Sinatra / Capitol Sound Quality and General Discussion: Songs for Swingin' Lovers - Released 1956*

Sure, although it's strictly an opinion, with a few facets in no particular order:

1. The US pressings seemed to be really all over the map, but all with in about a 20% range, i.e., the best US pressing is 10% "better" than an average-sounding one, and the worst that we sampled was about 10% worse -- but all were pretty good. I thought that the EQ'd sample from salleno sounded gorgeous, and I'm guessing that any of the USA samples could be EQd to produce a result that's in that ballpark. (Keep in mind, too, that we are hearing these samples from a variety of turntables/styli, so if the tone is not "perfect" on a given sample compared to another, at least some of that difference may be attributable to the stylus used.)

2. If comparing mint copies to mint copies directly from a turntable, not from some altered, EQ'd CD-R/digital copy, I'm quite confident that the best sounding versions would be original "D" Capitol pressings, such as the D9 that stevelucille shared with us.

3. It's very hard to really get a definitive "read" on this album in terms of sound. There are some very quiet parts and some very aggressive sections with driving brass and rhythm. For instance, I thought the French pressing (which I believe was "D" sourced and merely pressed in France) sounded gorgeous in the quieter parts, but really lost it's praiseworthiness on the double- and triple-forte sections, as evidenced here specifically. Also, Frank's vocals do not strike me as being very warm when compared to the vocal sound on, say, Songs for Young Lovers. I think that Walsh tried to compensate for this, and the results were mixed. I wouldn't call it a flaw in the original recording, per se, but a recording decision that is not especially to my liking. (I'm at a loss to explain what caused it. Could be something as simple as a use of different tape stock.)

4. The vocal quality seems to get glassy-er or more razor-like (albeit subtly so) once we get to the reverbed tapes, circa 1961/62. I'm not saying that it gets horrific, just subtly less pleasant, to my ears. These are the tapes that MFSL used for both the LP and CD. The LP seems to have a warmer EQ applied than does their gold CD, and that's a help. I'm actually rather fond of the MFSL pressing. I'm used to it, and even after all these years, the vinyl sounds mint. (I used no de-clicking on those MFSL samples -- didn't need to. Their SuperVinyl deserved to be called such!

5. The added reverb on this title is pretty subtle when you compare it to what was done to, say, Swing Easy, which had a true slathering of the stuff! Because of that, the MFSL, even though it uses the "reverbed tapes," does not come off poorly at all; just not "as good."

6. I think that anybody who added the MFSL to their collection would be quite happy to have it, and it's a very pleasant listen on the whole, but because it does have that added reverb, I can't really place it in the absolute top echelon and still be able to sleep at night.

7. The German LP, played straight off the turntable, is pretty poor, frankly, but it has one big thing going for it that no other copies in this survey have: It is 100% dry. I believe -- based on what I've heard with my own ears, including what I presented in the "One Final Reverb Check" section here plus some other spot-checking I did -- that *every* USA issue of this complete album from day one had a TOUCH of reverb added to it. If you compare the D1 EP or the D5 or the D9 or any of the other "vintage" USA pressings to the Furmanek-produced version, which I'm certain was from the true original tape, you will hear a very slightly higher reverb level on the originals than on the Furmanek, and I don't have any reason to believe that Mr. Furmanek was "sucking reverb off the tape" through any sort of digital trickery. Also, the fact that this 1950s German pressing matches the Furmanek-disc reverb levels precisely tells me that there has existed a "drier" tape all along. (If you are playing the comparisons on the car stereo or over "computer speakers," the difference may not be apparent, but over headphones or "hi fi" speakers, it is clearly there, IMO.) You could create -- and others clearly have created -- a very high quality CD-R from a vintage USA pressing with very minor (if any) EQ, but it would not be as dry as the German version -- but very close! Also, there is an argument to be made that the release of the 100% dry German version was a MISTAKE and was not what was intended, as it appears to be an anomaly. It all boils down to personal preference, in my opinion. Look at NICE & EASY. Somebody at some point made the decision to release that LP buried in reverb. Personally, I think a much drier version would be a vast improvement. Is that artistic revisionism? Sure. Is it superior? For me, definitely! For you... that's your call.

8. Back to the MFSL LP: I think that it's more pleasant than the MFSL CD in terms of overall tone, and a very good presentation of the material, just not a "technically correct" presentation. Ever watch a movie at home? SHAME ON YOU! That movie was meant to be seen in a theatre....but it can still be really good at home. Same deal here. It's not quite as intended, but still quite good on its own terms, IMO.

9. One more note about the added reverb. Adding reverb affects more than just how much reverb you perceive. It can affect overall tone, blend, and dynamics. Maybe adding 2% reverb isn't a big deal as far as the reverb goes, but if that 2% reverb causes the tone to be, say, 1% worse, and the blend to be 1% worse, and the dynamics to be a little less impressive, suddenly you have a release that, through subtle manipulation on one front that subtly affected other fronts, is maybe 4 or 5% worse overall. You probably won't even notice it on its own terms, but if you actually compare carefully you may find that you just don't enjoy one version of the album as much as another, and it may be because of all those nearly-imperceptible alterations that add up to have an affect on the overall enjoyment of the album.

Matt

 

Yes. Using the Furmanek disc as a reference, it starts at about 1:12 and ends around 2:46. The reference for the RSM numbers were 1:58-2:00 vs. 2:18-2:20.

Matt

 

Yes, each blue picture is 1:12-2:46.

 

Yes, it's still on my hard drive.

Matt

 

Could be; no argument from me, as I just don't know. What struck me as so odd is that *each* of the six original US copies I had -- regardless of overall EQ, tone quality, etc. -- sounded like it had more reverb than the German copy.

Nor am I, so again, it seemed really odd.

Yes, all true; fully agreed. I hated to use words like "razor-y" to describe the tone on this title, but at times it's just not very pleasant, even on the Furmanek, and I think the Furmanek issues are of very high quality overall.

....and I would say that most of the vintage LPs from Capitol in this time period (not just this album) have the midrange boost that can use a little tweaking.

I assume you mean in its "raw" version. I would go one further: It has highly attenuated bass, a mild midrange dip, and a stronger cut further up, yes. If I were to seriously attempt a CD-R or digital copy of that LP, it would take some serious fine-tuning to dodge turntable rumble while still getting enough bass in the end result.

I was especially intrigued by this quote:

I noticed that, too. In fact, I have posted something (not part of the actual "sample pages") here, and it seems like in one passage the Furmanek matches up best with the Salleno EQ'd LP and on another with ArneW's LP that I tweaked. Then there's the reverb issues on those clips, too...

Matt

 

Martin, I've paraphrased your comments here. Let me know if anything isn't to your liking. Thanks!

Matt

 

Bingo! I was wondering, too, if maybe the no-noise may have contributed to the somewhat drier sound on the CAPITOL YEARS clip.

Back on page two of this thread a post got sort of buried amongst a lot of other stuff. Greg1954 posted a good comparison clip that is worth checking out. (Sometimes we start a new page here and the "old stuff" never gets looked at.)

Matt

 

IIRC, the bass roll-off starts quite high, up around 200 or 250 Hz.

Matt

 

Actually, a sample was sent to me last night, and I will have it on the site within the next 24 hours. I haven't done a critical comparison yet, but my initial reaction is that, on it's own terms, it sounds good. More to follow.

Matt

 

Numbers and sound don't always correlate, right? Not the first time we've learned that lesson!

By the way, Martin was nice enough to send along a sample from the 1984 "Alan Dell" series British pressing, and I've added some samples and comments to the sample pages. Overall, I think it's a very nice sound, certainly the equal of the MFSL LP. It does have a slight amount of added reverb, but tonally it matches up quite well with a good original pressing, IMO.

Matt