Bowie RCA discs

Just what the name says.
Andreas
Posts: 535
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 2:41 am

Postby Andreas » Mon Feb 13, 2006 1:43 am

Xenu wrote:So we have:
ChangesOne
ChangesTwo
Lodger
Man Who Sold
Station to Station
Pin Ups
Space Oddity
Ziggy (Andreas)
Diamond Dogs (Andreas)


I have Hunky Dory (West German). By the way, what did you think about the RCA Ziggy?

User avatar
krabapple
Posts: 1615
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 4:19 pm

Postby krabapple » Mon Feb 13, 2006 2:57 am

Xenu wrote:http://www.lukpac.org/~handmade/jeangenie.flac

First part: Au20 "Changesbowie." Second part: RCA "Changesonebowie" (Japan pressing). I had to normalize the RCA, as it was about 50% of the volume of the Au20 disc.



I edited the silences out of these, adjusted the average levels a bit more (amplified the Au20 by +1 dB to match the two avg RMS more closely), and ran a few frequency profiles on them in Audition , using an FFT size of 8142 (this takes an average level for each chanel every 6-7 Hz or so from 0 to 22,000 Hz). Couple of things going on here.

First, comparing channel balances within versions, R vs L channel levels across frequencies are somewhat different for the two -- in the Au20, the R channel is about 2 dB lower than L in the low bass freqs, (20- 75 Hz), whereas the R and L levels are the same in this frequency region in the RCA. In both versions the R channel is boosted by ~4 dB compared to L, from 1-5 kHz. Above 5 kHz and well into the high 'teens, the R is boosted a dB or two compared to left in the RCA, while the Au20 R channel is depressed by about a dB compared to its left.


Image


Second, comparing EQ of RCA to Au20 (level-matched overall as indicated) across the frequency spectrum, the EQ for both appears much the same from 100 Hz to 1000 kHz -- that is, the lines on the difference graph hover around 0 dB (ignoring skinny peaks and troughs). But elsewhere, in the RCA compared to Au20 there's more bass (20-100 Hz), a -3 dB dip centered around 3 kHz, and a rising treble boost from 5 kHz on up (more prominent in the left than the right channel). The actual pattern is more complicated than I've described, but you can see for yourself (as above, ignore the skinny up and down spikes, focus on the overall shape):


Image
Last edited by krabapple on Mon Feb 13, 2006 11:19 am, edited 2 times in total.
"I recommend that you delete the Rancid Snakepit" - Grant

Andreas
Posts: 535
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 2:41 am

Postby Andreas » Mon Feb 13, 2006 3:12 am

Thanks for the analysis.

What would be interesting: An eq applied to the AU20 so that those frequency profiles would (approximately) match, and then another comparison. My guess is that the two would still sound different.
Last edited by Andreas on Mon Feb 13, 2006 3:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
krabapple
Posts: 1615
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 4:19 pm

Postby krabapple » Mon Feb 13, 2006 3:16 am

Could be. Depends on whether more was done to them than simple level/EQ changes.
And if not, how closely you map one profile onto another.
"I recommend that you delete the Rancid Snakepit" - Grant

Andreas
Posts: 535
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 2:41 am

Postby Andreas » Mon Feb 13, 2006 3:18 am

What I am saying is that every comparison between RCA and Ryko is always centered round the "more bass on the RCA" and the "drop-outs on the RCA" arguments. I think there is more going on.

User avatar
lukpac
Top Dog and Sellout
Posts: 4591
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Postby lukpac » Mon Feb 13, 2006 9:27 am

Andreas wrote:What I am saying is that every comparison between RCA and Ryko is always centered round the "more bass on the RCA" and the "drop-outs on the RCA" arguments. I think there is more going on.


Like what? It looks like the EQ difference is more than just "more bass".

If I had to guess, I'd say a lot of people would respond to the difference at 3k.
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD

User avatar
krabapple
Posts: 1615
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 4:19 pm

Postby krabapple » Mon Feb 13, 2006 11:15 am

Not to mention more treble in the left channel circa 10K. And this was all *after* the two versions had been level-matched by average RMS level, something I doubt many listeners bother to do. I predict the RCA will 'win' in most comparison based simply on it being louder.

And more bass, more treble....dare we call it smiley, at least in comparison to the Au20? Or at least a crooked grin?

If someone has the current remaster, and can post a flac of this segment, please do. I'll add it to the analysis.
"I recommend that you delete the Rancid Snakepit" - Grant

User avatar
MK
Posts: 946
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 4:24 pm
Location: North America

Postby MK » Mon Feb 13, 2006 11:31 am

I don't have one of these anymore, but does anyone have the RCA AND the regular Rykodisc Station to Station? Compare "Golden Years" and there's a HUGE difference. You'll notice it immediately in the finger snaps. Yeah, the bass has the full bass cloud on the RCA disc, but overall it really, really sounds different. There's even some echo on the RCA disc you won't hear on the Rykodisc CD. Again, it's noticeable on the finger snaps.
"When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it. After my experience, I have come to hate war." – Dwight D. Eisenhower

"Neither slave nor tyrant." - Basque motto

User avatar
lukpac
Top Dog and Sellout
Posts: 4591
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Postby lukpac » Mon Feb 13, 2006 12:03 pm

MK wrote:I don't have one of these anymore, but does anyone have the RCA AND the regular Rykodisc Station to Station? Compare "Golden Years" and there's a HUGE difference. You'll notice it immediately in the finger snaps. Yeah, the bass has the full bass cloud on the RCA disc, but overall it really, really sounds different. There's even some echo on the RCA disc you won't hear on the Rykodisc CD. Again, it's noticeable on the finger snaps.


Added echo on the RCA perhaps?
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD

User avatar
Crummy Old Label Avatar
Posts: 1226
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 5:55 pm
Location: Out of my fucking mind

Postby Crummy Old Label Avatar » Mon Feb 13, 2006 3:52 pm

I remember what a big PR to-do it was when the Rykos were released -- all the talk about how Bowie himself was intimately involved with them, etc. Is it possible that there was some remixing going on with least portions of the catalog? If so, that would explain something.
If you love Hi-REZ TAPE HISS, you're REALLY going to love Stereo Central

User avatar
MK
Posts: 946
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 4:24 pm
Location: North America

Postby MK » Mon Feb 13, 2006 6:45 pm

What were then newly-mixed (or remixed, depending on how you look at it) bonus tracks do sound 'modern' when you listen to the character and amount of echo, not to mention the balance between instruments with drums, bass, etc. becoming more 'bigger' and more forward in the mix. You don't seem to get that on the regular LP content.

Having said that, Young Americans on Rykodisc uses an alternate mix. Speculation has it that the mix was done in the 70's but it's definitely a different mix.
"When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it. After my experience, I have come to hate war." – Dwight D. Eisenhower



"Neither slave nor tyrant." - Basque motto

User avatar
krabapple
Posts: 1615
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 4:19 pm

Postby krabapple » Wed Feb 15, 2006 12:13 am

I was kindly send a snippet of the Virgin/EMI remaster of Jean Genie, so I've revamped the analysis to include it. I've also re-level-matched the files, using Replaygain values as a guide. And I'm using the RCA (japan) version as the reference, since it came out first. So now for example if the RCA looked 'smiley' compared to the Au20 before, the Au20 will look 'frowney' compared to the RCAj here. Measurements shown are from 16-20,000 Hz, for the first 12 seconds of the tune, using an FFT size of 8192 and the 'Hanning' model. Note that the Y-axis scales are not the same across graphs.

Here's the right vs. left interchannel balances for the three versions

Image


here's the Au20 vs the RCAj

Image

and here's the EMI vs the RCAj

Image

and for giggles, the EMi vs Au20. FOr reference, low E on a bass guitar corresponds to that bass peak in the graph below (~42 Hz) ...and the song is in E...

Image
"I recommend that you delete the Rancid Snakepit" - Grant

damianm
Posts: 75
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 7:46 am

Postby damianm » Wed Feb 15, 2006 5:03 am

Krab, what are you generating those graphs with? It looks like it could be helpful as a visual aid in EQ matching.

Andreas
Posts: 535
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 2:41 am

Postby Andreas » Wed Feb 15, 2006 6:59 am

You can do a rudimentary version of that with EAC. Load one file into the left channel (both channels combined), the other file in the right channel (after adjusting the volume of course), and then use the frequency profile feature.
Last edited by Andreas on Wed Feb 15, 2006 9:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
krabapple
Posts: 1615
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 4:19 pm

Postby krabapple » Wed Feb 15, 2006 9:00 am

damianm wrote:Krab, what are you generating those graphs with? It looks like it could be helpful as a visual aid in EQ matching.


Audition to generate the level data, Excel to generate the graphs.
"I recommend that you delete the Rancid Snakepit" - Grant