Jethro Tull - Aqualung 40th Anniversary Special Edition (part2)

Thanks curbach, so I was mistaken, but at least it explains why it sounded so bad.

Roland
Looks like I was mistaken with the old version I have.
Sorry.
Now it seems I do not have a common reference point with you.
But I am interested in tracking this version down but as your J.Tull list says it is difficult to find but will give it a go.

 

Nothing "natural" about the sound of the DCC which Steve mastered? He just couldn't get the acoustic guitars and vocals to sound right? And it took Peter Mew and Steve Wilson to finally get this album to sound natural?

To each his own. We can just agree to disagree, which is fine with me.

 

The comment about the remix having about 10db more than the DCC was in regards to the 10k, not the "bass."

The remix has massive amounts of high end that the DCC does not have, however it got there. Even in your preferred "normalized" version, just look at the treble of the yellow compared to the other versions!

Insofar as the original mix, you seem open to speaking about how the new version sounds "natural, but make a lot of presumptions about how the original was done. What are these "layers and layers of crud" you speak of and how did they get there? This was mixed to 16 track, right? Are you saying that tranferring those 16 tracks to a stereo master tape created these layers of mud? That transferring those tracks to a digital workstation instead of tape somehow saved layers upon layers of whatever it is you hear on the original mix? What version of the original mix do you have again? You're sure it isn't a 7th generation cassette copy?

Again, I really enjoy the remix, but the last word I'd use to describe it is "natural." I think it sounds super clear but it is pretty clinical and lacks warmth. The DCC sounds far more "natural" to me.

I'll keep them both.

 

You can find also a UK Chrysalis which should be easier to find. I think it has the same mastering, so it should sound very similar if not the same as the Sanyo pressing.

If you are used to the new mix/mastering and then A/B it with the UK Chrysalis, the latter will sound dark and muddy. But if you play the UK Chrysalis by itself, for example "Locomotive Breath", at a quite loud volume, it is really nice in my opinion. If you then switch to the new mix/mastering, it is a world of difference (and I mean not in a good way). The ears adjust to EQ somewhat, similar to the taste. If you eat a lot of salty food, something with noticeable less salt will taste very bland to you. But if you are used to using less salt, and someone serves food which used more salt, it will taste too salty for you.

Everyone has to pick what they like best. I just wanted to voice an opinion that I like something else than the new mix/mastering better, and give my reasons why. It is just my opinion and preference, not more, not less.

 

I was referring to the 3-CD set which has the first five albums, is that the one you meant? It was remastered quite recently, maybe 1 or 2 years ago.

 

Hmm, I think the real world does not sound like a warm tube. Sometimes it does lack warmth and sometimes it is pretty clinical.

 

Really, the old mix was technically weak.
Fortunately the music was so strong that it didn't lessen the album's success.

The new mix is much better. It has more of everything, in a good way.

If you don't like the way it is EQ'd, I don't know, use an equalizer to your taste. Bring the treble down 10dB and the bass down 5dB if you want. You could then hear why the remix is a breath of fresh air.

 

I spent some time with both last night and Tank has captured my perceptions exactly.

Great album and each mastering has it's strengths and weaknesses, but to me the DCC overall is simply the version my ears prefer.

Not wrong or right, just what I like.

 

Hey guys - The tones on the new CD are pretty much as they came up from the multi track tapes - the 1971 mix doesn't sound like what is on the tape, so most of the highs and lows were apparently lost somewhere in the mixing process - a faulty mixing console, misaligned tape machine, misleading studio monitoring, stoned engineer, or all of the above, who knows?! In a broader sense now we work with digital we can hold on to frequencies that for years analogue just couldn't maintain through 3-4 generations (recording, mixing, cutting master, vinyl..etc), so I have a suspicion it's the ability to actually finally be able to reproduce the frequencies that were always there that we now consider to be a trademark of digital, and why the perception that analogue is "warmer" persists. On top of this a lot of us have lost the ability to hear frequencies above 10k and would be less sensitive to them, so in that sense it's impossible to produce a perfect "everyman" top end EQ. But I'm really not an expert on these things at all, I can only say subjectively speaking that the old mix sounded not good to me, and Ian certainly felt that way too (not that the artist is always right about these things either!) I guess it just comes back to whatever your preference might be in terms of hearing bottom end and clarity at the expense of some of that perceived "warmth".

Very interesting discussion anyway.

At this point perhaps I should admit my ignorance of what a "DCC" is? (and who is the "Steve" that made it?)

SW

 

I can't believe you're actually reading through all this... but DCC was an Audiophile Label like MFSL, releasing CDs and Vinyl of classic albums.

Steve is Steve Hoffman who did many of the masterings for DCC (If not all?)

By the way I also find this thread interesting but don't have much to contribute, having only heard the new version, which sounds superb to me.

I'm a latecomer to Aqualung, brought along by Steve W's involvement. Big fan of all your 5.1 work Steve, just a shame I could only afford the CD this time around.

 

Nope. 25th Anniversary re-issue with the 5 bonus live tracks. Mastered by Evren Goknar...Capitol Mastering

 

Ah, I never understood exactly where this site came from or who SH was until now, excuse my ignorance. Now it makes more sense.

I can't say I read all 80 plus pages (!) of this thread, but certainly dip in now and then.

I checked my mix notes for the title track of the album. I actually took treble off some instruments: Some brightness removed from the drums in the 10-12K range, and some taken out on the electric guitar at 8k. The bass is flat, nothing added or taken off. The recipients of added top end clarity were the piano (6db at 8K, but this was largely to match the sound on the original mix, it was recorded very dull), acoustic guitar (2db at 10K) and the lead vocals (2db at 8K). Apart from the piano, these are quite minimal adjustments.

I also compared Pete's master with my original mix - he seems to have added some extra brightness, around the 10-12K area - I can't say I prefer it that way, but again it's a taste thing.

S

 

I keep thinking about this, and I've mentioned it to a few people offline, but since you posted what you posted USAF Chief, I'll post my simple thought: I am having a new appreciation for the DCC too !!




The midrange is very similar between the remix and DCC (250 Hz to about 5kHz).

Relatively speaking , the DCC has about 1/2 the low end boost compared to the CDP32 and lp that the remix does. That upward tilting midrange of the DCC creates an apparent "10 kHz" boost (centered at about 5kHz), relatively speaking, but the remix doesn't stop there and keeps that boost going on upwards to 20 kHz. (A lot of Japanese mastering engineers used 10 kHz boosts on early CDs. Animals is one. Compare the 1st Japanese to the 1st WG.)

Steve Hoffman couldn't have known what would be done with the remix years later, but for people who think the remix might have a little too much of a good thing going on down low and up high, the DCC Gold CD is exactly the remedy !!

 

I would just like to say thank you! This music fan is thrilled with Aqualung. Now, what can you do with ELP's Welcome Back My Friends.........

 

This reminds me of that situation with your remix of Crimson's Lizard. I thought the sample you uploaded of your original, pre-"mastered" remix sounded fantastic, whereas after it had left your hands and was mastered there was some punch lost due to compression. The version that was mastered was what consumers ended up with, of course, which had left me leaning back towards the original mix.

It is probably insiginifcant to the masses, but I wish your work was released "as is." Did this remix of Aqualung really need "mastering"?

Oh well, I really like this. Still, I can only imagine what it sounded like before mastering!

 

I prefer the DCC as it is less harsh imo but it truly is personal preference.

Here is the dynamic range of the DCC

Code:

foobar2000 1.1.8 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1
log date: 2011-12-14 20:25:41

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analyzed: Jethro Tull / Aqualung
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DR         Peak         RMS     Duration Track
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR15       0.00 dB   -18.14 dB      6:38 01-Aqualung
DR14       0.00 dB   -17.23 dB      4:12 02-Cross-Eyed Mary
DR15      -4.43 dB   -23.48 dB      1:25 03-Cheap Day Return
DR15      -0.80 dB   -19.17 dB      3:56 04-Mother Goose
DR15      -4.70 dB   -25.22 dB      1:58 05-Wond'ring Aloud
DR15       0.00 dB   -16.55 dB      3:23 06-Up To Me
DR15      -0.17 dB   -19.34 dB      7:15 07-My God
DR14       0.00 dB   -15.80 dB      3:22 08-Hymn 43
DR14      -4.46 dB   -24.63 dB      1:16 09-Slipstream
DR15       0.00 dB   -17.95 dB      4:27 10-Locomotive Breath
DR14       0.00 dB   -18.65 dB      6:05 11-Wind Up
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Number of tracks:  11
Official DR value: DR15

Samplerate:        44100 Hz
Channels:          2
Bits per sample:   16
Bitrate:           706 kbps
Codec:             FLAC
================================================================================

And here is the dynamic range for the 24bit/96Khz stereo remix.

Code:

foobar2000 1.1.8 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1
log date: 2011-12-14 20:26:21

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analyzed: Jethro Tull / Aqualung (Stereo Remix) (24-96)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DR         Peak         RMS     Duration Track
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR12      -0.07 dB   -14.75 dB      6:35 01-Aqualung
DR11      -0.07 dB   -12.76 dB      4:10 02-Cross Eyed Mary
DR15      -4.57 dB   -24.10 dB      1:22 03-Cheap Day Return
DR14      -0.07 dB   -17.28 dB      3:53 04-Mother Goose
DR15      -3.09 dB   -21.79 dB      1:53 05-Wond'ring Aloud
DR12      -0.07 dB   -13.85 dB      3:14 06-Up To Me
DR12      -0.08 dB   -16.44 dB      7:11 07-My God
DR11      -0.07 dB   -12.84 dB      3:18 08-Hymn 43
DR15      -3.10 dB   -23.19 dB      1:13 09-Slipstream
DR13      -0.08 dB   -16.09 dB      4:41 10-Locomotive Breath
DR12      -0.08 dB   -16.37 dB      6:03 11-Wind Up
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Number of tracks:  11
Official DR value: DR13

Samplerate:        96000 Hz
Channels:          2
Bits per sample:   24
Bitrate:           2663 kbps
Codec:             FLAC
================================================================================

 

Good one.

 

no way on earth is the new remix HARSH! you are just hearing what you are supposed to be hearing; life in the music.

 

yes, I'd love to just hear all the guitars separately...

 

That makes sense. I wish I could hear the new mix (which I think was tastefully done, by the way) without that added brightness. Unfortunately, it seems to be Peter Mew's signature sound to brighten things up. It would be very interesting to see the frequency comparison between your original version and the final version which made it onto the released product.

This should now settle the discussion about the added brightness.

Is there any chance that the Blu-ray version does not have the same EQ moves applied by Peter Mew than the CD version? I have only heard the CD version.

 

The guy that did the remix just said there might be extra treble added around 10-12k... that can definitely make things sound harsh.

Not sure how you can state as a fact that what someone else is hearing is incorrect.

Steven Wilson thanks again for clearing up these details in your post. Peter Mew's added EQ doesn't bother me much, but it is slightly less crankable because of this.

 

No, we are hearing Peter Mew's EQ moves:

 

It’s way more complex than that and as someone mentioned earlier, just turn the treble down if it really bothers you that much and you can enjoy the wonderful work Steven has done. But the detractors still wont like it because the crud has been removed.

 

I'd love to hear a sample from the pre-mastered remix ...

 

Harsh was a strong word I just meant in relation to the DCC it is, but this is all a matter
of preference and personal taste. I just would have preferred less treble in the remix