Slow Adam Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 and 1999 is really good, I think. You must not be a drummer! :P As mentioned earlier, the 1999 recordings made some very clean snare lines sound very dirty, just listening to SCV's snare solo you can hear the line get clean as they march towards the centre of the field. Every drum line sounds like crap on those CD's. <**> Overall bad quality goes to 1995 for me as well. Madison's closer could have been called suspended cymbal quintet, with snare drum, soprano and audience accompaniment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acn Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 (edited) 95 - Terrible 97 - Surround sound - while crowd noise is nice, you can hear 1 guy yelling during almost every show. 87 - I heard that the recording was done with 1 mic on the 50 - that's it. Maybe the reason some of BD's sop. solos sound like they are being played from a distance 88 - 94 - great Edited August 5, 2006 by acn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbass598 Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 I remember '98 was reissued after the orignal cds had some problems. The playback speed was too fast and it sounded like everyone was taking speed. I remember getting the replacement discs in the mail but they had to cut the corps announcements short so each show would fit on the disc at the correct tempos. I gave my defective discs to a friend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ukcjs Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 The people demand a re-issue of the 1995 CD's! :P Amen. However, I think there's only so much you can do when the original recording is so bad. My guess is that the equipment quality/mic placement etc. is as much to blame as any mixing that happened afterwards. Still, if they could salvage something from that mess, that would be great news for fans. Maybe Tom Blair could take a shot at it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bawker Posted August 5, 2006 Author Share Posted August 5, 2006 Man, I'd buy a re-issue in a second...two copies, even. Maybe Larry Rock and Tom Blair will have some free time this year... :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanguard07 Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 (edited) Overall bad quality goes to 1995 for me as well. Madison's closer could have been called suspended cymbal quintet, with snare drum, soprano and audience accompaniment. Now that's a bit harsh, i distinctly hear a concert bass drum... Edited August 5, 2006 by Vanguard07 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay B Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 I have all DCI championship recordings from 72 to 96. I also have an extensive collection of pre-DCI LP's going back into the late fifties. So, I have a lot of examples to choose from. I agree with 94 being a good year. I thought that they were starting to understand how to do digital right. But then came 95, which was a major dissappointment. If it wasn't for a couple of shows that I just had to have, in particular Phanton, I wouldn't have bought 96. My choice for the best though is the 72 LP. Its a shame that most of you are never going to be able to hear this recording other than as a digital conversion. The LP clearly demonstrates what anologue does well. Very natural and accurate sound reproduction. Very sweet highs. Cymbals even sound correct, as apposed to the tizzy sound usually associated with digital. 3D sound staging. I can virtually pick out the players in the space between and around my speakers. Soloists step up and sound as if they are standing a few feet in front of me (I wonder how a pit would have sounded). I've never heard digital do this other than with the help of surround. I've talked to a lot of people over the years, including Steve Vickers, who agree that the 72 LP was special. And. of course, it had some great performaces from the Troopers, SCV, Blue Stars, and Kingsmen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dckid80 Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 Actually the 70's Legacy recordings are quite good for the most part. To the bad is either 75, 76 or 77 (I think 77) which was mastered at a slightly incorrect speed and you can hear it throughout the different corps peformances, especially in the exposed and solo sections. To the good is 1978. Unquestionably one of the best set of recordings in the entire collection. Just the opposite, and with no disrespcet to the ineffable Ken Kobald...Haven't there been moments in the 70's where soloists were "left out" or not picked up??? Just thought I heard something about that once... -TGB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
festive Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 Man, I'd buy a re-issue in a second...two copies, even. Maybe Larry Rock and Tom Blair will have some free time this year... :P Was the problem in the mixing? Do original tapes exist? They certainly wouldn't want to use those craptacular recordings on the CD as a basis for a remastering job, or anything like that. Maybe Acheson has an official bootleg he's hiding away someplace? Also, did they not listen to these "recordings" before releasing them? I can only assume they didn't. You can't hear that recording and think "oh yeah, that sounds GREAT! DCI fans are going to love it and in eleven years they're gonna love us for mixing it this way!" There's only one place for the released CDs...and that's a landfill. But I'd buy good recordings if they were offered. B) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.