able to "improve" that too... Yes I did notice the "Interference" comment !!
POSTED AS ANONYMOUS BECAUSE I AM UNABLE TO POST AS Gonzo
Gonzo.
I fear I must comment again ANONYMOUSLY because for some reason the system will not accept a posting from a google registered name.
ReplyDeleteI have checked the "New Rip" of Tommy Whittle and find that unlike the track 1 of the first rip this track one is at a higher sampling rate, however BOTH track 1 and 2 are severely restricted in frequency response to little more than 7kHz whereas the remainder of tracks on the 2nd rip extend up to 14kHz. None of these need the FLAC coding, all would be adequately served by 128-160k MP3 saving space and download time. BJ I would like to propose that if we are to prefer FLAC coding, then the material should be worthy of it, that is to say a well ripped clean LP played on a top grade deck with top quality equipment that is capable of maintaining the full spectral quality available with the media 30Hz - 20kHz.
This is NOT a critisism of the blog or its excellent supporters, just an idea to keep up the level of excellence in respect of quality of sound as well as quality of music we are lucky to be able to get here.
Gonzo.
Gonzo. Is it something on the blog that is preventing you posting a comment as yourself? Nothing has changed here that we are aware of.
ReplyDeleteGood to hear about the improvements in prospect.
We have reason to believe Doc Sausage might not see comments here for a while.
I think I have solved the problem, it appears to be the 3rd party cookies that you commented on in the blog header. I've recently installed a Firefox update to "Ad-blocker" and a add-on to block cookie tracking "Ghostery" this seems to be a bit TOO powerful and needs a little tweeking. I can really reccommend this add-on to anyone that is security conscious, it can show you just how much profiling of users these web-cookies can do, personally I do NOT wish for every "joe-soap website owner" to know WHERE I have been and WHAT I've been looking at, your stance may differ of course.
ReplyDeleteWritten by Gonzo.
Gonzo: Glad to hear that. Will respond to your other points in a little while we hope.
ReplyDeleteGonzo: Thanks for the input. We take your point and indeed are keen to preserve quality as much as we can. Bear in mind that many of the recordings were not too good in the first place, coming from the era that they do. Our "philosophy" on "improving" recordings is limited in the main to fixing pops, clicks and crackles where possible so as to keep the quality as near to the original as we can. Filters and so on we choose to use with the utmost reluctance, if at all.
ReplyDeleteIn practice we feel we cannot go far wrong by continuing to follow our current policy, which is to offer the highest audio quality we can from the material we have. We intend always to point out any drawbacks but without over-emphasis. You will have seen the note with the "new rip"; "It is FLAC and may be an improvement even on Gonzo's. Subjective though so link here for you to try if you wish."
In an ideal world, all the recordings would be as you describe. Indeed, quite a few here are perhaps. Saving space and download time are we think not as important as they were given recent bandwidth and storage advances. People who wish to can easily reduce sizes for themselves.
One of our main contributors sums it up - "you get what we have".
All that said, however, the point you are making is fundamentally that we should not present items in a dishonest way, is it not? We will endeavour to keep that in mind but believe we have always done so thus far.
https://cjoint.net/?z8xk2is4vb
ReplyDelete