Captain Beefheart Safe As Milk from the MONO master on Sundazed!!

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by Laservampire, Jul 19, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. prof. stoned

    prof. stoned Forum Member

    Location:
    ...
    For those interested, here's a link to a sample I just made. You will hear the last 11 seconds of Blue Cheer's song Second Time Around (found on their debut album Vincebus Eruptum) three times in a row. These samples are taken from three different sources:

    01. Sundazed Mono CD 2012
    02. my own rip from the orig USA mono LP
    03 . The Mercury Stereo CD 1993 (but folded to mono in audio editor)

    While the Sundazed corresponds for the most part with the USA mono LP, the last seconds of this fragment do not. The last beat of fragment 1 ends with the drums resonating but without reverb, which can clearly be heard on fragment 2. While fragment 3 admittedly sounds a bit different, it also ends with the same dry *thump*.

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17290721/06. Second Time Around.mp3

    Based on this and other examples I have heard, it is my opinion that Sundazed's reissues certainly cannot be taken as accurate representations of the originals anytime by default.
     
    RandelPink, Moshrom, mpayan and 8 others like this.
  2. czeskleba

    czeskleba Senior Member

    Location:
    Seattle
    As I said upthread, that is setting an extremely low bar for the definition of "restored mono mix." A more accurate term in that case would be "partially restored."

    Generally one of the primary reasons people want to acquire a dedicated mono mix is because of the mix differences. If some of the mix differences are lost because a stereo fold-down is used, it's understandable that might be considered unsatisfactory. And it certainly seems like something that ought to be openly disclosed to potential buyers. The lack of said disclosure is arguably deceptive.
     
  3. Raunchnroll

    Raunchnroll Senior Member

    Location:
    Seattle
    The credibility of Sundazed statement is not, in my opinion, an issue. The issue is what people are reading into or inferring from it. It basically says that a rare original mono mix acquired from the producer was used to restore the mono reissue.

    Even if one gets hyper critical about the undisclosed details - such as brief stereo mix bits were folded as part of restoring the mono mix - that is still a true statement. A folded mono bit is still mono, albeit not the mono type the audiophile wanted. But Sundazed is not promising that, nor is it catering to the audiophile in the ad.

    Its a sad day when people pay a mere $20 for a hard to obtain LP (let alone out of reach financially for so many) and enjoys listening to it...... until someone points out a technicality that takes comparisons with expensive originals and devices to even 'hear.' And the world comes crashing down. The feeling of being cheated, of corrupt lying companies that 'deceived' you, the acknowledgement that your good time was ruined.... if only you had known from the start. Even though the alleged dishonesty can't be clearly pointed out. Thats the eggshell skull syndrome. An existence where the record was butchered (once someone directed them to the right data), where a car scratch makes it 'wrecked,' where the plate not arranged right is sent back, where the partner thats says someone else is attractive is a cheater. The likelihood that the food we eat contains detectable traces of rodent excrement is very high - perhaps it should be disclosed up front. If you think that would be proper full disclosure then by all means hire yourself out. Very little we buy in life is perfect. And only a few people might complain.

    In the end, all this can be avoided by the audiophile perfectionist by purchasing an original. To heck with inexpensive reissues. Why live in misery?
     
  4. Raunchnroll

    Raunchnroll Senior Member

    Location:
    Seattle
    No question that at some point restorations become an issue -- and should be disclosed. But where disclosure begins is the issue. If an overdub on the mono reissue is missing because a folded stereo bit (lacking the dub) was substituted - thats a major issue. But a fade out that does not significantly differ between the mixes? Not sure. Depends on who the reissue is being marketed to I suppose.

    The problem I see is that the forum audiophile supposes the larger world must be like them. Its not. This is exacerbated by an obvious lack of understanding about marketing and company goals. To be sure, disclosure and extent of disclosure has its place. I just don't see it here. Nothing on Sundazed site I read has deceived me. I'm not finding my mono Beefheart reissue unlistenable or the experience degenerated.
     
    Platterpus likes this.
  5. lukpac

    lukpac Senior Member

    Location:
    Milwaukee, WI
    It does not say that at all. There's zero indication of where the source(s) came from:

    "the restoration of Perry's rare original — and, to most fans, superior — mono mix"

    "Perry's rare original mono mix". Not "Perry's master tape".

    They were in fact promising that: "Perry's rare original mono mix".

    And yes, I would say that issuing a mono mix and claiming it is superior is in fact catering to audiophiles. Or at least those that care about different mixes.

    What is that supposed to mean? You can certainly hear the issues regardless. Will you be *aware* of them if you haven't already heard the mix? No, but then, that's true of *any* reissue. Are we saying that reissues of anything out of reach of most people don't really need to be accurate because the originals are so hard to get?

    It certainly has been for those defending Sundazed.

    Why claim reissues are things they are not?
     
    stinsojd and Gumboo like this.
  6. czeskleba

    czeskleba Senior Member

    Location:
    Seattle
    This release is implicitly being marketed specifically to audiophiles/collectors. A non-audiophile casual fan who doesn't care about such things would simply purchase the stereo CD, which is both cheaper and contains bonus tracks. The mix differences are being used as a major selling point of this release.

    And again, the fact that some potential buyers might not care about the sources used does not change the fact that their product description seems deceptive.
     
  7. Raunchnroll

    Raunchnroll Senior Member

    Location:
    Seattle
    Thats just a difference in your interpretation of Sundazed. I've posted the Sundazed statement twice now. People can read into whatever they want.

    You say theres zero indication of where the source came from. The context of 'Perry's' to the following words 'rare original' speaks for itself. If you don't see any indication or inference there -- can't help ya.

    Now as far as the mono mix source being a 'master tape' (who knows whether theres a 'master tape' -- there are different kinds of masters) please note the Sundazed statement does not expressly say that. And I certainly don't that know for a fact either! Using your method Luk I can only infer the source is a tape. And I have some evidence to back it up, because if the reissue is from a digital source, you would have been all over that. If you didn't (or couldn't) detect the difference between analog tape and digital - I'm going to presume we're on board together and a tape is the most likely source.
     
  8. Nightswimmer

    Nightswimmer Forum Resident

    Location:
    Germany
    The solution would habe been to come clear at some point in the game. It certainly would have saved Luke and the Sundazed guys who have to delete all these Facebook messages a lot of time.
     
    lukpac likes this.
  9. lukpac

    lukpac Senior Member

    Location:
    Milwaukee, WI
    Yes, it does speak for itself: that the mix is rare and that Perry mixed it.

    Not "rare original source tape". "rare original mono mix".

    They posted a tape box with the mono catalog number. That doesn't infer a mono tape was used? It's also worth noting that they *have* expressly said that for other releases, even where it clearly wasn't the case.

    Also, "digital source"? What does that mean? Obviously the CD is digital, and there's plenty of evidence that Sundazed cuts LPs from digital masters they've prepared. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about whether a mono master was used, or a mono needledrop in combination with a stereo fold-down.
     
    quicksrt, crispi and IDwithnoE like this.
  10. Raunchnroll

    Raunchnroll Senior Member

    Location:
    Seattle
    Gonna have to disagree. A sizable number of young vinyl / music nuts I meet or hear about from dealer friends - the type who like Captain Beefheart, are neither audiophile nor collectors per se. Of course it could be said anyone who accumulates records to listen to is a 'collector.'

    I am glad you use phrase the issue as 'seems' deceptive.

    As I mentioned, some of the most audiophile issues I've had don't disclose, for example, that 'less compression' was used when mastering it - even though the same tape source was used. Is that deceptive? So the reissues are clearly, audibly less compressed. (We often use the term 'polite.') That can really affect the listening. They're not technically the original! But they don't say that up front. Does that seem deceptive? The generic term re-mastering is used to describe significant audio changes.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2016
  11. Raunchnroll

    Raunchnroll Senior Member

    Location:
    Seattle
    Ah....so Sundazed is actually saying Perry mixed it. Not that he had, or was the source for, the rare original mix Sundazed used. Gotcha.

    So from where did Sundazed obtain their source? And how the heck could Katy Perry mix something before she was even born?
     
  12. lukpac

    lukpac Senior Member

    Location:
    Milwaukee, WI
    eBay?
     
    oxenholme, jonathan_s and quicksrt like this.
  13. Laservampire

    Laservampire Down with this sort of thing Thread Starter

    Great, good for you. Can you let Luke get back to his analysis now, rather than just arguing that every point he makes really doesn't matter to anyone who "just wants to listen to the music, man".

    Of course it doesn't matter in the big picture, but this is an audiophile forum, filled with the sort of people who spend hours comparing A to B to figure out which one is subjectively or objectively better.

    Issues with releases SHOULD be pointed out and analysed, so that people know what they're laying their hard earned cash down for. It's an audiophile forum, not a "be grateful for what you get" forum.
     
    RandelPink, stinsojd, mpayan and 12 others like this.
  14. Nightswimmer

    Nightswimmer Forum Resident

    Location:
    Germany
    I agree.
     
    Laservampire and lukpac like this.
  15. Agreed on this point. I'm not sure why the "digitally-sourced LP" point was brought up to begin with. Sure, it's given as another example of Sundazed's failings, but that's not what the original concern brought up was about.

    Heck, if forced to choose between an LP digitally-sourced from tape or an LP mastered "all-analog" from needledrop, I'd choose the tape-sourced LP! Granted, I'd MUCH rather have the original digital files used to make the LPs, but if forced into this scenario, I'd still go with the former.

    Goodwill?
     
