[Nick_Bradley78]

Originally Posted by Tina...

I was just wondering where I could hear this. In ref Bills post above Nicks.

In Marks links above, but its a 6 month old youtube, and the new version isn't on our itunes, dont know about the American one. The Itunes one would be clearer than a youtube upload anyway. That's probably why it sounded nice; the EOTC mastering is nice and the previous one wasn't bad either. I don't have an LP other than a rather well worn of the original UK pressing to compare it to, and I'm not really into doing that, for me good enough is good enough as I'm no audiophile, or expert, but the latest just sounds wrong to me (and others).

[Tina...]

Oh Ok thanks Nick, I did click onto the link to the thread but not the Youtube link, I didn't realise it was supposed to be a song from the album.

No, I can't believe it's not available on iTunes yet.

[Nick_Bradley78]

Bearing in mind itunes is much lower quality than a CD anyway I wonder if some of the complaints will be so evident in that format?

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Nick_Bradley78

Bearing in mind itunes is much lower quality than a CD anyway I wonder if some of the complaints will be so evident in that format?

I will be reserving judgement until I receive the CD and am looking forward to it with an open mind.

[Nick_Bradley78]

Can't say fairer than that Keith.

[erniegy]

Tina
If you go to the bottom of Mike Blackburn's post no 142 there is a link that takes you to the recording.

Nick
By the comments in the post giving the Amazon ratings and Mike's remarks regarding his latest posting dated 19th January, `i thought that I was listening to the latest version.

[Tina...]

Thanks Bill, I realise that now, but I did wonder about it being the new release. I'll keep checking Amazon and iTunes for the download until I order the CD, I specifically wanted to hear " Ol' Man River" while I wait

[Nick_Bradley78]

Originally Posted by erniegy

Nick
By the comments in the post giving the Amazon ratings and Mike's remarks regarding his latest posting dated 19th January, `i thought that I was listening to the latest version.

Its not unfortunately, if you open it in youtube itself it shows it was uploaded in March last year so its an "old" version, but is a cracking song either way.

[erniegy]

Listening again in the cold light of day I can hear you are correct Nick.
There is just a difference in clarity between my iMac version and the youtube. Nonetheless, this must have been one of Nelson's shining moments. Have you seen that if you select the album on amazon.com the song list comes up but you you can't even listen to the snippets over here?

[Nick_Bradley78]

Yep, before release I did the same and got some previews, but not all, but I couldnt distinguish if they were "old" or "new", probably the old to as Amazon has a habit of doing that.

[mlutthans]

One thing I have learned over the last few years: Never, ever try to judge an officially-released product by how a non-official (i.e., YouTube clip) or non-full length (Amazon sample clip) upload sounds! They are often poorly uploaded, wrongly identified, compressed, tinkered with, etc. This is especially true when multiple releases of the same CD exist. (Look at the confusion in this very thread with people praising one version only to realize they were actually hearing another. It's an easy mistake to make when anybody can upload anything.) Even a higher-resolution full-length PAID download like iTunes or Amazon is slightly compromised, but they are at least in the ballpark, and are usually properly identified.

It's the road to folly and mis-impressions!

My two cents.

Matt

[Nick_Bradley78]

I was sent some flac files for this by a friend while I await my delivery, which is what concerned me about this release. Still, at least the liner notes will be a good read if nothing else....
This "lemming" now signing off to listen to Ring a Ding Ding.

[David M Bond]

Firstly thank you for releasing new versions of the albums, I will continue to buy them.

It is interesting to read the comments so far about the release. I pre ordered from Amazon UK so I'll have to wait a bit longer.

From the perspective of a fan I try to determine what the intention of the Concord releases is.

If it is to establish a new audience to the music of Frank Sinatra it works very well, in that the releases remind everyone of the greatest singer that ever lived.

Anyone new to the music of FS will buy the new Concord releases thinking that is how the record sounded way back when, when FS was in the charts and making history but it doesn't.

As someone who owns the multiple versions of the Reprise releases, I guess the new "sound" gives a new dimension to the idea of it all.

As someone pointed out the new Sinatra Basie Album 1 on the Concord CD does sound like the original for the most part and so I have three versions in similar tone, I am happy but also wonder how it would have sounded like the other Concord Releases.

With some of the other releases the sound is different, which brings me to a conclusion perhaps a box like the Beatles Box would seem a good bet or a double CD for each album.

CD one containing the original sounding version of the album ie EOTC and CD 2 containing the concord release, that way you have the different sounding versions together.

I think the new Concord releases make for an interesting historical counterpart to the normal original soundng releases but I wouldn't choose those versions as the default to listen to each time.

The sounds in our memories of enjoyment are not always triggered by the new Concord sound, simply because it doesn't sound like it does in our memory.

Please definitely continue to release these versions but consider also creating versions that resemble the way the albums have sounded for the past 50 years.

Sorry for the long post.

[Francisx]

Great idea David....I too own every available release, newly re-mastered, etc, etc,. However, I think you will be quite surprised with the remastering of "TCS". Think of it as a recording on a soundstage with only the available reverb of the soundstage. Yes, Mr. S is up front but you get a real feel of the power of his voice. I think you will enjoy it.

[sschweiger]

Here's a take from someone who knows bupkes about "sound," "re-verb," "re-mastering," et al...

I listened twice with the lights off and the volume up--imagining myself in Carnegie Hall with Eunice to my left, and dearest Sylvia Syms to my right--and felt exhilaration and exaltation at the album's conclusion! Frank sounds magnificent, and to use the oft-repeated phrase that stamped him apart from everyone else, "it was as though he were singing directly to me!" The "blending," if you will, of his voice, with Nelson's arrangements and orchestra (not as overpowering as on the previous TCS albums) is stunning, intense, and gorgeous!

Or, as Jack Lemmon so aptly put it, "MAGIC TIME!"

[Chris92]

Couldn't find this at Barnes and Noble yesterday. Looks like an online order for me :/

[Chuck Granata]

I've found the dialog about the new remaster of The Concert Sinatra, both here and on other forums, to be fascinating.

I will say at the outset that it would be very difficult (and inappropriate) of me to criticize the work of the production staff on this CD. Having worked with a wide variety of recording elements that are not always in prime condition, I appreciate the decisions that often must be made in the interest of presenting the sound from THOSE PARTICULAR SOURCES in the best possible light. It ain't easy working with nearly 50-year old recording elements - especially when they aren't in the best condition. I will also say that I am most thankful for the new remaster of this magnificent album.

Is it perfect? It depends upon what you compare it to. Remember: the precise conditions under which it was recorded and mastered forty-eight years ago cannot be replicated.

Does it sound different? Of course! First, we're talking about using the ORIGINAL magnetic film elements (and, I'm assuming, the fairly pristine 3-track magnetic tape mixdown that was made from the original 9-track magnetic film masters in 1963). Reaching back one and two-generations makes a HUGE difference in the sound one can extract when remastering a recording.

All of this tech-talk is kind of irrelevant, though. I like this new version very much! As an audio-archeologist, it is tantamount to glimpsing the moment of creation - before all of the post-production mixing and "sweetening" gave us the glorious, reverberant ORIGINAL LP and its subsequent CD releases.

I agree with Nancy (and have gotten a bit of the other fans' sentiments by reading the various forums) that you will either love or hate this new edition of The Concert Sinatra. But, love it or hate it - and I happen to like it very much - we can't view this new edition as a REPLACEMENT. It's far too special for that. The time, care and money that went into creating it was not wasted, for the production team - headed by Frank Sinatra Jr. - has given us the precious gift of an ALTERNATIVE VIEW of Frank's spectacular performances.

There is an amazing amount of detail in the instrumental backings; I hear instruments that once were a footnote now emerging with a clarity that is thrilling. Nuances that were lost in the original mix now subtly enhance the warmth and depth of Nelson's moving orchestrations. Hearing these small yet palpable details after all of these years is incredible!

Frank's voice is placed directly up-front in the new mix - and it's bone dry. Had it been my discretion, I would have pulled him back just a shade - and used a judicious touch of reverb - to add some sparkle to the vocal track. But I'm splitting hairs: I happen to love the dry sound of Frank's voice, and it is a treat for me to hear it raw on this specific recording (the detail we hear at the point where he dips 'way down low on "Old Man River" is astonishing). It is almost as if you're standing next to him at the microphone in the studio...

Yet, I do appreciate where some of our purists - and even Nancy herself - are coming from. The sonic quality - and emotional impact of Frank's flawless performances - are dramatically different from what we have all known, loved and prized after almost fifty years of living with the original recording. They did a Herculean job of recording and mixing this album in 1963, bringing film-world technology to the record buying public with the very best of intentions (and results, I feel). However, in endeavoring on such a complex recording project - and making the dynamics fit into the constraints of an LP groove in the early 1960s - many reductive decisions needed to be made. Some of those original decisions compromised the high-resolution, up-front sonic profile that we hear on the newly remastered CD.

All-in-all, I've got to give this a solid 8.5 stars. Will it replace my original stereo and mono LPs, or the two previous CD editions of the album? Nope. But it does give me a different perspective on this landmark Sinatra album, and the choice to listen to either the tried-and-true original or the unvarnished remaster - whichever suits my desire on any particular day...

[Chuck Granata]

Small technical note:

I was NOT involved in the production of the new CD, so I'm simply using my knowledge and experience - and what I hear on the new remaster - for this comment (which stems from what someone said in a previous post about "partially" using the original 35-mm film tracks).

I believe that both the unmixed, 9-channel magnetic film masters AND the original three-track magnetic tape master (created in 1963) were used for this new production. And, that makes perfect sense.

The 3-track tape master was THE master tape that was mixed down from the 9-channel film session tracks (in a normal recording studio situation, the 3-track tape master would have been THE session tape). Before it could be released on LP, the 3-track master was further mixed down to 2-track stereo, and "mastered" (compression, EQ and reverb added). This 2-track "master" became the LP master - and the master from which the previous CD issues were made.

I believe that the previously issued version of "Bewitched" on one of the Reprise compilations was re-mixed from the original 3-track master, which is why it sounded better than anything else we'd heard to that point.

In the event that during the restoration process the film elements had deteriorated to the point where they couldn't be used, the original unmixed, unmastered 3-track tape that was struck from them in 1963 would become the logical source to "fill in" those damaged areas.

I'm not sure how much Nancy has discussed this, but the original magnetic film strips WERE damaged, and it took considerable investment of both time and money to bring them to a point where they could be used at all. We must be thankful for the effort - financial and otherwise - that was lavished on this project...

[mlutthans]

Hi, Chuck! I know that there are people on both sides of the fence as far as the end result of this CD goes, but regardless, as you say, the WORK that went into this deserves to be acknowledged. I posted this at another forum, and some here may find it interesting:

Remember, the original recording was apparently done on 8 tracks of mag film, on three synchronized machines, assumedly synced via a sel-syn motor -- old technology that works very well, and is still in use in Cinerama theatres today to keep the four synchronized 35mm machines for Cinerama presentations running in perfect sync. These 7 unique tracks (the 8th track, a mono guide track, would not have factored into this mix) were then mixed down to standard half-inch, 3-track tape, for use on standard recording-studio equipment that was ubiquitous at the time. This would have been in standard format, i.e., one track for “orchestra left,” one track for “orchestra right,” and a center track for Frank’s vocals. (In other words, 6 orchestral tracks were mixed down to two, and Franks vocal track was transferred from an isolated mag track to an isolated tape track.) From this 3-track tape, the original stereo mix was created, as per standard protocol of the time.

We’ll see that the stereo image that the 2012 team was apparently trying to create has strings to the left and right, woodwinds in the center. When the woodwinds deviate from that center location, it’s a clue that the 7 mag tracks were not intact, and something had to be “lifted” or borrowed from the 3-track tape. Keep in mind that 35mm film shrinks, and different pieces of 35mm will shrink at different rates, and that each piece of 35mm film may shrink inconsistently at different spots within the reel. If the sprocket holes are intact and usable, even if there is some very small amount shrinkage, transfer to digital, maintaining sync, is relatively easy IF you have three 35mm machines at your disposal AND all three reels for any given passage are all playable and in good shape. Odds are good that neither of these scenarios played out. If the sprocket holes are shot, other means of transfer may be required, perhaps using capstans and pinch rollers, and a large amount of manual re-syncing within a digital workstation, sync that must be adjusted and readjusted as needed, largely by ear, with help from the visual waveforms within a workstation, or perhaps by repairing the sprocket holes as needed, literally inch-by-inch? Either way, it’s a challenging, time-consuming, specialized job, no doubt.

Remember that one of the three 3-track 35mm machines was apparently running only two tracks. Those two tracks were 1.) Frank’s vocal, isolated; and 2.) a rough mono mix of the entire orchestra. Great! You can just sync up the other tracks with this mono guide track, right? Well, not so fast. What if this reel has more shrinkage on a given song than the other reels? What if the sprocket holes are shot, and wow or flutter is evident on playback. Would you try to sync to that?

Here’s what I suspect, and parts are mere speculation, but it seems to be logical.

All the final mixing of tracks was clearly done in a digital workstation. I’m going to refer to this as ProTools, but it could have been any brand of software/hardware. Here’s what I would expect to find dumped into ProTools for this project:

A digital stereo release -- the 1987 CD, the EOTC CD, or some other available source -- as a reference.
The 3-track tapes, both as a reference, and for use when the 7-track tapes are not serviceable.
All 8 mag tracks -- the 7 unique tracks, plus the original rough mixdown track.

Essentially, this would potentially give the mixing engineer up to eight tracks (6 original mag tracks plus two pre-mixed tracks from the 3-track tape) from which to create a good orchestral mix -- if all tracks were undamaged and usable -- and two raw vocal tracks from which to choose: the 35mm original, plus the isolated vocal track on the 3-track tape, one generation away.

Oh, my, what a mess. According to an old post by Larry Walsh, the layout would have been something like this:

35mm reel A, “strings”, maybe as follows:
1. Strings (violins I)
2. Strings (violins II)
3. Strings (violas, celli, basses)

35mm reel B, “the rest of the orchestra,” likely something like:
1. Woodwinds
2. Percussion
3. Brass

35mm reel C, “Frank Sinatra and a guide track,” i.e., :
1. Rough, live mono mixdown of mics feeding reels A and B
2. Sinatra’s vocal track
3. (Unused)

3-track, half-inch mixdown reel (reel “D”):
1. Left orchestra (high strings, woodwinds)
2. Vocal (Including overdubs not on the 35mm film, I think)
3. Right orchestra (low strings, brass, percussion)

Here’s where the restoration fun starts! Reel A, if it runs, will run in sync with itself. It may not run in sync with the other potentially-shrunken 35mm reels (B and C), and it will not run in sync with reel D, which does not use sprockets and was made on different machinery at a later time. That problem repeats itself with each of the other reels, i.e., the woodwinds, percussion, and brass will stay in sync with each other, but maybe not with the other 35mm reels, and definitely not with the half-inch tape. Essentially, there are four groups of tracks that may all be running “wild” from each other, potentially in need of being re-synced by hand, and since there are so many opportunities for inconsistent shrinkage at any point on a given reel, this is a horribly daunting task.

Never mind if there's an actual break in one of the reels! :-)

Matt

[Chuck Granata]

Excellent supplement to my post, Matt!

You can bet that there was shrinkage - as well as other issues with the original 35mm mag film recording strips. I think that they had a daunting task, and simply could have said, "There's nothing that we can do." It would have been cheaper, easier, and in the end, the product that they mixed from the 3-track magnetic tape reels would have offered a big improvement in detail and clarity. BUT, they bit the bullet and did the job correctly! How can we complain that it sounds "different"? Of course it does! No chance in hell that it wouldn't.

Perhaps it would have made sense to put BOTH versions of the album on one CD: the original two-track stereo mic from '63, and the newly remastered version...

However, I cannot complain at all. My curiosity is far more satisfied than if they had simply said, "Ah, the hell with it."