The Roxy HDCD's didn't use peak extension, and are compressed and too "loud" regardless of equipment. Originals or the last box are the way to go (or maybe SHM- versions if price is not a concern)
I actually played Side 2 of this last week--my original U.S. vinyl from 1982, I would not know how to rate it, but it was/is well-played, certainly not VG++--and it still sounds fantastic. It's a great sounding record, love the songs still. I still find something new about it, like the understated piano by Paul Carrack on To Turn You On - the definition of restraint, bit it works so well. I wondered if they merely faded it up and down during the mix, or if that was how he played it. Anyhow, I digress. Don't be put off by a VG copy--it very well may sound excellent.
They really should reissue this 5.1 mix on BR for all those who don't have it. While they're at it, they should release the Wilson surround mix of the debut album already, dammit!
You are 100% absolutely right. It is a puzzling thing that this album hasn't seen a MOFI treatment...yet. I love my original too. But I also have redone Crime of the Centuy's and they are all terrific. Why not Avalon?
Well that's kind of my point- the box is a flat transfer, is dynamic and just sounds so great. I don't think it needs any fiddling with such as EQ or compression. I know some recordings can really benefit from such mastering moves, but I just don't think it's needed on the Roxy stuff. The original cut of Avalon may also have the benefit of having the original source (I'm still not clear on that story and if the tapes are truly lost or not). That said, I can only speak for CD masterings. I have the '99 remasters, a few of the original CDs, Thrill of it All box, Best of etc. And the Complete box just sounds fantastic to my ears. No need to look further. I do have the first album on vinyl (I believe it's the same mastering as the box you had) although I have to admit I've not spent a great deal of time with it.
I have this on SACD and it is a great multichannel recording. I also have this on Japanese vinyl that I bought new way back when. It's astounding. It's one of my reference recordings. Curious how it compares with an original U K. I'll pick one up if I see one for not too crazy money.
As a series, Simply Vinyl was often in the 'miss' category. They had a rare 'hit' with Avalon. On the other hand, its hard to screw up this album, I have never heard a version that sounds bad.
So then most of the fantastic audiophile reissues that we have had over the years wouldn't have appeared if you had someone say 'oh, the original sounds great...no need'. @Classicrock already said that the Simply Vinyl edition improves upon the original and Simply Vinyl aren't generally held in that high a regard. What's wrong with having a well done audiophile reissue with such a great recording...whether you think it's needed or not?
I'm all for fantastic audiophile reissues, but still can't help thinking that audiophile labels will do a disservice to themselves if they just keep coming up with endless reissues of great recordings which already sound great even on non-audiophile issues. Isn't there a danger of them and their work appearing somewhat redundant and demeaning of the entire audiophile scene, if an audiophile version of an album is only a marginal improvement over a run-of-the-mill issue? I think it would be wise for them to concentrate on such albums where there is plenty of room for sonic improvement and put less emphasis on those "showcase" albums like Avalon.
How do you know it will only be a marginal improvement? We haven't had an audiophile reissue of Avalon yet. Loads of people commenting on whether we 'need' it. We don't 'need' anything. We don't 'need' a one step Edition of Santana Abraxas, but for those with a good analog front end, these reissues are getting you ever closer to the master tape...which is the main objective. Its not easy for everyone to find a mint copy of Avalon and US Ludwig copies are particularly thin on the ground. I cant see many on discogs in a great condition.
I was speaking generally only, based on comments and observations I have read over the course of years. It seems to be one of the most common complaints about audiophile issues - that they're only marginally better than the more common (and much cheaper) versions; sometimes they're not even that. As for Avalon, most versions of it that I have heard, sound superb to me in my run-of-the-mill systems (I have the original CD, The Complete Studio Recordings set and the Japanese SHM-SACD). While I don't deny that it is probably possible to improve on the sound of the album, I must say that I find it hard to believe that the differences would be very significant. If there ever will be a true audiophile edition of Avalon, I'd surely be interested to hear it - and to see whether I can actually hear the improvement. Should it turn out to be more than just marginal, I would be happy to find myself having been wrong (once again).
Judging from my experiences from 2010 onward the supply of excellent to mint audio graded vinyl has pretty much dried up. Also prices have risen on anything vinyl because of all the hype. Before that it wasn't much problem getting near mint copies for all but the rarest records for a few pounds. In that context any new reissues of even common titles are welcome and especially audiophile standard pressings that improve on originals. Contrary to 'folk law' on new vinyl here, modern pressings are overall quieter than 'mint' old ones if you factor out faults such as scratches and non-fill.
Steven Wilson has confirmed remixing the first Roxy Music album in 5.1 for a future Deluxe Edition. Perhaps Roxy Music's catalogue will be treated to similar sets to the ones released by Yes, Jethro Tull and Emerson, lake & Palmer. This could mean that Avalon would be getting a new release.
I believe there is a problem with the session tapes making a remix problematic. I believe previous surround mixes were from DAT.
Just consulted with the liner notes on the SACD (yes, it's audiophile). It was remastered by Bob Ludwig. Rhett Davies was producer and Bob Clearmountain mixed it. Those two were involved with the original recording, and most qualified for the job. It's understood that 5.1 mixing has made substantial leaps since that time, but contrary to popular opinion on this board, Steven Wilson doesn't completely walk on water.
The 5.1 mix of Avalon on the 2003 SACD is not from DAT (which is a stereo format) but from a DASH multichannel copy of the analog multitrack master. Apparently, it was falling apart and had to be baked so it could be played again. It was coppied to 16 bit DASH but I recall the sampling rate of the digital copy was higher than 44.1 or 48 Khz.
