What's new

The Who Live At Leeds MFSL CD vs. Remastered 2 cd (1 Viewer)

Dan B

Screenwriter
Joined
Sep 17, 1999
Messages
1,389
What? Chinese Eyes was remixed? Why? Does the original sound better? Are there any bonus tracks on the new version that are any good?
I should have said remastered, not remixed.

It was remastered a while ago on the Atlantic label. The earlier ones are on the label Atco, & sound a bit better. There are no extra songs. The only difference I see in the packaging is that the Atlantic CD remaster contains the lyrics.


-Dan
 
Joined
Jul 22, 2002
Messages
30
Real Name
Luke Pacholski
Let me just jump in here...
If any of you know me, you'll know I pretty much can't stand any of the official releases of Live At Leeds:
original - only a fraction of the show, plus several edits in the songs that did make it
1995 remix - more of the show, but things are still edited, plus there's new (1995) vocal overdubs on Heaven & Hell and A Quick One. Plus I don't care for the way it was mixed.
Deluxe Edition - all the songs that were played, but STILL several edits. In addition, there are MORE vocal overdubs (2001), plus the sound quality is TERRIBLE - very poor noise reduction.
The only issue I can really sit through from start to finish is the Live At Leeds Complete bootleg. The *entire* show, *unedited*, with NO overdubs. The sound isn't *quite* up to the level of some other issues (more hiss, for instance), but it's still REALLY great.
Here are my notes on the subject:
http://lukpac.org/lal.htm
I still haven't bothered to add comments about the Deluxe Edition, but you get the idea...
 

Ryan Spaight

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jun 30, 1997
Messages
676
Good to see you here, Luke!

Re: Chinese Eyes -- my Atco CD and Atlantic remastered CD have *exactly* the same packaging and booklet, with the exception of the spines (different font) and the addition of the line "Remastered by Ted Jensen at Sterling Sound" to the back cover and booklet credits. Lyrics, etc. are the same in both.

I think the original sounds a bit better. The new one is louder, but sounds compressed.

Ryan
 

Kevin C Brown

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2000
Messages
5,723
Luke- Wow! Maybe the louder drums in the '95 remaster is why Pete's guitar sounds lower to me.
I'd be really interested when/if you ever do a track by track comparison with the 2 disc remaster.
So, I have to ask! :) For the 2.8% speed difference on the boot, do you just live with it? Or have you ripped it, corrected it, and re-burned a new version? (You seem like a perfectionist, and this is something I would probably try as well even if just for kicks...)
Thanks...
 
Joined
Jul 22, 2002
Messages
30
Real Name
Luke Pacholski
I've done more than just that...:)
Let's see...my "personal copy" is speed corrected, balance corrected (where necessary) has various glitches fixed/removed, has some missing dialog inserted from the official releases, etc...
I couldn't tell you the last time I listened to my original copy of the bootleg "straight through" simply for pleasure.
 

Kevin C Brown

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2000
Messages
5,723
OK, I was curious, so I tried...
I got another copy of the '95 reissue and compared it to the deluxe version.
I focussed on 2 tracks, Heaven and Hell (just because it was 1st), and Young Man Blues (one of my fave live tracks ever).
I tried the comparison 2 ways: swapping CDs back and forth in the same player, and playing both at the same time and switching the source back and forth (DVD player, and CD-RW; using the DACs in my pre/pro).
I couldn't hear a dang difference! :) Neither sounded better, and neither sounded that much different than the other. The only thing I thought I could detect, was that the deluxe version sounded a little bit louder. But that didn't make it sound any better or worse.
The next step could be to rip those 2 tracks (EAC, of course), redo the sound level, then I'd have at least 2 identical sound level tracks to compare.
I used good quality Sennheiser headphones, and spent about 30 minutes trying. Had the volume cranked up pretty loud to hear as much detail as I could, but not too loud to lose resolution.
I was surprised that I couldn't hear any difference. I did the more crude swapping discs method, for example, for Judas Priest's Sad Wings of Destiny. "Old" version, and remastered version. It was very easy to hear a difference in that case. The remaster sounded more open and better balanced dynamically (the old was bass heavy and treble lite).
So maybe the differences are there, and they aren't that big? Or maybe these weren't the best 2 tracks to compare.
I listened for level differences between the guitar, bass, and drums. I really listened for the sound quality of the snare drum and the cymbals. I thought I could detect some reverb differences on the vocals and guitar, but I might have been fooling myself. (By that time, I was *trying* to hear a difference.) Very subtle in any case.
Anyway...
 

Brian L

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 8, 1998
Messages
3,302
Good Post, Kevin.

I have been following this with interest, and have not really heard anyone say exactly what was "wrong" with the new version, other then repeated reference to the use of noise reduction, and that fact that everyone "knows" its crap.

Given the age of the recordings, I don't really think that proper use of noise reduction should be dismissed out of hand.

I have never owned a copy of Leeds until the deluxe edition came out, so I admittedly have nothing to compare it to other then other live recordings from that era.

When I got it, I popped it in for a casual listen, and thought it sounded pretty good. It won't give anyone over at Telarc anything to worry about, but for what it was, it was OK. The guitar/bass/drum balance sounded fine.

After this thread started, I popped it back in for a more critical re-listen, and still did not think it sounded bad, save for the sound of some of the cymbals, which had a sort of wosshy (sorry, thats the best I can do!) quality. It sounded sort of like an analog cassette deck when the Dolby circuits are not working right. Then again, I have heard that on lots of rock recordings of that era; live and in the studio.

I have a suspicion that getting a good recorded sound out of a maniacal drummer like Moon would not be easy, particularly with the gear of the day! That said, the sound wasn't anything I would call fatally flawed.

And beside, I am not sure that this recording is or was ever famous for its recording quality......its the PERFORMANCE. How many live rock recordings of that era really sound good? Woodstock? Isle or Wight? The Stones at Altamont? Anything by Hendrix?

Face it, none of those are reference recordings. They exist and are coveted for the PERFORMANCE more than anything, IMHO.

Considering the mayhem that accompanied the Who on stage, coupled with the shear volume, and I think it is a miracle that the recording gear survived to capture ANYTHING from those performances.

IMHO, or course.

I would be great if someone with all relevant versions could do a spectral analysis of certain segments to see what the real differences are.

BL
 

Kevin C Brown

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2000
Messages
5,723
BL- Great post!
People say the deluxe version sucked, so I wanted to test that theory. I couldn't hear any appreciable differences.
BTW, I also did hear the swooshing of the cymbals all the way through. But no noticeable diff to me between the 2 versions.
Bias: the funny part was that I didn't even care which one ended up to be better. So at least as much as possible, I was listening with an open mind. I just would have created a CDR from the '95 remaster *without* Amazing Journey/Sparks, and paired that with the Tommy disc from the deluxe version. (I'll probably still do that anyway. Technology, gotta love it!)
... With EAC, the best DAE software out there ... Free plug! :)
Of course, the best version might still be Live at Leeds Complete. Hard to compete with an unprocessed soundboard recording...
 

Brennan Hill

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Dec 10, 1998
Messages
187
i can't get enough of the deluxe version, I've been playing it non-stop. My wife said he'd leave me if I didn't stop playing it. I'm going to miss her. :)
 

Paul Case

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jan 5, 2002
Messages
532
I think most of the sound quality issues with the Deluxe version are on the Tommy disc. From what I understand, the first disc of the Deluxe set is pretty much exactly the same as the '95 remix/remaster. They just used the exact same master, so comparing the sound quality of the first disc of the Deluxe edition with the single disc '95 release is pointless since they are from the same source. From what I understand, all of the sound quality complaints come from the Tommy portion of the Deluxe set, which was previously unreleased. The complaints are that the sound is much worse and mastered poorly on that part of the set. There have also been complaints about all the modern overdubs that were made on the Leeds recording specifically for the Deluxe Edition release. Personally, I wouldn't know what the quality of the set is like as I never bought the disc due to the recommendations of people I trust. Besides, I have the Complete Live At Leeds recording. ;)
Anyway, that's just the info I've heard on the Deluxe set. Hope this helps some folks...
 

Kevin C Brown

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2000
Messages
5,723
I don't think the non-Tommy parts of the '95 remaster and the deluxe set are the same. That's why a lot of people say they prefer the '95 version (there was no Tommy part to compare :) ).
I *did* hear subtle differences in reverb on Pete's guitar and Roger's vocals in spots. I just didn't think that they were meaningful enough to say that one was any better than the other.
 

Paul Case

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jan 5, 2002
Messages
532
I don't think the non-Tommy parts of the '95 remaster and the deluxe set are the same. That's why a lot of people say they prefer the '95 version
Hmmm, everything I've heard, from very knowledgable people, seems to indicate exactly the opposite, i.e. the portions that were present on the '95 release are exactly the same on the deluxe edition. I heard they just left those alone since they had already been remixed/remastered with Pete's approval. Since the unreleased portions had not been touched at all, they went back and redid those and did a piss-poor job on it. Again, that's just what I've heard. I don't own the deluxe edition and never will, so I can't speak from experience. :)
 

KrisM

Second Unit
Joined
Apr 4, 2001
Messages
420
This is a bit off topic, but after my remastered Who's Next was stolen out of my truck, I bought the Canadian version on the advise of this forum. Are there any other Cdn Who releases that are worth picking up or was Who's Next the only one.

Regards
KrisM

NP-Paul Reddick and The Sidemen-Rattlebag
 
Joined
Jul 22, 2002
Messages
30
Real Name
Luke Pacholski
Who's Missing is great as well. Meaty Beaty Big & Bouncy has some low points, but some great high points as well.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum statistics

Threads
356,814
Messages
5,123,721
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top