December 2004

Formatting II

A little over a year ago, I bought a two-CD set of recordings by Andres Segovia, The Art of Segovia [Deutsche Gramophon 289 471 697-2]. The set is an anthology of Segovia’s work from 1952 through 1969, and the first time I played it I was struck immediately by the amount of tape hiss I could hear. I have a number of Segovia LPs from the same time period, most of them from used-record stores or Goodwill, so I was used to fighting through a fair amount of pops, clicks, and groove wear in order to hear this beautiful music. What surprised me was that the mastering engineer, the producer, and the record company decided to let us hear more of the music as it sounded on the original master tape, even if that meant we’d have to train ourselves to ignore some background noise.

When CDs were introduced, the ideal of perfection that digital technology promised gave record companies, mastering engineers, and music listeners a phobia about noise. The sounds of a needle traveling through a groove and a tape moving across a playback head were things I grew up with, but when older, pre-Dolby recordings were released on CD, they were mysteriously quiet. Despite the warning on CD cases about the analog source, only the sharp-eared and headphone-wearing were likely to hear anything but music. Of course, we heard plenty of other things we didn’t like -- edginess, brightness, a flatness in the sound when compared to the same recordings on vinyl.

The fact that some discs were digitally remastered again within a few years of their initial release suggests that the CD format was not perfected, to say the least, before it was thrust onto the market. Digital technology since then has certainly improved. The current versions of the Rolling Stones’ Decca/London catalog on ABKCO are much better than the original CDs. As I listen to some reissues, however, I often wonder whether advances in technology alone can explain the way some discs sound. On Rudy Van Gelder’s remasters of Blue Note recordings, for instance, he takes no pains to shield us from the hiss present in the original masters, and the discs have more detail and immediacy. As with the Segovia set I mentioned above, this decision on the part of a mastering engineer signals a change in philosophy.

Or it may be another way to get us to part with a few more bucks for music we already own. I can’t help but feel a touch of cynicism when I think about the number of discs that have been reissued over the years, some of them on the heels of a previous remaster. Some recordings, such as the Beatles’ catalog, cry out for remastering. But what can we expect to hear on those new discs? The songs on The Yellow Submarine Songtrack from 1999 sound better than the versions now available on the original discs, but they are significantly different. Paul McCartney’s voice on "Eleanor Rigby" is centered on Songtrack, while on Revolver and the original Yellow Submarine soundtrack, it’s panned right and moves to the center for the chorus. Throughout Songtrack, changes have been made to the original recordings and, while they’re sonically better, they sound like rewrites of history.

I’ve certainly replaced quite a few CDs with newer versions. The Miles Davis and Thelonious Monk CDs on Columbia are much improved in their current versions. They’re mastered better and, in some cases, the editing is smoother and music from the original sessions has been restored (a rewrite, perhaps, but one that makes sense). But I wonder if all the Blue Note CDs I own really need to be replaced. The mastering on most of them sounds pretty good, especially on today’s better-sounding CD players. Some CDs, such as the limited-edition sets on Mosaic Records that I own, can’t be replaced.

I wish I could say that I have some method for deciding which discs I’ll replace and which I’ll keep in their original or second (or third) CD generation. But, no, I often buy the newer versions on a whim. I was listening to Horace Silver’s Song For My Father a few days ago. I bought my copy about 15 years ago. It sounds fine. I don’t feel a burning need to replace it. That doesn’t mean I won’t buy the Rudy Van Gelder reissue if I see it in the store and I have a few extra bucks. I’ll pass my current copy along to a friend.

That probably makes me a sucker for record companies that keep recycling this stuff. But you don’t have to be. Trust your ears. If you have like a copy of a recording you own on CD and you like the way it sounds, hang on to it. I don’t hear any real difference in some remasters, such as the Bowie and Costello discs that were nicely done on Rykodisc and are back for a third or fourth time on other labels (the extra disc of tracks on the Costellos is an incentive, I’ll admit). Still, if a recording is essential to you and you think an upgrade will bring you a step closer to fully appreciating it, by all means get the newest version.

But keep in mind that you’ll probably buy it again when you hear the SACD.

...Joseph Taylor
musiceditor@soundstage.com

Music Editorial Archives

GO BACK TO: