More Maxed-out Remasters

There could be other people with the SK initials.

 

C'mon CBS, don't burst my bubble.

Seriously, I can't imagine SK listening to The Who, much less putting his initials in a CD.

Can anyone confirm what I have is a SH mastering?

Thanks in advance

 

It is? I guess I never noticed...

 

Well, I *think* the real test is to see what the total time is. Something around 43:26 should be Steve's. Something around 43:15 is NOT.

 

If this is the one that you have, it's Steves. The only other one I know about is my Canadian version MCABD-37217/DIDX-152 and it's 43:24.

 

Not necessarily. The later US (inferior) CD has the same catalog number.

 

Me either. But, then, I don't have HDCD decoding to see if there is a difference.

 

It takes one to know one!


James said:

Why don't they make CD's like some DVD's, where you have two sides: one side is letterbox for the movie nerd, and the other is standard, for (supposedly) the rest of us. They can make CD's double-sided, with one side being "standard"- maxed-out, loud as hell and compressed to high heaven . Or, you can flip it over and it can be the un-compressed, mastered with care side, for the sick bastards who like music with dynamics! They can do 'em at the same time, and make everybody happy!
right?
James



I'm confused James (not unusual for me, btw). Your comparison to DVD offerings hit home with me as I love film as much as I love music. IF you are saying that those of us who value the original, full-width image of a film by buying "letterboxed" films should be labeled "movie nerds", then count me in. I guess it's the same reason that I have become a Hoffmanite...anything that can put me closer to what the original artist intended for me to hear (or see) is exactly what I'm after. Are you any different? Are you a nerd too? Come on, you're amongst friends here....confess

dave

 

Thanks Luke. Oops, forgot about that!

Wouldn't the one that has the same number sound like garbage as opposed to Steve's, the way that ours do (the remasters) up here?

 

Hello Luke and Dave and thanks for the info.

It is 43:28 so it should be Steve's.

Many thanks again to y'all.

 

I always liked the Sony button that finds the loudest note on a track or CD & had heard plenty of tracks where I wish someone bothered to make the recording hotter. But to compress it, that R-E-A-L-L-Y sucks!!! I've heard much too many albums suffering from compression. It just about makes me want to install a Behringer:Ultradyne permanently in my digital stream. Plus, it seems as though guitarists as a group are the worst culprits. They can't seem to leave that dyanmic compression dial alone. It seems that when they're done the sound seems like it was steamrolled. I know a couple.

One considers himself a consumate recording engineer. It's disheartening. He has a really great group. Hell, I hear 'em on various local radio & TV spots all the time. Then, he complains that their CDs can't get air play. He's still steeped in denial. He doesn't understand that all his CDs ... S-U-C-K B-I-G T-I-M-E. They're hypoxic. No air at all. They couldn't be reinflated with omnipolar horns.

 

Well, the "bad" version (ie, not Steve's) isn't terrible - it's just got a little more hiss and a slightly more narrow soundstage. And a bit less "magic" to it. It's not that bad, though...

 

Re: Re: Re: Nashreed - This one's for you!!!

I assure you the subjectivist, usually-anti-digital audiophile wasn't joking.
He really thought that this new Avalon sounded tops. I wonder what *you* would have thought about it if you *didn't* see the waveforms?

Exactly. Most of us have found that that's not true. Sometimes it sounds good, sometimes it doesn't.

 

Sorry Dave,

That was my sarcasm.
I am not that big into watching movies like I am listening to music. It seems that, with DVD, they have made a compromise in some instances- you can have it either way. You can have a movie full-frame or widescreen. That way, both purists (widescreen) and non can be happy. Couldn't you do that with CD as well? It just seems like they're deliberately making CD's "full-frame", cutting off the sides of the music, if you will. Why couldn't you flip it over and have the non-compressed "widescreen" on there as well?

Sorry for the confusion.
James

 

Re: Re: Nashreed - This one's for you!!!

Of course. The power of the power of suggestion on this board is absolutely incredible! People are happy with their versions and love listening to them, then they read some chart or some comments and suddenly those versions are awful sounding, and I'm never buying anymore remasters blah blah blah.

This is silly. With this sort of mentality, if tube fanatics read the measurements of their gear, they'd reach for the nearest sledgehammer.

The original Avalon CD sounds like ****. So what if there are is a bit more dynamic range. What does it matter if the sound is all wrong? The HDCD remaster sounds more like music, but it can't touch my Japanese and UK vinyl versions. If you want to actually hear Avalon, you need to have one of those vinyl versions.

Certainly more fun than debating over two flawed digital versions.

 

Re: Re: Re: Nashreed - This one's for you!!!

Recommendation noted...and filed appropriately.

Certainly, for you. Not at all certainly, for me. Happy listening!

 

This was tried with CX encoded vinyl records. They were compressed and if you liked the compressed loud sound you played it back without a CX expander. If you played the record with a CD expander you heard a fully dynamic recording with a lot less record noise. Mastering guys and gals thought the un-decoded playback was not what they intended and pressured the industry to walk away from CX encoding. It was modified and used on Laser Disks before DD was introduced.

 

Heh. Interesting how the availability of Cool Edit has suddenly turned audiophilia into the realm of the objectivists. At least for some things.

"That CD can't possibly sound good! Lookit this graph! Numbers don't lie!"

"So what do you recommend?"

"Oh, the 240 gram extra-virgin negative-static Luxembourg vinyl! Sounds great on my 1.5W tube rig."

"But the specs say your tube amp and table are about as accurate as an Edison cylinder compared to a $100 CD player."

"You can't judge sound quality by specs and measurements! Trust your ears!"

As always, the truth lies somewhere between the poles...

Ryan

 

Well, if the compressed recording sounds better than the other one, I'll steer clear of both.

Dynamics is just a factor, yes, but a very important one.

 

I didn't. I bought the latest remaster for the extra tracks, and when it first started playing, I thought "Wow, this sounds a lot better than the OLD version!"

That impression lasted about four or five minutes, until I realized that even though this new version sounded like it had more energy (or something) there was something about the original CD that sounded BETTER. I've never played the remaster again, although I listen to Who's Next on a fairly regular basis.

I stumbled across this forum by accident a couple of months ago while looking for info on MFSLs. (I didn't even realize they were out of print, and I was trying to find somewhere to order Cricklewood Green, which I had seen in a Best Buy a few years ago. Somehow I ended up on the old DCC site, and ended up here. I didn't know about DCC or SH until I got here.) My first question on this board was "why do I hate the way most CDs sound? I've hardly listened to music in the last few years. Is there any alternative to going back to vinyl?"

Now I've learned WHY I liked my old Who's Next, why (for the most part) MFSLs were the only CDs I could stand to listen to for an extended period, and discovered the MAGIC of DCC golds.

At this point, I EXPECT Dcc golds and (most) MFSLs to sound better than any SACD release that may come out. Because of the mastering. I also realize that all the first-pressing vinyl I purchased in the 60s and 70s is irreplaceable.

AND I thought the original Avalon CD sounded pretty good. Not as digital as a lot of other junk I've bought.

 

Steve, The record companies are trying to appeal to people with crummy car stereos/radios, boomboxes, portable cd players and cheap stereos with no head room. Does the all loud-all time button actually make the aforementioned systems sound better? I don't think so.

 

Some of my SACD's sound great, very dynamic, (John Denver Live), and some of my Gold DCC's sound bad, (Harry Belafonte's Calypso), for example. Even Steve Hoffman cannot work magic; it just seems that way.

 

Hey, leave us guitarists alone. I never wanted to compress anything after hearing an engineer compress the crap out of my music. Boy did that clown ever take the life right out of the recording.

The guy you are refering to just needs a little education.

 

Didn't Steve pick this one as one of his favorites in the Acoustic Sounds catalog? I may be wrong. I can't check because I tossed the catalog out.

 

Of course, the original issue of "Avalon" on CD was also the 4th best sounding reissue out of 100, according to the October 1989 issue of "Rock & Roll Disc" magazine! ( Remember that? ) Pretty interesting to compare what was considered great sounding then and what's available now. Their opinions should be every bit as relevant now as it was then- maybe even more so. Their #1 was Buddy Holly's "From The Original Master Tapes". Who are we to argue?

James