I finally recieved the last four. GH1!GH2, ROTW and Empty Sky. The GH-s sounds good but different than the studio-albums, ROTW have a really great sound-detailed and muscular at the same time I never had Emoty Sky on cd so it s hard for me to compare. It sounds fine to my ears anyway Very happy with this purchase
I don't have a lot of references for this one. I do have the download that came with the Ludwig CD around but haven't had the time to compare yet. I did find the Empty Sky SHM-CD doesn't have quite the "sameness of sound" all the others in this series seem to possess. I think it has more to do with the original recording than any mastering moves. Even the two GH sets with their slightly less vivid highs and the Madman I found to be a bit overwhelming on the bass side of things still sound like they fit in with series and share a common sound. Empty Sky sounds like they did the best they could with a recording that wasn't engineered to the same quality as the others.
I believe the different sound of Empty Sky is also a result of not using the original analog master tapes, as seen by the notes on the booklet: I do believe the did the absolute best they could, given all the others in this series used the original analog masters. Maybe the original master tapes for this album were considered un-useable. Who knows?
I don't want to turn the thread into a debate on the merits of SHM-CD technology, but by definition, it (SHM) cannot affect the sound but only the accuracy of reading the 1s and 0s from the disk without needing error correction during playback. I read somewhere earlier in the thread that those of us who rip the CDs will miss the "benefits"of SHM but that sounds like a pile of snakeoil to me. If I use adequate ripping software with error correction and end up with a 100% accurate copy of the data on the disk, the most perfectly read SHM-CD cannot improve the sound any more than that. In fact, I usually feel like telling those who believe their SHM-CDs sound remarkably better that it's time to replace their CD player as its error correction circuitry is obviously deficient! Nope, I bought these purely for the mastering, which is tremendous with a couple of minor exceptions!
I would agree with this....not sure what happened , but the new SHM is more compressed than the others and lacks the warmth and balance of the others in the series. I find the Polydor CD (likely DJM clone?) to sound more like the original DJM vinyl (which is a good thing).
All this talk about the source of the masters has me wondering if the same 24/192 transfers sent to Universal Japan were also sent to Bob Ludwig for the remasters he did that were use to cut the recent vinyl reissues and the accompanying downloads. I don't recall if it was ever stated what sources Ludwig was given, but I since he works exclusively with digital now, it could have been the same ones. I must try some digital comparison (as explained by recording engineer Jamie Tate on here some years ago) between the digital downloads I got with the LPs and these new SHM-CDs.
I used to have the album back in the days-have not heard Empty Sky on cd before so I can t compare. However it does sound fine to me but the recording ain t anywhere near Eltons other albums. So perhaps thats the main reason it sounds different from the others
Would love to hear your thoughts on those comparisons. On more than one occasion during my comparisons, I noticed strong similarities with the Ludwig remasters (some direct, some needle drops) and these new SHM's.
True - Empty Sky was not given the same love in recording as the s/t album was. Also, Gus Dudgeon began producing with the s/t album and he brought a lot of innovation to the way the music was recorded (particularly the piano) that made a huge difference. It's only natural that it would sound somewhat inferior to the ones that came after.
But, I would suggest this is not the reasoning for this SHM of Empty Sky sounding so different to the other albums in this series.
Please guys answer this simple question: Does "Empty Sky" sound to you: average, above average, or below average?
While I agree with your theory that they may not have had the original master for ES (epsecially based on the difference in text, good catch, btw), I don't think a decent copy of the master would have a big of an impact on the overall sound as the quality of the recording. I don't have the reference at hand, but I believe I've read comments from our host to the effect that a 1st-gen copy of a master will not be that different sounding. Good mastering should be able to compensate for generation losses. It can't really fix major differences in recording quality.
Average as an overall listening experience compared to the others in this series, but probably above average if the quality of the original recording/mix is taken into account. I need to do some more careful comparisons with the other versions I own. I'm not a big fan of this album (especially the harpischord! YEEUCH!), so my focus has been on the albums I truly like.
Re: Empty Sky There was an interview that Dudgeon did around the time the Classic Years CDs came out where he mentioned the master tape of Empty Sky having gone missing, years before, when it was shipped to another country. Don't know how accurate that statement is, but... Of course, in 2019, I can't find a single reference to that interview--or the interview itself--in Google or on this site.
Maybe not entirely, but I do think it plays a role. What's intriguing is the notion that maybe the new SHM remaster is closer to what it originally sounded like - and more recent CD remasters have altered the original sound more? Empty Sky always had a rougher sound to me - just less polished. While Elton's other albums sonically sound really great for being nearly 50 years old, ES sounds like a 60s recording to me - sonically.
You know...I think that might be it. Maybe time to start digging through (my stored) old CD boxes...lol.
I have only ever heard this album on this SHM release (first time listening), so I have nothing to compare it to. It doesn't sound brickwalled or have unfavorable EQ choices as far as I can hear. The bass it stronger, in that the whole album sounds more compressed than any other Elton John SHM release from this series. It does stand out. Besides all that, it sounds good to me. It can very well be the best they could possibly have made this album sound, and I'm sure the person who mastered the rest of this series did this one as well and attempted to create a cohesive, similar approach to all the albums. I agree with @Stefan on this issue.
This is the final page from the '95 booklet, and there is nothing to suggest a missing master tape. Elton John - Empty Sky
That's the same text that was used for every title in the 1995 series and, in any case, the wording is opaque: it only states that tapes with the "original mixes" were used. It doesn't definitively state that original master tapes were available for all titles.
Yes, my point in posting this was above the photo itself, which is to say there is nothing in that text that suggests the master for Empty Sky is missing.
Oh well...so much for that. I did manage to find this lone post in the archives here. At the very least, one other person remembered that interview on the subject of the missing tape. Steely Dan thoughts
Understood, but my point was that the text may have been purposefully worded that way because original masters were missing for one or more titles.
