DSOTM - was it remixed in stereo for SACD? (1 Viewer)

[Michael_T]

Anyone wonder why he is also afraid to use the characters "30th"? Why use "XX"?...that means 20 in Roman numerals...

He uses the "XX" when referring to the 20th anniversary edition that came out in the cardboard box with the postcard pictures.

Here is a quote:

"Ten years ago, the fine engineer Doug Sax made a valiant effort, but it is clear listening to that XXth Anniversary Edition CD that the original tapes no longer have the same dynamics they originally had (magnetic analog storage slowly loses its quality)."

Notice he says "Ten years ago" - referring to the 20th anniv. issue.

When he refers to the 30th anniversary edition he in fact states "30th". Go back and read it again. He is comparing, it would seem, all versions of DSOTM from early vinyl and early Harvest CD versions, as well as newer CD reissues, to the new 30th anniversary edition.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

it is clear listening to that XXth Anniversary Edition CD that the original tapes no longer have the same dynamics they originally had (magnetic analog storage slowly loses its quality)

Ken, how can you tell mag tape degradation by listening to a redbook layer??? In my work, I have only been able to hear this listening to the analog tape and even then it is faint in most cases. Redbook does not offer enough detail for this.

Also, who cares about Alan Parsons? Guthrie is lots more familiar with the band than Alan ever will be. You seem to have an agenda here by intimating that the new version is lacking as a result.

This album rocks!

 

[Philip Hamm]

I'm a non-CAL state certified engineer (does this mean he voted for Grey Davis?) and I know why this guy doesn't like the mix. He is using K240 headphones. These have about as much resolving power as a Bose clock radio! Curious how he mentions such crap headphones and won't list the rest of the playback system...Brain damage indeed.

I'm surprised you even kept reading after that. I wouldn't even bother.

 

[Ken Stuart]

I'm surprised you even kept reading after that. I wouldn't even bother.

Perhaps you're right, but unlike most of the people commenting, I like to read the entirety of a post, instead of just enough to determine "for me or against me" and then looking for "gotchas" if they are "against me".

 

[Philip Hamm]

Perhaps you're right, but unlike most of the people commenting, I like to read the entirety of a post, instead of just enough to determine "for me or against me" and then looking for "gotchas" if they are "against me".

So using Lee's analogy, would you continue to read the review if it started by stating that a set of Bose Acoustimass 5 speakers were the reference system?

 

[Lee Scoggins]

I like to read the entirety of a post, instead of just enough to determine "for me or against me" and then looking for "gotchas" if they are "against me".

I don't view your comments against "me" or anyone else...I just don't see much basis for the comments.

What playback system did you use?

What specifically seemed wrong with the new redbook transfer versus the Harvet CD?

Why judge the SACD layer if you have not heard it?

 

[Ken Stuart]

I should mention here that this is only a review of the standard stereo tracks - I don't yet have an SACD-capable player.

Where is the SACD layer judged?

 

[Lee Scoggins]

However this release doesn't make me want to run out and buy one.

The above are quotes from your review. You are basing your decision on buying an SACD player on what you heard on the redbook layer.

Not really a fair comparison, is it?

 

[Ken Stuart]

So using Lee's analogy, would you continue to read the review if it started by stating that a set of Bose Acoustimass 5 speakers were the reference system?

I'm not familiar with the Acoustimass 5 model.

Since I've read more than 2 posts in audio forums, I'm well aware "Bose" is a word of derision used by people who don't know very much, in order to give the appearance that they know more than Joe Sixpack. (Cf "Microsoft" and "McDonalds" in other areas of discussion.)

For years, studio engineers used crappy speakers to engineer and mix albums. More recently, remastering engineers (i.e. the audiophile ones like Doug Sax) have used the highest resolving equipment and speakers to master albums.

However, a competent studio engineer has to go one step further. In addition to auditioning the result on a reference-quality system, the result should also auditioned on "mid-fi" equipment typical of the average listener, and - for good measure - on a typical clock radio.

I'm certainly not suggesting that the result should be re-engineered in a way that sounds worse on the reference system, in order to make it sound good on a clock radio. But, a properly done mix sounds right in all venues.

As a result, a review of the DSotM SACD, as it sounds on a CD-clock-radio, would be entirely appropriate - as long as the review does not concern the sound quality of the release.

The listing of reviewer's equipment is appropriate and necessary only when the review is either about equipment or else includes a review of the sound quality of a release.

Now, if anyone would care to discuss how the increased sound quality of remasters can (in some cases) lead to a decrease in the musical quality of the original album, I'm interested in that.

Otherwise, you can continue to shoot the messenger.

PS The "Pink Floyd Encyclopedia"s entries are interesting:

Alan Parsons - Musician, Studio Engineer.

James Guthrie - Recording studio engineer and technician.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

The listing of reviewer's equipment is appropriate and necessary only when the review is either about equipment or else includes a review of the sound quality of a release.

Hmmm, your comments did concern the sound quality of the release and yet you still fail to provide the playback system you used...

