I'm really wondering what you are trying to say. A very good system is better at revealing what's in the recording/mastering. IMHO, sounding dynamic is not an inherent property of a good system. It will sound dynamic with a dynamic recording/mastering, but with a bad recording or mastering it will only be very good at revealing all the ugliness. It cannot improve what's not there. A DR16 mastered album will sound great on a good system, while it will sound crappy on a crappy system. A DR6 mastered album will not sound better on a good system. It will just output the music in all its compressed "glory".
I was speaking more in general than of any one specific album. Most albums that are mixed to sound or be dynamic, sound, to me, like the dynamics are forced and unnatural, unlike listening to live instruments.
Huh? The ability to accurately reproduce the dynamics of a recording is a critical element of a music reproduction system.
Huh? Live instruments are extremely dynamic. Reducing dynamics makes instruments sound less natural, not more. But a recording without any compression in the mix will sound like a natural mess because every instrument has its own dynamics. The trick for a truly good recording is to be mixed for a balanced sound that retains as much of the dynamics as possible without sounding artificial - not the other way around.
I won't! But it is a US pressing, probably from that year. CRC would mean Columbia Record Club. So this one is close: Supertramp - Even In The Quietest Moments... With this one it says it has 'CRC' on the spine. Of course, any detail on labels, covers etc. would help. Logo's, numbers, little text and scribbles, but of course you would probably know that. This one has the 'T1', which would suggest a Terre Haute pressing and owned by Columbia Records. Supertramp - Even In The Quietest Moments... I know we're getting off-topic here. So...my apologies to everyone.
I agree total,finally someone on the site that understands what music is suppose to sound like Anyone thats listened to a lot of live,unamplified music would have to agree
Wow...just wow. Decreased dynamics sounds more like live, unamplified music is supposed to sound. I never cease to be amazed at the lengths people will go to rationalize the illogical.
Go back and read his posts,please. He keeps saying dynamics are good but not when there artificially added in a mixing studio.Instruments,when recorded right have there own natural dynamics.
For those saying the MFSL CD is more "dynamic", i.e. has a higher DR, than other releases, I suspect the above EQ is why. My guess is that all of the releases with DRs in the 13 range use no compression, but the MFSL has a higher DR due to the attentuated bottom end. I like the DR ratings as a tool, but it does not (nor is it meant to) provide precise measurements of dynamic range.
I also suspect this to be true. But really, it doesn't matter much to me. After reading recommendations here I picked up a UK vinyl copy and it leaves me almost totally uninterested in wading through all of the digital versions. The dynamics are incredible, but it's not thinned out like the MFSL CD. The bass is absolutely amazing. In comparison the MFSL CD sounds like the tape wasn't transferred correctly because I would like to think nobody could add treble like that at a supposed "audiophile" label and no way do I believe it was recorded that way. From what I've heard and read about some of the other digital transfers, I personally do NOT believe that the MFSL represents the tapes just because their "Original Master Recording" hype was on it. I've noticed on some other stuff they released from the A&M catalog, where their version is really weird compared to other versions. Compare Procol Harum's 'Salty Dog' to the early German Cube CD, for example. The Cube destroys the MFSL and is clearly from a better source tape. The problem with the MFSL Crime CD has nothing to do with volume (it was mastered low but we all have a volume control). The problem is that in comparison to the original UK LP (which according to Ken Scott on this very forum was definitive in his view) or ANY other LP it is absolutely anemic. From what I've read on this forum I think many here have long blamed this on volume and that it needs to be turned up, but that has nothing to do with it. That EQ comparison I cited above is the issue.
Boy do I ever agree about the volume knob! I've never heard the MFSL CD. Could it be that it does "represent" the master tape, but like many master tapes it simply needs some mastering to get it right and MFSL just did a fairly straight transfer? I do have an 2 early UKs, the Speakers Corner & the old MFSL LP. I like the UK and the Speakers Corner LPs, however I wouldn't say they sound similar. Two different approaches. The U.K. rocks more; the SC is smoother. The problem with the U.K.'s (at least the two I have) is the vinyl isn't the quietest by a long stretch and that hinders a recording like Crime to some extent.
