Tears For Fears 'Songs From The Big Chair' - Best Sounding CD/Digital release

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by AFCBRINGWOOD, Oct 18, 2018.

  1. Black Elk

    Black Elk Music Lover

    Location:
    Bay Area, U.S.A.
    It should be pointed out that the SHM-SACD contains a flat transfer by Richard Whittaker of FX Copyroom, London. If you like the other flat transfers FX Copyroom did for SHM-SACDs, then you will like this one too.
     
  2. Merrick

    Merrick The return of the Thin White Duke

    Location:
    Portland
    I recall reading that Songs From The Big Chair had digital somewhere in the production chain, which means it will never sound better than 16/44. Can someone confirm this?

    I do like the sound of the SACD, which I’ve heard, but in terms of resolution you gain no advantage over any CD version of the original recording is limited to 16/44.
     
    George P, ted209 and c-eling like this.
  3. AFCBRINGWOOD

    AFCBRINGWOOD Forum Resident Thread Starter

    I do have and like quite a few of the SHM-SACDs. However, I've been put off by a few negative posts I've read on some other threads. Is this your favourite version?
     
  4. longdist01

    longdist01 Senior Member

    Location:
    Chicago, IL USA
    Just sharing this interesting visit by Curt Smith & Ted Yoder with a Dulcimer player
     
    ARK, matrix-6, TongueDruid and 3 others like this.
  5. c-eling

    c-eling They're made of light,We never would have guessed

    It's kinda a hodgepodge of digital equipment and analog. Not 100% digital recording or mixed to digital, Somewhat like INXS's Kick.
    I'm going by my old US LP. No clue on the SACD
     
    Gems-A-Bems likes this.
  6. dance_hall_keeper

    dance_hall_keeper Forum Resident

    I have the 1999 expanded cd issues of the first three studio albums.
    This is a great album!
     
    PJM likes this.
  7. audiomixer

    audiomixer As Bald As The Beatles

    1998 MFSL CD
     
    AudiophilePhil likes this.
  8. Espen R

    Espen R Senior Member

    Location:
    Norway
    What is your source for this statement?

    Here is an in depth article for the new 2014 re-mix stating they going back to the original analogue 1984 multitrack tapes.
    EXCLUSIVE: Remixing Tears For Fears and the stereo channel saga | superdeluxeedition

    The SACD has no advantage over any CD versions?
    Just listen to the first 10 seconds of the first track «Shout» that ringing/tingling; the SHM-SACD is the only digital version I have heard that can copy this in the way the LP sound. As an old HiFi nut I can say this sound is a typical one that 44.1Khz with brickwall filters has problem doing it right.
     
    Anonamemouse likes this.
  9. AFCBRINGWOOD

    AFCBRINGWOOD Forum Resident Thread Starter

    So this is your favourite version? I thought this was really compressed?
     
    Carlox likes this.
  10. AFCBRINGWOOD

    AFCBRINGWOOD Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Please can you explain why it's your favourite?
     
  11. audiomixer

    audiomixer As Bald As The Beatles

    It sounds the most balanced & natural to me.
     
    AudiophilePhil and AFCBRINGWOOD like this.
  12. dance_hall_keeper

    dance_hall_keeper Forum Resident

    I have all three albums on vinyl but these are the only versions I have on cd.
    I bought (all on the same day, as I recall at Sunrise Records) them because of the albums, not giving much thought to the cd replication of the recordings.
     
  13. Merrick

    Merrick The return of the Thin White Duke

    Location:
    Portland
    My source is definitely from a thread on this forum, but I don’t know which thread or post. I haven’t heard the remix, and as I said I do like the sound of the SACD. I could easily be wrong.
     
  14. VeeDub

    VeeDub Senior Member

    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Lots of detail and great EQ balance on the MFSL. I don’t really recall specifically why I preferred it over the original- parted with that years ago- just that I did, but that the original also sounded good.

    I’m a big fan of Steven Wilson’s work, particularly his Yes 5.1s, but his SFTBC mix (stereo and surround) is just “interesting” in my book, and no substitute. It’s very dry-sounding, reverb-absent; kinda takes it “out of the 80s.”
     
  15. AFCBRINGWOOD

    AFCBRINGWOOD Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Thanks, that's a nice overview. It's a shame the MFSL is so expensive on the used market but I'll keep looking the usual online sites for a decent deal. I'm sure one will turn up with a bit of patience.
     
  16. sentinel90125

    sentinel90125 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Virginia, USA
    I'm also pretty happy with the MFSL. Didn't even realize there was an SACD until this thread. Would be interested in direct comparisons if anyone has both....
     
  17. Black Elk

    Black Elk Music Lover

    Location:
    Bay Area, U.S.A.
    That is not true in most cases. As c-eling points out, this ONLY becomes an issue if the final master itself is created at 16/44. There are many albums which were tracked to digital at 44 kHz, but were mixed via analog console, and then printed to 2-track analog tape. Although the basic tracks may be digitally 'limited', the EQ stages, processors, filters, etc. of the analog console and outboard gear can extend the frequency response, and there can be benefit to a hi-res transfer of such a master. There are also projects which mix both digital and analog tracks (Phil Collins, for example), and are mixed to analog or hi-res digital.

    Yes, it is.

