I have thought about that regarding inner groove distortion. Especially when it is common to leave a best song for last. Not always but it is common so that thought is probably the main reason. I don't always hear IGD but sometimes it is evident. Not sure how or why that could be. You'd think the physics of it would make it a constant. Just sayin"
And yes, Alan Parsons being an AE, is very particular and it shows. This new album of his "Time Machine" is really very good. Probably not new at all but new to me. I hadn't bought a new AP album in many years. Glad I picked this one up. New/sealed around $30, money well spent.
Great suggestions! Thanks. I rediscovered October Project for one.
As for my go-to albums, they're all vinyl -- here they are:
1. Sara K -- Waterfalls (check out the track All Your Love Turned to Passions -- outstanding)
2. Marc Cohn -- Marc Cohn (album title) -- Great piano, guitar, vocals.
3. Hugh Masekela -- Hope (by now, it's an old audio show demo but the range on the track "Stimela" by itself makes it a great listen. I like the AP's 4 LP Box set)
4. The AP 45 RPM re-issue of the Nat King Cole series is outstanding for quality voice and arrangements.
5. Yes, Cat Stevens -- Tea for the Tillerman is an all-time favorite. I have several copies but after reading all the posts, I'm going to do some research on which versions I actually own!
I would assume the reason for splitting the album up into two vinyl disks with only two or three songs per side would be to avoid using the inner grooves of the record. The sound deteriorates as the circumference becomes smaller. The linear distance in which the information is carved is much greater at the outer grooves than the inner grooves. So it becomes more difficult carve the same amount of information into a smaller linear distance. The higher frequencies begin to suffer as a result. I believe it is known as "inner groove distortion". Someone such as Allan Parsons, an audio engineer himself, would be aware of that. And my guess would be that he chose to avoid that issue by splitting it into two disks. Thus avoiding the inner grooves for fidelity reasons. That would be my guess.
Umbrella was a surprise to me. All thrift store finds. Really good recordings and pressings. Have one that I won't really listen to, not my kind of music but I had to admire that it was well recorded "crap".
Sheffields are really good, have a few.
Didn't know Original Source but have quite a few DG's. Always good.
Going to have to look for AP stuff. It keeps coming up and I can't think of any that I have.
I'll have to look to see if I have any Hyperion. Sounds familiar but not sure. Are they D2D or just very well done? Who are the pianists? I have quite a few old recordings of Van Cliburn and V Horowitz.
Not sure if I've ever had a CBS CX LP but it doesn't sound familiar. I do have a fair amount of LP's that just sit in the collection though so you never know.
When CD sounds better than LP, something went wrong. I have a few that way myself but it's very rare. One that comes to mind is Alice In Chains, Jar of Flies. It's on clear colored vinyl, double album and is completely washed out compared to the CD. I don't know why. It wasn't cheap either.
I will let you know as soon as I have it. Probably a couple weeks out.
I also have some 45rpm remasters. They sound really good but agree, it's a pain to have only 2 songs to a side or so. I have a few 33's that only have 2 or 3 when they have been made into double LP's. Easier to make maybe? Not sure. Just got an Alan Parsons one like that on clear green vinyl. It is really well done.
It would be nice if discogs were more fussy about mentioning DBX status. I once got an LP that had the CBS CX noise reduction on it. That was said to be playable without the decoder, though there would be some compression. It was acceptable, but I also had the CD of that album and it did sound better!
I am into classical, just getting back into vinyl, so the latest vinyl releases from Hyperion suit me, especially their new recording of Beethoven Triple Concerto and their recent vinyl release of the Shostakovich Piano Concertos. I have used the SACD of the latter for years, especially the slow movement of the 2nd, to judge how much 'air' a system could reproduce.
Please let me know if you can hear a big difference with the pink label. I would like to get the Analog Productions 45 rpm remaster. The 45 rpm albums that I own have remarkable frequency extension and a much wider image than their 33-1/3 counterparts. But it is a bit annoying having to turn the record over every 2 or 3 songs. However, I bet that the dynamics of TFTT would be amazing! The bass would be huge. TFTT is a perfect candidate for 45 rpm mastering. I can't think of a better candidate. But they are so expensive!
Cleeds is often correct, he'd probably say always. :) I am always amazed by the knowledge base here, yours included.
I thoroughly enjoyed your explanation. I remember 8 track days and how they littered nearly every highway as the decks would eat them while going down the road. I had one in my car almost as soon as they came out. They didn't sound bad but cars might not have been the best place for them and laying sideways lent itself to channel overlap or bleeding over, whatever you guys would call it. My dad had one in his home stereo. I moved to cassette before ever getting 8 track in a home system. Less trouble, sounded good and I also had one in a new Taurus in 89. I guess CD's were just getting started about then.
I don't think I ever had a piece of gear that would decode dbx and the TFTT is the only dbx record that i think I've ever owned. I believe I probably bought it as new/sealed around 20 years ago. It still has the cello on it and is in perfect condition. There is a store tag that says PS 1058. If I had paid attention, the label on the cello says that you need a dbx decoder to play this record. I find that hilarious, I just thought it was the worst recording ever. I do see that some people collect and love them and I saw the copies for sale used at $100 or so.
I also found something, a pink label Island copy (says first pressing) in the UK and it looks to be NM at least. It was about $150, shipped to the US. I had to have it. It will be interesting to hear it after all this info. I also see some remasters on clear vinyl with Island label. I may get one of those sometime. I guess you just can't have too many copies of TFTT. :)
@cleeds is correct. The album is dbx encoded. You must have a dbx decoder in order to listen to the album correctly. It works on the same principle as Dolby A, B, and C. Dolby A was created for professional studios. When cassettes overtook the old cartridge 8 tracks. Remember them?:) Dolby saw a marketing opportunity in the consumer market. And so they developed Dolby B and eventually Dolby C. Soon all cassette decks were being built with Dolby B and C encoding/decoding capabilities. dbx came out with their own version and went after the same market. You could purchase outboard dbx encoders/decoders. Some receivers would have dbx decoding built in. To listen to a dbx encoded recording without decoding it. You will get garbage. Like Dolby encoding. dbx increases the high frequencies in the recording. Since tape hiss is essentially white noise. It is most noticeable in the upper frequencies. When the recording is decoded. It decreases those frequencies in the same manner that it increased them. By doing so, it also decreases the tape hiss which resides in those frequencies. Causing the recording to be much more free of tape hiss and also the inherent noise caused by the electronics. Neither Dolby A, B, C or dbx is truly transparent. It is effective at reducing the noise. But it also affects the actual sound of the recording. So it comes at a cost. I was never a fan of analog noise reduction. Especially on the consumer level. Until, to Dolby's credit, they improved on the original Dolby A that was being used in professional studios. They introduced Dolby SR. The SR stands for Spectral Reduction. It was a dynamic form of noise reduction, that was capable of choosing what frequencies were enhanced and by how much on-the-fly. No one but Dolby knows exactly how it worked. It was a closely guarded secret. But it was truly remarkable. Instead of using it on the master mix down copy. You would use it on every channel of the multitrack recorder. I worked with a Studer 2" 24 track machine. At 15 ips (inches/sec) 24 tracks of tape hiss is a lot of hiss. If you ran at 30 ips it was even worse. I had 24 Dolby SR encoders in-line with the input of the tape machine and 24 Dolby SR decoders in-line with the output of the tape machine. The results were truly remarkable. At that time, I doubt that there was any recording studio of quality that didn't use it. It was a game changer. But it was relatively short lived. Because digital recording was beginning to raise its ugly head. Not just with the appearance of CDs on the consumer end. But in the studios as well. Sony introduced the first multitrack digital recorder around the same time. They were very expensive and very few studios could afford them. They recorded at 48K/16bit. I have already discussed what I think of a 16 bit word depth. But that is when you started to see albums that would say DIGITALLY RECORDED. It was used as a marketing tool. A big deal. Dolby was quick to realize that analog was going to be a thing of the past. And began putting all of their research into digital formats. Which was a very smart move. Because Dolby's AC3 format which they named Dolby Digital would be chosen by the FCC to be the standard audio format for digital TV. Within the years that followed, tape would give way to hard drives. And nonlinear editing. Such as ProTools. I was in charge of audio for a PBS facility. I did audio for video. I worked through the conversion to digital television. If you think that the audio world was impacted by digital. You should have seen what it was like in the video world. When the FCC announced that it was remapping the frequency spectrum and announced a deadline date when all television would be broadcast digitally. It impacted even the smallest TV stations. Rendering basically all of their equipment archaic and useless. It also impacted the consumer. Basically rendering their televisions archaic and useless. I worked through that transition. It was a nightmare. The technology wasn't even developed yet. And it would change from day to day. If a station invested in a piece of gear at the wrong time. There was a good chance that it would be rendered useless within a matter of months. Obviously, TV also includes audio. And so audio was impacted just as hard. It was my job to choose the correct equipment and when to buy it. The speed at which technology was changing the landscape increased to a point that it became impossible to keep up with it. From that point on it never relented. Up until the day that I retired. I knew that the day that I walked out of that facility that my knowledge of the landscape would be obsolete within months. It was a sad day for me when I was forced to wheel my Studer 24 track 2" analog tape machine equipped with 24 channels of Dolby SR out of the door to be taken to the garbage heap. I loved that machine. It was truly a thing of beauty.
Once again I apologize for the digital history tutorial.
I found your dbx copy on Discogs. But it doesn't have a date for the release. Do you happen to know when you purchased it? Without a decoder it is useless to you. Although I am sure that there are people that collect dbx encoded vinyl. So it might worth quite a bit. I didn't even know that they made dbx encoded vinyl. I thought that they had used the dbx encode/decode at some point in the chain before pressing it. And was just using it as a marketing ploy. Had I known that it was pressed encoded. I would have warned you. It wasn't until I found it on Discogs that I realized that it was actually encoded and that you would need a decoder. You might be able to find one on eBay for not much money. They are basically worthless. But who knows? Maybe they are coveted by collectors. If nothing else. It is a unique and probably rare album to have in your collection. I just checked on Discogs. There are only three NM copies for sale in the US. And one NM for sale in Bulgaria. They are selling for around $100 + shipping.
In the spirit of this discussion. Last night I was thinking that we haven't yet heard the 2008 remaster that Island Records did and was only distributed in the EU. I looked and I was able to purchase a NM copy of it for $40. And so I did. Just out of curiosity. It sure beats the $200 that I would have to spend for an Analog Productions remaster. So I have both an A&M first pressing and a 2008 Island remaster on their way to me. It will be interesting to hear both of them and compare.
Have fun with your new gear. I hope that you are happy with it.
After you brought this to my attention, I did a bit of reading on dbx albums. It seems that many enjoy them with the proper gear and it may be preferred over Dolby. I'm not likely to take that step.but never say never. When I had Dolby on a cassette deck, I never used it as it seemed to me to take away from what I started with. There was a time when I taped every album when it was new, put it away and listened to the tapes to preserve the LP's. Haven't done that in many years. I am much more careful with the records these days. Well cared for, they can last a lifetime. In the case of this record, I assumed it was just something that was done in the recording process, not thinking I would need "proper gear" to listen to it. They (dbx pressings) are few and far between so I guess it never became a "big thing" or at least not the norm. Thanks for setting me straight though.
I guess I had forgotten how dbx works. I do not have that capability. That would explain a lot. This is probably the only dbx piece of vinyl that I've ever owned. No plans to buy more either. I don't remember it with vinyl so much and associate it with tapes. Thanks though.
OK, so I gave the dbx copy a listen last night. It is undoubtedly one of the worst recordings that I have ever heard in my life. It may be the worst. For starters, there is a loud hiss that you can hear even over soft passages of music. It is present for the entire recording and stops to dead silence between tracks so you know it is recorded hiss. If it is tape hiss, it is the worst and loudest I have ever heard. I thought I had a tube going bad or something until it got past the first song and went dead quiet.
Furthermore, it sounds very thin and tinny as though it was recorded in a large trash can or something. Has an almost echo quality, that sounds terrible. His voice is nearly unrecognizable, instruments as well sound terrible. There is a level of detail that shows at times but it all sounds terribly unnatural. The only reason to own a copy of this that I can think of would be to illustrate to people just how badly it can go. It is a terrible injustice to Cat Stevens and I'm shocked that it ever made it to the stores. It is the only copy I've ever seen but I would certainly never look for another one either. It will stay in my collection but only as a pure novelty item. My wife heard it with me and agreed from the very beginning, that this was something truly awful You would have to hear this for yourself to believe it. My son showed up about halfway through it and he was shocked to hear that it was vinyl. He knows the album well, just not this copy. On the bright side, it is a perfect example, not a single tic or pop on all of side one. None of us had a desire to hear side two. Unbelievable.
