Blonde on Blonde SACD - Oh My God!

Thanks, Steve. This is not the easiest thing for a layman to understand. I'm trying my damnedest though.

It still sounds like from your last answer that the non-eq'd master, the one with all the bass intact, was NOT used to make records, but was used just to make three new masters with bass cut at 75Hz and down for LP use. Am I getting this straight? Or are you saying it was used for the first run, and then the 3 new masters were made?

So isn't it likely the same kind of thing was done for Bringing It All Back Home, for instance, and for Blonde On Blonde? And maybe there are Do Not Use masters of them in a box set aside, safe and sound, and the ones that are used up or lost are the EQd ones?

 

Eh...I thought you said in some cases while dubs were EQ'd for cutting, they were often not as well. Like as was the case with The Byrds' My Back Pages. You mentioned that while all the HW61 dubs were EQ'd and sounded like crap, the dubs for that album/song sounded just like an un-EQ'd master...

 

In his Stereophile interview with Michael Fremer, Bob Irwin also revealed that, in addition to his independent work for Legacy, he has also worked under contract with Sony's archive system for the last eight years. Early on he visited Sony's tape storage facility at Iron Mountain and found it's filing system was accurately called "chaotic". According to Mr. Irwin, Sony now, however, has "the premier archiving system of any label". Here's a lucky guy who's actually been able to crawl around Sony's storage facility, and often found unexpected goodies while searching for something else.

 

As a high school kid in NYC I worked part time at the Black Rock. One job I had was cleaning the tape heads and setting up some of the hardware, but mostly pulling wires and moving tape and equipment. I can confirm that the 3 and 4 track reel to reel recorders had limiters built in and those old guys knew how to set levels to get decent results. I was always shocked at how compressed the results were. I was told they had to assume that the "pop" record would be played back on a record player with a worn, poor tracing 3 gram cartridge needle pressure on mono players and sound decent on AM radio and a basic, low end home stereo. High end reproduction was not a criteria, decent radio play and low record returns was the priority. I remember friends with cheap players placing a coin on the end of the record player's arm to keep it from jumping out of the grove on some LP's. Those were the good old days.

 

Richard,

Nice story.

They were the old days certainly ... but they weren't that good, eh? I saw your smilie. Not that I approve of the current techniques (compression, bass boost) on rock either.

Regards,
Metralla

 

Which confirms Steve's statement that Columbia mixes were extra compressed right on the masters.

 

Steve, how does one tell which of the early Columbia pressings are "east" or "west" coast? Is there some marking on the vinyl? Thanks.
Ray

 

This may explain something I've been wondering about ... During the past month a buddy of mine, on my recommendation, picked up an early rainbow-Capitol-label LP of The Beach Boys Today! It's in very good shape; he paid $20 for it, and liked the music but found the sonics a bit foggy and compressed. I listened and agreed.

I found a copy for myself a few weeks later ... in pretty much the same condition, for $5.50. Same rainbow label and everything ... and there's a world of difference. Clearer and more open than I thought this record could sound, with such resonance in the voices ... The difference is not subtle. (I have heard both copies on my own system.)

I suspected my copy might be "earlier" (same label and all), but perhaps it's also a West Coast copy. My friend and I have yet to compare matrix markings ...

 

There's going to be a mono release and I assumed it was the "original" mix...

If it's really dead than why remix to mono?

Makes no sense..............

-Wes

 

That's what I thought.....I was getting worried that I misinterpreted the article....


-Wes

 

Does anyone know if there is any chance of Sundazed releasing the mono Dylan LPs on CD or, even better, SACD?

 

I doubt there'll be SACD. Bob Irwin says he's more focused on the vintage format......Vinyl.....

-Wes

 

It is reported that Bob Dylan and Robbie Robenson supervised the mono mix. It includes a number of revisions to cover guitar mistakes by Robbie. The stereo releases, either ignor some or all of those edits and most of the mixing clues Bob and Robbie chose. Thus a mono release based upon that mix or from the mixed mono master is of great interest to many fans, since the mono vinyl release is quite rare. Even the UK mono release is from the wrong tapes.

 

Columbia 1960s pressings

So from what you say, Steve, Columbia had three pressing plants: East Coast, Los Angeles & San Francisco . . . is it possible to tell which plant a disc was pressed at? I'm still trying to figure out when and where Columbia started introducing the remixed version of "Blonde On Blonde". Maybe one plant (East Coast?)could have used the remix from the outset.

(In case anyone wants to know what I'm on about here, check http://www.rdf.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ )

 

I recently heard a tale from someone who visited a Columbia facility quite some while back. Apparently when they cut an album the engineer who did the cutting would make their own adjustments to the sound in order to get what they considered a decent cut, often without any real knowledge of the music they were handling. This would happen every time they had to re-cut the album, quite possibly with a different engineer doing it. Multiply that by three cutting rooms . . .

Just to try your patience a little more on Columbia pressings, Steve: a 60s matrix number would be something like XLP113761-2D . The first part was always the same for that album, but the numeric/alpha bit at the end would change. The number sometimes seems to indicate a more major change, e.g. in the source tape used. (for instance, the original Highway 61 Revisited stereo copies with the alternate "Buick 6" will always have a -1 suffix, -2 or later copies are cut from the corrected tape) But would the letter at the end just be a stamper number? Is there anyone around who would know about this stuff?

 

I have an excellent transfer of the US mono mix of Blonde On Blonde. I am interested in hearing the SACD version. Would anyone like to trade cdrs [my mono for your SACD]? Thanks!!

Alan

 

With all due respect, it ain't necessarily so.

Record pressings vary like crazy. Too many variables to consider. Too many records with identical stamper numbers that sound vastly different.

Steve would like to have you believe it's that easy, but I assure you it is not. I have endless examples of records that are supposed to be original and supposed to be the best and just aren't, as anyone who plays such a record would know in a hurry.

Use Steve's remarks as a guide for better pressings, but don't make the mistake of passing up other copies that do not fit the profile, because some of the best records I own are far from original.

One major example: Blood Sweat and Tears self titled. The best copies by far are well down the line in originality.

Why? It's a mystery why some records sound good and some don't.

Some people, operating more from an engineering point of view, want to have more concrete explanations. They want to deal with the facts, mam.

Maybe they are right 70% of the time. (Probably less actually.)

But if you play your records, and you play lots of versions, you will be able to pick the best sounding pressing 100% of the time.

That's why I subscribe to a different philosophy. I want the best, not what should be the best.

Regards, TP