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

True - it's like being used to the duophoinc and hearing a stereo remix.

Having lived with the album for decades, it's ridiculous (to me) to dismiss how pronounced things that were previously buried in the mix are alive now.

It's a revelation.

No trickery, Revealing a 40 year old BAD MIX.

 

Is the 40th a remix?

 

Where have you been Geoff ?? Yes, Steven Wilson did the remix, and has been posting here for 7 months, taking us through the processes.

 

Sorry mate. This wasn't a thread I was participating in.

 

very funny.

 

did not see this post...I'll take it you were not joking around. Although....

 

I agree..I am not 100% happy with Locomotive Breath.

 

Sorry guys - I really wasn't following this one, and my question was serious.

I since have read all of this thread (except the shipping posts) and I have caught up. Well, there is always part 1.

But now I know what we are talking about so thanks for your patience.

 

No sweat Geoff. Are you familiar with Steven's work ? (Porcupine Tree / solo stuff / several other bands he works with / King Crimson & Caravan remasters ? The man is amazing, musician, writer, engineer, surround guru...)

 

Oh I see!
I thought because mine had "Made in USA" on it, it was the right one.
On silver inner ring on disc it has 1A VK21044 01 A - read from the play side.
Then on the label side in from that on the clear center it has embossed CMU P 82

On the actual disc label it has F2 21044
On leaflet the only other clue is copyright 1984

So is this the alleged good or bad version.
Maybe I do have the crap one!

 

I never said it would change them. I said it exaggerates the differences because you aren’t visually comparing them they way you should listen to them - at the same RMS volume. You’re charting 2 variables when you should only be charting one - the EQ differences.

Spare me and this thread this type of snark, which you can help, as I and every one else can hear this release just fine.

The fact remains that you have no evidence to state they were “boosted.” You can only claim that one has more or less, not the means by which it was accomplished. You even failed to plot the “flat transfer” that has been released with this issue and use it as the reference.

We already know what the volume differences are.

We debated this in the DSOTM thread with foobar’s work and the charts made a lot more sense after he normalized them.

 

^^^

Normalized, especially for Green Dazi. Gee, I still see major low and high end boosts there for the new remix, don't you?



I don't know what flat is. All this is, is a relative comparison between different masterings. But I can most certainly hear what's going on with the new remix.

I have already stated that I do like it as an alternative to the original mix. But it doesn't replace the CDP32 or the DCC as my preferred way of hearing this CD.

 

Almost assuredly the bad 2nd U.S. version

 

Using the word “boost” is not just describing the differences, you’re also making a claim as to how the differences occurred. This indicates a clear bias on your part. As an example, I could just as easily claim that on the previous releases, the lows and highs have been rolled off and/or the mid-range has been boosted (and the anemic bass suggests that). If they were all based on the master, you would have some basis to make your claim. But since the remix was based on the multi’s, only those involved with the engineering/production can make that claim. All that you can determine from this data is that there is a difference.

The Box Set has a flat transfer of the master on the Blu disc. But again, the remix used the multi’s and we have no idea what EQ (active, passive or unintended) was used on them, the master, nor the remix.

 

So you think that if the individual tracks were remixed, levels adjusted and so forth, the "natural" EQ involved would have like 10db more of 10k than Steve's DCC version?

That seems unlikely.

Btw, are we assuming that Peter Mew did nothing with EQ and was credited with mastering?

 

My 22 track (to-Aqualung) 79:21 music CDR in glorious stereo. Feed the car!

Wond'ring Aloud (13th December 1970) )
Wond'ring Aloud, Again (Full Morgan Version)
Slipstream (Take 2)
Nursie (2011 Remaster)
Just Trying To Be (New Mix)
Life Is A Long Song (New Mix)
Up The 'Pool (Early Version)
Up The 'Pool (New Mix)
Dr Bogenbroom (2011 Remaster)
My God (Early Version)
Complete album (Remixed)
From Later (2011 Remaster)

 

Especially in the light of the fact that Peter Mew tends to use a lot of EQ on many other masterings (just one example: Robin Trower remasters). He likes treble, that's for sure.

