Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 12:51 pm
Okay, this is a summation of everything I found on these three CD's:
1. The 1995 gold stereo/mono CD reissue (aka "the gold disc")
2. The 2001 aluminum stereo/mono CD reissue with the same credits as the gold disc (aka "the 2001 disc")
3. The 2003 aluminum CD reissue produced by Bob Irwin with the stereo mix and a few bonuses including two mono mixes (aka "the Irwin disc")
Just to get a few details out of the way, to make this test easier, the Irwin disc tracks had to be reduced to 80% of their original volume. A very small adjustment had to be made with to match the gold disc with the 2001 disc (forgot how much), but overall these changes matched the levels across the board.
Also, Irwin mentioned his disc was the first to use the correct pitch on CD. So, I went through every freaking track on all three discs and matched them to the pitch on the Irwin disc. It's not so complicated with the stereo mixes, both the 2001 disc and the gold disc are 1/4 of a semitone too slow. Not much, but a definite audible difference.
The mono mix is weird because MOST of the tracks are 1/4 of a semitone too slow as well, but a few tracks are the right pitch. I couldn't figure out why the pitch would vary like this, but I checked and double checked and triple checked and it just is. So these are the mono mixes on both the 2001 disc and the gold disc that were in the CORRECT pitch: #3 My Best Friend, #7 DCBA, #8 How Do You Feel?, #10 White Rabbit, and #11 Plastic Fantastic Lover. All of the remaining mono tracks were 1/4 of a semitone too slow.
So, having cleared that up, on with the sound quality.
Yeah, the gold disc sounds slightly better than the aluminum disc. However, I think the Irwin disc is even better but a little aggressive in the EQ. I'm pretty sure the gold disc and the 2001 disc use a little denoising, with the 2001 disc using more. Listen to the quiet passages where tape hiss should really pop out and you'll see what I mean. The Irwin disc, I'd recommend taking out 2, maybe 3 dB at 8k, the same boost as the Simon & Garfunkel reissues he produced. Irwin claims he used the original EQ instructions given to the original Lp pressings, but it's still a little too harsh IMO, and even if that's how it's "supposed" to be, screw it, I'm gonna EQ it anyway.
The mono mixes, this time the 2001 disc sounds better than the gold disc, with the gold disc having less 'air' or 'top end.' There's not even that much, again, they both sound denoised, but the 2001 disc has a 'natural' sounding amount while the gold disc loses some more. Pretty odd how it could be reversed with these two discs.
As for Irwin's mastering, again, he only did two mono tracks on CD (check out his Sundazed vinyl reissue, as JWB pointed out, it's all mono), and his "White Rabbit" is clearly better. HOWEVER, on "Somebody To Love," I noticed his mastering has a bit more distortion in some spots. This is apparent pretty early, and it's easy to spot when the music gets loud. Even with EQ work, the distortion remains, so either Paul Williams & co. was able to "fix" it on their reissues (is that possible?) or Irwin introduced it into the sound or there's some other reason I can't think of. Anyway, the music is pretty loud through the whole track, so perhaps for this reason the denoising isn't so bad - either it was set to a more sensitive setting because the 'need' for it wasn't so apparent, or the loudness in general meant the plug-in, stand-alone device, or whatever didn't 'work' as aggressively, picking up less 'noise' to reduce, or whatever the appropriate technical lingo is supposed to be.
So there you have it. Stereo, I'm going with the Irwin disc, but with some small EQ adjustment, and mono, well, I guess the 2001 disc is it.
The gold disc is the nice middle-ground. If no EQ work can be done, I guess that may be your best bet for stereo.
1. The 1995 gold stereo/mono CD reissue (aka "the gold disc")
2. The 2001 aluminum stereo/mono CD reissue with the same credits as the gold disc (aka "the 2001 disc")
3. The 2003 aluminum CD reissue produced by Bob Irwin with the stereo mix and a few bonuses including two mono mixes (aka "the Irwin disc")
Just to get a few details out of the way, to make this test easier, the Irwin disc tracks had to be reduced to 80% of their original volume. A very small adjustment had to be made with to match the gold disc with the 2001 disc (forgot how much), but overall these changes matched the levels across the board.
Also, Irwin mentioned his disc was the first to use the correct pitch on CD. So, I went through every freaking track on all three discs and matched them to the pitch on the Irwin disc. It's not so complicated with the stereo mixes, both the 2001 disc and the gold disc are 1/4 of a semitone too slow. Not much, but a definite audible difference.
The mono mix is weird because MOST of the tracks are 1/4 of a semitone too slow as well, but a few tracks are the right pitch. I couldn't figure out why the pitch would vary like this, but I checked and double checked and triple checked and it just is. So these are the mono mixes on both the 2001 disc and the gold disc that were in the CORRECT pitch: #3 My Best Friend, #7 DCBA, #8 How Do You Feel?, #10 White Rabbit, and #11 Plastic Fantastic Lover. All of the remaining mono tracks were 1/4 of a semitone too slow.
So, having cleared that up, on with the sound quality.
Yeah, the gold disc sounds slightly better than the aluminum disc. However, I think the Irwin disc is even better but a little aggressive in the EQ. I'm pretty sure the gold disc and the 2001 disc use a little denoising, with the 2001 disc using more. Listen to the quiet passages where tape hiss should really pop out and you'll see what I mean. The Irwin disc, I'd recommend taking out 2, maybe 3 dB at 8k, the same boost as the Simon & Garfunkel reissues he produced. Irwin claims he used the original EQ instructions given to the original Lp pressings, but it's still a little too harsh IMO, and even if that's how it's "supposed" to be, screw it, I'm gonna EQ it anyway.
The mono mixes, this time the 2001 disc sounds better than the gold disc, with the gold disc having less 'air' or 'top end.' There's not even that much, again, they both sound denoised, but the 2001 disc has a 'natural' sounding amount while the gold disc loses some more. Pretty odd how it could be reversed with these two discs.
As for Irwin's mastering, again, he only did two mono tracks on CD (check out his Sundazed vinyl reissue, as JWB pointed out, it's all mono), and his "White Rabbit" is clearly better. HOWEVER, on "Somebody To Love," I noticed his mastering has a bit more distortion in some spots. This is apparent pretty early, and it's easy to spot when the music gets loud. Even with EQ work, the distortion remains, so either Paul Williams & co. was able to "fix" it on their reissues (is that possible?) or Irwin introduced it into the sound or there's some other reason I can't think of. Anyway, the music is pretty loud through the whole track, so perhaps for this reason the denoising isn't so bad - either it was set to a more sensitive setting because the 'need' for it wasn't so apparent, or the loudness in general meant the plug-in, stand-alone device, or whatever didn't 'work' as aggressively, picking up less 'noise' to reduce, or whatever the appropriate technical lingo is supposed to be.
So there you have it. Stereo, I'm going with the Irwin disc, but with some small EQ adjustment, and mono, well, I guess the 2001 disc is it.
The gold disc is the nice middle-ground. If no EQ work can be done, I guess that may be your best bet for stereo.