|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
73.199.208.49
Gosh sometimes it is hard to write a review that is so contrary to others I like and respect. So no insult intended to anyone who recently wrote about this one, this is my opinion.
Today my lady and I sat down to listen to the remastered (from analog tapes) reissue of Animals. The needle dropped side 1 - wow very realistic guitars, this is going well I thought. I love the way the EQ'd the bass, frankly I always thought it was a bit light in other versions.
A couple of minutes into the next song and I just had to tweek. Got up and raised the arm a few thousands of an inch, the highs were just too receeded for my taste. Did it make a difference? Yes, but this just wasn't right. Part of me wondered (oh no, did my Telefunken 6922's finally get too old?), but then logically bass is lost at least as fast as the high frequencies in a used out tube.
The bass is great on many levels. Towards the end of side one it got a bit tubby sounding. My lady's comments were "something's missing" it just doesn't (arms arch from center of ceiling to two opposing walls) fill the room. I suggested that the highs were a bit dull. Nothing sparkled. She imediately agreed.
Either my system was faulty of the balance was not right. There should be shimmer at times, delicacy at others. It was missing.
The next thing I did was to verify the system. Put on the last album we heard, Elliot Lawrence MoFi #55. This is a full frequency big band recording. We loved it yesterday. Did it sound good? yes, but not where it should be. I said "let me put the tonearm VTA back to where it was yesterday before I adjusted it for Animals". A quick reset and we sat down to listen again. POW - It filled the room!
Well friends I couldn't resist, thank God my Lady has patience. I pulled out my Japanese Pink vinyl copy of Animals, and my 1977 version as well. Each sounded different, an intersting exercise. Neither had bass detail, punch, or depth to match the latest reissue. OTOH neither felt like the high frequencies were missing like the lastet issue.
Logically I should lower the arm even more to see if perhaps this awakens the Animals reissue. If the other albums didn't sound so good at this VTA I would have done that before posting. Perhaps I'll try that later and let you know.
I'm sorry to say that the reissue just doesn't have the balance high to low to make it a good buy in my opinion. I wish it were different but it is what it is.
Reference system:
Clearaudio insider reference wood
Graham 2.2 arm
Oracle Delphi V tt
John
Follow Ups:
How does this reissue compare to the original English pressing?
just reinforce my opinion.
Nothing beats a regular, period press. Unfortortunately, Animals has become unobtanium, unless you're prepared to pay $$$ or settle for a few ticks/scratches.
I've been consistently disappointed with these classic rock reissues.
An exception is the Beatles mono releases.And that's because I've never had the opportunity to hear a real period release.
Yeah, I'm afraid we keep confirming this again and again. These reissues begin to look like remarketing as opposed to artistic statements or improvements.
I'm going to exclude many of the 45 rpm reissues like Crosby Still and Nash or Belafonte at Carnegie , which have replaced UQHRS as my best of the best.
I posted my thought on the Meddle reissue earlier.
Too much tinkering (or should I say remastering?), they don't sound like the original all analog versions. They don't sound bad but I think they lost a lot of the magic these titles had. Buy them only if you don't have or can't find the predigital albums IMO.
I bought WYWH and Ummagumma and felt that both were improvements on the originals, especially Ummagumma. I have earlier copies of both and frankly, until this vinyl reissue of Ummagumma, I haven't been able to listen to or enjoy that album since 1976, when I stopped smoking the herb. Now, I can enjoy it again, and for the first time!
I can't vouch for how they compare to any CD's reissued because I don't listen to CD's and never bought into replacing my vinyl with CD's.
Raya, loved your reference, I needed a smile. John
I just received a copy of this last night. Just one more dope slap to myself over albums I bought in high school and turfed because I went CD...
Oh well, spilt milk under the bridge.
The cover art is kind of ick but I understand that in some cases original art is no more and reproductions have to be made from scans. I was really appreciative of the album sleeve being properly reproduced with the lyrics, just as I remember it, BUT WTF? No low friction inner sleeve of any sort? Seriously?
I haven't even removed the lp yet but when I do it is going on the RCM and a decent sleeve will go back in before the lp does.
Sbrook I look forward to your review when you get a chance.
Don't know where the past month has slipped by but so it goes...Just gave it another listen to refresh my impressions.
Reviewing something like this is difficult. My musical focus has changed and evolved over the past 40 plus years. Most of my active listening is jazz and classical and as such my critique for the music that was so important to me as an angst ridden teenager is fraught with emotional associations of youth but filtered through a middle aged brain. I don't listen to Pink Floyd a ton anymore but that is partly because it, as is the case with so much of the soundtrack of my life, is always there, in my head, easily recalled to loop endlessly in the private listening room of my brain.
Having cheated myself of 25 years of vinyl playback, fooled by the assumption that redbook really was adequate, I am still astonished at the number of LP's I turfed with little thought to what I was actually doing (thank God I kept my turntable). So many albums who's physical presence on the shelf meant more than the music contained within. Place and time and people connected to the acquisition and the significance of those artifacts...but my Floyd albums? What the hell was I thinking?!?!?
But enough navel gazing...
The physical basics...the cover art is somewhat shitte but we know that going in. I was more disturbed that the lp itself was nestled in a straight up cardboard sleeve. That is unconscionable but easily corrected. The record is flat and relatively quiet. I put it through the Nitty Gritty before playing it. Side one has a few ticks but nothing earth shattering. Side two has too much surface noise to make me totally happy but not enough to bother returning it. A second cleaning helped.
