Jefferson Airplane "Surrealistic Pillow" tidbit

[Mike Hunte]

OK...being that I don't post much to any music boards these days, I thought I'd come out of "retirement" for a minute (my political rants don't count) and mention something that I stumbled across a while back, yet forgot to mention. Even though everyone pretty much seems to like the latest Irwin remaster of SP -- making this info somewhat obsolete -- I thought some collectors might be interested:

Here goes. I'd always been under the impression (from reading posts on the internet) that the RCA Gold disc version and subsequent silver mono/stereo release were identical masterings (i.e. silver disc a clone). I already had the gold disc & picked up the silver a few months back just to satisfy my curiosity. Guess what, they're MILES apart despite the use of the same mastering credits - which is probably how the assumption of the cloning began.

The latter silver disc is a heavily, and I mean heavily, noise reduced mastering of the gold. In addition, different eq, dynamics, etc...

It sounds absolutely awful...probably the most obvious NR artifacts I've ever heard. Cymbals with really bad decays and ZERO noise floor. Like someone slapped it into CoolEdit and chose the maximum settings for everything. Oh yeah, for the "waveform nerds" out there (of which I admittedly enjoy comparing myself), they look nothing alike.

On a related note, I sent some blind samples to two different people - 4 files ranging from the 80's disc, the two above, and the remaster. While both preferred the remaster, the same two folks considered the original 80's disc and the gold disc (stereo portion, of course) to be sonically "pretty damned close" - leading me to believe that they were probably sourced from the same tape. Both chose the silver twofer as the worst sounding of the bunch.

[lukpac]

I was one of those masked men.

[Xenu]

Eenteresting. I'm glad I had someone xerox me a copy of the gold twofer way back when. Mind posting comparison clips, LD?

[czeskleba]

Here goes. I'd always been under the impression (from reading posts on the internet) that the RCA Gold disc version and subsequent silver mono/stereo release were identical masterings

I'm also someone who has spread that story. It was an assumption based on both the identical mastering credits and something I read in ICE. Back when the gold disc first came out in 1995, the ICE article said the gold disc was a limited edition, and RCA's plan was that when it went out of print they would reissue this same version in a regular aluminum CD (similarly to what MCA did with their Buddy Holly gold disc). Instead, the gold disc went out of print and RCA did nothing, leaving the older 80's CD out there. So when the mono/stereo aluminum CD finally came out (in 2000-2001 or whatever) I just assumed that RCA had finally done what they said they were going to do back in 1995. Kinda strange they'd go to all the trouble of doctoring that version, and then have Irwin remaster it again just a couple years later.

[Ess Ay Cee Dee]

nt

[Andreas]

The silver stereo/mono CD has audible hiss. There can be some NR, but it is not so obvious to me. Where would these NR artifacts be heard?

[Mike Hunte]

The silver stereo/mono CD has audible hiss. There can be some NR, but it is not so obvious to me. Where would these NR artifacts be heard?

OK...maybe my "zero" noise floor statement was a bit dramatic. More accurately, the traces of hiss that remain on the mono/stereo silver *pale* in comparison to all other versions (including the new remaster). The silver has that choked, hollow sound that one gets from noise-fingerprinting and removal - that kind of ceiling effect where no hiss resides above a certain threshold. Any residual hiss is more broadband in nature, IMO. No real high end left either (not that there was much to begin with).

The sad related note is that the original stereo and mono masters of this album (really the finished mixes) sound like shit. And it has little to do with the echo - there's just not much fidelity, no wide-frequency response, lots of console overload, heavily filtered drums, etc.

Truth be told, I've never heard a CD version that I could completely tolerate. The vinyl here still wins out for me - and even that sounds like crap.

"3/5's of a Mile in Ten Seconds" defines the genre of lo-fi, IMO...

Maybe, that's where some of the charm lies...

Then again...maybe not.

[Mike Hunte]

Eenteresting. I'm glad I had someone xerox me a copy of the gold twofer way back when. Mind posting comparison clips, LD?

Sorry it took so long. Politics has ruled the day as of late. It's obvious from looking at the similar structures of graphs that they were at least sourced from the same transfer - the silver being the noise-reduced version of the gold. Levels are quite different though.

I'll have audio to follow...soon.

