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

Neither have I. A mythical creature called "huge, smiley faced EQ curve" hardly makes any sense in the mixing/mastering domain since these processes usually don't use graphical equalizers (which are widely used in the home hi-fi due to their simplicity) - instead they use parametric/paragraphic ones.

Folks, please read some professional info before creating another night horror story.

 

The album has never sounded better than it does on the remix.

Period.

Those who say no are simply being silly.

Anyone who knows and loves that album should revel in the tasteful and revealing presentation on the 40th.

 

So you are telling us that every time somebody complained of some MFSL mastering having smiley faced EQ that they knew for certain that it was graphic EQ and not parametric that was used to achieve that sound?

Come on, people, it is just an expression to describe the sound, no matter how it got there.

 

Thanks.

 

It is misleading and plain wrong.

 

This thread is getting very confrontational. . . and weird.

 

I'm in agreement.

 

Compared to three versions of the original mix used in that comparison, the remix has a very smiley faced EQ. I would think anybody who is a member here could hear it. If you want to argue that every version of the original mix had a frowning curve for the EQ, then go ahead, but either way, the sound of the new mix compares to the original in that way.

That is honest and plain right.

 

Now that is a pretty silly statement. How can "having a different preference in sound quality" be silly? We are talking about different opinions, tastes and preferences here.

Maybe the album has never sounded better to you, and other people. But it certainly has sounded better to me on other versions. You can't argue taste, that is silly.

By the way, if you want to normalize the frequency curves presented, you simply have to move the curves vertically, you can move the yellow curve down. Then you would could describe it as a "midrange suck-out".

The term "smiley-faced EQ" describes a certain sonic presentation, similar to hitting the loudness button on some stereos. Most people love that loudness button...

And to argue that up to 10 dB difference in high frequency is a removal of mud because of going back to the multi-track tapes is just not realistic, unless they completely messed up the orgininal master tape with some tape azimuth problems or applying Dolby during playback when no encoding with Dolby was done.

It was a decision taken during the new mix to bring out more detail and it doesn't come from just using the multitrack tapes, unless the original master tape was created with a very strong negative EQ curve (which would be a possibility, but I highly doubt it).

There is plenty of detail on the acoustic guitars for example on the original version (e.g. DCC or old UK Chrysalis or original vinyl).

But to continue the discussion is quite pointless. People have expressed their opinions and each person can decide for themselves whether they like it or not. Some do (maybe even most), some don't. We can move on.

 

Welcome!

 

My best guess is that the studio monitors were both poorly chosen and the engineers couldn't (or didn't have the experience to) listen through them.
I would expect to see the monitors would have had a smiley face response and probably the mix sounded great in the studio, but terrible on speakers with flat frequency responses. Most mastering engineers compensate for the speakers they are either monitoring through, or have set up their own speakers to accurately represent what the sound is (e.g. Barry Diament studios).
Indeed, Led Zeppelin 4 and Benefit all sound pretty ordinary and were recorded at the same time with studios in common. And all would........errrr....... benefit from remixes. With respect to Led Zeppelin, the sound of Houses Of The Holy is much better than the extremely muddy mix of Led Zeppelin 4, so I guess by then, the engineers had started to either compensate, or bought more accurate monitors.

 

In a frequency plot, normalizing by volume would only shift the freq curves, not change them.

The 40th has both boosted lows and highs vs the older CDs. If you can't hear that, then I can't help you.

 

Where have you guys been over the past few years? "Smiley face eq" is a generic term to indicate bass and treble reinforcement. The frequency response would look like a smile if compared with the original.

And leaving them as they are also gives the added information of relative volume levels, which is excised with normalising.

 

Although I prefer the remix, there are no absolutes here, my friend. And time often sees a reversal of sound preferences that were etched in stone (e.g. the current reverence for initial CD pressings, when the past had them as muffled and from bad tapes LOL).
Tread softly, my friend.

 

Wise words. These things are highly subjective. I love the remix too, but there's no need to get bent out of shape about it and no need for snootiness or intolerance on either side.

 

I agree. But what is what is weird to me is that I only really see "snootiness or intolerance" on the side that I am on.

The people who don't care for the remix seem to be very reasoned and respectful. I may not agree with them on the sound that is on this remix, but they seem very straight ahead and are even offering details about why they feel the way they do. I find those comments interesting!

 

Been here - smiling at generalizations and absorbing useful info.

Generalization = "smiley-faced EQ is bad (unless it's on a MFSL disc - in that case the MFSL logo, price tag and collectibility noticeably smoothen the sound)".

Useful info = many tend to enjoy the Aqualung remix and hear some positive things in it, so I'm not sentenced to a single closed ward.

 

IIRC, Ian Anderson said in the interview on the 25th Ann. CD that the original mix was over-EQ'd to compensate for what was perceived as a bad recording and the bad acoustics of the studio.

I have known Aqualung for only a decade (I'm 26) but I have listened to it a hundred times, if not more. It's one of my favorite albums and I know it like the back of my hand.
I have felt, even on the best versions on digital and vinyl (I have the DCC, the early good CD pressing, the French and the Classic LP) that something was off and weak with the original mix.

For me, hearing the remix is like hearing the music for the first time. I know it's a bit of a cliché; but, at long last every instrument is audible, realistic-sounding, and perfectly balanced. To me, the remix is the correct presentation of the music. Not of the technical limitations of the time, but of the music.

Sure, I find the mastering a bit glassy-sounding, and the acoustic tracks too loud compared to the rocking ones. Nothing that can't be fixed with a simple knob on your amp, without losing the quality. I don't find this a deal-breaker at all, and no, I don't think the mix is at fault here. The mix seems to have preserved the realistic tone and quality of every instrument, voice included.

I dreamed for years of hearing Aqualung with this depth and clarity. Now I can.

 

One of the best and life-like assumptions so far. And it proves that a smiley EQ is a relative term (if not purely abstract), doesn't it? So, what are we struggling for?

 

Indeed. So, let's patent a brand new term - "moustache EQ" (in reality, your saw-like drawing looks much closer to a typical job done with a parametric EQ), and call it a day!

 

I'm a big fan of the remix release. I haven't even played the CD yet because I've been playing the record. I do have a seperate AV system that's decent and I like the 5.1 mix too. I really like having the option to go with Wilson's remix or folks who don't like it still have the original. It's a win win situation for the fans of Aqualung.

 

Thread intensity is awesome. Don't anyone go & quote me on this but I put up a WTB for the vinyl in the classifieds. Mistakenly listed it twice but only want one copy.

 

Only spun the title track on vinyl, but it's flat, clean, and quiet. Not taking it off my TT until I've played the whole thing.

Good luck.

 

Reasoned perhaps, but respectful? Who keeps expressing embarrassment for being on the side of those that enjoy the remix?

I owned Aqualung on vinyl back in the day and loved it. I tried to reconnect with the CD in the late 90's and it didn't take, in part due to the muddy sound quality. Now I'm really digging it again, due to improved clarity and impact, as well as the bonus materials and packaging. I feel like this classic has finally been given the treatment it deserves.

 

I don't think you understood what I meant: I'm a bit embarrassed to be on the side of those who like the remix because some who do are making us look bad. I'm pretty sure if somebody who had "no" side looked at this thread, the "disrespect" would be coming almost exclusively from the "THIS IS THE BEST VERSION EVER AND IF YOU DON'T AGREE GO BACK TO YOUR MUD" crowd.

I like the remix, but I'm not going to act like it is "above" criticism. That would be too weird, especially at a place like this where these topics get discussed. Some people who like this remix probably shouldn't even be in this thread, because it's almost as if anybody who doesn't like it has no "right" to that opinion, should go back to their "waveforms," face that it's the best version ever, stop liking "mud"...

I can't agree with that approach. In fact, I find some of the comments that are negative quite interesting, and truthfully? I'm not sure I have seen one that was "disrespectful".