Classic to reissue Who catalog on 200g vinyl

[Rspaight]

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).

This is the whole show, and was advertised as LALC, but other than that who knows. The constant crackling and muddy bass just kill it for me.

Here's ICE:

http://members.iglou.com/rspaight/1 - 02 - I Can't Explain.mp3

Is this what it's supposed to sound like?

Ryan

[lukpac]

I *think* that's the "remastered" one, although I'd have to compare. The EQ seems more "pinched" than it should. It also seems like there's NR.

I'm almost sure that's it, actually, as it doesn't have the dropout that the original does. And it's not one of my versions, as there's still the dropout at the end.

Yeah, there are better sounding versions. The crackles aren't any better, and the bass isn't defined much better, but there's no NR and better EQ.

[Rspaight]

Hmmmm. I'll keep that in mind the next time I have something you want.

Ryan

[lukpac]

When I get home I'll throw up an MP3 for comparison...

I thought *everybody* had my version...<g>

[Dob]

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?

The largest ones I've worked with were about 10 samples long (more like a pop than a click). After I fixed them, there was no more pop, but there was still something going on, more like a "swish." Keep in mind that I was listening very closely with headphones and I knew exactly where the repair was. If I didn't know, perhaps I wouldn't hear it.

20-30 samples long, or even longer? Wow. I would seem to me that if you're trying to repair more than 180 degrees of the wave it's almost impossible. How would you even guess at the point where the wave crosses over? The only thing I can think of is to splice in an adjacent wave and try to make it fit. Trouble is, most of the time it's quite a bit different.

To appreciate something that's even better?...The fact that something hasn't been officially released shouldn't make it off limits for comparisons.

The "official" status doesn't matter to me. I've listened to the boot about 3 times and I just don't like the sound (Ryan's comments sum it up well...we probably have the same version). I actually did do a fairly brief A/B comparison, but it was strictly for sound quality and I ignored any mixing or other differences. Plus, it still has the crackles, though I admit that they didn't seem as loud as the old MCA CD.

One big difference between you and me, though, is that I heard the 95 before the boot (you didn't, right?). Sometimes that's all it takes!

[Dob]

I'll have to check and see if my version has the I Can't Explain dropout. That's the sure fire way to tell, right?

OK...mine has a dropout (you can't miss it!) at 1:39 and again at the very end (of the chatter, well after the song is over). I guess I have your version, Luke.

[lukpac]

The largest ones I've worked with were about 10 samples long (more like a pop than a click). After I fixed them, there was no more pop, but there was still something going on, more like a "swish." Keep in mind that I was listening very closely with headphones and I knew exactly where the repair was. If I didn't know, perhaps I wouldn't hear it.

Looking now, I suppose around 10 would be average. At that length, though, I can't hear anything afterwards 99% of the time (I do all of this under headphones).

20-30 samples long, or even longer? Wow. I would seem to me that if you're trying to repair more than 180 degrees of the wave it's almost impossible. How would you even guess at the point where the wave crosses over? The only thing I can think of is to splice in an adjacent wave and try to make it fit. Trouble is, most of the time it's quite a bit different.

At worst I might get the "swoosh" you describe. At best it's inaudible. Depending on the length and situation, I might just pencil it in, or I might grab a previous section. In that case, I've probably done sections a lot longer than 40.

One big difference between you and me, though, is that I heard the 95 before the boot (you didn't, right?). Sometimes that's all it takes!

Nope. I got the '95 disc sometime in '95 IIRC. LALC didn't come out until '96, and I didn't get it on CD till sometime in '97.

[lukpac]

OK...mine has a dropout (you can't miss it!) at 1:39 and again at the very end (of the chatter, well after the song is over). I guess I have your version, Luke.

No, but you might have the original. I've fixed the dropouts in any version I've ever done.

Here's my "fixed" version, based on the original, with some of the dialog flown in from the official CDs and the dropout section flown in from the "remastered" version.

[Rspaight]

Here's my "fixed" version, based on the original, with some of the dialog flown in from the official CDs and the dropout section flown in from the "remastered" version.

That's a definite improvement over what I have, IMO. Better EQ, and less Rice Krispies.

Ryan

[lukpac]

Yeah. I couldn't understand how a "remastered" version could sound worse. Well, uh...

I did use that bit ICE, though, to fill in the dropout.

Interesting note on dropouts...during the "I want it" section in Magic Bus there's a large dropout on the original boot. It's gone on the "remaster", but it seems they just edited that bit out. It's actually not hard at all to fill in the gap with one of the previous lines. And it turns out really seamless.

[lukpac]

I just pulled out the DE of LAL. I'd really like to know what they did to it - other than perhaps Amazing Journey/Sparks, Tommy just sounds *BAD*. It's like everything was recorded inside of a tin can or something.

I should really re-do LALC one of these years. Anyone know of a *good* pitch correction tool?

[Dob]

I just pulled out the DE of LAL. I'd really like to know what they did to it - other than perhaps Amazing Journey/Sparks, Tommy just sounds *BAD*. It's like everything was recorded inside of a tin can or something.

Because of this thread, I was thinking about this very thing (but I don't have a copy of the DE. I heard a borrowed copy, and I was offered it for free. I declined).

The only reason Amazing Journey/Sparks sounds good is because it was lifted from the 95. But I would't be surprised to find, in a close comparison, that they tried to "improve" that one, too. As for the rest of Tommy, all I can think of is that is they used a different (easier) method to get rid of the crackles, which ended up destroying the sound. It doesn't just sound bad, it sounds damaged.

What I'd really like to know is how this sound was approved by everyone involved. Was it one of those deals where everyone sorta looked at each other, and someone opined that "hey, this is the kind of sound that the kids like." And everyone just shrugged their shoulders and left.

But if that's the case, why didn't they go back and redo Amazing Journey, if only to get it to match?

I should really re-do LALC one of these years. Anyone know of a *good* pitch correction tool?

I played around with the one on Cool Edit. I first tried to speed up a whole track -- and IMO the sound was noticeably degraded. I did successfully, however, fix the first few notes of Voodoo Child from the Fillmore East album, where Hendrix starts off in the wrong key....which lasted only about a second. I get the impression that the simpler the sound (like a solo instrument vs the whole band) and the shorter the duration, the less audible the repair.

[Rspaight]

Of course, we get a new version of LAL every few years like clockwork, so in the next year or two we may have a better version. Or a worse one.

LAL was one of the titles that Pete was supposedly mixing into 5.1 before SACD crashed and burned...

Ryan

[lukpac]

The only reason Amazing Journey/Sparks sounds good is because it was lifted from the 95.

I honestly don't know what was mixed when. I guess we can *assume* Amazing Journey/Sparks was taken from the '95 sessions, but who knows.

As for the rest of Tommy, all I can think of is that is they used a different (easier) method to get rid of the crackles, which ended up destroying the sound. It doesn't just sound bad, it sounds damaged.

Well, click/crackle removal is only going to affect transients. That's not what the problem is here. It's like a really strange EQ coupled with bad noise reduction or something.

I played around with the one on Cool Edit. I first tried to speed up a whole track -- and IMO the sound was noticeably degraded.

The included plug-in with ProTools Free seems to roll off the highs a bit. I usually use Serato Pitch'N'Time, which is decent, but transients get messed up - the crackles from Leeds end up with a somewhat "watery" quality, like a low bitrate MP3. I'm using 1.x - 2.x has been out for some time, and I thought they were supposed to address that issue, but I think it's something like $800. Plus I didn't notice much difference when I tried the demo.

I pulled out the '95 disc again. I think I like it even less than I was expecting to. The fidelity is certainly nice, but the drums are too loud, the guitar too quiet, and everything seems to have a bit of a sterile sound to it.

If only I had the multitracks...

[Rspaight]

I pulled out the '95 disc again. I think I like it even less than I was expecting to. The fidelity is certainly nice, but the drums are too loud, the guitar too quiet, and everything seems to have a bit of a sterile sound to it.

Aha! My problem with LALC is that the drums are too quiet.

There's no accounting for taste.

Ryan