I pulled out my old Columbia CD of Dylan's JOHN WESLEY HARDING just to be sure....

I just did an A/B test on the original Columbia (CK 9604) and the redbook remaster (CK 92395). I prefer the original. The vocals seem better defined in the original, while in the remaster they seem muffled and recessed.

 

I always noticed that the bass was much much better on the original.

 

The beginning of the "loudness wars"?

 

The best US Stereo LP has the hand written deadwax and NW in the trail off area. That is a Columbia Nashville mastering (the old Bradley Studios). The real deal. The non remaster CD is the real deal. I can hear everything Steve is discussing well on both. Could NW be Neil Wilburn? He did work at Columbia Nashville in that era as a staff engineer.

 

Sadly, Charlie McCoy's bass and a set of Kenny Buttrey's drums are among the many casualties of the recent flooding in Nashville.

http://blogs.tennessean.com/tunein/...uture-uncertain-instruments-damaged-in-flood/

 

I listened to my 2 Eye Stereo pressing (1H/1G) today. The innner groove info is stamped and not handwritten so it sounds like it's not a Nashville cut lp but I think it sounds pretty good to my ears. The bass is definitely very full on both sides of the records and I wouldn't call the harmonica sound shrill. It sounds to me what you get when you play a harmonica on one of those neck holders or if you're holding it in your hand you're not covering the "back" of the harmonica with your hand giving it a brighter sound. I don't have a cd of the album to compare it too but unless I happen to run across a copy of the original cd, I don't see any reason to get one.

 

Boy, am I ever glad I hold on to all versions of all CDs I've ever had.

 

I finally got around to getting a copy of the original CD. It's been on my "to do list" for a few years since first reading this read.

 

Yes, I like it a lot.

 

Not sure if this has been already addressed, but I was wondering if the 2004 NON-SACD release sounds any better than the 2003 SACD (which I do have and cringe at the harmonica).

 

Same as the redbook layer on the 2003 SACD.

 

Same mastering, but I'm pretty sure the 2004 CD has had a uniform volume shift and is quieter than the redbook layer of the SACD.

 

Ya know, I haven't played my cd of John Wesley in some time....until after reading this entire thread. I have the old US Columbia cd. It sounds as if it's a positive that I didn't get the remaster...or any Dylan remasters for that matter. By the way, who did master those 2003/2004 remasters?

I kinda forgot how good of an album this really is. It's one of those albums I wish I could've been a fly on the wall during

 

Greg Calbi did the Dylan remasters. And unfortunately in the case of Dylan CDs it's not as simple as "the old CDs are all good, the new ones are all bad." For example, the remastered versions of Bringing it All Back Home and Nashville Skyline are good, and far superior to the older CDs. The latest iteration of Blonde on Blonde is also probably the best, though that is in part due to having a superior mix.

 

I very much agree. I find the hybrid SACD of SKYLINE in particular to be scary good, not a hint of the brightness issue that unfortunately plagues a couple of the other SACDs.

 

Great thread. I don't have this particular album so I can not comment on this.

I have more than once thought that if I were in Steve's position, I would once pick up a realy bad sounding recording and held it up as a realy great sounding recording. And I would love to read the comments here on SHF.

Hmm...suddenly I come to think about a particular scene in the movie "Life of Brian"...

 

Street Legal. The original LP was as muddy as all get out on that track.

 

I'm happy with the John Wesley Harding EU Columbia redbook remaster COL 512347 2 and am now thinking there is a possibility the EU remastered edition is not exactly the same as the CK 92395 one.

 

I still prefer the mono mix of JWH to the stereo and really wish they had issues that mix on CD/SACD.