Thoughts on "modern" mastering, flat transfers, etc...

It seems to be the general consensus of the forum that "flat transfers are often good" and "really bright CDs are bad", etc, etc... Often certain CDs are touted because they are flat transfers - nobody has "mucked" with the sound. The Hollies' "20 Golden Greats" comes to mind.

I'm listening to it right now. You know what? It's really bright. To the point of hurting my ears if I listen too long. It has its perks, but... While I'm no Hollies collector (hi David!), I tend to believe that better, more "relaxed" versions of much of this material do exist out there.

Where am I going with this? Well, I really have to wonder - if people didn't *know* this disc was a flat transfer, would it really be held in such high regard? I mean, I can really see certain forum members saying "wow, that's really bad, they just jacked up the treble. I wonder if Peter Mew did that?! Sounds like compression!" if they didn't know it was simply a flat transfer. Of course, once it was discovered that's how the tapes sound, well, it was the best thing since sliced bread.

I guess this kind of goes back to the "blind listening tests" thread - I really think many people (myself included, actually) jump on certain CDs because they know they are flat transfers, mastered from the original tapes, etc... It's been noted that the Epic Anthology ("From the original master tapes") was taken from copy tapes, which seems to immediately put that disc in disfavor. Well, so what? The difference between a flat copy and the original isn't much at all. Add some good mastering and you might have something that beats a CD taken from the original tapes.

Of course, then there's "80s CDs are almost always better than newer remasters." This has of course displaced "all 80s CDs are crap" from not long ago. Let me tell you - some of those old CBS Rolling Stones titles SUCKED - really thin sounding. I don't give a damn what processing was or wasn't used, if the tapes were first generation or not, or anything else - many just don't sound good, period.

I guess I just feel many of us (once again, myself included) get too wrapped up in the details that may not even be that significant and just assume sound quality will be totally reflective of those things.

Time for bed...

 

I have to say Luke - but this post is one of the most insightful ones I've read of late.

You touch on so *many* good points that make up what I consider to be the thing that makes this hobby so fun. That is, it's still a mystery in many ways, and there's often things that don't add up even when they might on "paper".

I'll also add that one of the things that I think makes audio really unique is that the mind (and preconceived notions) can really influence how we listen to things or compare things. I've noticed that the biggest flaw I feel I have is that I often decide in my mind before something is reissued how I think it's going to sound or how it *should* sound. Then when it doesn't meet this preconceived notion...I naturally (often unfairly) "dis" it.

It's not until (usually at a much later date when the inner biases have settled) I later compare it to something else, or re-evaluate it on its own again, that I find myself saying "hmm maybe that wasn't so bad after all!".

Comparison is also a strange game too. When one has 20 versions of "The Air That I Breathe" it becomes hard to figure out which one is the "best", or "most musical", or "most euphonic", or "correct", or "original", or "proper EQ", or "flat transfer" or whatever. Combine the often synergistic effects that an audio reproduction system can have on things and....well....what might sound good in my room may have the wrong synergy for someone else.

My mood (and even health) might even influence on any given day which one of those 20 versions of "Air That I Breathe" sounds "right" at that moment. When I went back and listened to Epic Anthology yesterday I thought "hey this is better than I remembered it". What changed my opinion? Was I comparing it to something else in my mind when it came out (perhaps some Parlophone/EMI/Polydor/ vinyl)? Did it not meet a preconceived expectation of what I had? Did reading that copies were used bias my listening sessions at the time? Have my ears changed from the age of 25 to 37? Is it a different system I now have? All mysteries to me!


And you're also very right about something else. That is, that opinions can often be contagious. We should probably all be careful in declaring something as an absolute best (or worst). I can think of more than one release that has gone from 'king status' to 'dog status' over my internet years. That's still always a funny phenomenon!

You know what they say about opinions....


(On that note, I'll say that...if you found "20 Golden Greats" unforgiving and relentless sounding - then you may find the Epic Anthology the antithesis of that on some of the tracks. Unfortunately, most Holllies recordings tend to have that relentless, ear assualting quality built into them...lol! A little euphonic roll-off might be a *good* thing!)

 

Great observations, Luke AND David. A couple of them are things that I have also expressed on this forum, but seemed to have fallen on blind eyes.

I really can add nothing else to both of your observations.

Sometimes, maybe it's better just not to know what you are listening to, and that it is just enough if you enjoy it.

But, it's nice to have Steve around to clue us in!

 

I always wondered about why this song is always so bright! I figured it was so it would grab attention on the radio. When you hear it on radio it does stand out bigtime. This song is one of my favorite Hollies tunes.

 

I like bright and punchy CDs and am no fan of noise reduction. It's my understanding that Steve doesn't use any. Is that true. It would definitely explain the brightness of his gold work.

 

Well...get a CD that has it fixed!

See, this is the whole point - people who don't know that disc is a flat transfer probably will say "man, this disc sucks, it's way too bright." Are they wrong for saying that, just because that's how the tapes sound? The basic fact is that stuff *can* be tweaked to not sound so bright. Do you get where I'm coming from?

If someone told us those mix tapes were actually dull sounding, and somebody played 20GG, I'm sure they'd be screaming bloody murder.

I just think sometimes it's a good idea to stand back a bit, and try to throw out some existing knowledge, and THEN listen. Make sense?

Of course, most of The Beatles stereo mixes aren't that bright, so I wondered what happened with The Hollies.