Original CD Pressings to Avoid

How does it sound in comparison to the MFSL?

 

There's a problem with "Country Life" though with the sound dropping in volume during the build up for "All I Want is You". It was corrected on the U.S. first edition.

"Siren" had the beginning cut off on a couple of songs most notably "Whirlwind" (as compared to the vinyl).

 

No contest the Mo-Fi sounds much more natural. Still, for a contemporary reissue it's pretty decent.

 

Thanks, I'll be sticking with the MFSL.

 

How can you determine the reissue from the original? (Did they change the cat #?)

 

Hmm, I would NOT tell people to avoid the Harvest Japan Blackface of The Wall, since it's the best I've heard. And the old UK/Holland Harvest Silverface is the runner-up. And I'm perfectly happy with my old V/C Lamb.

Haven't heard the DCC, but once again, my old WG Target sounds just fine. No need to avoid.

I think the old greyfaced RCAs are the best. They sound great, so no need to avoid. On the contrary.

But boy, does that go a long way! To paraphrase Mr. Diament (again): Good hands on bad gear beats bad hands on good gear.

 

The remasters of the following George Harrison CD's are superior to the original pressings:

Living in the Material World
33-1/3
George Harrison
Somewhere in England
Gone Troppo
Cloud Nine
Live in Japan

 

Does this hold true for the Japan first pressings of Material World and Cloud Nine?

 

Hi Mike and Jamie,

While 6 dB does add up to 1 bit of resolution, I believe this bit sigh: ) of information is often taken out of context and misrepresented.

The logical extension of the common argument would say that unless we compress the dynamic range to 6 dB or less, we're not using all of the available resolution on a CD. (Oh, wait a minute. The majors are compressing the dynamic range to 6 dB or less, aren't they? Actually, with many current releases, 6 dB would be an expansion. )

As you can see, it becomes a silly argument rather quickly, especially if you want to have a dynamic recording.

As to digital masters after noise shaping being "effectively 14-bit", here again, I must disagree. This too is what I call a "reductionist" perspective on a picture that is much larger.

If an original recording is made in high resolution (say 24-bit) and one wants to make 16-bit CDs, the options are:
1. to simply truncate (i.e. "throw away" bits 17-24), which will wreck the tonality and soundstaging
2. to dither (adding about 4 dB of noise overall), which if done properly will preserve much of the low level information that would otherwise be lost
3. to dither and noise shape, which if done properly will keep the benefits of good dithering while making the added noise considerably less noticeable.

To suggest a reduction in resolution with noise shaping is to imply one will not suffer any loss by avoiding noise shaping.

I hear resolution as being primarily a function of the quality of the original recording (i.e. what leaves the microphones), the quality of the A-D conversion and how carefully everyone in the chain works to preserve --i.e. stays out of the way of-- what was recorded.

Many of the best sounding recordings I own do not spend much time near the top of the meters and all of them involved some kind of noise shaping for reduction of the original to 16-bit for the CD.

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

Not sure about Cloud Nine, but I used to own the Japanese first pressing of Material World, and the remaster is definitely better to my ears.
In fact, the remaster of Material World is the best remastered Beatles that has ever come out of Abbey Road as far as I am aware, and gives me hope for decent Beatles remasters, if the two guys who did the Material World RM are also doing the Beatles remasters.

 

The original Cloud Nine is actually very good. It's not as polished or consistent sounding as the remaster but I do like it. The remaster has a top end evenness and sheen that some around here may not like but it is a nice remaster. Neither CD is bad, IMHO. Just depends on personal preference.

 

When people think a fancy power cord for a computer makes a night and day difference on sound nothing it too subtle to not exaggerate into a huge deal.

 

Hi Jamie,

I can't say because I've never tried any substitute power cords on my computer.

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

No but all of the discs currently in stock through amazon.com (it's not listed at Hip-O anymore if I recall)--domestic versions might you--are the corrected copies.

I will have to look at the CD to see if there's an RM-1 on it or compare it and will do so and get back to you.

 

I may be alone on this, but I prefer the AJC's over the Shout Factory remasters. They are loud and compressed and have a smiley EQ.

 

No, you're not alone.

 

Hi Barry

Re: the 14 bit arguement. I can't pretend to understand all of this at this stage. It was something I was told about relatively early days mastering by someone in the industry. Mind you - you're in the industry and saying something different! This was about 9 years ago now and I may have misunderstood. It may have just applied to some early CD mastering - I don't know. They just went straight to 16 bit in the old days - is that right? So with a little processing here and there is it possible that resolution could be lost?

Thanks for getting involved in this stuff Barry - it's nice to have you here.

- Mike

 

Hi Mike,

Thanks for your kind words.

We did go straight to "16-bit" (i.e. the Sony 1610/1630) in the old days and whether it achieved true 16-bit performance may be open to question.

When I used EQ back then, it was always in the analog domain, prior to digital conversion, so what hit digital stayed at whatever resolution the Sony system could capture at the time.
I can't speak for what other folks were doing but if they were processing after the converter, yes, I'd imagine some resolution was lost.

I remember testing out Sony's first digital console when I was at Atlantic and rather quickly saying I wouldn't use it for my work because simply engaging the EQ (with everything set to flat) hurt the sound so much. I didn't want to pass any signal through that board when I could simply wire directly (with good, short cables) to an analog EQ and then directly into the 1630 for digital conversion.

My comment in the earlier post was with regard to the assumption (and rather arbitrary assignation of the value) that noise shaping necessarily reduced resolution to 14-bits. I say this because my experience has been that the folks who talk about "using all the bits" are not the same folks who make the best sounding CDs I've heard. It is the analog of folks who talked about keeping the levels up to avoid tape hiss. They avoided hiss but got distorted recordings. (I find hiss a lot easier to "tune out" than clipped music.)

Today, we have folks "using all the bits" by giving us records with 6 dB or less dynamic range. Not exactly "high resolution", is it?

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

Thanks for the clarification Barry.

 

It seems like everyone prefers the Ludwig remasters over the original pressings except for myself. My ears must be defective. I love the sound of my original CBS issue of "Sticky Fingers".

 

Your ears are just fine. Who is listening when you put that CD on? Us forum members or you? Don't forget that!

 

Oh boy, your ears are sure different from mine. I really like the sound of this CD, I think it is quite well mastered. It would be on my recommended list.

 

Not me, I also prefer the original CBS CD's over the remasters, for all Stones titles. The remasters aren't totally bad, but the original CD's sound more natural to me.

 

All Things Must Pass

I definitely prefer the remaster, even if the EQ choices are a bit grating at certain moments. The original CD sounds like a blanket thrown over the speakers.

 

I was really shocked the other day when I had a freind over that only ever had Chicago 16 in it's original US for US edition. He asked me to put on my Target version, which he has always loved and felt sounded much better than his CD. The shock comes in here though. While thrift shopping I found a nice clean vinyl copy of 16 for $.50, which I picked up for him.

When we got the LP home and did a shootout with the Target CD guess what? The vinyl blew the CD away. It was as much of an improvement over the Target, as was the Target over the Us for US. I have not heard the new CD mastering for Chicago 16 but have not heard good things about it.