Haven't read the Berkowitz interview yet, but I see a lot more mixing going on than you do. "Stretching the stereo"? That would necessitate remixing-- something like changing the weight of instruments in each channel. That 8-track "master" of Miles Davis? Takes some mixing to get it down to two. You've conceded that any multichannel release has to be remixed. Do you really think they just used the old master for the stereo layer?
Are there any GOOD Dylan SACD remasters?
Wow, I've bought a few SACD only and HYBRID Bob Dylan remasters, and unfortunately all but Blood On The Tracks has been a let down? Is it that the engineers doing the remaster think they need to make it clearer, and therefore add top end? To me, it would seem you would just issue the same recording, same mix, same levels, on the new medium WITHOUT SCREWING WITH IT?? Isn't getting it in SACD going to give us better sound anyway?
Am I alone in this? Correct me if I'm wrong, the original master tape offers sonic's obscured by conventional CD technology. So an SACD allows us to hear the original master tape more closely to it's actual sound. Where in this process does it say that some rookie comes in and tries to make it sound better?
Jesus! Bob is in his 60's, and even if he was present on the remaster that wouldn't make me happy. All I want is more of what was originally recorded, offered naturally by SACD. It was a good recording to start with, and Bob can't hear as well as he did 25 years ago!
Yeah, some of my favorite later Dylan needs some help, Time Out Of Mind sounds like Bob is singing through a meggaphone frequently, extremely nasal vocals, and not even well recorded to begin with in my opinion. No remaster is gonna solve this. So how does the SACD HYBRID sound? Tom
Am I alone in this? Correct me if I'm wrong, the original master tape offers sonic's obscured by conventional CD technology. So an SACD allows us to hear the original master tape more closely to it's actual sound. Where in this process does it say that some rookie comes in and tries to make it sound better?
Jesus! Bob is in his 60's, and even if he was present on the remaster that wouldn't make me happy. All I want is more of what was originally recorded, offered naturally by SACD. It was a good recording to start with, and Bob can't hear as well as he did 25 years ago!
Yeah, some of my favorite later Dylan needs some help, Time Out Of Mind sounds like Bob is singing through a meggaphone frequently, extremely nasal vocals, and not even well recorded to begin with in my opinion. No remaster is gonna solve this. So how does the SACD HYBRID sound? Tom
- ...
- 37 posts total
Pabelson with all due respect you still keep playing with semantics. You are the guy who said there is no such thing as a Master tape yet the industry experts constantly refer to them. I think your credibility is sunk after that. Ludwig's quote about the fundamental difference between mixing and mastering tells you all you need to know. As for your last question I think that's been answered with my original quote where they 100% express a commitment to sticking to the original mix and master tapes. Yes where they could they stuck as closely as they could to the original master for the stereo layer. It's that simple. They didn't just use it as it was, that's just stupid. I do agree with you that remasters can sound very like original recordings or in some cases quite different. Our fundamental difference of opinion seems to be semantics on how the sound is changed. I think remixing and remastering are two different things and clearly you don't. If as in the quote from the Dylan series interview you want to define every remaster as being remixed then fine. Guess what it doesn't really matter. Or if you want to sort out the semantics explain the difference between remixing and remastering. That appears to be the key question. |
Well, all the Dylans were remixed in the course of being remastered. The Miles Davis Jack Johnson you mentioned was remixed. Sounds like that Peter Gabriel was remixed, too. I dunno, Ben, I keep seeing remasters that were remixed, and I'm gonna stick with the view that remixing is a very common part of remastering. |
Pableson you have nearly stumbled upon the fundamental truth you believe. All remasters are remixed. By your definitions there cannot be remastering without remixing. Which in my opinion is terminology problem because remixing is seen as something different. I think the Ludwig comment above proves that. Can you name a single remaster that hasn't been remixed? This will be funny. |
Whilst we await a reply from Pabelson on the crux of his stance-should be very interesting. I stumbled upon a very very detailed analysis of some of the Dylan set. For those who don't want to read the whole thing despite what Pableson says the author here believes only 2 of the 4 Dylan albums he talks about are remixed. These were only remixed because in those 2 instances the original finished mixes couldn't be found/used. Since these are older albums and Blonde On Blonde has a notorious reputation (when first released it came out in all kinds of different mixes worldwide)it is logical to conclude from Sony/Columbia's mission statement(only remixed because the original mix couldn't be used) on the remastering that only 2 of the 15 Dylan albums were remixed. Even if we throw in a few others for the sake of argument that is still daming evidence on Pableson's statement that ALL the Dylan albums were remixed. For the record I have all 15 of the SACD hybrids. If you go down the page of this link there is a lot of detail on the SACD releases. http://www.two-riders.co.uk/jotting17.html |
- 37 posts total