[Slowhand] "Blues Breakers: Deluxe Edition"

[Luke Pacholski]

Nick, re:


> The very FIRST versions of CD reissue albums -- those taken from LP and

> remastered to CD -- weren't all that good. The major studios had not

> invested a whole bunch into the best CD mastering equipment, and they

> rush-mastered the first CDs, so the SECOND wave of "audiophile"

> recordings were not all from the major labels, but companies such as

> Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab (the 1994 "Original Master Recording"), DCC,

> and some others. These were actually (the first) good versions.

> 

> A few years later, when it appeared that the CD format would be around

> for a while, the major record labels began remastering very good

> versions of these old LPs. By this time, they'd invested in the

> equipment, they owned the master tapes, and they had the time to do it

> right. In general, this THIRD wave of CDs was and is the best.


I think this is an overly simplistic view. Some original CDs were great. 
Some were crap. Some "audiophile" remaster were great. Some were crap. 
Some newer remasters were great. Some were crap.

A lot of people like to focus on equipment and "technology", but the 
technology of 1984 was good enough to produce some CDs that still hold 
their own today. Far more important are the tapes used and the effects 
applied during remastering. If all else is equal, a better tape should 
equal a better CD. However, things like poor EQ, noise reduction and 
limiting/compression can ruin the end result even if the master tape is 
used.

10 to 15 years ago noise reduction was the hottest fad. Many a CD was 
ruined (or at the very least, significantly degraded) because of it. Today 
the fad is limiting/compression, to make everthing LOUDER. Plenty of 
remasters these days have next to no dynamic range because the overall 
level just sits around 100%.

Some new remasters are great, but many are eclipsed by those "audiophile" 
releases and even *original* CD releases.


> Keeping all the above in mind, I'd still say the the Deram (a subsidiary

> of Decca owned by Universal) 1998 European, 24-track (mono and stereo)

> release of "Beano" is still the best. In 2001, the Japanese JVC label

> (I'm not sure if they're part of Universal or just associated with them

> for releasing old albums) issued the same 24-track 1998 release, but

> with different packaging: a "mini-LP" sleeve, rather than a jewel box,

> with the Decca label; and the CD itself uses the Decca blue stereo LP

> label, since the original 1966 album was on Decca. Sonically, these two

> are identical, and the best version of "Blues Breakers" (aka "Beano")

> available.


I still don't share your love for the 1998 mono/stereo disc. In regards to 
the stereo mix, the first 3 tracks are overly midrange heavy, while the 
rest of the album is a bit thin and bright. I'm not in love with the MFSL 
by any means, but in comparison it has a bit more body and isn't as 
shrill.

Keep in mind when comparing the two that the 1998 disc is *louder*, which 
can trick our ears into thinking *better*. A valid comparison must be 
level matched.

Interestingly, the original London CD has a pleasing EQ, but a poor tape 
must have been used, resulting in poor stereo separation.


> FYI, the just-issued Audio Fidelity 24-karat Gold CD version of "Beano,"

> on another "reissue" label, Audio Fidelity, is mono only.


Audio Fidelity is essentially the modern day DCC. The releases for both 
were/are mastered by Steve Hoffman.

Luke