#02518 I had decided I wouldn't buy another reissue of Forever Changes but a good angel gave me a gift card I could use at the record store. And when I saw that they had only one copy, somehow I just couldn't resist. Not my fault.
I have been enjoying the mono cd the most, which is the way I first heard Forever Changes. Some of the fade outs are longer, and different balances of vocals and instruments. It’s apparently a fold of a different stereo mix or master.
In the review he states: "Also, note that my download is in the WAV format which like AIFF is uncompressed and lossless. I prefer either of these two over FLAC and ALAC, which are compressed and lossless (by the way, the state of compression referred to here is data compression, not dynamic range compression)." Do WAV and AIFF have advantages over FLAC and ALAC in terms of sound quality? Regardless of data compression, wouldn't all of these lossless formats sound identical?
The advantage is that for playback, WAV files do not have to be converted on the fly, like FLAC files need to be.
Are you saying that having to convert on the fly somehow negatively impacts audio quality? Even if so, is it perceptible enough to offset the advantage of the smaller file size of FLAC?
The fades are also different, like on the Red Telephone, is a few seconds longer with the “all of God’s children” line clearly heard before the fade.
I just checked and the fades are the same with the line clearly audible on both the stereo and mono. I haven't compared all the songs yet, but have only found one with a different fade between the stereo and mono. Motel has a longer fade on the mono than the stereo. BUT this is only true of this particular version of the stereo (which includes the 2015 HDtracks). All other digital stereo versions of this track I checked- 1987, 2001, Love Story, MFSL, Colours comp - have the same longer fade as the mono CD. So it seems the fade on the 2015/2018 mastering has been started earlier on the song. My question now is whether they used a different tape (which means they didn't really use the master as claimed) or did they fade it earlier for some reason. I'll need to track down a needle drop of an original US stereo now to see if maybe it matches that fade. If not, then I really wonder what the deal is with this early fade.
Update: I checked a US 1st press needle drop and it doesn't have the early fade, so I don't know where this early fade version comes from. If they really used the master, why would Bruce decide to fade it earlier than any other version?
There's a UK repress from the 70s where it doesn't fade at all... from 50 Years of Love & Arthur Lee "Da Capo" "Forever Changes" "Love" & more: Album-By-Album Thread
Yeah, that could explain it. If the fade isn't on the master, then it would've had to be done during mastering. But then that means every other digital mastering I've checked either comes from an already faded copy or the mastering engineer faded the proper amount. This would also mean Bruce messed up and faded way too early on this 2015 (aka 2018) mastering.
Yes. See review above. There were TWO stereo mixes. One used to mix the stereo release. One to mix the MONO fold down, so they ARE a bit different.
No, FLAC conversion doesn't affect sound quality. The only problem with FLAC is that some devices are unable to offer said conversion and FLAC files won't play on them.
There is no evidence that this is the case and it really makes no sense. The liners simply say "The mono version of Forever Changes does not precisely echo the original stereo mix of the album, perhaps suggesting that another master stereo mix was utilized to create this mono mix during the CSG conversion process." This is quite a leap to make when lacking any evidence. "Perhaps suggesting" is very flimsy. I'm not trying to be combative but I don't want to see this very iffy claim being repeated as hard truth. So far, there is zero evidence that an alternate stereo mix was used to create the mono fold down.
It puzzles me that "Forever Changes" did not have the original impact that it does today. What in today's mindset make this one of the greatest records ever recorded? I have had this record in my collection from day one, but I never heard others rave about it until the last 15 years or so. Why did it take so long? The Brits claim that record as part of their musical tapestry? I doubt that, check the UK sales charts and see if that is a true fact or not. I saw Arthur Lee and Love at the Whiskey A Go Go in early 1969 with his new band(who were great by the way). For the most part, their sets contained music that would eventually end up on "Four Sale" and "Out Here". The only song from their early catalog that I recognized was "My Little Red Book". In the two sets they played, not one song was from "Forever Changes". At that time, I didn't get the feeling that record held much value to him. An enigma for sure.
Not a best seller, but it was on the UK LP charts for six weeks, highest position No.24 - many of the albums above it on the chart were greatest hits, "easy listening" and soundtracks Official Albums Chart Top 40 | Official Charts Company
That is not bad, probably better than the US charts at the time, but I see where The Bee Gees/Horizontal beat out "Forever Changes on the UK charts. I am not knocking that record, but who today is talking about it. I surmise that "Forever Changes" was simply ahead of it's time and needed a future audience to really appreciate it.
I guess this 50th package renders the 2008 2cd Collector's Edition obsolete, except that the latter has a different earlier Botnick mastering of the original stereo album? Please forgive me if this has already been established within the previous 25 pages.
Brit here. This is in my top ten albums of all time. Over the years, I have played it to many people who have been amazed by it and got their own copies. We are blessed to have this record.