Page 1 of 2
Brian Eno: best sounding CDs (especially Warm Jets)?
Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 1:02 pm
by dudelsack
I've got the Virgin DSD-ed Here Come The Warm Jets, which I think sounds a bit overprocessed - why in god's name would you use DSD as a step in the mastering process? I really can't figure that out. I think this recording could stand a little less top, too.
Anyway, what sounds BETTER?
Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 2:33 pm
by dcooper
I agree that HCTWJ is a little trebly, but I attribute that to the recording, not necessarily the DSD processing. I haven't A/Bed it with the Edition EG, so I can't help you there.
However, I think Another Green World sounds marginally better than the original CD. It's definitely louder, which detracts a little, but I always thought the original EG edition sounded muffled and the new version is a little more spacious. There is some EQing going on, but I think the recording needed that. The bass is a little crisper, the top end a bit more distinctive (but not distracting) and the midrange isn't as muddy as the original.
I never owned Taking Tiger Mountain & Before and After Science on CD before the remasters, but I like the way they sound on the new remasters. Haven't taken the plunge yet and gone for the ambient recordings but I was never really crazy about them on LP, so they aren't a priority.
Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 4:01 pm
by krabapple
I doubt the new DSDs are 'overprocessed', unless Heyworth is lying about having done straight transfers from the original cutting masters (whihc isnt' quite the same as original master tapes, btw).
Sighted A/B of the new AGW to the original didn't reveal much in the way of difference to me. If I have any of the originals still around, maybe I'll do a .wav or ABX comparison.
IIRC DSD was used because originally these were planned as SACD releases. Either that or someone believes DSD is a better archiving format (which is what Sony developed it for in the first place).
Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 4:04 pm
by dudelsack
It could well be the sound of the album, but I haven't heard any others to compare and it doesn't sound very traditionally 'analog-y.' Hence my questioning...
Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 4:07 pm
by krabapple
If it was indeed struck from an LP-EQ'd master, as Heyworth has said, then it's about as analog as you can get without doing a needle drop.
Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 4:10 pm
by krabapple
THis is from teh
www.astralwerks.com site
Four of Brian Eno's early, groundbreaking albums have been digitally remastered and reissued in special edition digipak packages as part of a series called "Original Masters." Very often when albums are remastered, the tapes are re-equalized, remixed, in other words altered from the way they were originally delivered by the artist. Not so with the albums in the "Original Masters" series.
Using Brian Eno's original analogue masters as the source, remastering engineer Simon Heyworth has employed Class A' Analogue Electronics combined with the most advanced Analogue to Digital conversion techniques available. Using an ATR analog mastering deck with Aria Reference Series class A discrete electronics, Simon Heyworth was able to coax a higher level of fidelity out of these recordings than ever before heard, while keeping the orignal mastering intact.
"What I quickly learnt was that many of the EQ'd Production Masters at the time were absolutely 'spot on',' says Heyworth, "and why shouldn't they be when you think about it, this was the end of a long artistic endeavor and are we saying that they didn't get it right at that point? This is nonsense of course because if it was a landmark recording and sold lots of albums it must have been right! The Artist and Producer all decided at the time that this was 'it'. Should we be tampering with that piece of art-after all we don't go around saying let's Re-master a great painting."
Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 4:10 pm
by dudelsack
Oh, that's what he said? I didn't see your alteration of the original post. I don't know why you'd use an LP cutting master...has the original tape been lost? I would just think that the differences between the LP and CD media would require different kind of mastering, but that's just me, apparently.
Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 4:17 pm
by krabapple
I don't really buy Heyworth's logic, btw. -- LP masters are made to sound good on *LP playback technology*, and thus incorporate certain compromises the format demands.
I'm not aware that the original mixdown masters are lost. Also note that Heyworth doesn't calim he used LP masters for all of them -- just that for many of them, the production master sounded
righ tto him. So for a given rerelease, it's hard to know exactly what he used/did.
Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 4:18 pm
by dudelsack
krabapple wrote:I don't really buy Heyworth's logic, btw. -- LP masters are made to sound good on *LP playback technology*, and thus incorporate certain compromises the format demands.
Yeah, I agree. Thanks for the info!
Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 4:25 pm
by lukpac
krabapple wrote:I don't really buy Heyworth's logic, btw. -- LP masters are made to sound good on *LP playback technology*, and thus incorporate certain compromises the format demands.
But by the same token, if you cut an LP, and it sounds great, why wouldn't that cutting master? How would it be any different from doing a disc dub (only without an additional step)?
Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 5:07 pm
by krabapple
The issue isn't whether it'd be different from a disc dub...it's whether one feels one can *do as good or better*. Related issue is whether the original master is the closest thing to the original artistic intention, with the LP production master being a compromised copy, or not. Apparently Heyworth felt he couldn't improve on the LP masters as a source (assuming he had a choice, and the original masters were available). Other mastering engineers might feel differently....and tend to. One could even argue that one could re-create the LP master sound, yet make a techncially superior product, by starting from a lower-generation tape.
I don't buy Heyworth's reasoning that the *LP* production represents 'getting it right' -- it only represents 'getting it right * for *that* medium. We don't know if Eno actually preferred to sound of the LP tape (which won't sound exactly like the actual LP in playback either, of course)
to the sound of the master tapes. And it's silly of him to use sales of the album as evidence that it's the 'right' sound . There wasn't really much of an alternative then, was there?
Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 5:30 pm
by lukpac
krabapple wrote:Apparently Heyworth felt he couldn't improve on the LP masters as a source (assuming he had a choice, and the original masters were available). Other mastering engineers might feel differently....and tend to. One could even argue that one could re-create the LP master sound, yet make a techncially superior product, by starting from a lower-generation tape.
Both valid points (re-creating the LP sound, and improving on it), but of course plenty who think they are "improving" things are doing anything but. That's not to say *all* CD masterings that are different from LP are "worse" (far from it), but just that just because someone *thinks* they can do better doesn't necessarily mean they will.
I don't buy Heyworth's reasoning that the *LP* production represents 'getting it right' -- it only represents 'getting it right * for *that* medium.
I don't know what steps he went through. But if he listened to the master and the cutting tape and felt the cutting tape sounded better, and that he couldn't do better, well, that's fine by me.
We don't know if Eno actually preferred to sound of the LP tape (which won't sound exactly like the actual LP in playback either, of course)
to the sound of the master tapes.
Well, assuming nothing was changing in the cutting, and you're using a flat vinyl playback system, they *should* sound pretty much the same, sans things like inner groove distortion. As for what Eno liked - that's a question for him.
And it's silly of him to use sales of the album as evidence that it's the 'right' sound . There wasn't really much of an alternative then, was there?
That is true. I thought the same argument was bunk when used by SH in reference to Todd Rundgren's production techniques.
Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 7:22 pm
by Xenu
dcooper wrote:
However, I think Another Green World sounds marginally better than the original CD. It's definitely louder, which detracts a little, but I always thought the original EG edition sounded muffled and the new version is a little more spacious. There is some EQing going on, but I think the recording needed that. The bass is a little crisper, the top end a bit more distinctive (but not distracting) and the midrange isn't as muddy as the original.
I spent about a day switching back and forth between a level matched "St. Elmo's Fire," and honestly couldn't consistently identify the newer disc. IIRC, it had a little less hiss.
Warm Jets and AGW are just weird sounding albums. Maybe the original tapes sound different. WE'LL NEVER KNOW!
By the way, why the heck are these things full-priced discs? Bare-bones reissues should automatically be mid-price, digipak or no digipak. The idea of buying a higher-fidelity "Music for Airports" for $18 fills me with inertia.
Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 8:04 pm
by dudelsack
Xenu wrote:
By the way, why the heck are these things full-priced discs? Bare-bones reissues should automatically be mid-price, digipak or no digipak. The idea of buying a higher-fidelity "Music for Airports" for $18 fills me with inertia.
But they have PLASTIC SLEEVES over the digipak. That CLEARLY puts them up to full price.
Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 9:18 pm
by krabapple
PLASTIC SLEEVES , MINI-LP FORMAT *AND* DSD IN THE SMALL PRINT!! I'm surprised they don't cost $25 each.