More thoughts on Tapestry SACD...

Hi Jamie,

On a serious note, we both know that isn't the only issue in determining Ebay or other prices. Supply & demand must be considered. Don't forget about SRV:CSTW.

Take care,
Jeffrey

 

Great work Detective Jamie!

 

That may be so and yet Rockman concludes that "they sound the same"

 

I've got the remastered Red Book, and should be getting the SACD stereo mix as soon as the mailman brings it to me. I will compare them and report back soon.

 

I never said they sound the same, the mix is the same. I love the warmth of the stereo mix on my 5.1 SACD. I hope that makes sense to everybody.

 

OK-

Where did the rumor of Stereo being remixed on the MC version come from??

 

Actually the MCH/Stereo SACD states "SACD Stereo Mix Produced by Bob Irwin. Engineered by Bob Irwin and Vic Anesini...."

I guess that someone assumed (and you know what happens when you asss/u/me - as Felix Unger would say) because it said STEREO MIX that it had to be a different mix than any other version!

(Note - I had to add the extra "s" or you would have seen ***/u/me)

 

Yes you did! Look at post 19 in this thread.

That's what my quotation marks are about

 

OK smarty pants, your right that those were the words I used, but my intention was to refer to the mix and not the sound. My sincerest apologies to everybody if my meaning was not clear.

 

Jamie, you're the man. Thanks so much for saving me some buckage and time trying to run down the stereo-only edition.

FWIW, everything Steve said about the stereo mix on the stereo-only SACD certainly describes what I hear on my stereo + Mch CD. Wonderful-sounding stuff--and the music ain't no slouch, either.

 

This is all good news as I just picked up the 5.1 SACD for $8.00.

 

Everybody needs to thank Rob LoVerde.

 

Yes, thanks Rob!

 

Somehow Martin, this seems to be the logical explanation for the differences in sound some are reporting.

Two different engineers?

 

Tongue in cheek, I know, nevertheless and not withstanding if the 5.1 enabled me to appreciate an album that hadn't previously appealed to me, it is a good thing and worth having, do you not think?

 

Thanks, Rob, and Vic too!

Hey Oxenholme, who's your new avatar?

 

I know but it sure did have an effect on Die Beatles.

 

I meant between the remastered CD and stereo mix on the SACD's. My reply was to a post that was making it sound to me like there was no difference between the CD and the SACD, which is only true of the (stereo) mix, but not the mastering.

 

Françoise Hardy - French chanteuse with a rather seductive voice who sang Tous Les Garçons Et Les Filles & All Over The World amongst other gems...

 

Well, this thread prompted me to get out both of my Tapestry SACD's to compare again. I cannot say that the stereo/multi SACD necessarily contains a remix on the stereo tracks, but I do not think that the stereo-only and stereo portion of the multi/stereo SACD sound identical. I just compared, at length, the tracks "So Far Away," "It's Too Late," and "Beautiful." In each case the stereo tracks on the multi/stereo SACD sound a bit "cleaner." There is a perceptible (albeit subtle) lack of "murk and goosh" that the stereo only SACD has. The stereo SACD is muddier sounding. Is this due to a remix by Bob Irwin? Slightly different EQ? Use of noise reduction? I don't know.

I would suggest that some people are jumping to conclusions regarding whether the stereo/multi SACD contains a remix in the stereo tracks based on Rob LoVerde's comments. He appears to have only said that he knows of no remix and that he knows that Vic Anesini did not remix it. This does not rule out the possibility that Bob Irwin did a new stereo mix and that Vic used that mix for the stereo/multi SACD. I don't know how many tracks Tapestry was originally recorded on, but isn't it possible to recreate a faithful stereo mix when there aren't tons of tracks?

For comparison, I know that the Simon & Garfunkle "Collected Works" cd is favored by some forum members because it contains the original stereo mixes of the earliest tracks. In this case as well, I don't think the newer remixes were radical reworkings of history; they just lacked the original "magic" of the original mixes. If anything one could argue that the newer mixes are higher "fidelity," but if the fidelity one is seeking is to match the original vinyl then a somewhat noisy original mix has greater fidelity than a slightly cleaner but faithfully done remix.

I'm not saying that I know for sure that the stereo tracks on the stereo/multi Tapestry were remixed, but I sure would like to hear from some other forum members who have both the stereo only and stereo/multi SACD's who would like to take the time to compare some of the tracks and report back to us.

 

Please read the thread more carefully before making such assumptions!

I only commented on Rockman's statement that the 5.1 sacd's stereo mix and the redbook sound the same. Never did I (or he) say they are the same.

 

Isn't that where this thread started!