Classic to reissue Who catalog on 200g vinyl

[Rspaight]

Stolen from dolstein on SH.tv:

I sent Michael Fremer an e-mail with a bunch of questions about the Classic Records Who LPs. He wrote back today with the info. Here's the scoop:

Q: Will the reissues use the original mixes or the remixes created for the CD reissues?
A: original analog tapes

Q: Will the first two albums (My Generation/The Who Sings My Generation and A Quick One/Happy Jack) use the U.S. or U.K. track line-ups?
A: U.K. track line-ups in mono, with a possibility of "Happy Jack" and
other singles as 7" bonus discs or they will reissue "Direct Hits"
(Track 613 006) in mono.

Q: Will the second and third albums be released in mono, stereo or both?
A: mono

Q: Will any bonus tracks from the CD reissues be included?
A: no bonus tracks

Q: Which anthologies, if any, will be included in the series?
A: not sure except for "Direct Hits" and "Odds and Sods"

Q: How closely will the reissues replicate the original artwork and packaging? The early pressings of Sell Out came with a poster. The original UK pressing of Tommy came with a glossy jacket. Live at Leeds came with lots of goodies. Both Tommy and Quadrophenia came with booklets/librettos. Odds and Sods had a die cut cover, etc.
A: original artwork plus posters, goodies in Live at Leeds, original cracking on tape, etc. librettos, and glossy if possible

Q: Will any of the albums be released in 45 rpm versions?
A: 45s may come, but much later

Q: Who will be mastering the reissues and will the mastering equipment be tube or solid state?
A: Bernie, using tubes. Interestingly, they cut "Who's Next" both ways
and while the original was cut solid state, they went for tubes because
the vocals sounded so much more natural and I agree, having heard the
record at home.

Hmmmm... mono "Sell Out." I might get that one. "Direct Hits" could be interesting, too. What was the track list on that?

Ryan

[lukpac]

Why bother with another mono issue of AQO?

Yeah, mono Sell Out would be interesting if it's actually true.

[Rspaight]

"Direct Hits" could be interesting, too. What was the track list on that?

Answering my own question:

Side A

1. Bucket T
2. I'm A Boy
3. Pictures Of Lily
4. Doctor Doctor
5. I Can See For Miles
6. Substitute
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　
Side B
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　
1. Happy Jack
2. The Last Time
3. In The City
4. Call Me Lightning
5. Mary Anne With The Shaky Hand (Acoustic Version)
6. Dogs

Ryan

[krabapple]

Q: How closely will the reissues replicate the original artwork and packaging? The early pressings of Sell Out came with a poster. The original UK pressing of Tommy came with a glossy jacket. Live at Leeds came with lots of goodies. Both Tommy and Quadrophenia came with booklets/librettos. Odds and Sods had a die cut cover, etc.
A: original artwork plus posters, goodies in Live at Leeds, original cracking on tape, etc. librettos, and glossy if possible

This is audio analism. The 'cracklings' are transient *artifacts*. They can easily be removed digitally, with NO degradation of sound, whatever Mikey thinks.

[Rspaight]

Ah, yes, but the proper nostalgia injection won't be administered if the fabled crackles aren't present. They annoy the crap out of me, but what do I know?

The LaL plans are disappointing. Instead of doing something useful like giving us a nice vinyl set of the expanded (even '95) setlist (which has never existed AFAIK), they're just rehashing the tired old 1-LP crackly version that's been reissued a million times. But, in fairness to Classic, that might be what they were able to license.

Ryan

[lukpac]

This is audio analism. The 'cracklings' are transient *artifacts*. They can easily be removed digitally, with NO degradation of sound, whatever Mikey thinks.

Have you tried? They actually aren't as easy to get rid of as, say, vinyl clicks and pops. It might be easier on a track by track basis (vs on a stereo mixdown), but I've played a bit with that and it's not as simple as it should be. They tried in 1995, but even then you can still hear a lot of them if you listen closely.

I've resigned myself to trying to fix some of the more annoying ones and leaving the rest.

[Dob]

The 'cracklings' are transient *artifacts*. They can easily be removed digitally, with NO degradation of sound...

I am very happy with -- no, make that thrilled with -- the work that was done on the 95 remix.

They tried in 1995, but even then you can still hear a lot of them if you listen closely.

It makes sense to me that you can't remove them completely, just reduce the amplitude. Which is good enough, really.

(the crackles) annoy the crap out of me...

The 95 did no less than take an unlistenable album (IMO) and turn it into one of my favorite Who albums. That's how much I hated those damn crackles. Huge improvement in sound, too.

Now that I think about it, I can't name a "modern remix" (stereo) of any album that I like as much as the 95 LAL.

[Ess Ay Cee Dee]

nt

[lukpac]

It makes sense to me that you can't remove them completely, just reduce the amplitude. Which is good enough, really.

Depending on the click, that's actually not true. That is to say sometimes you *can* remove them completely. If you have a click/transient in a waveform, and use a pencil tool to "bridge the gap", well, all of the audio in that click is now replaced with what you just penciled in.

The 95 did no less than take an unlistenable album (IMO) and turn it into one of my favorite Who albums. That's how much I hated those damn crackles. Huge improvement in sound, too.

Now that I think about it, I can't name a "modern remix" (stereo) of any album that I like as much as the 95 LAL.

The clicks honestly don't bother me (much). And while the track lineup and (to a lesser extent) sound are better than the original album, there's still way too much wrong with the '95 disc for me to listen to it other than to study. New overdubs, edits, parts mixed out, etc. Plus of course almost all of Tommy is missing. And on top of all that there are things in the mix that just bother me, like some of the echo added on Magic Bus.

