Photos of my Nimbus disc from a previous Aja thread if that helps ........ Matrix reads DMCL 1745 1:2 EAC levels ......... 90.7 --- 91.7 --- 90.8 --- 88.9 --- 96.3 --- 86.1 --- 97.5
The thing that still confuses me in all of this is the timing of Steve's mastering and the release of the U.K. DMCL and MDCL CDs that are said to have his mastering. Steve mastered Aja in 1984 to a digital tape that he has said was a very fragile medium. I believe he has joked about this tape lasting for 15 minutes. In that case, I would have expected this tape to have been used in 1984 and to be unusable later. The only CDs I am aware of that Steve confirmed to have his mastering are the U.K. Nimbus pressings with the DMCL and MDCL catalog numbers (identical EAC peak levels). The problem is that these CDs clearly were released later than 1984. Given the newer MCA logo, they are from the late '80s/early '90s (considering both catalog numbers). Could the DMCL and MDCL discs be the first and only discs to use Steve's 1984 mastering? The Japan-for-U.S. CBS/Sony pressing with catalog number MCAD-37214 was released in 1984 and has EAC peak levels very similar to the DMCL and MDCL discs. I have not noticed differences in the sound between these discs. Do they have the same (Steve's) mastering? (The Japanese 32XD and European 250 449-2 CDs have the same mastering as the Japan-for-U.S. CBS/Sony pressing and could also have Steve's mastering.)
This first threw me off because I had never picked up that Steve did anything to a digital tape. I figured it was only Nichols who created digital copies. But yes there is reference to Steve's 1630 digital master, and yes here is his post about the 10 minute shelf life. I am a novice at this stuff, but looking for this I did run across someone who railed against 1630 tape saying you would never get anything good without the original machine. I am not sure of the source or if it fits into this discussion, but it may add to the problems of using it so many years later. Robert Ball, Sound Archeology's founder and chief technical engineer: Oh no, no, they master every onto 1630 tape. Now 1630 tape is basically ¾" video tape. Video tape is worthless - tape is worthless as far as I'm concerned, because if you're not playing it on exactly the same machine, at exactly the same time, then you have interpolation. There's no error protocol on that PCM, none. That means when it hits a problem, it interpolates. So people love the sound of it but that's not what they got. So you can tell me that you're a purist, but that's not what it sounds like, that's interpolation. That's the way the industry is running right now. They're in a limited loss mentality. http://www.audiophilia.com/features/soundarc.htm
These digital tapes can be copied, of course, and to other formats, no need for it to be the one tape Steve handled.
Absolutely. Steve created his mastering in 1984 on a fragile medium (1630 tape), but it seems that it wasn't used in 1984 for some reason. The DMCL and MCDL discs that Steve says has his mastering came out years later. Steve's mastering could have been copied to a more robust medium early on (before the 1630 tape degraded) and then shelved for years. It just seems odd that it would not have been used for several years. It's also odd MCA used a different mastering in 1984 that is actually very close to Steve's in terms of EAC peak levels and sound. I'm still not convinced that they are different.
They are different in the sense that the two do not have identical content. The difference between the two (after digitally aligning them and then subtracting) consists of distorted sounding audio at a very low level (about -60 db).
Avoided the '99 remaster all these years, but found one in the used bin. Listening now and it sounds good to me. I have the SH and the other early masters well.
Hi, Please help me. I'm looking to pick up a copy of 'Aja' with the following info: No UPC, however there are two part numbers: DIDX 55 & MCAD-37214. HOw can i tell if this is a SH version, from what i've read, it should be but do i need to ask the seller any other questions to confirm (anything on the disc itself on the inner ring)?
