I pulled out my old Columbia CD of Dylan's JOHN WESLEY HARDING just to be sure....

Re-reading that, and revisiting the different versions, I realized I previously made a mistake regarding I Don't Believe You. I indicated the change to the Manchester version was intentional:

It wasn't. The corrected release not only uses the Belfast performance, but uses the same digital source/mix as the original 1985 release, just with a bit of limiting to make it a bit louder. The use of the Manchester version was definitely a mistake.

Interestingly, the recalled version from Manchester is not only a different mix from what was released on Live 1966, but also different from the early version of that released on the Guitars Kissing bootleg. The stereo separation is similar (unlike the nearly mono mix on Live 1966), but it's noticeably faster (Live 1966 and Guitars Kissing run at the same speed), and the mix is much more open and hi-fi sounding; Guitars Kissing sounds far more grungy and lo-fi in comparison. Also, while the liner notes to Live 1966 indicate Dylan's harmonica was used to determine the correct speed, it seems like that actually runs too slow, at least in this case. The opening harmonica note is an E7, which is normally at 2637Hz. On the recalled Biograph mix, it's 2617Hz; a little slow. But on Guitars Kissing it's at 2584Hz and on Live 1966 it's 2585Hz. I randomly checked a couple of other harmonica notes, and again the Biograph mix seems to be correct.

@Roger Ford, what say you? Is there something I'm missing that would suggest Live 1966 is actually at the correct speed? What about the other songs?

 

Right, thanks. Yes, I can see how that could be read either as a 6 or a G. And thanks for checking the mix again. I guess the sides could have been prepared at different times, or maybe just by different engineers at around the same time.

 

My method (guitar, tuner and ears) may not be as accurate as however you're measuring these frequencies, but it seems to me that the whole band is noticeably flat on Live 1966, i.e. the tape must be running slow - or have been recorded too fast. At least, that's true for the first six tracks. The last two tracks seem to be much closer to correct speed - might they have been recorded on a second tape machine, which ran at a slightly different speed? I guess they'd have had two decks running to deal with the reel-change issue. Perhaps not coincidentally, these last two tracks were the ones that I.B.C. used for a stereo test mix, as featured on some early bootlegs. Regarding "I Don't Believe You" on the withdrawn Biograph, I'd agree that it's going at the right speed.

Maybe this topic (Manchester 1966 recordings) deserves its own thread?

 

That is very interesting - thanks. Are you able to re-post that list of Columbia prefixes? My searches have failed to locate it.

 

ooh, nice to see this thread! I know I have the old cd...my girlfriend bought it for me in 1993. one of my faves. i'll have to dig it out and take it for a spin.

 

. . . And do you think we can conclude that the remix was carried out digitally (as our host thought was more likely), rather than done in analogue and then put through an ADC onto this digital reel?

 

The notes definitely seem to indicate the mix was printed to digital, rather than to analog tape and subsequently transferred to digital.

 

Yes, looking at the notes again I see they indicate that the source was the 8-track master.

 

Permission granted:



It's undated, but if I had to guess I'd say the typed portion is from 1962 or 1963. The last few items written in pencil seem to be from 1964, notably Auravision and 8-track. Note 8-track (the recording format, not the consumer format) is not present.

And as previously noted, the usage of these prefixes wasn't set in stone. Certainly ZSP was used for non-"Hillbilly" 45s, and SW was used for things other than 3-track work parts.

 

What an awesome analysis - thanks lukpac! Not sure if you're taking special requests, but if you are, a comparison for St. Augustine and Frankie Lee would also be welcomed.

I'm in the definite minority, but I go for the 2003 for this album. I like the sharpness and vocal clarity, adds intensity and drama for this material, what with its biblical, apocalyptic, mysterious content. I've gotten used to the harmonica and don't mind it as much as others. Just wish it had some bass and depth.

That said, it's 2003's mastering that I go for, not necessarily the mix. This CD had intrigued and bothered me since it came out, so your detailed analysis is helpful in understanding its oddness. I vaguely remember an Amazon review shortly after it came out, where the listener complained of inconsistencies in the mix and imbalance in instruments. Someone else claimed it sounded like their original stereo LP, though... I agree that's nice if it recreates the original release in some way (though I had never heard it).

 

I was mainly interested in the tracks issued on compilations that turned out to be the original mixes but from better sources. Nevertheless, briefly, St. Augustine is pretty much like the rest: mono reverb and a slight pull to the right on the original mix (2003 and MFSL), stereo reverb and properly centered on the remix (original CD). Frankie Lee is a bit more different. The same differences as above, but 1) the vocal track on the remix is muted in the intro, so the guitar sounds like it's coming from further to the left (the original mix has the vocal track up in the intro and the leakage makes the guitar sound more centered), and 2) there are vocal plosives throughout the song that have been physically edited out from the remix. The "Priest" at 0:15 is a good example.

I can't say I agree about the 2003, however. It kind of sounds like it's coming out of an AM radio, small and thin.

 

Thanks for doing those comparisons!

At some point I'm surely gonna go back and listen more closely to the original CD, based on your observations on a lot of these tracks.

Given Tim Geelan did that one, makes me even wanna go back and check out his work on the original Blonde On Blonde CD again. I've loved Roger Ford's Electric Dylan website for many years - if you're still following this thread, do you ever go back and listen to this CD, Roger? I probably won't be able to give up the bass on the mono CD.

 

That 1987 CD of Blonde On Blonde was one of the first CDs I got, and I loved it at the time - so easy to hear everything, especially Dylan's voice. But it does lack bass in a big way, and the 1999 Michael Brauer mix for SACD got that much better, and was more exciting on the rockier numbers. But there are a couple of tracks where I still like the Tim Geelan mix better, "Sad-Eyed Lady" being one of them. I've just applied some EQ to lift the bass. But thanks for the prompt, I must go back and listen to it all again.

 

Thanks for that @lukpac - and for your preceding posts. And for your subsequent posts.

 

It certainly was....

 

I wonder what is meant by "(high level)" to further qualify the JZSP prefix. It might have meant something different when it was typed I suppose but all I know is that the white label promo singles have that prefix. On this promo single, the radio station edit side presents at a higher volume than the full length version on the same disc. So, perhaps, cut at a "higher level/volume"?

 

It appears JZSP was for promos:

Columbia microgroove series - 45cat

I have no idea what "high level" was supposed to mean.

 

Gosh, I went back to listen to my original Blonde On Blonde CD, one thing led to another (including looking at some old threads here and the descriptions on the Electric Dylan site), and now I realize I might have had the "secret remaster" all these years! My disc is 73:00 long, DIDP-070406 12, bought it in 2001, organ seems centered on One Of Us Must Know - if that's indeed the secret remaster, then maybe I've never actually heard the Geelan mix and need to track it down. Mind is blown, because I could've sworn I heard a definite difference in 2003 when the hybrid / redbook remaster came out - maybe that was in my head!

Back to on-thread topic, Geelan's 1987 JWH mix does sound pretty natural. I still like the bite on the 2003, numerous other flaws notwithstanding.

 

It’s really too bad the whole album hasn’t been reissued using the original mix sources used for the 1997 Biograph and the 1999 GHII*. The natural sound of the remix but via the original mixes.

*Seemingly issued in 1997 outside of the US.

 

Certainly sounds like your CD was the unannounced remix. I'd previously been told of pressings with a suffix of -11 or -13 having the remix, so it seems pretty much inevitable that a -12 suffix copy would have it too. Interesting to know you bought it as early as 2001 - any recollection of which end of the year?

 

Don't remember anymore, but my guess is that I would have bought it somewhere in the 3rd quarter of 2001, maybe even the 2nd.

Yes, I had noticed other suffixes being mentioned on your website, but I haven't seen anyone else mention the -12 suffix. By chance, if anyone reading this has it and would like to confirm about the Geelan vs Brauer mix, please do. I don't trust my own ears as much now, but it really sounds like the 2003 CD to me. I'm almost wondering if I had another copy of the original CD at some point, because I thought I heard a clear difference when the 2003 remaster was first released.

 

Thanks, this helps give some idea of when they started using the remix in regular CD pressings.

If the organ sounds centred, I'm sure it'll be the Brauer remix. The Geelan mix has it well over to the left.

Could this have been just a difference in loudness, do you think? The CD layer of the 2003 hybrid SACD had the music peaking at practically 100%, whereas on the late copies of CGK 841 that had the new mix, the music peaked at only just over 70% - so the SACD would have jumped out of the speakers in comparison to your previous copy. This difference in volume carried over into the re-packaged, 'remastered' single CD in the US (CK 92400, 2004). I don't know whether they've fixed it yet.

 

Yes, I would definitely say the organ is centered and nowhere near the left. My strongest memories of hearing the 2003 CD for the first time were the piano on One Of Us Must Know and the organ on Johanna - perhaps a placebo effect and my just listening more closely if I already had the Brauer mix before.

And just to be clear, I believe by "loudness" you are referring to simple volume differences, not compression or the like - correct me if I'm wrong.

I should note that for the past several years, for reasons of portability / space, I listen to music through ripped MP3's, from my iPhone to bluetooth headphones - hardly something an audiophile would admire. The headphones (Bower & Wilkins PX7) are among the best out there in terms of sound quality per reviewers of bluetooth headphones, but they have a lively sound signature, not a neutral one. I am, of course, able to compare apples to apples between different masterings, though by nature I'm not getting as much data as other setups (wired, lossless, SACD, even CD, etc).

That's just some context about what I'm hearing... Earlier today, I freshly ripped to MP3 my original Blonde On Blonde CD (as described in post #345), my 2003 2-disc hybrid SACD remaster, and my 2004 CD remaster (which I had bought since it was on one disc). I A/B'd and sampled portions of several tracks... I actually hear the 2003 being louder than the 2004, and my original CD seeming to match the 2003 in loudness. I am referring simply to volume, I don't know if there's any difference in compression or mastering. I double-checked my iPhone's Music app, and all of the EQ / volume normalizing features are off. My original CD and my 2003 seem virtually indistinguishable in terms of sound. On a sidenote, the first split second of Stuck Inside of Mobile starts at the end of track 5 on the original CD; I didn't listen all the way through for other differences in track lengths.

Thank you for bringing the 2004 CD, and the possibility it could be different, to my attention. In your post, it sounds like you are saying the 2003 and the 2004 have the same volume, and that the secret remix is softer? Have you compared the two yourself or was this reported by someone else? I'm going to start a separate thread on this side topic...

 

Yes, I just meant relative volume, not the old 'loudness' switch type thing that you used to get on stereo amplifiers.

Sorry, I must have expressed it badly. I have a copy of the US post-2004 CD (CK 92400, bought around 2007), and the volume is lower on that (70.7% max). I don't have a copy of the unannounced revision of the original CD (CGK 841), but I've been told by those who do that the volume is just as low on those. The redbook layer of the 2003 SACD had the volume up to 99.8% max, and the 2004 UK CD (512352 2) likewise.

 

I know this is off topic but some of the original Dylan CDs sound pretty good. I listened to my copy of Freewheelin’ that I bought in 1988 and it sounds really nice. I prefer it to the Sony SACD. It’s not as bright sounding.