"Flat transfer" CD list

"Flat: transfer CD list

Here I am, beating a dead horse again. A while back I suggested that compiling a list of the Forum's favorite CD's would be cool. That was poo-pooed because it was felt that the suggestions would might vary due to the the different types of systems that we are using.
Well how about a list of known "flat" transfers? No problem there, right?
For example, the early Led Zeppelin CD's sound fantastic. Smooth, I think the word would be. They are flat transfers. It seems the more I "improve" my system the more I prefer a flat transfer.
How about it? Anyone up to the task?

 

The Unforgettable Glenn Miller CD on RCA
the 1980s Bob Seger Stranger In Town CD
Many "special products" budget CDs
The Donovan 1986 CD of GH is a transfer of the LP production master tape
Hank Williams 40 Greatest Hits
Hank Williams Health & Happiness Shows
The Billy Joe Royal Collectables CD is a transfer from the LP production tape copies and a good one at that.
The Irish Rovers "The Unicorn" CD on MCA
The "Mason Williams Phonograph Record" CD on WB which does sound nice although many people who buy audiophile pressings and others may have never heard this album which has lots of excellent music and has excellent sound and production

 

What I don’t understand is: how do you know if something is a “flat transfer” unless you have heard the actual master tape and done a comparison?

Also, it seems to me that “flat transfer” is often used on this site to mean “sounds good”. But Steve’s releases are often not flat transfers. He uses his equipment and skills to coax the magic from the tapes.

So it’s good when Steve releases a cd that is not a flat transfer, but it’s bad when anyone else releases a cd that is not a flat transfer?

 

I think some people here are getting crazy with this "flat transfer" business. Sure, some masters sound fantastic as mixed, but many more need help. You don't always want a flat transfer. Do you really want the flat tapes of the Mamas and the Papas, for an example?

 

Well, Grant's right there... It must be judged case by case.

In many cases of flat transfers, I suppose they're better than the alternatives. Those nice untampered with '80s CDs can be good.

Anyway, I don't know what to say about this thread, but... Steve and others have recommended many of the MoFi aluminum CDs, and I believe he has stated that with those, you're largely getting what's on the master tapes. That should add greatly to the list.

 

Many people are lavishing praise on early/mid 80s CDs but remember that many times the first generation tapes were not used, and the converters were not very good. Maybe you all *like* the sound of those lousy converters...

 

You're probably right about the converters being better now, and certainly some original tapes aren't very good (eg Mamas and Papas).

But I've often felt we are in between a rock and a hard place. Either you go for the mid 80s issue made from a copy tape but mastered flat; or you go for the new re-issue made from absolute original master tapes, but digitally maximized and horrible EQ added.

So in many cases I prefer the mid-80s transfers even though the transfer isn't that great. And as the original poster said, the better my system gets the more I appreciate the mid-80s transfers.

Anyway to add to the list:

Beatles, Past Masters
The Who, German Polydors
Rolling Stones, Decca/Londons (these have been extensively discussed in David and Luke's FAQ, and elsewhere)
Ramones, original Sires
Elvis Costello, original Imp/Fiend UK releases

Pick some of these up, you'll enjoy the sound.

Cheers, Edgar

 

This is a tough question, because what constitutes 'flat' exactly?
I know people who prefer, say, the Doors' original CD pressings for being 'unprocessed,' but the band didn't agree and not only had them redone once, but twice. Then there's the Jimi Hendrix catalog, which has been tweaked several times. While some listeners prefer not to have the sound specially Eq'd for them, others could care less. Under normal circumstances I would rather do my own Eq'ing, but you can hear real differences between the Polydor pressings of JH and the most recent MCA's; despite whatever tinkering was done, the MCA's are more lively and distinctive--there's a lot more depth, for one thing, and some of those early tapes are riddled with noise and other gremlins. If Jimmy Page felt his Zep catalog needed a going over, who are we to argue? As long as an artist doesn't pull a Zappa and overhaul tracks and the like, if he might want a little added Eq, so what? And as somebody pointed out, with the oldest transfers from the mid-80s, how do we know what's first generation and what isn't? Today, you can be reasonably sure, most of the time, that you are going to get first generation(or the best available source)possible at the time, because the labels know we're paying attention and if we're shafted, that we'll bitch very loudly about it.
This debate is very similar to the one at the Denver thread; a problem some have with processing and noise reduction, regardless of the inherent source limitations. The early JD material has always been kind of harsh and thin-sounding; it was that way on vinyl. Would leaving the sound unretouched really have made a big difference for the better? I doubt it. The later tracks sound pretty good to me, and it's still a great representation of his work. And it wasn't like the engineer misused the noise reduction--sounded to me like he was pretty judicious and used it only when absolutely necessary. Which I'm sure is how Steve approaches such things as well. Sometimes you have to do some processing; of course the best case scenario is having to do as little as possible.

ED

 

To me the original German pressed Polydor version of AYE and Electric Ladyland are superior to any issue thereafter.

 

The Hendrix estate apparently doesn't agree...which is their prerogative.
BTW, do you have the 2-CD Polydor version of LADYLAND? One of the first things I did when I got the PC and burner was to do the album for one CD--not the least because Sides 1 & 4 are on Disc 1, Sides 2 & 3 on Disc 2--duh!
Soundwise, I have no problem with that pressing...but EXPERIENCED, well...I sure wish someone would put out the original Polydor MONO mix, which is not only cleaner--those early mixes were mostly bad, bad, bad--but great fun, lots of not-so-little differences well worth hearing. Not holding my breath waiting for it, however...

ED

 

80's CD's

I'm sorry, but I can't hold back here.

Most CD's from the 80's are horrendous. Bad A/D conversion, tapes several generations away from the master, riddled with noise.

99 times out of 100 I will steer clear of anything pre-circa 1993.

I defy anyone to tell me that the original "flat transfers" of the Columbia Simon & Garfunkel albums are preferable to the recent remasters.

Also, as nice as the London Stones CDs are, they simply don't have the PUNCH that is evident in the recent ABKCO remaster series.

Just my opinion.....

 

For what albums, exactly? Some are good, but Who's Next, for example, is garbage. I believe some pressings of Quad are good, but my copy is nothing but a clone of the MCA, which wasn't good.

 

Thank you Doctor for speaking on my behalf. I've even borrowed a friend's original Led Zep's just to see if I was wrong in getting rid of them. Nope, I still prefer the remasters. I've dreaded rasing such a point because I'm usually told that my system isn't up to par (I think it's not too bad since everything else seems to sound o.k. to me). I think it's a shame that some people here poo-poo any remaster that has been tweeked. I, too, prefer the ABKCO remasters (in SACD - I haven't bothered with the redbook layer).

Anyway, Beatles "1" is a big target in this group. But I don't think that EMI cares. Most people I know think that it sounds great (and they are the major purchasers - not a group of audiophiles who think that the Albanian original press is the best ). Personally, I prefer the stereo MSFL CD's a friend burned for me but those won't be available anytime soon. Bottom line: trust your own ears. And yes, very few if any of us have access to a system like Steve's, on which these old CD's supposedly sound better.

Cliff

 

What lousy converters were those, exactly?

The same ones that produced the Buddy Holly, Mamas & The Papas, Vintage Music, Who's Next and Bill Haley CDs?

I'd say I like the sound of those "lousy" converters!

 

Re: 80's CD's

There are some good 80s CDs, just not as many as people think....the Simon & Garfunkel discs were taken from bad tapes, so no amount of remastering could have saved them....the imports were just as bad. The main problem with 80s discs seems to be tape sources, with remastering savvy lagging behind what's possible today. Yet, as has been pointed out on other threads, some of the things being done today are simply inexplicable, like the processing done on the Beatles' 1.. Just unnecessary; almost as if EMI assumed most listeners use boom boxes, not full blown audio systems.
If you're interested in some good 80s CDs, try out anything Steve has done, including his ten volumes of VINTAGE MUSIC. Same with his Buddy Holly CD--still THE reference Holly disc--and the Bill Haley comp. The first WHO'S NEXT totally blows away the later remaster; end of story.
As for the Stones, go to Luke & D's Stones thread to get the full skinny on those. Great research and analysis; I can't find fault with any of their conclusions. Basically, what they found is that some of the new Abkco's are superior, but in other instances the older discs come off better.

ED

 

Re: 80's CD's

While I certainly have no blind love of older CDs, I don't have a blind hate, either. 99 times out of 100? I think what is true about CDs today was true about them back then - it's a crapshoot. Some might sound like crap, some might sound great.

I fail to understand why "bad A/D conversion" keeps getting brought up. If the converters were so bad back then, where did some of these great sounding CDs come from?

Some of the new ABKCO CDs *are* great. Others, however, are not. Have you compared the London Aftermath CD to the new issue?

This isn't as simple as "most older CDs are better than most newer CDs" or vice versa. Some older CDs are great. Some newer CDs are great. I think the following generalizations are pretty unfair:

"Flat transfers sound great and are preferable to non-flat transfers."
"Most CDs from the '80s are great and sound better than today's CDs."
"Most CDs from the '80s sound like crap and are much worse than today's CDs."
"If Dennis Drake mastered it it will be good."

 

Of the Who German Polydors, I like Live At Leeds, Sell Out, Rarities Vol 1 & 2,Whos Better Whos Best, A Quick One [but of course that's mono], Quad, Faces Dances, It's Hard. Who's Next isn't bad exactly. I think both the orignal MCA and the Polydor are listenable in a grungy sort of way. They sound like my original LP. It's just that Steve's transfer is so much better. The original Polydor Tommy is marginal, as is the original MCA Tommy. Tommy was revised on both Polydor and MCA.

