What's the latest with the Elton John SACDs?

Surround mix is the ONLY thing I care about (DVD-A or SACD, got an Oppo ). If I want to hear stereo we've the MCA's and DJM.

 

Yes, I would buy the discs if they were dvd-a and 5.1 only, but I'd honestly prefer the SACD format. I don't care whether a stereo program is present since I already have good sounding cds of these albums in stereo.

 

Exciting news: any hi-rez Elton John is an automatic purchase for me. I'll be watching for these releases.

 

Just one thing: I'd buy these solely if they are HiRez. I wouldn't take any DTS 5.1 or equivalent thingo.

 

As long as it's down-mixable and sounds good that way, I'd be OK with it.

 

You mean a fold down? If these albums were released on DVD-Audio there is some coding that can be added to any 5.1 file to make it mix down to stereo. In fact, I believe that was what they did on The Beatles "Love."

 

This is great news! I can't wait for Don't Shoot Me, Caribou, Rock Of The Westies, and Blue Moves. I'm one of the few people here who really like the sound of the EJ SACDs. I don't think they're too bright or harsh at all - bring it on!

 

The surround mix isn't too shabby, either.

 

I'd take DTS 5.1 if I had to, but it would be a major letdown. I cringe to even mention Dolby Digital.

I pretty much agree with this; I was blown away by the SQ when I first popped in Captain Fantastic about a year and a half ago as my very first experience with SACD Stereo. It was a chill-inducing, "life-changing" experience (no offense meant to TRULY life-changing experiences) making me downright obsessed with hi-resolution and hi-fidelity (I realize the EJ SACD detractors will scoff at this, oh well!). Then, just a couple of months ago I became a surround sound nut and have learned a lot about SQ and surround mixes since, and these discs still hold up incredibly well for me, ESPECIALLY because of the amazing 5.1 mixes. I guess I'd say that these EJ SACDs are a little bright, but nothing for me to complain about. I do think that it somewhat depends on how well our ears hear and how our systems handle higher frequencies. The SACDs sound dynamic and punchy and extremely lifelike to me, but I admit I'm not an audiophile to the level that most people are here (though I am an audiophile compared to the mainstream). There are plenty of truly atrocious hi-rez discs out there, and these ain't them!

Greg Penny is a surround mix master, no doubt about it. That's why I feel these unreleased albums are so valuable, I KNOW the mixes are going to be phenomenal! Whatever we can do to help Captain Jeff, including not stirring the hornet's nest by overdoing the complaints about the SQ, we need to do so we can finally get these other mixes in our homes (my opinion only, of course)!

 

Agree. The guy is one of the few who knows how to make a 5.1 mix interesting. Him, Scheiner and Hicks are my top guys.

 

As for the sound quality issue, it's not that these are terrible sounding, it's just that once you actually sit down with one of those original DJM vinyl pressings and really listen to how good it sounds, the SACDs start to sound very harsh and bright. I recall last year when I picked up a DJM copy of GYBR for 3GBP on eBay. The whole pressing was pretty much mint except for some annoying damage during the quiet piano break in Funeral for a Friend. I decided to try to splice in an analog recording from the DVD-A. It was impossible to match them! I did some heavy EQ matching but the compression on the piano just made it stick out too much. I had the same experience with the SACD of Tumbleweed Connection. I love the song Come Down In Time but the otherwise nice copy of a DJM TC I picked up suffers from background noise during the song. When I tried to match the SACD version, not only was the EQ totally different and the dynamics a mismatch, the remix is much dryer with none of the soundstage behind Elton's voice that so enriches the original.

For surround, however, these SACDs are exemplary some of the finest pop music surround mixes out there. I just wish the 2-channel stereo mixes were more like the originals.

And while I respect the thought behind the "careful don't rock the boat by complaining or we may get nothing at all" mindset, I don't agree with it. We are the consumers here. We pay the money for these releases. This music once released became, as I called it yesterday, the soundtrack to each of our lives, and as such, we have a right to complain if someone starts messing with it. Yes, I want to see it released as much as anyone, but I don't believe in taking the "Neville Chamberlain" approach either. No offense intended to those who feel this way, but if you don't demand excellence, you won't get it!

 

One thing to keep in mind is that the mixes are already done. I really don't think that they would be willing go back and remix the titles to meet some forum members requests.

Therefore I think the reality based on Captain Groovy's earlier statement is that if you demand excellence, the end result is you will likely get nothing.

I would rather see the missing titles released. So please think about what the net results might be before proceeding to send coorosopndence critiquing what's been done.

 

The mixing is undoubtedly done, but perhaps not the mastering, where a lot of the damage is done. For example, here's the waveform from an analog recording of a section of Honky Cat from the SACD after forum member Metoo applied EQ matching to make it more like the DJM vinyl:


Here's a similar section of the song (my clip was slightly longer) from my personal needledrop of the DJM original:


Now is it too much to ask that they attempt to master audio in a way that resembles the original intent of the artist and producer? I can understand doing it differently for 5.1 but the 2-channel mix doesn`t deserved to get squashed (the above isn't the best graphic of how squashed it really is. It`s after Metoo recorded it through a D/A converter and then applied EQ).

Moreover, if the prospects for release are really so fragile that a few emails from audiophiles asking politely that they please respect the original releases for the 2-channel stereo mixes is going to derail the whole thing, then I wouldn't exactly bet the farm on their being released in any event!

 

1) I'm pretty sure this is not about the 2-channel releases. I for one have plenty of sources (vinyl and CDs) for these titles, so I don't care about those one whit.

2) The surround mixing is obviously done. Yes GYBR is bright. I have a high filter switch on my gear, and I know how to use it. And I love having the surround mix.

3) I'd rather there be nary a discouraging word about this stuff getting done when the people that are pushing it are people who really care about the music as opposed to bean counters.

To quote Capt Groovy here:

So please just wait until these things are released before complaining. If you don't like them when they come out, by all means sell them to somebody who does. I don't think it'll be hard to find a buyer.

 

The way I read your post, you are implying that the 2-channel SACD tracks were remixed. (I've added bolding to the parts that give me that impression.) If the stereo tracks were remixed for SACD, that's the first I've ever heard of that. I thought that the 2-channel tracks were the original mixes. Or were you simply talking about how different things sound due to mastering choices, not because of remixing?

 

I absolutely adore the surround sound on the SACDs, fantastic mixes. I hope these others do get released. If they are surround SACD or DVD-A I will purchase two copies of each (one set for day-to-day playing and another set for future needs).

 

IIRC, the surround mixes are less compressed than their stereo counterparts.

 

Well I do care. Yes, I have the CDs (early versions suffer from inferior 80's digital equipment used; the 95 remasters too bright and brittle) and the vinyl (no one has yet sold me a clean DJM Don't Shoot Me or Madman. After six copies of Don't Shoot Me, I'm getting tired of spending money on vinyl that's not clean. Ideally, they'd reissue this stuff on vinyl but if not, the next best thing is an SACD that isn't brickwalled and compressed to sound like an Amy Winehouse CD!

I love the surround mixes too. I don't have a "high filter" and besides, it won't fix the compression that takes all the human touch out of Elton's piano playing.

If they really do care about the music, then they'll appreciate expressions of hope that they'll steer these releases through all the potential for messing them up. It will give them ammunition to help resist calls from the bean counters to make it sound like Leona Lewis or whatever other flavor-of-the-month brickwalled mess that's out there. Look I'm not advocating writing Greg Penny with something like "Look a#$h013, don't you dare @#$# up the new Elton remixes!!!" I'm suggesting that polite and intelligent communication might remind him that there are those of us out here who care about more thanjust having Carl Wilson and Toni Tennille's harmonies coming from the surrounds on Don't Let The Sun Go Down On Me. We'd kind of like the piano intro to still sound like a piano and not some cheesy Roland sample player!

So please just wait until it's too late to remind them not to master it badly (if it's not already too late) because a badly mastered release is better than none at all, right? Besides, you can always sell it to all those untold thousands lined up at Best Buy in a frothing rage demanding to know why they've stopped stocking the other Elton SACDs. Sorry, but this will be a niche release and I don't think some audiophiles who are part of the target should sit around passively hoping they'll get it right without at least expressing their thoughts.

Anyway, that's my opinion, you're free to disagree as we all are. Let's agree to disagree. I'm suggesting to people that expressing your opinion to the people who want your money for the product they want you to buy is not unreasonable. If you don't feel the same, that's your choice and you have every bit as much right to it as I do to mine.

 

Possibly more EJ SACDs? I'll buy everything.

 

No, my understanding is that the 2-channel SACD layers are remixed as well. Certainly that would explain why, for example, Elton's vocals sound so much dryer on a track like Come Down In Time than on the DJM original. I've also noticed some differences in levels in the 2-channel SACD Rocket Man mix from the DJM original as well. It ***may*** be some very selective use of EQ. I know when Led Zeppelin's Mothership was released last fall, some of the EQ work John Davis did on the bass for some tracks sounded like remixes, but Davis told me in a private message that it was just three-band EQ. In any case, I've never read that the SACD 2-channels were not remixed, but to be honest I've never researched it thoroughly. Surely they wouldn't just convert the redbook 2-channel mix to DSD. That would be the ultimate rip-off!

 

First time I ever heard this. They certainly do NOT sound it. Any mix credit for Greg Penny I see is 5.1

 

Dave, sit down with a vinyl original, even one of the better Canadian pressings, and A-B it with the 2-channel SACD layer. Not the redbook layer, the actualy 2-ch SACD layer. I hear a difference that goes beyond EQ and compression. Certainly boosting treble and compressing a mix as has been done will not remove reverb trails! And, while I personally feel vinyl **can** sound better than even SACD, the difference is not as great as what I'm hearing.

 

I seriously doubt the 2-channel stuff was remixed. On Tumbleweed, I can hear "old tape" artifacts on the 2-channel that don't exist on the 5.1 mixes, which says to me they mastered the 2-channel layer from the original 2-track tapes.

What would be the incentive to remix in stereo if the original two-channel tapes exist?

And from my previous posts, my point was that we should make sure that these prospective releases even have a 2-channel component before telling anyone how they should be mastered. I understand that you feel passionately about the 2-channel stuff, but having listened to those mixes for 30 years now, I just don't. I'm content with what's out there.

And FWIW, every version of Don't Shoot Me I've heard (incuding the DJM vinyl) has issues. At this point, I'm convinced that the 2-track masters were recorded too hot (certainly on some songs if not the whole thing) and that's part of the weird sonic signature that is that album. In which case, no amount of mastering magic is going to truly fix that.

 

Could you be more specific about where you hear the artifacts? I'd like to do some checking.

If the 2-track masters are too hot in some cases, as you suggest for Don't Shoot Me, then a 2-channel remix is definitely worthwhile. Why bother remixing to 5.1? It's not a huge market at all and probably never will be. That ship has saile and without too many passengers. I like surround and I'll buy them for 5.1 mixes of the quality Penny did for the others, but it's a shame if all they're going to do for the 2.0 mix is to take the old tapes run them through an exciter and a compressor! If they're going to provide the original mixes, why not just give them to us the way we know and love them?

 

I'll have to listen again to point out specific spots. It's mostly what sounds like saturation artifacts (like on Don't Shoot Me).

The assumption there would be that someone cares enough to do it thinking it's needed and would sell. In all reality, I can only think of a handful of stereo releases that have been remixed many years after the original release. Rubber Soul, Layla, Quadrophenia come to mind, but not many others. And those loom slightly larger in the pop music pantheon than Don't Shoot Me. And in most cases, there were serious issues with the original mixes.

Agreed about the death of 5.1. But Penny has already done these mixes and nobody has heard them. Read the posts from Capt Groovy -- if this comes off at all, it's a labor of love from people who want these surround mixes to be heard. I support them wholeheartedly in that endeavour.