But seriously folks, I've often thought ImportCDs have a habit of over promising new releases. To their credit though, they did come through for me on Wakeman's "The Red Planet" surround title, when we were told no more were available and I actually ordered after that info- so
They prefer(red) to work from the original mix master tape, not the multitracks. They'd have to do a new mix (remix) if working from multis.I’ve also got the stereo SACD of Olias (Audio Fidelity), given how they (both Steve Hoffman and Kevin Gray) always wanted to use the orginal tapes when mastering, I assume they didn’t have access to them either?
It's this horrible high pitched belly/percussion thing at around 2.5-3.0 k that seems to be on every track. Anyone else hear that ?
An excellent idea, but IMHO, an even better option would be a surround mix of The Best of Jon and Vangelis, which includes the best tracks from The Friends of Mr. Cairo as well as a selection of tracks from the other 3 JAV releases. All killer, no filler.I wonder if the negative publicity surrounding this release will imperil any future Jon Anderson surround releases and if the original multitrack masters for The Friends of Mr. Cairo exist, an album I would love to see receive the surround treatment?
Some tracks are edited on the Best of... so I would prefer full album remixes.An excellent idea, but IMHO, an even better option would be a surround mix of The Best of Jon and Vangelis, which includes the best tracks from The Friends of Mr. Cairo as well as a selection of tracks from the other 3 JAV releases. All killer, no filler.
Honestly, that Japanese CD sounds like it has a high end eq boost at minimum. It should be able to be bettered. This new set is not it though. If the tape was in rough shape or something like that... I don't know. I hear more of the recording and with less damage in the 1st Japanese CD edition. I mean... I obviously don't know that because I don't have the master here to A/B with! Perhaps I agree with an eq alteration done on that CD version?
All I know is this new copy sounded muffled and unbalanced frequency wise. And then it was boosted and limited for no good reason and when it had actual problems that needed correcting first. And then the goofy artifact soup upmix. This is just childish.
Whatever generational madness happened or didn't behind the scenes, that 1st CD has the most naturally clear sound and dynamics. I'm not normally a fan of the hyped high end eq boosts that are in vogue for CD versions.
That SACD version sounds even worse. I don't care what DR numbers someone made the meter read. (You can make those read anything at any volume. Check out TV or radio commercials. You can skew LUFS numbers almost as easily. Almost...)
|TRUE Peak Amplitude||0.16||0.01||-0.02||-0.10||0.09||0.17||dBTP|
|Maximum Sample Value||32767||32767||32634||32267||32393||32393|
|Minimum Sample Value||-32768||-32022||-30642||-29698||-32394||-32394|
|Possibly Clipped Samples||7||1||0||0||0||0|
|Total RMS Amplitude||-18.21||-18.49||-21.52||-21.49||-17.43||-17.12||dB|
|Maximum RMS Amplitude||-7.69||-8.36||-10.37||-11.00||-6.70||-7.13||dB|
|Minimum RMS Amplitude||-50.10||-49.97||-96.57||-88.75||-96.48||-96.62||dB|
|Average RMS Amplitude||-21.28||-21.47||-24.95||-25.02||-20.87||-20.61||dB|
|DC Offset %||-0.64||-0.99||0.00||-0.07||0.00||0.00||%|
|Measured Bit Depth||16||16||16||16||16||16|
|Dynamic Range Used||35.25||32.25||59.80||62.55||62.50||62.65||dB|
|Perceived Loudness (Legacy)||-9.61||-11.38||-14.57||-14.08||-10.46||-8.64||dB|
|ITU-R BS.1770-3 Loudness (LUFS)||-14.59||-17.79||-13.65|
|0dB = FS Square Wave|
|Using RMS Window of 50.00 ms|
|Account for DC = true|
Because I don't have the master tape in my possession to compare to.So much speculation...