Thanks Unc! Sounds like I may have to try out that Stax 2002 mastering of BUABS. If I do, I'll report back.
I've tried to catch up on this thread since I left this morning but there is too much. I was told someone had a question for me. If so, can you restate it? Thanks.
Went home last night and listened to BOC original Columbia pressing again based on this post, since I had not listened to it since replacing my KHorns with Vienna Acoustics Mahlers. The original Columbia STILL sounds like BOC is playing inside a barrel. Reminds me of the sound of later pressing vinyl, of which I have 2 copies. To my ears the MFSL is miles ahead, and still sounds good even at EXTREMELY high sound levels. Like I remember the 1st press vinyl before I wore my copy OUT (probably 10,000 plays). Dave, WHY do you prefer the original Columbia???
More definitive still would be to simply measure the midrange energy in the two versions you are comparing. I don't know who told you that, but they're wrong. One of the touted virtues of CD at the end of the LP era was that it was at last possible to routinely capture the full dynamic range of a master tape, on a convenient playback medium. Applying dynamic range compression to a digital transfer of an analog tape, is a *choice*, not a necessity. If you are referring to *data* compression, that too is of course unnecessary for CD. Do it yourself. Rip a the same track from a UD and UDII, compare them 20 times using ABX software, listening over headphones (or loudspeakers, if you prefer). If you do better than 17/20 correct, you've proved your case. Then again, if the two are likely to be audibly different, there are easier ways to demonstrate it. But actually we were talking about your level-matching skills, were we not? No one says you have to do them back to back. You can take 20 sec, a minute, a day, a week, whatever, between each mastering if you want to. The crucial thing is that you do them without knowing which one you are listening to, and that you do enough comparisons so that chance can be reduced to an unlikely reason. In my comparison of Relayer remasters I certainly didn't need 20 seconds between A and B to successfully tell two versions apart which measured the same *except* for their levels. I scored something like 25/25 right off the bat, with essentially ZERO time between A and B. When they were level-matched, I couldn't do it. I'm not sure what Steve's advice is based on, but psychoacoustics research indicates that audible memory for subtle details rapidly decays..which is why most researchers use quick-switching (that is, short-interval) methods when investigating audio discrimination.
"Is Thick As A Brick on MFSL close to what you remember it sounding when you did Original Masters?" The original mixes unearthed by Ian Anderson for DCC was the first time the original mix was used to make anything; LP, CD, etc. Before that, the British LP master (marked "MASTER") was used to make the first British LP cut and the MoFi. That was the best there was up until the original was uncovered. I don't think the original has been used again and probably never will be. It was segmented in separately mixed sections..
A thousand thank you's - very interesting news for me. So it begs the question: What was used for the remaster? The same source as the MFSL?
I have no idea whatsoever what they used for the "remaster". I mean, it wouldn't matter what they use, the Edison wax cylinder version or the actual master mixes. I heard the AQUALUNG remaster and ran screaming from the room. That was it for me...
There are a few discs you MUST have - only because there is nothing else even remotely acceptable. Aqualung DCC is one of them.
Let me get back to you on this as the S/T BOC has only had a cursery listen to see if the top or bottom ends sounded smooth... and they do. I just got it 2 days ago. However, Agents Of Fortune does sound better than the MFSL that hurts my ears at higher volumes due to boosted bass and treble frequencies.
I don't believe so because the tape hiss is not overly present, just there. I do believe it is a production master because it does sound really good like a one generation away. Nothing like say the majority of the RCA David Bowie pressings if you catch my drift. On a side note to be clearer... The MFSL is completely hiss-free. I cranked this one up really loud in an attempt to even hear the faintest hiss presence and it was completely black, nothing. Even on Steve's least hiss present masterings I can still get even the smallest amount of tape hiss when I turn it up.
Judging from some comments on this forum recently I'm wondering if it is now a requirement that we have access to the original master tapes, perfectly accurate playback equipment, and possibly some sort of degree involving psycho-acoustics in order to simply state our preferences of one mastering over another and why we feel so. I don't have many of the titles on Dave's list but I definitely agree with these: UDCD 604 John Mellencamp Scarecrow (sounds "thin" to me) UDCD 664 Counting Crows August and Everything After (excessive clipping)
The Thick remaster doesn't sound like the sledgehammer job that Aqualung was...none of the subsequent Tull remasters were, thankfully.
No one can 'prove' your preference right or wrong , but 'why we feel so' should be fair game, if it involves claims about the recording or mastering process, don't you think?
Run screaming this way with a copy of your gold Aqualung, maybe in this lifetime I'll get to hear it! maybe? Thanks once again - Sitting here on a park bench-waiting for someone's gold Bad Company HDCD to arrive?
Are you sure there is clipping on the Counting Crows MFSL title? One thing MFSL never did was added compression in the mastering stage. I don't have that title, but every other MFSL I own never clips above digital zero.
Yes, I'm sure. I was very surprised. The overall level of the CD was reduced a fraction of a percent after the fact so it doesn't actually reach 0dB but many, many of the peaks are simply flat lines.
Wow, I had no idea the Elton John 'Madman' original source tape sounded "dead". Even though the MFSL Ultradisc is true to the master, I still don't think I can get into it. I have what I believe to be a first Japanese pressing of 'Use Your Illusion I', and indeed prefer it to the MFSL.
