Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: "Electric Ladyland" Releases (Read 7814 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

"Electric Ladyland" Releases

Hi all,

I want to get a copy of Electric Ladyland by Jimi Hendrix, but I'm trying to avoid the whole loudness thing.
I'm assuming it's unwise to touch anything post 2000. Prior to 2000 is there much variation?

Amazon UK's releases prior to 2000: 1999, 1993, 1993 (remastered), 1990.

C.
PC = TAK + LossyWAV  ::  Portable = Opus (130)

"Electric Ladyland" Releases

Reply #1 –
I'm quite happy with the "Hendrix family authorised editions" which are remastered ("for the first time from the original tapes") by Eddie Kramer & George Marino with supervision by Janie Hendrix. I just listened to the Ladyland record (it's from 1997) and there's some minor distortions but are those from the remastering or from the original tapes, hard to say.

The album RG: -9.55, highest track RG: -10.64, and lowest: -6.71.

EAN/UPC: 0 08811 16002 9, cat#: 111 600-2, made in: EU (Germany on the playing surface of the CD).

Hope this helps.. still I can't guarantee that you'll like it.

"Electric Ladyland" Releases

Reply #2 –
The Hendrix family releases, some of them in particular, were in part what made me aware of the loudness war a decade ago. Arguably Electric Ladyland isn't quite as badly affected as First Rays -- about the latter, I'd be asking myself how come I would tire of the music midway through even though I loved the content. (I've since solved the problem by downloading older CD releases' versions of the same tracks in lossless.)

Ladyland's album RG value of -9.55dB is veering towards the monstrous, you gotta admit...

To answer your question, the latest one that isn't volume-boosted is from 1993. Unfortunately it's the one with quite a garish cover. It's got some no-noise applied but not not excessively so. It's the version I listen to.

"Electric Ladyland" Releases

Reply #3 –
Thanks to both of you.

I agree they seem like high RG values for 1997. I did a little "testing" and at least the 1997 version has peaks (I found it listenable) - the post 2000 versions are smashed to crap - they are completely unlistenable. That said, I'll probably give the 1993 release a go.

Just out of interest Euphonic, what exactly do you mean by this: "It's got some no-noise applied"?
Do you mean they've noise reduced it? If anything I'd rather do that myself.

C.

EDIT: I'm not concerned at all by the cover - it's going to be ripped and then put away for good.
PC = TAK + LossyWAV  ::  Portable = Opus (130)

"Electric Ladyland" Releases

Reply #4 –
By no-noising I meant digital de-noising. Since it'd have required spectral profiling of blank sections of the tape, chances are they'd have been in a better position to do it well.

Quote from: carpman on
Thanks to both of you.
Just out of interest Euphonic, what exactly do you mean by this: "It's got some no-noise applied"?
Do you mean they've noise reduced it? If anything I'd rather do that myself.

"Electric Ladyland" Releases

Reply #5 –
I will buy only un-remastered CD's of period stuff. I don't see the need to "re-do" something that has already been done and destroy the period authenticity of it. It's like repainting a Monet in louder colors.

I have no real issue with loudness wars and lots of compression on contemporary stuff as that is the sound of the times.

EDIT: My friend's 1993 Remaster has a RG value of -5.93dB.

"Electric Ladyland" Releases

Reply #6 –
...and how would you get the content onto a CD without "remastering" it?

It's not like those old 12" stampers will fit onto a 120cm disc, even if the CD player could read the grooves.


If you mean you want the analogue tape which was used to cut the LP master fed into an ADC, with that signal being dumped onto CD - well, that's what they did in the early days, and the results were often horrible.

Going back to earlier generation tapes and digitising those gives better results - and that, by definition, is a re-master. Sometimes it's even a remix, if you go back to the multitracks - that gives the best quality, but a remix can go badly "wrong" compared with the original!


Remastered ~= more dynamic range compression. It often does today, but that's not what the word means!

Cheers,
David.

"Electric Ladyland" Releases

Reply #7 –
Yeah, I take your point.

At the end of the day, the quality of the music is far more important than the quality of the recording.

"Electric Ladyland" Releases

Reply #8 –
Unfortunately the Hendrix catalog is one where there really is no 'one' version that is best. The original ones pressed in Japan and West Germany are probably least offensive to the ears, but lack detail and are from like 3rd generation tapes instead of the master tapes like the recent Hendrix Family remasters. Unfortunately, those are compressed and no-noised. So it's a pick your poison type of deal on which sound you prefer.

"Electric Ladyland" Releases

Reply #9 –
Quote from: audioapprentice on
I will buy only un-remastered CD's of period stuff. I don't see the need to "re-do" something that has already been done and destroy the period authenticity of it. It's like repainting a Monet in louder colors.

I have no real issue with loudness wars and lots of compression on contemporary stuff as that is the sound of the times.


If what you refer to as period authenticity means putting up with drastically reduced audio fidelity, I have to disagree quite strongly. I would much rather put on newly-remixed early stereo records in cases where the original stereo was a single-pass hack job. As for the authenticity of modern pop records, assuming they are recorded well then volume-mutilated in mastering, only a pedant or masochist would prefer the louder, "proper" one over the quieter original. It's the artists and engineers that are supposed to suffer for their art, not the listener!

The analogy of remastering/remixing = repainting strikes me as grossly exaggerating the artistic role of the engineer. I look at mastering as more like setting up the positioning and lighting of a painting in a gallery. All the paintstrokes have already been captured on the multitracks.

I don't mean this personally, but when folks go on dogmatically about "no remixing" or even "no remastering" they sometimes strike me as having "no imagination" as to how good a record can potentially be made to sound.

"Electric Ladyland" Releases

Reply #10 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
If you mean you want the analogue tape which was used to cut the LP master fed into an ADC, with that signal being dumped onto CD - well, that's what they did in the early days, and the results were often horrible.


I'd be interested to know what made them sound horrible? Was it poor ADC? Or maybe the vinyl master was a bad thing to transfer to a CD?

If you could explain the deficiencies in the process they used in the early days that would be great.

Did some end up sounding worse than the vinyl LP?

"Electric Ladyland" Releases

Reply #11 –
Quote from: euphonic on
...As for the authenticity of modern pop records, assuming they are recorded well then volume-mutilated in mastering, only a pedant or masochist would prefer the louder, "proper" one over the quieter original. It's the artists and engineers that are supposed to suffer for their art, not the listener!


Not sure I agree on that. I mean modern pop music sounds loud because that is what the majority of consumers want. There's no two ways around it. Otherwise we have to assume that the marketers didn't do any research and that seems unlikely. Maybe I'm wrong, but IME markerters are generally pretty clued up on what their customers want. The consumer preference seems clear: "loud is good".

Quote from: euphonic on
...I don't mean this personally, but when folks go on dogmatically about "no remixing" or even "no remastering" they sometimes strike me as having "no imagination" as to how good a record can potentially be made to sound.


Not taken personally at all. In fact, I appreciate you taking time to point these things out and exposing some muddy thinking!