So..........went to the Island copy immediately after. The strength and clarity of his voice was back. The bass was back, the clarity of the guitar was back. The drums sounded more real. I tried to pay particular attention to the drums and cymbols since our drummer friend @bdp24told us that they missed the mark. I have to admit cymbols were very faint if you heard them at all. Something I had never noticed before, simply not knowing what to look for. I still feel that this recording is better than the others, 1000% better than the dbx copy. I will check the other A&M copies next. As I said before, they used to be my reference point and I never found them to be lacking in anything. I'll post my findings. New gear, new details still being discovered.
I'll try to get to it tonight. Still evaluating new gear so lots of listening ahead.
I have no idea as to why things went the way they did. It would seem that Cat/Yusef was very much involved so no idea how things could have gone so haywire. I know damn little of the recording industry or how it works. You and others here know a great deal about it so I read on and enjoy all the chat. I'm happy to have stirred this up and have learned a great deal. Thanks to all.
I would be interested to know what you think of the dbx copy when you get around to listening to it.
dbx is another form of noise reduction different than Dolby A. If Dolby A had been used already. Why would you apply noise reduction again? There is something about this whole "Dolby A saga" that doesn't play out correctly in my mind. One other question in my mind. Why is Michael Fremer making the decision? He is just a reviewer! If they had a question about it. Why did they not contact Yusuf himself? Why didn't they send him examples and ask him which one was correct? I'm sure that he would have been glad to help, since it is his music. And he was present during the whole process. It would have been the only sensible thing to do before going forward. And why is there not more information out there about this enormous screwup, that supposedly affected every copy made for 35 years? There isn't any information out there, that I can find. Some huge pieces of this puzzle are missing. And I am not buying into it at this point.
If I had more than 2 copies, I would consider it. I only have the one on Island from the original stuff. I need to try the A&M dbx copy to see if it is different. I may have never played it, can't remember. I wish the 180g was playable. It might have been a good one. Need to see if it's possible to fix an off center drill hole. For whatever reason, TFTT is one record that I have more of than any other. It is one of my favorite albums, that's for sure. To say what is an absolute favorite, I could not do.
I have 4 or 5 copies of Tori Amos, Under the Pink. In the beginning, it seemed hard to track down a decent copy, even on pink vinyl and new/sealed. I have 3 or 4 of them and not one is perfect but one is the best, (quietest). It's a shame because it is such a good recording. Had a black vinyl copy but was a totally washed out version of the original. Gave it away.
I generally have multiple copies of anything that I am likely to play a lot, such as my reference LP's. Can never have too many. :)
I managed to snag a NM 1970 A&M first pressing of TFTT for a decent price last night. It is on its way. I hope that it actually is in NM condition. I will just have to live with that for the time being. At least I will know that it was pressed with relatively new plates. If you should find that you have multiple copies of pink rim label Island pressings and would be inclined to part with one. I would be happy to take it off of your hands for a reasonable price :)
From the link you provided, it looks like I have the second version of the second release 1972. It matches the wax A-3u and B-3u. Everything else matches as well, gatefold etc. It remains my best sounding copy, at least as I recall. I have no idea if my copy is "correct", "corrected" or ? It always sounded very good to me. Fooling around with some new gear so will have to give them all a listen to see what I think. There may be 1 or 2 that I've never even played.
What you have is a 1976 reissue. They switched to the blue rim orange palm tree label for that reissue.
That fits. I bought it in 77 or 78 at Cheapo Cheapo on Rupert Street, Soho. I don't rate as high for the content as TFTT, but the sound is still very good.
The RD might be someone who was etching it. Who knows? The dead wax matrix catalog is far from complete. There are many variations that have not been recorded. Many times you just have to combine all of the information along with the closest match to the matrix that you can find. The blue inner sleeve was a clue. That is why it is important for you to study the photos and compare them with your album. There can be subtle differences in the covers. Or the labels. Like the missing hyphen on one of the pressings. So click on the link that I sent. Read the information under Notes: Many times they will tell you about little things that you should look for. And click on photo in the upper left hand corner. It will bring up additional photos. Usually at least the front and back cover and both labels. And if it is a gatefold. It will show the inside. Sometimes the inner sleeve. Carefully compare looking for any discrepancies. I think that there is a good chance that the link that I sent is your pressing. But without having the album in my hands. I cannot be sure. The smallest difference could lead me to the right one. Missing printing where there should be printing. Anything. That is, if you even care to know the exact pressing. Otherwise we have it narrowed down to pressings done between 1971 &1972
And as far as the Island pressings sounding better than the A&M. You are far from alone in that opinion. I have read that many many times. There are numerous reasons that that could be the case. Depending on the facility that pressed it. Their equipment may not be maintained as well, or is old. Plus, those production metal pressing plates do have a life span. They do wear out. That is why first releases are sought after. You know that the plates were new. The more pressings the more toll it takes on the plates and the less likely that the pressing will sound as good. The US is a big market. A&M would have had multiple facilities pressing that album. For example, some will prefer a Monarch pressing to a Pittman pressing. All of those factors come into play.
However, it is still unclear to me if the solid Pink labels were pressed correctly and the others weren't. I am highly skeptical of that being the case. Simply because those original production plates were being shipped all over the world just as fast as they could produce them. However, I am not familiar with their work flow. They could have produced multiple production tapes from which to make the metal pressing plates. And maybe only some of those tapes were flawed while others weren't. And like I said. Some countries were using solid pink labels at the same time that other countries were using pink rim labels. I must do some research of the difference of a repress and a reissue. Does a reissue use new production plates? Whereas a repress is just another batch of pressings from the same plates? What is the standard for the maximum number of pressings before the plates should be replaced? Is there even a standard in place? Many questions still are unresolved in my mind. If I could get my hands on a solid pink label UK 1st pressing. Then I would be able to tell within the first song. However, I don't have the cash to take that gamble. And there are no NM solid pink label UK pressings for sale anyway. I still stand by what I said. It is a beautifully recorded album. I just want to make sure that I am hearing all of its beauty and not a technically flawed one, simply because someone forgot to flip a switch.
Yes, LH is right by Sterling. I thought I included that before but I guess I forgot. LH and RD look to be stamps. The RD is written sideways and is very faint, halfway out from the label edge. Everything else is written in the same direction as the grooves. Even the stuff that is sometimes hand etched, looks to be stamped as it is so perfect. It is much larger than all the rest and is the same number as the jacket and label with A-3u added. Hope this helps. And yes, the inner sleeve is blue paper with pink lettering.
I believe that you said that it came with a blue inner sleeve. I know how difficult it is to read dead wax. Is there a chance that RD could be LH? The Sterling LH should be stamped not etched. Or can you find LH somewhere? In either case I believe that there is a good chance that this is your pressing. Take a look at the photos carefully and compare them to yours. If you find discrepancies note them and I will look further. https://www.discogs.com/release/1141587-Cat-Stevens-Tea-For-The-Tillerman?redirected=true
I don't think that many people saw the early Steely Dan concerts since they quit touring very early in their career. I also saw the first tour after they released Two Against Nature in 2000. I saw them at "George at the Gorge" in Washington State. The outside venue sits right on the edge of the gorge that has been carved by the Colombia River. It is near the small town of George, Washington. Located in the south eastern part of Washington State. In the middle of nowhere. They released a live album of that tour. And the cover photo was taken from that show.
You definitely have a 1971 or 1972 reissue. Does it say anywhere who it was printed by? Possibly on the inner sleeve. But I am not sure. If it says who it was printed by that will narrow it down. Also does the ILPS9135 on the labels not the cover, have a hyphen ILPS-9135 or just a space ILPS 9135? That will narrow it down. Since it appears that only one issue did not have the hyphen on the labels. I would need the dead wax matrix info in order to pinpoint it.
I didn’t see Steely Dan in concert until they made a comeback with their last couple of albums. They sounded excellent because they had top players that could reproduce the album cuts. That’s supposedly what stopped them from touring in the 70s after they stop being a band and were 2 guys with session musicians. I love their music. Great songs with top musicians well recorded. That’s what it’s all about.
Steely Dan recordings always seemed to be top notch. I have read that they did not like to tour or perform live as they were not able to replicate what they did in the studio. I never saw them live either so can't say for myself how good they were or were not.
I don't know this label. I have two copies, both on Island but both of mine are the sunray pink rim label. Not sure of the significance. Maybe our experts will let us know.
The new Steely Dan LP reissues are excellent. They just came out with Katy Lied. Aja was so well produced back in the day too. Great test of vocals and instruments on your system.
Yes, my 180G says EU and 04 sounds about right. I know that I bought it a long time ago. One of the first things I ever bought from Music Direct. When I lived in IL, I could order one day and get it the next.
Yes, my regular Island copy is from the UK. It is a gatefold very glossy outer cover, very dull and rough inner paper. The record sleeve is blue paper with pink writing. Says island records ltd. basing street london w11. Has a patent number and says MADE IN GREAT BRITAIN. I don't find any dates other than the original date of 1970. It does say Freshwater in blue writing on the back cover. Also has the number ILPS9135. The record label is palm tree, Island, sunray and pink rim.
I found it! It is not a remaster. It is a 2004 reissue on 180g vinyl. It may have included an insert advertising other Universal albums. Some did and some didn't. It was released in the UK and Europe.
Is your regular Island copy of TFTT pressed in the UK? Is it a pink rim palm tree label? I assume that it is a gatefold. It will probably be printed in small font on the inside in one of the corners underneath the "I" logo which may be pink or white. If it isn't. It would be my guess that it is a UK pressing. There were many reissues with pink rim labels between 1971 - 1972 out of the UK.. A couple of them were not gatefold. If it was not pressed in the UK. It would be my guess that it would say which country somewhere.on the cover or labels.
I don't mind this at all. I'm enjoying it since I've been an avid listener of Cat Stevens for at least 55 years. My wife is also a big fan. He is/was a truly unique talent, being gifted a fantastic voice and multiple musical and artistic talents.
My 180G has the barcode 42284 23521. Below that is the number 842 352-1 and beside that is LC00407 and the Island insignia. To the left it states P 1970 Universal Island Records Ltd. C 1970 Universal Island Records Ltd.
If there may be more info inside the gatefold, I can take the cello off. I've just left it on to preserve it. The label on the record is another sunray pink rim Island label that says made in the EU. In the wax, appears to be A33 842 352-1 S1 320
I don't mind this at all. I'm enjoying it since I've been an avid listener of Cat Stevens for at least 55 years. My wife is also a big fan. He is/was a truly unique talent, being gifted a fantastic voice and multiple musical and artistic talents.
My 180G has the barcode 42284 23521. Below that is the number 842 352-1 and beside that is LC00407 and the Island insignia. To the left it states P 1970 Universal Island Records Ltd. C 1970 Universal Island Records Ltd.
If there may be more info inside the gatefold, I can take the cello off. I've just left it on to preserve it. The label on the record is another sunray pink rim Island label that says made in the EU. In the wax, appears to be A33 842 352-1 S1 320
Does your remaster have this Barcode number by any chance?
Barcode: 602517753129
If so, you have an Island 2008 "Back to Black" 180g remaster. Pressed in the UK. Discogs doesn't have photos of the labels nor any dead wax matrix info. It was only released in Europe. It should also contain a mp3 voucher.
My vote is to drag this out until we get the correct information. We seem to have inadvertantly hi-jacked the original intent of the thread. @billpete, you are the OP. It is your thread. If you don't mind. I would like to get to the bottom of this. Or we can start a new thread.
Here is another concern. Are we speaking of solid pink labels pressed in the UK? I ask because there were both pink label and sunray labels being pressed at the same time all over the world. For example: The Netherlands, Scandanavia, and Israel among others were pressing sunray labels. While, Germany, France and Argentina were pressing solid pink labels. All of them pressed in 1970. Those production plates had to be distributed throughout the world as fast as they could produce them. I think that it would be impossible to have a difference between the pink and sunray labels. Unless it is narrowed down to just UK pressings. The UK didn't distribute a repressing with the sunray label until 1971. If there is a difference between the two labels. I am inclined to believe that it didn't happen until the repressing was released in the UK in 1971. So in theory. You could have a 1970 Scandinavian sunray label that was pressed with plates made from the same production master as the UK pink labels. So I must ask both @billpete and @bdp24 where were your pressings made? And when were they pressed?
