Todd Rundgren new SACD titles, mastered Kevin Gray

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by Jack, Nov 22, 2017.

  1. George P

    George P Notable Member

    Location:
    NYC
    :agree:

    For the masterings I have heard by Kevin, I feel that his work usually has a balanced amount of treble. He neither rolls it off, like some mastering engineers, nor does he boost it, like others.

    /something. ;)
     
    ad180 likes this.
  2. mr.datsun

    mr.datsun Incompletist

    Location:
    London
    Just heard Wizard - the redbook audio layer. Sounds great. Much better than the '99 Castle/Bearsville CD and highly crank-able.
     

  3. Yes it is. And the SACD layer is even better.
     
  4. JediJoker

    JediJoker Audio Engineer/Enthusiast

    Location:
    Portland, OR, USA
    I submit to you that any difference you think you can hear between the two layers is placebo, and that if you actually are hearing a difference, it's down to differences in the way your DAC handles the different audio streams or simply euphonic distortion inherent in the DSD stream.
     
    tfunk182, supermd and fatwad666 like this.
  5. Musicisthebest

    Musicisthebest Exiled Yorkshireman

    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    Instead of making statements like this why not simply say you don't like DSD/SACD?
     
    George P and ChristopherTeuma like this.
  6. JediJoker

    JediJoker Audio Engineer/Enthusiast

    Location:
    Portland, OR, USA
    Instead of making assumptions like this, why don't you ask whether I do like DSD/SACD? Because I do. In spite of this, I accept the reality of my last post.
     
    fatwad666 likes this.
  7. aoxomoxoa

    aoxomoxoa I'm an ear sitting in the sky

    Location:
    USA
    Man these things are bright !
    Do yourself a favor and get the original lps instead
     
  8. rednoise

    rednoise Senior Member

    Location:
    Boston
    My original AWATS LP is also too bright and has little bottom end. I think the SACD/CD is better balanced and sounds nicer.
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2018
    Grampire, yamfox and audiomixer like this.
  9. yamfox

    yamfox Forum Resident

    Location:
    USA
    Plus none of the IGD that comes with stuffing so much music on one disc
     
    JediJoker and rednoise like this.
  10. Musicisthebest

    Musicisthebest Exiled Yorkshireman

    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    Please explain. Your initial comment came across as an anti-SACD post. You stated

    I submit to you that any difference you think you can hear between the two layers is placebo, and that if you actually are hearing a difference, it's down to differences in the way your DAC handles the different audio streams or simply euphonic distortion inherent in the DSD stream.

    This suggests there's no way that anyone could prefer the SACD layer except if it's a placebo, DAC issues or euphonic distortion in the DSD stream.

    I disagree. If done correctly SACD offers greater dynamic range & greater resolution. I submit that for this SACD these benefits are audible for the reasons Sony created SACD, not for the spurious reasons that you stated. Please back up your comments. Our host has stated that SACD offers benefits. Why do you think these benefits are not apparent on this SACD?
     
    ChristopherTeuma likes this.
  11. rednoise

    rednoise Senior Member

    Location:
    Boston
    I didn't read it that way. I read it as saying that in this case the difference wasn't audible. Not that SACD in general can't sound different.

    Even though I have no way to hear the SACD layer, considering the source material, I can believe it. The source is rough in all cases and there's not much that can be done to improve it.
     
  12. Musicisthebest

    Musicisthebest Exiled Yorkshireman

    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    The source is probably far from perfect but as it's analogue there will be some information above the CD high frequency cut off point.
     
  13. rednoise

    rednoise Senior Member

    Location:
    Boston
    Maybe yes, maybe no. In either case I don't think that's what the OP was referring to.
     
  14. JediJoker

    JediJoker Audio Engineer/Enthusiast

    Location:
    Portland, OR, USA
    "Spurious" reasons? The reason Sony created DSD encoding was to "simplify" digital audio as based on delta-sigma AD/DA conversion by removing the decimation stage to convert a 1-bit stream to multibit word lengths (and hence PCM audio). The tradeoff is enormous amounts of quantization noise that must be noise-shaped into the ultrasonic realm. The SACD was a smart repurposing of the DVD as a way to sell "high-resolution," "better-than-CD quality" audio to consumers with at-the-time iron-clad copy protection. As a bonus, it could include multichannel content and a backwards-compatible CD layer. It seemed like a perfect next step to Sony, and perhaps it could have been if they had been more aggressive with marketing and licensing. I'm glad that it has survived as a low-volume, niche format as it has been the vehicle for many excellent reissues of multichannel mixes (especially classic quad). If not for SACD, those mixes may have never again seen the light of day.
    It certainly can sound different due to the reasons I described before, or because of a difference in mastering between the layers. In the case of these SACDs (and most "audiophile" hybrid SACDs), the mastering is the same on both layers, so my previous statement stands.
     
    supermd and fatwad666 like this.
  15. George P

    George P Notable Member

    Location:
    NYC
    I also don't think that I have ever heard Kevin master anything (or something :laugh: ) with pushed up high frequencies, but I wish he had pulled them back a bit here.

    Actually, what I really wish is Rob LoVerde masters this for MFSL SACD.
     
    JediJoker likes this.
  16. Hatchet Jack

    Hatchet Jack Forum Resident

    Location:
    Europe
    I'm worried about the brightness claims here. Is the SACD of "Something/Anything" brighter than the MFSL, for example? And is "Wizard" brighter than the old unremastered CD? Cheers.
     
  17. gd0

    gd0 Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies

    Location:
    Golden Gate
    I've owned, and enjoyed, Wizard since it was first released in 1973(?). It has ALWAYS been an ear-bleeder; that's the way it was recorded / produced. It would take a severe remix to alter that.

    Know this: the loudness button and tone controls on my 70s Pioneer receiver got a workout when playing this one.

    Yeah, I know! Sometimes those precious Original Artist Intentions AREN'T so great after all. :shh:

    I hold on to my Bearsville CD; it isn't miserable, actually rather clean and clear in its way. I haven't heard Kevin's, but I can only speculate that he's done a fine job, while remaining Faithful (see what I did there?) to the 2-track master.

    Just don't expect any Pink Floyd production values.
     
  18. nick99nack

    nick99nack Forum Resident

    Location:
    Spotswood, NJ
    S/A SACD has less bass than the MFSL, and is a little bit brighter. I can't pick a clear winner, as every track on that album sounds different. Some tracks sound better on the MFSL, some better on the SACD. After 3 years, I tend to find myself going for the MFSL more often.

    The Wizard SACD is less bright than the old CD, but still bright. It is what it is. The midrange and clarity is better on the SACD. I recommend it, if you can find it!
     
    Hatchet Jack and bmoregnr like this.
  19. bmoregnr

    bmoregnr Forum Rezident

    Location:
    1060 W. Addison
    I will second this. The SACD's brightness is more about a more modern/accurate/higher res transfer than any specific eq move. I tend to the SACD more but you do have to kind of prepare for the experience! I also liked the complete Bearsville album set box remastering and if I am remembering correctly that is probably the most tame if you were to put the focus on staying away from brightness alone.
     
  20. Hatchet Jack

    Hatchet Jack Forum Resident

    Location:
    Europe
    If the SACD of "Something" is brighter than the MFSL, even if just a bit, i think i'm going to stick with my ol' MFSL then. I'm have no complains about it. But for "Wizard", is the vinyl worth looking for? I wouldn't mind if it's muffled and with less clarity, i would actually prefer that. Cheers.
     
  21. rednoise

    rednoise Senior Member

    Location:
    Boston
    A while back I tried to compare my original AWATS LP with my two CD versions, and I thought maybe the LP sounded a tiny bit better... or rather it would have if it hadn't sounded so worn out. The grooves are packed so tightly that even light, careful playing would cause inevitable, audible distress. I think the only way you'll get a better result would be if you found an unplayed copy, and good luck with that.
     
    Hatchet Jack likes this.
  22. quicksrt

    quicksrt Senior Member

    Location:
    Los Angeles
    I didn't read thi9s entire thread, but is it safe to assume that original master tapes have appeared and that is what is being used for those old Todd albums on SACD? Early CDs left me feeling dull and cloudy.
     
  23. bmoregnr

    bmoregnr Forum Rezident

    Location:
    1060 W. Addison
    The credits state Mastered from the original stereo tapes by Kevin Gray at Cohearant Audio. No reason in my mind to doubt it.
     
    George P likes this.
  24. quicksrt

    quicksrt Senior Member

    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Oik, that sounds like the LP cutting masters Rhino was also only about to use frankly. Original stereo sounds like the stereo tapes to me alright. Rather - what I look for is a "first-generation" mixdown, or "original master", things like that. But it is what it is, and if you are convinced then don't pay any attention to me.
     
  25. bmoregnr

    bmoregnr Forum Rezident

    Location:
    1060 W. Addison
    It’s a great sounding tape to me and Gray shows you all of it pretty much as it is as I see it. That fact has pluses and minuses given what I suspect went into making that tape and how one would feel about all of that.
     
    George P likes this.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine