Got it. Thanks for pointing that out. I'm relieved I didn't just get the same 2005 versions again!Originally Posted by JeffCarney
Got it. Thanks for pointing that out. I'm relieved I didn't just get the same 2005 versions again!
And finally, The Quiet Zone/The Pleasure Dome: This one is probably the closest to the original Virgin CD along with Pawn Hearts. Maybe even closer. They are virtually the same, with almost no significant difference in sound that I can detect. In viewing both of them in Sound Forge, the peaks are virtually the same on "Lizard Play," and that track scores a 14 on DR Meter for both the SACD rip I did and the original Virgin CD.
So ... hope this helped someone. In conclusion I really think these new transfers are very nicely done, and for a real enthusiast I am sure they will be enjoyable. But doing actual comparisons also caused me to realize just how good some of those early Virgin CDs were. I know some of Hammill's solo albums definitely didn't sound right on those Virgin CDs (Fool's Mate and Chameleon come to mind as having been painfully bright), but for VDGG, I think that if you don't like those Virgin discs, you don't like the way these albums actually sound or maybe just need a revisit.
So except for Least (which I think is a different mix), don't expect these to be a revelation. For the rest I tend to prefer the SACDs but it's only by a hair in most cases. Probably the most improved is H to HE for me, but even that is not a huge difference.
Thank you Jeff, that is very insightful and helpful - as always...
No Vital??
I know this is trivial, but how are the booklets? same as the 06 remasters??
my music collection increased tenfolds when I switched from drug-addicts to complete nutcases.
Thank you Jeff for all your detailed comparisons. They are very useful and you helped me decide to stick with my old Virgin CDs.
The only doubt i've still got regards The Least We Can Do. It could well be that the new japanese mastering uses the Shel Talmy mix, in which case it would be mandatory for me to purchase that title in SACD.
The songs that differ the most on Shel Talmy mix are Darkness, Refugees and After The Flood. The beginning of Darkness is very different and almost quickly recognisable, with all the band members humming prominently.
Refugees displays a much heavier drums punch, while on After The Flood the ''thunder'' is heard isolated at the end of the song, right after it fades out.
I would be very grateful if we could reach to a conclusion if this new japanese mastering of The Least We Can Do uses the Shel Talmy mix or not.
The Least We Can Do SACD does not have the thunder effect so I guess this is not the Shel Talmy MIX. I really like the 3 first titles on SACD . Very dynamic and more room ambient than the old cds which is great for the Hugh Banton organ sound
thanks for the info/input about these ones!
Very informative thread.Thanks Jeff.
I guess Vital is not part of this reissue series. Anyway I tend to prefer its loud and abrasive remaster over the muddy original CD. For some peculiar reason I find its overdriven sound in line with the musical content. The added material is another treat.
How is the original vinyl by the way?
Last edited by Jay.Dee; 03-31-2015 at 12:56 PM.
After reading the reviews here (thanks!), And since I already own previous issues (original and remaster), I decided to get the first two albums (which stated to have better sound quality + godbluff (which is one of my favorite albums ever).
so, just three for me - SHM, Version.
Jeff, when you say 1987 Virgin cd, is that the same mastering as the US Caroline cd's?
Just wanted to throw inmy thanks for such an extensive and exercised write up of a group of albums very near and dear to my heart. Now that I've got a much better sound setup (Leema Acoustics Tucana II integrated amp with balanced XLR ins; Oppo BDP-105D player and Tetra 333s) with the capacity to play SACDs, I'm making a cautious dive into those waters. So getting this kind of analysis from someone with whom I might occasionally disagree but still respect for knowing his shit, is the shit. Thanks Jeff. Given all I have are Hammill's remasters, it sounds like I need 'em all, so bough PH, SL and Godbluff early last week and am ordering the others today.
Thanks again; great job! Keep 'em comin'
John
Yes. US and UK Virgin CDs are always clones. Yet to come across a UK press that was different to a US version.
You will enjoy these, I'm sure.Just wanted to throw inmy thanks for such an extensive and exercised write up of a group of albums very near and dear to my heart. Now that I've got a much better sound setup (Leema Acoustics Tucana II integrated amp with balanced XLR ins; Oppo BDP-105D player and Tetra 333s) with the capacity to play SACDs, I'm making a cautious dive into those waters. So getting this kind of analysis from someone with whom I might occasionally disagree but still respect for knowing his shit, is the shit. Thanks Jeff. Given all I have are Hammill's remasters, it sounds like I need 'em all, so bough PH, SL and Godbluff early last week and am ordering the others today.
Thanks again; great job! Keep 'em comin'
John
Basically, I look at it like this: You get fantastic transfers done by experts who simply run the tapes properly. This is what the original recordings sound like; period.
I was just surprised how well many of the original Virgin CDs held up.
Last edited by JeffCarney; 04-04-2015 at 02:10 PM.
So this was very interesting concerning the new CDs vs. the old, but although I haven't listened to the old CDs in a long time my memory of them is "not as good as the records". Has anyone who has both compared the new run of digital releases to the original records (UK or US)?
The SACDs are stated to be absolute flat transfers from the master tapes.
So it's what the albums sound like.
What I found out was that many from the original run of CDs seemed to be sourced from the same tapes, and also run with little to no intervention. So to a similar (if somewhat lesser) extent, they were also how the albums sound.
Getting into vinyl comparisons could certainly be interesting but that really brings the "Vinyl vs. CD" debate into the discussion, as well as accounting for different masterings on vinyl.
Note that I also had some preconceived ideas about how good the original CDs were, but in direct comparison in the here and now, that perception proved to be false. Many of them really held up well.
One update: I would say that World Record does sound better on the new SACD. Better balance. More dynamic.
So ... at this point, I'd say that WR, LWCD and HtHE are probably the best of the new versions.
The only original UK VDGG vinyl I have is for "Godbluff" and "Quiet Zone/Pleasure Dome". I have a later UK pressing for "The Least We Can Do". These SACDs are very, very close in tonality. It's practically a wash. In fact, I would probably save hundreds of bucks and just go for these SACDs.
With respect, that's a rather naive view. At the time the records originally came out, it was usual for the disc mastering engineer to do some processing right at the final stage of cutting the disc. It was a skill which made some mastering engineers more in demand than others. Few records which came out in this time period are a direct, unmodified reflection of the master tape, and a direct unmodified version of the master tape could very well make for a dull sounding CD. The old Virgin/Caroline CDs were (to the best of my fading memory) a less involving musical experience than was listening to the records. It's not that important to me right now as I don't spend a lot of time listening to 40 year old music (in fact, I'm personally much more involved with 80-90 year old music these days), but if I understand right and what you're saying is that by and large these discs sound pretty much like the Virgin ones did I'll save my dough and reach for one of the records if I want to hear this music again.
I shouldn't have used the term "albums."
I'm well aware of the points you discuss and it's a big part of the reason I mentioned that comparing the new flat transfers to LPs would be a complex matter.
What I meant was that the SACDs are what the master tapes sound like.
Might could be, or it could be rather simple, like "I compared the SACD to my <UK/US> Charisma LP and it "sounded pretty much the same"|"I liked <a/b> better". It's all subjective, anyway. As I said originally, I'd like to hear the opinions of anyone who is familiar with or even has ready access to both.
Presumably. I wouldn't say that without having heard those tapes myself. I am not a trusting soul.
Thank you, Jeff for your nice review. Please read mine.
http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/thread...319827/page-36
"I love VdGG since 70's. All these years one question was a mystery to me: How people can choose one their album over the other? For me it is one big 7-parts piece of original and innovative Prog music, which will live forever.
Guys, please read my report on VdGG SHM-SACD at The best SHM-SACDs (part3) thread Post #893.
We all are Van der Graaf and Peter fans. Do not buy only parts - buy whole piece, while you still have a chance.
http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/thread...319827/page-36
P.S.
I tested them in the Hi-End system with 500W speakers, 1000W amp and Cary 306 Pro SACD player." -- from Steve Hoffman forum
Thanks for the link. I read your comments and found them interesting. I'm surprised that you would rank Quiet Zone/Pleasure Dome as your favorite of the new versions, as I think this one is flat out interchangeable with the 80s Virgin CD. So close a friend of mine isn't convinced it wasn't copied from the old CD. It's that close! I doubt one person in a thousand could tell these discs apart in a blind test.
Understand that this isn't criticism of the new version. I believe it probably just demonstrates how good the original CD already was, and that the new version kept with the spirit of the program in doing a flat transfer.
The ones I find most improved are Least We Can Do, H To HE and World Record. Godbluff and Still Life are also improved but not as much. Pawn Hearts and the aforementioned QZ/PD are so close to the originals it's almost a toss-up.