    I have the original vinyl, but haven't unpacked my LP12 in a long time, so can not remember how it sounds. On CD I have the single disc 1999 and 2x CD 2006 Deluxe Edition versions. I can't say that either are all that great, but the 2006 is definitely better. I also have TIDAL, and have listened a bit to the 2014 Master version (I only have the TIDAL app to do the first MQA unpacking). The 2014 sounds pretty good. However, when I want to listen to this album, I play the SHM-SACD -- I have my copy ripped, so I am listening to all of the digital versions via the same DAC. What I like about the SHM-SACD is that you can just keep turning it up without it becoming aggravating, which is the problem with all too many modern, compressed re-masters. I also agree with Espen R about the metallic sounds at the start of the album. They just sound right on the SACD.
     
    Anonamemouse and AFCBRINGWOOD like this.
  18. Merrick

    Merrick The return of the Thin White Duke

    Location:
    Portland
    Good to know, thank you! Guess I’ll hold onto my SACD then! :)
     
  19. JulesRules

    JulesRules Weaponized, Deranged Warthog Thug

    Location:
    Germany
    The stereo remix has no imbalance. But like @VeeDub said, it does lack some of the sonic ingredients of the original. For the record, I actually prefer Steven's take on "Listen" (however I removed some high whistling noises via Audacity) and think some of the other tracks are roughly as good as the originals, but some others are inferior.

    But IIRC, the hi-res on the DVD-A did not show much, or any, content beyond the 22k limit, because the album was put through a filter that cut off those higher frequencies... ?
     
    AFCBRINGWOOD likes this.
  20. Jack_Straw

    Jack_Straw Forum Resident

    Location:
    Wichita, KS
    I don't have the MFSL (I would probably love it but just haven't found it at a reasonable price point) or the SHM or the 2006, but I can comment on the others.

    1985 USA Atomic:
    Nice sounding early disc. Very open sounding and relaxed presentation. Good dynamics and very crankable. Almost needs to be cranked, actually. It could use a little more bass and has a very slight gritty sound on the high end, but I still love it.

    1999 Remaster:
    Avoid at all costs. The fact that some poor souls have to hear this great album in this format borders on criminal. Harsh, loud, unnatural.

    2014 Remaster:
    Did they correct the channel imbalance at some point? I honestly don't hear it. I bought mine almost a year after release - maybe it got fixed? This sounds really nice, and the new transfer seems to have taken care of the gritty sound, but to my ears it actually sounds more forward and accentuates the glossy sheen of the original mix. It almost sounds more '80s than the '80s version. Slightly sibilant - maybe just a hair too much on the top end for my liking but overall very balanced.

    2014 Stereo Remix:
    The purists might hate it, but I love what SW did here. The bass is more prominent and punchy, and removing some of that reverb helps to reveal details - especially in the midrange. The highs are there but more restrained than in the other versions I've heard - some would probably call this "dull" sounding, but I think it's almost perfect EQ wise. (I would liken it to what Mr. Hoffman did with the Warren Zevon 'Excitable Boy' mastering). The most "audiophile" sounding of the stereo versions that I've heard.

    I also love the surround mix. Actually it's hard to pick a favorite - I probably listen to these 3 in equal amounts depending on my mood: 5.1 remix, 2.0 remix, 1985 original
     
  21. AFCBRINGWOOD

    AFCBRINGWOOD Forum Resident Thread Starter

    I've managed to listen to a few of these versions now (1985 Mercury, the MFSL, the 2014 Remaster and the SHM-SACD) and to be honest they are all okay sounding, none are amazing but I guess this is down to the recording. All are nice and dynamic but I agree that the MFSL is the most balanced. The extra bass depth on the MFSL seems to help the recording even though it still sounds firmly from the mid 1980s. The 1985 Mercury is the best for value though as it can be bought for a few pounds.

    I'm going to give the stereo remix a listen next. Given what I've read, I'm expecting quite a different experience.
     
    TongueDruid likes this.
  22. JulesRules

    JulesRules Weaponized, Deranged Warthog Thug

    Location:
    Germany
    I've only recently realized that all remasters have removed the characteristically dark sound of the early TFF albums. It was when I tried to burn a rip of the Going to California live album on CD that I thought, where's the treble? And In My Mind's Eye has a similar quality to it.

    But as for the remix, I guess this is why I don't consider myself an audiophile as to me, atmosphere is more important than hearing every detail. The opening percussion programming on Shout sounds odd. Add reverb in Audacity and it sounds proper again. I Believe sounds unglued, as does The Working Hour.
     
  23. BIGGER Dave

    BIGGER Dave Forum Resident

    I have an old CD marked CRC P2-24300 MADE IN USA. I believe it’s the first USA mastering. Since the MFSL is pricey, I’m going to give the Blu-Ray a try. Doesn’t seem to be readily available in the USA. Found it on Amazon UK for less than $23 USD plus $6 shipping. Shipping is quoted to take about three weeks. I can wait.
     
    kannibal likes this.
  24. Dave

    Dave Esoteric Audio Research Specialist™

    Location:
    B.C.
    I used to own the MFSL and it failed when turned up sounding very unnatural becoming bloated and shrill. Instead I found I much preferred the W. Germany Atomic CD 824 300-2 with a much more natural sounding laid back presence that doesn't fall apart when turned up loud.
     
  25. AFCBRINGWOOD

    AFCBRINGWOOD Forum Resident Thread Starter

    The bass doesn't sound bloated or shrill to me. It certainly doesn't 'fall apart' when turned up either. There is more bass depth on the MFSL and this helps the overall sound in my opinion.

    The differences between the original CD and the MFSL are slight if we're being honest. I think they are both okay and I have a slight preference for the MFSL even though the original is far better value for money. Saying that one is 'very unnatural' and the other is 'much more natural sounding' suggests there are huge differences and that's just not the case.
     
    oopap and ParanoidAndroid like this.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine