Peter Gabriel - Best Digital Masterings?

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by tlake6659, Dec 22, 2008.

  1. Plan9

    Plan9 Mastering Engineer

    Location:
    Toulouse, France
    That's weird, in my recollection, it's the Security SACD that has the muddy tonality/smeared sound on the transients compared with the Target CD on Rythm of the Heat. Also, the last drum hits on the SACD were limited, unlike the Target with full dynamics. The SACD had more bass, though. Again, in my recollection. It's been a while since I listened to them.
    Last I listened to the album was with the 2016 remaster, the best to my ears (never heard the Classic vinyl). Maybe there are two different Target masterings? I don't know. I agree Targets though often have the slightly grainy quality you describe.

    The 2016 Hi-Res remasters sound better to my ears than the 2002 remasters.
     
  2. The_Windmill

    The_Windmill Forum Resident

    Location:
    Italy
    Maybe a little exaggerated? ;)


    Please no... Mastering wise, IV/Security is already a mess as it is :D
     
    c-eling likes this.
  3. c-eling

    c-eling They're made of light,We never would have guessed

    I have a #02 and #03 variant, both use the same mastering. Levels on the US DADC are quite a bit lower
     
    George P likes this.
  4. c-eling

    c-eling They're made of light,We never would have guessed

    I didn't notice the 'graininess', but did detect that smearing I guess you guys call it. Was more evident on the US DADC over the 03 Target (Which I love)
    Thomas mentioned the 2016, I don't have that one. But was not a fan of the vinyl remaster 2x45 of III, so I skipped IV and not a fan of the earlier remasters either.
    Of course like anything it all comes down to taste, this is mine, not right or wrong :)
    For IV my preferences
    Japan Lp, WG Target, Classic 2002
     
  5. NorthNY Mark

    NorthNY Mark Forum Resident

    Location:
    Canton, NY, USA
    It's very weird indeed. I've never noticed major differences in our sonic perceptions before. What's strange is that we're not responding differently to the same phenomenon, like pronounced treble that might sound good on a darker system but bad on a brighter one. It really sounds like we're having opposite experiences of the most basic sonic characteristics of what we're hearing. Now, when I did the comparison I hadn't yet read the comments about that final drum thwack, so that didn't figure into my perceptions. But the differences I was hearing throughout the drumming portion were so pronounced that any differences in the final drum hits would be almost beside the point. The main problem, as you put it, was smeared transients. It was as if the reverb from the drumming was compressed/boosted and tended to drown out the transients throughout the entire drumming section. At best it sounded like it might have been from a very high generation tape. The remaster had none of that--each and every drum hit was crystal clear and in its own pinpoint location, with overall volume gradually increasing throughout the section.

    In case there are different target masterings, mine was West German for US (at least, it was not treated as an import where I bought it in the longbox in 1985 or thereabouts). The front cover has a lavender stripe in the lower right corner proclaiming "Full Digital Recording." The target face is grey with black markings. The numbers under the Geffen logo on the front are 2011-2, 800091-2. The matrix numbers on the rear are 800 091-2 02.

    If we are hearing the same mastering, I wonder what kind of system synergy effects might cause this difference in perception? Is it possible that if, say, both this mastering and my system have a bump or a dip in a specific frequency, and yours has the opposite at that frequency, I would be getting way too much or too little of that frequency, whereas you would be getting a balance? But could that also affect transient clarity? I wonder if an emphasis in whatever frequency the drum reverb is could cause the reverb to be more prominent in my playback, thus muddying the transient impact, and perhaps your system does something similar in the case of the remaster? (For what it's worth, my system is somewhat on the 'tubey" side, and doesn't seem to mesh well with too much added emphasis in the "presence" region). I find our different experiences here somewhat perplexing, because usually people agree on how two discs differ, but disagree on the implications of the differences for the overall sound. This is not like that at all.
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2017
  6. Plan9

    Plan9 Mastering Engineer

    Location:
    Toulouse, France
    I'm not surprised you could pinpoint the drum hits with the SACD as higher resolution tends to do that to my ears, but in my recollections the dynamic impact and preciseness in time of the transients was better defined on the Target, although it didn't have a background as dark.
    Also, in my experience, SACD playback quality varies a lot depending on your equipment, more so than other digital sources. Last time I heard the SACD was with my mid-fi Denon player, though it was pure-DSD capable.
    I should simply compare them again. :)
     
