1995 Walk A Mile In My Shoes box set

Has anyone else notice that the remastering on the original 70s box set on the Stax Sessions and the Today session are MUCH better than any of the recent remasters, either FTD or Sony Vic Anesini? I prefer the recent masters on most Elvis' catalog, but for some reason much of the mid 70s material sounded better before.

Please, does anyone agree and why is this so? I mean there is a stark difference to my ears. The 50s and 60s material has been mostly, and significantly improved, but not so the mid 70s.

Maybe the original master tapes are not ALWAYS the best source!

I also compared my older Promised Land, Good TImes and Today CDs to the recent Sony versions and the older BMG CDs sound better to me too.

The December Stax tracks are all remixes and T-R-O-U-B-L-E has a tape fault on its piano intro on the 70s box.

I also compared my older Promised Land, Good TImes and Today CDs to the recent Sony versions and the older BMG CDs sound better to me too.

The old BMG Good Times has a mastering fault on Loving Arms (noise on the louder passages of the final verse). The old BMG Today album has a mastering fault on Woman Without Love (metallic-like noise on the coda).

Yes, but the overall sound quality is muted and dead on the recent remasters. I guess it helps to mask some of these random glitches.

The louder passages towards the end of Loving Arms sounds like over-modulation on the tape to me. There is the problem on Padre and a few other 70s masters. It is an engineering error as far as I am concerned. I would rather hear that than to remaster it in a way that dulls the whole recording.

Last edited by skatterbrane on Sat Dec 22, 2012 10:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The 'glitches' on the old BMG Good Times and Today CDs are from the remastering, they are not on the tapes themselves. The remixes on the 70s box sound vastly different than the original 1974 mixes so its not a level playing field with those.

I do not find the Anesini remasters "muted".

The 'glitches' on the old BMG Good Times and Today CDs are from the remastering, they are not on the tapes themselves. The remixes on the 70s box sound vastly different than the original 1974 mixes so its not a level playing field with those.

I do not find the Anesini remasters "muted".

For the most part, neither do I, but on some of these 70s remasters I do.

The Good Times examples I am using are from the extended Promised Land CD, the 8 bonus tracks. I currently do not have the old Today CD, I am only going by the 70s Box. I wonder if the new 70s box from the UK is "updated" masters from Sony, or simply reissues of the masters used on the 1995 box?

The 'glitches' on the old BMG Good Times and Today CDs are from the remastering, they are not on the tapes themselves. The remixes on the 70s box sound vastly different than the original 1974 mixes so its not a level playing field with those.

I do not find the Anesini remasters "muted".

For the most part, neither do I, but on some of these 70s remasters I do.

The Good Times examples I am using are from the extended Promised Land CD, the 8 bonus tracks. I currently do not have the old Today CD, I am only going by the 70s Box. I wonder if the new 70s box from the UK is "updated" masters from Sony, or simply reissues of the masters used on the 1995 box?

For example I much prefer the 1995 70s box version of the singles than the recent FTD "Hits of the 70's"

Then again, I also like "The Memphis Record" I know! blasphemy!

The 'glitches' on the old BMG Good Times and Today CDs are from the remastering, they are not on the tapes themselves. The remixes on the 70s box sound vastly different than the original 1974 mixes so its not a level playing field with those.

I do not find the Anesini remasters "muted".

For the most part, neither do I, but on some of these 70s remasters I do.

The Good Times examples I am using are from the extended Promised Land CD, the 8 bonus tracks. I currently do not have the old Today CD, I am only going by the 70s Box. I wonder if the new 70s box from the UK is "updated" masters from Sony, or simply reissues of the masters used on the 1995 box?

Pretty sure that the masters on all of the new versions of the box's (50's, 60's and 70's) are the same masters that were used with the boxes when they originally came out. But I don't have any of the new reissues.

Well I ordered the new version of these boxes mostly because I hate how cumbersome the old boxes were.

Today I bought this for 21 euros.
I'm really happy with it.

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Well I ordered the new version of these boxes mostly because I hate how cumbersome the old boxes were.

I agree. I like the new versions look.

Today I bought this for 21 euros.
I'm really happy with it.

How are the cd's inside the book. Two on one side and three on the other, or something different than that?

The Good Times examples I am using are from the extended Promised Land CD, the 8 bonus tracks.

Those are all remixes.

The Good Times examples I am using are from the extended Promised Land CD, the 8 bonus tracks.

Those are all remixes.

Well apparently I prefer the remixes then. They have better dynamics, transient attack, detail and are less muddy/veiled than the original master tapes.

The remixes have their good and bad points. Some tracks sound more open, generally dryer than the their 1974 counterparts. But some of Dennis Ferrante's production is weird, with horribly fake sounding vocal track reverb here and there and a lack of good top end.

The remixes have their good and bad points. Some tracks sound more open, generally dryer than the their 1974 counterparts. But some of Dennis Ferrante's production is weird, with horribly fake sounding vocal track reverb here and there and a lack of good top end.

I do prefer a very dry recordings. I really do not like reverb and that is hard to get away from on ANYONE's mastering of Elvis. RCA LOVED to reverb it up because of the original Sun recordings. Some of the mid 60s soundtrack are very dry, like World's Fair, F & J, etc and the vocal presence is astounding. (too bad most of the songs suck)

Such is the life of an audiophile, most of the great recordings, sound wise, are not great music and much of the great music is not the best sonically speaking.

The remixes have their good and bad points. Some tracks sound more open, generally dryer than the their 1974 counterparts. But some of Dennis Ferrante's production is weird, with horribly fake sounding vocal track reverb here and there and a lack of good top end.

I do prefer a very dry recordings. I really do not like reverb and that is hard to get away from on ANYONE's mastering of Elvis. RCA LOVED to reverb it up because of the original Sun recordings. I do like to hear the natural abience of the room however. To hear the wall boundries. Some of the mid 60s soundtrack are very dry, like World's Fair, F & J, etc and the vocal presence is astounding. (too bad most of the songs suck)

Such is the life of an audiophile, most of the great recordings, sound wise, are not great music and much of the great music is not the best sonically speaking.

Thankfully, I'm not an audiophile. This allows me to enjoy music, warts and all.

Thankfully, I'm not an audiophile. This allows me to enjoy music, warts and all.

Well, being one also allows one to appreciate superior recordings like the Elvis Is Back sessions (although, again, way too much echo)

So, you have never compared different mastering jobs of Elvis' recordings? Heck, I used to compare different pressing of his LPs. Yes, different stampers even from the exact same year and master tapes sounded different from each other. CD has taken that factor out of the equation.

It all started for me when I was about 8 or 9. My mom had the 1962 pressing of Elvis Golden Records in fake stereo, that I had been listening to for a couple of years by then. I went to a neighbor's house and they had a mono copy (not sure of the pressing) and I was astounded on how differently it sounded! That was the day I became aware how much fidelity can enhance the pleasure of listening to music.

I bought my first component stereo as soon as I could afford it, when I was 18. No more putting up with "sound coffins" (console stereos, more furnature than stereo) or cheapo compact stereos for me please!

Later, it was a very difficult adjustment for me to settle for CDs after having gotten used to the far superior format of vinyl records. But, out of convenince I did so. Now, I find it impossible to accept MP3 or commercial downloads as a listening source. I stick to my "bulky" CDs, flawed as they may be. I was very disappointed that DVD-A and SACD died on the vine due to the advent of MP3. Let's face it, 98% of the population really do not care about fidelity, they just want cheap convinence.

I recently reaquired a pair of Rogers Studio One speakers (30 years old) like those I once had in the mid 1980s, and lately I am enjoying what I have been missing since I sold my previous set in the 90s.

There is nothing more glorious and at the same time more frustrating that listening to music on a high fidelity system. It reveals the shortcomings more readily than an average system, but when you put on a great recording, it is truly heaven.

The Good Times examples I am using are from the extended Promised Land CD, the 8 bonus tracks.

Those are all remixes.

Well apparently I prefer the remixes then. They have better dynamics, transient attack, detail and are less muddy/veiled than the original master tapes.

I agree in most cases. And the Japanese 24bit versions are still far better than anything 'mastered' or 'remasterd' by Vic Anus-sneezy.

The Good Times examples I am using are from the extended Promised Land CD, the 8 bonus tracks.

Those are all remixes.

Well apparently I prefer the remixes then. They have better dynamics, transient attack, detail and are less muddy/veiled than the original master tapes.

I agree in most cases. And the Japanese 24bit versions are still far better than anything 'mastered' or 'remasterd' by Vic Anus-sneezy.

Huh?

24bit does add more 'resolution' compared to 16bit but this added resolution doesn't mean higher quality, it just means we can encode a larger dynamic range. This is the misunderstanding made by many. There are no extra magical properties, nothing which the science does not understand or cannot measure. The only difference between 16bit and 24bit is 48dB of dynamic range (8bits x 6dB = 48dB) and nothing else. This is not a question for interpretation or opinion, it is the provable, undisputed logical mathematics which underpins the very existence of digital audio.

So, can you actually hear any benefits of the larger (48dB) dynamic range offered by 24bit? Unfortunately, no you can't. The entire dynamic range of some types of music is sometimes less than 12dB. The recordings with the largest dynamic range tend to be symphony orchestra recordings but even these virtually never have a dynamic range greater than about 60dB. All of these are well inside the 96dB range of the humble CD. What is more, modern dithering techniques , perceptually enhance the dynamic range of CD by moving the quantisation noise out of the frequency band where our hearing is most sensitive. This gives a percievable dynamic range for CD up to 120dB (150dB in certain frequency bands).

You have to realise that when playing back a CD, the amplifier is usually set so that the quietest sounds on the CD can just be heard above the noise floor of the listening environment (sitting room or cars). So if the average noise floor for a sitting room is say 50dB (or 30dB for cars) then the dynamic range of the CD starts at this point and is capable of 96dB (at least) above the room noise floor. If the full dynamic range of a CD was actually used (on top of the noise floor), the home listener (if they had the equipment) would almost certainly cause themselves severe pain and permanent hearing damage. If this is the case with CD, what about 24bit Hi-Rez. If we were to use the full dynamic range of 24bit and a listener had the equipment to reproduce it all, there is a fair chance, depending on age and general health, that the listener would die instantly. The most fit would probably just go into coma for a few weeks and wake up totally deaf. 144dB + say 50dB for the room's noise floor. But 180dB is the figure often quoted for sound pressure levels powerful enough to kill and some people have been killed by 160dB. However, this is unlikely to happen in the real world as no DACs on the market can output the 144dB dynamic range of 24bit (so they are not true 24bit converters), almost no one has a speaker system capable of 144dB dynamic range and as said before, around 60dB is the most dynamic range you will find on a commercial recording.

So, if you accept the facts, why does 24bit audio even exist, what's the point of it? There are some useful application for 24bit when recording and mixing music. In fact, when mixing it's pretty much the norm now to use 48bit resolution. The reason it's useful is due to summing artefacts, multiple processing in series and mainly headroom. In other words, 24bit is very useful when recording and mixing but pointless for playback. Remember, even a recording with 60dB dynamic range is only using 10bits of data, the other 6bits on a CD are just noise. So, the difference in the real world between 16bit and 24bit is an extra 8bits of noise.

I know that some people are going to say this is all BS, and that “I can easily hear the difference between a 16bit commercial recording and a 24bit Hi-Rez version”. Unfortunately, you can't, it's not that you don't have the equipment or the ears, it is not humanly possible in theory or in practice under any conditions. Not unless you can tell the difference between white noise and white noise that is well below the noise floor of your listening environment. If you play a 24bit recording and then the same recording in 16bit and notice a difference, it is either because something has been 'done' to the 16bit recording, some inappropriate processing used or you are hearing a difference because you expect a difference.

Last edited by promiseland on Mon Dec 24, 2012 4:39 pm, edited 2 times in total.

The Good Times examples I am using are from the extended Promised Land CD, the 8 bonus tracks.

Those are all remixes.

Well apparently I prefer the remixes then. They have better dynamics, transient attack, detail and are less muddy/veiled than the original master tapes.

I agree in most cases. And the Japanese 24bit versions are still far better than anything 'mastered' or 'remasterd' by Vic Anus-sneezy.

Huh?

24bit does add more 'resolution' compared to 16bit but this added resolution doesn't mean higher quality, it just means we can encode a larger dynamic range. This is the misunderstanding made by many. There are no extra magical properties, nothing which the science does not understand or cannot measure. The only difference between 16bit and 24bit is 48dB of dynamic range (8bits x 6dB = 48dB) and nothing else. This is not a question for interpretation or opinion, it is the provable, undisputed logical mathematics which underpins the very existence of digital audio.

So, can you actually hear any benefits of the larger (48dB) dynamic range offered by 24bit? Unfortunately, no you can't. The entire dynamic range of some types of music is sometimes less than 12dB. The recordings with the largest dynamic range tend to be symphony orchestra recordings but even these virtually never have a dynamic range greater than about 60dB. All of these are well inside the 96dB range of the humble CD. What is more, modern dithering techniques , perceptually enhance the dynamic range of CD by moving the quantisation noise out of the frequency band where our hearing is most sensitive. This gives a percievable dynamic range for CD up to 120dB (150dB in certain frequency bands).

You have to realise that when playing back a CD, the amplifier is usually set so that the quietest sounds on the CD can just be heard above the noise floor of the listening environment (sitting room or cans). So if the average noise floor for a sitting room is say 50dB (or 30dB for cans) then the dynamic range of the CD starts at this point and is capable of 96dB (at least) above the room noise floor. If the full dynamic range of a CD was actually used (on top of the noise floor), the home listener (if they had the equipment) would almost certainly cause themselves severe pain and permanent hearing damage. If this is the case with CD, what about 24bit Hi-Rez. If we were to use the full dynamic range of 24bit and a listener had the equipment to reproduce it all, there is a fair chance, depending on age and general health, that the listener would die instantly. The most fit would probably just go into coma for a few weeks and wake up totally deaf. 144dB + say 50dB for the room's noise floor. But 180dB is the figure often quoted for sound pressure levels powerful enough to kill and some people have been killed by 160dB. However, this is unlikely to happen in the real world as no DACs on the market can output the 144dB dynamic range of 24bit (so they are not true 24bit converters), almost no one has a speaker system capable of 144dB dynamic range and as said before, around 60dB is the most dynamic range you will find on a commercial recording.

So, if you accept the facts, why does 24bit audio even exist, what's the point of it? There are some useful application for 24bit when recording and mixing music. In fact, when mixing it's pretty much the norm now to use 48bit resolution. The reason it's useful is due to summing artefacts, multiple processing in series and mainly headroom. In other words, 24bit is very useful when recording and mixing but pointless for playback. Remember, even a recording with 60dB dynamic range is only using 10bits of data, the other 6bits on a CD are just noise. So, the difference in the real world between 16bit and 24bit is an extra 8bits of noise.

I know that some people are going to say this is all rubbish, and that “I can easily hear the difference between a 16bit commercial recording and a 24bit Hi-Rez version”. Unfortunately, you can't, it's not that you don't have the equipment or the ears, it is not humanly possible in theory or in practice under any conditions!! Not unless you can tell the difference between white noise and white noise that is well below the noise floor of your listening environment!! If you play a 24bit recording and then the same recording in 16bit and notice a difference, it is either because something has been 'done' to the 16bit recording, some inappropriate processing used or you are hearing a difference because you expect a difference.

You should always credit your source, promiseland.

