New Springsteen Box "Album Collection '73-'84'" (Part Two)

That kick drum sounding more punchier is most noticeable on I'm On Fire I personally find. I have never heard that track sound like that before, and I've lost count of how many times I've listened to that album in the past.

 

Paul,

Never said I preferred it. I just noted that there were some improvements in some areas but that the dynamics are certainly compromised (which I noted) compared to the original dynamics are, however, only part of the equation. I've heard great dynamics but the mastering still sounds pretty bad in other areas. It's a mixed bag. I haven't come to a conclusion yet as I'll need to listen to it AT HOME (as I noted I listened to it in the car) and live with a little while before coming to a conclusion.

My second post refers (if you look at what I was referring to) "Nebraska". As I said "better" is a relative term--there ARE improvements in some areas but dynamics are not one of them. Someone asked if and how it had been improved. I don't automatically dismiss something out of hand as I'm looking at more than just dynamics and compression.

I had to do adjustments (and keep in mind I noted that I was just listening to it in the car as I had just picked it up)re-EQing "The River"--I toned down the treble which helped.

I don't think I've ever heard a version of "The River" that I would call great but nothing has touched the original vinyl to my ears (but note I haven't heard the new vinyl).

Shall we not tar and feather someone based on some initial impressions? I'm not trying to "sell" anyone on these either way and I haven't come to a definitive conclusion either way.

I really don't appreciate being the poster boy for the "majority" that you referred to. I'm just someone who posted some initial impressions and responded to a single question.

Since you're referring to the post responding to MY original post I am not one of those "majority" that loves all things remastered because it's remastered. If you read my original post I noted that there were some improvements in the presentation but noted that they are not as dynamic. I didn't express a preference one way or the other for most of these because I had only listened to two discs and, as I noted in my original post, it was IN MY CAR not at home.

As far as "danger signs" in the post, I'm just noting what I heard and as I said, "better" is relative.

Man, I wish people (not referring to you ricks) would not have knee jerk reactions to posts especially when one provides the context for it (and makes it clear that there are some elements that sound improved while others are not).

Like a lot of folks, I judge remasters based on each individual disc and comprare it to what I've heard and have but I also don't automatically dismiss them either.

Jeez...

 

Sadly, we've seen this in thread after thread: people saying that it's more compressed but sounds good versus people saying they haven't heard the remasters but numbers don't lie. One conclusion that occurs to me is that mastering engineers have got better at narrowing the dynamic range without the resulting mastering sounding obviously, glaringly squashed. That seems to be the case whichever camp one backs.

 

I've bought the WEISS in 24bit and previously bought The River in 24 from Qobuz. I'm going to compare the CDs with those and decide how to proceed. I've compared 24bit/44.1 to CDs before and theres been nothing in it I'm not paying what their asking unless I hear the difference. Anyway if you are correct they'll be out in 24/96 soon.

 

Very astute animal! Listening to BTR and doing an A/B with a flac file of an older cd and, although never great sounding in my opinion, ( and I've got a big inventory upon which to base that evaluation including original, Classic, 1/2 speed Master, CBS Gold edition, etc), this new version is very, very bright, sibilant, and somewhat shrill through my system......perhaps just me but the Flac of the older cd, ( CBS Gold, I think), had a sound I preferred.

 

That's very cool....hopefully you had some Bruce playing at the time. I grew up in Middletown and actually was in high school, (MTHS), with Miami Steve.

 

Finally got through the entire CD box and I am a happy camper, no complaints whatsoever (except for the fact I don't have the vinyl yet! )

For me, "Greetings", The River and BITUSA yield the biggest and most surprising improvements. Most noticeable is the bass response on the latter two - not artificially goosed low end, but real defined Gary W Tallent pumping bass lines. I have never described Bruce recordings that way before. I used to consider BITUSA a casualty of 80s recording techniques, now I consider it one of the better examples of that era.

 

I agree with you both. I am not telling anyone anything they don’t already know, or as was said above, we have not already said countless times here before. My heart also sinks every time I see a DR go from a 13 to an 8—alarm bells are ringing—and I think on the whole the skepticism is very much warranted. I am reminded however of a case where there is an exception to the rule.

Smiths Louder Than Bombs ’87 to ’11 - DR13 to 8
R.E.M. Reckoning ’84 to ‘09/25thAnn. - DR13 to 8

One I gladly listen to over and over and could at least make an argument it has some merit towards improving its original version; the other I regretted buying before getting past the third song and have refused to listen to it since.

 

You are not wrong. This BTR is very very similar to the 30th anniv. so that makes sense. I would be interested in your thoughts on something other than BTR and maybe also not Darkness since my guess is it also is close to its recent remaster and likely has the compression and EQ already baked in.

 

The new edition of Born To Run is noticeably less compressed than the 30th Anniversary Edition from 2005 IMO. Listen to them side by side. Bob Ludwig said recently that he tried to keep as much of the dynamic range as possible intact when remastering these albums for this new album box set. He certainly didn't do that when he remastered Born To Run back in 2005 for that album's box set.

 

I think they both sound " a tad" loud I don't think the new one sounds that different-the difference are there but they are subtle-see bmorengr's previous comments... the DR numbers are all but identical.....there are elements to these two masterings that are very good in comparison to the Gold version for example but you might want to concede the separation,clarity and detail for something less edgy (for want of a better expression).......I think the more compressed discs in the set BTR and BITUSA are very cleverly done in that I would strongly suspect they would sound good in most systems and they don't sound unmusical or actually that compressed but invariably for me in my system you just wish BTR in particular was just edged back a bit.....the 30th is the same also.

 

Although Bob did say he that tried to keep as much dynamic range intact when remastering these albums for the box set, you'll find that they are all louder than the old CD versions.

 

actually I only read the response not the original post - and still haven't

For those interested I do not prefer any of these new masterings and think Born To Run and Darkness were just plain bad. I could see however how some could prefer The River [too bright and loud for me] and USA [too loud and the increased low end while decent, in my mind is revisionism] even though I did not, however they are ok enough that I am hoping the 24bit downloads are a bit better if so my opinion could change on those 2. I did not listen to anything prior to "Born To Run".

 

Well The LP versions sound really great. Better than before.

 

It shouldn't mean a guilt trip if you find yourself liking these remasters even though the DR numbers and the use of compression suggest otherwise. Getting hung up on this stuff all the time just because it doesn't follow the "audiophile playbook" makes no sense if you like how they sound. It's just looking for problems that may not be there. Don't worry so much about the risk to your audiophile credibility, that should be a very distant second to just enjoying the music.

 

Actually, my comparison for BTR was the anniversary box edition. It sounded better to me than the new remaster. So far, Nebraska, The Wild The Innocent, and The River, from the collection do sound pretty good to me when compared to the Japanese imports I bought....well, I got them from Red Trumpet when the were still cranking. The new remasters have more detail than do the imports and are slightly less sibilant although those first albums were hardly engineering marvels to say the least. Trying to make them sound otherwise has got to be pretty challenging. I thought the few cuts I listened to from BITUSA sounded OK. I'm guessing the vinyl is better? My sense is that this is not The Beatles in Mono, however.

 

I am surprised you find this BTR harder to listen to than the 30th but that is what makes the world go 'round. Thanks for sharing that and all the rest.

 

I wouldn't doubt it. Moving me more and more towards my turntable again....

 

It's not even The Beatles in Stereo which was far more dynamic.

 

I liked what I heard from new The Wild & The Innocent.... remaster. I may have to spring for this vinyl box (when it drops in price of course).

 

Perhaps there will be a backlash against this box and people will later say the original CDs, although not perfect, have better DR and are not as loud, bright, nor harshly mastered?

 

Yes they are all louder but BTR is at the lower end over the range of the albums-only BITUSA has lower DR numbers.....

 

I'd like to summarise my thoughts on this set as a whole just to put what I hear in context.

Approaching this CD setas a big Springsteen fan I have to conclude it's an essential set. As a Springsteen fan with a keen interest in audio reproduction it is....an essential set.

As regards the DR numbers I will repeat what I said about BITUSA in my original overview in that the disc sounds more musical and less harsh than the numbers might suggest. I would say there has been quite keen technical knowledge and application delivered on these discs to ensure musicality persists and to a large extent the original artistic intent is maintained. I've also stated they've tried to bridge the fact people will be listening to this on a wide range of systems.

I think we would all agree Bruce never really did state of the art productions but he did sometimes marry songwriting and arrangements at a sublime artistic peak and delivered some of the best popular music ever produced-even in this set there is a wide range of songs and ideas to grasp with.....

A few of the discs-three in my opinion BITUSA,Darkness and BTR are on the verge of where compression can be a problem.....if we take for example the Mastersound Gold CD of BTR versus the new remaster you will get a more relaxed,laid back arguably smoother listen....however the new version offers up better detail,clarity,bass and separation at particular moments and songs on the disc it beats the Gold version by a reasonable distance-in my opinion the worst you can say about the new BTR is that it is forward sounding rather than oppressive YES I would prefer it to be a bit quieter but there you.

For me it's about choice, I have the option of listening to the Mastersound CD anytime I want.

However that's the contentious part I would say at least 4 of the discs are really big improvements, the first 2 , River and BITUSA......Nebraska is nice but it is what it is ....the only real issue with BTR and Darkness is that in my opinion the improvements are more subtle and less noted than the rest of the set because they've recently been done-there's a marginal improvement imho over the anniversary sets.

When you offer a big set of discs to people you are going to get a wide range of opinions-I note above someone saying the first two albums don't interest him, I'm not coming from there I'm coming from the place where I want to hear ALL of these records in the best form I can hear and I am very very happy no it's not perfect personally I've always heard problems with Bruce's productions but so far this is as good as Bruce has sounded on CD.

 

Spot on! I've found that the key is to find out who's ears you trust and remember their avatars. If one can't find any reviews from these "trusted ears", look for the above mentioned "danger signs".

 

I like Steve Hoffman's mastering. Outstanding, realistic, vocal clarity.

A warm bass, but not too much, just right.

No harshness, no upper midrange boost.

A smooth, pleasing treble.

How close is this box set?