Simon and Garfunkel - Parsley, Sage, Rosemary and Thyme - MFSL - SACD

one of the things I will never understand,
is why they do not use the MultiTracks Tapes to make an new mix 5.1 Surround

This album Parsley, Sage, Rosemary And Thyme,
I know they used an recording machine of 8 multi tracks separately

my question is why they not use this 8 multi tracks and make a new 5.1 mix??

all 8 multi tracks tape converted to high definition 192kHz or DSD digital

the record company give us a box Blu-Ray or SACD 2.0 and 5.1 mixes

I know that album Bridge Over Troubled Water,
Roy Halee used Ampex recording machine 16-tracks tape 2 inch analog 30ips

this 16-tracks analog tape must be wonderful listen
in a new 5.1 surround high definition 192kHz

the voice of Art Garfunkel alone in acapella in the center channel
and instrumental piano of Larry Knechtel in L and R front

MUST BE WONDERFUL !!!

 

It would be wonderful, but clearly someone isn't interested, whether it's the artists or the label.
Maybe the multis for BOTW are lost. This album and Bookends weren't remixed in 2001. There is a vintage Quad mix though that is fantastic; I'm sure it would tide you over.

 

The interesting thing there is that he's talking specifically about the "Fakin' It" single...which is the ONE mono mix that HAS been reissued on CD! It's on The Best Of Simon & Garfunkel from 1999, mastered by Vic Anesini.

 

Really? By "this album" to you mean PSR&T? Earlier in this thread when I was talking about the difference in run time from the MFSL to the CD from the 2001 box set, I was told it was because the MFSL was the original mix and the 2001 was presumably then a remix.

Whatever the case, I've determined I prefer the CD from the 2001 "Complete Studio Recordings" to the MFSL.

 

No, he's talking about Bridge Over Troubled Water.

 

Indeed.

 

Quad Bridge mix is excellent except for The Boxer which seems anemic as the famous drum hits are almost non-existent.

 

This Sacd is a thing of power and beauty. Wow.

 

I did not see any S&G announcements in the music direct catalogue I got yesterday. Apparently there's nothing to hope for in the S&G MFSL department in 2019.
And yet, while we wait another 52 weeks for the next catalogue, we do have a lovely Parsley Sage Rosemary & Thyme to listen to -- life could be worse!

 

What happened to the Parsley vinyl ?

 

Maybe someone else can help -- my catalogue is already in the recycling bin!

 

And the first album I ever bought as well!

 

Great post. Absolutely agree. I'm 60 and even amongst my music friends very few people care about these high end expensive sacd releases. I bought the new MFSL sacd Parsley etc. Cost about £32 - ridiculous but there you go - could have made the disc a bit longer by adding the mono but for whatever reason they did not. Sales of these cds must be plummeting down the plug hole - I know AF have called it a day and I would expect to see AP and MFSL go the same way in a few years.
Back to the sacd in question and I think it is very good. £32 worth of good - no - but it was my choice to buy it. When I shuffle off upstairs I doubt someone will take my place to buy this stuff.

 

I'm holding my tongue...but it ain't easy.

 

By the way, the bass response on the reel-to-reel blows away my 1a vinyl.....the whole presentation is superb.

 

Often, for vinyl, they have to do certain things to make the signal fit properly onto the groves. Sometimes (acutally often), they would typically roll off the audio at about 50Hz, and so some stuff on the higher end (sometimes just attenuation, sometimes HF limited.) One helps to keep groove sizes down -- keeping from overlap. The other HF side is meant to make HF tracking easier. I'd suspect that even normal consumer digital versions would use similar source material as used for vinyl (with some of the same processing.)

Noise reduced tape (assuming no NR encode/decodes done -- directly from master) is the really good pure analog (as long as it isn't crummy tape). You DO NOT want any extra encode/decode cycles -- but for consumer, they might properly decode the DolbyA, maybe even (hopefully) re-encode with DolbyB at most. Extra NR encode/decode cycles do produce more distortion.
I do have DolbyA encoded 'Parsley' and also also the "Sounds of Silence'. The sound quality of Sounds of Silence is pretty darned nice. Parsley is okay -- but not quite as nice as 'Sounds'. I don't know how many DolbyA encoded/decode cycles the material went through, but the quality seems to be better than I'd expect with two passes. (Sometimes, one can estimate the number of DolbyA encode/decode cycles by looking at the spectograms, and look for the ghosts that might look like a lot of modulation noise.)
I have heard a GOOD consumer digital version (probably similar to source material for the vinyl) vs. the DolbyA digital version (properly decoded), and there is a bit more bass and small amount cleaner clarity in the DolbyA digital version -- sounding ALMOST the same except for those two differences. Of course, undecoded, the DolbyA version tends to be shrill and a bit of LF distortion (esp on parsley.) (Without decoding DolbyA material, there is a bit of LF distortion on some kinds of material -- might be surprising to some people, due to the fast attack/decay times.)

John

 

When was Dolby A first employed on commercial reel-to-reel tapes? You have Parsley and Sounds on reels?

 

I have digital copies that arent decoded -- a lot of digital material sits out there which hasn't been decoded. Somtimes, if you notice a bit of excess hiss (like 10+dB excess hiss) without the 'ghosts' around the spectogram, and has the chacteristic shrill sound with a bit of LF distortion -- it is a signature of DolbyA. I got the copies that weren't sold as DolbyA, but they are surely DolbyA encoded (from a well known HD vendor.) The S+G material came to me as 192k/24bit, but the diminishing returns in the decoder is 96k/floating point-32.

I have several fully decoded examples on a repository just to demo (if they weren't encoded, they wouldn't sound as good) for proof. I did do an A/B comparison with a normally consumer sourced copy -- and they were 90% similar (Like I said, cleaner bass and cleaner high end. Not 'more' high end -- just distinct vocals.) *My decodes weren't super carefully calibrated -- ran them off quickly -- but are pretty close. Also, because of my DolbyA decoder (working in conjunction with a fairly well known restoration engineer), there is probably less intermod -- so the voices are bit more distinct than a real DolbyA (DolbyAs decoding especially, create their own kind of intermod -- that almost sounds like a kind of tape compression itself -- tends to mush together vocals.) I happened to use a test version of the decoder (my partner on the project has the official release - I always use the test code, since I wrote it), migiht not be 100%, but it sounds about the same as the current release.

There is a 'Bridge', 'Parsley' and 'Sounds' example, 'Carpenters' along with an probably surprising ABBA example on my repository. Without decoding, the DolbyA encoded version of 'Scarborough' has obvious bass distortion. You can tell that 'Parsley' doesnt seem as clean as 'Bridge'. Sorry that they were only 48k/16bit -- I normally work in 96k/floating-point, but the repository doesn't ahve much space. Even the best MP3 (320k) loses a LOT of quality (stuff starts mushing together.)

PS: you can play the examples directly -- save you download space.

Repository: Hightail Spaces

 

Mine will be here in a week or so. Tell me what you like about it, and compared to what?

 

Parsley, Sage, Rosemary and … SACD? – Simon and Garfunkel on MFSL

 

Yes, MFSL are unsure or know that it is not the original master. I don't have the MFSL SACD but some one else in the thread thinks they used the same source as the most recent Columbia remaster used for the HD Download. I guess this is a Japan copy tape.

 

Yes, I misread it first.
They said same source used for the SACD as for the most recent Columbia remaster.

For me, it is very ok using a good japan dub tape.

 

Problem 1: The so called "Original Master Recording" is a dub, at least several generations down from the real original sources. Problem 2: Sibilant in places, harsh in places, hardly audiophile quality to begin with. I've heard "Greatest Hits" on every format it was issued on, including 4 track open reel (3 3/4 16x duplicating speed). Never sounded amazing in any format, including original LP in multiple pressings, cassette, 8 track cartridge, CD, and open reel. Mono won't happen because of one Paul Simon (who also has control and say so about reissues).

 

Arrived SACD MOFI no 2199
First impression is good.
Will compare It This week with My other 2 versions On cd.