Best Dylan Remasters

Yes and if you are comparing and have multiple players systems you really need to state which one you are using. I am hoping to get another Oppo at some point and the UDP-205 looks very good. I use my Arcam CD92 as my favourite and that maybe says something about my ears!
Back to the Dylan remasters I purchased an early Sony sacd/dvd player so as to play the sacd layer on the Stones and then the Dylan scads in 2002 and 2003.
In terms of the future I am hoping eventually MFSL stop or finish doing all the Bob albums I have as an sacd already and do say Self Portrait and Shot of Love.

 

In all honesty I think that will remain a pipe-dream. MFSL (and Sony for that matter) will probably only ever release more well known / acclaimed or commercial Dylan albums in special remastered versions. They should do Slow Train Coming but I think they'll jump from Desire to Oh Mercy, skipping the rest of the 80's.

 

Yes. I listen almost entirely to speakers rather than headphones. It's very hard to design an accurate sounding tweeter. Even if this has been achieved it's not necessarily easy to match this with a mid range & bass unit to give an uncoloured sound through the full range of audible frequencies. If CDs are compressed & have transients clipped this may well result in distortion. How objectionable this distortion is will depend on how much distortion the rest of the hi-fi system generates, together with how intolerant the tweeter is of nasties & of course the listeners preferences.

What CDs I would describe as being bright I know other people think are too bright while others think as being natural sounding. This is why our host asks us to list our equipment profile before commenting on sound quality.

 

The original Slow Train Coming sounds great to my ears. I wish someone would redo Modern Times but as it's a digital recording I don't hold out much hope that MFSL will redo it.

 

Listening, yes, but basic technical competence is important and I recall measurements in the more reputable hi-fi mags.

Here's a review of the Arcam CD33T from 2003:

Arcam FMJ CD33T CD Player by Alvin Gold

Claimed spec is 10Hz to 20 kHz (+0/- 0.2dB). But this was a lie?

Tim

 

Yep, you beat me to it The original CD of Slow Train Coming sounds excellent. I have the Japan Blu-Spec of it too, but I don't think there is much difference between the two.

 

The Legacy vinyl LP sounds tremendous, a far cry from the wretched 2006 CD.

PS. I agree about Slow Train but being great already doesn't stop MFSL from having a go and putting out their own versions. They could work wonders on it, I'm sure!

 

No, not a lie. Frequency response has nothing to do with "roll off". I believe the latter has something to do with filters employed and nothing to do with the ability to read, decode and reproduce any given signals at any frequency within the range specified.

 

Ah, I have no idea what you mean then!

Roll-off - Wikipedia

Tim

 

It's an attenuation of certain frequencies as those graphs illustrate!

 

If the frequencies are attenuated then the frequency response is not flat …

Tim

 

Correct!

 

Me too!

It's not dramatic thankfully, but it does just enough - the original LP has a lovely warm and intimate sound overall, but Bob's vocals are VERY dry & muffled at times, where the remaster manages to breathe just a little bit of air around him.

 

It follows then that either the spec (in this example) is not the claimed "10Hz to 20 kHz (+0/- 0.2dB)", or there is no significant roll-off in the audible frequencies.

Tim

 

This remaster was a big improvement over the original CD and I liked it when it was released. The MoFi beats it though!

 

I had the original CD from 1987 but replaced it with the 2009 remaster. I also have the Legacy vinyl reissue (MOV European pressing) and the MFSL vinyl remaster. FWIW IMHO:

MFSL > Sony LP > 2009 CD > 1987 CD

 

I wouldn't wish to get drawn into that particular debate as I'm not claiming to be an expert here on this but most equipment I've had claims the same identical frequency response and yet no two players ever sound identical. It just proves that it's not just about technical specs or numbers. There are filters and other "manipulations" to soften the harsh sound that some digital has. Power supplies and other pre-amp electronics will also give a particular house sound or character to the player. I know people have referred to the treble "roll off" on some equipment including the Arcam's in the past I mentioned (not necessarily the model you provide a link to though).

 

Since I haven't posted a list of my equipment, I am no longer allowed to comment on sound quality. The focus of my post really was the supposedly radically different mix, which I don't think needs anything but a modest stereo system to detect. I'll take your word for it that the vinyl sounds better than the CD, and I think I left that door open with my post. As I said, I really need to give the CD and vinyl another listen to make that determination. (Bob Dylan has fallen out of favor in my musical rotation for a couple years now, but he undoubtedly will make a comeback at some point.) Since my original post, I feel as though my ears are more vinyl oriented, so I wouldn't be a bit surprised if I were to find the vinyl superior. But I certainly don't detect an alternate mix (at least to the extent I can hear in some of his other albums).

 

But it sounds absolutely terrible. I had to take if off after two minutes. For me there's no going back now from the 1998 remix. They went back to multi's and purposefully remixed the album because no one thought they had got it right first time around. This was after 20 years when the rest of the industry had agreed with that assumption and they carefully and methodically recreated a mix to enliven it, remove the fog and give it more of a transparent and dynamic sound - really opening the mix up so inaudible details could be heard for the first time. To ignore that painstaking work and insist upon the original mix (which was knocked off under pressure very quickly) seems a little strange to me. I accept the remix isn't flawless and the 1999 CD is a little compressed and "edgy" in places.

Does anyone know if the subsequent CD's, SACD's or Blue Spec 2 CD improves upon those issues or sounds better in any way?

 

Maybe they remixed the remix? Or remastered the remix?
I'll stick with the remix. It is beyond my comprehension why they did not use it in the CAC.... The remaster of the original mix is OK, no more, no less, but the remix is far superior to my ears.

 

for me the original run up to Desire on CD sounds best...

 

Dylan voice sounds better/more natural to me in the original mix.

 

They remastered the remix for the 2003 SACD.

They never remastered the original mix before the CAC so I'm glad they included it. I think it has its charms.

 

Which "remix" CD do you have? I only have the '99 but I'm not sure whether the 2004 or BS2 might edge it out of the picture slightly? It's not in my favourite Top Twenty Dylan albums but if there's a better copy out there, I'd snag it. The SACD is pricey now but was that any better (Hi-Res layer)? I didn't have SACD facility until recently so I'm switching things around a bit to take advantage now.

 

Did they remaster the Redbook layer of the SACD as well?