Highway 61 Revisited SACD: How did they get it to sound so good?

I have been wondering this for some time now. I have owned the DCC for many years, and always considered it the de facto standard sound for this title. Lush, warm and smooth, Steve's version has always been the shining example of what good mastering can do for a title.

Recently I've been spinning the SACD by Greg Calbi, and it is just nagging at me that I am starting to enjoy the SACD layer in some ways more than the DCC. In direct comparison, the SACD trades off a little bass warmth for treble clarity. The biggest difference is Dylan's voice on the SACD. It seems "lifted" from the murk of the mix, without sounding unnatural.

What's going on here? Did they use the same tapes Steve did? Is this just an example of slightly different mastering styles combined with 10 years of improved A-to-D conversion advances? Am I losing my mind

 

Interesting. I'll have to make a comparison to join in this debate - I'm thinking this one will have ardent supporters on both sides.

 

I haven't done a search lately, but this has been discussed in the past. As I recall, more people here preferred the DCC gold CD. I haven't yet compared them, but I've been listening to the DCC disc a lot more lately since I got it more recently. It's wonderful. The clarity of "Like a Rolling Stone" is amazing. I'll have to give the SACD a closer listen.

 

They probably don't own an SCD-1.

 

Seriously, though. I mean, I don't have any other redbook or SACDs that even come close to making me question the superiority of any of Steve's masterings. What makes this one different? People don't have to agree with me that it sounds good/better. Just curious as to how they got such a respectable sound compared to what most would feel is the ultimate digital version (DCC).

 

I suspect you were joking somewhat since we all know that Sam is enthralled with the SCD-1. However, there is validity in your point. I think a lot of audiophiles with high-end CD rigs have scaled back in their purchase of an SACD player because, a) a number of lower-end SACD players have gotten high marks for their SACD performace (e.g., lower-priced Sony players provide great bang for little buck), and b) they are leery of investing heavily in a fledgling format. As such, they are probably not hearing everything the format is capable of. I have the SCD-777ES, and as good as it is, I'm probably not hearing all that SACD is capable of when one considers some of the higher-price players out there.

 

Sounds like they EQed the high end a bit. Some people like that boost!

 

Strange, I just listened to this SACD yesterday and was thinking about how good it sounded.

As discussed in the comparison of this title before, the main reason I like the SACD version is the "very natural" sounding voice which with Dylan recordings is what I "key in on". The take I get is not one of EQ boost at all but rather a more lifelike vocal presentation. The SACD provides a great scale of "tonal gradation" in Dylan's vocals above any of his recordings I have heard on other formats. IMHO this attribute is important in listening to Dylan's "storytelling" as its his voice that conveys the meaning and intention of the lyrics.

Yes the DCC does provide a "warmer" and perhaps more generally "pleasing" presentation and I guess a combination of the DCC instrumentals coupled with the SACDs vocals would be the "best of both worlds".

 

Oh, I think you are pretty close. I've heard a couple of modified 777ES machines and they are more dynamic than standard, but the tone is very similar. Lowering the jitter removes a little grit from the presentation, but we are talking audiophile differences.

 

I agree with this description 100%. I don't hear any EQ'ing going on in the top. Sounds more like (possibly) a different tape source or a different mastering console. Also the analog-to-DSD encoding could account for the added clarity IMO.

 

So any "improvement" we may be hearing in the Sony is due to engineering trickery? I'm not so sure. EQing Steve's version and comparing the results with the new hybrid might be one way to find out. [BTW, saying "Some people like that boost" is not terribly complimentary.]

I have a great deal of respect for Steve's work, but for me--to my ears--I have long felt that the new Sony is the best version of H61 available. The upper-mids and highs, rather than sounding "boosted," sound very natural and detailed. As has been mentioned, the vocals in particular are much "livelier/life-like." But it was the piano that most impressed me upon my first listening--as though it had been buried in the mix all these years.

[As a note, my comments refer to the redbook layer as I don't have an SACD player.]

 

Hey! Someone that agrees with me

Ron, trust me. When you hear the SACD layer, you will like the "improvements" that much more.

Still, the question remains. Why? No one (yet) can really make a case for Calbi to have done very much trickery in the mastering, yet it sounds different than Steve's. Mr. Hoffman, care to comment?

 

If indeed they used the same tapes, then the results would have to be attributed to either/both equipment used and techniques employed. After all, every engineer has his/her unique way of doing things. Hey, maybe Calbi used Grover interconnects!

 

Good points.

Is it so hard to fathom that the improvement over 10 years and the use of a DSD console for "HWY 61" can show the same improvment as what was produced for the DCC->Analogue Productions CCR SACD titles?

 

I bought the DCC after the SACD, & was surprised by how much I preferred the former. Admittedly I don't have a high end sacd player (Pioneer 563), but I prefer the sacd to original vinyl for all other 14 reissues. On DCC Hwy 61, Dylan's voice, & everything else, just sounded "right"...

John.

 

I still prefer the DCC CD over the SACD. To my ears, the SACD sounds very detailed, but it is still too bright for me, compared to the warmth of the DCC.



Ed Hurdle
HeavyDistortion

 

Agreed that the DCC is warmer. But note also that it is warmer than the original vinyl. To my ears the Sony better approximates the bite of the original.

 

I don't know if "trickery" is the best choice of words, since it kinda has a pejorative connotation. Adjusting the EQ in various ways is not trickery, it's just a mastering engineer doing his job. I don't recall Steve saying his H61 was a flat transfer, and I doubt Greg Calbi's is either. I would guess they both EQ'ed it in different ways, and the difference you are hearing is that (in this case anyway) you prefer Mr. Calbi's EQ choices to Mr. Hoffman's. It's very doubtful they used different source tapes, since the story of Steve tracking down and using the H61 master tape is well-known, and certainly Calbi couldn't have gotten a better sound using something other than the master tape.

I know Steve has commented that with some master tapes it is difficult to make both instruments and vocals sound good (the CCR tapes being the example he used), so a mastering engineer has to choose which element to focus on. Maybe that is also the case to some degree with the H61 tape.

A few folks here have comment that the SACD doesn't "sound boosted" but instead sounds "natural". Can something really "sound boosted"? IE, is there a way to tell whether a prominent upper midrange is on the master tape or was added by EQ, just by listening to the CD? "Boosting" gets used negatively sometimes, but sometimes EQ is needed. If I recall correctly, the bass on the DCC Hotel California was heavily boosted by Steve, yet it still sounds natural and groovy.

Just tossing out some thoughts... I haven't heard the Greg Calbi version...

 

At first I preferred the SACD, using the voice as my guage. But on further listening I decided that I preferred the overall balance and tonality of the DCC. Perhaps a better SACD player may tip the scales towards the SACD. Anybody have a high end SACD player they could sell me real cheap?

 

I love the "Highway 61" SACD! I think it's one of the better Dylan SACD's released. Dylan's "Freewheelin'" is another one! I love DCC's version also. I never bothered to compare the two. I think they're both great, but in there own way. Why bother comparing the two, when I own both? I just play the one I'm in the mood for!

 

I can't speak for Sam, but my point is that the differences are such that I, for one, question whether they could be the result of "EQ choices" only. I'll look forward to reading any additional thoughts you have once you've had a chance to compare the two versions.

 

Perhaps you are hearing further into the music due to the superior resolution of SACD. (Waving my pom-poms )

 

Heh. Knowing my ears, my insight would only be marginally improved by comparing the two.

We know Steve used the master tape, and it's pretty much a given Greg did too. So if not EQ, then you must believe equipment used is the major cause of the differences?

 

You know, I was only half-joking when I mentioned in my earlier post that maybe Calbi used Grover cables. But sure, the equipment employed [in addition to/in conjunction with EQ choices] might very well account for many of the differences. One's got to wonder what this title would sound like if Steve were ever allowed to get his hands on the tapes yet again with ten years of additional experience under his belt and ten years of audio improvements/upgrades/tweeks. Certainly not all "new" remasterings are crap due to compression, limiting, etc. Improved technology certainly *can* result in improved sonics.

 

I think that the SACD sounds like it has a layer of murk lifted from it, at the expense of a little warmth. I immediately had the same thoughts about why as rontokyo.