Jeff,
Why did I rank Quiet Zone, as the best sounding of new release?
Because in my system difference in sound between Original CD and SHM-SACD is huge.
Yes, they are identical sonically:
Both discs have very balanced sound - highs, mid and bottom ends are equally presented, vocal is upfront, didn't lost in the mix.
The sound is neutral - there's no any coloration here.
Highs are clean without any brightness (cymbals sound natural).
Bass is fast and tight with good punch. No booming sound at all.
Nevertheless, an improvement is in the Sound Presentation.
Original CD was mastered using outdated 16-bit mastering process. Due to its limitations, sound is 'flat' (non 3-dementional) with narrow 'sweet spot'.
New hi-resolution disc creates deep soundstage, forward and beyond - speakers disappeared. 'Sweet spot' is so wide - you can stay by the one speaker and still hear another one.
But what is the most important: separation between instruments and air - you can feel air in your room. Sound is Alive.
And, overall transparency of the sound; muddy bass... no more!
Such a transparency and separation lead to the revealing of the tiny details, you never able to hear from 80's disc.
You said: "...this isn't criticism of the new version. I believe it probably just demonstrates how good the original CD already was."
Yes, it's true: the better original CD was done, the closer it sounds to SHM-SACD, but only sonically. In the good Hi-End system it's no contest, really.
To give you a parallel, the difference in the sound is like difference in the vision between first color TV and contemporary 4k HD flat screen.
All those good words I said about the sound quality of Quiet Zone SHM-SACD is nothing but triumph of the 'hi-rez' DSD Mastering Technology over the old 16-bit one, and capability of the system to reproduce it.
Yes, capability of the system is the key.
Jeff, by your own words: please "understand that this isn't criticism of" your system. (We don't do that at SF forum). A doctor does not criticize his patient. He is telling him just a truth.
And the truth is:
Having just "a hair" difference of the sound in your system, you bought an expensive Van der Graaf SACD complete set anyway. In my mind, Jeff, you're just a hero, who deserved only my respect. Yours, old Prog lover, intuition didn't let you down. You bought a treasure. Please come to Chicago Hi-End Audio show AXPONA 2015 on April 24-26, take these discs with you and we will try them in the best audio systems in the World - we will have good time, I promise.
toilet_doctor
P.S.
Original CD sonically was sound good; new SHM-SACD add to it an Analog Quality of Sound Presentation, so does Original LP. What is sound better?
The battle between good SACD and good LP in Hi-End system is the battle between good SACD player and good turntable.
toilet_doctor
Last edited by toilet_doctor; 04-21-2015 at 12:08 PM.
"Huge?"
You're simply kidding yourself here. No system in the world can bring out any truly notable differences in those discs.
If you open them both in an audio editor, even the peaks are the same. It's just not one of the ones where there was any real upgrade.
I do think the new discs benefit from modern converters and the DSD process. It's just that I hear marginable improvements in this area, whereas snake oil drinkers tend to hear a revelation.
Sorry I snipped your post but the rest I found a bit difficult to follow.
Jeff,
I am not kidding, because I am messing with Hi-End more than 15 years. To say "no system in the world", you have to try them first. Last year I did at Chicago Show - so, I know what I am talking about - and I will do it again.
Would you argue, that old rightly done LPs were sound the way better than their good CDs counterparts. CDs sound flat and metalic-didgital, LP sound airy, spacious and analog-smooth.
Rip them off and compare: the files will be identical, "even the picks will be the same". But LPs sound better, right? Why? It's different technology. Yes, that what I am trying to say.
Hi-Rez discs: DVD-A, Blu-ray Audio and SACDs are digital alternative to old LPs.
Why damn it so hard to believe, that they supposed to sound better on the big margin (the same like LP), justifying their 3-4 times higher price? Look: 1983 old CD and 2015 new SACD. What do you think, is not enough time to make it happen?
Thousands people buying Hi-End systems with single component min 5 grand. Only our American Hi-Fi magazines have millions subscribers.
What they all are stupid snake oil drinkers?
All of these magazines, equipment manufacturers and labels are existed because those damn discs, you bought, sound better on a big damn margin.
I did just open your eyes. You have proof on your hands. Take them to your local Hi-End store and you will see and hear it for yourself.
P.S. Just post the result for all of us.
Last edited by toilet_doctor; 04-21-2015 at 08:12 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks