SMALL FACES - OGDEN'S NUT GONE FLAKE Original 60s Stereo Mix

Jeff T. · Postby **Jeff T.** » Sun Aug 13, 2006 5:00 pm

lukpac wrote:What's that extra B for?

No extra B that I see. A missing Q perhaps.

Xenu · Postby **Xenu** » Sun Aug 13, 2006 11:00 pm

Oh, derailment; my lionheart...

Patrick M · Postby **Patrick M** » Mon Aug 14, 2006 9:50 pm

Xenu wrote:Oh, derailment; my lionheart...

Speaking of, I'm vaguely interested in Kate Bush. Can someone recommend which 3-5 digial copies of her oeuvre I should purchase firstly?

Patrick M · Postby **Patrick M** » Mon Aug 14, 2006 9:52 pm

lukpac wrote:What's that extra B for?

It's a typo.

Xenu · Postby **Xenu** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:13 am

Patrick M wrote:Speaking of, I'm vaguely interested in Kate Bush. Can someone recommend which 3-5 digial copies of her oeuvre I should purchase firstly?

Today's secret word is Turkmenistan.

Rspaight · Postby **Rspaight** » Wed Jan 03, 2007 10:24 am

We never got Xenu's review of the deluxe edition tin, but I'd like to observe that whoever thought the liner notes were legible cannot be human.

Ryan

Xenu · Postby **Xenu** » Sat Jan 06, 2007 2:42 am

Quick review:

Stereo: Sounds the same as before. Joy!

Mono: Sounds so close to my mono LP rip (that I've posted on the internet more than once) that I actually did a sync test. It's not. It still sounds like it, though. Doesn't vary terribly much...so you get a single-vocal intro to side 2. Other than that, it's pretty similar.

Radio doc: Ehh.

Jeff T. · Postby **Jeff T.** » Sun Jan 07, 2007 1:17 am

Xenu wrote:Quick review:

Stereo: Sounds the same as before. Joy!

Same as before what? Old orig. Stereo mix, or same as CD (remix)?

Xenu · Postby **Xenu** » Sun Jan 07, 2007 3:37 pm

The CD isn't a remix, as far as I know?

Jeff T. · Postby **Jeff T.** » Mon Jan 08, 2007 12:46 am

Xenu wrote:The CD isn't a remix, as far as I know?

All previous CDs were in fact a remixed version of this Psych 60s relic. The original vinyl is a different mix than all these CDs.

Are you aware of the two different mixes?

Xenu · Postby **Xenu** » Mon Jan 08, 2007 7:02 pm

I had been told this, but upon hearing a copy of the original it sounded no different.

And what do you mean by "previous CDs?" IIRC, this CD *is* a copy of "previous CDs," at least insofar as the stereo disc is concerned.

barrympls · Postby **barrympls** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 7:27 pm

The US vinyl LP always had a much more toned down mix compared to the UK. It's especially noticable on the opening track. It was like they lopped off 33% of the highs.

The standard CD mix is ever so slightly toned down from the UK mix. No longer is the opening track as powerful as the vinyl.

so....the CD sounds fine, the US LP is lousy and the UK LP is the best.

Jeff T. · Postby **Jeff T.** » Sun Feb 25, 2007 6:19 pm

Xenu wrote:I had been told this, but upon hearing a copy of the original it sounded no different.

These is an obvious difference, but I think there are enough experts running round these parts, someone will point out the one that stands out like a sore thumb, the dead givaway.

Jeff T. · Postby **Jeff T.** » Sun Feb 25, 2007 6:24 pm

barrympls wrote:The US vinyl LP always had a much more toned down mix compared to the UK. It's especially noticable on the opening track. It was like they lopped off 33% of the highs.

The standard CD mix is ever so slightly toned down from the UK mix. No longer is the opening track as powerful as the vinyl.

so....the CD sounds fine, the US LP is lousy and the UK LP is the best.

I think you're confusing mastering differences with mix differences. There is an old mix known are original 60s mix, and ans also one later mix known as the "Abkco mix". All issues on CD are said to be this later mix, as well as many of the LPs that came out after about 82 or 83.

I guess this thread died in a swirl of confusion over what the mix difference is, and what a mix vs. mastering really means. Ok, never mind.

barrympls · Postby **barrympls** » Fri Apr 13, 2007 9:13 pm

Jeff T. wrote:
barrympls wrote:The US vinyl LP always had a much more toned down mix compared to the UK. It's especially noticable on the opening track. It was like they lopped off 33% of the highs.

The standard CD mix is ever so slightly toned down from the UK mix. No longer is the opening track as powerful as the vinyl.

so....the CD sounds fine, the US LP is lousy and the UK LP is the best.

I think you're confusing mastering differences with mix differences. There is an old mix known are original 60s mix, and ans also one later mix known as the "Abkco mix". All issues on CD are said to be this later mix, as well as many of the LPs that came out after about 82 or 83.

I guess this thread died in a swirl of confusion over what the mix difference is, and what a mix vs. mastering really means. Ok, never mind.

Nope. I bought the US Columbia/Immediate issue in 1968 and it was very muffled. I found an import soon after and the difference was shattering. MUCH brighter and crisper. None of the subsequent CDs are quite a bright and good sounding as the original UK Immediate LP. Alas.