Poor re-master or just late 60's recording! SQ not good at all!

I agree.

I meant was the album ‘Crosby, Stills & Nash’…

I think that specific cut (R1 8229) by ‘BG’ has been around since 2009 at least.
Discogs says remastered from original analogue master tapes.

Just received the cd and that is no better…

If anything it’s worse… :woozy_face:

Yes its Crosby Stills Nash on Atlantic R1 8229.

If it’s remasterd it’s a shocking job. I don’t believe it is from the original analogue master. I don’t have the CD version of this album so I’ve compared them to the tracks on the CSN compilation release 1991. Totally different sound much better on CD. Be interesting to hear from c2photo if the CD is any better then the vinyl if it is then it’s down to the pressing.

Just jumped me on the gun! Well it’s not the pressing then

The search continues…for now!

Mastered by the same engineer as @c2photo’s new cd…

He must have had a bad day or ears needed syringing :upside_down_face:

He was probably high… :crazy_face: :upside_down_face:

As I said, I think there are issues with the original tape…

I’d still like to know where the 192/24 mqa version on tidal came from… not found any information yet.

Perhaps the ‘best’ option is a vinyl rip from an unplayed 1969 US original!

Having said that…

192 kHz / 24-bit, 96 kHz / 24-bit PCM – Rhino Atlantic Studio Masters

Tracks 1-10 – 88.2 kHz / 24-bit PCM, mastered in 96 kHz / 24-bit; contains high-resolution digital transfers of material originating from an analogue master source; 88.2 kHz / 24-bit PCM, mastered in 192 kHz / 24-bit

From ‘pro studio masters’

Many reviews from sites that you can mail order from (OK to say that Richard?) say that the quality of the reissue is terrible, others say it’s the better than the original due to being remastered by Bernie Grund as AndyR points out. I wonder if the vinyl we have bought and listened to is ‘this’ version I can’t see any ref. to BG on my LP?

The BG version is supposed to be ‘more detailed, natural, and dimesional than the original’. It certainly doesn’t sound like that on my kit and that’s through a top spec. LP12, S1 pre and active 800’s which should make the album shine.

See if you can find ‘BG’ in the dead wax? It should be present if it’s R1-8229.

Im just going to take a punt on this 1971 repress…

image

2 Likes

Yes there is ‘BG’. It’s still dull and lifeless which is a shame because it’s a great album.

1 Like

A problem with the ‘mail order site’ reviews is that you are never quite sure whether they actually relate to the specific format/release you’re looking at, or one of the 54 other variants… I think they’re just all in the same bucket, so you have to hope that the ‘reviewer’ knows what they actually have, and explicitly identify it!

588189?

@AndyR…yes is that rubbish as well?