Best Dylan Remasters

I like the original but you are probably right. I like having cds of the original album but the remix is good in my opinion so you (if you like the album to start with) need both.

To sum up the box set CAC version of Street Legal is therefore unique to that set.

 

I like the new morning remaster .

 

It's the 2009, surely?

 

Yes I thought it sounded better. It was not a big release about remastering. It just quietly was released. It must have been the last album remastered.

 

Yikes this is confusing! Glad I read through it, though... at the end of the first page, there was no mention of whether the box set version of Street Legal was the remix or not, and I almost posted the question right then. Good thing I checked, er, literally every other post in the thread before I decided to do that.

There's a ton of Dylan I haven't delved into yet, and Street Legal is one of them. But it's good to know I'll apparently be listening to the best-sounding mastering...

(PS Lonson - thanks again for selling me the box, I may not have listened to even half of it yet, but it's still brought me hours of joy!)

 

Several others were subsequently remastered in the Bob Dylan Collection box issued in 2013.

 

None of them! The remasters are a compressed and bright disaster, the original CD's are superior. The original Street Legal sound warm, gentle and relaxing, like it should be. I bought the remasters before I was aware of the loudness war and other remaster issues, then I sold them all and changes them back to the original CD's. I'm surprised so many on this forum still think that bright and compressed is better - it's not, your ears gets fooled by it.

 

Sony in 2009 did remasters (first time since the original cds were released) of New Morning, Dylan and the Dead, Before the Flood and the old (75) Basement Tapes.
I think I am correct to say they were very well received by Dylan fans with Before the Flood being a big improvement. These remasters are also now in the complete albums box.

 

The remasters are the only ones from the original master tapes and clearly the majority including industry experts believe they are much improved over the originals. There is a Youtube video with a panel of music industry insiders including Greg Calbi where they discuss the 2004 remasters and listen to them compared to the hastily released 80s CDs which were mainly sourced from copies or tapes eq'd for LP.

 

Best Dylan remasters? They all begin with MO and end with FI.

 

It's unimportant what the majority thinks, the majority gave us the loudness war which has ruined music.
Like I said, the remasters are compressed and bright, it doesn't matter if they're taken from original tapes if they are affected by modern remastering techniques. Dylan himself described the remasters as "just noise"- I agree with him.
It's unfortunately a common misunderstanding, even amongst so called experts in the industry, that 80's CD's were done hastily. The original CD's sounds lovely - relaxing, warm and dynamic. It's not what source that has been used that matters most, it's how it's mastered. A vinyl rip often sound better then a compressed boosted up remaster. Some of the 60's original CD's are not perfect but most others are.
I can't believe the discussion about compressed remasters versus dynamic original CD's even exist on a forum dedicated to fight the loudness war.
It's actually quite sad.

 

Those are not compressed, so I agree on that.

 

Personally I still like the old CDs but have to say that the remasters are not that much compressed. Tangled up in Blue:

Old CD: DR12
Hybrid SACD: DR11
Mo-Fi Hybrid SACD: DR14

Some are not so good, check out the list here:

Album list - Dynamic Range Database

Tim

 

Not much but still - and I'm talking about the remastered regular CD's, by visually checking the wave files - DR numbers doesn't show brick wall compression like looking visually.

 

I now see that you added that to your post - I'm not a big fan of the dynamic range data base since DR numbers doesn't show brick wall limiting like an actual visual look at wave files, to me it's just numbers that makes my head spin.

 

The data gives some clues though. If DR is below about 9 you know you are in trouble. The DR rating doesn't tell you much about the sound quality but it does give an answer to how compressed it is.

Tim

 

One of the Sony SACDs I prefer over the MoFi's is Nashville Skyline, the tonality being much too bassy.
The MoFi Highway 61 is a bit of an ear-bleeder, the DCC is still best.
Also, I don't really mind them, but some people can't stand the glitches on the MoFi Planet Waves.

 

This depends whether you believe that being bright & compressed is the worst thing that can happen to a recording. In most cases it is but I find the original Street Legal to be incredibly muddy, only being rescued by the remaster in the CAC. I also find the original Saved & Shot Of Love to sound anemic & I find their remasters to be an improvement. Note I used the word improvement, I wouldn't claim they were perfect, but for me their virtues outweigh their vices. In the case of Shot Of Love & to a lesser extent Saved the albums weren't well recorded & I think the remasters tried to pep up what was on the tapes.

 

This is all very true but one thing which struck me recently thinking about this topic of "original v remaster", is the difference the playback equipment people are using will make to the sound quality. In the UK at least, quite a number of audiophile CD players manufactured by British companies between the mid-90's and late Noughties favoured a "roll-off" of in the treble at the high end and implemented an engineered design to ensure that CD playback was never harsh or "spikey" in the upper mid-range or high end frequencies. It is possible that this was done at a time when remastering was all the rage and a lot of CD's were bright, hard sounding and compressed, whilst also being far more detailed and transparent than the muddy, soft and anaemic 80's equivalents. I've got CD's of remasters done during this time which sounded much improved over the 80's CD's when played on contemporary equipment of the day but today with a more up-to-date DAC that is also a loss less forgiving in its presentation and doesn't perform "magic" tricks, the same CD's can sound very ragged and sharp, sometimes shrill, when played through headphones. I presume this is down to EQ choices made? They are still fine through speakers but close detailed headphone listening reveals all manner of nasties that make long listening periods quite fatiguing.

 

I like the sound of both the original Street Legal, Shot of Love and Saved and are satisfied with them.

 

I did not know that, thanks. There are so many variables in how the sound of a particular cd (never mind vinyl another even more complicated ball game) reaches your ears. The cd player, amp, speakers, cables, room, where you sit/stand. It really is I guess all in the ear of the listener or his gear!
I kept my old Dylan cds partly for some of the reasons expressed in this thread and just because I am a fan but it is always fun to dig out another version of an album and play it.

Just one case is the original stereo debut album. Bob voice and harmonica one channel, guitar the other. This is also the original first cd version. The recent stereo MFSL has this mix (correctly I think as that is how the original was done). An odd listen if I sit in my hi fi chair but if I leave the room it all merges and sounds great/fine. Re the debut the 2005 fairly narrow stereo remix also used in the complete albums box I think (must check that) is very good. The mono in the 2010 box and done MFSL as a hybrid sacd are both great.

 

Interesting. You would have thought a CD player with significant treble roll-off would have been widely slated for not having a flat frequency response 20 Hz - 20 kHz. Any examples?

Tim

 

No, if anything, the complete opposite appears to be true. I do not personally know of any Hi-Fi dealers, professional reviewers or self-confessed audiophiles who have ever evaluated a piece of kit by the technical "performance" specifications. The proof has always been in the listening and by comparison with other gear (at the same or relatively similar price level). I used to own a lot of ARCAM CDP's and these were all very well received by the Hi-Fi world, but it was well known that they employed a high end "roll off" to make the reproduction "softer" and more analogue-like. I can't prove it but I also strongly suspect Leema Acoustics employed something very similar, as the three different players I owned of theirs presented the music in a very similar "analogue-like" way. I recall ARCAM being compared with Denon back in the early 90's and some reviewers noting how marked and distinct the differences were: the Denon gave almost ear-splitting high end detail whilst the Arcam was called out for being much nicer (smoother) to listen to and more like the turntables in the same group comparisons. One reviewer even commented that he didn't want to hear all that "analytical detail" which interfered with simple enjoyment of the music. Some people obviously favoured the Denon's and other manufacturers' "take no prisoners" approach to presenting the music.

 

Interesting I have an Arcam CD92 and it is my favourite cd player (also does HDCD). I also have a Denon DVD 2910 that plays most stuff save blu-ray and usbs (before their time).
For sacd I use my Oppo and along with the Denon I have an old Sony sacd/dvd player.
It is partly why I do not do a lot of posting about sound quality to my ears as you really I think need a level playing field which in my case would mean using the Oppo for all the different formats - cd, sacd, blu-ray, flac etc.

 

I have owned Arcam Delta 70, 70.2, 70.3, 170 Transport / Black Box 1,2,3, Alpha 7SE, Alpha 8, Alpha 9, CD93, CD37 before Leema Antila 1, 2, 2S/2S ECO and then Krell SA-350AV.

I now only have the OPPO UDP-205 for all disc duties!

Your comment on sound qulaity and "level playing field" is quite apt though and one reason why our host insists people list their equipment before making such statements.