Probably due to the fact that this is a pure digital recording (i.e. the master session tapes are digital). Not only that, but it is a digital recording early in the life of the technology. That said, it still sounds pretty damn good. Better than I would expect, actually, given the technological limitations.
Yes, engineer Roger Nichols gave me the scoop on the original recording format (if anyone's interested, my archived review is
here and includes the technical info). While there's no doubt it's an early digital recording, I have a sneaky suspicion that the tracks could have been given a bit more body in the 5.1 re-mix.
A few years after I wrote that review for DVDAngle, I upgraded my meager home studio to include 5.1 mixing, and dove right in. An early demo which was mic'd with a Yamaha condenser had always had a thin, mid-rangey tone to it, compounded by my wife's higher alto notes. I said, well, here's where rubber meets the road - can I fix that? Can I walk the walk? It only took two EQ decisions - a very narrow 4db cut around 2.5k and no rolloff of lows - which is sometimes done to "seat" a vox in the mix so that the accumulation of low-mid info doesn't cloud the mix. But in 5.1, it is a mistake to make EQ decisions based on what works in stereo. Just listen to AIX's recordings - which are flat (no EQ at all!). Well, the difference was
striking. Night and day to my ears.
No, the tracks in Nightfly were, IMHO, very well recorded, and any "thinness" could have been compensated for in the 5.1 mix.
I still love the album and like the mix - just my little perfectionist gripe
