George Harrison's "All Things Must Pass". New vs. old version

Visual ID of early no-NR All Things Must Pass?

I read that early UK CD's have no noise reduction, and when they were redone for the US, the UK ones started using the NR'ed master as well.

Any way to visually identify the early UK CD's before the noise reduction?

Were they Mfd. in Japan by Toshiba-EMI like the early Lennon CD's? Do later ones have an Apple logo, while the early ones do not?

Steven

 

The earlier US CD's didn't have an Apple label. Capitol/EMI started using one on all Beatles product as well as John, George and Ringo's CD reissues starting around 1991.
As far as the difference of an early UK All Things Must Pass UK CD is concerned, I've never heard one and I've read where they don't sound that great either (improper remastering and inferior source tapes are probably the reason.)
I used to have an 80's Japanese isssue on LP. That one sounded the best to me. And I wish I still had it!

 

It's the usual toss up between:
1. Original issue - nth generation tapes, some noise reduction, no digital maximisation, crappy packaging (in the case of the UK or Japanese CD - unlike the US CD - the front of the CD booklet looks like a very poor photostat) or
2. Remastered version - better tapes, huge amounts of noise reduction, digitally maximised to an unbelievable extent (you should see the waveform of Wah Wah on Cool Edit!!!), much improved packaging
Where's Steve when you need him??!! We could have it all!
PS wasn't ATMP only done once in 1987?

 

That is a real shame. And what makes it worse is we'll probably never see one.

 

I have the original UK issue of All Things Must Pass without the later U.S. noise reduction. It came in a double CD case with a very poorly reproduced front cover. The stock numbers printed on the CD are CDP 7 4668 2 and CDP 7 4669 2. They are on the EMI label and are made in the U.K., not Japan. They sound pretty awful. Very muffled and noisy. No separation between the layers of instrumentation (the Japanese Toshiba LP is superior in allowing us to hear the layering of instruments and the clarity of the production).

That said, I think that the comments made criticizing the new reissue are uncalled-for since the late, great George Harrison was intimately involved with the sound, packaging, song selection, remastering, presentation etc of the reissue.

Are you "Hoffman cultists" saying that George Harrison shouldn't be allowed to choose how his own work sounds? Are you saying that you are a better judge of an artist's work than the artist himself? This is the peak of "audiophile" arrogance. What was issued in 2000 was EXACTLY what the great artist who produced this wonderful music wanted us to hear.

Same thing goes for Paul McCartney's WingSpan. Otherwise, he would have had Mr. Hoffman do the mastering work. He knew the work of both remastering engineers. He certainly had enough power within EMI to choose who did the work.

 

I doubt the artist has the last word no matter who they are or how involved they were.In house politics would win in the end.I can't imagine them spending the money on the NR equipment for that new and improved sound that everybody wants and not using it.

 

No, we "Hoffman cultists" are saying we don't LIKE how it sounds.

(At least, this one anyway).

 

Now that I think of it,I remember George saying in an interview that he didn't like the sound of CD's.They sounded too clean.And that was before the new and improved ATMP.

 

Steve,
if you can read this tear splattered message, would you have released this
(a) in a box form,
(b) with full original graphics
Come to think of it, I don't want to hear.

 

As a certified "Hoffman cultist", although I haven't received my certificate yet, I object to the unnecessary fiddling with the sound.
"Was it broken in the first place ?" is the question we all have to ask. The remaster has a large amount of its dynamic range cut off. Check out that waveform on Cool Edit!!

 

The "All Things Must Pass" remaster is what got me to realize that remastering doesn't neccessarily always mean good. When done improperly, which, in my opinion, "All Things Must Pass" was, it can be an ordeal to the ears.

I'd still like to hear 1.) a non-noise reduced, non-compressed, remastered version of the album and 2.) a remixed version of the album which removes the Wall Of Sound.

I'm not saying I don't like the Wall Of Sound; I just have heard boots of some ATMP songs without any Spectorization, and some of them just have much more punch.

 

No, what you are suggesting is revisionism. I don't question that the artist or label can often do this to their own work (it is their right), but is that what you want to hear? Not me. I'd rather go to enormous lengths to procure LPs for top dollar in order to hear the album in a fashion that it was originally meant to be heard, than pay little money to hear trash. Anything else has always been less than acceptable to me, long before I read or posted here. I think SH is one of the most talented people working today as a mastering engineer, and IMO he'd do this title better justice. The current remaster is a sonic disaster, plain & simple, IMO. Note that these are my opinions, as is anything else you're going to read here about sound quality (for the most part). If you don't like the opinions you get on this board, find a place where you find the dialogue more meaningful to you personally. I just don't get the attitude problem.

 

No and no to each question. What we are saying is that we would love to hear something as close as possible to the original tapes. I understand from Steve's post that no release is close to matching the tape. Most audio enthusiasts (even the non arrogant ones), would love to hear the sound of the master tapes.

As for "cultists" you don't make a logical connection here - a touch of pique perhaps?

 

Feinstein, so what you are saying is that an artist has a right 30 years after the fact to go back in time and change, revise, remix his older work? And we HAVE to like it? I understand that this might be called George's "Director's Cut" version of "Pass". But it sure doesn't sound like the album I bought at Roger's Records in 1971 ($6.00). I think George and Phil Spector spent many weeks mixing this album way back when. I don't think artists should be allowed to change their mind 30 years later.

Of course, it would be another thing to me if I LIKED the new version, but it's not the work I know and love, so it makes me mad. And I CANNOT BUY the work I've known and loved ANYWHERE except at a used record store, or listen to my own (trashed) copy.

Where does "audiophile" arrogance" come in to the picture? Do you yourself like the new version over the original LP release? You didn't say.

"Audiophile" arrogance. What a weird thing to say. Artist (or record company) arrogance is assuming that we want a "revised" version of something, because it's more modern sounding now, "better" sounding now, with extra digital processing, etc.

Did you like the new kinder, gentler "E.T." movie? Is it ok to change around scenes, add new ones, get rid of old ones, etc. because the director wants to? Isn't this the directors "videophile" arrogance?


Revisionism. I HATE IT!

 

My sentiments exactly John! Well said.

 

Well, first of all, you don't know if Harrison or McCartney was sitting next to the mastering engineer and directing them at the controls. They probably selected the tracks and, in Harrison's case, conceive of the new packaging and decided to add the bonus tracks, but the mastering process to a musician isn't like the editing process is to a filmmaker, who usually has a crack at it or is at least present for a good portion of it. It's very possible they left them to their own devices, waited for the results to come in and give it their approval.

As for arrogance, it would be if no one had any other reference and just assumed the music was ruined. But we've got vinyl, and in the case of Steve and a few others, they've heard the production copy at Capitol or possibly the master itself (or a DAT of it). How can you call it arrogance when it's really that bad? If Coppopla decided to boost the contrast on a re-release of the Godfather to the point where all the whites are washed out and the dark areas pitch black, should we stay silent just because he ordered it, even though it would be physically painful to watch anything with that much contrast for three hours?

 

Which vinyl issue is considered the best?

mud-

 

I bought my CD copy of ATMP back in '85 or '86 as an import. Seemed okay at the time, but then I made the mistake of playing the original vinyl. This edition sounded as if it came from the compressed Lp master(or more likely, a copy). Not really bright, and just didn't have the depth of the Lp. I didn't buy the new one; remixes? Hmmm....
SH's suggestion of what the tapes really sound like is a bummer. Terrible we have to put up with crap for such a striking album...

ED

 

Aware of dissatisfaction with the remastered CDs, I recently bought a nice 3LP set ... only to find that the pitch varies (a perceptible "wow"). What makes an LP do that? Is it a mastering problem? (They aren't warped.)

 

This could be caused by an off-center spindle hole. I have a few LPs like that, and they usually go in the junkpile. VERY annoying.

I have an original US LP of ATMP that's still the best version I've heard. I'd love to hear how an original UK sounds.

 

I have the original boxed set and the recent CD remaster, but have never A/B'd them. How do you know when a CD has been No-Noised? It's not marked on the CD.

 

A very keen ear. It's sometimes very difficult, sometimes bloody obvious.

No noise is partially a gate-style compression. It will kill anything under a certain db level, and 0 it out.

So if I was whispering right now, and the gate was set high, you wouldn't hear it.

That's a crappy example, but it's the kind of thing you hear - Ambience or tape hiss squelched.

 

fred, do you mean pitch or the 'wow' effect of a record being mispressed and the stylus moving to and fro with the revolutions? Unless there's something wrong with your turntable, or the record was pressed out of alignment, then it would be a mastering problem. You have me very puzzled...and glad I haven't bought mine yet. I have been thinking about it....

ED

 

EC: To find out what No-Noise mishandled can do to destroy the integrity of music seek out the following discs(as cheaply as possible):

THE BEST OF BUDDAH or BUBBLEGUM YEARS[Pair; OOP]
THE COMPLETE HITS OF TOMMY EDWARDS[Eric]
Any early RCA remaster that claims ADD(digital remixing)but isn't, i.e. THE BEST OF...GUESS WHO, YOUNGBLOODS, the NIPPER VA series(great idea, some first-time stereo, bad execution), among others[RCA]
ORIG B'WAY CAST: HAIR[RCA]
A lot of boots, esp. 2-CD BEATLES ORIGINAL MASTER RECORDINGS[first four Parlo albums in stereo; bungled no-noise creates odd effects and artifacts]

There are others; these just came to mind first. Amazingly, the RCA discs have hiss all over the place that is more obvious because somebody tried to deaden what was beyond removing. That, and who knows what generation tapes were used? No-Noise seemed like a good idea, but a lot of people didn't know how to use it(still don't)and it shows.

Great non-No-Noise CD, all the hiss you'd ever want: any Kenny Rogers/1st Edition CD with the Reprise hits. 100% natural sound. Must be heard to be believed.

ED