Forums dot lukpac.org

Moving this bad boy back over here (where it might get some responses), anybody have Rykos they can compare sample-by-sample to Virgins to see if they're identical?

I haven't compared the wavs, but I'm 99.99% certain they wouldn't be bit identical. They're clearly different remasterings...different credits and everything.

Hunky Dory isn't bit identical, but according to Phil it stays in sample-perfect sync, which indicates that it's from the same digital master, at the very least.

Needless to say, I'm trying that first thing when I get home.

When I asked Simply Vinyl whether they used analog or digital sources for their Bowie releases, they replied that David Bowie himself *insists* on re-mastering from digital and *not* the analog sources. SV told me that Bowie was *very* adamant about this.

Did the Virgin and Ryko releases use different mastering engineers? If so, then that might account for any sonic differences. I cannot see the benefit of having two different digital masters floating around.

thomh wrote:When I asked Simply Vinyl whether they used analog or digital sources for their Bowie releases, they replied that David Bowie himself *insists* on re-mastering from digital and *not* the analog sources. SV told me that Bowie was *very* adamant about this.

Really? Does that apply to all the titles in that series ("24 bit" series). If so, the implications are obvious. The back of the booklet for the newer Hunky Dory says:

"These original analogue masters have been digitally transferred at 24 bits resolution, processed using Sonic Solutions NoNoise technology and mastered to 16 bit for CD using Prism SNS Noise Shaping"

The first part of which we know to be incorrect at best.

thomh wrote:Did the Virgin and Ryko releases use different mastering engineers? If so, then that might account for any sonic differences. I cannot see the benefit of having two different digital masters floating around.

The Ryko/EMIs were done by Dr Toby Mountain with Jonathan Wyner. The Virgin/EMIs were done at Abbey Road by Peter Mew and Nigel Reeve. The series is coordinated by Nigel Reeve, with Kevin Cann.

That doesn't tell us for sure who did the analogue transfer. Were the Ryko crew given digital to work with, or the analogue?

Tomh, can you clarify exactly what you mean by two different digital transfers? Do you mean dubs from the analogue, or the reissues themselves?

D - following on from your last email about this, I did some OOPing on the Virgin/EMI to check out what you meant about the "gauzy" sound. It exposed a lot more of those crackling noises, the kind that I spotted on the intro to "Andy Warhol".

Phil Elliott wrote:Really? Does that apply to all the titles in that series ("24 bit" series). If so, the implications are obvious. The back of the booklet for the newer Hunky Dory says:

"These original analogue masters have been digitally transferred at 24 bits resolution, processed using Sonic Solutions NoNoise technology and mastered to 16 bit for CD using Prism SNS Noise Shaping"

This is exactly the text that is printed in the booklet of my 1999 EMI 24bit remaster of Let's Dance. It also says:

"Digitally remastered by Peter Mew and Nigel Reeve @ Abbey Road Studios, London, 1999."

Is this text included in the Ryko releases?

That doesn't tell us for sure who did the analogue transfer. Were the Ryko crew given digital to work with, or the analogue?

Simply Vinyl confirmed that the original AD transfers were done at Abbey Road Studios. These were approved by Bowie. SV would then get a copy of the digital master for the albums they were to release, transfer them back to analog and EQ them for their 180gr. vinyl releases which, I think, hit the stores in 1999 or 2000. So these vinyl releases and the Virgin/EMI CDs should be from the same digital masters.

I doubt that the original analog tapes were sent to Toby Mountain/Ryko for a *second* AD transfer when Bowie had already approved the first one. Bowie did not allow Simply Vinyl to use original analog tapes.

Are there great sonic differences between the Rykos and the Virgins? Can they be attributed to EQ?

thomh wrote:

Is this text included in the Ryko releases?

