I don't have an equalizer with my equipment. With the EMI/Rkyo's, is it in simple terms; reduce the treble and add bass?
Other way around. The UK vinyl sounds superior. Besides, there are no Bowie CDs mastered properly from 'the master' copy.
I would think Dr. Toby Mountain would be the one to ask. Indeed, it is always dangerous to assume anything about what may have been done in mastering if you haven't heard the sources used. All you can really say at the end of the day is what sounds good to you--the why is merely speculation unless you have inside knowledge.
I noticed that I also have an early Japan Station to Station RPCD-13 (3800 Yen price). I assume that this is the same as the standard Japan for US? It sounds like it.
I just listened to three RCA versions of Station to Station back to back. The Japan for US does sound thin, a bit "tinny". But, I still enjoyed it (I wasn't switching back and forth as I only have one player in my office). Maybe I just love this album. I recall not being thrilled by the vinyl in the box set, but I think I'll give it another shot - was it a unique mastering or based on the 2010 CD?
Whoever remembers...or took notes. I'm thinking, since Jeff secured the tapes and QC'd the discs, he could offer a broader perspective.
That's not what our host has said on many occasions. For example: Anyway, the inferior signal to noise ratio and poor dynamic range of vinyl is always going to make it no contest.
I have the Japan for US Station disc that many have put down also. I wouldn't say it is great but it sounds good to me when I turn it up! Definitely better than a Ryko or Virgin and I see no need to replace it.
I don't see how that quote is in any way applicable to what raunchnroll said. However, it is applicable to the arguments some are making against the RCA CDs (versus other CD versions) based on supposedly inferior tape sources.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding this comment. I mean, for most new releases (especially alternative rock) the question you hear isn't whether the vinyl has better dynamic range than the digital, but whether the superior DR of the vinyl is worth the price.
Largely irrelevant for this thread, since we are discussing the Bowie RCA CDs, which have large dynamic range. But dynamic range isn't everything, or else almost every CD manufactured in the early 80s would be perfect.
Yes, let's not take the bait and let this thread dissolve into another tiresome lp v cd debate (instead of the tiresome rehash of the Bowie on cd topic it already is )
That's generally a result of common (many would argue poor) digital mastering practices rather the format itself. Hence carrolls qualifying that the mastering must be "done well" for his statement to hold true. Digital is readily capable of greater dynamic range than vinyl, but sadly this is often not taken advantage of in mainstream mastering. The fact that digital releases may have less dynamic range than their corresponding vinyl release is deceptive, because the only reason it is the case is due to choices rather than inherent limitations. Of course, the issues of resolution/bit depth/sample rate are a whole other kettle of fish, what with redbook CDs being limited to 16/44, but that's far less to do with the dynamic range disparity than are mastering decisions and of course doesn't apply to "high-res" digital formats. Not looking to stir the pot or to rile; just thought that ought to be clarified. And it's nice to see that old quote from our host once again, reminding that even a release at lower resolution taken from an inferior source can sound better than one at a higher resolution from a superior source, if the mastering on the former is good and the mastering on the latter is poor. I won't take any stance here on how that applies to the various Bowie releases in particular, and I doubt he had them specifically in mind when he said it, but as a general principle it's sound and bears repeating. (Naturally, it goes without saying that there will always be a range of opinions as to what exactly constitute "good" and "poor" mastering choices. That's subjective.)
The PDF is great! Did you make it? A lot of time and work when in to it and it has a very nice presentation. What amazes me is that the author didn't sign their name or date when they did all the work. Thanks!
You're here anyway though adding to the tiresome debate. When somebody says the vinyl tops everything, it has to be challenged as a matter of principle.
The Rykos aren't flat transfers. "Mastering This 24k Gold CD was mastered from the original 15ips stereo master tapes. A specially calibrated Sony APR-3000 analog 2-track machine was used for the transfer. Equalization was done in the analog domain using a Troisi Series 200 Equalizer. All equalization was patterned after the original EQ used for the earlier 16-bit Rykodisc release. No limiting or compression whatsoever was used in the audio chain. The analog to digital conversion was done by a Troisi Digital Companion TM 20 bit A/D Converter. The 20 bit digital audio was then stored on a Macintosh computer hard disk and subsequently edited using the Sonic System TM. Once the program was completed and in final form, the 20 bit audio was transferred through a Sony Super Bit Mapping TM filter which "noise shaped" the program to 16 bits, while maintaining the optimum signal to noise ratio of the 20 bit audio. This 16 bit "noise shaped" PCM master was then used at the compact disc facility for replication of the 24k gold discs. Dr. Toby Mountain/Northeastern Digital Recording, Inc. ". this info can be found in the Au20 releases
But you are stirring the pot with assertions and marketing claims that like this, that have never been substantiated in real world tests. 16/44, if used in full, already is at the limit of human hearing and exceeds the capacity of LP formats. Bad mastering and implementation is bad mastering and implementation regardless of formats or bit/sample rates. Anyway, back to RCA Bowies CDs.
i probably should have dated it as there's always the chance new relevant information will come to light that may undermine some of the points made. forum member Alexlotl recently pointed out that i'd been critical of the WG Hunky Dory in the PDF, but now i'm convinced it's the best digital version we have. listening conditions vary and if you've subjected your ears to bright masters prior to a warmer presentation, the latter can indeed sound "veiled". anyhow, thanks for the compliments.
the same. only the R32P was raised in level. the Japanese seemed to like four titles above the others. The RPCD series: Ziggy (-11), Young Americans (-12), STS (-13) and ChangesOneBowie (-14), are the same four titles as in the R32P series. an all-analogue flat transfer of the original 1/4" master. i think it's the highlight of the STS box. a little rolled-off for some tastes.
What principle is that? Anyway, I've been hanging out on this forum for way too long. If I only contributed to threads that were novel and interesting, I wouldn't be doing a much typing
I have a half-dozen different cd versions of "Ziggy Stardust" and I think the JPN for US RCA cd sounds fabulous.
This is great information - I need to read your PDF. I actually have the R32P CD's, and remember that I preferred the Japan-for-US versions because the R32P's seemed "juiced". But that might very well be because if listened to back to back, the raised levels would be jarring unless you adjust your listening level (which, if done properly, would make the two sound the same). So, raised levels, but no clipping, I assume. Anyway, I like the R32P's because of the "fold in" obis.