    Laservampire and lukpac like this.
  16. Raunchnroll

    Raunchnroll Senior Member

    Location:
    Seattle
    There is more than mere presenting of analysis or data going on. But there are assertions being made as 'fact' which are not supported or supportable - nor made from actual or personal knowledge or experience. Big difference. Worse, the inventing of ethics and honesty issues with respect to the very businesses that cater to the hobby. We've had self proclaimed forum 'experts' (lacking experience in the music industry or with professional artists) who've helped drive away legendary people in the biz that were here for a while sharing inside stories. No wonder the stereotype of the grown dude living with mom whose life is comparing 16 pressings before shredding the work of that which they've never done (or could do).

    As far as this being an audiophile forum, its been said here that it is not really an audiophile site. To which I agree despite there being a sizable, active number of classic 'audiophiles' here. I appreciate the data being shared, and even the opinions, but fling unfounded facts out and expect to be called on it.
     
  17. Schoolmaster Bones

    Schoolmaster Bones Poe's Lawyer

    Location:
    ‎The Midwest
    My takeaway from this:
    • Interesting revelations from lucpac, which seem well researched and credible - still this Sundazed reissue sounds dramatically better than either the '70s Buddha reissue or the original stereo version.
    • This new information has renewed my quest for a mint mono original (which I thought had ended with the Sundazed). But that's just because I'm a hardcore Beefheart nerd and actually would notice these minor differences.
    • Having never believed claims of "cut from the original master tapes" from Sundazed (or any other label for that matter), nor having ever cared about such a thing, I feel no outrage or indignation towards Sundazed over this. They provided a noticeably superior upgrade from what was currently available.
     
  18. quicksrt

    quicksrt Senior Member

    Location:
    Los Angeles
    "Rare original" can also mean needle drop. You just about say "needle drop" but then shift to "digital source" as if you couldn't detect a difference between analog tape and vinyl needle drop to digital. You simply are not going there.

    I'm going to assume we are not on board at all, and that the Sundazed release is a needle drop.
     
    lukpac likes this.
  19. Laservampire

    Laservampire Down with this sort of thing Thread Starter

    So then, what other explanation is there for certain sections of the album (more precisely, the specific sections where vinyl noise would be the most obvious) audibly matching the folded down stereo mix rather than the original mono mix?

    Once you know where the edit points are, they are quite obvious to anyone with a discerning ear. I've heard them myself on the Sundazed CD, and the same edit points do not appear on the original mono LP. Therefore, something has been edited on the Sundazed issue. It's a fact because you can prove it from both spectral analysis and listening.

    There are at least 4 other examples of stereo fold down intros and outros being edited on to Sundazed mono reissues. Once again, they are all clearly audible to anyone who wants to compare. So there is definitely a history here for assuming that the same has been done on the Beefheart release.

    If you have any evidence that contradicts Luke's analysis and conclusion I'd sure love to hear it.
     
    IDwithnoE and lukpac like this.
  20. Raunchnroll

    Raunchnroll Senior Member

    Location:
    Seattle
    Thanks. I didn't even think about a needle drop! I was going with whatever source Perry had. Oh wait, he merely mixed whatever source Sundazed used, he never had it. I'm going with the thumb drive - the one from ebay - from a Russian source.
     
  21. Bobsblkwax

    Bobsblkwax Forum Resident

    Location:
    NorCal
    Wow, quite the discussion.

    I am fortunate to own a NM original mono and FWIW, it sounds terrific. Punchy, clear, great bass, and very correct. But now I feel like getting the Sundazed just to see what all the fuss is about.
     
    Laservampire likes this.
  22. quicksrt

    quicksrt Senior Member

    Location:
    Los Angeles
    That is a problem, we are told a mix was altered, rather than pressings were changed to stereo without artist's approval.

    I get the feeling that the mono mix was not altered, but that the LP record as found in the stores was a new and different stereo mix.

    Sundazed is not real clear on this exact point.
     
    lukpac likes this.
  23. quicksrt

    quicksrt Senior Member

    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Cool! And your copy does not have distortion during the fades of any songs either?
     
  24. Raunchnroll

    Raunchnroll Senior Member

    Location:
    Seattle
    You're missing the point completely. Whats being contradicted are the allegations or conclusions being bandied around here that Sundazed has either promised or misled people about the product or failed to disclose something. I've posted their statement here a couple times. No one has pointed out anything factual in it showing falsity or even an intention to mislead the consumer. However there have been some strained interpretations -- such as one saying the statement does not indicate Perry was the source of the mix. I suppose someone struggling with English could 'read' that - and for sure the statement (as I pointed out_ does not expressly state as much. But its I think reasonably inferred.; Perry was the source of the rare original mono mix. YMMV.

    One doesn't get to state an unfounded premise - then demand it be refuted by 'evidence.' Thats what the conspiracy theorists or the self-deluded do.

    Lukes dug out some interesting information about this reissue. I'm not disputing that. But saying the reissue sounds bad is simply his opinion.
     
  25. Bobsblkwax

    Bobsblkwax Forum Resident

    Location:
    NorCal
    I didn't notice anything.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine