Rumours remaster - crap or faulty? Your advice, please.

[6th.replicant]

Recently downloaded the Rumours 24/96 (yes, mine's 24-bit) from HDtracks, converted the FLACs into 24-bit AIFFs using Max.

 

However, as a remaster it's very hit and miss. I wonder, have I downloaded a work-in-progress version?

 

Tracks 1-7 generally sound very bright, similar to an AAD-type 1st-gen 1980s-era CD, albeit with decent detail and separation, although Don't Stop has a very unsubtle 'wall of sound' mix, which I'm not hearing on my dog-eared vinyl version.

 

Similarly, the piano intro on Songbird sounds as if the instrument is an upright on the 24/96, whereas on vinyl it sounds like a grand piano.

 

Bass drum on The Chain sounds hilariously feeble, not so on vinyl.

 

But, tracks 8-11 arrive and it's like, 'Boom!' - much more low-end and mid-range bass oomph, more akin to the vinyl version.

 

Anyone else noticed these inconsistencies, or have I downloaded a duff 'un?

 

Thanks.

 

[firedog]

Says a improved version was put on HDT on Nov 4; comment there that it sounds better than a direct comparison to RB

 

[barrows]

The inconsistencies in sonics are apparently normal for this recording-the mixes are very different in style and quality from track to track.

 

[6th.replicant]

@ barrows:

"...The mixes are very different in style and quality from track to track."

 

And it would seem that it's not only the mixes that differ.

 

Of the three tracks below, to my ears Oh Daddy generally has more presence, timbre and deeper bass, but no less detail or range. A shame that all of the tracks are not mastered in the same style?

 

 

[labjr]

Anone know how it compares to the DVD-A? I would think it's the same files. No?

 

[eatapc]

Yes, track 8 comes in and it's "boom."

 

That's "You Make Loving Fun," and it's spectacular sounding. But the drums on cut 2, "Dreams," are just as deep and kick-ass, but with much more high-end detail. What I hear is a major difference in how the drums were recorded -- or how the drum tracks fared in the mixing.

 

Funny comment from Richard Dashut about the sessions: "We wore out our original 24-track master. We figured we had 3,000 hours on it and we were losing high end, transients and much of the clarity. The drums were valid and maybe a couple of guitar parts. We ended up transferring all the overdubs on the master to a safety master." The damaged tapes made the kick and snare drums "lifeless," and much effort went into restoring the tracks already laid down. With the HD download, some inconsistency in drum sound is obvious.

 

Christine McVie's vocals, particularly on "Oh Daddy," are a LOT less processed than other vocals. She's a great singer with a different kind of voice than Stevie Nicks, so I assume she wanted her sound less eff'ed with. Everyone was experimenting. The track "Songbird" was recorded in an auditorium, not the studio, so it sounds like nothing else on the album.

 

My old vinyl and CD sound duller, less defined in the bass and generally more homogenized than the HD downloads. They sound good, but I prefer the HD downloads because I feel I can hear "into" the mix more clearly.

 

- M Block

 

 

[6th.replicant]

Ah, OK, so the recording sessions were something of a 'mixed bag', which the 24/96 is highlighting? Makes sense.

 

Retrieved the '84 CD from the loft, given it a spin and it's hideously bright - erk ahlors! In hindsight, the 24/94 is lusciously warm in comparison.

 

As has been suggested elsewhere on CA, perhaps Rumours deserves/needs a nuts 'n' bolts restoration? A MoFi SACD would be nice...

 

[Garf]

After reading what went into the recording (mitchco's post on a prior thread) http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/aug07/articles/classictracks_0807.htm

my vote is to keep it as is.

 

It is a classic the way it is.

 

[6th.replicant]

@ Garf: "It is a classic the way it is."

 

True. But, as mentioned, can't help wondering how a MoFi 'ground-up' remaster would sound - judging by its version of Let's Get It On, among others, a MoFi Rumours SACD or 24/96 could be rather wonderful?

 

Maybe one day... :-)

 

[barrows]

I think to really improve much on what we have here, a full remix, from the earliest generation multi-tracks (which ever are still OK) would be necessary. A remaster from the stereo master tapes would not be able to make much improvement.

 

Note, that my recollection is that the players were not exactly getting along perfectly (to say the least) during the recording and mixing of the album; I suspect that the relationships between the players may have a lot to do with the inconsistencies between tracks. Perhaps things like: "I want my song to be mixed this way..." were going on. I can imagine how hard it could be to get a consistently good sound with a number of strong, differing, opinions...

 

In any case, I like the HDTracks download, and am glad I am no longer tempted to shell out big bucks for the (out of print) DVDA...

 

[6th.replicant]

@ barrows: "...I can imagine how hard it could be to get a consistently good sound with a number of strong, differing, opinions..."

 

Indeed, and by all accounts those "opinions" were, umm, 'chemically enhanced'? Must've been a 'mare.

 

Coming round to appreciating this 24/96. (Sounds all the better when played loud.)

 

And, as you point out, the 24/96 is preferable to some bandit's asking price for the DVD-A.

 

[barrows]

Chemical enahancement, and infidelty...

 

"...take your silver spoon, and dig your grave..."

 

Of course, back then none of this was exactly unusual... and lots of good music was made.

 

[6th.replicant]

@ barrows: "...And lots of good music was made."

 

Yep, I'll, erm, drink to that. :-)