Bowie's Young Americans blind listening test

are you Ray Staff? seriously, if there are noises on the master tape, leave them there! it's Bowie's "lipsmack" or his shirt button hitting the keyboard etc. you're only fixing something if there's something wrong. what you're doing is messing with the integrity of the recording. lecture over.

 

Calm down, I was only speaking of tape noises (noises you wouldn't hear on an original LP which used better tapes... and I'm only removing the ones that really bother me), not studio noises (I'd hate removing that).

Still, I think I can do whatever I want with my own files, sorry. I'm using a straight EAC rip for the samples, anyway.

 

They all sounded like different versions of John Cage's 4'33" to me.

 

Just wondering why you'd use the JPN Hunky Dory as you source for OYPT?

 

I thought it sounded much more open on the JPN, and I'm unhappy if the chorus doesn't sound big and open for this particular song. But I made this choice quite a while ago, it'd probably need a proper A/B test, now. Hunky Dory could be my third Bowie thread, then

 

it was meant tongue in cheek although having criticized Staff for his tampering it would have been hypocritical to let your comments go unchecked
i attempt to repair files when i think they are flawed (drop outs etc) but i don't recall anything on Hunky Dory being "wrong". the WG is for me clearly the best digital Hunky Dory and i wouldn't change a thing.

 

when you get round to Hunky Dory please use the opening of changes and andy wahol for the samples.

 

OK I've had a listen, in sequence, in reverse sequence and random, and made notes along the way. Eventually I became confused.

Firstly, I coverted from Flac to AAC 256 and listened via a pair Sennheiser HD600 out of a MacBook Pro. Not the same as listening to the CD quality through speakers.

Also, and importantly, what sounds best to me may not be what is closest to the master tape - with a bit of EQ a lousy tape can be made to sound better. So I'm not suggesting that what I prefer is closest to the tape.

One thing I noticed / remembered, is the distortion on both tracks at various points and the generally indistinct sound.

I found E & F to be somewhat flat and lifeless. F especially seemed to have constrained sound. E on Can You Hear Me seemed to have a solid bass.

B I found a little shrill on Can You Hear Me, but less so on Young Americans - I wrote "OK" next to Young Americans.

D the acoustic guitar on Young Americans seemed to disappear, and on Can You Hear Me, my notes read "lack of definition"

C, coming after B seemed thin (YA), but this was not as not (as) noticeable in Can You Hear Me.

A I wrote "no top" for Young Americans (meaning very high top), and something illegible for Can You Hear Me.

G I wrote "detailed" next to Young Americans as the acoustic guitar on the centre left was quite clear, and on Can You Hear Me I wrote "OK".

G received my vote, but it was also quite different from the rest I thought.

Even though I have a few CDs of the album (RCA JPN for US, RYKO, EMI 1999, EMI CD/DVD, Parlophone) I'm not that familiar with them to pick them in this sampling.

Now I'm waiting for the results to see if I need my hearing checked

 

i'd recommend a change of user name, perhaps locks and/or address

 

Oh, great. I've just read the others' posts post my post, and it looks like I've gone out on a limb. Next time, I'm plugging the computer into the stereo. To my defence, I'm still getting used to my headphones..........

 

it has two votes which is better than one. there are no right answers, it's been this way for bowie on this forum for as long as i've been here. each and every issue has its supporters.

 

Very kind of you there. "Two votes are better than one...."

It does underscore the need to listen properly though, in a three dimensional space with speakers - as it was intended to be. Headphones are great, but the spatial info is almost always reduced. It has inspired me to unpack the CDs and have a listen to them. I think on my iTunes library I used the 1999 edition and just haven't got around to replacing it.

 

[QUOTE="cmcintyre, post: 16821503, member: 32051"
I think on my iTunes library I used the 1999 edition and just haven't got around to replacing it.[/QUOTE]

Thinking all those conversions may have affected the sound somewhat, I've just listened to the version on my iTunes library and it seems to match sample B, which was not one of my favoured samples. Ripped from CD in 2005. (Third most non preferred). So is B the 1999 EMI?

 

no, G is the '99, B is the 2007.

 

My hats off to the OP, I welcome any and all blind listening tests.

 

One learns a lot here - I 've just learnt that I ripped the 2007 edition two years before it came out! (I 'guessed' the year I ripped judging by the iTunes version (4.9).)

Now, if we want to talk packaging rather than sound, you're not gonna fool me.........

I do remember buying each and every one of the 1999 series, appreciative of the extra artwork and the series conformity. Even now, it's that series that's on the shelf - the RCAs and RYKO put away for safekeeping. I guess I'm your fan Peter.

 

I'm happy at least you like the artwork on those. In my view they were and are an absolute lowpoint, a bloody shame to be honest. Good reissues isn't about spines.

 

People are still seeing the file? I only get "the file you requested does not exist" (hence my John Cage joke)

 

Post #4 has the working link.

 

The spines with the faces was/is the worst thing about the packaging. That I don't like. I just remember thinking they were so much better than the RCA's, and a little more stylish (spines aside) than the RYKOs.

I wasn't overly enamoured with some of the major faux pas errors the RYKO's made (in the packaging). (Omission of Philips cover, over saturated Aladdin Sane front cover, rear cover mess ( as well as tacky inner), washed out David Live, rear cover of Young Americans LP (actually an EMI faux pas), incorrect colour shade of Low rear cover.

In that light, the 1999 series I thought was a major step forward. The Parlophones are much much better again, though there still are minor errors and a couple of major faults (inner sleeve of Hunky Dory and to a lesser extent Ziggy)

 

How long until you put us out of our misery? I want to know!

 

Can't decide between A and C. Went for C in the end.

Tim

 

Very brief listen via Grado headphones only. I thought "Can You Hear Me" was the better test to hear the differences. A and C were my favorites, both sound smooth and nicely balanced tonally. B and F were good, but a step behind. D and E sound muffled. G is horrible: brittle and metallic sounding.

 

I'm the other guy (till now) that pick G. I listened through headphones too (AudioTechnica ATH-40X). If it doesn't sound harsh to me, I usually prefer a more detailed sound, which is the case. But equipment used is critical, you can see a year ago I defined the 1999 edition as "compressed, lack of air and naturalness" : GUÍA AUDIÓFILA: DAVID BOWIE (in spanish, sorry). Probably used Martin Logan Summit loudspeakers. And surely I compared other musical passages then ...

 

I think you make a critical point about the equipment. When I chose my headphones (first pair in many many years) I found that on some pairs many things sound good, others showed big differences between sources ( which I took to mean they were more accurate). I much preferred the Sennheiser HD 800s to the HD 600, but they were five times the price. At $AUD 2,400 I just couldn't go there. The HD 600 are not overly crisp - there's no excessive sparkle in the top end.

So next listening comparison will be on speakers - I'd ask whoever is able to post it to use longer samples if (legally) possible.