Not convinced sometimes by arguments regarding older CDs

Not familiar with famous actor Boris Karloff ????

 

Hey that's some nice kit you've got there!

I owned the 603s for several years and loved them. Eventually sold them to a friend and moved up the line, but I really like how involving and musical they are.

 

No. Don't listen to him. We love your masterings!

Everybody! All together!

STEVE HOFFMAN RULES!
STEVE HOFFMAN RULES!
STEVE HOFFMAN RULES!
STEVE HOFFMAN RULES!
STEVE HOFFMAN RULES!
STEVE HOFFMAN RULES!
STEVE HOFFMAN RULES!
STEVE HOFFMAN RULES!

 

While I have found a fair number of older CDs to be more "listenable", I've generally had a positive experience with remastered CDs. Stress on "generally"...

Slightly off-topic: I tend to like Steve's mastering style, I suspect because he & I feel the same way about the importance of the accuracy/transparency of the midrange area. I don't think it's a problem, though, if someone else doesn't go for that style.

E.q. is probably the most important factor for me in choosing a version of a given album; of course, I also like CDs that aren't so loud that they're distorted or "hairy" (see Memory Almost Full, Jet's Shine On).

 

it was an attempt at your earth humor

 

I agree. The midrange is most important part.... I heard Capitol's Grand Funk remasters ... I only can hear the music at low level. everything is boosted...treble, bass. The sound is very unnatural.... especially when you turn up the volume level... then the remasters are unlistenable!

 

Okay, now I see you're 58, I'm so used to people that are younger not ever hearing of the Greats...afraid they'll soon be forgotten.

 

If a CD sounds exactly like the original LP, it was most likely cut from a second generation album EQ master - or an original master EQ'd to sound identical to a vinyl pressing. I don't think many people on this board are comfortable with the extended range provided by CD technology. I can tell you from first hand experience...I've seen many complaints about CDs having too much high &/or low end, when in fact, those frequencies are on the original tapes and they have not been boosted. However, like many have already stated, that benefit is often outstripped by the fact that there is this nasty tendency to overly-compress CDs. In rare instances, you can get lucky and find one without the other.

 

My son asked me last night was I going to sell my Trunk Of Funk, since I've acquired 4 Pastmasters and Steve's American Band ?
I said it was likely, once I complete the catalog.

 

Leaving isn't the answer to everything; what if Paul McCartney had said this to George Martin?

 

Dave,

I said they weren't compressed "to death". In the many polls here regarding the remasters vs the '87s. I've been very consistent in stating on a per title basis that I preferred some of the '87 discs vs the remasters. Abbey Road is one of the remasters that I felt was too "goosed" up (even if all that bass is on the AR master tape- I don't need to hear it.) Never liked the '87 AR disc either.

 

Sincerely agreeing with this man for over 7 months now !? And exactly why I'm in the process of finally getting all 13 Beatles albums on vinyl !
The UK Abbey Road I bought from pbthal has superior SQ.

 

Just finished re-buying the Marshall Tucker CD's (S/T through Together Forever) and have to say I do prefer the originals to the remasters for these. I'm a recent convert on the whole remaster vs original thing but I'm not a remaster hater either. I like the Dire Straits remasters, Beatles remasters, Bob Dylan and Rolling Stones SACD hybrids, etc. so it's case by case for me.

 

Wow. Harsh. I agree somewhat with what he said but there is much more here to benefit from. I'm guessing he's still here for those reasons.

 

http://www.allmusic.com/artist/vic-anesini-p201030/credits

 

Actually, the forum favorites for the first three Hendrix albums are the 1980's Reprise cd's. I've heard the Polydor AYE cd...yuck! The Polydor Axis has the alternate stereo mix and the West German Polydor of Eelctric Ladyland is actually quite good.

Most times people think older cd's are better is because they're not compressed, maximixed and sound more natural in terms of EQ.

To each his/her own.

Steve did comment later in the thread why he preferred the old 2 cd sof The White Album. See post:

http://stevehoffman.tv/forums/showpost.php?p=6005906&postcount=101

 

'Best sounding CD' is - or should be - a case by case basis.

When I consider my own CD collection its a mix of 'original' & remastered CD's. I go by what I prefer listening to.

 

To some extent, I think you are exactly right. New CDs mastered or remastered by non-specialty labels are likely to be regarded with some suspicion by many of us here. And many of us do find early '80s Japanese CDs to be the best available versions when there isn't a mastering by Steve, Kevin Gray, Doug Sax, Bernie Grundman, etc.

However, I would argue that there are very legitimate reasons for these general preferences. First, the reason why most contemporary masterings are looked at with suspicion has to do with the almost universal use of heavy limiting and/or brickwalling on most CDs mastered in the past 15 years or so. There is no way get a CD to sound as loud as others without compression/limiting, so almost everyone does it. You hear non-audiophiles complaining all the time that a certain CD needs remastering because it is "too quiet and I have to adjust the volume." Therefore, the suspicion of most modern masterings harbored by those of us who cannot stand that compressed sound is both reasonable and well-founded in experience.

Now, it may very well be that dynamic range compression doesn't bother you very much. In that case, there is less reason for you to be suspicious of recent masterings and remasterings by the mainstream companies. But many of us came to this forum precisely because we value masterings that leave the original dynamic range intact (and that do not try to eliminate all tape hiss, and that do not exaggerate bass and treble). The fact is that all else being equal, older masterings are more likely to fit these criteria simply because limiting, no-noise, and extreme EQ wasn't in fashion in those days. Yes, we may have preferred the same masterings done with better tapes and equipment, but we will accept certain flaws in exchange for a more "natural" mastering approach. From what I understand, that is the stated philosophy of our host, and not some kind of trendy groupthink. We are here because we happen to agree with this philosophy.

