There won't be any surprises with Low. The RCAs are the best to most people, but they don't sound that great per se. My personal favorite in this case is the Ryko because the strange EQ of Rykos somehow fits this album IMO and the transfer is great. The 1999 and 2017 remasters [Mod: watch your language!]
Saying most people is a big call. For me it is a mixed bag depending on which vinyl pressing and which CD release. I prefer Te RCA Hunky Dory and Ziggy Stardust CDs over the early RCA vinyl. The others are a case by case proposition.
I wouldn't over-generalize about the sound of Rykodisc CDs. The Bowie's were mastered by Toby Mountain. I don't know that he mastered anything else for the label. The Bechirian mastered Elvis Costello Rykodisc CDs have a similar off putting sound, but some others do not.
I think the fabled "noise reduction" problem is with the Rykos, yes? The famous "No Noise" approach? That's my recollection, although a lot of people seem to be complaining about NR on the 1999s. Many people (okay, me and Paul Stanley) spent their youth turning up the treble/tone on vinyl, and found the real calling card on CDs when they emerged to be the welcome clarity on the high end. A matter of taste/preference? Or a deficit in the obsolete medium and old hardware? (Paul has told his tale to explain why he has not gone in for the vinyl revival. He hears the "old problems" with it when it comes to reproducing the high end.) Someone earlier posted that they found the 1999 "Lodger" to be the 2nd best CD for that title. Given the many many complaints about how muddy and murky the Parlophone is, that may turn out to be true. That's a big problem on a lot of the third box, IMHO. The first two boxes have their problems - well complained about, many times over - but muddy and smeared is not something many people were talking about until the 3rd box, IIRC. I've read the complaints about Parlophone's "Diamond Dogs" (and don't agree with most of them), but honestly, I don't recall anyone bemoaning it as dull and lacking high-end sparkle. The EMI promo poster someone put up earlier reproduces the EMI claim that 24-bit mastering was used on everything EMI had their hands on in 1999. But only a select few emerged in anything but redbook, and what did emerge in 24-bit seems to have all been done in 2002-2003. I wouldn't mind a straight up 24-bit digital transcription of the 1999 masters - when they were 14-16 years younger than when Parlophone had a go at it. Just to hear what effect time has had (if any) on old (presumably) analogue sources.
This is, imo, a rather bizarre way of listening to music - on any medium. What constitutes a "quality product" in this regard? A quality product for me is one that plays, and doesn't rot. The music on the disc is a whole other issue. What we should seek is a version that is pleasing to our ears. In your case, it seems you were happy with what you had with the 1999 masters. You could have gone the rest of your life being happy with them. But then you compared them, and decided you weren't happy. Which is your prerogative, of course. Now, of course, you can't know how a release compares with another unless you listen to them all yourself. But, let's be practical here. Are you saying that you'd buy an original RCA Bowie on Vinyl, but then buy copies from other territories to find out if it's a truly "quality product"?
Seriously? The quality of sound engineering is the most important aspect of remasters. We already know the music is good. You're talking as if people only bought some plastic. The price of the medium is just a fraction of what we pay for. In the case of remasters, we pay mostly for the new mastering. That's the product, really.
But here's the thing. You had the 1999 masters, and were happy with them. No problem at all. So where they, at that time, a bad product? As I said, you could have gone the rest of your life happy with them. When it comes to sound, you have to figure it wiggle room. You may not hear things as I do, or even have the sound aspire to be as I would like it. The idea that there's a single "best", is an obsolete idea that has been overrun by changes in equipment, technology, and changing tastes. What there is on the other hand, is the version that makes you happy, that satisfies you. That's the best we can hope for, imo. When it comes to Bowie, the water is muddy. I base this on the fact that people complain about issues I either don't hear myself, or have been - IMO - overblown or over-emphasized. I read reviews on discs I own, and don't agree with them. Also, there are people who seem to think that the "best" is the one that sounds closest to the original Vinyl, an idea I don't subscribe to. I have an RCA pressing of Ziggy - and honestly, it's not great. I have no idea why I keep buying Bowie. I guess I'm just a fan who keeps on going for no good reason.
And spend the rest of my life not hearing the much better versions of Bowie's music? No, thanks, ignorance is not cool. I think the case hear isn't muddy at all. Sound engineering isn't mystical. It's more about mathematics than anything else, really. We're not talking about some esoteric qualities of music here. It's all about workmanship of the people who did the 1999 remasters. It was poor, for whatever reason. It was probably a cheap project and ended up that way because the guy at Abbey Road just used the cheapest and quickest methods. Whatever happened back then, it's a poor job. As if an amateur just cranked up some values and clicked on the no-noise button.
It's not all about blind taste tests and having sampled every varietal. Matters of taste-for-bass and blind listening tests (which I don't do, although I read the threads) aside, I find "Scary Monsters" on Parlophone fatiguing. If it had been 5 minutes longer, we'd probably be talking pain. I can't express how sad that makes me. That bit of "energy surge" before the "energy loss" in "Heroes"? Real pain to the membrane. Just awful. Defective without context or history. OTOH, are we not allowed to experience a new mastering of something familiar and say, "Ahhh, THAT's more like it!"?
The 2017 remaster of Scary Monsters? God, I wanted to cry when I heard it! Bloody awful! I had waited for so many years to get a new remaster of this superb record and what did I get? Some painfully compressed and pathetically murky nonsense.
Which I think people really do get when someone comes aboard and asks, of any legacy artist's catalogue, "What's the BEST [X]?". Respondents take the time to do nuance in their answers, for the most part; people also take ease of acquisition and format and $$ and personal taste into account. Your complaint, it seems, should be directed at the folks who ask, get appropriately indefinite answers, then say, "Aha! So, there's no consensus!". That's my WTF moment from this thread. YMMV.
I'm on the fence in this debate. Growing up I listened to Bowie on cheap hifi's and transistor radios. Crap quality but the most fun of all - partly because I was discovering these wonderful records for the first time. The point is I didn't realise they were crap quality at the time. Over the years my interest in him as been sustained by being able to invest in better systems and original pressings that let me hear things in the records that I'd never heard before. Therefore the pursuit of better (i.e. Audiophile) quality has kept his work fresh for me. So anyone who hears the 99 remasters and likes them but doesn't use them as a springboard to finding better versions is missing out on a great journey imo. On the other hand I first heard sound and vision on a scrappy cassette. when I heard it on cd there was so much more detail. But did the fact that I could suddenly hear a splashing cymbal running through the song enhance it for me? No it did not! Sometimes the version you grew up with is the best Irrespective of its quality.
I got into Bowie with the Ryko CDs in the mid-90s. I bought the 1999 remasters and never went back to the Ryko discs until I started reading this site. I haven’t done close comparisons, but it’s nice to have options. I also have most of the deluxe editions from the early to mid-aughts, as well as the SACDs. Recently I’ve picked up most of the Parlophone remasters. Most of the time I reach for the Ryko CDs. In summary, man, I really wish I had the RCAs.
Received today Low EMI 1991 CD. Honestly, I can't hear any great difference respect the 1999 CD. Great bonus track "Some are"
The 2017 Scary Monsters had me wondering if Visconti needs some care with his hearing, if, according to the Parlophone's justification on the poor mastering, this is the way "the albums were meant to sound". Another intolerable piece of the 2017 remasters for me is Low, what the hell is up with the bass?!
I could buy "We always wanted 'Low' to sound like this.", if someone else is paying for the drinks. But 'SM'? Not so much.
Of the recent remasters the only one i can tolerate, even if pretty crushed and terrible nonetheless, is Heroes (the fixed one of course). They are so terrible that i'm starting to believe that even a 1999 CD would fare better compared to the most recent Scary Monsters or Low, but i do prefer the newer Heroes.
Has anyone else set aside the A New Career in a New Town remasters and gone back to them? Any change in impression from having done so? I ripped the lot after I got my set, but have largely left it to weigh down a shelf and collect dust since the initial disappointment. Keep meaning to return to it to see if dedicated listening yields the same result, but haven't worked up the nerve yet. Instead, I've kept my '99s and started putting out feelers for Ryko versions...
I was initially extremely disappointed in the 2017 remasters of Low/Heroes/Lodger. After setting them aside for awhile, I came back to them feeling the exact same way. I maybe even have more vitriol towards them now, especially considering what could have been. I really thought Ray Staff did a generally good job with the 2015/2016 remasters, sure some were a little better than others, but overall pretty good. They were definitely better than what I had, mainly the 99’s and Rykos. I suppose I need to preface what I’m about to say, I have the utmost respect for Tony Visconti and the amazing work he did with David Bowie, but his mastering decisions on the ANCIANT box set were awful. Though, I have to say the 2017 Scary Monsters sounds pretty ok to me, but I think he may have been more hands off with that one! I would have been overjoyed to have had versions of Low/Heroes/Lodger mastered similar to say the 2016 Diamond Dogs by Ray Staff. I sold all my 1999’s after being impressed with the Five Years 2015 remasters; but I’ve been considering picking up the Zeit “box set” of the 99 remasters for the Berlin trilogy, to replace those 2017’s that left a hole in my catalog. I never thought I’d go back to the 99’s, as I had kept my Rykos for the bonus tracks, but now those don’t sound right to me either.
I feel exactly the same way. Diamond Dogs, Hunky Dory and Pin Ups from the Five Years series are awesome. If I were in your shoes I would avoid the overs and look for RCAs or Rykos for the Berlin trilogy. I think the 99 Heroes disc is atrocious. If you are not into physical media there are "places" to find the RCA in digital uncompressed form.
After the disappointment of the ANCIANT box set I’m still looking forward to the Loving the Alien 80’s box. Mainly due to the fact, again no disrespect, that Tony Visconti won’t be involved. Now, if someone else blows it with the sound on the upcoming set, then I say, let the Renaissance era for the 1999’s begin
