Bob Dylan - Oh Mercy remaster vs. original CD
Posted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 2:10 pm
I don't have an SACD player, so I can't compare the DSD layer, but if you're thinking of replacing the old CD with the new redbook remaster, you may be better off with the old CD.
The original CD was issued in late 1989, so it's not like the first-geneation masters were unavailable, or that the industry was doing quick, half-assed masterings for a new, unproven format. These were also digital recordings, FWIW. [EDIT: Let me rephrase that; the CD is classified as ADD, and the SACD certainly wasn't remixed, much less remixed in analog, so the master's got to be digital.] Greg Calbi was the mastering engineer for the original and remaster too.
The original CD is very quiet, with most of the tracks very far below the maximum output allowed, but there are a few that DO max out (and if you examine the peak closely, it's definitely the music that's peaking, not some anamoly or an artifact like a click/pop). I guess Calbi really wanted to preserve the dynamics, even if it meant mastering most of the tracks at a really quiet volume.
The remaster is twice as loud, and it sounds like a volume boost was done on most tracks...maybe a little bit of limiting but not a lot. The few that were really dynamic probably had some limiting done, but nothing too drastic. More significant was the EQ. Check out the bottom, on a number of tracks, mainly the later ones, the bass sounded fuller on the original CD and a bit thinner on the remaster.
So personally, I think the original CD is preferable to the redbook remaster, but it's not a slam dunk, it's just marginally preferable. I can easily see someone preferring the redbook remaster just because it's louder and the trade-off for that isn't too bad, if at all. The SACD may be a different story. Anyone compare those two?
The original CD was issued in late 1989, so it's not like the first-geneation masters were unavailable, or that the industry was doing quick, half-assed masterings for a new, unproven format. These were also digital recordings, FWIW. [EDIT: Let me rephrase that; the CD is classified as ADD, and the SACD certainly wasn't remixed, much less remixed in analog, so the master's got to be digital.] Greg Calbi was the mastering engineer for the original and remaster too.
The original CD is very quiet, with most of the tracks very far below the maximum output allowed, but there are a few that DO max out (and if you examine the peak closely, it's definitely the music that's peaking, not some anamoly or an artifact like a click/pop). I guess Calbi really wanted to preserve the dynamics, even if it meant mastering most of the tracks at a really quiet volume.
The remaster is twice as loud, and it sounds like a volume boost was done on most tracks...maybe a little bit of limiting but not a lot. The few that were really dynamic probably had some limiting done, but nothing too drastic. More significant was the EQ. Check out the bottom, on a number of tracks, mainly the later ones, the bass sounded fuller on the original CD and a bit thinner on the remaster.
So personally, I think the original CD is preferable to the redbook remaster, but it's not a slam dunk, it's just marginally preferable. I can easily see someone preferring the redbook remaster just because it's louder and the trade-off for that isn't too bad, if at all. The SACD may be a different story. Anyone compare those two?