    NorthNY Mark likes this.
  7. NorthNY Mark

    NorthNY Mark Forum Resident

    Location:
    Canton, NY, USA
    Actually, I wasn't talking about the SACD, but the redbook 2002 remaster. I actually do have the single-layer SACD version as well, but currently my only SACD playback option is of lesser quality than my CD player, so I used the CD-only remaster in my comparison. So while it sounded very much like (far) higher resolution (in fact, that would be the clearest way to describe the differences I was hearing), it was not in fact a higher res source. The target sounded unusually bad during the drumming section. Most CDs, including other older ones, just don't sound that smeared. It was almost like a cassette played back with azimuth problems (not that bad, of course, but heading in that direction). (My CD player is a Rega Planet, if that is relevant). I'm also trying to make sense of the "graininess" I was trying to describe. The only other CD I recall hearing that way was another early target--Genesis's And Then There Were Three. I used to think of the sound as tinny and trebly, but now I think it is probably more of a treble roll-off combined with a boost somewhere in the mids, giving it a mildly metallic quality. But I'm not sure even that describes it accurately.
     
  8. Plan9

    Plan9 Mastering Engineer

    Location:
    Toulouse, France
    I'll take a listen to the Target soon if I can.

    "grainy" to me is that early PCM converter sound where the backgrounds aren't really black or the hiss isn't in another 3D plane like it should or doesn't "float", but instead tends to mesh with the rest of the music and render the imaging a bit foggy and the tonality slightly metallic as you say. I don't think it is EQ or tonality-related. It's difficult to describe, but when you hear it, you hear it. Last time I heard it was on Queen The Game Target.
     
    bmoregnr and NorthNY Mark like this.
  9. bbanderic

    bbanderic Forum Resident

    The DR values look identical though. I'm deciding whether to grab the 2002 CD remasters for PG 1 - So or get the vinyls that came out in March 2017 for the 24/96 downloads. Is there that much of a difference between the two?
     
    mdm08033 likes this.
  10. Plan9

    Plan9 Mastering Engineer

    Location:
    Toulouse, France
    The DR values are mostly identical, which at first prompted me to think the 2016 downloads were just copies of the SACD masters. But they are not! They are new transfers and sound better, overall, in most ways.
    I only regret there is around the same amount of limiting, but it's less noticeable and sound better than on the 2002's. So is the only one I'm not completely sold on.
    Frankly I would get the 2016's unless money is an object.
     
  11. mdm08033

    mdm08033 Senior Member

    Thank you for the analysis of the 2016 downloads. Money is an object for me. Before I started hanging around here I had "upgraded" to used copies of the 2002 digipak re-masters of the first four albums. Since I started hanging around I have acquired Virgin "Mastered By Nimbus" editions the first three albums and a Target of "Security."

    Maybe if the 2016 re-masters make it to the used bins I'll give them a try, but I'm still good the sound quality of my vintage discs. Some day the kicker might be playing my old high school vinyl of Melt, Security and Plays Live.

    Happy listening, Michael
     
    c-eling and Plan9 like this.
  12. c-eling

    c-eling They're made of light,We never would have guessed

    I think the 2016's Michael are DL only, or come included with the lp's
     
    The_Windmill likes this.
  13. NorthNY Mark

    NorthNY Mark Forum Resident

    Location:
    Canton, NY, USA
    Thanks--that is the perfect description of the "graininess" I was hearing!
     
    Plan9 likes this.
  14. c-eling

    c-eling They're made of light,We never would have guessed

    Well my cheap and cheerful Plays Live ended up being a West German PDO Silver for US This is the 2 disc
    Disc 1
    90.4/77.7/85.4/73.4/91.0/76.0/79.2/76.0
    Disc 2
    93.3/83.3/82.9/91.4/85.3/89.5/74.4/76.6
    Peaks generated by EAC
     
    tmtomh, The_Windmill and mdm08033 like this.
  15. Audioresearch

    Audioresearch Forum Resident

    I have bought Peter Gabriel 3 Melt.Today the blackTriangle cd from japan Arrived.
    I really like the sound of this version! great album too
     
  16. tmtomh

    tmtomh Forum Resident

    Quoting and bumping this to add my $.02 on CD versions of Security.

    I've compared:
    • WG target
    • UK blue-face Virgin/Charisma PGDC4
    • 2002 Remaster redbook CD
    • 2003 Remaster SACD (PCM conversion)
    Here's what I've found:

    WG target:
    This was the first copy I owned, and I have a real soft spot for it. It's a pleasant listen overall, but I have to agree 100% with @NorthNY Mark : It does not hold up well in comparison with other versions. It's got massive bass in places, but it's actually a bit soft (maybe what Mark perceives as smeary in the transients), and above those fat mid-bass frequencies, I find it kind of flat and thin in the midrange and treble.

