Oh ok. The morse code is definitely quieter than what I remember it on the LP. I'll have to dig the LP out some time and have another listen.
Sorry, two other (probably silly) questions. Does that mean the later "nothing has changed" CD uses the same master/mix as the UK/Au LP? Was the earlier CD master/mix used on any other LP releases?
Poor dynamic range of vinyl? I dislike CDs and digital music in general, so maybe I am too biased. To me vinyl has an excellent, realistic dynamic range I enjoy immensely. Most of my vinyl easily beats the sound of the same CD. I drank the kool aid and dumped my vinyl way back when. Very glad to have gone back the other way the past ten years. You can be critical about various aspects of vinyl, but dynamic range would be the last complaint I would expect anyone to make. With the right equipment, vinyl easily beats the sound of most CDs imo. The problem is the journey getting to the right equipment. It isn't necessarily easy, and for many probably not worth the extra effort. But I would agree with those that prefer the Bowie vinyl to any of the CD releases. Getting clean copies is another matter, but I would expect to see a Bowie vinyl box set at some point.
Quantitization distortion at the lowest levels is the bugbear of 16 bit reproduction such as cd although it can be well managed. Some of us are more sensitive to it than others to the point we'd trade a little surface noise for the lack of it but others can feel differently and that's fine. Your ears are the only ones that matter when it comes to making that call.
Quantisation distortion? You mean white noise I assume as nearly every CD on this planet has been dithered. Funny though, with un-dithered 16bit, double blind test after double blind test has yet to identify anyone who can reliably pick quantisation distortion. It is often the case that you hear what you expect to hear - that is being human.
Australian RCA record albums are all sourced from the US Masters (with the exception of Rare which was not released in the USA). Sound wise they use the same versions of tracks as the US editions. All covers are representative of the original covers with the exception of Hunky Dory (yellow title lettering added in style of clear sticker on US original), Pinups (US large lettering), Young Americans (monochrome rear cover), David Live (info in boxes) and Low (titles printed on cover). Unlike most of the original editions they all have an RCA logo and catalogue number on the front cover. On Station to Station the whole image was lowered to fit the logo - a bit like the UK Hunky Dory. Until David Live only Aladdin Sane had an inner sleeve, the previous four being "bare bones" releases. For images of covers and labels have a look at: http://www.illustrated-db-discograp...php?f=16&sid=656f9160d2171420b88323e6870a60eb The "bare bones" approach led me to buying US and/or UK issues which contained the extras.
Like others, I have gaps in my RCA collection. The Rykos with the forum eq tweaks are a very good budget alternative though. Karmaman deserves some kind of accolade for his RCA comparison PDF.
40+ years listening. Done plenty of experiments, although I call them comparisons. Thats why I have a CD and record collection, I get the best of both worlds. It sounds like you got a crappy LP or have a crappy set up turntable if thats your experience. You're not alone. Is a car to you something that breaks down leaving you stranded? crashes in flames? sucks all your income away? For some folks thats what cars do. Just like some records overwhelm the music with noise. I have numerous records with quiet passages, all thats heard is music. Do you hear the digital artifacts on your CDs? The lost resolution or hiss of higher generation tapes? The poor mastering and squashed dynamics? Lots of CDs have that. I always recommend the listener tune that stuff out and enjoy the theoretical dynamic range that the recording doesn't have.
Theres plenty of direct information, right on this forum, from engineers that have mastered titles for audiophile CDs and vinyl that support my post and my listening experiences, which have been similar to statements they've posted. Too many non professionals favoring digital talk relentlessly about theoretical this and theoretical that, forgetting to listen and let their ears judge in the end. No question digital has many advantages over analog as far as ease of working with it. And SQ wise its gotten better, really good in fact. But funny how it often still uses analog as a benchmark. That says a lot.
All I care about, at the end of the day, is what sounds best, not what looks best on paper based on specs or what is or isn't possible. My ears tell me I hear more musical information in the peripherals, like the way music resolves (as someone else pointed out) than anything I hear on a CD. I get it that it is likely the majority of people don't notice small minor nuances like that, or their ears are not trained to hear elements like that, or most likely, they don't even care. I suppose I should be envious of the latter. However, I can most certainly hear the difference, just like I can tell if a record is even slightly pressed off center as the record nears the end...many here say they can't hear that issue in other threads. No doubt there are other issues with vinyl, and a lot of people simply can't ignore pops, clicks and all the other issues vinyl can have, so digital is better to them. But as far as what is in the grooves, to my ears there is simply more audible information listening to vinyl than a CD. Not always if the CD is well done, but to my ears the overwhelming majority of the time. And vinyl isn't always best because there are a lot of things that can get in the way of a superior experience, from bad mastering to numerous pressing flaws. And then there is the variable of the hardware people use to listen to vinyl. It is a heck of a lot easier to get decent sound from digital than from vinyl. It is a tough journey, but if you get it right, from A to Z, it is an amazing experience and I just don't get those goosebumps from a digital recording.
Wow...pretty much what I just posted! Sorry I didn't see this before. But agree with every word. I think the major issue is there are just so many possible obstacles before one can experience vinyl the way you and I, and clearly many thousands of others have, before people can hear our point. As someone else said, it is an endless debate that probably doesn't belong in this thread, but I just couldn't let that comment about it not being technically possible for vinyl to sound better just pass. Like you said, one should trust their ears, not tech specs. If you like CDs better, for you it is. Nothing wrong with that. Just know it IS possible for vinyl to sound better if you are listening for certain elements.
this is the most important section, required reading for anyone who makes the blanket statement "The RCA CDs were cut from LP masters" or "The RCA CDs were cut from cassette masters". "Tapes were requested from the US - who should have been holding the best masters available. What we were sent (from memory) was digital tapes (U-Matics) of LP masters - but with no work done to clean them up or even clarity or indication of the original sources. I used engineer, Ben Turner to make production masters, Ben and I had a good understanding and I had worked with him whilst he was at Tape One in Percy Street London, and later when he started his own business, Finesplice. He was disgusted with the state of the tapes on such an important artist. Agreeing to do something about it I then gathered all the production masters we had within Europe (of which obviously the UK copies were important) and Ben set about making the best he could with what we had."
Yes, it was a very interesting article, not just about Bowie RCAs, but the early days of manufacturing at Polygram. There's another important question mention in the article. In hindsight the lack of an answer to the glaringly obvious question "couldn't someone talk to Bowie?" seems crazy. Although I don't know how much imput Bowie would actually have, given that his back catalog is such a mess.
Good article. But extremely vague on what was used for the WG RCA "masterings". He kind of hints that they used some digitized copies of the UK LP masters.
While the RCA CDs are good, lots of the albums have recently been improved by the Five Years CDs (except for AS) or, at least, they have an equal but different sound . I do not understand why people would shell out money for those old RCA editions when the new releases are available without any trouble and at a reasonable price???
I think most people would agree with you. But this thread is about the RCA discs in general, and the new boxset only covers upto 1973. There's still Diamond Dogs, YA, STS, Low, Heroes, Scary Monsters that haven't yet been newly-remastered - albums still to track down in their best available form. Even Lodger! In other words plenty for us Bowie obsessives to still get obsessed over! I often wonder what I'm going to do with my time when the back catalogue is released 'properly' and I won't be searching out the best possible masters. Get a life, maybe??
I only own a couple of RCAs and most of the 1999s which I never listen to (a) because I was never fond of them from day one and the opinion of them on here confirmed my suspicions that they are not terribly well done. I am lucky to have all key titles on UK Vinyl both Orange and Green RCA, plus the 2012 Ziggy and the EMI 100 Hunky Dory, the latter is stellar and even beats my original. Of course I'd love to get more RCAs and thanks to Karmaman's wonderful PDF, I shall keep an eye out mainly for the WG RCAs. Saying that, as someone who is a bit of a 're-issue whore' - I may get the news ones anyway, as I can pick them up for less than £7 each with free delivery - which is a remarkable thing these days that we can get new product like this for such good value.
