Tubular Bells SHM-SACD

Uhm... Oops... I messed up there.
Tales of mistery and imagination was om MoFi...
I just ordered my third version of this album from CDJapan. Even though I don't really play it all that often, it is one to have.

 

Yesterday Amazon reseller blowitoutahere had this for $54 + 3 shipping so I bought it. 1st time owning this, had to get it after all the positive reviews.

 

I just ordered the SHM-SACD of Ommadawn as it is my favourite Mike Oldfield album.

Almost picked up Bells at the same time, but I have the Virgin CD, the 200g Classic, the Virgin original vinyl (black/white), the 180g Classic and the Quad SACD...oh and the 2003 DVD-A which doesn't really count but there it is.

So I couldn't justify spending another $50 on a title I wouldn't listen to anywhere near as often as Ommadawn.

However for those comparing to the original SACD, did anyone compare the Stereo SHM-SACD to the Quad SACD and still prefer the SHM and if so are you more of a stereo fan anyway than multi-channel?

My SACD is in great condition so I know I could get $100 for it, but I do love the Quad mix and would find it very hard to sell as I only paid $35 for it.

 

I am digging up this old thread to report what I think may have been a grave mistake by Universal Japan on their recent reissue of the Tubular Bells SHM-SACD. I had eagerly been waiting for it since I had sold the original SHM-SACD in anticipation of this reissue. I almost never sell anything but prices for the original SHM-SACD hit the stratosphere when it had gone out of print.

I don't believe the reissue uses the incredible 2011 DSD transfer from the analogue master tapes, done by Richard Whitaker at the FX Copyroom. I considered the original 2011 SHM-SACD literally one of the best SACDs in existence (remembering that I own hundreds of them). Its warm, inviting sound was a meticulous digital transfer of the album's original sound. I know the original SHM-SACD's sound well, having listened to it repeatedly. It blew the doors off the decade-old surround SACD with that disc's different mix.

I would bet serious money this SHM-SACD reissue from Universal Japan actually uses the Hi-Rez PCM transfer done for the 2009 deluxe edition of the album. That 24-bit/96 kHz mastering was credited to Paschal Byrne at the Audio Archiving Company in London. This reissued SHM-SACD sounds far inferior to the masterful 2011 SHM-SACD, which is almost impossible now to acquire on the used market. Its sound reeks of being a PCM digital transfer that was converted to DSD. The mastering also happens to be inferior, point blank.

I was worried this might happen with Universal Japan's line of budget SHM-SACD reissues. I've bought several of the reissued SHM-SACDs, this is the first case I have come across that likely uses a different mastering from the earlier SHM-SACDs.

The credits are no help in this matter. Universal Japan decided to included the 2009 deluxe edition's booklet in English and in Japanese with the reissue. They mention the Richard Whitaker credit in the Japanese booklet but then also refer to the 2009 stereo mix, which was not on the 2011 SHM-SACD.

SA-CD.net is little help as well, they have apparently decided to meld listings for the reissues with the now out-of-print original SHM-SACDs.

 

Interesting, I have not bought any of the reissues as of yet, there are only one or two that I was considering.

 

Well that sucks. Have you considered getting the Platinum SHM-CD? A cheaper option, at least.

 

I still have a digitally cloned SACD-R made from the original, better SHM-SACD. The only problem is that my reference system doesn't play SACD-Rs. To say I am disappointed is a huge understatement.

 

Well, I think that's just bizarre. Not doubting what you are saying, but can't imagine whey they'd change the mastering for a reissue and go for an inferior remastering done two years prior. I finally got around to getting this but can't recall whether I ordered it before the reissue or not. Are the 2 versions easily distinguishable other than from the sound, i.e., visual differences?

 

Original release: http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/NM-MIKE-...815?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item339cdfbd6f
Priced down reissue: http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Mike-Old...261728324222?pt=Music_CDs&hash=item3cf0394a7e

 

MiniLP vs Jewel case. UIGY 9080 vs UIGY 9629.

 

If you look closely to the covers of the two SACDs, you will notice that they also changed the photo. The seagulls that flew closely above the waves on the old cover are now gone and the bell itself is a computerized image instead of the original bell. Especially the two open edges are now smoother. Universal made these changes in 2009 for the deluxe edition on various formats. I wonder why somebody should think this is important but they did...

 

So all the reissues shifted to a Jewel case format? I don't think I realized that. Luckily mine is the mini LP version...

 

Yep. Mine is in a jewel case. Haven't listen to it yet. Have SHM as well. That one is all right.

 

The original SHM-SACD with a better mastering came in the mini-LP cardboard sleeve that all of the original SHM-SACDs came in. The reissues all come in jewel cases. I have several other SHM-SACD reissues, they all appear to be the same masterings used on the original.

 

Sneaky little bastards. Who would have thought? I totally missed the original one and was sure the reissue would be the same.
Well, I had a listen today of my jewel case SACD and was not too impressed. It's okay, but nothing special, a little bright and thin. What you gonna do? Will stick to my SHM then...

 

karma?

 

Yes, of the bad variety.

Makes me want to hold on to my multichannel SACD all the more.

 

Wow, if true that is rather disappointing, the original issue was great. Surprising considering they have't 'upgraded' any sources for the re-issues where they used iffy Japanese copy tapes the first time round when the later platinum reissues used masters. Odd.

 

Interestingly, similar concerns are expressed about the Rolling Stones SHM-SACD reissues by user called 'analogue' over at sa-cd.net.

 

For those that are still keen on acquiring a copy of the 2011 Remastered Flat Transfer of Tubular Bells............

Platinum SHM CD - UICY 40016 ............and regular SHM CD - UICY 75891.......... are STILL available from CD Japan.

Sadly, as stated above, apparently you should STAY AWAY from the SHM SACD re issue.

To those with the proper SHM SACD - UIGY 9080.............LUCKY BUGGERS

As CD Japan have recently re issued 100 SHM SACD titles I am now wondering how many other potential disappointments may be hiding amongst them!!!!

 

I wonder too I bought a few of the priced down 100 but they were all ones I did not have, so I have no way to compare. There are a few more I wan't to pick up soon that were rated highly but now give me pause to wonder if they are indeed the same. I wonder if the Tubular Bells is just an isolated mistake or what. Sad because Tubular Bells was one of the outstanding sounding discs.

 

Same here. I picked up 4 SHM-SACD reissued jewel case Rolling Stones titles (Sticky Fingers, Beggars Banquet, It's Only Rock n' Roll and Tattoo You) and I'm pleased with how they sound. Hopefully better versions don't exist.... ignorance is bliss.

 

Hi Guys, I'm not sure if anyone has received a response from CD Japan in regard to the Tubular Bells mastering used on the "Special Priced 100 SHM-SACD Reissues".

I sent CD Japan an email about 2 weeks ago, and finally got a reply. These are the 2 questions I asked (in bold):

"JAN/ISBN # 4988005857811 SHM SACD Mike Oldfield Tubular Bells:

Hello


I would like to order this item, but I have an important question.

Under the description of this product, it contains the following words:


“[Special Priced 100 SHM-SACD Reissues] Uses the 2011 DSD master based on UK original analog tape (subject to change).”




Why does it say “(subject to change)”?.


I have a general question as to the mastering used for the "Special Priced 100 SHM-SACD Reissues." Is the mastering used on the SHM-SACD Reissues the same as the mastering on the original SHM-SACDs? "


Here is the response from CD Japan (in Bold):

"Hello.


Thank you for contacting CDJapan.


I'm sorry for the late response.


Actually, it says "subject to change" simply because the record company says so.


It means they are wanting to feature that believing it will aid them with their marketing efforts, but normally, they are not necessarily able to determine whether they will be permitted to obtain the license to use it."

END.

Probably not any new information here, but at least they made a response.

It sounds to me like CD Japan is saying the record company is simply leaving the door open to use a different mastering at any time in the future by inserting the "subject to change", but for now they are being told by the record company that Tubular Bells does use the "2011 DSD master based on UK original analog tape".

 

Has anyone confirmed that the new release is not from the recent flat transfer from the original master? I just got Ommadawn, which also utilizes the reissue notes and refers to a remix, but the disc is actually the flat transfer, not the remix.

 

I took a gamble and ordered the new version from CD Japan. First, the notes and photos are wonderful. It gave a lot more detailed history of the album than I'd ever known, and I wasn't familiar with any of the photos.

The only other version I have is the original Virgin SA-CD w/ stereo and quad versions.

I compared the first two minutes of each side using headphones. The new SHM version is certainly a little louder and brighter, but I don't hear any difference in the mix. It sounds pretty good to me, but I'd like to take more time to decide which version I prefer. I'll definitely keep both versions, because (although I rarely listen in surround) I'd like to have the quad version, and the original version's cover lists all the instruments played by Oldfield on the back, but the new one doesn't.

If it was sourced from Oldfield's 2009 remix, something should sound different. Can anyone point me to a segment where I can listen for that difference?