Tony Bennett at Carnegie Hall, APO 200g reissue

puroagave

puroagave

Active member
Joined
Oct 12, 2013
Messages
1,334
Location
"Clueless" in California
I cant say whether I owned an original copy before, i might have and if i did it wasn't played more than once (twice if I forgot I played it before). Out comes Fremers review of this reissue and it gets an "11" for sound, so i ordered it with my last batch of labor day sale purchases. This isn't meant as a review per say but a commentary of the SQ of recordings from this era.

Upon lowering the stylus (a glorious slab of 200g vinyl) one hears the greater than usual tape hiss (typ of recordings from this era) the other prominent characteristic is the shift or spectral imbalance of the mids to upper-mids (elevated) which makes ordinary sounds like audience claps obnoxiously 'pinched'. The year was 1962 so we're talking tube recording gear (not a bad thing) but many if not most mics/amps/tape machines of that era were less than neutral. What the recording does possess that's delightful is the wide stage and spot lighting of the orchestra (bongos, xylophone and strings come to mind). the overall presentation is more technicolor than HDTV. Bennett's voice is relatively clear and well positioned but wont suspend your disbelief for a second its the real thing and not a recording. which is my point, as wonderful as these old records are -- and an achievement considering they're 50+ years old -- it doesn't hold up to later efforts using wider bandwidth gear, modern mics, noise reduction, 2-track or direct to disc techniques.

Bottom line, if you're a Bennett fan I cant stop you from buying this, in fact its essential. if you're kind of a fan and fifty bucks is your music budget for the month and you want to experience an "11" you're likely to be disappointed. For music it deserves a "10" imho, compared to the best recorded material I own in all formats, the SQ its closer to a 7 or 8.
 
I've had similar experiences with other earlier Bennett recordings too.
 
Thanks for the write up. That's good to know.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Rob-Although you don't like the Tony Bennett recording, I wouldn't blame everything on the technology available at the time. I have recordings from 1957 that blow my mind with how damn good they are. Sometimes it's the craftsman and not the tools that are at fault.
 
mep said:
Rob-Although you don't like the Tony Bennett recording, I wouldn't blame everything on the technology available at the time. I have recordings from 1957 that blow my mind with how damn good they are. Sometimes it's the craftsman and not the tools that are at fault.
Click to expand...

i agree and i think i know which records you speak of. the difference is in-studio, minimally mic'd (closely mic'd) vs a live stage production with multiple players and orchestra - they were maxed out technically on the Bennett record, but like I said the music deserves a 10.
 
puroagave said:
I cant say whether I owned an original copy before, i might have and if i did it wasn't played more than once (twice if I forgot I played it before). Out comes Fremers review of this reissue and it gets an "11" for sound, so i ordered it with my last batch of labor day sale purchases. This isn't meant as a review per say but a commentary of the SQ of recordings from this era.

Upon lowering the stylus (a glorious slab of 200g vinyl) one hears the greater than usual tape hiss (typ of recordings from this era) the other prominent characteristic is the shift or spectral imbalance of the mids to upper-mids (elevated) which makes ordinary sounds like audience claps obnoxiously 'pinched'. The year was 1962 so we're talking tube recording gear (not a bad thing) but many if not most mics/amps/tape machines of that era were less than neutral. What the recording does possess that's delightful is the wide stage and spot lighting of the orchestra (bongos, xylophone and strings come to mind). the overall presentation is more technicolor than HDTV. Bennett's voice is relatively clear and well positioned but wont suspend your disbelief for a second its the real thing and not a recording. which is my point, as wonderful as these old records are -- and an achievement considering they're 50+ years old -- it doesn't hold up to later efforts using wider bandwidth gear, modern mics, noise reduction, 2-track or direct to disc techniques.

Bottom line, if you're a Bennett fan I cant stop you from buying this, in fact its essential. if you're kind of a fan and fifty bucks is your music budget for the month and you want to experience an "11" you're likely to be disappointed. For music it deserves a "10" imho, compared to the best recorded material I own in all formats, the SQ its closer to a 7 or 8.
Click to expand...

Thanks Rob for reminding me it's sitting on my shelves but haven't listened to it yet. I did hear it at my friend's last weekend and it didn't blow me away. Another collector/friend raved about the Bennett recording for years. Maybe I'll have him bring his original over and compare the two releases.

One thing though. It's cut at Sterling and I'm not crazy about those masterings (we remember the discussion about the Cat Stevens!). These Sterling masterings (RCA/Verve/etc.) all sound solid-statish/Ampex Aria to me. The Sterling mastering works a little better with the Verves since they're a touch dark but you still hear that midrange thinness. Kevin Gray's work is truly in another universe.

Another Carnegie Hall recording that everyone raves about and I think is highly overrated is the Belafonte. (and I have multiple copies of the original including the early thicker release, the Classic and the Analogue Productions.) I love the music but the sound is at best passable. There's lots of mike overloading and to me the recording sounds kinda metallic (mikes?). Well not kinda. Kinda metallic is being like kinda pregnant. Either you are or you aren't!
 
I thought the Belafonte LP was one which you were supposed to genuflect and make the sign of the cross when you saw it.
 
mep said:
I thought the Belafonte LP was one which you were supposed to genuflect and make the sign of the cross when you saw it.
Click to expand...

I thought so, too. And Fremer gave the latest AP reissue an 11 for sound. Was thinking of picking this up as I have the K2HD CD and enjoy the music.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top