Graceland 25th Anniversary remaster - my review

[MajorFubar]

It's a funny situation. Over exuberant dynamic compression and the Loudness War has been done to death both on here and elsewhere, and I don’t really want to start the subject again. Yet, in the case of remasters, I can’t help but feel that audio engineers have grossly misjudged what the target audience wants. The biggest market for classic re-issues are surely people like me, old enough to have bought the same albums once or even possibly twice already. What I'm looking for in a remaster is the most faithful A-D transfer possible from the technology. That must surely be typical of what most potential buyers will want, and in my mind the process to that end doesn’t call for additional dynamic compression and volume-maximizing.

 

[atticus]

I think a remaster should be a new, but unaltered rendering of the original tapes, in as high a quality as is possible using modern equipment. Brian Eno's 'Original Series' remasters were just that - a 're-transposal', if you like, but with no fiddling, tweaking of the mix or jiggery-pokery.

If the record companies want to compress and make a more punchy version for those that want, then by all means, knock yourself out. But please can the old farts amongst us have a nice clean, unmodified and untinkered-with version as well?!

 

[MajorFubar]

Exactly. Most people who are going to buy remastered CDs of ancient albums are going to want exactly that, surely. Yet on too many occasions we end up with mastered-for-iPod garbage (Mothership anyone?)

 

[nopiano]

Could someone with an early CD of Graceland or Hearts and Bones take a look at the SPARS code for me? MF mentions analogue to digital in the OP, and when I first saw this thread I wondered if Graceland was actually a digital master, because I knew H&B was, having recently played my original LP and read the insert (Recorded using the 3M Digital Mastering Process, Digital Engineeer: Tom Bates).

I have now just dug out my Graceland LP, and though it is not quite so specific, it has the same credit to Greg Calbi at Sterling Sound, New York. I don't imagine they retrofitted analogue three years later!

On the general point, I am undecided on the remaster debate, and can only conclude it just depends, because I have bought so few remastered CDs when I already have an earlier version. I have a few more remastered analogue recordings of various 'classical' works, but these are mostly from 78s or ancient originals, where the challenges are altogether different!

 

[MajorFubar]

There is no SPARS code on the original CD (nor the new one), but there is a note saying that 'the music on this Compact Digital Disc was originally recorded on analog equipment'. It doesn't say whether that means AAD or ADD.

 

[nopiano]

There is no SPARS code on the original CD (nor the new one), but there is a note saying that 'the music on this Compact Digital Disc was originally recorded on analog equipment'. It doesn't say whether that means AAD or ADD.

Thanks, MF, how strange. That doesn't really tie up with the sleeve on the LP, or the period, which was well into the digital era. I wondered if it had been recorded on location, which might imply analogue, but was actually in various studios in New York, etc. No details on wikipedia I could find either. Oh well!

 

[mykspence]

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep08/articles/classictracks_0908.htm

At the Hit Factory, Halee sat behind an SSL console, used a Sony PCM3324 digital multitrack, and monitored on United Western speakers which he describes as "unlistenable. They were totally wrong, with no bass and the top end just screaming at you. I raised so much hell there, they hated to see me arrive. I'd ask, 'Can you voice these speakers, please?' and they would, but then another session would come in at night and somebody would change them! Unlike at Columbia, there were no standards whatsoever. You never knew what you were going to hear, and anything you did hear bore absolutely no relationship to what was on the tape. So, I brought in my own speakers — a pair of little Westlakes that we kept there — and everything was fine."As things turned out, the most laborious and time-consuming aspects of the Graceland project took place at the Hit Factory."The amount of editing that went into that album was unbelievable," Halee asserts. "We recorded everything analogue, so it sounded really good, but without the facility to edit digital I don't think we could have done that project. The first thing I did was take the material to New York and put it on the Sony machine. Then we edited, edited, edited like crazy, put it back on analogue, took it to LA to overdub Linda Ronstadt or whoever, brought it back to New York, put it back on digital and edited some more. We must have done that at least 20 times, and if not for digital we could have ended up with just as many generations of recordings."

 

[nopiano]

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep08/articles/classictracks_0908.htm

Thanks for the fascinating link. Makes a lot more sense now. Quite a tale!

Near the top of the article did you see a little gallery, and there is a picture of Roy at home with his (David) Wilson loudspeakers.

 

[BenLaw]

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep08/articles/classictracks_0908.htm

At the Hit Factory, Halee sat behind an SSL console, used a Sony PCM3324 digital multitrack, and monitored on United Western speakers which he describes as "unlistenable. They were totally wrong, with no bass and the top end just screaming at you. I raised so much hell there, they hated to see me arrive. I'd ask, 'Can you voice these speakers, please?' and they would, but then another session would come in at night and somebody would change them! Unlike at Columbia, there were no standards whatsoever. You never knew what you were going to hear, and anything you did hear bore absolutely no relationship to what was on the tape. So, I brought in my own speakers — a pair of little Westlakes that we kept there — and everything was fine."As things turned out, the most laborious and time-consuming aspects of the Graceland project took place at the Hit Factory."The amount of editing that went into that album was unbelievable," Halee asserts. "We recorded everything analogue, so it sounded really good, but without the facility to edit digital I don't think we could have done that project. The first thing I did was take the material to New York and put it on the Sony machine. Then we edited, edited, edited like crazy, put it back on analogue, took it to LA to overdub Linda Ronstadt or whoever, brought it back to New York, put it back on digital and edited some more. We must have done that at least 20 times, and if not for digital we could have ended up with just as many generations of recordings."

Nice, many thanks

 

[MajorFubar]

Very interesting! So truth is it's a bit of a cross-breed.

It must have been difficult editing on digital tape in the early days. More or less as I was finishing my basic training as a studio engineer in '84, digital tape recorders were starting to appear, and my mentors were not keen on them at all as they just weren't as easy to physically edit on as analogue machines. DAWs changed all that with hard disk storage and visual editing.

 

[BenLaw]

This arrived earlier in the week and just had a chance to listen to it. Thanks to the Major for bringing it to my attention Can only echo all his comments (not had a chance to watch the DVD yet) - really nice packaged set, good sleeve notes from the bit I've read and excellent SQ. I was always a little disappointed with the CD when I heard it through proper kit, it never lived up to my recollections from when I'd first heard it. This CD is so much more visceral; percussion plays such a vital part and is so much clearer and more focused. It now sounds like I remember it, delighted

 

[MajorFubar]

Nice one Ben. Funny how there appear to be two camps in this thread, those who felt the original CD was fine and those like me who always felt it was a bit bland and lame. Makes me wonder if there were two cuts to begin with!

 

[BenLaw]

Nice one Ben. Funny how there appear to be two camps in this thread, those who felt the original CD was fine and those like me who always felt it was a bit bland and lame. Makes me wonder if there were two cuts to begin with!

Maybe we're more discerning

Seriously tho, it would be interesting to hear if even those who didn't have a problem with the original consider this remaster to be a step up.

 

[Alantiggger]

The music sounds superb but I still recon the lyrics are a little, now what's the word ......?

I cannot think of the correct one to use at this time (too much real ale ?) I'll say 'tame' for want of offending someone by saying childlike. (runs for cover, lol)

 

[nopiano]

@MF in particular, I have just seen that on Tuesday 3rd July at 10.35pm on BBC1 tv there is a programme Imagine about this very album. Worth a look I reckon.

 

[MajorFubar]

Thanks Nopiano, I'll look out for that!