Inglot Orbison.....dare I ask!

[peterC]

Probably another old topic.

I've always thought the Rhino "For the Lonely" compilation (I have the 25 track version) sounded pretty good but I have a sneaking suspicion that that will not be the consensus on this forum!

Is it correct that they are remixes?

Can anyone give me a relatively objective assessment of its merits compared to Steve's and other compilations?

One thing I'm not so keen about on the rhino is the way all the tracks are merged.

[Bob Lovely]

Peter,

For a time, it was the BEST one available, in my opinion. However, I was never very happy with it either. Too my ears, it had a digital harshness on the high end without much low end. I never really heard Roy properly until Steve remastered his Greatest Hits. The DCC version is, by far, the definitive version to own and listen to--no contest. Now, I cannot listen to any of Roy's hits on any CD except the DCC. The highs, mids and lows are well-balanced and natural sounding. The dynamic range on the DCC is better than other versions as well. You can hear "the layers" of sound in the recordings. Steve made a dramatic improvement over the other versions of Roy's work!

Bob :)

[John Oteri]

I'll second that.

The Rhino Roy is typically harsh and unmusical. Especially compared to the masterful S. Hoffman versions!

[Scott Wheeler]

Im pretty sure that there is nothing digital in the Rhino version and I like it better than the original Monument compilations. The DCC is richer and wetter sounding but I cannot dismiss the Rhino record. If you compare the DDC and the Rhino you have to adjust both the volume and the VTA to be fair about it. If I have the correct VTA for the DCC and then play the Rhino it sure does sound harsh. If i have the correct VTA for the Rhino and play the DCC the DCC sounds soft and veiled. Yes the Rhino is brighter even when you have the right VTA but it also sounds a little bit more detailed to my ears. I like them both. No I love them both. love love love. Don't tell my wife I said that. They sound very different and they both blow away the originals. Now I'll prepare to wipe away the rotton tomatoe residue after I get pelted.

[Bob Lovely]

Scott,

As I said in my earlier post, I thought the Rhino Roy was the definitive "Roy" at one time. Yes, at the time it was mastered, it was very compelling. However, after Steve remastered Roy, there was no comparison. The Rhino Roy is like listening to compressed and processed FM Radio when compared to the DCC. I make music compilations on a Reel recorder as a hobby. As such, I spend a lot of time under the headphones listening to music and watching VU meters dance. The DCC, under these conditions, blows the Rhino version away in terms of dynamics, natural sound and frequency response balance. The DCC also records very, very well on a Reel recorder where the output level is high.

Bob :)

[peterC]

Thanks everybody.

I saw a used copy of Steve's Roy at Amazon for $20.99. I emailed the guy to ask if he could ship to Australia. He emailed back saying he could.....and by the way, it's not the gold version!!

Amazon's "guarantee" must get called on regularly with sellers like that!

Interestingly there is a "lifetime" limit of 3 claims under the Amazon guarantee. Why's that? A valid claim is a valid claim I would've thought.

[Matt]

Some of those sellers are sneaky little devils. It's a good rule of thumb to ask before buying, and thankfully Amazon and now half.com allows you to do that.

I did manage to snag a gold Hotel California for $9 once. I asked the seller (an organization of some sort) if this was really the gold version, and he replied that it was and that the price was a mistake. But, he sold it to me for $9 anyway. Never had that luck again, though.

[Dave]

Peter,

Be carefull as Steve ONLY did the gold cd and vinyl version on DCC! If it's not on gold cd Steve didn't do it.

I guess you already knew that though huh?

[Cousin It]

I remember reading an interview w/ Bill Porter back in the early 90's and he mentioned that he didn't like the sound of the Rhino disc.Too harsh,no warmth..not a fan of digital.

[John Oteri]

It was stated on the old board (in awe I think), that Bill Porter was actually using the DCC and Rhino versions of the Orbison songs to help him teach his classes in engineering. Sort of musical examples of the right and wrong way to master.

Guess which example he used of the right way! ;)

[Scott Wheeler]

Bob
I don't doubt your word that you like the DCC version better than the Rhino. But I hear what I hear. I like the DCC version better also but I think there are trade offs. I also think that if you do not make significant adjustments in the VTA ( each sounds their best at substantially different levels on my set up) and volume you can't make a fair comparison. You made no mention of whether or not you do this when you compare the two.

[Matt]

Well, I used to have both, and after matching all the levels, I remember the DCC version having a lot more warmth and body than the Rhino version. The DCC version hit you with this big, lush sound, while the Rhino version had the details sort of chiseled out more (this was with and without the top boost adjustment I do with some Rhino discs).

It's definitely remixed; the instruments may be at roughly the same levels as the original mix, and the spatial placement may be similar, but it did have that modern remix feel to it.

[Mitch Kaufman]

Any comments on the Bear Family "Orbison" box set?

MK

[Bob Lovely]

Originally posted by Scott Wheeler
Bob
I don't doubt your word that you like the DCC version better than the Rhino. But I hear what I hear. I like the DCC version better also but I think there are trade offs. I also think that if you do not make significant adjustments in the VTA ( each sounds their best at substantially different levels on my set up) and volume you can't make a fair comparison. You made no mention of whether or not you do this when you compare the two.

Scott,

What is VTA? I play my CDs on a Tascam CD player with the output into my pre-amp. I run an output from my pre-amp to my Reel recorder where I adjust the record levels for the very highest peaks to hit about +10VU for tape optimization (using BASF SM-900 high output reel tape). When I listened to the "Rhino Roy" verses the "DCC Roy" I adjusted the level for each track to optimize each song that I listened to. In other words, I put both versions on a level playing field. Clearly, the DCC version makes the VU meters "dance" more than the Rhino--evidence of more dynamic range. I use high quality interconnects. I hear the sound from the CDs unprocessed as "they are". The Rhino is more compressed and sounds louder (see Compression thread) even when the levels are adjusted to match the DCC. However, upon further listening, the real offense of the Rhino is grainy high end, poorly defined low-end when compared to the DCC. In defense of the Rhino, it was a pretty well done at the time it was mastered many years ago. If you want your Roy to sound more like louder, processed FM Radio then the Rhino Roy is definitely the ticket. If you are seeking a replication of master tape then the DCC is definitely your ticket. For my listening and recording choices I will choose the "master tape" sound every time!

Bob :)

[Scott Wheeler]

Bob,
I think we have a real good explination for why we are hearing things so differently. I've been talking vinyl this whole time. It never occured to me that you were listening to CDs. That was funny.
You bring up another interesting issue though. I do not worry about truth to the master tape unless the master tape is true to the sound of live music. To many master tapes were mixed using crap equipment. I prefer the sound that most closely mimics the inherent beauty of live unamplified music. If the final products sounds more like live unamplified music and less like the master tape I'll take it.

[Dave]

Hi Scott and welcome aboard.

Were you aware that 99% of DCC's releases sound identical on both vinyl and cd, no difference at all?;)

[Bob Lovely]

Originally posted by Scott Wheeler
Bob,
I think we have a real good explination for why we are hearing things so differently. I've been talking vinyl this whole time. It never occured to me that you were listening to CDs. That was funny.
You bring up another interesting issue though. I do not worry about truth to the master tape unless the master tape is true to the sound of live music. To many master tapes were mixed using crap equipment. I prefer the sound that most closely mimics the inherent beauty of live unamplified music. If the final products sounds more like live unamplified music and less like the master tape I'll take it.

Scott,

Well that explains some of this. Sorry, for any confusion on my part. I use the same methods for recording vinyl as I do for CDs--it is just more work from a timing standpoint. I enjoyed our exchanges!

Bob :)

[Scott Wheeler]

Dave,

I am aware of the claim that the Cd's and LPs from DCC sound the same but I can't see how that would be possible since no two turntables or tone arms or cartridges sound the same. I don't own a CD player but I have heard different models in other systems sounding different from one another.

[peterC]

Originally posted by Scott Wheeler

I do not worry about truth to the master tape unless the master tape is true to the sound of live music. Too many master tapes were mixed using crap equipment. I prefer the sound that most closely mimics the inherent beauty of live unamplified music. If the final products sounds more like live unamplified music and less like the master tape I'll take it.

Scott, very well put and I agree completely. I also think it might be Steve's philosophy.