Bob Dylan 'The Complete Album Collection Vol. 1' remasters

My CD player has a pitch control and my amplifier has a tone control called "gravel". By using these controls, I can get the early albums to sound just like Dylan's recent voice, which I very much prefer (that is post 1996). It brings out the emotional depth that a young singer in his 20's and 30's cannot evoke.

 

I hope your joking....

 

No, I am not. It takes an old man to have emotional depth. Just ask any old man.

 

Can someone please help me here? How does the Street-Legal remaster from this box set differ from the 2003 SACD remaster available in the Limited Edition box set? Does the Self Portrait remaster from this box set differ from the Bootleg Series Vol. 10 remaster? Well, does all the "old" 2003 to 2009 remasters differ from the remasters in this new box set? Can samoene please tell me if the CDs from this box set really comes with a lot of the glitches, dropouts etc.? Which albums specifically? This glitches only appear in the Complete Collection box set? Thank you all.

 

The Street Legal in the Complete Collection is a remaster of the original mix. The 2003 SACD remaster is remixed.

 

It seems that all the CD's in this collection that aren't newly created for it (ie the ones that aren't in the original post's 'remastered' list), are indeed the most-recent stereo-release CD remasters from the 2000's onwards - ie the ones which you refer to in quotes as "old", including Self Portrait (the remaster of the original album, not the revisited version). An exception could be Shot of Love, which is not in the list but has been reported to sound a little different (it may just be tweaked a little). I suppose there won't be 100% proof of every/anything until people compare those 'sound wave' graphics people sometimes post, and enough people have listened to the various CDs. A lot of people are clearly still wading through them.

As for information on the glitches, try asking here, http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/bob-dylan-complete-album-collection-pt3.334126/ , it's where people have been (and I think still are) discussing them.

 

Thanks. By "revisited version" of Self Portrait you mean the one from Bootleg Series Vol. 10? They're different?

 

Thanks. The remix is much different from the original one?

 

Yes, most forum members prefer the remix. I personnally prefer the original mix (it is mastered better and Bob's voice sounds more natural).

 

Yes, the 'Bootleg Series Vol 10: Another Self Portrait' is exactly that: another version of Self Portrait!

You really need to read the 'blurb' for it on Amazon or somewhere. There is a 4 cd edition of Bootleg 10 where you get the remaster of the original Self Portrait to go along with Another Self Portrait and extra live stuff in the same box. Obviously, this Complete Album Collection Vol 1 set just includes the remaster of Self Portrait - all the bootleg stuff will apparently make up most in not all of Vol 2 (whenever it's released).

I'm not sure that Sony released the remaster of Self Portrait as a single album on CD - only on vinyl and digital files. So you have to get it either as a modern vinyl LP, mp3's, here in the Complete set, or on the 4 cd Bootleg 10.

The remixed Street Legal is supposed to sound quite different to the pre-1999 version (this one was uniquely remixed in 1999 for some reason, and then remastered in 2003), and many people seem to prefer the remix. It's going to be personal preference though. It's so long since I've heard the original lp mix I can't remember it, but Sony, by including the new remaster of the original mix in this Complete set, basically gives people the opportunity to own the two mixes.

 

What about the MTV Unplugged? It's the same version? The album is from 1995, why not remaster it?

 

A friend of mine said that "Time Out Of Mind" sound a little bit louder than the old CD. Do you know if this is a "Shot Of Love" case?

 

Do you think it needs remastering? Maybe it's not possible to improve it. I think there were two slightly different versions of the MTV album come to think of it, but that might have been slightly different US/European track lists. 1995 is not exactly pre-history for CDs, and there probably wasn't a major infancy period even with 'early redbook' - some early-80's CD's out there are still the best sounding.

Does he/she know how to grab and post waveform images? You can use free software like Audacity (http://audacity.sourceforge.net/). You then probably need to find some free webspace to upload it to (there might be a forum recommendation), and then link to it from within a forum post using the chain/link icon.

 

Sounds like a lot of work. Anyone check TOOM yet?

 

Ok, i'm comparing the records for myself now. I want to hear everybody's opinion on this.

Beginning with "Down By The Groove", the old CD sounds better to me, where the remaster sounds lound and thin. A good song to compare is "Ninety Miles An Hour", just notice at 0:21 how the remaster comes piercing.

The old "Knocked Out Loaded" sounds better too, cause the remaster is just loud and thin again, what can i say. Compare the song "Maybe Someday", the beginning of the remaster is very irritating to the ears.

I didn't noticed much difference with "Good As I Been To You" like Maddin61 said.

A friend of mine said that the remaster of "Time Out Of Mind" sounds a little louder, and i agree with him. I guess i prefer the old one.

I'll compare more albums later. So, can i hear some opinions on this? I'm getting a little confused cause the remasters should sound much better! I wonder if all of the old Dylan CDs are better, less louder and more organic, with an analogic feel. The mono box set is perfect, the MFSL's too, but i'm disappointed with the Columbia remasters.

 

Does anyone have an original 'Dylan' or 'A Fool Such As I' CD from the '80s?

I have a digital copy of the original release and noticed, when comparing it to the DYLAN remaster in the box, that the channels appear to be reversed.

It's most obvious during LILY OF THE WEST, but is true on all tracks. On my original copy, the acoustic guitar is panned to the right channel when the song starts and on the remaster the same acoustic guitar is in the left channel.

If someone has a true original CD of DYLAN can you please check to see if your disc matches my note above?

I'll have to dig out my LP of DYLAN and compare that as well.

For what it's worth, I think the remastered DYLAN is a great improvement over the older original. Light hiss and all!

 

I checked my own vinyl copy of DYLAN and confirmed that the acoustic in LILY is coming out of the left channel...like the remastered 2013 CD release in the box.

I'd still like to hear from someone that has the original CD release to confirm that the channels are reversed!

Thanks!

 

How do you think the box-particular remasters you've heard compare to all the other remasters Sony/Columbia released as individual CDs since 2000? Are you suggesting the ones completed for this set are of an inferior standard, or do you just not like the post-2000 remasters in general?

1997's Time Out of Mind (TOOM) is not on the box set's Remastered List, so do you think they just raised the volume on it a bit? (like they may have with Shot of Love). I'd be surprised if they did tinker with it, as it's a modern era big-producer job (Daniel Lanois). Dylan's subsequent albums were set at a higher volume though, admittedly. There may be a slight 'uniformity of volume' thing going on, and certain sound systems will present lower-volume albums a touch differently - so the same album re-cut at a higher base volume could sound a little different.

NB. According to Wikipedia (I know, I know) Dylan wasn't too impressed with Lanoir's production on Time Out of Mind. This is unreferenced though - not untypically for a Wikipedia article, and music-related ones especially.

 

On my original made in Austria cd the guitar at the start of Lily is panned to the left channel.

 

I have Sony's Limited Edition box set of remasters from 2003 and i think they could have been much better. I love the mono box set of remasters and all of the MFSL's remasters though. I also think that the Sony's 2003 ones were made with much more care than the 2013 ones. About "Time Out Of Mind", it actually sounds louder to my ears, but there is a great possibility of being just a false impression, but who knows, that's why i'm asking people's opinions.

 

I did some research on Shot Of Love. The one included in the CAC is indeed a remaster. It´s Dynamic Range is between 7 and 12, most of the tracks are below 10.
The old CD-edition varies from 12 to 15 with more than 13 average. The new one doesn´t sound compressed only ... it is compressed.

I second that the 2003-2004 remasters by Sony have been done with more care. None of them has bad Dynamic Range afaik.

 

Re your useful post on pg 1, where you first said the Shot of Love 'remaster' (as it seems to be) was inferior to the currently-available cd (originally made back in the 80's I think) - how about those other box-set remasters you mentioned? Do you still find them to be generally better than the CD's they replaced, but (as you say above) just not as carefully produced as the remasters of 2003-2004?

 

5. Saved (1980) significantly improved sound, like this one much more than the earlier releases. But it´s still not a classic.
10. Good as I Been to You (1992) significantly improved, no hiss, sounds even better than my vinyl ... to me.
11. World Gone Wrong (1993) significantly improved, no hiss, sounds even better than my vinyl ... to me.
13. Bob Dylan at Budokan (1979) significantly improved sound ... but Europe 1978 has been so much better that I will not become a lover of Budokan.

These 2013-remasters are those I called significantly improved. I still look at it this way.

Take these facts in mind when discussing the new remasters:

Saved suffered from really bad production and sound.
Maybe the new one is compressed as well (didn´t check that like all others, only listened to them) ... I still like the remaster better.
What I want to say: It can´t have been hard to get that one sound better. It might have been harder to get it sound worse.

Both acoustic albums ... yes, significantly improved for me, especially WGW has less hiss and sounds warmer.
Budokan ... not a favourite of mine at all ... sounds crisper, but I suppose it is compressed as well.

Yes,
... the 2003-2004 remasters
... and the mono-box especially
... have been done with more care than the 2013-remasters.

... but the sources for the 2013s were worse.

 

So in other words if I have the mono box, the SACD box and original CDs of the others (most with a small black triangle in a circle on Columbia) it probably ok to skip this box unless I want "Dylan" and upgrades to the 4 titles which you mentioned above?