Roxy Music at half speed

[Haselsh1]

Back in the early seventies at the age of fourteen I became slightly hooked on the Roxy Music album 'For Your Pleasure' and played my original album on some serious grot that rendered it knackered quite quickly. A few years back I bought the EMI 100 Centenary edition on direct metal master just to keep up. Last week I took delivery of the newest EMI half speed mastered edition.

When I played track one of the album and then played track one of the DMM version my partner Sue had a 'WTF !' moment. I could clearly hear why.

The DMM version is crisp, sharp, clear and driven. The half speed master is dull, congested and flat. It is almost as though there is no high frequency content. The pressing quality is good but the EQ is appalling. I then unsealed my new Queen II half speed master and lo and behold, it is no better.

I then remembered that this was the reason I ditched vinyl back in 2018. Ah well...

:rock:

[brian2957]

Shaun, a couple of months ago I bought a Beautiful South album and got the same result. Now, for me, these things ain't cheap anymore and surely it's not unreasonable to expect a new album to sound good. The turntable is now in the loft and there's an Audiolab 6000CDT in it's place. I can go on to Musicmagpie and buy 8 CDs, to add to my already decent collection for £12 and the Audiolab sounds excellent, making even crappy recordings sound very listenable.
Big Roxy Music fan here too BTW :)

[Haselsh1]

Shaun, a couple of months ago I bought a Beautiful South album and got the same result. Now, for me, these things ain't cheap anymore and surely it's not unreasonable to expect a new album to sound good. The turntable is now in the loft and there's an Audiolab 6000CDT in it's place. I can go on to Musicmagpie and buy 8 CDs, to add to my already decent collection for £12 and the Audiolab sounds excellent, making even crappy recordings sound very listenable.
Big Roxy Music fan here too BTW :)

Brian, I hear you loud and clear. Twenty odd quid is a lot of bloody money for an LP regardless of the fact it is no longer 1973. If we now have to pay over twenty quid for one vinyl LP it is definitely not unreasonable to expect a new album to sound good. The only other possibility is that the masters for this album are now completely knackered and worn out. If that is the case, how can EMI push such trash on us ?

My original in 1973 cost me £3.50.

:eyebrows:

[brian2957]

God, I was a teenager in 1973 too :eek: Roxy Music, David Bowie, and Tubular Bells were all favourites. Can't remember what I paid though. I had just started as an apprentice mechanic on £8 per week :lol:

[Haselsh1]

God, I was a teenager in 1973 too :eek: Roxy Music, David Bowie, and Tubular Bells were all favourites. Can't remember what I paid though. I had just started as an apprentice mechanic on £8 per week :lol:

Bloody Hell yeah I had started as an apprentice lab tech on probably the same wage. In my delusional 14 year old head I envisioned myself as a Brian Eno synth wizard making amazing sounds and appearing all over the World. How ridiculous ! My first ever vinyl purchase was 'Every Picture Tells a Story' with my second being 'Stranded' by Roxy. I then got hooked on 'For Your Pleasure' not realising that it wasn't really the same band at this point. Christ it feels like a long time ago.

[prestonchipfryer]

Well that's not unusual to be disappointed with reissues. It makes you wonder if the remastering ''engineer(s)'' have some sort of hearing impairment from listening to music at higher than safe levels for years. :) Or just don't give a damn about sound 'quality'.

Most people - normal ones at least - think it all sounds the same anyway and until exposed to high quality reproduction will settle for anything.

I rip CDs and play via Roon/Innuous and get some excellent results.

Still play vinyl though as I really enjoy the 'difference' in sound.

[Macca]

send it back to Abbey Road and ask them to do it again, £90 per track (ex VAT)

https://www.abbeyroad.com/online-mastering

[AJSki2fly]

Unfortunately this is not uncommon with re-master or even just re-released vinyl, and it can affect digital format as well, if you think it does not just go and listen to an original good early pressing of Pink Floyd - Wish You Were Here, an early CD of it, the 1986 SBM CD, and repress on vinyl, a re-master of it on vinyl and the 24/192 version on Qobuz. I won't say which ones sound best I will leave that to you, but it is an interesting result. I compared them recently due to some disappointment in a version and wanting to decide what to do about it.

[Haselsh1]

send it back to Abbey Road and ask them to do it again, £90 per track (ex VAT)

https://www.abbeyroad.com/online-mastering

Money for old rope. Or old audio :scratch:

[The Black Adder]

I have For Your Pleasure and Roxy Music on the half speed repress and find them very good indeed. I have an original FYP too in fine condition but I prefer the 1/2 speed.

[Barry]

IME, a lot of of the so-called remastered versions sound poor when compared to the original vinyl versions. :( I think it might have to do with the fact that listeners now hear stuff on their iPhones etc., so the remastering is done to optimise the replay format.

However that said, some of the RVG (Rudy Van Gelder) remastering of Blue Note tapes for CD issue are excellent: the sheer sense of the performers presence is palpable. :)

[Pigmy Pony]

Regarding vinyl prices then and now:

Early 1973 (I was 15 so a late starter) I bought my first album, "Electric Warrior". Paid £2.49.

At the time a pint of Thwaites bitter at my local (I was an early starter) was 15p.

That's nearly 17 pints for the price of an album. Assuming the same beer to cost about £3 now, I could only buy about 7 pints for the price of an album (£21). When I started work a year later, the older blokes where I worked earned about £35 a week, which at about £3.50 each would get 10 records. Going on whatever minimum wage is now (say £9 an hour), a 40 hour week would buy about 15 records.

Whichever way I look at it, vinyl is cheaper than it used to be, by a fair bit. It's the low cost of alternative formats that make it seem bad.

What I really take from this is how shockingly expensive beer has become :eek:

[Macca]

beer was 69p a pint when I started (70p if you wanted to drink in the lounge) and records were £5

I earned £10 a day so £50 a week is ten albums - that was 1985 so looks like the beer/vinyl price relationship was static for at least a decade.

[walpurgis]

This lot belongs in the 'Are You Knocking On a Bit' thread (along with your Max Bygraves records :lol:)!

[Macca]

does anyone have the half speed remaster of 'Lingalonga Max'?

https://i.ibb.co/yW8g0Nk/R-3419821-1425135605-1229-jpeg.jpg (https://imgbb.com/)

There's an original pressing somewhere at my mother's house. Would really like to see Steve Wilson turn his attention to this instead of wasting his time on King Crimson et al.

[guy]

send it back to Abbey Road and ask them to do it again, £90 per track (ex VAT)

https://www.abbeyroad.com/online-mastering

I am surprised by this - would have thought that there were loads of potential copyright issues :scratch:

[prestonchipfryer]

does anyone have the half speed remaster of 'Lingalonga Max'?

https://i.ibb.co/yW8g0Nk/R-3419821-1425135605-1229-jpeg.jpg (https://imgbb.com/)

There's an original pressing somewhere at my mother's house. Would really like to see Steve Wilson turn his attention to this instead of wasting his time on King Crimson et al.

Well it would be just another one to ruin then. :lol: Constant messing around ''remastering'' often ends in an inferior result.

Like many other things are 'improved' or 'upgraded'. Most of it is just tosh and done for the sake of doing it.

Way of the world?

[Macca]

I am surprised by this - would have thought that there were loads of potential copyright issues :scratch:

it's a service for people making their own recordings and who want them professionally mastered. From what I can gather anyway.

[Macca]

Well it would be just another one to ruin then. :lol: Constant messing around ''remastering'' often ends in an inferior result.

Like many other things are 'improved' or 'upgraded'. Most of it is just tosh and done for the sake of doing it.

Way of the world?

Yes I have a couple of his Tull remasters, all shiny and sparkly but they don't sound like the albums I got used to over all the years previously.

[Haselsh1]

There's an original pressing somewhere at my mother's house. Would really like to see Steve Wilson turn his attention to this instead of wasting his time on King Crimson et al.

:lol:

[prestonchipfryer]

Yes I have a couple of his Tull remasters, all shiny and sparkly but they don't sound like the albums I got used to over all the years previously.

I purchased Songs From the Wood and Heavy Horses, both remastered by Wilson, in the hope of having nice new copies, as I've had both since they were released originally. Such a shame that these two albums are bass heavy now and are nowhere near as good as my original copies, both of which sound much better, well they do to my ears anyway. So I agree with you on that point.

Ian Anderson is as much to 'blame' for ruining his own fine work as he is planning, in collaboration with Wilson, to remaster more of his work. He stated this when I saw Tull recently at Poole Lighthouse Theatre. The concert was spoiled, as is often the case, by an overblown bottom end smothering any chance of actually hearing what was actually being played for much of the time. There were quite a few who upped and left the venue.

Oh well, way of the world I suppose.

[Macca]

I purchased Songs From the Wood and Heavy Horses, both remastered by Wilson, in the hope of having nice new copies, as I've had both since they were released originally. Such a shame that these two albums are bass heavy now and are nowhere near as good as my original copies, both of which sound much better, well they do to my ears anyway. So I agree with you on that point.

Ian Anderson is as much to 'blame' for ruining his own fine work as he is planning, in collaboration with Wilson, to remaster more of his work. He stated this when I saw Tull recently at Poole Lighthouse Theatre. The concert was spoiled, as is often the case, by an overblown bottom end smothering any chance of actually hearing what was actually being played for much of the time. There were quite a few who upped and left the venue.

Oh well, way of the world I suppose.

I have the CD versions of 'Songs From The Wood' and 'Benefit', I'm guessing you are talking about the vinyl version? If so they won't be exactly the same.

Nevertheless my first thoughts on playing 'Benefit' was 'I don't remember all this bass.'

'Songs' is okay bass-wise but it just seems a bit 'shiny' compared to my original press LP. That LP always sounded excellent to me so no idea what they hoped to achieve there.

I have some early 2000s remasters of 'Heavy Horses' and 'Aqualung' and they are fine, but they're not by Steve Wilson I don't think.

[prestonchipfryer]

I'm guessing you are talking about the vinyl version?



Yes, that's right, the vinyl versions.

I do prefer the originals.