"She Has Funny Cars" (stereo)

Gold:


Silver:

[Mike Hunte]

And now the audio. These are uncompressed WAV files - so they're big. About 32 megs each. I found them on my 'puter from the original blind test. Four complete samples of "She Has Funny Cars" from various CD pressings. The noise-reduced one should be fairly obvious. At least, it was to those who have participated so far.

http://www.lukpac.org/~dave/1.wav

http://www.lukpac.org/~dave/2.wav

http://www.lukpac.org/~dave/3.wav

http://www.lukpac.org/~dave/4.wav

[Andreas]

And now the audio. These are uncompressed WAV files - so they're big. About 32 megs each. I found them on my 'puter from the original blind test. Four complete samples of "She Has Funny Cars" from various CD pressings. The noise-reduced one should be fairly obvious. At least, it was to those who have participated so far.

http://www.lukpac.org/~dave/1.wav

http://www.lukpac.org/~dave/2.wav

http://www.lukpac.org/~dave/3.wav

http://www.lukpac.org/~dave/4.wav

Number 3 has been noise-reduced, and it matches my stereo/mono standard remaster (although mine is not as loud....are the .wav's normalized?).

As for the best sound, I think I prefer number 2. Number 1 has more noise and less detail, number 4 is too bright and exaggerated for me. The sound is not great in any case.

Now, reveal the sources, please.

[Mike Hunte]

Number 3 has been noise-reduced,

Correct!

and it matches my stereo/mono standard remaster (although mine is not as loud....are the .wav's normalized?).

Straight, digital rips - no normalization, offset correction or alteration of any sort!

As for the best sound, I think I prefer number 2. Number 1 has more noise and less detail, number 4 is too bright and exaggerated for me. The sound is not great in any case.

Now, reveal the sources, please.

They're actually in their correct chronological order:

1 - 80's RCA disc
2 - Gold disc twofer
3 - Silver disc twofer
4 - 2003 Irwin remaster

[Andreas]

Interesting:
1. The four versions are quite different.
2. The Gold CD sounds better to me than the Irwin remaster. Not clearer, but more pleasant and less upfront.
3. The noise reduction only becomes apparent when compared to the other versions. I had number three, but nothing else to compare to, and I was reluctant to say that there is NR.

[Mike Hunte]

Interesting:
1. The four versions are quite different.

Which is the great thing about "blind" listening. That is, it helps bury preconceived notions that tend to rage out of control, like wildfire, on the internet!

2. The Gold CD sounds better to me than the Irwin remaster. Not clearer, but more pleasant and less upfront.

There are varying differences on a track-by-track basis on both discs, but I'd say your assesment on that track is pretty good. Conversely, "Plastic Fantastic Lover" on the Irwin disc is probably the best. Upfront...but still pleasing.

Overall, the Irwin remasters are somewhat of a mixed bag, IMO. The mastering on "Takes Off" tends to be more bright and aggressive than need be - though, like SP, it's shit sound...minus the echo. On the other hand, "Volunteers" came out quite good, IMO. Fairly close to the Mo-Fi.

3. The noise reduction only becomes apparent when compared to the other versions. I had number three, but nothing else to compare to, and I was reluctant to say that there is NR.

This is where I would politely disagree with you. If I only had version three on it's own, the NR would hit me like a pie in the face. From the opening notes, I knew something was wrong - even to my slowly deafening, nearly 40 year old ears! It sounds like it was put inside a tin can. Also, the cymbal decays on the first verse have their natural tails badly truncated into a metallic mess.

[MK]

I bought Irwin's Surrealistic Pillow remaster a little while ago and I still have the aluminum stereo/mono CD that was available for something like one, two years before Irwin redid it.

Irwin's mastering is hands down better, but I was more concerned with the mono stuff. Unfortunately, Irwin only includes two tracks in mono (thanks, dude...) but now I REALLY wish he re-did them all because the aluminum stereo/mono CD's mastering of the same mono tracks SUCKS. The worst is "White Rabbit," which definitely has some denoising or bad EQ work. In the first few seconds, it's only bass notes, clearly defined, so everything in the midrange and above should be easy to hear without any intrustion. Irwin's has a normal 'full range' sounding tape-hiss. The hiss is still clear on the aluminum stereo/mono CD, but it has all the upper frequencies lopped OFF. Denoising or EQ? I thought it could be EQ, but then listen when the snare drum comes in. Compared to Irwin's remaster, it sounds like SHIT, totally unnatural and processed.

[Andreas]

MK,

you should have compared the RCA Gold CD against the Irwin remaster.