Is anybody here able to compare originals with the new one in the very recently released Five Years boxset ? Reports in the dedicated boxset thread are beginning to report very positively on this LP in particular.
I don't have an original pressing for comparison, but this is an excellent sounding LP in the box set.
I have the cartoon with counterfeit matrix, but there are no missing text on All The Madmen, as i've seen mentioned it should be. (?)
I also own a near minter, however as a near minter I'm not sure i would have ever wanted Bowie to have signed it. even though that must increase its value, mad i know but in a way it defaces it to me...couldn't u have got him to sign a kick cover lol ??
Possibly the excellent sounding US Mercury edition is (still) the cheapest original first press (of DB's pre-fame days) available - I always consider it a true bargain. In addition to the stamped matrix the rear cover is also an indicator of whether it's a legit copy or not - legit copies have the "oh by jingo" cartoon very close to the lyrics directly above - counterfeits further away. As tapes sound different on different machines / tape heads, the sequence of releases is a factor to consider - and also, did the country receive the master tape to prepare their release, or a copy of the master? How careful are the LP mastering engineers? A true minefield. Sequence for The Man Who Sold the World: Recorded in London Tape sent to Mercury US ( holder of the contract) - used for pressing US release ( on different machine from original 2track stereo master) Either master tape copied, or sent to Japan for Japanese release (LP mastered on different machine...) Then Either master tape copied, or sent to Germany for German release (LP mastered on different machine...) and Either master tape copied, or sent to UK for UK release (LP mastered on different machine....) Master tapes sold to and returned to Gem/MainMan (DB management) Master tape leased to RCA New York (holder of the contract) US RCA release prepared from master tape (LP mastered on different machine from 2 track stereo master and Mercury editions). US LPs sent to UK for UK release ( as evidenced by contemporaneous ads in the UK) Either master tape copied, or sent to UK for local UK pressed release (LP mastered on different machine.....) And so forth for editions around the world. Note that some editions use the US RCA plates for pressings, so in theory identical to US RCA in sound ( though local vinyl compound may change that slightly) From the above sequence there are two editions that would definitely use the stereo master tape - the US Mercury and the US RCA. All others may or may not. (Perhaps someone working for Mercury and RCA at the time might shed some light on this). The other really important factor when assessing SQ - stylus shape and correct turntable/tonearm setup. Assuming correct set up - the more advanced stylii shape add "air" to the sound, (or more correctly, the less advanced remove the "air" in the recordings). Spherical /conical or simple elliptical stylii do not give an accurate reproduction of what's in the grooves as they can't track the grooves accurately.
I got the US 2nd orange Dynaflex after s few recommendations hereabouts and it sounds excellent, very rounded and full, which I like.
I'm listening to the original white label US promo on Mercury as I type and this is one hell of a dynamite sounding disc, bass and all I also have a mint original UK Mercury copy that I had personally signed by David on May 6, 1972 before the Kingston Polytechnic gig
Are you able to write your thoughts regarding these two LPs - specifically comparing the sound quality? It would be much appreciated.
I found an Australian Mercury original pressing just after my infatuation was born in '72. It was bloody awful. The balance was really skewed to one side and I don't recall the bass being as "bloated" as it was on the post namefame RCA lp released in Australia in '72.
I completely agree with you. My copy is the US RCA orange Dynaflex. The bass is so boomy and the rest of the instruments so muddled, that I find it unlistenable. Content wise, I think it is one of his best albums. I'm so fond of the record, I'm going to try another version. But, I think it screams for a REMIX; one that would better align all the elements of this fantastic music into a cohesive blend.
I have the new boxset version and an old RCA one - I will also take a listen to compare. I remember the newer box set version was v v good
I have an OG Mercury US LP now and it's a little better than the RCA pressings I have heard, but it's still bass crazy. Everything else is a little more balanced, though -- I think it's one of Bowie's best albums.
Over at Analog Planet Michael Fremer has a 45 second sample of five LP issues for comparison, he uses very high quality equipment. It's been around for a couple of years, the files are still working. Allow some time for each to download (they're not compressed). Compared are : US Mercury, early 70's UK RCA, late 70's Japanese RCA, RYKO and Parlophone. The RYKO is very different to the others due to the RYKO EQ, of the others personally I found the low reach and definition of bass on the US Mercury quite noticeable. You Tell Me Which "The Man Who Sold The World" You Prefer ! Which is which? : "The Man Who Sold The World" File Identities Revealed!
I have the Japanese re-issue and I'm very happy with it. It's also perfect condition. I then have an early UK RCA reissue which is very good, too. Listening to the samples, aside from the Ryko which is brighter, it feels a bit like splitting hairs. But the Mercury feels strangely a bit bloated or boosted, on the low-end of the acoustic guitar and especially when the bass comes in. But overall, the samples make me realise that the Parlophone is a very good buy. Thanks for the links. It makes me feel great with what I have.
I found a US RCA tan label from the late 70's awhile back and I was pretty happy to finally have a nice AAA copy. It sounded comparable to the reissues I've heard but with some mojo. Last week I found an orange label RCA that has the original deadwax (different master than the tan label) and it sounds better to me; more transparent and clear. The upgrade cost half of what I paid for my first copy. I guess I marked out on the first one. These are the only two copies I've ever seen for sale in person.
The gold metallic ink pen Bowie pulled out of his own bag to sign with was a stunningly perfect look on that textured cover. I know, you take a low value item get it signed and presto it's a big ticket one. But you get a nicer autograph when you present a knock-out item for the artist to sign. He said he was impressed with condition of my copy.
I've re-read it in light of your comment - speculation - and I don't read any at all. It does outline the options of how each territory received the materials to produce copies in their own countries and it does not say or speculate which of those options did occur. It's a fact that the album was first released in the USA on Mercury and that David was signed to Mercury USA. (Just like later he was signed to RCA USA, not RCA UK). The plates were created in with a tape recorder that was not the tape recorder that it was recorded on (at Trident) It's a fact that the only other country to release the album with the original Mercury artwork was Japan. Likewise it's a fact that the tapes had to be returned to UK office of Mercury for the UK album to be cut. The RCA sequence is also based on facts - DeFries leased the tapes to RCA NY, and they first cut the album for the RCA reissues. My post was primarily about locating the LPs that are cut using the master tape, and I've said that the only two that this can be assured of (rather than a possibility) is the US Mercury Lp and the US RCA LP. That's not speculation, it's based on what occurred. Appreciate your comment "It's an entertaining read"; I'd encourage you to re-read it in context of the history of the two recording contracts - with Mercury (so post Philips) and RCA.
Your first sentence states where the "fluff" is. And thanks for letting us know that the same record deck was not used to playback the mixed master (copy or original). I'm being sarcastic here, of course it wasn't - never is. "Likewise it's a fact that the tapes had to be returned to UK office of Mercury for the UK album to be cut." See who knows what tapes (master or copy) you say we're returned? Or if Fontana / Mercury had a tape prepped after the recording / mixing was completed and kept it on file for possible or imminent release. Holding off until the US branch felt the album had wings. Lots of zig-zagging around there. But yeah sure if all you are saying is it's possible then of course anything is. I have a question for you. Have you heard the first U.K. Mercury pressing against an original US one? I have not myself but would be interested in what differences are noticed.
Actually Trident studios cut the first copies of Hunky Dory and Ziggy - and whilst it may have not been (or may be it was) the same 2 track stereo mastering machine as those two albums were mastered on, it is far more likely that the in-house cutting machine is fully compatible with the 2 track stereo mastering machine.*** More likely than when these two are at two different locations, in different companies and serviced by different engineers. (Yes, some speculation there, but reasoned speculation). Some readers may not know, have forgotten, or not have experienced the changes a different tape machine can make to the sound of a tape, even when supposedly correctly aligned. By mentioning the different machines, some readers may see the correlation between (their own cassette or R to R) tapes and how the sound seems to be 'off' when played on other machines. The key thing here is that it wasn't the US branch - it was the US head office, and Lou Reizner signed David to Mercury (after the Philips initial signing). If you read Mike Weller's account (illustrator of the cartoon cover), you'll also note that US Mercury edited the music on the album, and it was the edited version we've all come to love. The logic then follows that as the UK edition has the same music as the US, then they received the manufacturing materials from the US. Not much zig-zagging at all - tape recorded goes to US Mercury, then later tape gets leased to US RCA. All others (Mercury and RCA) stem from these two sources. Of the five Mercury editions (US, Japan, Germany, UK, Australia) I have three, including the US and UK. To be fair to your question I haven't played them one after the other. I do recall that the US made me "Sit up and take note" compared to the RCA's (have originals of US, UK and about 12 more); it's too long ago that I played the UK Mercury - it was certainly better than the Australian, but that was to be expected as, in my experience, some high end went missing when Australian cut LPs were made (at the time). *** The Trident cut Hunky Dory makes this difference very noticeable - the piano "attack" is realistic, all other editions I have heard (circa 17 different editions) are muted in comparison. It's not frequency response that changes (the US cut Hunky Dory is not dulled), but something to do with playing back on a different machine. Remember also the point of my post in the first place - to assist people locate Lps of The Man Who Sold the World which have the best sound. To get the best possible sound means ideally using the best available source. All things being equal, a tape copy is not as good as the original tape. That, of course, doesn't necessarily mean that the LP cut with the master will be better than one cut with a copy tape, but it's probably a better starting point to start searching for. That means the starting point for this is the US Mercury Lp, and for the RCA issues, the US RCA Lp. Many Bowie threads about the different albums and their respective 'best mastering' have as the basis for their reasoning that the starting point is the UK Mercury or the UK RCA. This is, more often than not, not true.