Your explanation makes a lot of sense for the recording process, which I now know at least something about, thanks to you and others here.
Still wondering about the TFTT recordings. I thought you said that the earliest Island recordings got it right. Yes?
Then again, corrections were made by Analog Productions. Is that also correct? Is one more correct than the other? Just curious. Thanks for taking the time to go through this extremely informative explanation. Good stuff.
No problem @billpete, you confusion is quite understandable. I’ll look through YouTube videos and see if I can find the ones wherein Chad Kassem, Bernie Grundman, Michael Fremer, and Kassem’s QRP (Quality Record Production) production manager sit around for a coupla hours discussing the whole Tea For The Tillerman debacle.
In the meantime, let me see if I can simplify and clarify things for you..Since the advent of Dolby "A" noise reduction (a more complex, full range version of the Dolby "B" and "C" used in cassette decks), it has been very widely used in recording studios. By the time of the taping of Tea For The Tillerman, there were few recordings made without it.
Here’s how Dolby A works. When a 2" 16 or 24 track master tape is mixed down to two channels (left and right, for stereo), the mix is almost always recorded onto a 1/4" or 1/2" master mix tape, the recorder running at either 15 inches per second or 30. During the recording of the master mix tape, the recording engineer, record producer, and sometimes the artist make choices regarding equalization, compression, relative track levels (volume), added reverb and/or echo, etc., etc., etc.
And here’s the important relevant point to be made: when that 2-trk master mix tape is made, the engineer and producer can decide to make it either with or without Dolby A noise reduction employed. Dolby A is a 4-band (four different frequency "groups", each with it’s own frequency response curve. I don’t know the specific frequency bands involved, but for the sake of argument let’s hypothetically imagine them to be 1,000-2,000Hz, 3,000-5,000Hz, 6,000-10,000Hz, and 10,000-20,000Hz. The numbers aren’t important in what we are trying to understand here.).
And here’s the crucial thing to understand: when that tape is made with Dolby A noise reduction employed, the Dolby circuit boosts each of the frequency bands, the boost having a frequency response curve, similar to the filters in a loudspeaker’s crossover. And during playback of the tape in the process of mastering, the Dolby A playback circuitry applies a complimentary but exactly opposite amount of frequency response reduction, returning the response of the 2-trk. tape to that of the 2" 16 or 24-trk. master tape. And since the noise inherent in all analogue tape recording is added to the signal created on the 2-trk. tape---the noise is organically mixed in with the sound contained in each of the 16 or 24 tracks---when the Dolby playback circuitry reduces the frequency response of the signal sent to the recording head, the noise inherent in the signal is reduced by the exact same amount, hence noise reduction is achieved.
When the original mastering engineer received the production master tape of Tea For The Tillerman, he apparently mistakenly assumed the tape had been made with Dolby A employed. It hadn’t. So he used the Dolby playback circuitry, which applied the frequency response reduction curves to the signal used to "cut" the lacquers needed to make an LP.. Since the tape had NOT had the Dolby frequency response boost added to in when it was made, when the Dolby A playback circuit applied the response "cuts" to the signal, the "flat" response of the multi-track master tape now resembled the response curves of the Dolby playback circuitry, not the sound on the tape itself. Oops.
The end result is that the LP was mastered with severe cuts in frequency response, cuts increasing in level as the frequencies increased (deeper cuts at 5,000Hz that at 2,000Hz, say). That’s why the original LP sounds dead, lifeless, missing a significant degree of it’s high frequency content, along with other attributes such as dynamic range. That includes the original pink label Island pressing.
Bernie Grundman made his discovery when mastering the album for Classic Records, whenever that was. When Chad Kassem bought Classic Records from Michael Hobsen, that purchase included the "metal works" for TFTT that Grundman had made for Classic."Metal "works" is the term for the metal disc that is made from the lacquer that a mastering engineer "cuts" (literally), required in the production of all LP’s.
I hope my explanation makes sense, but if not ask away!
Trying to make sure I am understanding what you say. I think you said that the very first Island (pink label) copies of TFTT got it right? Is that correct? My sunray may also be that same recording, according to the Hoffman site. Then Analog Productions did it right again? Or did they change it somehow? I don't mean to drag this on forever, just trying to be clear on what is being said.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
