Boston's first album on CD and hi-rez

There are several masterings of this album on CD, but my question to you guys is: how do they all sound? Which one(s) comes the closest to the master tape? How does the most recent remaster by Tom Scholtz sound? Is it limited/compressed?

Now, how about hi-rez downloads? How does the DSD download sound?

I am not interested in any mention or discussion of vinyl. Period. All I want to know about are the digital versions.

 

Grant, I tried the Canadian original, EK 34188, Japan 1st, 32・8P-192, Japan 2nd, 25・8P-5192, a USA, EK 34188 and the 2000 SACD, ES 34188. Do yourself a favor and don't waste your money on these ones. I found a CD-R given to me that I was told was from an MFSL Vinyl-drop is the only one that doesn't overdo with what sounds like a wall of treble/echo at high volumes and remains my preference so far.

 

The best sounding CD is still the original press, I own the 32-8P-192 mastered by Wally Traugott. I also have the SACD (same as the DSD download) but I was not impressed by it, plus one of the tracks was botched so it's hard to recommend. I'd stay away from the remasters, they're brickwalled. If you don't mind a compilation, "Greatest Hits" from 1997 (mastered by Ted Jensen) is the best sounding Boston on CD, period.

 

The one that's on the market right now is the Tom Scholtz remaster, and I have found this to be exceptional.

 

IIRC, Our host likes the original CD that is unfutzed with and I agree with him. If there is one album that does not need pumped up treble or bass it is this one.

Lots of discussion on this as well.

Boston "S/T" & "Don't Look Back" remasters are out - how are they?

 

I agree.
Just curious which track is botched on the SACD?

 

Would be a nice Audio Fidelity SACD...

 

SACD from 2000 is my vote. But - I haven't listened to any CD released after 2000....

I too would like to know what track was botched on it?

 

The botched track on the SACD is Smokin'. This one has the treble rolled off.

 

I'll concur. It's the best version to date.

 

Only at the beginning of the track, strangely.

 

The SACD just seemed a little weird sounding, thought maybe a bad working tape converted to DSD and issued with the new format in 2000. I don't know. Once I played the new Tom Scholtz remastered edition from a couple of years ago it confirmed my original opinion. Since then the SACD just sits on the shelf. I usually prefer SACD over redbook, but not here.

 

He squashed it way too much. It might sound clear and be more balanced between treble and bass, but everything is so up front. Typical modern-sounding remaster. Sold it and got the original Japan for US CD. Not perfect but much more natural to my ears.

 

I like it also.

 

I'd buy it.

 

Ideally it somewhere between the two would work.

 

What about the version before the current remaster that got pulled? Anyone hear that CD? I look for it every time I go into a used CD store.

Pat

 

That was only released in Canada as far as I know. I've never heard it.

 

Yea, that is what I remember also. Would be great to hear it but I have never seen one for sale.

Pat

 

I guess the Legacy Edition is the remaster being praised here?
DR database not so kind in its' assessment;
Album details - Dynamic Range Database

 

This is one of my favorite albums. I have the Japan 32-8P-192, US with DADC hub, US later pressing, Scholz remaster and I had the Mastersound. I gave all of them many listens. My observations:

Japan and US pressings (same mastering with the Japan sounding a little bit nicer): the warmest and smoothest sound.

Mastersound remaster: the highs were cleaner but the sound was quite bright. A very different presentation.

Scholz remaster: certain things like the background vocals don't seem to jump out as much and blend in more. Maybe a result of the lower DR.

 

I know this album has been discussed to death, but I thought I'd throw my two cents in as I just sat down to compare.

I'm really torn on this one. I've got an original DADC US EK 34188 and the 2006 Scholz Remaster. I've loaded both into Foobar and level-matched the volume. As I compare back and forth I really can't make up my mind. I hear good things in both versions and this isn't really a clear cut case like with most remasters.

The DR numbers are pretty irrelevant here (DR10 vs DR8), but I have to take into account that the remaster has more midrange and I've read that lowers the DR number in and of itself. In listening to both, I'm suspecting Scholz may have added quite a bit of compression in the original mix. I'm not hearing the usual "breathing room" that original CDs usually have compared to remasters.

I'm actually leaning towards favoring the remaster, which surprises me. I'll keep listening. One thing I can say is that the 2006 Scholz remaster is not your normal ear-bleeding, brick-walled POS.

 

I have a EK 34188 DIDP-020006 got in a used CD bin . Is this close to a decent version (if you DON'T have the Japan for US )

 

I think that's more to do with a bit more midrange on the remaster myself.

 

Yes.