What's the best version of fleetwood macs rumours album?

[TBone]

~ it's a mellow sounding album that should kick ass ~

all things considered, probably the Hoffman/Gray 2011 remaster on LP which I've heard only a limited amount of times and don't own, my original 1977 LP not far behind. Each (plus those early CDs) would make the hd track / deluxe versions sound dynamically castrated by comparison.

as for cd, need a revisit, esp when it comes to the added reverb. The DR values on the early CDs are all quite high. Equalization methods per pressing would require a bit of plotting and leg work.

for those interested in such things ...
http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threa...-mastering-equalization-notes-from-sh.247970/

 

[Don Hills]

I'll have to scan mine. It's not in the database.
Warner Australia 2-CD box. "Rumours" and "Fleetwood Mac" discs. Separate booklet for each. The "Rumours" disc has number 030102 on it. The only copyright dates are 1977 on each disc and 1995 on the back of the box. I suspect they're the original CD releases, just re-pressed in 1995. The booklets also appear to be reprints of the original booklets.

 

[TBone]

Don, I think the 3010, 3010-2 (maybe not the 3010-RE2) are same; notice the consistent -0.20dB limit.

Canadian original cd3010 for comparison ...
DR13 -0.20 dB -16.14 dB 2:54 ?-01 Track01
DR15 -0.20 dB -17.69 dB 4:17 ?-02 Track02
DR14 -0.20 dB -17.41 dB 2:15 ?-03 Track03
DR13 -0.20 dB -14.61 dB 3:13 ?-04 Track04
DR12 -0.20 dB -14.18 dB 3:40 ?-05 Track05
DR14 -3.05 dB -22.59 dB 3:22 ?-06 Track06
DR14 -0.20 dB -18.26 dB 4:29 ?-07 Track07
DR13 -0.20 dB -16.62 dB 3:32 ?-08 Track08
DR15 -0.20 dB -17.29 dB 3:15 ?-09 Track09
DR17 -0.20 dB -20.46 dB 3:58 ?-10 Track10
DR14 -0.20 dB -16.69 dB 5:03 ?-11 Track11

 

[TBone]

early last year I had a bud over for a winter listen. Still in the middle of ripping my CDs at that time, for some silly reason I was in a high-dynamic range kinda mood, going thru my cd collection 1 at a time searching; came across the cd3010 above and asked him if he wanted to listen to Oh Daddy. Distinctly remember him declining, saying he'd not liked any version of that particular song to date. I persisted, asked him to give this version a try, figuring he'd only had knowledge / access to the later compressed "remastered"/"deluxe" versions. After Fleetwoods percussion hit home, it instantly altered his view of that song forever ...

 

[Thomas savage]

early last year I had a bud over for a winter listen. Still in the middle of ripping my CDs at that time, for some silly reason I was in a high-dynamic range kinda mood, going thru my cd collection 1 at a time searching; came across the cd3010 above and asked him if he wanted to listen to Oh Daddy. Distinctly remember him declining, saying he'd not liked any version of that particular song to date. I persisted, asked him to give this version a try, figuring he'd only had knowledge / access to the later compressed "remastered"/"deluxe" versions. After Fleetwoods percussion hit home, it instantly altered his view of that song forever ...

Yes i just listened to that from the same issue I think. It is indeed spell binding, it's got that vibe of musical perfection to it, no fat.

 

[ceedee]

all things considered, probably the Hoffman/Gray 2011 remaster on LP

Yes, I would agree. I have a very good rip of that LP from one of the best rippers around. However, I don't like how he decided to leave the count-in and the cold-start on "Gold Dust Woman." I did my own fade-up to make it sound right to me.

I have used the Hoffman/Gray LP as a spectral reference to EQ my favorite digital sources. As I said before, the one CD which was most faithful to the original LP is the Sanyo Japan. It's murky and laid-back, but it sounds most like the original. I believe it has all of the original versions of the songs, too. The ones which usually differ are:

• Second Hand News (some versions duplicate the guitar riff at the end, making the song longer)
• Never Going Back Again (some versions duplicate a few bars in the middle of the song)
• Gold Dust Woman (I believe there are 3 versions; original loud 'howling', the quieter howling, and the glass breaking version)

The 3010-2 West German version seems to be made from a different tape (just like some LPs were). I recall that it has the 'wrong' versions of all 3 songs above, but it still sounds pretty good...less murky than the Sanyo Japan. There seems to have been a "secret remaster" which may have the same 3010-2 catalog number, but it may have had some reverb added. It should be easy to spot if you compare to any other version. I remember noticing it distinctly on "Oh Daddy."

It's a shame that this album has never received a proper CD version. The 2004/2013 deluxe versions (digitally identical) are from the master tapes, but are very compressed and poorly EQ'd. I don't mind some compression and reasonable limiting, but on those CDs, there's enough to ruin the effect of the percussion. The same goes for the stereo version on the old DVD-A. It sucks because Fleetwood Mac and Tusk both have fantastic sounding digital versions. Maybe someday!

tl;dr: Get one of the old very original CDs and do a little EQ work and normalization to get the most out of them. That's as good as it gets for now, IMO!

 

[TBone]

yeah, the 32xd-350 Japanese is 3010-2 designated, indeed it's different to the 3010 ...

Oh Daddy ...

Canadian CD3010
DR 16.1/17.1 Peak -0.20/-0.20 ...

Japanese CD3010-2 (32xd-350)
DR 14.3 16.7 Peak -4.21 -2.37...

