Truer words have never been written on this forum. I find it incredible that opposing sides argue their points with near religious fervor on these points as if there were an objectively verifiable right and wrong answer. At the end of the day, IMO, this is all about personal perception and preference. I don't own the original EG disks anymore, but I do remember preferring the DE disks to them by a wide margin when they came out. I now own all the DE disks, all the 30th anniversary disks, and the OME for ITCOTCK as well as a couple of different vinyl pressings of each. To me, I prefer the detail, clarity, and presence of the 30th Anniversary disks (and the OME) to the DE, and I know that I preferred the DE over the original disks for the same reason. I'm in the boat that considers the 30th Anniversary disks among the best sounding disks I own. I really do believe that that is due significantly to my personal preferences and need not apply to everyone else. Because I prefer them does not make them objectively better - just preferred by me.
Originally Posted by Jeff Carney I don't pretend to know either, but if some of those early discs are from production tapes, those are some damn flat production tapes to my ears. There were LP cutting production tapes made for the Editions EG 1/2 speed vinyl issues in the US (Jem Records). I would expect that those tapes are what the early CDs were made from. They were nice tapes for sure, but "flat" no way to know, but I doubt it. I call the early CDs Jem CD for that reason, but it looks like I am the only one who calls them that.
When you have heard some 4 or 5 different versions I guess you got an idea about what's flat and what's not. When you actually do A/B test you get educated.
The 30th is an hdcd, I don't know the specifics of the hdcd encoding on it, if it uses that peak extension thing or what it does exactly, but I would guess that your frequency range analysis is treating the 30th Red like a non-hdcd compatible cd player would, which isn't quite fair perhaps? As for a frequency analysis showing compression, I've never thought of that before. I think it's pretty easy to compare compression amounts between two discs just by listening though... We're talking about compression here right, not peak limiting? There's little peak limiting on the 30ths I am assuming, I don't remember. I like the 30th editions, and I've given Fripp a lot of money to buy paper for his diary, so I'm reluctant to buy back all the Crimson's. I guess that's why I haven't joined in on this yet. There's only so much money to go around and I've barely tapped the 70s italian prog yet! Not to mention krautrock.
Oh. uh...that doesn't look very good. And actually I have all of the 30ths except for the 80s stuff, I still have my original Discipline. Do you have a pic of the original Discipline or is that already up here?
I like that one better. But the others, they aren't this bad are they? The 70s 30ths? And what about the hdcd factor, is that pic of the 30th Discipline after it's "decoded" or before?
I guess I'd disagree. You may make a guess, but there's only one way to know. I've done lot of A/B listening, but I wouldn't claim to know what sounds most like the original master without having heard the original master.
See this post. HDCD factor not taken into consideration. http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showpost.php?p=2916645&postcount=108
Ok. Btw i find natual sound to be a quite objectiv criteria. That's what I' looking for in a good mastering.
Interesting, thanks. To quote Nick Davis, I guess he was "bringing them into the 21st century." I thought my old Larks' sounded muddy, the 30th seemed like a welcome improvement.
To me it sounds like most people prefer the 30th editions. In every case I have heard the original I prefer it except ITCOTCK (not made up my mind yet.) Just make sure it's the original and not the DE versions.
When I did compare frequency responses of Squonk (A Trick of The Tail) (Davies vs Diament, a curve in the case of the Diament mastering, almost a straight line for the recent remaster)), I thought I understood compression. But like I said, I am no expert, I'm learning here. I guess it is more EQ adjustments I'm looking at, right? Anyway, for what it's worth, the freq analysis of 3 versions of Red. I let the experts decipher it. Still learning. Red, 30th Anniversary Edition Red, Definitive Edition Red, EG edition
Me too. Anyway, as for Nick Davis, I would guess that the extreme peak limiting as used in his Genesis "masterings" would skew any guesses on compression when looking at the frequency analysis (if any reasonable guesses on compression from looking at the frequency analysis could be made in the first place!) Maybe looking at the frequency analysis might be more applicable for noting extreme brickwalling more than it would compression...
I guess that's where I disagree. I think personal preferences and perceptions color it. I just don't agree that it's objective.
Fine. We got it. It doesn't matter to you what anyone says, because everything is subjective and therefore worthless for you. Now can I please read on about Dr.Merkwürdiglis opinions on various CD pressings? Thank You.
Just a friendly reminder, and an excuse to stop this slight derail, we're not supposed to be arguing subjective/objective.
I'm extremely interested in hearing people's opinions about better sounding pressings. That's a big part of why I come to this site. I've found many better pressings of cd's through this site and have eaten crow on numerous occasions. As an example, I was convinced that the Bowie Virgin cd's were miles better than the RCA's. I was convinced after reading some threads on the subject here to go out and re-buy an RCA cd. I ended up re-buying all the RCA's and postin a thread here recanting my earlier opinion. My only point (and if you don't want to hear it, please refrain from reading my posts going forward) is that this is not a matter of objective truth. It is a matter of opinions, some educated, some not. In the end it isn't a matter of right and wrong, but of what sounds better to the individual listener. I'm interested in your opinion, but I don't need to be told that my opinion (or anyone else's) is objectively wrong.
Measurements can show real differences -- but predicting exactly how those differences sound in different rooms, over different speakers, with different ears, would require lots more measurements! It's one reason why a remaster sounds 'good' to some people and not good to others. Say the remaster has a treble boost compared to a previous version. Maybe the listener has lost some hearing in the treble; maybe his loudspeakers aren't flat in the treble; maybe the room has a treble roll-off. So maybe the remaster sounds *good* there, to that person. Heck, maybe the original masters were kind of weak in the treble (due to the ears/speakers/room context THEY were created in), and arguably 'needed' that boost!