 

[Ken Stuart]

Hmmm, your comments did concern the sound quality of the release and yet you still fail to provide the playback system you used...

Actually, in the review, I only comment on the sound quality of the 1993 release, and the review was of the 2003 release.

 

[Kevin C Brown]

For years, studio engineers used crappy speakers to engineer and mix albums.

That has not been my experience. I've been in a few recording studios in my life, even "crappy" local music studios, and I've always been subtlely pleased by the quality of the electronics *and* monitors that I've seen being used. I can only imagine that "high end" studios use that much better gear.

 

[Philip Hamm]

That has not been my experience. I've been in a few recording studios in my life, even "crappy" local music studios, and I've always been subtlely pleased by the quality of the electronics *and* monitors that I've seen being used. I can only imagine that "high end" studios use that much better gear.

He's probably referring to the induistry standard Yamaha SM-10s, which are ubiquitous in studios. Many people deride them as low quality speakers. Actually, if you know how to use them, they are excellent. A good friend of mine is an engineer and mixer who does a lot of major label work. You've probably heard his work. He used to hate them, but has learned to love SM-10s and now absolutely swears by them.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

He's probably referring to the induistry standard Yamaha SM-10s, which are ubiquitous in studios. Many people deride them as low quality speakers.

Count me in as a derider. we once used them in the RCA Studios to listen to a new track just for fun (we had Reference 3As for our monitors). The midrange was very distorted. The main problem with these speakers is that they are bright.

Maybe your friend figured out how to mitigate their brightness. Another popular brand is Westlake which also sucks. I think it is interesting how studio speaker mfrs never have much success outside of the studio. The one thing I do like in some studios are the Hafler and Bryston amps. Still they don't beat tube sound, but tubes are maintenance heavy for some recording environments.

The best studios will have Wilson Audio speakers or like Bob Ludwig the Eggleston Ivy speakers.

Some of the most accurate and neutral sound you will find in a studio comes from Stax headphones driven by their tube amplifier.

Many studios are starting to adopt an audiophile approach to sound and spend more time looking at even small things. These include a lot of what Chesky Records and Reference did in the 90s like:

1. Tube mic preamps.
2. Cardas and other quality wiring.
3. Coupling the mic trees to the floor with sandbag and other isolation techniques.
4. Power supply cleaning to remove EMI/RFI.
5. Using best practice equipment like Nagra recording gear.
6. Using fewer microphones and less mixing as a result which has the most impact but runs against most engineer's training. Even on a million dollar Neve board, you can hear the sonic degradation of its mixing circuits on the Stax headphones very clearly. I know I did the test twice.

 

[LanceJ]

If were talking about the Yamahas with the white 6.5" woofer cones, I've heard that they are in studios to give the engineer an idea what the music sounds like on the "average" person's system (yea, I know--what exactly is "average"?).

And as far audiophile speakers being used in a studio environment, I hope this is a short-lived fad. The last thing we need is improperly-designed equipment that colors the sound. Most present studio monitors are "bright" for a good reason: they are better than home-playback speakers at revealing what is truly being recorded. I've listened to several brands of monitors like KRK, JBL and Genelec and they are merciless with the sound, but with good recordings they sound great. And bad recordings really sound bad.....which is what the engineer should know.

An "audiophile studio"? Please, spare the musicians & the listening public all that audio voodoo. Recording takes long enough now! How many musicians will put up with the typical audiophile hand-wringing over miniscule sonic deviations, IF they are even truly there?

This reminds me of those "hip" corporations that allow people's pets in the office and where the employees are allowed to wear flip-flops and shorts. It may be the cool thing to do but as many of these sloppily operated companies have found out, a lack of discipline can be their downfall.

LJ

 

[Philip Hamm]

Lee,

Next time you're confronted with nearfield SM-10s, turn the volume down - way down - get the room silent, and hear them come alive. Most people run them too loud. Also after you've worked on hundreds of albums it's nice to have an always reliable common frame of reference.

Lots of studios use B&Ws also.

 

[LanceJ]

Lots of studios use B&Ws also.

Like this one. Click on the photo on the upper left.

LJ

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

It's the original mix, Philip, and sounds better than my MFSL gold and superior by several orders of magnitude to the hideous "20th Anniversary Edition" (this latter disc also done by Guthrie/Sax... go figure).

Actually, I thought the 20th Anniversary edition sounded OK, certainly not hideous. In fact, I like it better than the redbook layer of the SACD, which sounds a touch compressed (barely at all by modern standards) to me.

Regards,

 

[Lee Scoggins]

I've listened to several brands of monitors like KRK, JBL and Genelec and they are merciless with the sound, but with good recordings they sound great. And bad recordings really sound bad.....which is what the engineer should know.

The same thing happens with audiophile monitors like Eggleston, Parsifals, etc. and you get more accurate midrange reproduction - the #1 thing in achieving good sonic quality.

 

[John Geelan]

There is a detailed article on DSOTM in this month's (June) Sound And Vision magazine.