The Allman Brothers Band: The 1971 Fillmore East Recordings (4-LP box set)

Until just a few years, I would have considered "unthinkable" to have more than one copy of the same album in my collection. But the more I read and the more I get into this hobby, the more interesting I find this thing of comparing versions (my credit card doesn't find it that interesting, though). This is currently the album I have the most copies of.

 

The limiting applied? Do people just make this stuff up?

Besides different EQ, which can make things sound more or less lively, the 3 sets of mixes differ in how the audience tracks are mixed.

 

Ditto

Agree drums are low. Vocals are as well and the live feel is totally gone. I have the 2004 SACD the two channel CD audio blows the 2014 4 LP set away.

and boring!!!

Wish I would have seen this thread before purchasing. I just pre ordered the new RM coming out on July 22nd I hope that's not another disappointment. I don't know why I keep trying vinyl versions as the 04 SACD is awesome.

Don't walk away from this release.....RUN!!!

 

I just recently got the box set pressed at Quality Record Pressings in Salina, Kansas. It is 200 Gram vinyl. I purchased it directly from them via their Acoustic Sounds web site. It 4 LP. Each album is perfectly centered with excellent label application. The set is perfectly flat and dead quiet. The packaging is flawless. Best I have seen since the Mosaic days of jazz reissues. The tactile and visual quality of the set is on par with anything from Analogue productions (part of the Salina group that pressed this record) and Music Matters in California.

As for a sonic evaluation, it has taken some time to go through and compare, but I have compared several tracks with various 1970's Capricorn versions that I have owned and maintained for years: pink Caps, the early tan Caps without the goat and the slightly later tan Caps with the left sided goat head. And lastly the Polydor version. My pink Caps were pressed at RI and mastered jointly by AT / GP.

All of the Caps sound great but I like the pink Caps the best, but the tans a re very good. All the Caps have a nice sense of air and are mixed the way I am used to hearing these tunes over the years. There are subtle differences between the various Caps but they each have a "similarity" in their sound that is present in all of them . Even the Polydor has that same "similarty..." to a degree. So all of these originals sound pretty good, have a degree of similarity and yet have some subtle differences from one another.

So the new version has a slightly different title; "The 1971 Fillmore East Recordings". There appears to be at least one other confusingly similar BUT DIFFERENT version on the internets that is Marketed as 180 gram and rumors suggest that that version (or yet another version) with the same title was pressed in the Czech Republic. So to be clear, I am evaluating the Kevin Reeves mastered 200 gram version pressed at Quality RP in Salina, Kansas.

I like this new version. And with every replay it seems to sound better and better! No joke, it is almost as though it needed a break in period....like a new speaker or a new vacuum tube!! It sounds slightly different than the Caps and the Polydor. If that sonic deviation alone will bother you then you may not like the new one. It as a lot of clarity. Especially the high end, that is where there is some sonic nuance that will alert you to "things sound a bit different here". the first time I listened I wasn't sure about it, then as I replayed the new version multiple times "either the vinyl matured or my ears settled in" and I started to miss the high end nuance when I listened to the older versions. Some might listen to a few tracks and dismiss the new version as brighter, perhaps hearing the drums a bit farther back in the mix and the highs enhanced. These were certainly my first thoughts. But then I just played it over and over for a few weeks before coming back and comparing it again closely with the older pressings. Now I can say I appreciate what it offers and it sounds very good. I really like it! It still sounds different than the old pressings, but it sounds very good. In my mind that makes it worth the price of admission. It is a bit of a new perspective on what happened that weekend in March in 1971. It is not simply more of the same sound. It is like getting a new good camera lens on the event with very good glass. In the end, I am most pleased by having multiple versions, though I could be satisfied with any one of them; including the new version. It is a refreshing sonic take on an old story. And it REALLY does sound like you are right there.

YMMV

 

I just looked at the album information at Acoustic Sounds and it's not just remastered but also remixed. I'm leery right from the start. I only have two remixed albums but the one I listened to is so bad I couldn't even finish the first song. Besides I'm really happy with my Classic Records pressing. It has real snap!

 

I understand the concern. I had that concern as well. And it does make the album a bit different. So you are so right about weighing that caution for readers. I too was unwilling breach the boundary of the Fillmore that I knew. But then, I kind of made myself listen to it and keep "comparing" it to what I knew.What I learned is that it evolved to be interesting to hear the show from another perspective. Refreshing I guess. And I really like that now. I was quite resistant! It has taken me a few weeks just to gather my thoughts about it. It ain't for everybody!

In the end, I think the "mixing changes" that I hear the most are with regard to including the "out takes and edited segments". But is does "sound a bit different" overall. So not everyone will hear it the same or like it. Generally my sense is that the "general sonic spirit" of the recording has not changed very much. In a good and interesting way. It sounds more real and like you are there I guess. But that is just my ear. Like so many I have listened to these recordings for decades and we will not all agree. I just like to share my view, like Kevin Reeves has shared his sonic view, of that weekend in 1971. It is really nice to have another sonic view. It adds something. And I would guess that you will never experience "pressing quality" like this from GZ!

 

It's different.

I generally prefer the original mixes, but anyone who thinks the most recent mixes have ruined their childhood is greatly overreacting.

 

Great post, very detailed in all the right ways! Just one other request, could you post the deadwax info in the runout grooves please!

JG

 

The red upper A denotes the side: ABCDEFGH succession spanning 4 LPs respectively. Where it reads "Reeves" in cursive I am assuming it is Reeves as I cannot read it clearly even with a magnifying glass.

The matrix data for the first side:

B0020496-01 LP01-A G-1 (handwritten font) Reeves (in cursive font) MASTERED BY CAPITOL (in upper case on front side only of the first two LPs only, and completely absent from the last two LPs)

 

I should add that for clarity, the Reeves reference above appears to have six letters and clearly starts with a capital R.

 

Great, thanks for that!

JG

 

And here it is:

 

Absolutely no doubt as to which sounds the best! Thanks for that!

JG

 

MFSL?

 

Not for me!

JG

 

There's certainly more distortion on the Capricorn.

As for overall sound, it's hard to make a proper comparison, since the Capricorn is significantly louder in the video.

 

Well, there is no doubt which is the worst. There's a lot of top end energy on the Capricorn. Funny, my tan Capricorn of Eat A Peach sounds quite rolled off on top, but the rest is quite dynamic. There is a lot of depth and dynamics to Mountain Jam.

Of course, I'm listening on a computer to files that may not show off each recording the best, but...

The 4LP set just sounds dead. The MoFi is more dynamic and clean, maybe too clean. But the pink CAP sounds more alive, more exciting.

 

I disagree about "worst". The 4 LP set is just a new, different mix. A different sound.

As far as the Capricorn goes, it's hard to make a good judgment due to the volume difference, but in the past I've felt copies have been too midrange heavy for my tastes.

 

I'm glad the video generated some reactions. I want to make some comments about what has been said so far:

1. I've been suggested many times to match output levels for the comparison videos in my channel. I don't do it just because I think that volume differences are part of the things to consider when evaluating the sound quality of a record. Sadly, lots of people think that louder equals better and that's not necessarily true. The only time I normalized two different recordings to the same level was on this video, just to show the effects of overcompression on an audio file that has exactly the same peak level of a moderately compressed one (both recordings on that video peak exactly to -0.3 dB). Anyway, I think that, if volume differences make difficult to evaluate the sound quality of a recording, the volume control is your friend.

2. Many people think that the audio quality of a YouTube video is altered during the upload process. That only happens when the video's audio format doesn't comply with YouTube's preferred formats. But as long as it does, the platform will not tinker with the audio (or at least not in an audible way). I still have the original, uncompressed .wav file I used for the video, and I can tell for sure that there's no audible difference between that file and the audio being played through YouTube. Maybe a more revealing system will show otherwise? I'll gladly send the uncompressed audio file to anyone interested in comparing it with YouTube's audio streaming..

3. I completely agree about any of these mixes not being better or worse than the other. They are just different. While I wish the soloists were a bit more upfront on the Mercury release, to me it has the most powerful bass drums of the three. What I like the most from the MFSL is the fact that it's the middle point between the comparatively mid-scooped sound of the Mercury and the midrange-heavy sound of the Capricorn. But I also think that the MFSL is the weakest-sounding of the three (not really weak. Just in comparison, and I'm not talking about output level).

Thank you for watching the video. I enjoy all the editing work involved and I'm happy that some people find these modest efforts useful.

 

The problem is differences in volume make comparisons invalid, especially when the clips are one after the other as they are in the video:

"The Fletcher-Munson curves illustrate an audio engineering example of why, to the human ear, louder sounds better. The higher the signal amplitude, the more frequencies are present, making the signal richer and fuller. You can also read this article, which discusses it from an audio production and musician’s point of view.

A practical result of this is that when a person tries to compare two sounds, the louder one will often subjectively sound better regardless of their relative signal quality. Any time you want to compare sounds by ear objectively, you have to make sure they’re the same level."

Louder Sounds Better »

You can play the same source back to back at slightly different volumes, and usually the louder one will seem to sound better, even though the source is identical.

Yes, the volume control is your friend, but again, when clips are sequenced right in a row like that, there's no opportunity to adjust the volume of each.

 

Thanks

I have it along with the classic records Fillmore East. The 4LP set is a lovely set great for the whole set experience one late with whiskey. It’s not the greatest sounding but I like having both to compare mixes. If you are not already aware here is another classic ABB live set at a bargain, if your in UK anyway.

Live At Ludlow Garage 1970 Limited Vinyl 3LP Set - The Allman Brothers Band

 

Ampex deemed it worthy of 7 1/2ips, too

 

Rare 1973 quad remix: