Rolling Stones London / Bowie RCA

[JWB]

Astley didn't master "Who Sell Out". That's why it's okay.

[lukpac]

I'm not aware that Sell Out has NR, BTW - Astley didn't master it (or mix it, for that matter).

The thing with NR is, why would somebody use it so lightly that you wouldn't be able to notice? I mean, that's one reason NR is usually fairly easy to spot - the CD has less hiss. Yes, better source tapes are often behind that, and perhaps there are CDs that have less hiss because of NR, but if there are no artifacts, why don't more engineers know about this magic process?

I'll admit I sometimes have to crank the volume to hear the various artifacts. But that doesn't change the fact that they are there and can be heard.

[lukpac]

Astley didn't master "Who Sell Out". That's why it's okay.

For the record, I do think the Deluxe Editions of Tommy and Who's Next are pretty good, sans some unnecessary NR in various fades and quiet spots.

[lukpac]

I'll be happy to listen again at home to make sure I'm remembering this right, if indeed I am. If I'm mistaken, it won't be the first time ... but I do know I ended up choosing the SACD to load onto the iPod.

I just took another listen. A number of tracks have noise reduction, and some are narrowed down.

Of course, the London CD uses the US track lineup, but a CD-R takes care of that.

[lukpac]

The only two tracks that I think are "night and day" superior on the SACD are Gimme Shelter and (to a lesser extent) Midnight Rambler. Other tracks, although demonstrably from better sources (Love In Vain, Country Honk, Let It Bleed, YCAGWYW), have an unfortunate tonality (due to mastering EQ choices, most likely) that I don't find appealing. The only tracks that sound a lot better on the London, IMO, are You Got The Silver and (to a lesser extent) Monkey Man. Again, this is probably due to SACD mastering choices...I think it's fairly safe to assume that the London is a flat transfer of whatever tape they used.

I just took another listen. I still can't put my finger on Gimmie Shelter (that's just a strange mix/recording), but I think perhaps the "problem" with the SACD is that album just has a kind of strange sounding high end. A bit rolled off. The extra hiss on the London CD seems to mask that a bit. Monkey Man always stuck out as sounding strange on the SACD to me, but honestly the London doesn't seem much different, other than again, a bit more hiss.

And for whatever it's worth, per some conversations we had with someone that worked at MoFi at the time, it is believed whatever they did was a flat transfer, as the CDs were not done in the main mastering studio, but in a duplication area.

[Beatlesfan03]

I'm not aware that Sell Out has NR, BTW - Astley didn't master it (or mix it, for that matter).

I don't have the CD handy, but I could sworn he mastered it. Although you are the man when it comes to this.

Sell Out is the only Who CD I have, the rest is on vinyl.

[lukpac]

I don't have the CD handy, but I could sworn he mastered it. Although you are the man when it comes to this.

To be fair the credits *do* state "Remixed and Remastered by Andy Macpherson & Jon Astley". However, that should really state "Remixed by Andy Macpherson, sequenced by Jon Astley, mastered by Tim Young".

[Andreas]

The Who's Next Deluxe Edition is one example that a CD with some noise reduction can sound good. But it would still be better if there weren't any noise reduction. It is not the best digital version of the album, and certainly not the worst.

The Who Sell Out remaster sounds great if you only care about sonic quality. I don't think anybody ever claimed that it has noise reduction. However, the original mix sounds totally different, more spacey, more. psychedelic, different type of reverb, different effects. That's why I like the original mix better, even if it is sonically inferior. Am I a wacko? Likely.

Rolling Stones Let It Bleed: The London CD is more pleasant because of the mastering, i.e. eq choices. That is totally subjective. It is certainly not perfect, and I can understand why people prefer the more analytical and more detailed remaster.

Rolling Stones Beggars Banquet: In this case, the improved quality of the used tape is dominant. The remaster is clearly the best version.

[Andreas]

My two cents:

After hunting down all the original Japan MCA CDs and comparing to the (generally vilified) Citizen box set

Are the Japanese CDs known to be different from the original US CDs?

Judging from threads on SH.tv, I thought there are only two cases where original MCA CDs (from various countries) have two different masterings:
1. Katy Lied. One is Steve's, the other one is probably Nichols'.
2. Aja. Neither of the two is Steve's.

[JWB]

The Who Sell Out remaster sounds great if you only care about sonic quality. I don't think anybody ever claimed that it has noise reduction. However, the original mix sounds totally different, more spacey, more. psychedelic, different type of reverb, different effects. That's why I like the original mix better, even if it is sonically inferior. Am I a wacko? Likely.

I agree with you, Andreas. My only exposure to the original is the Dr. Ebbetts mono/stereo and it's much better than the remix, much more "vintage" sounding. Plus the remix has some farts and digital problems that annoy me, I wonder who would be responsible for that?

I really like the fixed "Rael" though. The original sounds like an abomination in comparison.

[Andreas]

Plus the remix has some farts and digital problems that annoy me

Yes, the digital click in Relax is a pain.

I really like the fixed "Rael" though. The original sounds like an abomination in comparison.

The edit in the original is very crude. But apart from that, I like the sound (backing vocals, reverb) better on the original mix.

[JWB]

Plus the remix has some farts and digital problems that annoy me

Yes, the digital click in Relax is a pain.

It's more than a click, it's a series of fart noises. I think it's funny that they went though all that trouble to fix "Live At Leeds" while simultaneously ADDING the same noises to other albums.

[Chris M]

I love the Sell Out remix but I haven't heard the original mix in 10 years. I realize it's not at all faithful to the original mix but it sounds so much better or at least it did in my college dorm room set up in 1995 or so. I should give the original mix another spin and see if it sounds as tinny as I remember. The problem I have with comparing the various Who remixes is that I am such a Moon fan that I tend to focus on the drum sound to the detriment of the overall sound.

[J_Partyka]

I just took another listen. A number of tracks have noise reduction, and some are narrowed down.

True enough. I did another Buttons comparison myself, and you are correct ... but I guess I like the SACD because it sounds less like "a copy of a copy of a tape" than the London does. There's a vibrancy there that I don't hear on the London, which to me comes across as just a bit on the dull side. I do like the wider stereo on the London, though.

I will take back my description of the London as "mediocre." Truth be told, I could live pretty happily with either of these discs, though neither is perfect. I think it comes down to a matter of personal preference. I guess the NR isn't as fatal for me as it is for some others.

Of course, the London CD uses the US track lineup, but a CD-R takes care of that.

That's a good idea; I need to make myself one of those.

[lukpac]

Rolling Stones Let It Bleed: The London CD is more pleasant because of the mastering, i.e. eq choices. That is totally subjective. It is certainly not perfect, and I can understand why people prefer the more analytical and more detailed remaster.

Perhaps I'll listen again and go "oh, ok", but at least as of last night I really didn't hear any big differences in EQ. The main difference was better stereo separation and a lot less hiss: both of which *do* change the overall sound quite a bit in places.