Best mastering/pressing of Bowie's "Low?"

[Jaska]

All I've got is the 1991 remaster with 3 silly bonus tracks, and I'm not pleased with the sound of the album. Has anyone got more than one mastering/pressing of this album for the sake of comparison? I'd like to get some feedback on what is considered to be the "best" CD available for this title so I can replace the one I've got.

Currently, there is a Ltd. Ed. Japanese version on Amazon.ca, but I have no idea if this is a remaster or simply a reissue. My gut feeling is that whatever might have been released on CD without digital mastering would sound the best, but I wouldn't want to be wrong when plopping down the cash.

 

[markl]

Bowie's catalog on CD is a problem, there's no real "gold standard" for sound quality. The Ryko you have is going to be close to the best, you'll want to avoid the recent remasters (they are all the same whether japan issued or not), LOUD, compressed. If you can locate a copy of the original Japan-pressed for USA market RCA CD (circa '84 or '85), that's probably it. Expect to pay $35 or so when you can find one. Bowie original RCA CDs are quite hard to find.

 

[Jaska]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl /img/forum/go_quote.gif the original Japan-pressed for USA market RCA CD (circa '84 or '85)

OK, markl, I am now on a mission

Thank you (not for hurting my wallet, but for the good advice)!

 

[milkweg]

Don't know if RCA releases are the best for sound quality but they are the most sought after. Years ago I had RCA Ziggy Stardust CD and was able to sell that at a nice profit. With the money I bought the collectors Bowie boxed set that ended up getting stolen anyway. Ryko remasters are good IMO.

 

[Jaska]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkweg /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ryko remasters are good IMO.

Hmm, my CD is at the office right now so I can't look at the packaging, but I am nearly certain it bears no mention of Rykodisk. It is for sure a 1991 remaster, pressed somewhere in Europe, and if I recall correctly, issued by EMI. Would this be the same (essentially) as the Rykodisk remaster?

I'll retrieve the disc tomorrow and check out the rest of the details.

EDIT: I'm quite sure I've got the UK EMI release CDP 79 7719 2, but I'll still check tomorrow to be sure.

 

[milkweg]

Yep, that's a Rykodisc.

David Bowie - Illustrated db Discography > Albums (1973-1977)

Low

1991 Rykodisc (RCD 10142)/EMI (CDP 79 7719 2) bonus tracks: Some Are/All Saints/Sound And Vision (Remixed Version).

Check out the site I just posted. Tells you all the pressings there are for every Bowie album.

page 1. of Bowie collection.

David Bowie - Illustrated db Discography > Albums (1967-1972)

I believe I had Low Rykodisk and it sounded fine to me. Maybe you won't like the original master tape either. Low was not recorded with lots of dynamic range to begin with and doesn't have very good bottom end. Still, it's better than U2's WAR.

 

[Dr Evil Dan]

In 1999, there was a 24 bit remaster of many of Bowie's most famous albums.
http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f9/dav...k-good-144628/
I have some flac rips of those remasters, and am not particularly pleased with them. Personally, I like the earlier versions better because they just sound smoother, but I only had MP3s of the earlier prints, and thus have no choice but to listen to the 24bit remaster.
The one redeeming feature of the 24bit series is that the albums are pretty cheap (if you can find them, 9.99 or thereabouts, maybe cheaper at the bargain bin)

 

[milkweg]

Um, are those the versions with DRM on them? I saw a Diamond Dogs remaster one day in the bargain bin for $9.99 and I almost snagged it until I saw that it had DRM on it. It was in nice cardboard packaging instead of the usual plastic case too.

BTW, Ryko are known for doing good remasters and I seem to remember those Bowie Ryko remasters getting good reviews so don't think you will get better than those. I could be wrong too though. Those Cure remasters were done by Ryko also.

 

[Jaska]

I'm going to stick with my EMI/Rykodisk CD. I'm very glad I asked about the album before replacing it. What I'll do is just take some time to find which headphones do the best with that album since it's one of my favorites.

As far as "The David Bowie Series 24 Bit Digitally Remastered" discs and copy protection, my "Heroes" album (I dare not say "CD" in this case) is indeed copy protected. Weirdly, there is no copy control logo to be found anywhere on the disc or the packaging, just the tiniest text ever on the back cover which reads "This label copy information is the subject of copyright protection." My guess is that almost no one would ever notice this before buying the product. I have a Brian Eno album with exactly the same garbage. Really infuriating.

 

[Dr Evil Dan]

We aren't supposed to talk about this, but you *can* just bootleg flac rips; copy protection is BS anyways, you own the album so why cant you make copies for yourself?

 

[milkweg]

At least it is not the dreaded Sony "rootkit" DRM but I refuse to buy any CD with DRM. I could easily make copies anyway by just using X-Fi audio creation mode and using the "what-u-hear" option. You can record *anything* with that.

 

[Jaska]

Sorry to unearth my own old thread, but I've revisited the subject recently and just for grins and giggled bought a few of the '99 Bowie remasters done by Abbey Road Studios. I've now got three versions of Ziggy Stardust (Rykodisk, 30th Anniversary Edition, and the '99 EMI remaster) and two of Low (Rykodisk and '99 EMI remaster). I did a lot of listening to the 3 Ziggy Stardust CDs, and in the end I prefer the '99 EMI remaster. There are lots of instances of L-R channel mixing anomalies on the Rykodisk, and these are nicely reworked on the '99 EMI CD. Likewise, the '99 EMI Low CD sounds markedly better to me than the Rykodisk. In comparing the 30th Anniversary Edition and '99 EMI CDs, the track lengths are slightly different, but the mastering sounds nearly identical to me. I read a while back that there were some notable edits on the 30th Anniversary Edition CD, and that the left and right stereo channels were reversed, but this is definitely not true of the pressing I have... so much bogus information floating around out there.

I am a bit surprised to discover that I prefer the newer remasters to the Rykodisk CDs. I did expect for the '99 EMI remasters to be a lot louder, but I do not find much difference in that regard at all. Overall, I'm pleasantly satisfied with the overall clean, detailed and even-sounding music on the newer CDs. A comparison of just the first 10 seconds of Sound and Vision reveals a lot more impact, not just with volume alone, on the '99 EMI remaster. Switching back to the Rykodisk, it just sounds weak. The first 7 seconds of Speed of Life are enough for me to judge that the Rykodisk has a little bit too much treble, and sounds too "squishy" and soft at the same time. The (minor) volume differences are present in Subterraneans, but again I prefer the sound on the '99 EMI remaster. I find the overall sound better, beginning with the bass between the 14-16 second marks.

In closing, I don't think this is anything on the order of magnitude of a Rhino remastering of a Stooges or Doors album (I love the Rhino remasters of these!), but I do believe that sonically the '99 EMI remasters represent a step forward over the Rykodisks.

 

[Lucabeer]

About "Ziggy Stardust" (my favorite Bowie album, athough "Heathen" comes surprisingly next), you should have a listen at the Hybrid CD/SACD release from 2002-2003. I have it, and it sounds really good.

But, again, your 30th Anniversary Edition might actually contain the same CD layer of the Hybrid version that I have.

 

[milkweg]

I bought a new copy of Ziggy Stardust recently too. It is the EMI remaster from 1999. I find the treble has been boosted too much. The cymbals on Moonage Daydream are far too pronounced now. This is not how I remember the original RCA recordings sounding like, nor the Ryko remaster I used to have. Originally it had a smoother sound on the top end. I've also heard a remaster of Young Americans recently that no longer sounds like the original either but that was in MP3 format so don't know who did the remastering. It didn't suffer from treble boost though, just doesn't sound how it originally did.

 

[Jaska]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkweg /img/forum/go_quote.gif I bought a new copy of Ziggy Stardust recently too. It is the EMI remaster from 1999. I find the treble has been boosted too much. The cymbals on Moonage Daydream are far too pronounced now. This is not how I remember the original RCA recordings sounding like, nor the Ryko remaster I used to have.

My comparisons were done using an Apogee Duet, Gilmore Lite with Dedicated Power Supply, K601 and DT770 Edition 2005. I will gladly revisit this using Moonage Daydream as a reference track using my SR-225, as they might do the best job of any of my headphones in allowing me to analyze the treble.