Beating the RVG Horse


I wanted to throw yet another question out there related to the Rudy Van Gelder re-masters.

If you read any of the previous threads on this topic you might recall that I'm not a huge fan of the sound quality, generally finding the recordings to sound thin and tinny.

Ordinarily I try to stay away from the tone controls on my pre-amp, or as Rotel calls it “tone contouring” (I guess it’s sort of an internal EQ with four pre-set levels plus neutral). I try to stick with the sound as originally recorded on the grounds of trying to get a sound as true to originally played as possible. I do confess that this position is born out of some sort of ‘don’t mess with mother nature’ philosophy rather than any consideration to whether or not it sounds any better. Neurotic or not, I generally equate these things to touching up the Mona Lisa because you don’t like the color of the dress.

On the other hand, I have recently started playing around with the tone control on my pre-amp and found that –particularly with some of these thin RVG recordings, they do help to fill out the sound, even if it is by artificially boosting the bass.

Anyone have any thoughts on this kind of fiddling?
grimace

Showing 3 responses by drubin

I started a topic about the RVG remasters last year sometime. My POV: they are excessively bright (I also agree with "mechanical" and "sterile"). No one agreed with me. I concluded I am losing my mind, but now I must reconsider.
I think the person/s doing the RVG re-masters has a "frequency rolloff" in the higher frequencies of his/her hearing.
My theory also. And that would be RVG his ownself, would it not?
Good analysis, knownothing, and I'd say your handle is a misnomer for sure.

I wonder if RVG simply does not deserve to be canonized as he has been. He engineered recordings of a lot of truly great music made during an extraordinary period of time, but does that make him a great engineer? The remasters call this into some question.