1998 Steely Dan Remasters

Oh, my!

 

That seems like a fair technical explanation to me and I get that. But it doesn't require any reference to the original tapes. I started listening to music in the early 70s and that's my frame of reference - not master tapes. When I joined here it was because I was getting increasingly frustrated with remasters. So I understand too that one can be trained and educated.

On the other side of what you describe, and where I become very cautious of some "technical" explanations, is when folks start referring to original tapes. I think of Steve's comment that the ELO Out of the Blue remaster sounds like the master tapes. If it does then the tapes don't sound like what the 70s albums sounds like. I can only assume that the mastering engineer had to work pretty hard back in the 70s to make those tapes sound the way they sounded on record.

 

Okay, so now that that is out in the open: where do you get your conclusions about the original tapes? And how is your conclusion technical? Can you provide more detail like Eric did? What you're describing is an effort to compare various sources which still seems like a subjective conclusion. Just curious.

 

so basically it comes down to whether or not you are happy? this is just well and good, but as your system gets closer to high end, there is a difference....and this web forum is THE place to discuss.....and there is a right and wrong in many instances.....

the problems with these threads are:

1) OP typically has mind made up already
2) OP typically doesn't have a high end system (or perhaps it isn't set up properly)
3) When the criticism of the mastering is pointed out, the OP and others chime in that they simply don't hear it that way
4)
5)

and on and on......

I would recommend trying a forum grail for one of the CDs and THEN compare it to yours. If you don't hear what others claim to hear, then go to a local high end audio shop and give it a go. It's kinda fun, actually.....

 

That's why I stick with them boom boxes.

 

if u are happy with that OR think you are happy with that, then what else can one do to change your mind? it's much easier with SD v. HD television. Any WalMart or Best Buy can show the difference. It's more complicated with audio.

I actually feel badly for folks who will never know what wonderful music there is captured on their CD or flac audio file. We should set up a network of members who have high end systems who can host those who haven't a clue. Wow. There will be some eyes opened pretty wide then!

 

I know where to go to hear better equipment than what I currently have. It's not harder than going to Best Buy, in fact its easier. I'll PM you with my address so you can send me a check for the amp and turntable I really want.

But what do the SD remasters sound like on your system? On my system the original MCAs are fantastic.

 

I'm out of this thread for now. I said what I said. The end.

 

You're such a tease.

 

Grant, I don't see how your findings can be taken seriously if you're just going to take your toys and go home. Most people with facts are willing to back them up.

 

Wow. IMO, you are being very nitpicky. Why is the "IMO" there if it wasn't intended to mean something?

No big deal. Good thread, IMO. Carry on.

 

The noise reduction on the Can't Buy A Thrill remaster is plain obvious; it's a fact.

 

OK, where is it obvious, and why? I haven't listened to it lately, but I don't recall this.

Billy's explanation is great for why he prefers one to the other - it's a detailed explanation of the source of the preference in musical terms. I think a dead-room sound is not that uncommon in 70s rock records, but I understand a preference for one over the other. My preference for the latest remasters comes from specific aspects of Countdown to Ectasy, Katy Lied, and Aja that I remember being much more to my taste; I don't remember much about the Can't Buy A Thrill differences.

Compilations get mastered differently than albums so that the music from different albums flows together better. I haven't heard Show Biz Kids since I have all the original albums, but given it's source in the latest remasters I'm not surprised that it sounds good.

- Joe

 

He agreed with my assessment of his position so I don't know if its nitpicky in the end.

I'm not taking issue with something that can be verified but Grant, that I remember, never mentioned the NR on CBAT - in fact he's offered very few specifics. His position is very clear that the original MCAs sound like the tapes which ultimately leads to the FACT that they sound better. I'm surprised that so few people have questioned this logic - especially you of all people.

 

How about this, no matter what some on this forum scream about the Steely Dan re-masters and their subjective truths to back them up. I still like um!!

 

I don't *dislike* most of the 'Dan remasters, only some of them. There are much, much worse remastering campaigns. My everyday Steely Dan discs are the remasters, except for Can't Buy A Thrill, Aja, and Gaucho. For those, I listen to the Speakers Corner LP, the Cisco LP, and the SACD, respectively.

 

Yikes, this thread is confusing. If I want the best sounding digital version of "Can't Buy A Thrill" and "Pretzel Logic" which CDs should I buy? Are the Japanese remasters clones of the US remasterings?

 

Most people will say the original masterings from the early-mid 80's.

Personally, My go-to for Can't Buy A Thrill is a needledrop I made consisting of the Speakers Corner LP for every song except Fire in the Hole. That song has tape slip issues on the Speakers Corner disc, so I used a needledrop from a 1970's ABC multi-colored label LP (the second pressing).

 

Get an original MCA (they're not expensive) and the '98 remaster and then decide for yourself.

 

Ok so I've got a copy of Aja 37. I have Countdown to Ecstasy and Royal Scam 31's. Are the 31's ok to have or is there something wrong with them? These are the only versions I've ever heard of those albums

 

I think they sound decent enough. Just not as good as the alternatives that are available in the used bins. Some of our forum members felt the same way too until they were "Educated".

 

Yesterday I compared the forum-preferred original CD of Can't Buy a Thrill (37xxx) to the '98 remaster and the best way I can characterize the difference is that the original sounds more natural. I'm not sure I hear more brightness in the remaster, though I do hear more bass. But when I zero in on the piano at the very beginning of "Fire in the Hole," the original just sounds more the way I think a piano should sound, where the remaster sounds processed.

Now I'm just trying to figure out whether the difference is enough to make me hunt down the other original Dan CDs.

 

I am pretty sure the 1998 remaster of that title was NoNoised on the intros and outros of the songs.

On the whole, I don't have a problem with the 1998 remasters. My "go to" for Can't Buy a Thrill is the Speakers Corner LP, with the exception of the tape slippage in Fire in the Hole.

 

Are you saying that may account for why the piano sounds so different on the two editions?

 

One reason, yes. Less air and room sound, more in your face. Probably more to do with EQ, but I'm sure NR plays a role. It can (and often does) attenuate reverb and therefore can make a recording sound a little more dry and upfront.

If you listen to the 1998 remaster of Can't Buy a Thrill and jack up the volume during the fades, you can tell due to the absolute absence of hiss that at the very least NR was used in those sections.