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

I would much rather have a CD where the tape was transferred "as is" and I can make adjustments I see fit. I am not an expert on frequencies and acoustics but I'm learning as I go like a lot of us. Steve's suggestions are one man's opinion but I value his input because I have thought highly of his work for 20 years. When I still a teenager and didn't know much of anything about sound reproduction, I bought Steve's Buddy Holly disc and the Elton John "Your Songs" and I thought those sounded really, really nice even though I wasn't sure why.

 

I think this thread can be summed down to this: YOU CAN'T POSSIBLY PLEASE EVERYONE!!

And if "Tullman" isn't happy, then there's gonna be someone who is. Regardless of how well or poorly a particular album was mastered - not everyone will agree on the end result.

A mastering engineer should use his or her best judgement based on the particular recording before them.

For me, "Tapestry" is by no means a demsontration quality recording (I have the 1999 CD remaster and have not heard the original SACD), but that doesn't deter me from enjoying the music.

 

Hi Steve,

Don't change a thing about your recommendations. Over 97% of the time, I agree with you. On the rare times I might have a difference, it would only be by a minor point. I prefer conservatism in mastering. I can always make corrections to remedy if I need to. However, Tullman does have a point about the sucked out midrange on this. A good parametric EQ used appropriately can improve this. Some systems and ears will notice it more.

 

I can't really add anything new to this thread however feel that it is important to echo the sentiments of others.

To me Steve is the teacher, the guru, the super-coach from whom I continue to learn the art of mastering. His lessons on EQ and advice through the forums enable me to hone my critical listening skills, understand what makes certain albums sound the way they do and to evaluate possible EQ adjustments.

If a disc is a faithful representation of a master tape I'd like to know. Just as I'd like to know the albums that have only had minor adjustments made to them. It's all too painfully obvious what recordings have been over-mastered and ruined in the process. If nothing else an un-futzed with transfer is a time capsule, a piece of history, a true copy of what the original engineer(s) heard.

I think this is an awesome place. I wouldn't want Steve to feel reluctant to comment on something because he feared misinterpretation or something. From time to time this will happen but life goes on.

 

Steve has revolutionized the way I listen to music. We all have different tastes (thank goodness) but whatever we prefer to listen to, we all agree that it should sound good. I can't think of a better person to listen to for advice than Steve, because he always explains WHY he holds the opinions he does.

 

Once again, I think there are some members who are looking for some kind of absolute answer, when its clear that one doesn't exist. I found it very telling that in the past, Steve has mentioned the merits of the OJC catalog, that they were (all or mostly) flat-transfers. That's not really to say that they are the best they CAN be, but I always took it to mean that they were a proper representation of the masters. Because as most of us know, Steve's DCC versions of these titles trump the standard versions. When he discusses projects he's done, to me, its always a question of give and take (pros and cons) as to how he determines what's best for the finished product. A subjective process. What works on one project wouldn't work on another. So when I see his opinions on the work of others, or even explaining his own decisions on past projects, I'm always interested in his preferences, but much more interested in the why that goes along with it. As long as he continues to advise and enlighten us in this straight-forward manner, that's all the insight I really need.

 

A telling statement.......it illustrates that a lot of this is in the eye...errr...ear of the beholder. Personally, I don't see the above as inherently incompatible. A LOT of my favorite recordings are...a bit wonky. It comes with the historical territory. My solution? I MAY tweak a tune, to the extent I can, or dare - and only if I want to. The bottom line is "I" want to do it - not some engineer whose techniques or tastes I cannot be sure of. Heck, I've found even adjusting curtains and changing the furniture around winds up becoming a form of 'futzing' with a sound I am trying to get. With Steve's work I've grown to trust his philosophy, and although CDs are generally second tier listening for me, I favor his work over other known masterers in the 'audiophile' realm. And with a few exceptions I'll continue to prefer as honest (or as flat) of a transfer from the master mix as possible.

The one primary thing I have gained from this forum is an appreciation for the recording / mastering process. Trying to breath more life into some recordings is kind of like painting your bathtub white - a nice gesture, but essentially futile. Count me in as one of those who would rather hear the compressed sound of a 45 or a ridiculous whacky stereo version of a mid-sixties classic - so long as its as close to what the master tape sounds like as possible.

 

Don't change a hair for me, not if you care for me...

 

Leading our wallets astray maybe. But not our ears.

 

I'm sitting here listening to the remixed stereo layer on the second edition SACD (don't have the first version for comparison). I'm confused as to what the short-comings are of this remix, but should probably re-read that really long thread.

I much prefer the 5.1 mix on this disc, but haven't heard any other versions until I listened to the stereo remix prompted by this thread. I may eventually pick up the first edition SACD and LP, but its not high on my priority list. [My current SACD was a freebie]

But to your question, I too prefer a flat transfer rather than "overmastering", and would like you to continue to make recommendations the way you do.
-David

 

Umm, read the threads again. There's no confirmation that the stereo version was remixed. It may be (probably is) the same as the first edition. It WAS remixed for 5.1, obviously.

 

Hypothetical question: Let's assume that Audio Fidelity gets a limited license to issue a Gold CD of Tapestry. From your previous posts I conclude that you would not master it completely flat, but you would add some midrange for the AF release. Would you then recommend the SACD over your own mastering because it is the real deal?

(My question is really serious, I am not trying to be funny.)

 

Funny question, Andreas. ROFL

(I knew you weren't trying to be funny, it just made me laugh, that's all).

 

Yesterday after reading this thread and Steve's mention of midrange droop I went home and pulled out my copy (single layer Tapestry SACD). I'd always thought it sounded a bit muffled but not too different from my memory of the vinyl.

I dialed in a 5db boost centered at 1.7khz, Q = 2 octaves.

I won't start spouting (mostly meaningless) audiophile buzz words, but I will say that the disk was much more enjoyable to listen to.

As I listened, I thought that there was room for additional tweaking, but I was too busy listening to bother.

As an added bonus, the the boost helped to mask the distortion on King's voice on louder portions.

I'd forgotten what a nice song "Beautiful" was.

 

No offense intended, but isn't that an example of that "overmastering" as mentioned by Steve?

 

One aside here: I buy a disc because I like and want the MUSIC recorded on it. I'll buy a copy unless the only copy available is so bad that it actually interferes with the enjoyment of the music. In most cases if the music is one of my faves I'll continue to seek out the best sounding copy.

Yesterday, I decided to listen to the Carole King Tapestry to try and evaluate the sound quality again because we had been discussing it so much. At first my attention was drawn to the good quality bass reproduction, the presence of Carole King's vocals and instrumentals plus what seemed to be a "natural setting" rather than an "in studio" experience. That's about as far as I got 'cause unfortunately I got so engrossed in the music itself I forgot about the evaluation. Terrible, imagine getting caught up in the music.....my bad.

Sure we want Steve's advice based upon his proved talent and knowledge but realize as he works in the industry things that he may notice or be bothered by might not be audible or of concern to the majority of listeners. Steve also has his own likes and dislikes just like the rest of us and though some may not always agree with his musical choices we do value his educated opinion.

We shouldn't deny ourselves the music we like while waiting for that perfect mastering to come along 'cause quite possibly it never will.

 

Well, it's certainly a more extreme correction than Steve's recommendations. So I'll have to agree that it's closer to overmastering.

But I don't think it qualifies. I understand the term "overmastering" to mean more than just eqing choices (which are mostly reversible). It includes the misuse (often overuse) of many of the tools that are nowdays available to anyone who want to play mastering engineer--noise removal, compression, stereo image manipulation, etc. (most of these are not reversible by the end listener). All of these tools have their place. But misusing them has a lot to do with why much of today's music sounds so bad.

 

Thanks for having the gonads to say what I've been thinking.

 

Steve,

I wouldn't change one thing about the things you post. Plain & simple. Opinions aren't supposed to be followed as fact, but merely instead as a guideline.

If the person GIVING the opinion just happens to be a professional.....well......for ME, anyway, that's a plus.

 

Speaking as a 'collector' other than just listening to music, we're always keen to get the 'original'. And to be able to obtain an original version, warts and all, is probably something as a collector and as student of music history I would prefer.

Now, talking as an audiophile (whatever connotations that may have) one may have other objectives!

I mean, we listen to material before tape which are 78s transcribed onto LPs and love it because if you want to hear some of this guys that is all there is! But I can imagine if I was told there was a motherlode of that same stuff on pristine tape found via magic for Steve to remaster I would just about ignore any thought of 'authenticity'.

Its always a battle. But in this specific case, I'd agree with that authenticity seems to be the order of battle, and what I would be expecting.

 

Being a purist, I usually prefer flat transfer over any altered versions. A very slight alteration is acceptable to me as long as it doesn't ruin the original sound of the master tapes.
Thanks Steve for informing us about a particular release whether it sounds good or bad.
Although I always trust my own ears, I always use Steve's recomendations as a starting point. Steve, we need more recommendations from you because we trust your expertise.
By the way, two good examples of CD's that I bought again after reading Steve's recommendations are Boz Scagg's "Silk Degrees" on MOFi gold CD and Buddy Holly's "From The Original Master Tape" on MCA. I'm glad that I rediscovered these CD's after selling my previous copies.

 

Steve,

I don't think many people here would have misunderstood your recommendation. However, considering this forum is constantly gaining new members, you may want to clarify the recommendation just a hair.

Lord knows I've benefitted greatly from your recommendations (John Wesley Harding, Forever Changes, etc). I trust your ears!