So - the stories - as can happen - aren't exactly clear. We do know that the analog tapes have been used at least 3 times: in 1985, in 1990, and again in 1999. The original 1985 CDs are sourced from analog tapes per se. We have pretty good evidence that Aja and Katy Lied were created from the analog tapes directly. Even if some the discs were created from the 1981 3M digital masters, they still had to use the analog tapes to create them. As far as we can tell - this is the only time the 3M masters are used, since no one had the proprietary hardware later on. The Glenn Meadows masterings - which are the likely "faulty" masters - were transferred from the analog tapes. I don't think they're faulty per se - but if you look here - you will see the speed difference Roger is talking about: Steely Dan CDs Different Masterings: Gaucho This speed difference is on the Citizen Steely Dan set, but apparently not on Gold - which is consistent with Roger's story: Steely Dan CDs Different Masterings: Gaucho Roger then re-transferred from the analog masters again for the 1998/2000 era discs. He mentions it here: Steely Dan - Countdown to Ecstasy SHM-SACD on 7/30/2014 . That doesn't explain the speed difference on the 2000 Gaucho - jury's still out on that one. (Sidebar - there's a pretty credible story that at some point the Gaucho master tape became unusable and that all versions are now from a digital safety copy. This may be the source for the 2000 and later re-masters. This may also be why the 2000 Gaucho has the speed issue, since it might be digitally derived from the Meadows transfer. Does anyone know when the analog Gaucho tape was no longer available?) That's my thinking anyway. As to what really happened? Who knows? Cheers, Paul
But people generally don't look at the DR numbers to determine these matters but rather the EAC numbers, (that and I'm not sure the average DRLoudness entry holds as much total sway around here) and in EAC regard they are different. That and people are hearing differences.
Unfortunately, that over reliance on EAC seems to be a product of stubbornness, ignorance, or inability. Stubbornness -- because EAC is what we long have used -- even though not all peak level readings come from EAC. Ignorance -- because I do not understand the DR Meter metrics. Or inability -- because I use MacOS exclusively and cannot run foobar2000 with the DR Meter tool. EAC has been a useful tool, but as for numerically comparing discs and masterings, EAC has been superseded. The DR Meter provides the same peak level figures -- in a more digital audio relevant -dBFS format. Plus, the DR Meter provides an invaluable second figure of merit, RMS level figures. The DR figures themselves really are just icing on the cake. As for hearing differences, perceptions are highly unreliable, too subject to bias. AJ
I found something strange on a burned copy of Gaucho that a friend gave me. I don't know if it being burned invalidates any of the EAC numbers, but I wanted to verify its origin. These don't match any of the twelve in the list: 73.9/78.6/80.5/80.4/78.6/80.9/78.4
On the two CD versions of "Aja" in question? If so, produce the null test. Let us see the results. But when two CDs have peak and RMS levels within 0.04 dB of each other, the chances of EQ differences between the two CDs are exceedingly low. More likely, one of the masterings prior to CD pressing has been resampled and dithered. AJ
If you don't know the source of the CD-R, it's useless. He could have burned MP3s. Or made changes to the sound.
I'd like to know the answer to that too! As stated above I have both and am certain they are subtly different. Different enough that I decided to keep both copies for myself (I'm a record dealer so finding good sellable stuff for the shop is always a priority). It is also worth pointing out that in one of the many threads on Aja masterings Steve Hoffman was IIRC presented with a mastering 3 and 7 (I think the exact same copies I have) and said 'no' to the former but identified the latter as his. As such any accusations of perception bias, placebo etc fall on rather interesting ground!
Only you can make that decision. I'd recommend that you obtain one of the forum preferred CDs of the Dan album of your choice. It'll sound different to the Citizen Dan box version so I'd play it a few times & then revert back to the Citizen Dan box & see which you prefer. If you don't like the forum preferred version you can always sell it through the forum.