The SQ...hard to compare to my long gone original. Even so, I listened through a different psycho-acoustic lens back then. My emotional imprinting was done through rather basic gear back in the day. Kenwood receiver from the low end of the early 70's product line, Garrard TT made of a lot of plastic, Jensen two way monitors, Koss Pro4/AA cans, and a lot of recreational chemistry (hey, it was the 70's). My brain was more easily impressed by the pyrotechnics of studio created multi-track soundscapes and textures that were not the result of musicians sitting in a room together, playing straight ahead music in real time. This is not an album I would hold to the standard of realism as say, a recording of a chamber orchestra or a jazz quartet.
Speaking strictly to the more technical aspect the sound, I have always found this album a little warm and woolly. Not in a bad way but not representative of what I think of as really accurately sounding rendering of the fundamental nature of instruments. The best example being the hit and decay of a cymbal. The high end of this album is a little soft but you cannot hear what isn't there. Nick Mason's cymbals just aren't all that prevalent in the mix so you have to strain to hear/feel the highest frequency delicacies of their hits and decays. Overall I found the mix and sonic texture true to my memories and sense of "rightness". I don't know that there are any vinyl releases of Animals that will sound significantly different in this regard.
From an emotional perspective, which in my view is more critical, this release resonates much more deeply for me than listening to the CD. I don't think this is strictly a question of redbook being inadequate to do this overall, I have plenty of CD's I enjoy and don't feel are depriving me of emotional engagement. Maybe there are better CD versions of Animals than the one I have but listening to it on LP is just much more satisfying. Perhaps any 70's era pressing would have done the trick but I wasn't inclined to start down the rabbit hole of obtaining multiple pressings and making those critical judgements. I read the threads here and on other fora about these things and it all feels a little self-defeating.
The entire area of reissues of classic 70's albums is fraught with pitfalls and sometimes you just don't feel like it was worth it. The problem of course is that I, like many, foolishly got rid of their originals and don't want to slog through the morass of eBay or Discogs looking for old pressings worth buying that don't cost an arm and a leg. Another pitfall is that I, like many, have a much better system than I did 30~40 years ago and despite perhaps degraded hearing, can now hear ever so much more clearly how poorly recorded some beloved albums actually were. Such first world problems.
Based on this release of Animals I am inclined to pick up Ummagumma, DSOTM, WYWH, but I temper my expectations. Maybe Meddle and Obscured By Clouds as well but to be sure there are other things ahead of them in my priorities. Animals is one of my favorite Pink Floyd albums but it is also my last favorite Pink Floyd album. I feel like this was the tip of the iceberg of Roger Waters headed into a lifetime of utter and depressing bleakness. As much as I like some of the music of The Wall, over the decades it has become really trying and after seeing him touring it a few years ago I feel like I never have to listen to it again. If I yearn for an extended foray into self-referential angst from a classic band of my youth I would much rather listen to Quadrophenia, which never gets old for me.
If you are feeling uninspired by recent re-issues I highly recommend you check out the Experience Hendrix releases and the Zappa releases. AAA and very well packaged. Flat quiet pressings with excellent dynamic range and albums that turn out to be much better recorded than you may ever remember. Axis was a jaw dropping revelation for me.
For the record (pun intended...) here is the playback chain:
AR/XA / Sumiko MMT (original cable) / Grado Sig8 with current MCZ stylus
Vista Audio Phono-1 mkII (loaded @ 10KOhm) , Blue Jeans Cable LC-1
Anthem Pre2l (nos Tungsram E88CC) , Kimber Hero
Cary SLM100 monobloc (EH KT88 / TS 6SN7 - all current New Sensor production), Kimber 4VS
Eminent-Tech LFT8B (full range)
B&W ASW1000 (running from preamp secondary out, LP @ 40Hz, gain just barely up from zero,a little more flesh to the bottom octaves)
Digital Source: Heart CD6000 (modded Marantz) nos Tungsram E88CC, AudioQuest Diamondback
Should have chance this evening (need the house empty to enjoy appropriate volume).If you are sour on reissues and are a jazz lover I highly recommend the Music Matters Jazz reissues of classic Blue Note. While some have quibbled over the originals being better I find these to generally be outstanding, both sonically and in the packaging. IMPEX jazz titles are also worth the effort as well as their previous incarnation as CISCO.
Edits: 12/25/16
I`m surprised you find the new one lacking highs. I find it consistent with all the other new PF releases that have been mastered by Bernie Grundman. The only 2016 PF I find somewhat disappointing is the North American Wish You Were Here, because rather than release the Grundman mastering used in Europe, they simply repressed the 2011. Now THAT one was missing the high end (although I find the 2016 repressing to be less dull than the 2011). In fact, I think if the copy I bought of Animals were any brighter, it would be too much so. It's just right to me.
YMMV and all that stuff. :)
Thanks for taking the time to do that. I am glad you did! Saved me some money.
Great review. Thank you. I wish more of us would take the time to do this. I've posted to this effect before, but to no avail.
I think what you might actually be complaining about is the overall mix, where the high hat, ride and overhead are low in the mix. There is not much you can do about that from the two track. You can eq the two track, which changes the timbre of other instruments. So, other than going to the multitracks and remixing this is a better version than the original pressing, IMO. my guess, is that if the Japanese pressing is much brighter it had some heavy handed eq done to it. If that is what you like then your set. Or you can buy this cleaning and better version and eq the highs to your satisfaction.This version is clearer sounding with better overall sound, IMO.
Edits: 12/20/16
That is, cleaner and better. Sorry but I'm on my phone.
Raya, good points. It's hard to get any deeper on this without sounding like I'm debating or acting like I think I'm right.
I think between the 3 of us, folks can get a good opinion of this one. I appreciate where you are coming from mate. John
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: