All Purpose Elvis Vinyl Thread

[frus75]

Lester, better than the Bob Jones cut?

...taken in account that Bob Jones work was excellent and he knew what he was doing so all the credit to him back in the day...but none of his work would beat the technology now used today be it Sony Legacy or FTD...or am I missing something here??

Very intelligent observation. Technology can be used or abused. And it can also be used to an agenda, meaning making Elvis - for instance - sound “modern”. But the mere existence of better “tools” will never mean a better result.

The first thing to have into account is that the source here will always be vintage. No matter what. And that is a BIG issue, because the greatest benefit of technology is the recording technique allows much better quality - read here quality as definition -. When the source is vintage, being a Velázquez painting, a 50’s movie or the tape of in the ghetto, the modern techniques can improve it to a certain point.

Then, there is “what” source. If you take the 16 track master tape of a 70’s song, you can remix it and improve it. If you take the 2 track master of the same 70’s song, there’s not much to do… no matter how well they master the 2 track master of Moody Blue, the way you achieve a great result is to go to the multi track tape and make a new mix. And even so, there is the question of taste, choices, etc (take the Memphis 74 show, remixed 3 times in 20 years, and each with a different outcome).

Having stated that, that the source is all relevant, the second point is that, generally speaking, people back then knew their game, generally speaking. It’s true there are badly recorded sessions, and badly mixed albums, but, mostly, they knew their game. But some of them, like Bob Jones or Bill Porter, REALLY excelled at that. No remastered girls girls girls sounds better than the one done by Bob Jones. Same with Loving You. No binaural tracks sound better than the ones Bob Jones did on essential 2.

And sometimes, the people now know their game too. For instance: no alternate takes from the raised on rock album sound better than the ones made by Jean Marc for FTD classic album release (better than At Stax, better than 2024 Memphis). Or the outtakes from Blue Hawaii sessions sound STUNNING. But note that usually is when (as I said on point one) they go for the multi track reels that the spectacular results are achieved. The sessions set by FTD are stunning, as were many classic albums. Sebastian is amazing. Kevan Budd too.

Last but not least: we will agree Vic Anesini did a great job remastering (note: remastering the one or 2 track masters). Well, his goal was to make it sound like the vintage vinyl did.

[Swedish]

Over the years Elvis records had many rereleases, for which you can find an accurate overview of all versions and label variations on Elvisrecords.com website. With Christmas only months away, I thought I'd share some anticipation with my different label USA versions of Elvis' Christmas Album from 1957 to 1970. USA Only. RCA released a new version in October before each Christmas season, these are the copies in my collection:

Only this one is missing for you then?

mIgAAOSwywpkghfJ.jpg

[LesterB]

The best sounding pressing of SFE IMO

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/144894468315?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-127632-2357-0&ssspo=9k7V-WYgTRe&sssrc=4429486&ssuid=fB3xk4OiSXG&var=&widget_ver=artemis&media=COPY

Lester, better than the Bob Jones cut?

I hadn’t realised Bob Jones had cut this title?

It’s certainly better than the 1977 Black label Indianapolis press and the earlier orange label Indianapolis press.

Very detailed, punchy and dynamic. The Indianapolis sounds a little dull by comparison.

[LesterB]

Lester, better than the Bob Jones cut?

...taken in account that Bob Jones work was excellent and he knew what he was doing so all the credit to him back in the day...but none of his work would beat the technology now used today be it Sony Legacy or FTD...or am I missing something here??

Very intelligent observation. Technology can be used or abused. And it can also be used to an agenda, meaning making Elvis - for instance - sound “modern”. But the mere existence of better “tools” will never mean a better result.

The first thing to have into account is that the source here will always be vintage. No matter what. And that is a BIG issue, because the greatest benefit of technology is the recording technique allows much better quality - read here quality as definition -. When the source is vintage, being a Velázquez painting, a 50’s movie or the tape of in the ghetto, the modern techniques can improve it to a certain point.

Then, there is “what” source. If you take the 16 track master tape of a 70’s song, you can remix it and improve it. If you take the 2 track master of the same 70’s song, there’s not much to do… no matter how well they master the 2 track master of Moody Blue, the way you achieve a great result is to go to the multi track tape and make a new mix. And even so, there is the question of taste, choices, etc (take the Memphis 74 show, remixed 3 times in 20 years, and each with a different outcome).

Having stated that, that the source is all relevant, the second point is that, generally speaking, people back then knew their game, generally speaking. It’s true there are badly recorded sessions, and badly mixed albums, but, mostly, they knew their game. But some of them, like Bob Jones or Bill Porter, REALLY excelled at that. No remastered girls girls girls sounds better than the one done by Bob Jones. Same with Loving You. No binaural tracks sound better than the ones Bob Jones did on essential 2.

And sometimes, the people now know their game too. For instance: no alternate takes from the raised on rock album sound better than the ones made by Jean Marc for FTD classic album release (better than At Stax, better than 2024 Memphis). Or the outtakes from Blue Hawaii sessions sound STUNNING. But note that usually is when (as I said on point one) they go for the multi track reels that the spectacular results are achieved. The sessions set by FTD are stunning, as were many classic albums. Sebastian is amazing. Kevan Budd too.

Last but not least: we will agree Vic Anesini did a great job remastering (note: remastering the one or 2 track masters). Well, his goal was to make it sound like the vintage vinyl did.

Just had my turntable upgraded and there are certain titles that sound better than the CD. Elvis TODAY is a good example (tan label Indianapolis) sounds more punchy, exciting and detailed than the FTD IMO.

[EAP 35]

Just had my turntable upgraded and there are certain titles that sound better than the CD. Elvis TODAY is a good example (tan label Indianapolis) sounds more punchy, exciting and detailed than the FTD IMO.

Doug Sax cut Elvis Today. One of the best ever cutting engineers.

Online bonus: Engineer Rick Ruggieri tells more about what it was like working with the King, and what Presley wanted from his later recordings:

“The last record I did with him was the Today album, which I cut 99 percent of, and I took it to Doug Sax’s studio [Mastering Lab in Hollywood], and had him master it. After Elvis was complaining that the record sounded so different [on the master from what he heard in the studio], I promised him that what he heard in the studio was what he would get when he got the record. So, I convinced the powers that be to let me go outside of RCA to master it, which was unheard of at that time, and when the thing was all done, I set up a playback session in a studio behind the Mastering Lab called the Producer’s Workshop.

“I actually got Elvis to come over and listen to the final acetate over there, and I wanted to show him the studio because I wanted to cut the next record there. Producer’s Workshop was probably the best-sounding tracking studio in L.A., if not anywhere, at that time. He really liked it, and we sat there—we must have played that thing over and over again for four hours. He loved the sound of the room and the speakers, and we wanted to cut the next record there, but it just never happened.”

https://www.mixonline.com/recording/classic-track-elvis-presley-burning-love-366396

[sweetangeline]

Lester, better than the Bob Jones cut?

...taken in account that Bob Jones work was excellent and he knew what he was doing so all the credit to him back in the day...but none of his work would beat the technology now used today be it Sony Legacy or FTD...or am I missing something here??

Very intelligent observation. Technology can be used or abused. And it can also be used to an agenda, meaning making Elvis - for instance - sound “modern”. But the mere existence of better “tools” will never mean a better result.

The first thing to have into account is that the source here will always be vintage. No matter what. And that is a BIG issue, because the greatest benefit of technology is the recording technique allows much better quality - read here quality as definition -. When the source is vintage, being a Velázquez painting, a 50’s movie or the tape of in the ghetto, the modern techniques can improve it to a certain point.

Then, there is “what” source. If you take the 16 track master tape of a 70’s song, you can remix it and improve it. If you take the 2 track master of the same 70’s song, there’s not much to do… no matter how well they master the 2 track master of Moody Blue, the way you achieve a great result is to go to the multi track tape and make a new mix. And even so, there is the question of taste, choices, etc (take the Memphis 74 show, remixed 3 times in 20 years, and each with a different outcome).

Having stated that, that the source is all relevant, the second point is that, generally speaking, people back then knew their game, generally speaking. It’s true there are badly recorded sessions, and badly mixed albums, but, mostly, they knew their game. But some of them, like Bob Jones or Bill Porter, REALLY excelled at that. No remastered girls girls girls sounds better than the one done by Bob Jones. Same with Loving You. No binaural tracks sound better than the ones Bob Jones did on essential 2.

And sometimes, the people now know their game too. For instance: no alternate takes from the raised on rock album sound better than the ones made by Jean Marc for FTD classic album release (better than At Stax, better than 2024 Memphis). Or the outtakes from Blue Hawaii sessions sound STUNNING. But note that usually is when (as I said on point one) they go for the multi track reels that the spectacular results are achieved. The sessions set by FTD are stunning, as were many classic albums. Sebastian is amazing. Kevan Budd too.

Last but not least: we will agree Vic Anesini did a great job remastering (note: remastering the one or 2 track masters). Well, his goal was to make it sound like the vintage vinyl did.

...maybe the word "technology" was not the best choice. What I really mean was acknowledging how great Bob was first in his craft, but unless you are a serious vinyl collector (I have hundreds myself) the average Elvis collector probably is quite happy and content with the results from the recent names above. You mention 3 above by Bob that are the very best even in 2024 and I am not disagreeing with you. Overall though I think in general terms everything has passed the benchmark that Bob set previously, or at least the biggest majority of it and that`s not a "hit" against Bob at all, but it has been a long time since those days. With respect, I hope you understand what I mean now if you didn't with my original post.

[LesterB]

Elvis At Sun

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/305817518995?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-127632-2357-0&ssspo=ATdS7SKsQ76&sssrc=4429486&ssuid=fB3xk4OiSXG&var=&widget_ver=artemis&media=COPY

[JohnnyByeBye]

...taken in account that Bob Jones work was excellent and he knew what he was doing so all the credit to him back in the day...but none of his work would beat the technology now used today be it Sony Legacy or FTD...or am I missing something here??

Sweetangeline,you just got in the middle of analog vs. digital war And this is the thread invaded by analog men and women who are ready to defend it with their usually rather pricey turntables.

FTD on the other hand is 100% digital. Sometimes they are should say 60% digital since they produce also lp's which of course have to be mastered in analog domain but have still been mixed in digital domain,using digital source mix.

[frus75]

Sweetangeline,you just got in the middle of analog vs. digital war And this is the thread invaded by analog men and women who are ready to defend it with their usually rather pricey turntables.

FTD on the other hand is 100% digital. Sometimes they are should say 60% digital since they produce also lp's which of course have to be mastered in analog domain but have still been mixed in digital domain,using digital source mix.

And yet I’m not an analogue man by any means. Digital is not bad per se , as well as analogue isn’t good for the sake of it. The digital 50’s Elvis albums sound amazing. Like for instance Kevin Gray cut of Golden records.

Lester, my all time master in this matter (because of his approaching to the subject), directed me to a Japanese 2016 LP version of Elvis’ first album. Well, those guys grabbed a hi res digital transfer of the album and worked it to sound like the original album but better. You get the same sound signature of the original but with better quality: and it’s digital. Vic Anesini, on the contrary, remastered the 59’s songs looking for a different sound signature, and it sounds wonderful too.

And we’re into Elvis, but with Sinatra (I like him a lot) vinyl offers too unique mixes, that were used once and never again. The first mix of Sinatra and strings is the better and it’s only on LP. There’s a second mix from 68, a third from 91 and a fourth from 1998. The original mix of 1967 Sinatra Jobim is special because the engineer had to work a lot on it to remove some things. The final mix was used and then it literally burnt, and subsequently had to be remixed. And so on.

Bob Jones (and countless others) did their mastering, and put their own signature on the material they worked on.

When the Japanese engineers in 1974 and 1975 worked on good times and promised land, they observed the last song on each record’s side A tended to show distortion. They decided to cut the record in a different way, leaving more dead wax space. And distortion is gone. They had the same technology but made a different choice.

And regardless of digital or analogue, is that result that matters. It’s not technology what made Lene Reidel work mediocre, it was her choices. It’s not technology what makes Sebastian work shine, it’s how he uses it.

[JohnnyByeBye]

Good post Ivan, thank you for that.

[frus75]

Good post Ivan, thank you for that.

You’re welcome my friend.

[sweetangeline]

It’s not technology what made Lene Reidel work mediocre, it was her choices. It’s not technology what makes Sebastian work shine, it’s how he uses it.

agree that`s why I followed up with this if you missed it (revised a bit):

...maybe the word "technology" was not the best choice. What I really mean was acknowledging how great Bob was first in his craft, but unless you are a serious vinyl collector (I have hundreds myself) with an incredible system to back it up, the average Elvis collector probably is quite happy and content with the results from the recent names below. You mention 3 above by Bob that are the very best even in 2024 and I am not disagreeing with you. Overall though I think in general terms everything has passed the benchmark that Bob set previously by the new names you mention (Jean Marc, Sebastian, Kevan Budd, Vic Anesini) or at least the biggest majority of it and that`s not a "hit" against Bob at all, but it has been a long time since those days.

...good point below;

Sweetangeline,you just got in the middle of analog vs. digital war And this is the thread invaded by analog men and women who are ready to defend it with their usually rather pricey turntables.

[LesterB]

Sweetangeline,you just got in the middle of analog vs. digital war And this is the thread invaded by analog men and women who are ready to defend it with their usually rather pricey turntables.

FTD on the other hand is 100% digital. Sometimes they are should say 60% digital since they produce also lp's which of course have to be mastered in analog domain but have still been mixed in digital domain,using digital source mix.

And yet I’m not an analogue man by any means. Digital is not bad per se , as well as analogue isn’t good for the sake of it. The digital 50’s Elvis albums sound amazing. Like for instance Kevin Gray cut of Golden records.

Lester, my all time master in this matter (because of his approaching to the subject), directed me to a Japanese 2016 LP version of Elvis’ first album. Well, those guys grabbed a hi res digital transfer of the album and worked it to sound like the original album but better. You get the same sound signature of the original but with better quality: and it’s digital. Vic Anesini, on the contrary, remastered the 59’s songs looking for a different sound signature, and it sounds wonderful too.

And we’re into Elvis, but with Sinatra (I like him a lot) vinyl offers too unique mixes, that were used once and never again. The first mix of Sinatra and strings is the better and it’s only on LP. There’s a second mix from 68, a third from 91 and a fourth from 1998. The original mix of 1967 Sinatra Jobim is special because the engineer had to work a lot on it to remove some things. The final mix was used and then it literally burnt, and subsequently had to be remixed. And so on.

Bob Jones (and countless others) did their mastering, and put their own signature on the material they worked on.

When the Japanese engineers in 1974 and 1975 worked on good times and promised land, they observed the last song on each record’s side A tended to show distortion. They decided to cut the record in a different way, leaving more dead wax space. And distortion is gone. They had the same technology but made a different choice.

And regardless of digital or analogue, is that result that matters. It’s not technology what made Lene Reidel work mediocre, it was her choices. It’s not technology what makes Sebastian work shine, it’s how he uses it.

To add to this - if you were to make a digital needle drop from my “expensive turntable” then the digital copy would sound identical to the analogue LP.

Much of the problem is modern day mastering decisions. Most people listen to music via earbuds or portable blutooth speakers which demands a certain type of mastering which rolls off the high frequencies. As Ivan says, the source material is king when it comes to sound quality but even then there is the risk of buggering up the mastering so that a copy tape can sound better on a well cut vinyl record.

I embraced the digital revolution from the outset and of course have the entire works of the digital (non-historical) Elvis which I would not be without. Admittedly, most of my listening time is spent with vinyl. Holding a first Indianapolis pressing of From Elvis In Memphis in my hand, placing it on the platter, lowering the tone arm and then sitting back to listen while studying the record sleeve is an experience not to be underestimated.

That all said, the turntable technology along with the amps and speakers available now did not exist when Elvis was alive so not entirely authentic

[EAP 35]

Elvis' catalogue has been well treated sonically in the digital domain since Sony took over the mastering 20 years ago, but the tapes are of course not in the same condition that they were in when they were brand new.

All of Elvis' records were cut using tube equipment up until around 1970 when they started using solid-state equipment, so this alsó adds something to the sound of the records.
Before early 1961 the records were cut on Scully lathes. Then they were cut on Neumann lathes and the Scullys were only used to cut mono records.

[frus75]

It’s not technology what made Lene Reidel work mediocre, it was her choices. It’s not technology what makes Sebastian work shine, it’s how he uses it.

agree that`s why I followed up with this if you missed it (revised a bit):

...maybe the word "technology" was not the best choice. What I really mean was acknowledging how great Bob was first in his craft, but unless you are a serious vinyl collector (I have hundreds myself) with an incredible system to back it up, the average Elvis collector probably is quite happy and content with the results from the recent names below. You mention 3 above by Bob that are the very best even in 2024 and I am not disagreeing with you. Overall though I think in general terms everything has passed the benchmark that Bob set previously by the new names you mention (Jean Marc, Sebastian, Kevan Budd, Vic Anesini) or at least the biggest majority of it and that`s not a "hit" against Bob at all, but it has been a long time since those days.

...good point below;

Sweetangeline,you just got in the middle of analog vs. digital war And this is the thread invaded by analog men and women who are ready to defend it with their usually rather pricey turntables.

Yes, I read your post, and found it intelligent and spot on. It’s a bit of everything, and I thank you all because this thread keeps away from mantras, such as this is better than that and period. Each cd, stream, cassette, vinyl, etc. must be judged on its own merits.

Your point is 100% valid in the sense that the Elvis Presley masters were remastered for the digital world by Vic Anesini divinely. I spoke to him once and he described it as “a labor of love”. With Sinatra, you find on Apple Music many 1998 awful remasters of his capitol a albums, along with excellent 2014-2016 perfect remasters. So it’s hit and miss.

But with Elvis , you have top notch sound. And many many Elvis and music fans have every right to be happy with it. They should. Same with Sebastian work on FTD.

[minkahed]

It’s too bad on what happened with Kevan Budd.

I consider his work absolutely stellar, and arguably the best.

I would’ve loved to hear what his work on Elvis Is Back and, for that matter, the 1970’s session’s could have sounded like.

[londonflash]

Elvis At Sun

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/305817518995?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-127632-2357-0&ssspo=ATdS7SKsQ76&sssrc=4429486&ssuid=fB3xk4OiSXG&var=&widget_ver=artemis&media=COPY

Got it

[LesterB]

Elvis At Sun

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/305817518995?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-127632-2357-0&ssspo=ATdS7SKsQ76&sssrc=4429486&ssuid=fB3xk4OiSXG&var=&widget_ver=artemis&media=COPY

Got it

Superb price too. Well done!

I paid a lot more for mine

[LesterB]

As discussed previously, one of the best sounding Elvis LPs - Elvis Today https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/395784566461?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-127632-2357-0&ssspo=MXeMx0NqSqW&sssrc=4429486&ssuid=fB3xk4OiSXG&var=&widget_ver=artemis&media=COPY

I have 3 copies ready otherwise would have bought this

[londonflash]

As discussed previously, one of the best sounding Elvis LPs - Elvis Today https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/395784566461?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-127632-2357-0&ssspo=MXeMx0NqSqW&sssrc=4429486&ssuid=fB3xk4OiSXG&var=&widget_ver=artemis&media=COPY

I have 3 copies ready otherwise would have bought this

I picked up a Japanese pressing recently that I thought sounded good. Nice and punchy.

[JohnnyByeBye]

As discussed previously, one of the best sounding Elvis LPs - Elvis Today

Also,containing songs from the last Elvis session that he cut in a proper studio. Sound quality of recordings improved over time.

[colonel snow]

LPM 2697 / LSP 2697

Here scans of the first mono / stereo pressings (with and without New orthophonic High Fidelity on the label).
What means “ New orthophonic High Fidelity” on the label for the sound quality?



colonel snow

[Alexander]

LPM 2697 / LSP 2697

Here scans of the first mono / stereo pressings (with and without New orthophonic High Fidelity on the label).
What means “ New orthophonic High Fidelity” on the label for the sound quality?



colonel snow

Never played these variants back to back and do not think it is a matter of difference in sound quality.
Rockaway and Indianapolis printed their first labels without the "High Fidelity" labels, while Hollywood has had "High Fidelity" from its first run on the label (7S/4S according to Elvisrecords.com)
I think it is basically a design error or inconsistancy since the first Indianapolis run of the previous LSP-2621 also misses "High Fidely" on the label, while Hollywood has it. Apperently LSP-2621 was not pressed in Rockaway.
Same thing can be said for LSP-2523 (Pot Luck): Hollywood has the "High Fidelity" mention on label, Rockaway and Indianapolis do not.

[colonel snow]

Alexander, thanks for your explanation. I've not checked other releases from those years.


colonel snow

[colonel snow]

Double trouble – first LP cover announced Trouble Double instead of special bonus.


colonel snow