Rolling Stones London / Bowie RCA

[Phil Elliott]

Well, if your talking about the UK discs with the "chopped up" covers, it's been discovered on a least one occasion that a disc made at the Nimbus plant, has a totally different mastering to a pressing from PDO UK or EMI Swindon. For example, Foxtrot is far brighter on a Nimbus press.

The remastered Foxtrot has a major noise-reduction flaw somewhere along the line; no idea if it's Dolby or No-noise (sounds like Dolby being decoded incorrectly), but a lot of the quieter parts have highs muted at random. Check the hi-hat intro on Watcher Of the Skies. Some of those hi-hat taps are audible, some of them aren't! Any UK disc with a chopped cover is better than this.

[Andreas]

Donald Fagen talked about how bad the 80s CD's sounded, and in the book Reelin' in the Years a story was mentioned about how Stevie Wonder called Fagen to tell him the sound quality was poor on The Nightfly and other Steely Dan CDs. It's documented that they used later generation masters for those original 80's CD's, MCA used whatever was lying around to make them. A fight ensued between MCA and Steely Dan, in particular, Walter Becker, to correct this problem. The early 90's releases improved things quite a bit, those are the ones with the sticker "Newly Remastered by the Artist".

First, The Nightfly is not a Steely Dan CD.

Second, The Nightfly sounds absolutely great, in my opinion, certainly better than most of my Stevie Wonder Cds. There is a buzz at the end of one song on my copy (a German CD), but apart from that, I don't hear any problems.

Third, you are telling me that Roger Nichols chooses whatver tape is lying around for the CD release, makes digital copy tapes that, in his opinion, should be the reference tapes, and later complains that the 1993 remasters and MFSL did not use these digital tapes that were made from whatever was lying around? That does not make sense one iota. I don't know if that is right or wrong, but you have to show some piece of evidence before I believe that.

Forth, the Can't Buy A Thrill remaster (1998), and probably some others, have apparent noise reduction. Do you really like that?

[lukpac]

Who mastered the discs that supposedly have NR?

[Beatlesfan03]

............

[Rob P]

First, The Nightfly is not a Steely Dan CD.

Second, The Nightfly sounds absolutely great, in my opinion, certainly better than most of my Stevie Wonder Cds. There is a buzz at the end of one song on my copy (a German CD), but apart from that, I don't hear any problems.

Third, you are telling me that Roger Nichols chooses whatver tape is lying around for the CD release, makes digital copy tapes that, in his opinion, should be the reference tapes, and later complains that the 1993 remasters and MFSL did not use these digital tapes that were made from whatever was lying around? That does not make sense one iota. I don't know if that is right or wrong, but you have to show some piece of evidence before I believe that.

Forth, the Can't Buy A Thrill remaster (1998), and probably some others, have apparent noise reduction. Do you really like that?

My mistype, I know The Nightfly is Warner Bros., not MCA, and it is a Fagen solo CD, thanks for the correction, Professor. I combined the two problems. The first original run of the Steely Dan CDs, in 1985, were fine, and were made from the correct digital masters done by Roger Nichols (who I wasn't trying to attack), but the subsequent pressings (until 1992) were inferior masters. Nichols was infuriated by the mistake, which was obviously not his error and was the record companies.

Countdown to Ecstacy, Katy Lied, Royal Scam, and Pretzel Logic sound great on the 1999 remasters (I haven't heard Can't Buy a Thrill & Aja, the two that get the most criticism, from that run). I thought Roger Nichols worked on all those remasters as well.

I don't give a damn about whether noise reduction was used on a mastering or not. For one thing, it's not the work of the devil, as some Hoffmanites would have you believe, and I'm reasonably certain that it's used on far more releases which receive praise for their sound quality than most people would ever know or detect.

[Andreas]

I don't give a damn about whether noise reduction was used on a mastering or not.

I think we have found the exact point where we disagree.

[Ess Ay Cee Dee]

nt

[Andreas]

Can those of you who are so dead-set against NR not name a single NR'd disc that actually sounds good?

There is an inherent problem: If I can hear the effects of noise reduction, I certainly do not like the disc. If I can't hear the effects, how should I know if there is noise reduction?

[Dob]

My two cents:

After hunting down all the original Japan MCA CDs and comparing to the (generally vilified) Citizen box set, I was surprised to find I preferred the box set versions for almost all the tracks from the first four albums, and most of Royal Scam.

For Aja, the MFSL does have treble boost, but I find it to be pretty bad on only two tracks - the title track and Deacon Blues. For Aja (the song) I like the version on the MCA Japan, for Deacon Blues I like the box set version, and the MFSL for the rest. To anyone who thinks the MCA Japan CD is the holy grail, compare Deacon Blues to the box set and you might change your mind.

For Gaucho I like the MCA Japan CD over the MFSL, except for the first two tracks. I don't like the SACD at all.

[lukpac]

Is heavy-handed digital NR a bad thing? Yes. Is NR in and of itself a bad thing? I really don't think so. Can those of you who are so dead-set against NR not name a single NR'd disc that actually sounds good?

I've heard a few CDs that are "not bad", but in comparison to other discs without NR, they still aren't as good.

[Crummy Old Label Avatar]

I'm reminded of the doofus at SHtv who trashed the Strictly Personal CD by Captain Beefheart, screaming that it was an abomination of NR. Doesn't sound like it to me; in fact, this UK Liberty CD sounds better than the Blue Thumb vinyl. My real point is that I defy anyone to detect "NR artifacts" under all those endless layers of phasing and effects on that album.

Really, none of you know if (and how much) NR is being used on a remaster or not. I believe it is more common than most people think it is, and it's only truly noticeable when it is used excessively.

I do have two UK Joe Meek compilations from 1994 that proudly trumpet the fact that they use the No Noise System on the back covers. You know what? They sound pretty good too.

I don't give a damn if NR is used or not. I only care about what the result sounds like.

[lukpac]

Really, none of you know if (and how much) NR is being used on a remaster or not. I believe it is more common than most people think it is, and it's only truly noticeable when it is used excessively.

Well, if nobody knows, why do you believe it is more common than people think it is?

I don't give a damn if NR is used or not. I only care about what the result sounds like.

Not caring about NR is different from not being able to detect it.

[Crummy Old Label Avatar]

Really, none of you know if (and how much) NR is being used on a remaster or not. I believe it is more common than most people think it is, and it's only truly noticeable when it is used excessively.

Well, if nobody knows, why do you believe it is more common than people think it is?

Law of averages. Because some form of NR plugin is now standard in even the cheapest audio editing and CD burning programs, it's only logical to conclude that people are using it. (Whether they should or not is a different question.)

Not caring about NR is different from not being able to detect it.

Just as I stated. Did I not say that it's really not noticeable unless used to excess? I doubt that you are claiming that you can always tell if it's being used. What would you think if it was suddenly revealed that some of your favorite CDs actually did use NR? Would that bother you?

And just what is Dolby SR anyway? It is an NR system used on just about every analog studio recording since the 1970s. So I guess NR in-and-of-itself isn't quite the boogeyman SHtv has made it out to be.

[lukpac]

Law of averages. Because some form of NR plugin is now standard in even the cheapest audio editing and CD burning programs, it's only logical to conclude that people are using it. (Whether they should or not is a different question.)

But what "people". Most of the "big time" mastering engineers either never used it, or gave up on it after it was popular in the early '90s.

Heck, a lot of plug-ins are standard these days, but it doesn't mean people are actually using them for mastering.

Just as I stated. Did I not say that it's really not noticeable unless used to excess? I doubt that you are claiming that you can always tell if it's being used. What would you think if it was suddenly revealed that some of your favorite CDs actually did use NR? Would that bother you?

I think this is a circular argument - if it's "really not noticeable" how do you *know* it was used?

List some CDs and we'll talk.

And just what is Dolby SR anyway? It is an NR system used on just about every analog studio recording since the 1970s. So I guess NR in-and-of-itself isn't quite the boogeyman SHtv has made it out to be.

Actually, SH has pointed out that systems like Dolby are totally different from single-ended digital NR and aren't "evil".

[Beatlesfan03]

But I think the SD discussion here has brought up an interesting point re: noise reduction. What is the deal with this overriding obsession with finding and then bemoaning noise reduction on any and all reissues?

Because noise reduction bad, hiss good!

Is heavy-handed digital NR a bad thing? Yes. Is NR in and of itself a bad thing? I really don't think so. Can those of you who are so dead-set against NR not name a single NR'd disc that actually sounds good?

I think everyone will agree that heavy-handed NR is horrible however. I have a few discs in my collection that use NR:

-Tears For Fears - The Hurting (by Jon Astley no less)
-The remixed Lennons sound fine to me.
-I can tolerate the Virgin Bowie's in a pinch.
-There are parts on Wingspan that I find tolerable
-And while this may be considered sacriledge around here, Astley's The Who Sell Out doesn't bother me either (though I am willing to be educated on the correct version. Before the firestorm comes, keep in mind that I was late to the Who and Astley's version is the only version I've heard of this album).

Plus as I stated in another thread, I also like the new Final Cut remastered by James Guthrie which was pretty much burned to the stake shortly before it came out (see the other thread on TFC for more on that if you like - if there is any NR on it, I think it's subtle since there is quite a bit of hiss on it).

If it's subtle, I really don't care. If it's heavy handed and then polished with a nice and terrible boost on the high end, then I have problems.