Ziggy Stardust on DVD-A in New Set coming 6/5

[fredblue]

I don't know how I feel about this post Ken Scott made on the Steve Hoffman forums just last night..

"OK people, time to jump in. Yes this is the first time I have really been involved in any Bowie re-masters. Hence the use of Ray Staff, the mastering engineer that worked on the album originally. I can tell you that Ray used the original master tapes and that he worked analog right up to the last minute. All eq is analog and I'm sure, going by past experience, there will be some of you out there that will disagree, but I happen to think this is the closest we've got to the original vinyl pressings.
As far as Starman goes, unless someone sometime swapped the original mix for the alternate one that I don't remember doing, this is the mix I, David, Mainman and RCA approved.
One last thing, TOTAL self promotion, but Abbey Road to Ziggy Stardust is released on June 6th and I'm prepared for the onslaught.
Cheers"

initial thoughts..
Ken Scott was not as "involved" in the Ziggy SACD as I thought.

 

[neil wilkes]

initial thoughts..
Ken Scott was not as "involved" in the Ziggy SACD as I thought.

Yes he was - he mixed the 5.1 versions in 2003.

 

[fredblue]

Yes he was - he mixed the 5.1 versions in 2003.

I know that Neil, it's just from Kens' comments on the Hoffman forums the other day, you'd think this 2012 remaster was the first time he'd been involved. Very odd.

It's a shame he did mix them into 5.1, they're just so lacking.

 

[neil wilkes]

Do you know what I find to be the strangest comment?

I happen to think this is the closest we've got to the original vinyl pressings.

Here's why.

Vinyl has limitations imposed by the format. You must cut bass response or the thing will not track (stylus will jump out of grooves - this happened with the US Bob Ludwig master of Led Zep II, which was rapidly withdrawn because of just this problem, and redone with a lot less bass) and you must tone down top end energy or you will burn the cutting head on the lathe.
So why in the name of all the gods would you want to do a digital release like 40 year old vinyl?
I know what the master tapes sound like, and the bass end on Ziggy is outstanding - and this reissue is bass light to me by comparison.
Sure, do a vinyl master.
BUT - why use the limited vinyl version for a 24/96 digital version? Pointless, stupid & no sense at all.

 

[fredblue]

Do you know what I find to be the strangest comment?

Here's why.

Vinyl has limitations imposed by the format. You must cut bass response or the thing will not track (stylus will jump out of grooves - this happened with the US Bob Ludwig master of Led Zep II, which was rapidly withdrawn because of just this problem, and redone with a lot less bass) and you must tone down top end energy or you will burn the cutting head on the lathe.
So why in the name of all the gods would you want to do a digital release like 40 year old vinyl?
I know what the master tapes sound like, and the bass end on Ziggy is outstanding - and this reissue is bass light to me by comparison.
Sure, do a vinyl master.
BUT - why use the limited vinyl version for a 24/96 digital version? Pointless, stupid & no sense at all.

I totally, 100% agree with you, Neil.

this obsession/trend to make re-releases of classic albums sound "just like the vinyl" must have been borne out of ignorance, or misunderstanding, both by the public and by the industry itself.

I've felt these views were long held because so many albums were either ruined by poor mastering (heavy-handed noise reduction, compression, brickwalling) when transferred to CD,
or that early CDs used poor source tapes, or vinyl cutting masters with just the EQ limits for vinyl that you refer to Neil, already built-in, making the CDs sound poor in comparison to peoples' old LPs.

maybe Ken Scott means this is the closest to the mix and sound of the original Ray Staff mastered vinyl, which some feel to be the best presentation of the album so far, rather than the closest to the original master tapes that only a select few have heard?

I don't know why there's been this hokey, phoney notion perpetuated that vinyl is an audiophile format, when it's not.

the inherent flaws and limitations of vinyl, the surface noise, the nasty pops and clicks from mishandling, the worn grooves, inner groove distortion, the resolution and frequency range limitations, all stop it being anywhere near audiophile, for me.

does this Ziggy reissue present another missed opportunity!? it would appear so..

if only Bowie & EMI would let you work your magic on his back catalogue, Neil. can you imagine the results!?

 

[bayards]

Yep we need a bit of Neilism on the Bowie catalogue. I have the new issue in 5.1 and the SACD - so both same really. In spite of the exhortation to play at full volume - the mix is very weedy! The extra out-take tracks were worth it I suppose....