Joni Mitchell remasters on the way

@hilde45 Even though I have all of the original vinyl pressings of the Joni Mitchell releases we're discussing, I rarely ever play them, I won't even reference those, as I personally believe vinyl reproduction has its disadvantages compared to digital (even though digital of course has its disadvantages too). Let me pull a quote from another well known mixing and mastering engineer - Kevin Gray. "I think a lot of what people like about a phonograph record are artifacts. Audiophiles don't want to hear that, but it's just a fact. I deal with digital and analog all day long, and I know what happens in the transfer to analog."

For our discussion, I'm only referencing the original Asylum CDs. Of course audio is very subjective, and depends on the equipment it is being recorded on, played on and the ears and brain that is hearing it. Let's take for example the Miles of Aisles release. I just pulled it out, and played a good portion of it to refresh my memory. I can easily see why you would think this original release sounds muddy. Not everything has to be bright (bright - a term we use in the broadcasting industry to reference lots of high frequencies). Now from my perspective, I respect the mix and mastering of this original CD release. Lots of dynamic range, and yes, at times, high frequencies may seem subdued, but that was the norm at the time, and I can respect that, and enjoy it. I still respect the engineers (and probably artist) who wanted it that way in the first place. Others may not. I personally don't need a remaster...of anything. In respect to pumped up compressing and limiting, not only can I hear that on remasters, but I can easily visually see that with my metering. 

Kevin Gray - Stereophile interview

 

I have the full set of Joni's remastered HDCD titles (including Court & Spark and Hissing) and they sound very good. It will be interesting to compare the new versions on Qobuz with the HDCD versions.

Thanks for the tip, hilde45.

This is a very interesting discussion to me.

• It’s Joni Mitchell.
• The original CDs vary in mastering quality.
• The remasters supposedly have (sorta) high dynamic range.
• I have not had good luck with Rhino remasters in the past, generally because they had poor DR.
• Over a long career, Bernie Grundman has done some great stuff, and some over-compressed dreck.
• As pointed out above, brightness is often mistaken for accuracy, and it’s not easy to sort out. I bought a set of Elton John SHM-CD’s (brighter) a couple of years ago and sold the MFSL versions of the same titles (less bright, maybe a little dull in some cases), and I still wonder whether it was a mistake.

Some examples of the DR of Joni Mitchell on older CD's:

Song to a Seagull (Reprise, 1992) DR12

Clouds (Reprise, 1987) DR9

Ladies of the Canyon (Reprise, 1997) DR10

Blue (DCC, 1995) DR11

For the Roses (Asylum, 1990) DR11

Court and Spark (DCC, 1992) DR12

Hissing of Summer Lawns (Asylum, 1990) DR12

Hejira (Asylum, 1990) DR13

Don Juan's Reckless Daughter (Asylum, 1990) DR14

Mingus (Asylum, 1999) DR13

Wild Things Run Fast (Geffen, 1994) DR12

Dog Eat Dog (Geffen, 1985) DR13

Chalk Mark in a Rain Storm (Geffen, 1988) DR13

Night Ride Home (Geffen, 1991) DR12

Turbulent Indigo (Reprise, 1994) DR12

Taming the Tiger (Reprise, 1998) DR9

Both Sides Now (Reprise, 2000) DR10

Travelogue (Nonesuch, 2002) DR8

Shine (Hearmusic, 2007) DR8

 

 

 

 

I have these, often in multiple formats. 
the early stuff is restored from older rape technology, and that is reflected in the n the vinyl. 
 

some are Rhino, some are Reprise…

in many cases they have limited the number of pressings. 
 

the next batch should prove interesting, at least. 
 

here is a discussion over on PS Audio regarding dynamic range, perception (we all think our own is the best).
 
https://www.psaudio.com/pauls-posts/the-funny-thing-about-dynamics/

@jwillox I took time to read the PS Audio article you linked, but didn't bother with the comments section. Much of this I already understood. It's almost a matter of taste. Some of us have the equipment and quiet environments to listen to recordings with lots of dynamic range, and can appreciate it, and sometimes prefer it. Others don't. Some prefer loud remastered versions of recordings, while others don't. Some prefer loud concerts, while others don't. Some prefer very dynamic recordings (balls to the wall compression and limiting), while others don't. It's all a matter of taste and preferences. I would never personally say that because a recording has lots of dynamic range, it lacks sonics or impact. That may be one person's perception, but it's definitely not mine.  

This is one of the things I learned from being a Radio Broadcast Engineer; to overcome street noise (in vehicles where most of radio listening takes place), one must process radio broadcasting audio aggressively to maintain a consistent dynamic loud listening level (the exception is some jazz and classical radio stations). That's why I, when enjoying music at home, I prefer whatever the Mixing Engineer or Mastering Engineer has produced and recorded, without any added EQ, compression or limiting. Mixing and mastering audio is a craft and art, and I respect someone's artistic ability to use it, and be entertained by it. As I mentioned in another post; I tailor my home audio system(s) to try and replicate what the mixing and mastering engineers heard when they did their work. I'm not trying to replicate a live performance SPL setting at home. But hey, that's me, and I try not to put down what others are trying achieve.