    UK V/C: This one is great. Super-dynamic, and clearer and tighter than the WG target. It's really quiet (I know, I know, just turn it up), and "San Jacinto" and "Kiss of Live" are IMHO nothing to write home about sonically. But this CD has IMHO the best-sounding version of "Rhythm of the Heat."

    2002/03 Remaster: An excellent remaster, albeit with slightly less dynamics than the originals. Very clean and tight, and probably the most consistent in sonic quality/character and volume level from track to track. Excels on "San Jacinto," "I Have the Touch," and "Kiss of Life." However, it lacks bass impact and dynamics on "Rhythm of the Heat" compared with the other two; and it doesn't have the same "holy sh**!" dynamic swell of percussion at the end of "Lay Your Hands on Me."

    I have not heard the actual SACD in pure DSD mode, but the SACD converted to PCM (FLAC) sounds the same as the redbook CD. Given that the SACD is $90+ on the used market while the remastered CD is $5, I'd say the SACD is awesome to have if you already own it, but not worth the massive price premium over the CD if you are looking to buy.

    The Winner? Very tough call. Here's how they break down by individual tracks for me:
    1. Rhythm of the Heat: UK V/C by a wide margin
    2. San Jacinto: Remaster, by a wide margin
    3. I Have the Touch: Remaster, by a modest margin
    4. The Family and the Fishing Net: Markedly different sounding, but the remaster and UK V/C are equally good
    5. Shock the Mokey: Different but equally good
    6. Lay Your Hands on Me: UK V/C by a healthy margin
    7. Wallflower: Different but equally good
    8. Kiss of Life: Remaster, by a healthy margin
    So I guess I'd say get both, especially since the remaster CD is so cheap. But for a clear winner, IMHO it boils down to which tracks are most important to you. For me, "Rhythm of the Heat" is what this album is all about, and "Lay Your Hands on Me" is a key track as well, so I'd probably lean towards the UK V/C if I had to choose. But the remaster is excellent.
     
  17. c-eling

    c-eling They're made of light,We never would have guessed

    Nice write up Matt, thanks. It's nice we have choices for our favorites :)
    It's been quite a while since I did any type of comparisons. I need to revisit the old US DADC and WG. The US carries peaks that are close to your old UK.
     
    tmtomh likes this.
  18. Plan9

    Plan9 Mastering Engineer

    Location:
    Toulouse, France
    I wonder what you would think about the 2016 remaster.

    I haven't done any *direct* comparison with the others, but I found it sounded excellent -better than the SACD- and is now my favourite (maybe until I compare it directly to my previous favourite :D )
     
    The_Windmill and tmtomh like this.
  19. tmtomh

    tmtomh Forum Resident

    I've done some poking around online, and it appears the 2016 remaster (which is sometimes labeled as a 2015?) exists only in LP and a high-res digital file formats. Is that right?

    If so, I'll see if I can find the digital files and try them out too. Thanks!
     
    Plan9 likes this.
  20. c-eling

    c-eling They're made of light,We never would have guessed

    bmoregnr likes this.
  21. The_Windmill

    The_Windmill Forum Resident

    Location:
    Italy
  22. c-eling

    c-eling They're made of light,We never would have guessed

    Must of missed it in my travels :cheers:
     
  23. tmtomh

    tmtomh Forum Resident

    I did notice that they seem very similar - iVolume (ReplayGain add-on for iTunes) pegs the 2002 CD and 2015/15 HD versions of the album with the exact same volume level. And they do sound very similar. But that's not enough to say whether or not they are the identical mastering - so I'm not getting into that fight! :)

    Based on one listen to about 3/4 of the album for the 2015/16 HD files, I'd say they sound very similar to the 2002 remaster, though perhaps slightly smoother and maybe with a tad more/better lower bass. But I will have to listen again later.
     
    The_Windmill and c-eling like this.
  24. c-eling

    c-eling They're made of light,We never would have guessed

    I picked up the 33 of So the other day which came with the 24/96 but haven't listened to it yet. I thought the vinyl was a little too bass heavy for my liking but otherwise sounded pretty descent.
    I don't have any of the remasters for comparison any more (I sold all my SACD's a few years ago.)
     
    tmtomh and The_Windmill like this.
  25. The_Windmill

    The_Windmill Forum Resident

    Location:
    Italy
    Just curious: was that a good investment?
     

Share This Page

molar-endocrine