The 3010 Oh Daddy maybe the only song that offers higher DR values compared to the 3010-2.
Canadian 3010 / 3010-2 (32XD-350)
DR13/14 01-Second Hand News
DR15/15 02-Dreams
DR14/14 03-Never Going Back Again
DR13/15 04-Don't Stop
DR12/14 05-Go Your Own Way
DR14/15 06-Songbird
DR14/16 07-The Chain
DR13/14 08-You Make Loving Fun
DR15/15 09-I Don't Want To Know
DR17/16 10-Oh Daddy
DR14/15 11-Gold Dust Woman

 

[Thomas savage]

Thanks for taking the time to show us this T-bone

Being retarded I respond well to a communication method that utilises graphics

....i need pictures dam it

 

[TBone]

Being retarded I respond well to a communication method that utilises graphics

don't be so hard on yourself, at least you didn't toss all your CDs then shill the compressed HD version as "best".

 

[TBone]

from an EQ point of view ...

red=3010-2 blue=3010

They don't look the quite the same close up; they're tonally close to 1k ...

from 1k - 10k you can see the 3010 (blue) gaining tonal brightness ...

even scaled you can see different tonal tilts ...

According to discogs, the 3010-2 was released first, 1984/85. The 3010 was released 1987 and later, and looks to have been EQ'd to sound tonally brighter. Would have to listen for any added reverb, but at the very least, both these early pressings are dynamically capable.

 

[Thomas savage]

Having the 3010-2 I can say it does not need any EQ in the top end, I can see why you would do it as the track uses a good amount of symbol punctuation but it's perfectly balanced in the version I have. Great decay etc..

I would push up the bass a little or just push to whole thing a little louder, what ever would be needed to increase impact of the bass guitar on some tracks and the kick drum.

On a bass guitar solo I want to feel those notes, I want to feel a kick drum too when it's appropriate.

 

[RayDunzl]

Above, I see 3010-2 made in Japan and West Germany above.

Mine says Made in USA.

 

[NorthSky]

This is a very good thread, because it tells us more about our sound systems and how we can improve them with better DACs, amps, speakers, phono preamps, ground boxes, purifiers, cables, and all that jazz.

If most music recordings we buy sound like crap, we need better rooms and DSPs and EQs and Turntables and Speakers to adjust the sound to our taste and measuring correctly without distortion and reverberation.

I used to buy LPs, I used to buy CDs, I used to buy cassette tapes, today I buy better audio gear to faithfully reproduced all those mediocre music recordings.
The other alternative is to read this thread here (and others similar) in search of who's doing his/her job in releasing music recordings that sound good in our sound systems. No wonder that EQs are still so popular; pro recordists and music mixers need to go back to school and get on with the year 2016.

It is our right to manipulate the sound as close to what the artists first originally created. Because what is released is all over the map and it's up to us to play with what we have or pay for what we don't have.

Rumours is an awesome creation. It's worth looking for, searching for the people who do their job properly in the goal to satisfy the investors, us the music passionatos. I invested roughly $100 all together in Rumours, and I'm no satisfy with all the mediocre renditions. What's wrong with this hobby?
Imagine no internet, how would we know what to buy and not? ...By going into music stores? That's exactly what we did all our life.

Ok, there is a kid the other day looking for this album and asking me which one Fleetwwod Mac would recommend to their fans, and which version the band members listen to in their own sound systems @ home. Do they spin LPs, Tapes, CDs or HDTracks? Do they do their own blind tests @ home and with Internet measuring apps?

About eBay, are the best ones there for $100 and above? I'm just about to buy it again on Blu-ray 4K Audio and in multichannel Dolby Atmos sound.

Yes, I am a little humorous today, but only to emphasize that this music audio business love is only as good as to what they sell us (what they put in them music recordings). You all know the proverb; what goes in (sewage) is what comes out (bacteria). Can you filter/treated sewage into purified water?

Good thread/subject Thomas.

 

[TBone]

Yes, I would agree. I have a very good rip of that LP from one of the best rippers around. However, I don't like how he decided to leave the count-in and the cold-start on "Gold Dust Woman." I did my own fade-up to make it sound right to me.

S.Hoffman ...

"So I discovered why GOLD DUST WOMAN fades up sometimes on various cuttings.

As you know if you read this thread there is an "A" set and a "B" set of album masters. The "B" set was stored at Capitol (with the red spine stripe tape and all) and used by Ken Perry to cut the original few years of lacquers.

So, Ken mentioned that he cut that album over 62 times in just 8 years. That has to be a record. Wait it IS a record. Sorry for the pun. At any rate, the oxide just fell off of the first 8 seconds at the beginning of GOLD DUST WOMAN so from that point on it was just faded up.

Heh, of course, when they started using the "A" set there were slightly different mixes on there of 3 songs and then those got switched around, etc. until it became a mess at the end of the LP era. Since they don't cut records anymore no one bothered to fix it until Kevin and I came along.

So, that's the reason the song fades up. The reason for the alternate ending we discovered earlier in this thread.

So, no big artistic vision fade up thing happening, only a bruised tape. Heh. Just thought some of you would be interested in WHY it is sometimes faded up!"

 

[NorthSky]

Good one Tony.

 

[Thomas savage]

Nice one tbone, more great insight.. But no pictures how the hell am I ment to understand


Well Bob, I guess I need a better playback system as mine seems to show up mastering bad practice and seems to show all the little differences between recordings when a really good system would make everything sound the same.

Thank the Lord I stared this thread, I am off down to the big smoke to buy me some 'real' gear

 

[NorthSky]

Do you have tone controls on your preamp? ...And a loudness contour?

 

[Thomas savage]

No... Christ, I can't be trusted with controls Bob. I will be messing about and getting it wrong for eternity.. Just like I would with those kii three speakers.

 

[NorthSky]

That's what they're for; for mediocre music recordings.

 

[TBone]

If the recording is mediocre; it will sound more&more mediocre the louder you play it; therefore the only "tone" control I require is called Volume.