We have a US 1980 pressing Atlantic - SD 16018, lacquer cut at Masterdisk by Robert Ludwig and it is mind-blowing. To my ears it sounds even better than these 3 pressings you've kindly demonstrated for us. We did have the title track on our RUclips channel but it had to be removed unfortunatly :(
I’ve got this one too (my original plan was to compare the 8 different copies I had, but I shortened this one for simplicity sakes). It’s good, but like most US masterings of original AUS content, it’s very different. Different in some good ways, and some bad. Personally I still prefer the OG Aussie sound from the 80’s, but that’s just me. Thanks for watching and the comments! ✌🏽
@@joncandyfliprecords The US was cut by RL from the master tape. The Aussie Albert is from a copy tape. You can hear the extra clarity on the RL. I also like the punch of the Albert but it has that slight veil compared to the US RL.
I picked #2 because I found the sound more warm, pleasing to my ears. The second choice, #1, is a serious contender considering it was released in 2003. The third one, #3, sounded thin and too much treble imo (but nowhere near as the Japanese pressing of Nirvana's Nevermind). But I would point that due to a lousy mastering, whether it's digital sourced or not
Hi John, I picked #3 last week because of the clean sound and the clarity in the high end. I totally understand your comment that listening to a cut like this can become jarring very quickly....the digital causes it I think as opposed to analogue. I would love to listen to the Aussie OG ...but on a turntable..not via headphones on my mobile. I'm sure the results would be different hearing from a good system, good speakers and in the right room. Regardless...this was fun to listen and compare. I also liked how you kept us in suspense for a week before the reveal. Bravo ! Please keep your content coming.. it's fantastic !! All the best, Steve 🙏
Thanks, John, for providing this comparison opportunity. On headphones I preferred the 2003 remaster. It just seemed more laid back and fun in its sound. The other two did not appeal to me nearly as much.
I liked the 2003 one the best, especially on one of the samples where Brian's voice sounded much lower on the Original album #2 but other than that it was the same to me but a bit louder on the 2003. I don't like the last one, its too sharp.
Mine is a 1980 atlantic, and honestly know nothing about the different versions or remastered copies. I thought mine was an old copy because Im old and bought it when it came out. I never knew there were so many remastered copys out there.
Is it me or the original 1st pressing has the correct speed? I have the 2003 remaster which sound like it drags. I sped up the record with my pitch shift and it sounded similar to the original, but not as bright. I just compared my 1st pressing to my 2003 remaster and thats something I just picked up on.
I hadn't picked that up but it could well be so. Is that the common belief on these remasters - that the 2003 got the speed wrong? It could be a pressing error I suppose (spindle hole making the rotations in an elipse rather than a perfect circle)
the second record sounds phatter and more compressed. the third record sounds to open, to much highs the snare is to crisp. First record has a lack of power
Great comparation, for me the number two it was the better sounding, warmer and equalized
thank you for checking in!
We have a US 1980 pressing Atlantic - SD 16018, lacquer cut at Masterdisk by Robert Ludwig and it is mind-blowing. To my ears it sounds even better than these 3 pressings you've kindly demonstrated for us. We did have the title track on our RUclips channel but it had to be removed unfortunatly :(
I’ve got this one too (my original plan was to compare the 8 different copies I had, but I shortened this one for simplicity sakes). It’s good, but like most US masterings of original AUS content, it’s very different. Different in some good ways, and some bad. Personally I still prefer the OG Aussie sound from the 80’s, but that’s just me.
Thanks for watching and the comments! ✌🏽
@@joncandyfliprecords The US was cut by RL from the master tape. The Aussie Albert is from a copy tape. You can hear the extra clarity on the RL. I also like the punch of the Albert but it has that slight veil compared to the US RL.
I picked #2 because I found the sound more warm, pleasing to my ears. The second choice, #1, is a serious contender considering it was released in 2003. The third one, #3, sounded thin and too much treble imo (but nowhere near as the Japanese pressing of Nirvana's Nevermind). But I would point that due to a lousy mastering, whether it's digital sourced or not
Hi John, I picked #3 last week because of the clean sound and the clarity in the high end. I totally understand your comment that listening to a cut like this can become jarring very quickly....the digital causes it I think as opposed to analogue. I would love to listen to the Aussie OG ...but on a turntable..not via headphones on my mobile. I'm sure the results would be different hearing from a good system, good speakers and in the right room. Regardless...this was fun to listen and compare. I also liked how you kept us in suspense for a week before the reveal. Bravo ! Please keep your content coming.. it's fantastic !! All the best, Steve 🙏
Love you right back Steve - you are the (small) audience I keep doing these for.
Thanks so much.
I'm 57 and #3 sounded the best imo. I still have my original pressing that I bought back in '80! Still sounds good too!
Nice one.
Surprising! I have number 1......and still glad. It sounds good to me.
Nice one Steve - whatever works my friend. 👍
Thanks, John, for providing this comparison opportunity. On headphones I preferred the 2003 remaster. It just seemed more laid back and fun in its sound. The other two did not appeal to me nearly as much.
Thanks Garry - appreciate your comments. 🙏
Did you listen to the gold 50th anniversary editions? I am trying to find decent reviews.
I haven't, no.
@@joncandyfliprecords A review of the gold ones would be helpful.
I liked the 2003 one the best, especially on one of the samples where Brian's voice sounded much lower on the Original album #2 but other than that it was the same to me but a bit louder on the 2003. I don't like the last one, its too sharp.
Mine is a 1980 atlantic, and honestly know nothing about the different versions or remastered copies. I thought mine was an old copy because Im old and bought it when it came out. I never knew there were so many remastered copys out there.
Looks like your vinyl is a timeless classic, just like you!
Is it me or the original 1st pressing has the correct speed? I have the 2003 remaster which sound like it drags. I sped up the record with my pitch shift and it sounded similar to the original, but not as bright. I just compared my 1st pressing to my 2003 remaster and thats something I just picked up on.
I hadn't picked that up but it could well be so.
Is that the common belief on these remasters - that the 2003 got the speed wrong?
It could be a pressing error I suppose (spindle hole making the rotations in an elipse rather than a perfect circle)
I guess one sounded louder to me
The original Australian release sounds great. I got the Robert Ludwig pressing and it trumps the original Australian in every way
Depends on the sound you prefer, but of course, Aussie ears grew up with the OZ mastering, so disagree. :)
@@joncandyfliprecords that’s true and we will always like what we like. I like some of the us pressings of Beatles albums better than uk
I saw this earlier today and picked number 2. I'm 69.
Nice choice.
the second record sounds phatter and more compressed. the third record sounds to open, to much highs the snare is to crisp. First record has a lack of power
Thanks for the thoughts!
Nine touches the original
Thanks for the comment