Animals and Herman's Hermits SACDs

[Ed Bishop]

Jesus, Luke, you're getting more 'wordy' than I am!

I wasn't suggesting 'NR' was applied all over the place; just selectively. What's more, the hiss levels could have been adjusted during mastering without NR; nothing a little reduction in the higher frequencies won't accomplish, and going by previous reference vinyl and CD, one must conclude some kind of attempt to reduce the hiss was done.. My point is, referencing the vinyl, and then later CD reissues featuring the later Animals material(which is where the hiss reduction seems to matter, understandably), sure seems apparent, as previous Polygram masterings have more, and I doubt very much 'better' sources were found beyond what Drake mastered way back when.

As for what's so special about Dennis Drake, I suppose next up is, 'What's so special about Steve Hoffman'? Oh, I'd say consistency and excellence in mastering approach..the end results, over time, have proven both to be examplary at what they do; remarkably so, in fact. And from the quality of their work, I would also say a lot of tape research went into the final product, and Bill Inglot, among others, is equally fastidious.

And while I agree that we would, ourselves, have to hear the master tapes of the music in question to be sure we're getting the most accurate sound, one need only sample the work of either man to know what we get is very rarely tinkered with, that there's no reason to suspect they play any Eq tricks to artificially make things sound 'clearer,' when all it is is accenting certain frequency bands, or knocking down the highs a little to fool someone into thinking something is 'clean' rather than what it really is: 'filtered.'

That said, the Animals' comp is still very good; but of course, if you don't have all the points of reference, making claims that no NR was used is kinda tough. The mistake reviewers tend to make--beyond making the assumption that 'remastering' means 'improved sound'--is not having enough references to make any kind of 'sound judgment.' The attitude often is, 'sounds great to me,' but like any sound system you can assemble, it sounds great until you hear something better. Then it doesn't sound so great anymore.


ED

[lukpac]

I wasn't suggesting 'NR' was applied all over the place; just selectively. What's more, the hiss levels could have been adjusted during mastering without NR; nothing a little reduction in the higher frequencies won't accomplish, and going by previous reference vinyl and CD, one must conclude some kind of attempt to reduce the hiss was done.. My point is, referencing the vinyl, and then later CD reissues featuring the later Animals material(which is where the hiss reduction seems to matter, understandably), sure seems apparent, as previous Polygram masterings have more, and I doubt very much 'better' sources were found beyond what Drake mastered way back when.

Well, the Animals were a British band. We all know US record companies got tapes at least a generation or two from the masters. Some were pretty good, some were piss-poor. It's unclear if Drake used the masters or not (or just the US tapes). And besides, the Stones discs have shown us that better sources *do* continue to be found.

I'm not saying it's impossible that NR was used on the SACD. But considering the fact it's usually pretty obvious when it's been used (as illustrated by the intro to Sky Pilot), and there seems to be *no* sign of it elsewhere, I'm inclined to think it wasn't.

As for what's so special about Dennis Drake, I suppose next up is, 'What's so special about Steve Hoffman'? Oh, I'd say consistency and excellence in mastering approach..the end results, over time, have proven both to be examplary at what they do; remarkably so, in fact. And from the quality of their work, I would also say a lot of tape research went into the final product, and Bill Inglot, among others, is equally fastidious.

Perhaps Drake didn't go out of his way to make things sound bad, but I don't really think his Cream discs are all that hot, for example. And it's interesting that I had *never* see any type of universal praise for Drake until Hoffman started to peg him as one of the "good guys".

And while I agree that we would, ourselves, have to hear the master tapes of the music in question to be sure we're getting the most accurate sound, one need only sample the work of either man to know what we get is very rarely tinkered with, that there's no reason to suspect they play any Eq tricks to artificially make things sound 'clearer,' when all it is is accenting certain frequency bands, or knocking down the highs a little to fool someone into thinking something is 'clean' rather than what it really is: 'filtered.'

And that's all well and good. But we still don't know what the tapes sound like, and we still don't know if the same tapes were used or not.

And I'm not sure how sound is "accorate" or not. Is that closer to a "flat transfer"? Because I've been told that Drake always used EQ, for better or worse.

That said, the Animals' comp is still very good; but of course, if you don't have all the points of reference, making claims that no NR was used is kinda tough.

But in the case of NR, if there are no obvious artifacts, isn't the only valid point of reference the master tapes themselves? That's the whole point here - just because there's less hiss doesn't necessarily mean NR was used.

Any chance you could provide a few small samples from that Drake CD? As the hiss is loud and clear on most of those stereo tracks on the SACD.

[lukpac]

I just made the fatal mistake of actually checking out some of the various other comps. Beyond the 66-68 disc, what's good, bad, and ugly? I've seen "The Singles Plus" and "The Complete Animals" around a fair amount. Is either any good? I've heard good things about "Singles Plus", but I've also heard that it has NR.

Also, what about 45 vs. LP versions/mixes?

[MK]

Complete Animals is comprehensive because it collects all the EMI-owned Mickie Most-produced cuts, with two exceptions. It omits the U.S. version of "We've Gotta Get Out Of This Place" - the liner notes clearly mention this, acknowledging that the compilers were aware of it, wanted it, but couldn't get it - and the single edit of "Talkin' Bout You," which isn't a big deal because they include the full-length version. Good liner notes, good artwork/photos, one FATAL flaw and that's Sonic Solutions NoNoise. It's advertised on the back tray card, and you can DEFINITELY hear it. Totally wiped clean and limp, it's kind of like the old Beach Boy two-fers when you hear it: airy, plastic, etc.

Singles Plus is excellent, great sound, definitely no denoising. It has the single edit of "Talkin' 'Bout You" and it definitely sounds like they had to make a dub to make that edit, cutting out a few minutes from the 7+ minute track, but not bad. Personally, Singles Plus has pretty much all the essentials from this period, so stick with that.

[lukpac]

How is the sound on Singles+ compared to the 66-68 disc? And am I correct that Singles+ actually uses the LP versions, ie, Sky Pilot?

[MK]

Ah, I made a mistake.

Just so everyone else knows, there are two different Animals CD's, both import only, called "Singles Plus." To add to the confusion, both have somewhat similar covers: a group photo of the band in gray suits with a blue background.

See this link:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/sea ... 99-2154034

The CD I was talking about is the one that is apparently out of print but available for two measley pounds (plus shipping) used at Amazon.co.uk. It was issued by EMI, who owns the recordings.

The CD Luke is talking about is the two-disc set that includes later material. It is a 'boutique' label release. I do not have this set, but I've been told and have read reviews that basically trash the sound. I would definitely skip it.

[lukpac]

Hmm...that's a dead link. Is this the one:

Amazon.co.uk link

1. Baby let me take you home
2. Gonna send you back to Walker
3. House of the Rising Sun
4. Talkin' 'bout you
5. I'm crying
6. Take it easy
7. Don't let me be misunderstood
8. Club a go go
9. Bring it on home to me
10. For Miss Caulker
11. We gotta get out of this place
12. I can't believe it
13. It's my life
14. I'm going to change the world
15. Bury my body
16. Dimples
17. She said yeah
18. Right time
19. Bright lights big city
20. Let the good times roll

Too bad that doesn't go any further.

[lukpac]

I picked up the Drake disc today. Not sure how to put this, but...

I'm sorry, Ed, you're wrong.

With the exception of the intro to Sky Pilot, which I've already mentioned, there's just as much hiss on the SACD as 66-68, if not more. There's a *lot* more hiss on Help Me Girl on the SACD. The stereo separation is also a lot better on the SACD. A Girl Named Sandoz has more hiss on the SACD as well. The hiss is about the same on San Franciscan Nights, but again, the stereo separation is better on the SACD. The SACD also has a stereo intro to Monterey, unlike the Drake disc.

Yeah, the EQ on the discs is a bit different. In general the Drake disc has a little more of a fat bottom with the highs rolled a little, while the SACD is a little more crisp. Both have their strengths, and I'd say both sound good. I can't for the life of me figure out how people would think the SACD was "unlistenable". Far from it, other than the intro to Sky Pilot.

And while I like the stereo mix of Don't Bring Me Down for what it is, that mono mix sounds pretty nice.

[MK]

Sorry about the dead link, Luke. I posted a 'search result' link, but apparently those aren't constant links.

Yes, the link you posted is the exact CD I was referring to, a good CD to have. If you search "singles plus animals" on the same site, it will also show the other set you're referring to and has a track listing that confirms it is two CD's.

[lukpac]

So how would you say Singles+ (1 CD) compares to the SACD?

[MK]

For the overlapping tracks, I prefer Singles Plus. It feels more neutral, especially when you crank it up. If Singles Plus is a flat transfer that bypasses the EQ console or a mixing console, etc., than the SACD has definitely been tweaked in some way. Not necessarily a bad way, but for me, it doesn't really improve on the sound.

You need both just because the SACD has the U.S. version of We Gotta Get Out of This Place, and the Singles Plus can be found for real cheap, depending on where you look. You may have to do some work...I e-mailed an Amazon.co.uk used seller and asked them to allow overseas shipping for their seller preferences so I could buy his copy, and a lot of used copies seem to sit there on that site so I'm sure someone is willing to do that rather than not sell their CD, period.

[lukpac]

But the Drake remaster of the Wilson-produced material has to be considered the most honest representation of the master tapes

Now that I have the CD in question, I can ask without issue: how do we know it's more "honest"? Yeah, there are certain things to like about it, but who's to say Drake didn't add a little mid-bass and roll the top a bit? Or use tapes that already had that EQ printed on them? Yeah, the SACD seems a bit brighter in comparison, but we don't have any way of knowing if ABKCO did that, or if that's simply the sound of the tapes.

What's my point? It doesn't matter what the tapes sound like. Most of us will never hear them. What matters is what the final results sound like. A CD can sound nothing like the master tape, but as long as it sounds good, what's there to complain about?

[Ed Bishop]

Luke,

We could spend the rest of our days getting into what sound is 'better' or 'inferior'....life is too short. My point is simply that something is going on with the new release, pertaining to the later stuff produced by Tom Wilson, that wasn't apparent previously. I'm using the original mono and stereo vinyl and any pertinent reissues as references, and those references tell me some reduction of hiss levels had to have been done...this doesn't especially detract from the sound quality(such as it is), but, nonetheless, is worthy of mention, all the same. And I'm not complaining, simply stating what's obvious to my ears. I doubt that anyone will get excessively hung up about it, but I'm not selling my old Polydor discs anytime soon, either.

Of course, perceptions of hiss levels also relies not only on our ears and experience listening for such things, but also in the equipment we're using for playback. The speakers I'm using tend to accent mids and highs and are limited in bass response, on purpose: the subwoofer covers all the other low frequencies, the rest don't need to do all the work(the setup was originally done for AC-3 laserdiscs, and modified for 5.1 multichannel DVD's and DTS). My issue pertaining to the SACD isn't about separation; just the difference in hiss levels. That even you hear the intro of "Sky Pilot" being tweaked is evidence enough that a little fiddling about was going on; even so, I've recommended both the Animals and Hermits on the basis of "We Gotta Get Out Of This Place" and "Leaning On The Lamp Post" in and of themselves, irrespective of sound quality. But I have never said the sound was 'bad'; in fact, for the most part, pretty good, and the Animals' early material, though I prefer THE SINGLES PLUS sound(having also lived with it for so long), will more than do for most listeners, and sure as hell is superior to EMI's THE COMPLETE ANIMALS! But it sure seems like many names are attached to projects like this that one can't help but think would come out even better if less names were attached...

As for the assertion that Drake's name only started to come up in relation to SH Forums, think again: he got lots of mentions for his meticulous work at BSN, starting with the old newsletter way back when. Quality shows itself, and Drake made his rep with the high standards set with the 45's On CD discs, and many more to come. That so many listeners took note does, I believe, speak for itself.

More later, when I've the time, but I will say that, in the instance of the Cream remasters, I agree that DISRAELI and WHEELS could have been better(though who knows what, at the time, he had to work with?). FRESH CREAM always came off fine to me, but as Steve's DCC remaster made clear, there was indeed room for improvement.

Too bad we can't pry that mono FRESH CREAM master loose! Damned good listen!

ED

[lukpac]

We could spend the rest of our days getting into what sound is 'better' or 'inferior'....life is too short.

That isn't what this is about. As I've said, the two discs sound different, and each has their strengths. I haven't said one is better than the other. This is about the use (or lack thereof) of noise reduction on the SACD.

My point is simply that something is going on with the new release, pertaining to the later stuff produced by Tom Wilson, that wasn't apparent previously. I'm using the original mono and stereo vinyl and any pertinent reissues as references, and those references tell me some reduction of hiss levels had to have been done...this doesn't especially detract from the sound quality(such as it is), but, nonetheless, is worthy of mention, all the same. And I'm not complaining, simply stating what's obvious to my ears. I doubt that anyone will get excessively hung up about it, but I'm not selling my old Polydor discs anytime soon, either.

Ed, I've played the SACD *in sync* with the Polydor disc, with the two level matched. Hiss reduction there ain't. Yeah, the EQ is different (the SACD is generally a little brighter, so the hiss is "shifted up" a little), but there's certainly no less hiss on the SACD. As previously mentioned, there's quite a bit *more* on Help Me Girl on the SACD.

Have you actually played the two discs side by side? You can say "reduction of hiss levels had to have been done" till the cows come home, but a quick back to back listen reveals it simply isn't true. Go listen to Help Me Girl on the SACD and 66-68 and tell me which has more hiss. Listen to Monterey on the two discs and tell me which has more hiss. Listen to Sky Pilot past the intro.

That even you hear the intro of "Sky Pilot" being tweaked is evidence enough that a little fiddling about was going on

On the intro to that track, yeah. We've established that. But just because one intro is tweaked doesn't mean everything is. If the NR is *plainly* apparent there, why wouldn't it be elsewhere? And again, why would there be as much or more hiss on the SACD?

But it sure seems like many names are attached to projects like this that one can't help but think would come out even better if less names were attached...

Glad you touched on this. Why, exactly? Why should one person inherently do a better job than several? Just as easily as someone can say "more chances to screw it up", I can say "more chances to spot problems." I'm not saying one way of doing things is better than another, but why should it matter? I'd say with the intro to Sky Pilot aside, they did a damn good job here. Yet how do you think it would sound if Jon Astley, Ken Perry, Peter Mew, et al got chances to do it all by themselves?

Too bad we can't pry that mono FRESH CREAM master loose! Damned good listen!

I believe that's planned for a possible Fresh Cream DE at some point.

[lukpac]

Here are a couple of samples for everyone's listening pleasure:

SF Nights side by side

- the SACD and 66-68 versions side by side. No processing except for some level matching. See if either has more hiss, and if either has noise reduction. Feel free to listen in stereo, or one channel at a time.

SF Nights end to end

- as above, only one version (in stereo) followed by the next (in stereo).