|
|
|
michi said:
Can confirm Gus's statement above and have heard them. "A++". Hopefully (AcousticSounds? AudioFidelity? MoFi?) will license and give the nod.
That will be great! I hope it's Mch.
|
|
|
Post by Espen R February 28, 2013 (82 of 115)
|
|
About Paul Simon's "Graceland" that was state-of-the-art all analogue recorded, but mixed down to 16-bit digital:
"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."
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep08/articles/classictracks_0908.htm
|
|
|
Post by rammiepie February 28, 2013 (83 of 115)
|
|
Fascinating tidbit, Espen R..........Ironically, Graceland was announced by Warners as a DVD~A but never materialized so there should be a 5.1 mix out there somewhere and not in lossy 16/44.1.
|
|
|
|
|
|
audioholik said:
Good question, IMHO transferring master tapes to 44/16 rbcd is a complete waste of time when the other company can use the Grimm converter and release the same titles on stereo/multichannel SACD.
Most AF 24k gold RBCDs releases of these last months use the HDCD coding. So those who have the dedicated equipment can at least have the small advantage of a 20bit sound, not to mention a disk that won't oxidize with a better laser reflection.
This can be seen as something better than the average RBCD, even though it's not as good as a Super Audio CD.
|
|
|
Post by MarioBR March 29, 2013 (85 of 115)
|
|
The text of this post has been deleted by the moderator. Reason:
If you want to provide links to files, do so from the source. Otherwise there's no way to know they're legitimate (namely they haven't been pirated).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kveld-Úlfr said:
Most AF 24k gold RBCDs releases of these last months use the HDCD coding. So those who have the dedicated equipment can at least have the small advantage of a 20bit sound, not to mention a disk that won't oxidize with a better laser reflection.
This can be seen as something better than the average RBCD, even though it's not as good as a Super Audio CD.
That may have been true of AF's first batch of Gold RBCD releases (HDCD encoding) but the later batch omit the HDCD encoding.
If it doesn't specifically state HDCD encoded on the jacket and disc itself, they are NOT!
|
|
|
Post by dobyblue April 4, 2013 (87 of 115)
|
|
rammiepie said:
Fascinating tidbit, Espen R..........Ironically, Graceland was announced by Warners as a DVD~A but never materialized so there should be a 5.1 mix out there somewhere and not in lossy 16/44.1.
Definitely wouldn't be lossy it it was a DVD-A, but it could be lossless 16/44.1
|
|
|
Post by dobyblue April 4, 2013 (88 of 115)
|
|
MOFI won't release a surround mix, I've asked them before and they've said they wouldn't release someone else's work but they won't pay extra to license their own 5.1 mix, I think they're a bit conflicted perhaps on what they're actually capable of doing.
Who knows, maybe Steven Wilson will get interested in doing it and we'll get a nice dynamic major label 5.1 version. His 5.1 mix of Emerson, Lake and Palmer is gorgeous, as are the King Crimson surround mixes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
dobyblue said:
MOFI won't release a surround mix, I've asked them before and they've said they wouldn't release someone else's work but they won't pay extra to license their own 5.1 mix, I think they're a bit conflicted perhaps on what they're actually capable of doing.
Who knows, maybe Steven Wilson will get interested in doing it and we'll get a nice dynamic major label 5.1 version. His 5.1 mix of Emerson, Lake and Palmer is gorgeous, as are the King Crimson surround mixes.
I did e~mail MoFi and received a reply regarding their upcoming Chicago I release, citing that Analogue Productions DOES include a mch remaster if available (Norah Jones/Kind of Blue, i.e.)
They seemed excited but were looking into the licensing of the Rhino remaster.
Keep your fingers crossed as the DTS Rhino 4.0 edition is spectacular (save for its lossy origins)....a discreet extravaganza!
|
|
|
Post by dobyblue April 5, 2013 (90 of 115)
|
|
rammiepie said:
I did e~mail MoFi and received a reply regarding their upcoming Chicago I release, citing that Analogue Productions DOES include a mch remaster if available (Norah Jones/Kind of Blue, i.e.)
They seemed excited but were looking into the licensing of the Rhino remaster.
Keep your fingers crossed as the DTS Rhino 4.0 edition is spectacular (save for its lossy origins)....a discreet extravaganza!
What does MOFI have to do with Analogue Productions releases?
Anyway, back in 2012 I asked them about "The Stranger" not coming with the excellent 5.1 mix. Here's our e-mail exchange, tell me if you think it sounds like they said two different things.
ME - With Billy Joel’s albums having come out so far I was wondering what is behind the decision to not include a MCH playback on the SACD’s, particular ones where a great 5.1 mix already exists like “The Stranger”? The 5.1 Sony SACD of The Stranger now fetches $300 just in the used market and I paid $18 for mine in 2006. I know that there was a Quad 4.0 recording of Piano Man, yet the MOFI SACD only offers a stereo option for playback. Is it because licensing additional programs like the quad masters of Piano Man or the 5.1 masters of The Stranger would add too much to the cost of the production?
MOFI - That would actually require us to remix the album and that isn’t what we do here at Mofi. We work from the original tapes and do our best to improve the sound without altering the original master recording.
ME - I am aware that MOFI works from the original tapes for the Original Master Recording series. However, if there already exists a master tape for a 4.0 Piano Man and a 5.1 The Stranger then how would you be remixing the album? Wouldn’t that only be the case if a multi-channel mix did not exist?
MOFI - A couple of reasons for that:
a. – if we were inclined to do any type of multi-ch. surround version , we wouldn’t use anyone else’s mixes. We would insist on preparing it ourselves.
b. – surround formats are a whole different contractual discussion.
|
|
