Are there any GOOD Dylan SACD remasters?

Wow, I've bought a few SACD only and HYBRID Bob Dylan remasters, and unfortunately all but Blood On The Tracks has been a let down? Is it that the engineers doing the remaster think they need to make it clearer, and therefore add top end? To me, it would seem you would just issue the same recording, same mix, same levels, on the new medium WITHOUT SCREWING WITH IT?? Isn't getting it in SACD going to give us better sound anyway?

Am I alone in this? Correct me if I'm wrong, the original master tape offers sonic's obscured by conventional CD technology. So an SACD allows us to hear the original master tape more closely to it's actual sound. Where in this process does it say that some rookie comes in and tries to make it sound better?

Jesus! Bob is in his 60's, and even if he was present on the remaster that wouldn't make me happy. All I want is more of what was originally recorded, offered naturally by SACD. It was a good recording to start with, and Bob can't hear as well as he did 25 years ago!

Yeah, some of my favorite later Dylan needs some help, Time Out Of Mind sounds like Bob is singing through a meggaphone frequently, extremely nasal vocals, and not even well recorded to begin with in my opinion. No remaster is gonna solve this. So how does the SACD HYBRID sound? Tom
I'm not "playing" with terminology. I'm trying to get you to use terminology correctly. When they RE-master a recording, they do not go back to the MASTER. They make a new master. That's what remastering means. To say that remastering uses the same master, as you did before, is nonsensical.

As long as you keep calling the original studio tapes "masters," you will get this wrong.

And there is no reason why remastering has to involve only the specific takes used in the original master (or any master, since by this time there are probably several). Probably isn't common, but it's certainly not unheard of. I'm not saying it was done in the case of the Dylan remasters, BTW.

Also, virtually all remastering involves remixing. If you aren't going to do that, there's almost no point.
Do they just pick any source tape then?

Can we agree there was at the time of the recording there was a "master" tape?
Can we agree that however generations on that intial recording is used as the source material?

In short if you want to get into a terminology debate what do you call the original source tape except the "master" tape?
Hence the term remastering-they've remastered the original master.

You are also changing your argument on what material is used saying, now it is uncommon.

You state above very very clearly there are using a different master-surely you meant they made a different master?
As this is the terminology you are so accurate about.

I would also be very surprised if the original source/master tape isn't always used for obvious reasons.

Also out of interest name me any 5 recent releases that have been remixed as part of the remastering process.
Any 5.
Can we agree there was at the time of the recording there was a "master" tape?

No. You simply don't understand modern recording technique.

Also out of interest name me any 5 recent releases that have been remixed as part of the remastering process.

How many Dylan SACDs are 5.1? Those, for starters. Then all the others. Again, remastering generally consists of taking the original tracks (multiple, and never called masters), and remixing them into a new master.
Clearly making a disc multi-channel involves remixing I didn't think I had to qualify that.

You are still playing with words and to be frank it's silly-the common terminology is to refer to the original tapes that produced the released version of an album is the master tapes.
I suppose I'm just making that up?

In your world remasters would simply be known as New Masters and marketed as such.
Maybe you can start a campaign to keep dumbo's like me better informed.

This is a debate about semantics on one level-I use the term "master" you prefer source-let's agree there is an original tape of the recording and leave it at that.

However where you are fundamentally wrong is your cut and paste theory and that by some miracle there are all kinds of source tapes lying about that are used in the remastering process.
99.9% of all remasters use the original "source" or "master" tape which was the takes and mixes that the artist and producer decided should go on the album.

I most cases the remastering process is done to clean up the tapes and stay true to the original artistic statement.
As I concur above there can be changes which can lead to quite different sounding recordings from the SAME source (I give in)tape.

I get the impression you allude otherwise.
I use the term "master" you prefer source-let's agree there is an original tape of the recording and leave it at that.

No. There isn't A tape. There are multiple tapes, multiple tracks, and multiple takes. Remember, for the vast majority of records made in the last 40 years, there was no original performance. Records are made in pieces, with a rhythm track here, and a lead vocal track there. Nobody in the business calls these "masters." (I'll agree that many uninformed consumers do, but that reflects their misconceptions about recording generally.)

The job of mastering largely involves taking all these parts and deciding which channel or channels they should go in and how loud they should be in each channel. That's called mixing. Every master is mixed (at least in the pop music world).

Remastering involves going back to those original tapes and remixing them in a different way. That's why EVERY remaster is remixed--practically by definition. Remastering is not just about "cleaning up the tapes and preserving everything else." It's about making a different master. Sometimes that master sounds very close to the original release, and sometimes not.