DSOTM Black Triangle or Japan Harvest=Same Mastering?

[Phil Elliott]

Audition's good.

Or:

Just download the demo of Wavelab, trim the track starts, hit "compare" and get an instant null file.

[Crummy Old Label Avatar]

May I suggest you to post your EAC logs in a thread I just opened at Steve Hoffmanforum

This post is so funny it ought to be in the Snakepit.

[Xenu]

Me neither. But that ISRC tack is an interesting idea.

I thought ISRC stuff was more recent? That said, I wouldn't trust it...I doubt the "rules" of ISRC are followed that stringently.

[Crummy Old Label Avatar]

I thought ISRC stuff was more recent? That said, I wouldn't trust it...I doubt the "rules" of ISRC are followed that stringently.

You're probably right, but I was just curious to find out if it IS enforced with any consistency whatsoever.

When did ISRC come into use? I haven't found a single CD from the 1980s that uses it.

[Andreas]

Sorry fo resurrecting this old thread, but one issue has confused me...

How can it be that my DSOTM EMI 1992/1994 remaster has the exact same EAC peak levels (87.8 94.7 100.0) for the first three tracks as the "black triangle or black face Harvest with TO in the matrix"?

Also, these are different from the Shine On box (35.0 69.5 69.9) and the 20th anniversary edition (67.9 69.1 76.9).

Which means that in the case of DSOTM, the Shine On box does not have the same mastering as the EMI 1992/1994 remaster.

[Phil Elliott]

I was hoping for an improvement on my UK made harvest disc (sounds a lot like the black triangle TO mastering - mashed up/compressed sounding top end, complete with clipping clocks - no good).

Now that my CD collection has come out of storage, I've been able to check this. It turns out they are digitally identical...

[Dob]

I've finally become the "proud" owner of a non-TO (pre-emphasis) black Harvest. It took this long because I was quite stubborn about not overpaying for it.

IMO the best word that describes it is "underwhelming." In comparison with the UD1, it has less bass and treble -- which would lead me to believe that it is probably the closest to being a flat transfer, and the UD1 has been EQed. Not that EQ is a bad thing...IIRC, the great man himself (SH) stated that the master tape could use some work.

I didn't verify sync (yet), but the "TO" and "non-TO" versions ran very close...could they both be from the same digital transfer? It wouldn't surprise me.

Overall, I prefer the UD1. The treble boost is very well done...it almost never sounds harsh. MFSL did overdo it on the bass boost -- Us and Them is particularly bad -- but it's tolerable for the most part and even welcome in spots. A good track comparision is Money. The MFSL has a pleasing, open sound, with authoritative bass and a realistically "biting" sax, whereas the "non-TO" sounds a bit withdrawn and muffled.

I also haven't changed by previously stated track preferences (TO for Speak To Me/Breathe/On The Run, portions of Time, Us and Them, UD1 for the remainder).

[Larkston Zinazpic]

Didn't SH say somewhere that none of the UD1's were EQed or futzed with? I would agree though that it does sound that way.

"Underwhelming" may be about right, but I don't think that's a bad thing in this case. I personally don't think DSOTM benefits from a treble or bass boost anywhere...just makes an already strange recording sound even worse IMO. I guess if you have a warm system, the UD1 might sound quite good, but I recall the bass sounding somewhat farty and bloated after awhile. To each his own.



...

[Dob]

Didn't SH say somewhere that none of the UD1's were EQed or futzed with?

That's what I thought -- IIRC, he once posted (regarding the DSOTM UD1) "that's the sound of the master tape" -- much later NG Dave posted that SH preferred the black triangle and SH didn't disagree.

When SH says none of the UD1's were EQed (or whatever), it's because that's what he was told -- clearly, he wasn't there. Either that, or he's going by what he hears on the CD. In either case, he could be wrong about at least a few of them.

IMO it's not reasonable to assume that all the UD1s were flat transfers. AFAIK, MFSL has never claimed that they were. Why should we think that they deliberately refrained EQing all of the UD1 master tapes -- even the ones that needed it? Isn't that what mastering engineers are supposed to do?

I personally don't think DSOTM benefits from a treble or bass boost anywhere...UD1 might sound quite good, but I recall the bass sounding somewhat farty and bloated after awhile.

Even on Money? The UD1 really shines on that track IMO.

[Larkston Zinazpic]

Even on Money? The UD1 really shines on that track IMO.

Actually, it's usually the top-end on tracks like Great Gig and Money that's a little much for me, on my system. IIRC, the exaggerated bass is most notable on tracks like Us and Them, and is also as thick as molasses on Any Colour You Like.

Can't say I've ever heard a bass drum that sounded like that.


...

[Phil Elliott]

I didn't verify sync (yet), but the "TO" and "non-TO" versions ran very close...could they both be from the same digital transfer? It wouldn't surprise me.

They don't sync up at all; I had a look when Greg sent me samples of his TO disc.

The compressed sounding top end on the "TO" mastering makes me wonder if Dolby NR is falling down on the job on that transfer? Either that, or a different tape was used.

[Andreas]

Phil,

did you notice that the EMI 1992/1994 remaster (by Doug Sax) has the same EAC peak levels as the black triangle TO version? Isn't the latter supposed to be from the 1980s and a completely different version? Are these two really identical?

[Phil Elliott]

I did notice that. Not being an owner of the 1992/1994, I can't comment but, if you want to send me some samples I'll compare it with my silver disc (which is the same as the TO).

[Phil Elliott]

This is nuts.

Andreas has sent me samples of Speak To Me/Breath, and Money from his 1992/94 disc with Doug Sax remastering credit. I've compared these to my 80's silver disc.

They're identical!

There is one small exception - there is a 3 sample discrepency between the two, 1:02 into the disc (we made sure it wasn't an error in ripping), this isn't audible in normal listening, but in a null test there is a small click. Other than that, there ain't a whole lot of remastering going on here.

What gives? Why is Doug Sax credited on a clone of the mastering from a few years before?

The details of Andreas' disc:

The catalogue number is 7243 8 29752 2 9.
Also: CDEMD 1064
Printed In The U.K.
Marketed and distributed by EMI

On The CD itself:
Made In Holland.
Digital remasters (p) 1992
(c) 1994 EMI Records Ltd.

Inner ring:
829752 @ 1
1-5-14-NL

[Xenu]

That...is sort of odd. Which 80s disc are we talking about again? Not one of the CP Toshiba ones, right?