Does that make sense?

Mark

 

I'm with Evan on the White Album I always thought it was just about the best sounding original. Wish Revolver [stereo] was that good. Both The original and remasters suck. Glad I have the new Mono CD and decent vinyl-rips of the stereo.....

People like different types of sound. No one is wrong for liking what they like. As for myself I'm glad it's not remastered sound as then I'd have to buy every reissue that comes out 'cause newer is always better. Or so I once thought until just before I joined this forum. Personally I'm glad to be off that expensive remaster treadmill. Cost me a lot for few years finding all the older discs I wanted but now most of my collection is static as I currently have only disc's that I hear good sound on.

P.S. It not wrong to assume and older disc is always better any more than assuming a new one is. I've been burned by remasters I felt were not listenable so so many times I am now gun-shy to a degree. Conversely it's rare that I've been burned by a non-remaster, in fact in all these years I can only think of twice..

 

Another thing ive noticed. Yes in a way the original album is maybe a point to aim for, but do we all really believe the original vinyl releases were perfection as they were?

I know from a historical standpoint they were the original sound and all, but werent a good bit of them actually compromised some to make the vinyl playback and cutting issues easier? (( as far as how much time per side and inner groove issues ))

 

Im not sure I ever wanted my CDs sounding exactly like all the vinyl ive owned over the years. I figured to sound closer to the master tape was the goal. Im not so sure all the vinyl ive owned sounded like the master tape, and if it did, wow, some recordings are really mediocre then.....

 

I let my ears decide. If a CD has good tone & a nice soundstage, I'm happy. If it's harsh & shrunken it goes bye-bye. Just yesterday, I gave a CD of 'The Yes Album' a spin. It was apparently mastered by Barry Diament in his Atlantic Records days. The sound was phenomenal, one of the best I've ever heard. So there is no desire on my part to find another version.

Sometimes the opposite is true. The Dire Straits CD of 'Brothers In Arms' for example. I've got an original UK Vertigo record of it that is mind-blowing, with great tone & a huge soundstage, but these qualities were absent on the original Canadian Ploygram CD I've got. Loved the longer songs on the CD version, so I decided to try the remastered CD. Bingo. Same qualities as the UK Vertigo record, but with the longer tunes on it. So for me it is definitely a case-by-case basis.

 

I have no idea if what you say is true. People say this all the time here - that a certain CD was cut from a EQ master designed for an LP. I don't know if it's true at all - and I don't expect that those saying it know either. But it's trotted out many times - too many times, in my opinion.

I agree with you on that. In a number of cases, the extended range in the top end is not well served by their equipment leading to complaints. In those systems, older CDs with a softer top end come off sounding better,

I don't know that, and wonder how you know.

 

For me, the answer to your first question is no. I want as close a replication to the original master tape as possible. The Analogue Productions SACD Hybrids of the CCR discs are a perfect example of what I want. Not that I have heard the CCR masters, but I understand Steve did mostly a flat transfer from the master to CD/SACD capturing more of the dynamic range than the record could. I don't mean any offense or disrespect to Vinyl enthusiasts as I grew up with tapes then CD's, not records. Therefore, I don't have any nastalgia about the sound of records. I don't want to take this thread in a CD vs Record direction but I like the idea of a flat transfer of the master to CD's greater dynamic range capacity. Doing a flat transfer of the master to the higher resolution SACD or DVD-A is even better. Compression, fancy EQ, etc. is just moving away from what the artist intended, documented on the master tape. This is all just my thoughts about the subject for what it is worth.

 

The comments on this forum about various CD masterings are just that...comments. And opinions. And personal preferences. You get every kind of shade here. There are some who swear by early Japanese pressings and quite often (> 90%) prefer these over any other mastering. Then you get some people who like many remasters as long as they are not totally brick-walled or too heavily EQ'd. Not every comment or opinion has to be one you personally agree with.

I think it is best to educate yourself by doing a lot of listening and comparisons. Just find out what you like best. Then eventually, you will find a handful of folks which seem to have a similar taste in mastering or similar preferences as you have. This is very helpful because chances are quite high that you will often also like the same CD version best that these specific people like best. That is very helpful.

Just because someone else has a different preference - even if it is our host - doesn't mean that one person is right or wrong.

I know that some people feel the urge to convince another member about the "best" version of a specific title. In my opinion, that is pretty pointless.

I have found a few members here which I seem to agree with in at least 9 out of 10 cases, so I value their opinions a lot, not because they have the perfect insight or have truly "figured out" what the "best" version is, but because they have a preference that is similar to my own.

I often make statements about which versions I personally like best, and I have even started a few respective threads, but by no means are these preferences to be considered anything but my own opinion. Feel free to agree or disagree.

With regards to the original examples (Beatles, Jimi Hendrix), I also prefer (for stereo) the original CD mastering of the "White Album" over the remaster. I am mostly bothered by the (slight) compression applied and the somewhat more "in your face" EQ choices. For Hendrix, it is indeed quite complicated, but for his first album, I like the old Reprise CD (non RE-1 without any no-noise) quite well.

And yes, there are quite a few remasters out there which I think sound quite good, but it is still more miss than hit in my opinion. Lately, there has been - what I perceive - a slight change for the better.