Gastwirt Chicago Transit Authority CD: 1 or 2 disc version preferred?

I thought the only good Rhino Chicago disc was CHICAGO II. The mastering added a certain edge to it. NONE of the Rhinos are audiophile quality, but since CHICAGO II was so badly recorded, it kind of "improved" with bad mastering. Two wrongs just may make a right in this case.

I stuck with the CHICAGO label CDs.

 

I agree with you when you say "NONE of the Rhinos are audiophile quality" but IMO, the only good Rhino discs are the two DVD-A's.
Aside from the grainy sound quality of Rhino, I also hate the badly conceived artwork on the discs itself. They look very cheap and amateurish.

 

Well I was referring to the CDs only. Of course the DVD-As sound better. They're newer mixes.

 

Well, I guess I disagree with the host then. I respect Steve's opinions about various discs and I do agree with him on some things (i.e. the original Columbia CD of the Byrds' Mr. Tambourine Man) but unlike some on this forum, just becuase our distinguished host says it's so, doesn't mean I abandon my own opinions. Sound quality is subjective, remember.

"Audiophile quality" doesn't mean anything to me and is far from a requirement on my side. Judging music by whether or not it's "audiophile quality" is like having a thousand-dollar suit on a hanger and admiring it for the hanger instead of the suit. It's like walking into an art museum and admiring the light used to showcase the paintings rather than the paintings themselves. Come on now.

That said, I agree with you about Chicago. That album sounds like it was recorded in the men's room and no amount of mastering will change that. I love the DVD-As but I don't care how great the stereo mix sounds...it's a remix, and therefore worthless.

 

Are you sure it is a good rip? I have heard several versions and the mastersound is best in my opinion.

 

I will agree with OldJohn on one thing..Chicago III is the best it has ever sounded on the new Rhino CD...I never thought we'd hear III sound this good,for a change it sounds like they did use a better master on this issue.

JF

 

I'm not an audiophile. But I just found it a little sad that these albums that could sound amazing DIDN'T on the Rhino remasters. A missed opportunity, IMO.

 

Oh yeah. For me, the biggest difference is in the bass. The bass is FAT on the Rhino disc and that suits a lot of those songs really well. Especially on something like "Sing a Mean Tune Kid" where the pseudo-funk bass groove absolutely MAKES that song. Glad to know I'm not the only one who feels this way about Chicago III.

 

See, mastering *is* important to me, but nowhere near as important is it is to the majority on this board. For me, mastering can't ruin great music unless it's so bad as to be painful. The Iggy Pop remix of Raw Power comes to mind...

What I meant by my comment was that admiring music for the mastering takes away from admiration of great music. That's all.

Sure, I've started my fair share of threads about the best CD version of whatever album, but in truth, while the information in those threads are valuable and I use it as a guide, it also comes down to availability and cost. I mean, sure, the black triangle Abbey Road is the best version of that album on CD...but the next time I care about sound quality enough to pay that kind of price will be the first time. Most of the time, the latest remaster is perfectly fine for my purposes. I just want something that sounds good to me. No more, no less. If something is good enough, it's good enough. Could it be better? Sure. But I have so much music on my list that often times, "good enough" is all I need, unless it's an artist I *really* care about.

 

I agree with you when you say that (how an individual perceives) sound quality is subjective and that statement is true even to those who are uninitiated but I believe that there's only one ultimate goal in music appreciation if you care about sound and that is to achieve the most realistic sound possible in your own home.
If you like grainy sound with narrow dynamic range, I respect your taste but I believe that subjectiveness can be changed by means of training your ears and your brain to remember how live instruments should sound like.

"Audiophile quality" means a lot to me. Like what Mr. Gary said, I enjoy music better if it sounds closer to the sound of "real" instruments and when the fatigue factor is very low.

I disagree. If it was mixed originally the way it was mixed for DVD-A's, you will say the opposite. IMO, hearing a different mix of the same recording is a revelation because you can hear the instruments that the artists intended but were buried in the original mix. Two good examples are the newly-exposed guitar riffs played by Terry Kath and the drum chops played by Danny Seraphine on "25 Or 6 To 4." To me thay are priceless because you are hearing them for the first time and they were there on the master tapes since the beginning.

 

Has anyone given the original Japanese 48DP two-disc set a serious listen? I have it and have not been able to devote attention to it, but I wonder if it is one of those early Japanese issues that betters the contemporary U.S. issue.

Darcy?

 

I thought I remembered reading somewhere that the Japan CTA is the same mastering as the US Columbia 2-disc set. I'm interested...

 

That would not surprise me, but I thought I would ask anyway.

 

See that's the fundamental difference here. I don't think the sound is "grainy" at all, except the first 1:40 of "Introduction" where the master is chewed up.

As far as "narrow dynamic range", I guess that's slightly disingenuous. Waveforms only tell part of the story. I could argue that the Columbia disc has too much dynamic range and isn't loud enough and by extension, are slightly "airy". Honestly, the Rhino discs aren't that bad all things considered. They're louder than the Columbia discs and had digital compression used, granted, but I don't think it ruins the sound. The sound of the Rhino discs are a bit more agressive and full of life I think. The sound of the Rhino disc commands your attention and makes you listen and you can really hear everything. On the Columbia discs, the sound is great, but there's stuff that's harder to hear than on the Rhino disc. Different strokes I guess.

To me, when a mix is done, it's done. The multi-track tapes do not constitute a finished album. The finished mixes are what constitute the finished album. Stereo mixes were done in 1970 and that's it. You don't get a 2nd chance to get it right. For them to do a new stereo mix in 2002 was nothing more than revisionist history. In effect, they "re-finished" an already finished album. There's no excuse for that at all. Make the original mix sound as good as you can and let it be. Of course, I can't complain too loud because the remix is available in addition to the original mix, which is normally fine by me.

 

I'm not trying to have my cake and eat it too. You can only do so much during mastering. Mixing gives someone the ability to play God and basically gives them far too much power. You of all people should know that considering how much you publicly despise remixing.

 

I didn't think Steve "depises" remixing.

IIRC, Steve just likes whichever mix sounds best to him. Most of the time remixes don't sound right. Sometimes there are decent ones though (Bill Inglot's stereo single mix of "Crimson & Clover" by Tommy James comes to mind).

 

I have to agree with you, Steve.

Although I must admit, I do like the Rhino remaster of Chigaco II just because I never really liked how that thing sounded in the first place and the Rhino re-issue kind of PUNCHED it WAY up and made it a bit more exciting to listen to, but the Rhino Chicago III just sounded totally wrong to me and I'm not even going to go into detail on CTA.

I don't have the Mastersound of CTA, by the way but I guess I'll have to seek out a copy. I only have the Columbia vinyl of that. Sounds awesome.

 

Not necessarily. I want to hear the original mix, but I'm okay with changing the mastering to sound "different" from the initial release if it sounds better. Mastering can't really alter the sound of the original mix enough to make it sound like a different mix (or at least no mastering that I've heard). The original mix is the original mix, even if the mastering is hotter and uses digital compression. I know you don't like digital compression and that's well within your right. Hell, you turn down jobs that would require you to use it. (By the way, I hope I can be in that good a financial place to turn down work sometime in my life. Good for you, man! That's totally serious, not tongue-in-cheek in the slightest) I just don't hear what the big deal is. I listen to the Columbia CD, I hear a great sounding CD. I hear the Rhino CD, I hear the same CD, slightly louder, and more detailed in some spots. Different strokes, man.

Keep in mind, I like the original Columbia CD, but there's just something about the Rhino version of that album that made me stand up and take notice. It's agressive and I think it suits that album really well. From an audiophile standpoint, that might not be ideal, but for a non-audiophile such as myself, I find this perfectly enjoyable and the Rhino discs sound just fine on my system.

 

The Mastersound is sweet. The Rhino is poo. That is all.

 

Thanks for the suggestion, but I doubt I'd ever upgrade my stereo enough to appreciate the differences. There was a review of Genesis' 1976-1982 box set on Amazon.com that railed against the sound quality. He ended his review by mentioning that he listened to it on an audiophile system that cost upwards of 25 Gs. This was one comment in response to the review:

In part is stated "...Us studio guys laugh at people who spend $25k on a home sound system. Get a life. A clean stereo amp and a well designed pair of bookshelf reference speakers are all you need."

That's pretty much were I'm at. I have a Bost AcoustiMass speaker set; 6 speakers (the tiny wall-mount speakers with two "cubes" that allow you to aim the sound) with a huge subwoofer and those sound awesome. I spent $1,200 on those speakers which was actually more than I wanted to spend. Some audiophiles spend $1,200 on one speaker cable.

The next time I care about sound enough to drop 25 Gs, hell even 5 Gs, on a stereo will be the first time. Probably never going to happen.

 

50 posts in this thread and this one says all there is to say