Note from Steve, Tullman isn't happy with me over a recommendation. Your thoughts?

We're sure you will....

 

And that's a good enough reason for me to have the flat transfer. Thanks Steve!

Jason

 

Steve,

So far, I have only read bits and pieces of this thread at another forum member's house, and I din't want to bother logging in on his computer.

Steve, I like to hear flat transfers, and I like a recessed midrange. When you describe what you hear, I hear basically the same thing on my system, and you have never steered me wrong in the sound department.

Don't change a thing! Keep doing what you are doing!

Yes, some people like a "mastered" sound, and that is not bad. I generally do not like my sound goosed up on album reissues, especially if the goal is to sound modern. If it's a comp, I can take a little, as long as the mastering is not on the bright side.

 

Me too! But, of course, most mastering engineers tend to be tight-lipped about other people's work. These guys don't really need any bad blood between them. They all work together and help each other out.

 

A few CDs that I bought solely because of Steve's recommendation; I would have never even searched for them otherwise. And they are uniformly excellent.

Best Of The Beach Boys (1988)
Ultimate Rascals (1986)
Pastmasters Smiley Smile, Wild Honey, Friends and 20/20
Hollies 20 Golden Greats
The Animals - The Singles Plus
The Searchers - Hits Collection (for the mono mixes)
The Kinks - Greatest Hits (PRT CDKINK 7251)
Crosby Stills Nash & Young - Deja Vu (1980s CD)
Led Zeppelin - unremastered CDs

I wish there were more recommendations along these lines.

 

One CD I bought directly from Steve's recommendaion is the Hollies Classic Masters CD.

 

I’m flattered. Forgot about this.’ha

 

As far as older John Denver CDs, I do like the sound of the RCA 1980s US CD of Farewell Andromeda, the BMG Special Products issue of Windsong, and the 1980s CDs of Greatest Hits Vol. 2 and Vol. 3 to name a few.

For a great sounding original mix CD of Kingston Trio hits, I recommend the 10 Best compilation.

 

For what it costs to print a CD, I have always felt that any remaster sold should be accompanied by a flat-transfer of the same. This way, we get to hear from whence the remaster comes and appreciate (or not) what the mastering engineer has done with it. How can anyone know if a remaster is an improvement without first knowing the source? Obviously, repaired drop-outs and anomalies of that nature are better once fixed, but when it gets to things like dynamic, spectral, and temporal processing it would be great to have first-hand access to the unmastered source as an educational comparison. After all, educating listeners comes with considerable advantages - to the technical, business, and artistic sides of the industry.

 

As this thread is associated with the Carole King Tapestry SACD thread, but since that particular thread is closed, I’ll comment here. I recently looked into getting the Tapestry SACD however I wanted to check the SH Forum first for recommendations. After reading through the other thread, it became apparent that both the 2-Channel version of the SACD (ES 65850) and the Stereo/Multi-Channel version (ES 86328) had the same 2-Channel mix and mastering, I decided to go with whichever I could find cheaper. Turns out I found a near-mint 2-Channel SACD copy on Discog’s for $30 so I ordered it. It arrived yesterday and it’s certainly NM, but then I noticed the “Multi-CH” logo on the back cover. I checked the disc and it’s indeed the ES 86328! Not sure why the seller listed it as ES 65850 when it is in fact ES 86328. But since it has the same 2-Channel layer as ES 65850, I’ll keep it!

(And after a listen, it does sound great. If it does have depressed midrange, it doesn’t bother me in the least. Very happy with the SQ!)

 

No mastering (if there really is such a thing, I'm sceptical) is way better than slight overcorrection. And ya, nobody is right all the time (especially me).

 

I actually love the idea of having a flat copy of the original tapes. And as you point out, anyone can buy an equalizer and mix it how they want. I've just re-entered the vinyl arena after a decades hiatus, and frankly I've been disappointed by some of the overly zealous remastering I've heard.

 

Hmmm... I can see the reasoning behind both sides on this, honestly. I welcome any recommendation of a flat transfer of the master, but that is because I am the kind of guy that likes to tamper with EQ, dynamic range compression, harmonics and stereo separation to make the music sound the way I like, then create new lossless files with those changes applied on for my personal use. Sometimes I share those with other people, bur they rarely can hear a difference. For instance, John Lennon's recent compilation 'Gimme Some Truth' that offered new mixes of each and every track sounded very boomy but was very lacking in the high end for my taste, so I made it brighter and sucked just a tiny bit of low end out of 3-4 songs. Shared both versions with a friend, but he said he couldn't hear any difference. I certainly do and now I enjoy that comp so much more.
BUT... I understand those who are not interested in playing with the audio and just want a good sounding copy to pop into their system and enjoy. And that is not always possible when all you have is an unmastered flat transfer. Different people look for different products. Despite all being audiophiles.
Just my 2 cents.
Cheers.

 

Just out of curiosity. Have your feelings changed about this matter since the thread was started?

 

That was 15 years ago. I haven't played that SACD since then.

 

I suspected, given the time lapse, that I would get an answer along those lines. I was just curious. Thanks for replying anyway.
Any idea why the thread was re-opened, then?

 

Surprised that he didn't bark about a delayed ship date.

 

I'm certainly happy with the surround layer. Sounds particularly good standing up higher than your typical sweet-spot sitting position for some reason, especially casually walking around. Can't say why, except the imaging of having the combo all over the room makes for a nice experience.

Steve hasn't shared any of his recommendations lately...I wonder if he's got any new ones to add to his list since 2006...?

 

You were spot on, Steve

 

Mr Hoffman's rep precedes him so to speak. So we sit with bated breath for the breath of life from each SH remastering. Don't disappoint us as we can't keep holding our breath.

No pun intended.

 

Sadly, this whole mastering thing has become a minefield. Seeking to please everyone is folly, and even moreso when you're talking about classic albums people have spent a lifetime with. The master tape is the master tape. It is what it is. Each of us can adjust how we see fit. In fact, I'd like releases clearly marked to tell me if it's a flat transfer or a mastered version. It's sort of done now, because a flat transfer seems to be considered a bonus! (I'm thinking the Tull boxes). The truth is, Mr. Hoffman would never be able to provide me with a mastering of, say, Alice Coopers Welcome to My Nightmare that transport me back to the days I fell in love with the music. The stereo I had then was garbage - no-one would want it to sound like that.

So for me, The flat transfer is a milestone. It is what it is. As soon as you mess with it, you're in the remastered territory, which when done well can be great, and when done poorly is a nightmare. Given a choice, there I people I trust to do a good job and people I don't.

By the way - on Equalizers, a lot of modern day amps seem to have them built in, so it's really not difficult to play around.

 

I think the question that really needs to be asked is why is someone who refers to himself as "Tullman" listening to Carole King?