That is interesting and does seem to be solid evidence of him going back to the analog tapes in '97, or at least he "tried"; but I take it from his statement that he felt the '81 digital copies sounded better so I am not sure why he wouldn't use the better sounding ones unless the suits demanded it.
I'm not sure what your argument is, but on a Mac EAC peaks can be derived with XLD. And DR is measured with the Offline TT Meter.
I'm sorry for jumping in here, "COULD" in that statement(caps mine) might mean they tried but, ended up using the '81s at the end of the day or( like in line with your conclusion I believe) ,STILL used their version( suits most likely being the clueless culprits) if I'm understanding this so far? I just trying to follow the concept going on here so forgive my lay person level here. It is ........interesting to say the least.
You can see this has perennially remained an open and complicated topic. I refreshed myself on the posts pointing out that Steve confirmed the UK Mastered by Nimbus as his, and I think only that CD was played for him, I didn’t pick up that there was any a/b going on. And if so that still does tell us about what the 3 is. There are a few occasions where people point out that a null test shows differences, but then that does not convince everyone. Some hear differences, some don’t. I would point out that I listened to the CDs themselves, but then no systematic level matching or blind testing, just back and forth where frankly I didn’t really care if there was a difference as much as I was just curious what all the hubbub was about; I think they are both excellent. I have done enough of these a/bs, including a few with same mastering but supposed pressing differences, where I am pretty sure I did not trick myself with bias here, but I would never rule it out completely. That reminds me of something Barry Diament said about how once you go to file versions pressing differences would disappear, perhaps that is also in play somewhat here as well. So who knows, I don’t expect a definitive answer anytime soon, and I am certainly not trying to provide one.
As far as we know - they didn't. The 99's were created from new transfers from the analog masters*. This was confirmed on the SH forum by other members - primarily via recollections of interviews with Roger at the time. Cheers, Paul *The speed mystery of Gaucho notwithstanding
This seems to be one can of very complicated worms! Bmoregnr thanks for all your effort and time put into this!
Natvecal., the main takeaway I get from these discussions is that nothing is written in stone. We're doing some good sleuthing, and it's great that we're pulling together all the information we can. However - it's good to stay diligent too. I'm just trying to summarize what I know - if someone has good, solid facts - I'll incorporate them into my summaries. A perfect example of this are my posts about the 2003 Gaucho SACD earlier in this thread. I'd always assumed the SACD was a conversion from the DVD-A. Now it seems, via analysis, that it's the opposite - the SACD was the master and the DVD-A is a conversion. And - the SACD stereo tracks are derived from a 16 bit/44.1 kHz transfer done earlier. This is the kind of detail that I appreciate the forum members for collecting. Cheers, Paul
No, it is not. That is not how reasoned argument works. The burden of proof is on you -- because you are making the claim that, bar none, the EQ is different. I merely have provided available measurements and logically stated that the numbers do not appear to support your claim. AJ
It's not my claim that you're disputing. You're disputing our host's claim as well as those who have performed null tests. You're claiming that the CDs have the same EQ when Roger Nichols and our host have both gone on record as having mastered the album for CD at different times. Further, our host has identified his work on a certain pressing in that it differs from Nichols work.
Finally got to compare my old Countdown to Ecstasy CD (MCD 01654) to the newish SHM-SACD. Did not like it SHM AT ALL. Sounded hot and unnatual. The SHM of PL gets close to beating my old MCA CD. Warmer and with better bass, it still lacks detail. At least the SHM of Gaucho kicks unequivocal ass.
I should mention that I have yet to hear the MFSL Gaucho. I hear that it's very good. The SHM is ever so slightly loud.
I have yet to have this SD title on CD . But, my understanding from reading through some of these threads on the masterings was the MFSL was wrong tape speed? Making the SHM or earlier SADC the preferable version if I'm understanding the consensus correctly that is.
If you are talking about the 2010 SHM-SACD, it has full dynamics, unlike the original 2003 SACD mastering which was reused on some SHM-CDs in the interim. The MFSL is not great.