Well, again, I have some 70s vinyl LP (Ziggy, Aladdin..) and I think they sound really good.. I'm very surprised to read this
I have the UK EMI CDP press, I'm completely satisfied with that - dynamic, warm and dry - sounds like the vinyl - don't mind the NR, can't hear it. Also have the CDP Scary Monsters, same with that.
I sold all my 99 remasters, didn't like the compression - not sure I'd mind today though, as I'm not that obsessive any longer about such matters.
Wow, I'm really surprised about this. A lot of the original vinyl pressings are really good sounding, IMHO it's very difficult to beat an original RCA pressing in great condition soundwise.
There will never be a general consensus on this subject. No biggie. It's the contradictions and blanket statements that cause the most misinformation and confusion in these Bowie mastering threads.
That's fine. I thought my first love Jo was the best thing since sliced-bread till I met Amy later on in life. Then there was Nads
You could probably collect an affordable, OK sounding collection, mixing and matching from all the previous releases/remasters [1990-2017]
If by "consensus", you mean 100% people agreeing, sure, there's none. Take a look at the Bowie blind listening threads, though. The old RCA CDs always win. The 1999 remasters always score low. They're simply bad. The music itself is good, but the remasters are bad. Many Bowie fans don't really grasp the difference here.
I have all the '99s except Man Who Sold The World (which I gave to a friend, thinking that I had a duplicate). I have rips of all but three RCA JP for US CDs and the Five Years box set. I have not heard any Bowie Rykos but I have heard other CDs on Ryko and I have an idea of what sound to expect. The '99s blow the other two out of the water for me. The compression isn't terrible, the NR isn't particularly noticeable (especially when compared to stuff like The Complete Animals), and the EQ brings a level of clarity that's totally absent on the other two. The recent remaster series (box sets) sounds so muddy and ill-defined to me. I had an ear infection a few years ago and these remasters sound like how I heard things during the recovery process, while the '99s are how I hear clearly. As for the RCAs, they're not muddy and the tonal balance is nice, but I honestly think they need compression; on most of them, the drums are deafening! They sound great through good speakers, but not through headphones (how I normally listen). I will probably pick up some of the Rykos for the bonus tracks (IIRC the bonus tracks on Hunky Dory are not present in the Five Years box), but you go to Ryko for content, not sound quality. (Funny, I'm actually defending something that I just described essentially as "quantity over quality"! For all your faults, I still love you, Ryko.) You can probably guess that the '99s were my introduction to Bowie, so this is how I am "used to" them sounding. I started listening in September/October of 2015 when YouTube had the 1999 and 2012 remasters as separate playlists, but even when I was just starting out, I much preferred the clear sound of the '99s to the muddy 2012. Maybe the 2012 is more like what the original LP sounded like, but I'm not a purist; I will take an improved (to my ears) master over something that sounds like The Most Holy And Sacred Original Pressing, From Artist's Country Of Origin any day of the week. I totally get why people dislike the '99s and yes, the treble on Low does grate a bit to me. That's one that I might prefer the '17 master on (haven't heard it yet). But quite frankly Diamond Dogs sounds just plain wrong without all that high-end sparkle. Isn't that what glam was all about? "Redull Redull" indeed...
Visualizing this might help a bit here. If these remasters from 1999 were to be compared with video material, it's like watching a movie on a TV with contrast and colors raised high above what the video content was graded for. Sure, some people might like the popping image, but would you really want to watch something which is akin to arbitrarily using crayons on Mona Lisa?
I enjoy reading most of the Blind Listening threads, and I'm even participating in the current one. Like all information, you have to take it with a grain of salt. For example, there are references in the threads along the lines of "B is the RCA". In other words, people are listening out for specific releases, rather than simply going on the sound. I think this is a natural thing to do, rather than a conspiracy, but it does color the results, imo. For example, if you've already decided you hate the 99's, and you think you hear the 99's, you're unlikely to have to give them positive feedback. Bowie discussions always seem to end up with various agendas going on for some reason (Beatles threads might be the same, but I don't read those). In other words, the Blind Listening threads are more of a game - a fun one no doubt - that gives you an opportunity to sample different versions. But to find the best release based on short clips of songs isn't exactly scientific. Not to mention, the reality is we're all looking for different things in our music. As I've mentioned many times, personally speaking the original Vinyl of any release is not the be-all and end-all sound to which every subsequent release must adhere. I want something that is pleasing to my ear, and that may, or may not, sound close to the original Vinyl. Others feel differently. I chase the musical enjoyment as I remember it from the 70's, not the precise sound of the 70's. Hence, remixes often become my favorite versions. The latest Blind Listening thread is fun, because I don't own the album in question - so I am truly going in "blind".
Well, yes, some people might. I fell in love with Bowie while listening on a portable mono player back in the day. I fell in love with a lot of 76/77 punk listening on an absolutely horrid transistor radio. On average, most people do seem to have their TV's calibrated with the colors set too high. *shrug*
Oh yes, absolutely, but that's not something we should support. I liked the 1999 remasters myself when I first heard them. That's because it was my first time owning any Bowie albums on CDs. I also used to watch my movies on an uncalibrated TV, until I realized how wrong it is. With time, I started to broad my horizons exactly because I liked the material so much. I asked myself if I was really being sold quality products? There was no question about the quality of the music (well, on the 1970s albums and Scary Monsters, at least), but what about the product I was sold, the actual CDs? How could I know if it's good if I don't even compare it with others? That's when I realized what crap I was sold. I'm sorry, but these remasters are simply bad as far as sound engineering goes. EMI did an awful job with them and we should point out such facts because there's a chance somebody will listen and not do it again.
I agree. In my case, I swear I took all those tests with the only intention of choosing the ones I founded more pleasing to my ears. In some cases I chose old RCA masterings (e.g. Low), and in others, the latest Parlophones (e.g. the latest Young Americans, hated by a lot of people). The ones I disliked were always the '99 remasters. That doesn't mean they're bad, it's just that they're not for me.
Interesting ! Could you then please supply a link to the blind listening test for Low, 'cause I don't see anything apart from an intention for a future thread.