What I like about most of the German Polydors is that they feature the original mixes and sound similar to the original LPs. Sure they could sound better, but like I say, it's a tough choice. Do you pick so-so 80s transfers or do you listen to Jon Astley's remasters?

 

Live At Leeds sounds pretty good, and the packaging is quite amazing for an early CD. Rarities is decent, although the mastering is a bit thin in places. As I've mentioned, Quad is troublesome, as not all copies are the same.

I'll really have to disagree on Who's Next. The Polydor is very hissy, and has fade-ups on a few songs (Baba and Behind Blue Eyes come to mind).

When was Tommy revised on Polydor? I know MCA re-did the album in 1993 (on a single CD), but I'm not aware of a Polydor re-do.

 

Re: Re: 80's CD's

Some generalizations ARE acceptable!

Flat transfers CAN sound better, of course, because they have NOT been clipped, no-noised, etc...and many times ARE preferable to so-called remastered issues! You can always adjust flat transfers to sound good to you...but you CAN'T take lousy mastering and go back to the sound of the "flat transfer".

What's the problem with saying that Dennis Drake's mastering is good and that you can buy his product with a sense that it will have an enjoyable sound when you play it? I would NOT consider this a BAD thing to say, regarding Drake...he does great work! What particular titles did you have a problem with?

 

It was revised in the late 80s/early 90s. There was an article about it in ICE. They got a better tape from somewhere (can't remember where exactly, possibly from Pete Townshend. But it had the regular version of Eyesight To the Blind, so it was a different tape from the MoFi).

I ordered a copy from the UK, it was still on 2 CDs and sounded better than the original 80s 2CD set. Packaging-wise it looked identical to old version. Only the matrix numbers had changed. Unfortunately I don't have this anymore.

I believe that the Polydor re-issue prompted MCA to use this new tape in their 1993 1CD re-issue.

I had both at one point and as I recall they both sounded similar. So if you have the 1993 MCA it's not really worth hunting down the Polydor. [Unless you are a completist I suppose]

Cheers, Edgar

 

Re: Re: Re: 80's CD's

True, but not every "mastered" CD is lousy. Many aren't clipped, no-noised, etc. Many sound really good. Steve isn't the only person that can make great sounding "mastered" CDs.

I'll take the ABKCO "mastered" version of Beggars Banquet over the flat London/MoFi copy any day of the week.

Drake has produced some good sounding CDs. But I don't really think it's a good idea to make his name a rubber stamp of greatness. He's produced some less than good sounding CDs too. If his work was so great, why bother with the MoFi and DCC Cream titles at all?

 

Re: Re: Re: 80's CD's

I was underwhelmed by Drake's work on the CD of JB (the first James Brown comp on CD). Yes, the sound is clear, but it's WAY too light on the bass, which isn't an inconsequential matter with funk, and I get a bit of ear fatigue by the end of the disk. And leaving off the intro to Sex Machine was a blunder. I thought the sound was better on the CD of JB II.

 

This can be true for some songs. I've done some mixes that have made it all the way through to the finished album flat. I have a good mastering engineer and I trust him enough to let some of the mixes go without help. Other mixes, however, need some minor tweaking. Mastering is supposed to make an album a cohesive unit. I wouldn't be happy if an album I mixed was released with just a flat transfer. It would actually keep me from listening to it as a whole. Individually I could listen to a song but it wouldn't hold up as an album. One song would have more low end and the next might have more top. It would be all out of calibration.

One of the concerns I have with remasters is artist/producer input. I just heard another song I mixed put onto a country hits compilation which was remastered. Several problems. The most important thing was there were edits on the original that they did not do on the remaster. This wasn't an edit to shorten the tune but was to insert an alternate mix (solo up 1dB) into the solo and two edits that inserted the vocal down mix over two different lines. When I mix a tune I'll do several mix versions, up to 30 if the producer is particularly anal. They are usually vocal up, vocal down, bass up and down, snare up and down, etc...

A good example is on Billy Joel's Nylon Curtain remaster. The new CD sounds many times better than the original even though Ted Jensen mastered both versions. New converters I guess since all the other gear he uses is the same. Anyway, during the break down of the song Goodnight Saigon there's a portion from the wrong mix. The reverb on the kick drum is wrong.

The other concern is some artists, producers and engineers are VERY specific about eq tweaks done in mastering. I was told about Barbra Streisand redoing a song for 1/4dB eq move on one line of a song. That's pretty specific.

Mind you, there's exceptions to everything and there can be examples to contradict what ever you say. Point is there's no rules.

 

Yessman, as much as I agree that the remaster of "The Nylon Curtain" sounds better than the old CD, I can't get past the limiting action. i can hear it plain as day!

I guess the point is to take what you like. Many of the other members like the MoFi versions of some titles. I can't stand most of them. I have a mix of new reissues and old CDs in my collection.

 

Yeah, it does sound better than the old CD. It's the version I reach for when I listen to the album.