24bit vs 16bit, the myth exploded! > https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j ... 4169,d.d2k

The Good Times examples I am using are from the extended Promised Land CD, the 8 bonus tracks.

Those are all remixes.

Well apparently I prefer the remixes then. They have better dynamics, transient attack, detail and are less muddy/veiled than the original master tapes.

I agree in most cases. And the Japanese 24bit versions are still far better than anything 'mastered' or 'remasterd' by Vic Anus-sneezy.

Huh?

24bit does add more 'resolution' compared to 16bit but this added resolution doesn't mean higher quality, it just means we can encode a larger dynamic range. This is the misunderstanding made by many. There are no extra magical properties, nothing which the science does not understand or cannot measure. The only difference between 16bit and 24bit is 48dB of dynamic range (8bits x 6dB = 48dB) and nothing else. This is not a question for interpretation or opinion, it is the provable, undisputed logical mathematics which underpins the very existence of digital audio.

So, can you actually hear any benefits of the larger (48dB) dynamic range offered by 24bit? Unfortunately, no you can't. The entire dynamic range of some types of music is sometimes less than 12dB. The recordings with the largest dynamic range tend to be symphony orchestra recordings but even these virtually never have a dynamic range greater than about 60dB. All of these are well inside the 96dB range of the humble CD. What is more, modern dithering techniques , perceptually enhance the dynamic range of CD by moving the quantisation noise out of the frequency band where our hearing is most sensitive. This gives a percievable dynamic range for CD up to 120dB (150dB in certain frequency bands).

You have to realise that when playing back a CD, the amplifier is usually set so that the quietest sounds on the CD can just be heard above the noise floor of the listening environment (sitting room or cans). So if the average noise floor for a sitting room is say 50dB (or 30dB for cans) then the dynamic range of the CD starts at this point and is capable of 96dB (at least) above the room noise floor. If the full dynamic range of a CD was actually used (on top of the noise floor), the home listener (if they had the equipment) would almost certainly cause themselves severe pain and permanent hearing damage. If this is the case with CD, what about 24bit Hi-Rez. If we were to use the full dynamic range of 24bit and a listener had the equipment to reproduce it all, there is a fair chance, depending on age and general health, that the listener would die instantly. The most fit would probably just go into coma for a few weeks and wake up totally deaf. 144dB + say 50dB for the room's noise floor. But 180dB is the figure often quoted for sound pressure levels powerful enough to kill and some people have been killed by 160dB. However, this is unlikely to happen in the real world as no DACs on the market can output the 144dB dynamic range of 24bit (so they are not true 24bit converters), almost no one has a speaker system capable of 144dB dynamic range and as said before, around 60dB is the most dynamic range you will find on a commercial recording.

So, if you accept the facts, why does 24bit audio even exist, what's the point of it? There are some useful application for 24bit when recording and mixing music. In fact, when mixing it's pretty much the norm now to use 48bit resolution. The reason it's useful is due to summing artefacts, multiple processing in series and mainly headroom. In other words, 24bit is very useful when recording and mixing but pointless for playback. Remember, even a recording with 60dB dynamic range is only using 10bits of data, the other 6bits on a CD are just noise. So, the difference in the real world between 16bit and 24bit is an extra 8bits of noise.

I know that some people are going to say this is all rubbish, and that “I can easily hear the difference between a 16bit commercial recording and a 24bit Hi-Rez version”. Unfortunately, you can't, it's not that you don't have the equipment or the ears, it is not humanly possible in theory or in practice under any conditions!! Not unless you can tell the difference between white noise and white noise that is well below the noise floor of your listening environment!! If you play a 24bit recording and then the same recording in 16bit and notice a difference, it is either because something has been 'done' to the 16bit recording, some inappropriate processing used or you are hearing a difference because you expect a difference.

You should always credit your source, promiseland.

24bit vs 16bit, the myth exploded! > https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j ... 4169,d.d2k

If you notice there is an edit on my post as there were errors on the original post such as "cans" instead of "cars" and a few other things that were unnecessary then I was going to add the link , but thanks for adding that.