[krabapple]

This is audio analism. The 'cracklings' are transient *artifacts*. They can easily be removed digitally, with NO degradation of sound, whatever Mikey thinks.

Have you tried? They actually aren't as easy to get rid of as, say, vinyl clicks and pops. It might be easier on a track by track basis (vs on a stereo mixdown), but I've played a bit with that and it's not as simple as it should be. They tried in 1995, but even then you can still hear a lot of them if you listen closely.

I haven't tried, but when I found I was able to fix a sort of hash of crackles and distortion on a Pretenders record recently, I was filled with self-congratulation, so I'm ready for ANYTHInG.

(If you can flac-up a track from teh LP or the old crackly CD version, and send it to me, I'll give it a shot..

I've resigned myself to trying to fix some of the more annoying ones and leaving the rest.

[Dob]

Depending on the click, that's actually not true. That is to say sometimes you *can* remove them completely. If you have a click/transient in a waveform, and use a pencil tool to "bridge the gap", well, all of the audio in that click is now replaced with what you just penciled in.

I guess it's possible that your "penciled in" waveform just happened to exactly nail what the waveform would have looked like if the click never happened. More likely, though, you've only made a close approximation, which I wouldn't call a "complete" removal. For clicks lasting more than a couple of samples, your repair will most likely be audible.

New overdubs, edits, parts mixed out, etc....And on top of all that there are things in the mix that just bother me, like some of the echo added on Magic Bus.

That stuff might bug me too if I did a thorough comparison with the boot. Which is the reason I won't. Why spoil a good thing?

Plus of course almost all of Tommy is missing.

Yes, and it was a huge disappointment when the horrible sounding DE came out. Of course, the original LAL didn't have any of Tommy on it, so it seems rather churlish to bitch about the 95. Once again, though, if you're comparing to the boot...

[lukpac]

I guess it's possible that your "penciled in" waveform just happened to exactly nail what the waveform would have looked like if the click never happened. More likely, though, you've only made a close approximation, which I wouldn't call a "complete" removal. For clicks lasting more than a couple of samples, your repair will most likely be audible.

The point is that the click itself is now gone. It's been replaced with your approximation of what should be there. Perhaps that approximation might be audible (if not done correctly), but the click itself has been purged from history.

As far as a "couple of samples" goes, it all depends on what else is going on, how long the click is, etc. I guess I've never measured how large clicks are on LPs, but from experience I'd probably say clicks 20 to 30 samples long can easily be repaired without the repair being audible. I've had to do far larger fixes than that at times, and I'd say in at least a few of those cases you can't hear the "fix".

Have you ever done manual declicking?

That stuff might bug me too if I did a thorough comparison with the boot. Which is the reason I won't. Why spoil a good thing?

To appreciate something that's even better?

Of course, I've heard the boot a few thousand times, but I'm not sure a "thorough" comparison is even necessary.

Yes, and it was a huge disappointment when the horrible sounding DE came out. Of course, the original LAL didn't have any of Tommy on it, so it seems rather churlish to bitch about the 95. Once again, though, if you're comparing to the boot...

Which of course is my baseline for comparison.

The fact that something hasn't been officially released shouldn't make it off limits for comparisons. Should we be complacent with, say One After 909 on Anthology 1 simply because there is nothing else official to compare it to? Despite the fact that it sounds far better on bootleg?

[Rspaight]

To appreciate something that's even better?

I'll have to dissent here. I've heard the boot, and I still like the '95 better. Maybe I just have a crummy copy of the boot (I downloaded it, so I have no matrix numbers to report), but it's totally lifeless. No low end, and dull dull dull. The power of the '95 (which, after the track listing, is what makes me love it vs. the original) is absent. It's nice to have from an academic point of view (to see what was changed in other versions), but it's not very fun to listen to, at least next to the '95.

The edits don't bother me, because it still hangs together as a great album. The overdubs seem unnecessary, but after the first couple lines of Heaven and Hell, I don't notice them.

Now the second disc of the DE is another story entirely. Yuck.

Ryan

[lukpac]

I'll have to dissent here. I've heard the boot, and I still like the '95 better. Maybe I just have a crummy copy of the boot (I downloaded it, so I have no matrix numbers to report), but it's totally lifeless. No low end, and dull dull dull. The power of the '95 (which, after the track listing, is what makes me love it vs. the original) is absent. It's nice to have from an academic point of view (to see what was changed in other versions), but it's not very fun to listen to, at least next to the '95.

The '95 CD certainly has less hiss, and perhaps a bit more high end, but other than that, the boot sounds pretty good IMO. There are at least 3 variations that I'm aware of - 1) the original LALC (the best sounding one), 2) Live Tommy At The Leeds (just Tommy, really poor sound) and 3) a "remastered" LALC (no dropout in I Can't Explain, but other than that, inferior EQ to the original).

It's quite possible what you downloaded is one of my various "corrected" versions, but I have no idea. Are there dropouts in ICE and Magic Bus, as well as between some songs?

Unless I'm doing a direct A/B with the remix I don't have any issues with the fidelity of LALC.

The edits don't bother me, because it still hangs together as a great album. The overdubs seem unnecessary, but after the first couple lines of Heaven and Hell, I don't notice them.

If the '95 disc was all I had ever heard, I'd probably agree. Heck, I liked it at the time. But after hearing LALC there was no going back...

[Ess Ay Cee Dee]

nt