Which mix of "Aqualung" do you prefer, and how do you rate the EQ of the new mix?

We've been having quite a long discussion about the new version of "Aqualung" (40th Anniversary remix), and I thought it would be a good idea to give people an opportunity to cast their vote.

I have defined four poll options to reflect how people like the remix itself (i.e. placement of instruments etc.) and how they rate the tonality of the new mix.

Have fun!

 

With all the raves posted about this set I'd be surprised if very many were to vote for anything other than option #1. Then again, as picky as folks are around this place...

 

The original mix sounds really lousy... balance was a foreign word for the producer and mixing engineer. The new one is the best. Period!

 

Now wait a minute there. It has been stated many times--by Ian Anderson and others--that the studio itself was the source of the problems encountered while recording Aqualung. Don't be so quick to cast stones.

 

I like the new remix better than the original mix and I think the EQ is perfect...

nothing is perfect...this is the closest to my choice...

 

The new mix is fantastic, not sure if I would call the EQ perfect but who's nitpicking.

 

Option #4 for me. I only bought the remix because of the raving about it on this forum, & I truly don't get it one bit. Then again, I don't care for remixes in general, to be fair.

I prefer the original mix on the DCC CD, & I *certainly* prefer the tonality of the DCC, by a very considerable margin.

 

I like the new remix better than the original mix and I think the EQ is perfect.

 

This is quite surprising to me so far.

I thought at one point that I was the only one to prefer the original mix. It's not because it sounds better. It's because it was the mix I grew up with. It has many elements that I just love, but there is no point rehashing that or my reasonings.

One thing I do find a bit funny. When I first posted my preferences I mentioned that I'd probably get blasted for them and a few people asked why. Hopefully nobody will have to ask that question again.

There is no doubt that SW did a great job with the remix, but I'm generaly not a fan of remixes when they seem to rewrite history. Once again it sounds great, but I much prefer hearing the original mix in the best possible light I can. You guys must admit that I'm consistent. I generally don't prefer any remixes for the same reasons.

I put this remix in the same category as the stereo Pet Sounds or Machine Head remixes. IMO, neither are definitive, but I'm glad they exist.

Btw, comparing the eq of the two versions seems a bit silly to me. If they were the same mix than that makes a lot of sense. Considering that this is a remix with new mix elements it makes no sense to me to make those types of comparisions.

 

I'm going to have to find this CD tonight!

 

+1

 

Regarding remixes of old classics, it is a bit upsetting when the sound quality of the new remix is worse than the old (e.g. the old USA by King Crimson remixed as the duller newer Live At Asbury Park - fortunately both remain available, as Asbury Park has other positives also). However, when they elevate what was clearly a bad original mix to a higher standard, it's all good. In my opinion, Layla remixed was also a good thing, although most see it as an abomination.

The original mix of Aqualung appears to have been used as a model for the SW remix but improved in just the way we all hoped it could be. Maybe a trifle bright (and that's a trifle - it's NOT overly sibilant like so many remasters), but for goodness sake - Clive Bunker and Jeffrey Hammond are now at least freakin' in the same vicinity as the rest of the band compared with before. Would we have as much whinging about the SW remix if we were asked to choose between the 2 mixes on the day of release back in 1971? No way!

The smiley faced difference curves (SW mix minus original mix) could just as easily have been interpreted as a deficiency in the original mix, rather than an excess in the new mix, and certainly from what SW has mentioned about the frequency response of the multitracks, the former seems far more appropriate.
In my opinion, there must have been monitor speakers in the studio with smiley faced eq as well as an inexperienced mixing engineer who couldn't hear "through" the monitors. I bet if you played back the original mix on the then monitors in Island Studios, Aqualung would sound much better. And Led Zeppelin 4's sound has always failed for me for similar reasons and was recorded partly at the same studio - surprise!

Aqualung always sounded lacklustre - even on 1971 Island UK vinyl, just as Benefit did. So, it must have "acquired" that sound at either mixdown to stereo or mastering to vinyl. As we have the DCC mastered from the flat stereo master to listen to, and it sounds somewhat similar to my memory of the original vinyl, it can't have happened at the mastering to vinyl step. SW says the multitrack has far greater treble and bass levels than the stereo master. The logical conclusion is that the mid-centric sound happened at the mixing to stereo stage.

For all people who think Aqualung (and Benefit) are well recorded in their original mixes - listen to the albums in sequence. This Was, Stand Up - good sound (excellent if unilateral drums, good bass). Benefit and Aqualung - all midrange frequencies. Thick As A Brick and Passion Play - a return to good sound, despite what I suspect is phasing on the drum sound on TAAB.

IMHO, Aqualung has been liberated from the chastity belt and is now raring to go - just as we have been hoping it would be for 40 freakin' years. Lock up yer daughters!

Steve Wilson - thank you from the bottom of my dark heart, my friend. We would all benefit if you remixed......well you know what I want.

 

This sums it up for me as well. Whe I heard the new CD version I was immediately transported back to when I first heard it -ears wide open and attention fully engaged. It was/is worth it for that experience alone. I haven't done a side by side comparison with the original vinyl, but I will say the clarity in the new mix makes it a joy to listen to. I have lots of associations with the old LP and don't feel that sentimental attachment outweighs the benfits of the new mix. I prefer being able to really hear the music.

The small high end boost does not bother my ears at all.

Frank

 

Voted for the first statement (even if nothing in this world is perfect).

 

First for me, probably not the result that is forum approved (so far).

Thanks Steven Wilson!

 

Yes, but the Eq is less than ideal. Too much treble IMO.

The surround mix is just great. Really, this is the reason to get this new release.

 

I like both mixes. Some songs the new mix, some songs the old mix. But I don't like the loud, bright mastering on the acoustic songs from the new mix.

 

Choice # 1 and I love it.

 

"Perfect" is too strong of a word, but less than ideal is too critical. "Not perfect, but very good" would be my preferred option, but it does not exist.

 

Think the new mix is great. Easily in my top for 2011.

 

The new mix is interesting...but I don't think it has the magic in it that made it the classic we all talk about today. I am hearing plug-ins and what we call mixing "in the box" (on a computer)...
For my money, the original has the magic and the remix is a novelty...

 

The new mix is perfect to me. The surround mix is absolutely gorgeous. If Steven Wilson is at the helm for Thick as a Brick, I'm in no matter what extras they put in the box along with a surround mix.

 

I prefer the original. Can't stand the new mix. It's not the way I grew up with the album.

 

The stereo remix is great......at low volume. It's not crankable.

 

An interesting question. What should be considered "the original" here -- what's on the tapes (which, according to SW, is pretty much exactly what we're hearing on the new release) or the version we've all memorized from listening to it most of our lives?

I voted for the first. I think it's splendid.