No, I'm not expecting that. But to not, uh, adjust it ("it's an improvement, not a fix") for the individually-released album reissues will be bad business.
My original RCA vinyl of Low and Heroes also sound compressed, and they're also thin, edgy, muddy and pressed on cheap noisy vinyl (and a bit warped for good measure). When I first put on the new Low I was blown away by how much better it sounded.
I agree. This is what annoys me about the Loudness Wars. I usually listen to music in the foreground with little to no noise around me. If I am listening on a hi fi system or around traffic then I can turn the volume up myself. I don't need mastering engineers to do that for me and force me to listen to recordings with harsh dynamics.
Children round the world, put camel **** on the walls... (There is a Bowie-quote for every situation) So thats it? Its over? The "Heroes" Mistake is not a Mistake? I have to admit that I never thought that it was just an error out of careless behavior. How the so called Audio-Drop proceeds was to smooth and I believe Parlophone that they check their releases. I still don't like it - but on the other hand if I don't want to hear it I actually don't hear it. I guess this boxset could become the original Star Wars Trilogie 1997 Special Edition of music Historie.... (Again: I like the box - not everything, but clearly enough to honor it)
I'm lagging a bit, but here's a new thread that lets you compare all the available digital masters of The Man Who Sold the World, from the Five Years box set: Bowie – The Man Who Sold the World: Blind listening test I haven't received my ANCIANT set yet, but a "Heroes" blind test might follow soon if there's enough interest in this test first. Thanks!
Mine's just a plain vanilla US pressing, no barcode so must be a somewhat early pressing. Never liked the sound on it.
Apologies! Rather undermines my argument doesn't it! Clearly I didn't mean it "literally" otherwise I would have remembered.
Nonsense. These boxes have all been about presenting the core albums as close as legally possible (a label such as Warners can't use the logos of a fellow major on their covers and labels as they're an existing business owned by Sony; it would be tantamount to corporate theft) to the original vinyl pressings, hence the mini vinyl CDs, the fan club inserts and lyrics sheets etc. Well, for starters he's a man in his seventies who did lots of marching powder back in the day. Cocaine may add life but it also reduces your aural frequencies.
The Man Who Sold the World, that was the first album I bought of these new remasters back in 2014 and I hated it. My original on RCA beat the **** out of that new one. I never bought any other titles after hearing the crappy remastering.
Listening to the Low CD on flat-response headphones right now. Unfortunately, I don't have an old RCA edition to a/b both masterings. Anyway, the 2017 sounds ok for me, particularly the second side, which is really good. Perhaps it could have been a bit quieter. Better than the 1999, but definitely not a night and day difference. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the three "Berlin" albums have always had a muddy sonic quality to them, haven't they?
In considering the Parlophone response: (........"When this high frequency boost finishes (around the 2.50 mark) the effect creates the impression of a drop in volume but Parlophone insist that this simply isn’t the case. The level is consistent with the start........), I think it is important to "keep a cool head" and consider the "evidence": Many people observe a drop in volume @ approx 2.50 - is it demonstrably the case, or is it, as Parlophone say, "an impression", but not the case? The sound waves posted on pg 149 by fantail fan (reproduced below) of two versions of "Heroes" show a marked difference in the track pre and post @2.50 The RYKO edition (which are said to look "remarkedly similar to the 1984 RCA CD and 1999 EMI CD), show a general consistency in volume throughout the track (the light blue) and an increase in the number of louder peaks post @2:50.- the peaks are louder and more often in the second half. If the issue is on the master tape, and a byproduct of the recording itself how is it that other masterings are consistent in relation to relative volume throughout this track? The Parlophone issue shows two distinct sections of volume, separated by a louder show section for a couple of seconds. The first is louder than the second - compare the two light blue sections before and after the peak @2:46. There is an immediate volume drop after the peak, and the general volume never returns to the same volume as the first half. There is a decrease in the number of peaks post @2:50 - the peaks are less frequent in the second half - the opposite of what is occurring on the RYKO. The RYKO edition has peaks of varying intensities throughout the track, the Parlophone has peaks of the same intensity throughout the track. - this is a result of peak limiting. The decrease in the number of peaks in the second half of the Parlophone is due to a decrease in volume. What are the weaknesses (if any) of the method of collecting evidence? Hearing is able to hear "relevant volume" well - so people can hear immediate rise and fall. Long term gain or fall - not so easy - (this is why many recordings are able to give the "impression" of crescendos, quiet sections, by combining input gain with hearing behaviour. In short - hearing can be fallible. The sound wave is of the RYKO edition, not the US RCA CD (which would be closest to the master tape - it is well recorded that the WG RCA CD is not - at best it uses an excellent copy) - despite fantailfan stating they are similar, for 'proof' this may not be sufficient. (A sound wave of a STERLING cut US RCA Lp needle drop with an audiophile front end would be very informing) What further evidence could be gathered to strengthen the case? Using a digital editor - join sections of the song (before and after) together several times and show the volume rising and falling with each 'back and forth' AND do the same for the previous versions - then compare. Use images as well as words in communicating with Parlophone. Tonally adjust the RYKO to match the Parlophone and create a new sound wave. Then compare again. The images of the two sound waves (alone) indicates that the Parlophone is not what is on the studio master "as is". The before and after amount of peaks is compelling evidence. The sound waves strongly suggest that (whilst the original master tapes may have been used) there has been additional processing - compression and peak limiting - that doesn't go that well around her. The sound wave images would suggest that the response from Parlophone may not be accurate. It may be an honest appraisal, but, in my opinion, the evidence suggests that the track is not doing "just' what they say it is - there is need for further investigation. I would encourage anyone who has the resources and releases to present a reasoned case, in a respectful manner.
To the credit of whoever is running Bowie's Facebook page, they've linked to the SDE article (and perhaps inadvertently invited further criticism from commenters). At least they're not trying to sweep it under the rug. link: David Bowie // Facebook post
If they were aware of the "problem" with the Heroes master tape and were so obsessed with still using it the least they could have done is put an album version of the song from another source on the multi language Heroes disc. I think Parlophone may have trashed the commercial prospects of further boxes in this series.
The original RCA vinyl issues of Low and "Heroes" are not as compressed as these new remasters. I too have an original Low and an original Scary Monsters and neither of them are as compressed as these remasters, nor are my RCA '80s CDs. Both my vinyl and older CDs sound significantly better to my ears. Regardless, Visconti made it clear that the purpose of the set was NOT to replicate the vinyl, so in fact we could have had transfers with far GREATER dynamic range than vinyl was ever capable of, but instead they chose to go the opposite route and crunch it all together. We get it, you love the new remasters. That is awesome for you, but plenty of people here have expressed very valid concerns and reasons why we do not like them. Again, most of us are complaining because we want Bowie's music presented in the best possible manner, not just for the sake of complaining. Maybe some here complain just to complain but I think it's more a matter of wanting the best, and being extremely frustrated that this set dropped the ball on multiple fronts.
