Steely Dan - Countdown to Ecstasy SHM-SACD on 7/30/2014

As for sales, how does Panegyric get the numbers to stack up for their comprehensive BDA and DVDA sets of Yes? I can't believe Yes are much more of a monster sales proposition than Steely Dan. Maybe Panegyric would like to throw their hat into the ring and license the remixes?

 

I can't remember where it's from, but I remember DF saying in an interview that he was not a multi channel fan as he preferred his music in front of him.

 

For your information, the 44.1kHz/16bit early digital copy of Gaucho is what is now considered as the stereo master by the Steely Dan camp. Apparently the original analog master tapes have degraded and couldn't be used.

The SHM-SACD was made from a Japanese analog copy tape. (And I prefer its sound.)

 

That woud contradict the fact that he has made almost all his solo albums remixed in 5.1, and this quote:

http://www.soundandvision.com/content/ht-talks-elliot-scheiner-steely-dan-dvd-audio-update

 

Yeah I know, and I find that so strange. Assuming proper alignment, etc. I'd take the sound of a 30 (or even 15) ips reel dub of the master over a 30 year old CD quality digital copy any day. The US Gaucho SACD stereo layer is made even worse by the fact that its dynamic range has been squashed down to the single digits on all the tracks save for one. It's no wonder the Japanese SHM SACD sounds better!

 

The mix of Pretzel Logic got done, no? We have no idea if they even liked what they heard. Becker and Fagen don't exactly have a reputation for being easily satisfied.

Maybe they were okay with it back when somebody else was paying for the mixing? Or maybe they've just lost their enthusiasm for the format in general? Only Fagen has done an album in the last 11 years and counting (glacial?) and only Fagen 's most recent album wasn't done in 5.1.

A quote or two from a dozen years ago tells us little about 2014. We really have no idea what the hold-up is -- or whether there's even a hold-up at all. It may be as simple as there isn't enough money to be made -- and its not worth the hoop jumping to license it for a few thousand sales.

 

Yes, but here's Walter Becker in 2003:

"Regarding surround sound, I know musicians too well to want them behind my back. But because of the additional speaker separation, the surround mixes I've worked on can make 2-channel sound somewhat low-fi by comparison. But I still prefer stereo overall. The music holds together better.

It's funny, but as the sonics improve, the focus on music doesn't improve. For example, there are a lot of ways to record piano, and a lot of people do much better piano recordings than Rudy Van Gelder ever did. But when you listen to a Van Gelder piano recording, you're listening to the sound of the guy's piano and the notes in his solo. When you listen to more hi-fi recordings of pianos, you might hear more high-end detail and clarity, but you may be listening more to the overtones of the piano and less focused on the intention of the musician, which is in the fundamental pitches of the notes, rather than the often-clangorous overtones."

 

It was Becker...see above.

 

I would agree that normally Fagen's not easily satisfied with the sound quality of his recordings. But reading the reviews of his latest album Sunken Condos his idea of good sound might have been compromised a bit. It is too bad that Sunken Condos wasn't released in surround. If a surround mix was done by Elliot Scheiner it would have most likely sounded better than the stereo mix.

Bill

 

That's an assumption. I generally find his surround mixes formulaic and un-involving.

 

Of course I'm assuming it would sound better as there isn't a surround mix for Sunken Condos. I totally disagree that Fagen's surround mixes of his solo albums are "formulaic and un-involving". I have all three of his solo albums in surround and in my opinion they sound excellent .

Bill

 

I have all three of the Fagen surround mixes and the 3 Steely Dan surround mixes as well. To each his own. There's nothing "wrong" with them, but that's exactly it. They sound like every Scheiner mix to me...hence "formulaic". To my ears, he does basically the same thing with every mix. I hear more variety to make the mix fit the song in half an album of Steven Wilson's surround mixes than I've heard in all of Scheiner's work.

 

I have all the Steely Dan surround mixes and think they sound excellent as well. I have numerous Steven Wilson surround mixes and find them to be excellent also. The surround mixes from both ES and SW are different but I don't find one to be better than the other. As you said "to each his own" .

Bill

 

When you say "sound" excellent, what are you referring to?

 

By excellent I mean the surround mixes are immersive, have a nice separation of instruments and the .1 channel is well done but not over done. I'm listening to DF's The Nightfly DVD-A as I type and it's like I'm in a bubble surrounded by speakers . Isn't that what surround music is all about.

Bill

 

Not to me, no.

 

I adore the surround mix of Gaucho. It may be the most enjoyable-sounding disc I own. I'm not a huge fan of SACD, but that's demo material in my book.

I wouldn't. Analog dubs sound grungy as f**k to me, and the "problems" with '80s digital recording technology are (typically) greatly overstated. The best stuff from that era is virtually flawless.

I just wish they'd gone with 20 or 24-bits earlier on for better, more realistic bass performance. But apart from that I'll take good '80s digital over an analog dub anyday (assuming the EQ wasn't screwed up on the digital version, which is a whole 'nother story).

 

Even if you don't care for ES' mixing approach marcb, we wouldn't have had SW the Surround Supremo if it wasn't for ES.. ES remixed PT's In Absentia into 5.1 and that kickstarted SW's interest in surround mixing.. SW learned from the best in the business and now the pupil has arguably outdone the master. How poetic!

 

Oh and I do rather regret answering that previous post asking if there had been a remix of Pretzel Logic at any point that might extract the utmost from the multitrack recordings.. as usual everything's gone off on some bizarre parallel universe tangent loada cobblers!

 

You've probably heard badly stored analog dubs or copies of copies of copies of copies, because a flat analog dub done with care would only sound slightly "thicker" than the master (tape compression), with only a smidgen more hiss, if any. Differences that may be undistinguishable by untrained ears.
On the other hand, typical early 80's digital sound suffers from badly reproduced frequency extremes (blobish bass, "dirty" highs), a lack of depth, ambiance, and stability of the imaging, a dulling of transients... Granted, these are equally difficult to hear by untrained ears.

But the difference is you can easily extract with modern ADCs the same qualities from an analog dub as from the master, whereas the problems are stuck on the digital copy; and you have to greatly "cheat" at mastering to make it sound more like the master.

 

So in essence those MCA CDs with Roger Nichols early digital transfers that lots of people love can never be the last word in stereo Steely Dan as they're hamstrung by a number of inherent limitations?

 

They are the last word in stereo Steely Dan until something better comes along.

But it is true they have inherent limitations. You may not hear them or pass over them but they are here.

 

Thank you! Those SHM SACDs of Can't Buy A Thrill, Katy Lied & The Royal Scam can't come quick enough!

 

Question; Has Steve Hoffman ever mentioned anywhere that he didn't use Nichols' digital transfers for his Aja and Katy Lied? Did he make his own analogue transfers from the original tapes when he mastered those two albums for MCA?

 

I seem to remember he said he did his own transfers from the original tapes, because he had to tweak Katy Lied.

I think his Aja is still the best. He found the perfect balance.