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

Because its human nature once emotions are invested (oh and money) that justification and even denial comes to the defense of that investment.

 

Best to do it WITHOUT even suggesting it's a needledrop. Just present the evidence and ask why the source they used seems anomalous.

 

Previous analysis:

Autumn's Child
Grown So Ugly
Electricity
Where There's Woman
Abba Zaba
Plastic Factory

Next up: I'm Glad

Both the intro (edit at 0:17, on the downbeat as the lead vocal comes in) and ending (edit at 3:14, on the final beat) are edited on from the stereo mix. Interestingly, the speed of the portion of the song sourced from the mono mix (most of it) is almost exactly the same as the speed of the needledrop of my friend's mono LP. Line the two up at 0:17, and they barely drift at all (approximately 18 samples!) until 3:14. On the other hand, the speed of the intro (from the stereo mix) is a fair amount different: in the span of those 17 seconds, the Sundazed is almost 5,000 seconds longer than the mono LP. Perhaps not enough to notice when listening to the Sundazed alone, but it jumps out like a sore thumb when comparing the two.



Beyond the intro and ending, the Sundazed is extremely similar to the mono LP. Both are somewhat distorted in places, although the Sundazed is slightly more distorted in a few spots towards the end of the song. The "glad" at about 3:12 is a good example, as are most of the loud spots from about 3:00 to the end of the song.

 

This casts enough doubt in my mind (plus the Mamas & Papas thread) to suspend all future purchases until the legitimacy of the mono mixes has been proven. I like Sundazed, but this would be an immediate deal breaking deception for me. For the record I bought this CD, I like it, but I now will be doing a comparison to the Needledrop I previously had for authenticity confirmation.

 

"Why do the Sundazed releases have many sections (intros, fades, and other quiet sections) that match the stereo mix but not the mono mix, and why is there more distortion and noise in some areas than on some transfers of the mono LP? Doesn't the 1-1 safety copy match the mono LP?"

Anyone is welcome to copy that verbatim and post it on their FB page or send it to them privately.

 

That's your opinion.

 

Not the case, at least with me.

 

What's my opinion? That speculation suggests the lack of facts or evidence? Because there's certainly plenty of both in this instance.

 

Nobody is arguing or getting mad. He has his evidence, and it's compelling. But he was not there when the process was being completed, so, at least for me, until I hear from somebody involved with the process with what actually occurred, his, and anyone else's theory in this thread as to what's gone down will remain just that. If others choose to accept it as something more that's up to them.

And no, it has nothing to do with any "investment" I've made.

 

We've been over this. For me there could be other possibilities as to what might've occurred. You even said that there could be.

Bottom line,again, is that you weren't there.

 

How is it a "theory" that many portions of the Sundazed releases match the stereo mix and not the mono mix? How is it a "theory" that various spots on the Sundazed releases have more distortion than some copies/transfers of the mono LP?

I did? What exactly are those other possibilities?

 

With all this talk and questioning as to why the stereo parts were folded down to use on various intros and outros of the songs...

Has anyone thought that since these edits apparently rear their ugly heads in those specific parts.. that it could be a problem with splices? Maybe something happened to a certain amount of length of tape near the splices and it oxidized differently therefore affecting (mostly) only those parts of the tape??

It just seems really odd to edit those particular parts when most of the rest of each song is intact and the original mono. Of course, aside from a few bits here and there.

But.. since this is supposed to be a copy tape.. that logic could be thrown out the window. But.. do we know exactly WHEN this tape was copied? Could be a fairly recent copy of an old, deteriorated tape? That would cause the problem with my theory of oxidation at the splices on the original.

 

Here's a brief summary of most of the issues at hand:

1) Sections of the stereo mix used in place of the mono mix. Clear edits (which are not present in the previous mono and stereo releases) are seen in spectral view, and close listening confirms both the presence of edits and the mix differences.
2) The stereo sections in #1 are located in quiet areas (where vinyl noise would be most noticeable) and most of Autumn's Child (last song on side 2, which would be more distorted on LP).
3) Early fades on songs where the stereo mix was not spliced on.
4) Evidence of vinyl noise in the fades of songs where the stereo mix was not spliced on.
5) Noises and distortion that are not present on at least some copies/transfers of the mono LP.
6) Sections edited out in some areas mentioned in #5.
7) Overall similarity in sound to the mono LP in areas that do not differ (similar EQ, speed, noise level, etc).
8) A pattern of using mono needledrops combined with stereo folds on other releases (some more obvious than others).

If anyone wants a further explanation on any of these, I'm happy to engage, but to this point it doesn't seem as if those that disagree with the premise are interested.

Taken individually, at least some of those are not necessarily indicative of anything. For instance, in a vacuum, #7 could simply mean the sound of the original LP was replicated very closely. But taken together, they overwhelmingly point to the use of a mono needledrop, with various efforts made to conceal that fact when possible. For example, even if there was damage to a mono tape that necessitated splices from another source, saying it was extremely unlikely that it would happen to be damaged in all of those specific places would be a gross understatement.

Presumably you mean the edits between songs. The problem is the stereo patches don't always correlate with the beginning and ends of the songs. *Sometimes* they do, but in other cases, the beginning and/or ends of the song are the mono mix, but with bits of the stereo mix in the middle of the song. What they do correlate to, however, is sections where vinyl noise would be more noticeable. The middle of Grown So Ugly, just after the intro of Electricity, etc.

And also, everything mentioned above.

 

What has occurred, and why it occurred, are 2 different things.

From your post above:

"
So either the "1-1 copy" was actually a needledrop (highly unlikely, albeit not impossible)"

 

1) While theoretically possible, it's highly unlikely that the Bell Sound tape would have been a needledrop (and thus not actually a "1-1 copy").
2) Regardless of where the needledrop originated, Sundazed was aware of that fact, as they did various things (including using sections of the stereo mix) to hide it.

 

In your opinion.

 

It's not my opinion that various sections of the stereo mix were used in place of the mono.

 

Most interesting thread ever !

 

Bob Irwin should reply in this thread...

 

You hit the nail on the head, Paul - I just want to make an informed buying decision... Just like if I knew an LP was sourced from 16/44.1, I'd buy the CD rather than spend the extra money on the LP. Or if the LP is sourced from a needledrop, I'll look for an original pressing.

 

It's not odd if the purpose was to conceal that the "intact" mono sections are from vinyl. Those parts would contain the most obvious "tells" that would give the game away...

Is there any part of this release other than the folded-down-from-stereo bits that actually looks to be from such a purported tape, though?

 

I have 5 more songs that I want to analyze in detail. But I haven't seen or heard anything in the songs I have analyzed already to suggest the mono bits come from tape. At best they sound very similar to the mono LP, warts and all. But 1) in a number of cases, they sound worse (perhaps not *much* worse, but worse nevertheless, with noticeable vinyl artifacts), and 2) while there's one fade I have to analyze further, every other ending is either spliced on from the stereo mix or faded slightly early, which wouldn't be necessary with a mono tape source.

There's definitely nothing I've come across yet that suggests an objective improvement over the LP.

 

How would you define an "objective improvement"?

 

Less distortion, less noise, better high frequency extension, etc.

 

Wow... this thread is just bizarre.

Lukpac, thanks for your observations. I seriously can't comprehend that some are suggesting that because this version sounds good to them or is an acceptable substitute for an expensive original that your concerns that Sundazed was being deceptive are somehow invalid.

No matter whether you like the release or not, Lukpac has proven without a doubt that it does not represent the original mono mix. Period. I also know that some of us can tell when we're listening to a needledrop, and I believe that sections that he expects are needledrops are indeed needledrops.

Simply put, whereas I don't expect that every label will come right out and say "We made an entirely new edit composed of mono needledrops and fold-downs", if you're going to do something like that, you probably shouldn't lead your customer base to believe that you used a mono safety copy exclusively as they did on Facebook.

Your mileage may vary, but this makes it much harder for me to trust Sundazed.

If they didn't have access to a good tape, they should have simply gotten a clean LP and did a good needledrop the way some fans could easily do. Or just simply slip such a fan a few bucks to provide his... and don't post pictures of master tapes in relation to the release. Sheesh!