Paul Simon's Graceland remaster

That's strange ... I was absolutely sure he said something it was completely digitally recorded. Hmmh, where did I see or read it. Wait a minute, something I once taped on VHS, I guess ... Aaah, what was it??!

 

I believe the previous Simon album, Hearts and Bones, was digitally recorded. I never heard Graceland referred to as a DDD title.

I too always thought the original CD sounded pretty weak. Both the original standard Warner Bros. LP and the new CD sound much better to my ears.

 

Unfortunately, the powers that be don't think that way. Of course, nobody asks us - the producers assume that what works for big-selling titles pitched at a younger audience, will also work for those who like Graceland. It's obviously a silly line of thought. Those who buy Graceland are probably buying it for a second time, probably have a better stereo than they had the first time around, and could probably deal better with the low levels. They don't need it any louder - and they surely don't need it compressed.

 

I don't think those waveforms tell the entire story on the new discs. There are some noticeable improvements in sonics based on my listening.

 

I don't remember "Graceland" be hailed as the definitive CD; however, "Brothers in Arms" was universally hailed as a perfect example of what CD technology can be. As for sales, "The Joshua Tree" was the first CD to top one million units.

 

Just because a disc is at a low level doesn't necessarily mean that it is correct either, or that it isn't at TOO low a level (which is the case for the original Graceland CD, IMHO--you can raise the volume as much as you want to on that disc--the low-level details just weren't there like they were on the vinyl, and now on the remaster).

 

I'd say that's a fair comment. There may be some other measurements that could be made that would come out in favour of the new masterings.

My listening tests are not conclusive, as I don't have much of the material in another digital form. I have the records somewhere,and I know they are better .

I think I compared a target "Hearts and Bones" I have against the remaster and found I preferred the newer one.

I'm wondering if some systems are not as kind to the modern remastering technique as others. I know I don't complain as much as other members here, and much of that could be due to my sloppy listening habits; but I feel that there are system components that could emphasize brightness and crunch, and I don't think I own any of them.

 

No. The LP record was reference material.

 

No wonder I never replaced my original lp.....

Back in the day, I would make a choice as to whether I should buy a title on an $18.99 CD or a $8.99 record. Paul Simons "experimental" album seemed like a $8.99 choice to me. Of course I loved the whole thing, but I would be remiss if I didn't mention that the good old WB plastic sounded darn good.

 

That's true. It's also true that the original CD is still used as a demo disc. Since many have used it in this way so many times, we can judge any change in component, cable or speaker placement in an instant. Just listen for the spread and separation of the voices on the opening seconds of "Diamonds on the Souls of her Shoes" and the musicality of the horns and Paul Simon's voice later on this cut. The LP is better, especially the 12" 45rpms, but the CD is easy to use on any system.

 

Good comment. I also agree.

 

I got Graceland today....like Skylarking....its mastered TOO LOUD. I hope this is not a new trend. Van Halen was mastered loud, but Graceland is too Obnoxious

 

True, low is not per se better. But the original Graceland tracks allmost all reach 0dB so if you make the new cd louder by 7dB there must be some compression.

 

True, Brothers in Arms and that Sting cd with Fragile/Englishman in NY was played in every audiostore as reference material. I always thought both cd's sounded alike and thin.

 

I have a copy of "Graceland" on CD that was re-issued around the mid to late '90s (Enhanced CD with stuff you could play on a computer), which came in a standard jewel case with new liner notes (no bonus tracks). Not sure if this disc was remastered or not...does anyone esle have this disc?

Cheers,
Kevin

 

It was most definitely NOT remastered, which pissed me off to no end at the time. I was sad, however, to lose the computer stuff and the liner notes (which were both great) when the remaster came out (so I kept both copies).