Not that it really matters. Or, would all the people who really like the new version not like it so much all of a sudden if they knew that a strong treble and bass boost was applied? Shouldn't matter, I would think. You either like how it sounds or you don't like it.

If I knew for a fact (hypothetically speaking, I find it extremely unlikely) that the DCC, and the original vinyl, and the UK Chrysalis all had the midrange increased and/or the treble and bass rolled off, would that influence which version I like better? No, not in the least bit. I let my ears decide and I tend to prefer less treble than more treble. It's a matter of taste and preference.

 

Would love to hear that, and find out how it compares to some other digital versions of the original mix, like the DCC etc.

Seems like the Blu-ray would be great if it would be available on its own. Then you get the new mix and the original mix in high-res.

 

First, I suggest that you look at the RMS corrected version of the chart. The remix has only about 2-3dB’s typ. (peak at 5-6dB’s) more bass than the DCC. This is why the corrected version is better at conveying the EQ differences.

Secondly, I have no idea what the "natural" EQ is, nor what it should be. And neither does anyone else who wasn’t involved with the production. I’ve stated previously that I believe that EQ has used been on all releases and this is probably true at every stage. There’s a good 6-7dB’s peak of difference in the bass between the DCC and the earlier release - are you going to claim that our host boosted the bass? An objective person would say that there is a substantial difference.

And who has assumed that Mew did no EQ? I certainly haven’t.

 

Steve has posted about mastering Aqualung before and I am pretty sure the treble was not rolled off. Tonally the DCC sounds very close to my first pressing US vinyl.

 

I don’t believe that I’ve ever seen Steve post that he was there for any part of the recording and mixing stages and the creation of the original master of Aqualung or state that he is aware of what EQ was used during those stages.

 

He doesn't need to have been present during the recording and mixing of the original album. He can hear the EQ by comparing it to what instruments (acoustic guitar) and vocals naturally sound like. At least when we talk about strong EQ moves and differences of 5-10 dB.

It is his main goal in mastering, to make the music sound natural, and with difficult albums, he sometimes has to concentrate on a specific part, like the vocals, or a saxophone, or an acoustic guitar. He mastered the DCC to sound most natural and the best possible way (in his opinion as a professional mastering engineer).

Do you think Steve would judge a version which has 5 dB and more difference (to the version he created) in treble and bass as sounding natural?

I am not Steve and I am not a professional mastering engineer, but I can tell that the vocals and acoustic guitar do not sound natural to me on the new mix/mastering.

 

Well, there you go. I pulled out Bridge of Sighs after I listened to Aqualung this weekend. I have no idea why. I thought it sounded wonderful to my ears also. See, I tend to prefer more treble and less muddle. To each his own I guess.

 

Roland, please don’t speak for Steve, as he has repeatedly asked us not to and this conversation can only get ugly from here.

It’s a fact of life that artists and engineers make massive EQ moves all the time in the studio and there’s only so much that can be done when left with a 2 track master. That’s why some albums get remixed. Steve did a great job with Aqualung, but the crud is still there on the DCC and there’s nothing “natural” about it. And as I just posted above, with the corrected graph, the DCC bass is only 2-3dB’s typ. (peak at 5-6dB’s) less than the remix. Not 5dB’s as you just said and certainly not 10dB’s as stated earlier.

I wildly disagree with you on your “natural” preferences. In my opinion, the remix sounds much more live and natural. The vocals, in particular, are substantially more realistic and the guitars have much more realistic resonance and tails. The micro-dynamics on the remix are miles ahead of the previous releases. It is my impression that some detractors don’t really like the sound of live music and have developed a preference for an imprint version and/or the softened haze created by generations of tape and layers of electronics. This is reinforced by several posts here which claim non-musical reasons such as “memories” or “my vinyl copy” for preferring an earlier version.

 

It looks like you are not reading the graph correctly. You have to take the vertical distance, not the shortest distance between the lines.

Maybe Kevin can quickly create a chart just for you to show the new mix/mastering minus the DCC. Then it will be obvious and clear for everybody to see.

The difference is more or less 5 dB in the low frequencies and then goes from 0 to around 10 dB in the upper frequencies.

I am bothered more by the upper frequencies.