Big Star SACD

Just what the name says.
User avatar
Crummy Old Label Avatar
Posts: 1226
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 5:55 pm
Location: Out of my fucking mind

Postby Crummy Old Label Avatar » Thu Feb 02, 2006 11:05 pm

Xenu wrote:Following on your note, I wonder (if irrationally) if I'm hearing the same thing, especially in the Stones remasters. I think there it's just EQ, though.

Oh, DSD...

Do you know what I mean, though? I do notice this (to my ears) artificial smoothness and laid back high end that, well, the more I hear it, the more repellent it sounds to me. I have no idea if if this really is a DSD artifact, but why do I hear this on all of these DSD-sourced discs? Odd.

Anyone who prefers this sound is NUTS.
If you love Hi-REZ TAPE HISS, you're REALLY going to love Stereo Central

User avatar
Top Dog and Sellout
Posts: 4589
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Postby lukpac » Thu Feb 02, 2006 11:47 pm

Some of the Stones discs are a bit rolled off on the high end, but I'm fairly certain that's just EQ.

FWIW, the last time I compared them, I couldn't hear a lick of difference between the original (pre-DSD) Keep Moving On and the tracks from it found on Portrait of a Legend.
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD

User avatar
Posts: 946
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 4:24 pm
Location: North America

Postby MK » Sat Feb 18, 2006 11:24 am

MK wrote:Tate: I did a quickie, 10-minute cheap-o mastering job on [#1 Record]. I took out about 6 dB at 12k (maybe 10k or 8k, I can’t remember…) [and it was] still bright so I did a few other top end tweaks and ran the whole thing to CD. Much easier (and smoother) sounding now. Could still use more work but it’s better than the SACD at least. Youch! That’s bright!

Steve: I did a one minute quickie on it and tried taking some out at the usual ‘pressure points’ of 10k, 8k, 5k, 3k and added something at like 500 cycles, 250 cycles, 80 cycles and 40 cycles. Didn’t really put much of a dent in it. Amazingly screechy mix. I don’t know what engineer john Fry was using as mix monitors but I bet the tweeters were disconnected or something. Urggh…I have a Hound Dog Taylor and the Houserockers Lp that he mixed and it has the same screech. I think that –8 at 10k would be a good start for ANY Ardent mix around that time period.

Shit, they weren't kidding. Steve's right, -8 at 10k is needed at the very least. It's still sharp and pretty bright, but this shit would be headache inducing without it. The bass is pretty light, so try adding 2 dB at 100 cycles.

BTW, I'm talking about the SACD. Supposedly the top end was left alone for it, at least for #1 Record. Radio City may have a small boost.

As for Radio City, it's easier on the ears. It's still toppy, but again, you don't want to compromise it too much 'cause that's part of the album's charm so I'd take out 3, maybe 4 at 10k.

Actually, let me amend that. On Radio City, it varies a bit. Taking out 3 or 4 at 10k for "I'm In Love With A Girl" works just fine. It's not nearly as harsh, possibly because it's a soft, acoustic song and they didn't feel the need to jack up the highs, but "Back Of A Car" and "September Gurls," you'll probably need a whole lot more...try -6 at 10k.
"When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it. After my experience, I have come to hate war." – Dwight D. Eisenhower

"Neither slave nor tyrant." - Basque motto

User avatar
Posts: 4384
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
Location: The Reality-Based Community

Re: Big Star SACD

Postby Rspaight » Sat Sep 26, 2009 10:23 am

If anyone's out there, how's the box set?
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney