HiRez Poll Beck, Jeff - BLOW BY BLOW [SACD]

[Beefalo]

One of my favorites from the vinyl & cassette days.
It's great to have a M/C version of this.
I bought the Analogue Productions ‎2016.
A question for those that have an original quad. mix:
Except for the empty useless center channel... is this the exact same mix?
I hear a duplication of instruments in different channels. Like identical guitar centered in the surrounds. I would expect a guitar in one surround and something different out of the other. I find that this takes away some of the discrete enjoyment.
Is this the same as the old quad?
I set the configuration on my system to center "none" and then compared the Japanese "Wired" SACD to this Blow by Blow.
I like the mix of Wired much better. Much more discrete to my ears.
To me it sounds like they tried to make the Blow by Blow "big quad"

 

[ssully]

The center doesn't really matter on this one (nor does the LFE...they are both 'synthetic', i.e., derived from the 4-track). The guitar is mixed into both rear channels. But not exactly the same sounding..for example, on the first track 'You Know What I Mean', the surround left guitar is 'dry' while the surround right guitar has reverb. It's subtle. But there are truly discrete parts for keyboard (parts that are only in one channel).

 

[Beefalo]

The center doesn't really matter on this one (nor does the LFE...they are both 'synthetic', i.e., derived from the 4-track). The guitar is mixed into both rear channels. But not exactly the same sounding..for example, on the first track 'You Know What I Mean', the surround left guitar is 'dry' while the surround right guitar has reverb. It's subtle. But there are truly discrete parts for keyboard (parts that are only in one channel).

Thank you. I'm still wondering if this mixing choice was also incorporated in the original quad version.
Or was a new mix created for the SACD releases?
Calling all quads.....

 

[sjcorne]

Thank you. I'm still wondering if this mixing choice was also incorporated in the original quad version.
Or was a new mix created for the SACD releases?
Calling all quads.....

The SACD is the original quad version - it’s exactly the same mix as the old Columbia SQ LP and Q8 tape. I prefer the Wired quad mix as well.

 

[ssully]

The SACD I have is 5.1; it has a center channel and an LFE channel added to the original quad version, and they are not empty. Their content doesn't come from remixing the original multitracks; the center comes from audio that is common to the front LR channels, and the LFE from bass in the existing channels. Such 'repurposing' of a 4-channel source is akin to upmixing.

 

[Tim Casey]

I just got the AP 2016 SACD (at full price, no less) and I have to say I prefer the 2001 Sony SACD mastering.

1) The older SACD is louder, which is unexpected, especially considering:
2) The newer disc sounds more compressed.

The low midrange is much more defined on the older disc. The kick drum has a kick to it; on the newer SACD, it seems to just go "poof". Listening to both at decent volumes (I had to turn up the newer disc by 2.5db), I felt a little bit "squeezed" in my room by the 2016 disc.

Of course, I'd take either disc to a desert island in a heartbeat. This is a masterpiece with the most lyrical guitar solos in history.

 

[Simon A]

I just got the AP 2016 SACD (at full price, no less) and I have to say I prefer the 2001 Sony SACD mastering.

1) The older SACD is louder, which is unexpected, especially considering:
2) The newer disc sounds more compressed.

The low midrange is much more defined on the older disc. The kick drum has a kick to it; on the newer SACD, it seems to just go "poof". Listening to both at decent volumes (I had to turn up the newer disc by 2.5db), I felt a little bit "squeezed" in my room by the 2016 disc.

Of course, I'd take either disc to a desert island in a heartbeat. This is a masterpiece with the most lyrical guitar solos in history.

The 2001 Multichannel SACD was mastered by long time Sony associate Vic Anesini. Many people are fans of his mastering style.

 

[ssully]

Are you talking about there stereo, or the multichannel, mastering?

 

[Simon A]

Are you talking about there stereo, or the multichannel, mastering?

I assume your question is directed at Tim?

 

[Tim Casey]

I was talking about the multichannel layer on both discs. Man, it hasn't even occurred to me to listen to the stereo layer....

 

[Simon A]

I was talking about the multichannel layer on both discs. Man, it hasn't even occurred to me to listen to the stereo layer....

From what I've read in the past about Analogue Productions' reissues of albums on SACD with a Multichannel layer (like the the Doors SACDs which contained the 5.1 mixes from the Perception box set), only the Stereo layer would be mastered by Analogue Productions. the Multichannel layer would use the same mastering as its previous release. I'm inclined to believe that this would be applicable to this release as well, unless AP's web site indicates otherwise.

 

[Beefalo]

I just got the AP 2016 SACD (at full price, no less) and I have to say I prefer the 2001 Sony SACD mastering.

1) The older SACD is louder, which is unexpected, especially considering:
2) The newer disc sounds more compressed.

The low midrange is much more defined on the older disc. The kick drum has a kick to it; on the newer SACD, it seems to just go "poof". Listening to both at decent volumes (I had to turn up the newer disc by 2.5db), I felt a little bit "squeezed" in my room by the 2016 disc.

Of course, I'd take either disc to a desert island in a heartbeat. This is a masterpiece with the most lyrical guitar solos in history.

I haven't heard the 2001 Sony so I can't compare it to the 2016. There were earlier reports that the rear channels on the 2001 were out of phase.
If you look at post #106 by steelydave it is explained.

 

[Simon A]

I haven't heard the 2001 Sony so I can't compare it to the 2016. There were earlier reports that the rear channels on the 2001 were out of phase.
If you look at post #106 by steelydave it is explained.

And this issue would have been fixed on the AP release?

 

[Tim Casey]

From what I've read in the past about Analogue Productions' reissues of albums on SACD with a Multichannel layer (like the the Doors SACDs which contained the 5.1 mixes from the Perception box set), only the Stereo layer would be mastered by Analogue Productions. the Multichannel layer would use the same mastering as its previous release. I'm inclined to believe that this would be applicable to this release as well, unless AP's web site indicates otherwise.

This is definitely a different mastering job. It's a night-and-day difference. Which one is better is a matter of taste, but they are different. You can hear it easily.

 

[Simon A]

This is definitely a different mastering job. It's a night-and-day difference. Which one is better is a matter of taste, but they are different. You can hear it easily.

Good to know. It offers people two options to choose from. Perhaps when voting members could point out which version they are voting for.

 

[edisonbaggins]

I've got the 7" Sony (thanks, @Clement ) and the 2016 AP. I prefer the AP quite a bit.

 

[ssully]

This is definitely a different mastering job. It's a night-and-day difference. Which one is better is a matter of taste, but they are different. You can hear it easily.

If comparing a non-phase-corrected version to a phase-corrected version, there will certainly be an easily heard difference, but that's not due to the usual things we associate with remastering. It's due to restoring the in-phase bass between front and rear channels.

 

[Tim Casey]

Well, the difference I'm hearing is lower volume on the AP and much more compression. That's not due to phase issues. And I've mastered a lot of albums.

 

[ssully]

Well, the difference I'm hearing is lower volume on the AP and much more compression. That's not due to phase issues. And I've mastered a lot of albums.

Compression (dynamic range reduction) is typically associated with *higher* perceived volume, not lower.


The issue could be settled by comparing rips of the two versions with audio editing/analytic software. When it comes to accurately determining *reasons why* two releases sound different, ears are notoriously chancy.

 

[Tim Casey]

So, I've examined "You Know What I Mean" from both releases, and I (sort of) stand corrected. The peaks and the RMS values of each channel are identical between the two.

The only difference (other than the phase switch) is they have two different DC offsets, which I could see graphically when zooming in on the two waveforms. Lord knows which DC offset is "correct". At any rate, something changed the DC offset when the AP master was prepared, so it's not a simple bit-for-bit transfer (with phase flips).

And, yes, compression is typically associated with higher RMS levels, not lower, if the compressor is used to make up the gain after being compressed. Which is why I thought it really weird that the version that sounded more compressed to me also sounded quieter - I was thinking "why compress it if you're not using compression to make it seem louder?". And the old disc still sounds more "open" and clearer to me with more space between the instruments.

I don't know if the DC offset is really making the difference in perception, or if it's only the phase flips on the new release, but I still prefer the old one. I just enjoy it more. Go figure.

My buddy's getting my AP version, and I'm sure he'll love it. In fact, I could listen and compare the two of them all day long and I'd be happy - it's that good an album to begin with.