Note from Steve, Tullman isn't happy with me over a recommendation. Your thoughts?

I'm assuming that if Steve makes such a recommendation, without a caveat, he does think it sounds good "as it stands," even if it could be improved with a little EQ, and that's what I think he's saying in this case -- is that correct?

 

One problem with what you say above is that many people would deny themselves buying music they could enjoy not on the strength of a bad review but just on hearing it could have been done better.

 

My system does not have tone controls. If a master tape is flawed tonally then it needs to be corrected IMO. I like the end result to have that "flat" sound we all look for. Nothing worse than overdone mastering which is all too common. I like Steves approach, fix it only if it needs fixing. IIRC Hotel California needed some crazy -12db correction in the midbass that required daisy chaining several eq's together. That is one project I would not have wanted to hear warts and all.

Nope, as I see it you goota fix em. Its just that there are not many people that can resist the temptation to overfix.

 

I bumped into this thread while looking for the "Music that is great in spite of bad sound" thread. Found an old Bang LP of Neil Diamond's "Greatest Hits" (their quotation marks, not mine) at a thrift store today. I was going to throw in the totally incompetent stereo mix of "Solitary Man" from this disc onto the "Great song, pity about sound" thread. Even though there's lots of things wrong with this LP, I'm glad to have the original "Uncorrected" version. It sounds different, and more closely matches the excitement of hearing these songs on top 40 radio so many years ago.

Right now I'm listening to my SACD of "Tapestry" (Sony 86328), and it sounds bad in the way the LP always sounded bad to me. Nasty vocal sound. Can't claim I'm experiencing any lack of midrange. I'm of the opinion that many "fixes" make things much worse.
Whatever's going on with the sound of "Tapestry", nothing's going to turn it into "Time of the Season".

Your opinion on these considerations---how can we best transfer historical recordings/do we attempt to repeat history or fix it?---is important . You have worked on lots of projects involving older recordings. You have a very positive reputation on this subject. Attention should be paid. And I know that sometimes one's opinions aren't shared by everyone. Give a dissenting opinion anyway. Dissenting opinions are oft times right.

 

I think Steve was very clear in his points: The unmastered SACD layer sounds great, it is a nice flat transfer, but had he been the remasternig engineer, he would have added some midrange. Steve has recommended other flat transfers in the past, where he later commented that some moderate eq would have improved the sound, e.g. MFSL Tumbleweed Connection and of course the original Steely Dan Nichols CDs.

What I would like to know is:

Steve,

for your own pleasure, how do you listen to Tapestry? Just the flat transfer, with flat eq, or do you change something?

PS: Is the Anesini CD remaster also a flat transfer?

 

Keep your recommendations as you always have Steve...with your explaination intact....I have never read a recommendation from you that didn't have an explaination attatched....If somebody chooses to ignore what you have said explicitly in your description, well then they aren't reading thoroughly...

Please never self-censor yourself in this regard. I realise that you must keep things neutral a lot of the time, but I get a kick out of your opinions...

And folks....they are just that...opinions. Maybe it is because you are looking to Steve to recommend perfection every time....I can think of two instances where Steve has claimed burial with the flat transfers as is....Elton John's "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road" MFSL gold and The first Pretenders cd as a West German Target...

Everything else he has made it quite clear as to what is wrong or right with the recording....

My $00.02 stated. Thank you Steve for all of your honest opinions in the past. You have steered me in the correct direction with my full knowledge of what you have been saying every time..

Don't change.

 

Let me add to the chorus that I would prefer a flat transfer to a heavy-handed or otherwise misguided master. BUT this can't really be news on this Forum, and I don't think that is the question Steve posed in starting this thread.

I think the real issue is that there was a miscommunication between SH and Tullman. These kinds of things happen. SH is a true mastering expert with valuable opinions, and Tullman is an experienced Forum member. Somehow, the full extent of SH's opinion wasn't fully conveyed to and/or understood by Tullman. This is not a tragedy. Tullman bought a flat transfer, but didn't get the perfect sound that he was expecting. Worse things happen.

There is, in fact, a lot of miscommunication on this and any other Forum. Sometimes posts are vague, ambiguous, incomplete and/or inaccurate, and sometimes readers don't read or understand the full text of a post. This happens even among experienced and valuable Forum members acting reasonably and in good faith. I haven't seen the full text of the posts that led to a miscommunication here, but I feel safe in assuming that both SH and Tullman were acting reasonable and in good faith. Nonetheless, Tullman didn't get what he expected.

There is and should be no blame. These things happen on a Forum, and members have to understand that it goes with the turf. It is certainly NOT a reason for SH to withhold his opinions or for members to be reticent about relying on those opinions. However, it should be a lesson to all of us to post and read carefully and thoughtfully.

 

I usually like what you have to say about a disc. I do, however, from time to time, differ from your prefered versions of a CD, but it happens rarely. I do not think you told this guy you were going to shoot his wife in the hand if he did not go out and get it.

 

For flat transfers, it's a case-by-case thing for me. For instance, I usually prefer the (1985, not 1991 in which instruments were added) Carpenters remixes from the 2-CD Yesterday Once More to the sound of the original albums from 1969 to 1973, which i felt was somewhat weak. For instance, I have an audiophile LP of Singles 1969-73 and while IMHO it sounded somewhat stronger, I thought it could use some more beefing up. But that's just me.

 

I'll tell you what's on my mind.....

I think that in the case of SACD or DVD-A getting a non-mastered disc is a big bonus (so long as the flat/straight copy of the tape is not one of those ones that sound deader than a door nail. And this one does not.

Having the extra resolution there imho gives the listener more to work with in the event they wish to EQ, or simply adjust anything. Rather than having the disc over cooked to begin with and being backed into a corner, nothing there to work with.

Kind of like adding hot sauce or salt and pepper yourself rather than it being cooked into the food by the cook. This is the way to go unless the cooks have that extra talent and can nail it to perfection.

So this disc has two things going for it, the untampered with master tapes, and the higher bit sampling (at least I think SACDs are higher bit sampled), so it is smooth as silk, and flexible to taste.

Am I off the track here and rambling on about something else on my own "wave length"? That was never one of my favorite Van Morrison albums btw.

 

A Tull fan mad at Steve Hoffman, help the room is spinning, whose side am I on?

Tapestry mid section is taken care of with the 5.1. It's dynoooomite!
I prefer this after years of vinyl listening.

...putting out fire with gasoline!.

 

That's a great question and I think it proves that will be no consensus, ever, on mastering and equalization issues. I have wondered myself if one reason so many CDs sound "bright" is because lots of studio monitors are "dark" in tonality. Seems like a nice thing to have with recordings would be information on the response "profile" of the monitors used during production. Maybe then you could equalize at home to get closer to the "right" response. Otherwise it's just a guessing game ans making it sound "good", whatever that is. There must be some data also on what are some of the most commonly used models in studios. Anybody know were to get stats and info on that?

 

"Well" means different things to different mastering engineers. At least with Steve he's stated what he likes and doesn't like. It's a matter of does that agree with your mastering tastes...

Some guacamole lovers prefer it taste less like avacado and others more like avacado.
Ummm.. guacamole....

 

Steve, I have not posted for a while. Reason being I had nothing to add and (or) didn't care to be involved in many of the current threads. I do read all of your recommendations and have saved a lot of money and time following many of them. If anything, I wish you were more opinionated, not less.

 

Its an interesting business. Everyone here is currently talking about the original master-to-cd transfer. But being brought up through the vinyl era my whole listening mode has been shaped by the very crucial role of the 'cutting engineer' who put the sounds down to vinyl, albums and 45s. George said of Harry Moss (and I paraphrase) "We like to hear the RECORD because the compression added sought of 'sticks' the tracks down.."

For me the RECORD was always the thing, the artifact which delivered my sound enjoyment. Obviously Steve may be coming from a different place because he became involved in the industry which demanded he listen to the actual master tapes. I'm not always that sure that I really want to hear EVERY thing as close to mastertape as possible. A lot of work was done for instance in the prep of tamla/motown 45s at the cutting stage, eq, comp etc. So if anything I want the cd versions of say the Four Tops singles to sound..well, like the singles!

Is it nice to have a cd which is essentially the mastertape transferred straight? Sure, as long as it corresponds to the enjoyment one got from the original album or single. But if it is radically different and some of the essential excitement of playing it on a turntable and hearing the original 'shape' vanishes then I would only seek it out as an alternative version.
I suspect I may be in the minority here. I really don't want to get into the whole re-eq'ing thing
I like to think (rightly or wrongly) that the 'artifact' I mentioned had all the information on it I needed, without recourse to fiddling 'round with tone control etc.
just my tuppeny's worth

 

You're not wrong. You're right. Carry on, steady as she goes, don't change (you're not strange, unless we all are ). You're a reference point for me, a calibration point. I may not always agree, but if you become a moving target by changing the way you express your opinions here, I'll be lost at sea!

Besides, I have no trouble accepting the judgment "wonderful but flawed." It's the condition I aspire to on my better days.

 

Steve, please keep recommending what you believe sounds good/great/spectacular and likewise warn us on discs that are bad. I have learned so much from your recommendations and those of many other forum members (and am consequently re-buying much that I "upgraded"). Do I agree with everything that's recommended? No. But because of this Forum I've learned to appreciate a little bit of tape hiss, listen for the 'air' that is missing from so many "modern" masterings, and realize as I've "upgraded" many recordings, why I don't listen to them that often - and what not to do on my home remastering projects.

I repect your opinion Steve, and the opinion of many others here, so please, keep up the recommendations and education It is greatly appreciated.

 

If I had the choice, I rather have the master tape transferred flat than have it ruined by most of today's mastering engineers with their "modern methodologies." I appreciate Steve telling us that a disc sounds like the master tape.

 

Hi Mike,

You lost me. I thought flat transfer means it wasn't mastered?

Take care,
Jeffrey

 

I reserve the right to remain silent due to inclusiveness.

 

I've learnt a lot from reading Steve's articles on mastering and am always interested in his opinion on what constitutes a good sounding release even in the case of it being something that doesn't grab me musically. Please don't hold back, imo more SH opinions rather than less

 

Steve,

Please tell me if I have graduated from stevehoffman.tv 101....

I remember the current CD of Bruce Sprinsgteen Born to Run CD being mentioned by you in an old thread about the Sony Mastersound. That current CD though may sound ungood but it was exactly like the master tapes. The gold disk was goosed in its remastering.

You would prefer to do your own goosing rather than have some mastering engineer over boost with eq. Isn't that why the MFSL UDIs have something in their favor. They are flat transfers. Sure certain work needs to be done on mastering albums (depending on the album). But rather than have a remaster edCD use bad eq or questionable eq, give me what the tapes sound like. I can buy an equalizer and make adjustments to my taste.

This I believe, has always been your stance. I agree totally!

I hope I have learned correctly here....Thanks for the valuable education!

 

I love the Tapestry SACD. It beats any CD I've heard.

 

Steve, as far as I'm concerned, keep doing exactly what you're doing. I think the issue is that sometimes people may interpret an endorsement from you about a particular record or CD as meaning that it's going to sound perfect, rather than "true to the master tapes," which are of course two very different things.

The issue is one of unrealistic expectations, not a problem with your comments.