Getting the seller to run the EAC numbers and checking this post here is your only true bet, but it is also probably not worth worrying about because the only confirmed SH were MCA UK MCLD 19145 "Mastered by Nimbus" and MCA UK DMCL 1745. So as not to bury the headline, your chances of getting a SH Aja are very small when searching for anything that was not confirmed as mastering 7; but this should also not deter you from getting that disc if it is mastering 3 or 6 which it should be 3 if you have the seller give you the matrix numbers on the inner ring, where it was manufactured stated on the disc, and check the post above. There were supposedly only 5,000 SH made before Nichols said hey I should be doing these for probably no other reason than he felt he should be the one doing them, or they should be done using his '81 digital copy instead of the master tape. I forget if there is more info on that for this album, there are so many stories. The point is the other non SH ’85 Aja CDs, mastering 3 or 6 sound great. I am very happy with MCAD-37214 DIDX 55 mastering 3; it trounced my MFSL which I had always assumed before coming around here was the best, I even think Aja is the one ’85 CD closest to the quality of the recent shm-sacds of CTE and Pretzel excepting that SH Katy Lied had its tape problems early on—SH Katy Lied sounds great but in a dated sounding way because of the tape. Would I get a confirmed SH if I saw one, sure, am I trying to fix plenty of other bad masters I have first while my ’85 Aja plays in the background, absolutely.
Find a copy with that catalog number pressed in Japan, with "DIDX-55" in the matrix code and "CSR COMPACT DISC" repeating in the plastic ring.
Do you think the Japan is better than the US? They are both mastering 3 correct, is this a pressing plant difference not a mastering difference. Knowing your thoroughness I bet you have tried quite a few mastering 3s. I would love to hear any thoughts you remember on the differences between US vs. Japan. I have the US but with your affirmation I could see keeping a look out for a Japan which should not be too difficult to find.
Help I have a very newbie question I wish someone would explain to me so I can follow these types of posts. Is it correct that the numbers correspond with the highest peak per song or the average for the song? In the example above it is showing how high or the average each of the seven cuts were mastered. Is there an ideal that one looks for, such as hovering around 90 if you are in the mid to upper 90s then you are pushing the EQ too high and it would be better to be in the mid-80s to 90? I would also assume that you are looking to see that all the cuts hover around the same peak / average level? Any help explaining what I am looking at would be appreciated and then how to read them to find better recordings. Looking at the above if I am understanding Master 1 has more consistency between the tracks however may be overall EQ'd too loud Master 5 may be too low while Master 3,6 & 7 has the most songs around the 90s which is the ideal with just a couple peaking or averaging up around 97 which might be considered on the high side. If this is correct then Rickie Lee Jones albums tend to be mastered low, my guess 80s, while a lot of the current recording are being pushed into the upper 90s and maybe even hitting 100.
I am going to give a newbie response, so I hope someone will correct me or fill in all the technical stuff I miss. There are plenty of 100.0 tracks that sound great, there are plenty of 67.2 tracks that sound great. I have only used the EAC numbers as a fingerprint, a way of knowing if it matches another version or not. I have not seen the numbers used stand-alone to determine if something is better than something else. For example SH’s Who’s Next is 100.0 across the board and even has some clipping, but that is the CD most people desire [like anything there is a debate; but that is yet another rabbit hole]
EAC just gives you the highest peaks, it tells you nothing about the EQ or the loudness. A 100% peak doesn't mean it is clipped. Just that it has the potential.
"Fingerprint" is a good analogy. There's been talk about how EAC peak levels that match don't necessarily indicate bit-identical masterings, but I think almost everyone agrees that when the EAC peak level differences are large, consistent, and form a pattern, we have enough reliability to be able to draw highly confident conclusions about most masterings.
So if I understand correctly the number indicates the highest level that song reached, no average just highest peak. There is no indication that if five tracks are hitting in and around 98 and two are hitting 85 or slightly lower that this is not as good as if all tracks were held their peaks as close to each other as possible, be it all around 98 or all around 85? It is used just to see how close one mastered CD is to another? Thanks for the explanations, hopefully I understand now. This is what I believe the point is, if you determine you like a certain master by comparing others to its highest peaks finding other with similar peaks may mean that these recordings have the potential to sound equally as good.
