Well, assuming the mix and mastering is good, SACD should sound better than regular CDs because it’s a higher resolution format. And the Gabriel box’s better sound isn’t, I’d bet, anything to do with better gear...more that the putcry about the previous boxes was so loud that they paid attention. But medium has no bearing on the mix..it is about higher resolution allowing for broader frequency and dynamic range. But the positioning of the instruments across the soundstage won’t change (though higher res formats will possess a broader soundstage).
I’d recommend picking up a book about basic sound engineering, as it sounds to me, with no disrespect intended, that your understanding of the process could stand a little improvement...if, that is, you care
As for mix vs master? I don’t recall if Davis was responsible for both. If so, then yes, he was responsible for the finished sound, irrespective of medium. But if he was only mixing and someone else mastering? It’s not his job to listen to the mastered music; he’s hired to mix the music, and if that’s then passed off to another engineer for mastering, well, that’s on the second guy. Some engineers specialize in mastering, so it’s not uncommon for an album to be mixed and mastered by two different people. But once the mixer’s work is done, it’s done (just consider Steven Wilson’s mixes...many of which are transferred as-is but others then mastered by someone else).
And yes, in a car the dynamics can often mean quieter passages are hard to hear....but I’ll take that over flat dynamics any day. If the artist intended the music to cover a broad dynamic range, I think it’s just flat-out wrong to eliminate it.
Of course, when the artist does it because of aging ears (Hammill’s VDGG remasters, anyone?), well, that’s another story.
Bookmarks