I really doubt that the MFSL CD represents the master tape. Frankly I highly doubt it was even sourced from the master tape. But I can't nor would I really care to prove this, and I know there are people around here will almost always seem to use MFSL releases as the basis for what a master tape sounds like, when I think this is a mistaken belief and a generalization more to do with the fact that they are the world's most renown "audiophile" label than logic. But that's just MO.
My rule of thumb when mixing music or video: if the engineer does things that generally brings attention to HIS work, it is over doing it. So, I agree in theory to what some are saying here. But, with Crime of the Century, in that case alone I give it a pass regarding dynamics and it does work with that album. The dynamics are very much a part of that album, just like the other instruments, and because they are very well done imo I think it works. But as I said before, generally speaking what an engineer does should be subtle, and make what the band has done simply sound better, but it should not jump out at you. I admit the dynamics do jump out, but that's part of the fun with that one title...it's a great adventure and the dynamics are a huge reason why. Would I want to hear a Dan Fogelberg album engineered that way? Not a chance!
It's Supertramp so I think folks will give us a pass. No wonder we're not seeing these very often, if it's a record club pressing. And on a number of ocassions I have picked up record club pressings that are better. I just bought a Three Dog Night hits album that I have a number of ABC pressings of (all not very good) only because it's a club pressing. I will take a really close look later on and report back regarding markings on the cover. This is worth seeking out for anyone wanting the best pressing!!
Oh, I'm quite sure they purposely amp'd up the dynamics on COTC. Not hard to do in the least, especially if you are trying to do that, which I have no doubt they did. How many albums do we own that have dynamics like that? Steve said that Captain Fantastic is a very hard album to master because that too has a very wide dynamic range, but it is sounds more natural on that album so we don't really hear comments regarding that on Elton's album (well, except when the drums kick in on Bitter Fingers...wow does that punch but it sounds amazing!) but it is very obvious on Supertramp's, at least to my ears. But it works in this case. Just compare that to Even In The Quietest Moments. Sounds like a completely different band! And it does sound more natural, but that isn't what they were going for with Crime. Also, they were given all the time in the world to futz around with Crime, and they sure took advantage of it.
I appreciate the varied opinions on whether vinyl overall sounds better. I'm of the opinion that either can sound good IF mastered correctly, but in my opinion CD's rarely are so I always go for vinyl as I think it's more forgiving if it isn't. I will say, in the case of Crime, this is a prime example of where vinyl is a better medium for the type of music that lies within the grooves. To me, "of course" the bass is amazing, as you say. I think it is a very "analogue" centric album, and it just sounds better that way. But many will disagree. Only to say that imo, I think you can feel good about sticking with what you have. But, please, do yourself a favor and seek out the MFSL edition on vinyl. It is the very best recording I own (imo) and I have the better part of 100 audiophile pieces of vinyl, though mainly pop titles (Hall & Oates, Elton John, almost every MFSL title that falls in that category, plus Jennifer Warnes Raincoat, etc) so my opinion may not apply to other genres of music. And a lot of people here don't like the EQ they use, but I don't mind it.
You say you're sure it can be done and it's not hard to do in the least, but then proceed to spend lots of words describing a bunch of that things which have nothing to do with explaining how dynamics can be increased. Are you somehow equating not reducing the dynamics in the mix with increasing the dynamics? Because that's two entirely different things.
Well, I don't know that a "bad" version exists. If you love the album, just for the better quality vinyl, it might be fun for you to pick one up. They are all over eBay so you don't necessarily have to pay a lot for it, and most people took loving care of them so generally they are clean. I have purchased a lot of MFSL vinyl used and I have only picked up one album (Poco...Legend) that was bad. And I should have known better...I found it at a used store and it was all of $3, and it looked bad. I just couldn't leave it for that price though!
There's a huge difference between balancing dynamics in the mix to saying reducing the overall dynamics of a recording increases the natural sound of the instruments and brings out detail and subtlety. The former is standard operating procedure; the latter is nonsense.