No; none of that text appears. The Ryko releases we are referring to appeared 9 years >before< the current Peter Mew remasters, at a time when 24 bit was still a long way off. The book credits Toby Mountain and Johnathan Wyner. But from what you are saying, it was Abbey Road that made the digital dub for them to work from.

thomh wrote:
Are there great sonic differences between the Rykos and the Virgins? Can they be attributed to EQ?

Quite a diffrenece between the two. The Ryko/EMI sounds like it had an expander applied to the upper mids/top end. This could be slight mis-tracking from dolby when the transfer was done (but the sound of the Peter Mew disc makes this ulikely, more in a bit), or it was processing applied for the remsater, with the aim of reducing hiss. The overall EQ is slightly >honky< in the upper mids, not helped by the expansion taking place, and a little light on bass.

The Virgin/EMI sounds more open, and un-expanded by comparison. But, strange artifacts do creep in here and there, presumably from the use of NoNoise. It seems to be free of bubbling/watery artefacts (at least that I can hear), but there are some wierd crackling noises occuring on each channel, as I mentioned earlier and has been noted by Dave. The overall EQ is brighter - as a result of it being more open - with more depth in the low end.

thomh wrote:Are there great sonic differences between the Rykos and the Virgins? Can they be attributed to EQ?

Just to interject a second here...

If everything is done right, a good digital transfer shouldn't really add any sound of its own. That is to say that two different masterings that use the same digital transfer really shouldn't sound much more the same than two masterings that use different digital transfers of the same analog tape. Mastering (EQ, compression, NR, etc) is really where the major differences pop up, all else being equal.

Phil Elliott wrote:No; none of that text appears. The Ryko releases we are referring to appeared 9 years >before< the current Peter Mew remasters, at a time when 24 bit was still a long way off. The book credits Toby Mountain and Johnathan Wyner. But from what you are saying, it was Abbey Road that made the digital dub for them to work from.

No. I am strictly referring to the 1999 24bit remasters. *These* were the digital masters that were approved by Bowie and used by Simply Vinyl for their releases. Sorry for the confusion.

What Toby Mountain & Co. used as a source for the Ryko 1991 remasters I do not know.

Did EMI UK issue any remasters in 1991?

thomh wrote:

Phil Elliott wrote:No; none of that text appears. The Ryko releases we are referring to appeared 9 years >before< the current Peter Mew remasters, at a time when 24 bit was still a long way off. The book credits Toby Mountain and Johnathan Wyner. But from what you are saying, it was Abbey Road that made the digital dub for them to work from.

No. I am strictly referring to the 1999 24bit remasters. *These* were the digital masters that were approved by Bowie and used by Simply Vinyl for their releases. Sorry for the confusion.

What Toby Mountain & Co. used as a source for the Ryko 1991 remasters I do not know.

Did EMI UK issue any remasters in 1991?

I might be off here, but I think EMI issued these discs the same time in the UK when they came out on Ryko over here.

That's correct. It's the EMI versions which I have, but they are the same remaster as the Rykos.

Right.

To clarify the problem here: the EMI/Virgin reissues note, amoung other things, that they're 24 bit remasters, and they do indeed sound *different* than the Rykos. The thing is, it seems in the case of Hunky Dory that the Virgin is derived from the same, certainly-can't-be-24-bit digital master.

The problem: Whaaaa? Why the hell would EMI do that? Did Bowie digitally transfer all of his stuff and then lend it to Ryko, and then later lend it to Virgin? What *other* albums are digital clones?

Etc.

So help figuring this out would be appreciated, as I'm up shit creek without a Bowie at present.

Xenu wrote:What *other* albums are digital clones?

To interject once more, "clone" really only refers to things that are 100% identical - like those various UD/UDII combos. It's not really fair to call two CDs "clones" when the mastering is different, even if they are derived from the same digital transfer.

I certainly wouldn't an MP3 file a "clone" of a CD, for example, despite the fact that they come from the same digital master and would stay lined up bit for bit. Same goes for my "remix" of Satisfaction, taken from the London Hot Rocks 1 CD...

Picky picky picky. "Derived from the same digital transfer." Better?