Thank you for sharing the audio files. So many people are willing to share their thoughts, but not the actual music for us to decide ourselves! You're a star!
I actually got all 3 of these now, plus I had the UK track original. I should say that the current release is actually not just your ordinary deal, it was done from tape too and George Marino knows how to master and cut very well himself. I reviewed them on Discogs too, heres a summary of my listening between the UHQR, Sterling and UK cuts. Being lucky enough to get one of the very last copies available, although still number 3507 strangely enough, I decided to compare very in depth with my UK track original and Sterling 2010 cut. At first I went in expecting everything to be improved across the board, however that turns out to be rather high expectations even for 100$. The others were from tape as well after all. On a first impression basis its easy to note some of the advantages for the UHQR, having great presence and detail all around. But I examined most tracks one after another to be as fair as can be. briefly, I must mention that I love the decision to finally bring out Jimi's vocals on the opening radio track, EXP. It was always so quite and buried, making me fantasize about adjusting that part if I ever were to master this album myself. Im glad Grundman and I could agree on this small detail change, and perhaps it was already on his other cuts of the album like the Mono Classic or Sony, but I digress. Starting out with the UK and moving up to the Sterling I was enjoying the overall louder and more clear mastering, which really sounds well rounded to me even still, bringing the bass and crispness up a hefty amount. Its too bad then that the UHQR actually decides to shy out somewhat on the bass in comparison, even compared to the UK on some parts, but this is mostly because of their EQs. Its less loose and still audible mind you, but doesn't have much impact unlike the Sterling. On the other hand, Grundman, as he usually likes to do, brings out the drums just oh so well. Its the most striking difference Id say, combined with the slightly superior presence and punch of the UHQR, as well as the refinement which I have no idea how the man does it, just makes the cymbals and reverb so lush and brimming with realism, to the extent which the tape allows anyway. Its near Jazz album levels of sweetness. My UK Track is also quite nice in this regard but with the lack of presence it really doesn't do much for the cut in the end. Vocals also have a somewhat more in the room conjuration but it really goes for the entire mid range frequencies. As always, Grundman also separates and projects all the sounds so masterfully in the soundstage. A great example of this is the guitar on Spanish Castle Magic where certain notes I never picked up on before really struck me as more highlighted, perhaps even manually like the intro vocals. However, one downside to all these positives is the tape hiss. Fortunately this is rarely a big issue but it is vastly more audible on certain parts compared to the Sterling or UK. The EXP intro for example, as mentioned Jimi's line is brought out more but its clear to hear that the tape hiss increases right before he speaks. This doesn't mean that its louder necessarily, in fact the Sterling is the loudest but doesn't suffer from this at all from a listeners perspective. It is audible here too, like at the end of Castles Made of Sand, but never bothered me. On the UHQR it does somewhat take me out of it and hampers the immersion on that song. One aspect which can not be determined through song by song listening though, is ear fatigue. Its likely the most damning aspect of the Sterling cut and if it wasn't for it I would be harder pressed to decide on a favorite release. This is something I never did quite feel with the UK or UHQR, they simply are less harsh somehow, probably with the more refined drums on Grundmans cut and the overall more laid back performance of the UK, coupled with its lower EQ which at times muffles vocals too much. Lastly, one should lead into the pressing quality of each. There was much talk of the UHQRs high quality pressing method, borrowed from Classic Records, the packaging also includes information on it. Although I cant say its the quietest pressing Ive heard, its more than enough so, as the aforementioned tape hiss overrides any amazing pressing quality. My Sterling is near dead quiet for its playing levels anyway, and who would ever demanded more? Unfortunately my UK is a bit crackly, as most copies these days, and I really suggest anyone finding a close to NM example if they want to fully enjoy this release. Not to mention it needing to be played about 30% louder than your average record, which only adds to the problem. In the end, Im quite happy with all my purchases, neither of them will surely lose their value. To summarize: The UHQR is a midrange king, with amazing presence and detail, only suffering from tape hiss and slight lack of bass. The Sterling is a modern like approach with crispness and bass to boot, but being slightly harsh and artificial at times. The UK is a laid back yet mostly natural sounding piece of history, dropping points for lack of presence and muffling. Personal Current Ranking: 1. UHQR 2. Sterling 3. UK Track ?. US Steamboat Equipment Used: Rega RP1 with Paratrace tipped Nagaoka MP-200 Cyrus 2 Amplifier System Fidelity SF-3050 Tower Speakers Custom made HQ Speaker Cables
Hi. I have a UK copy I bought in about 1974 - 76. I think it could be old stock from late 60s to early 70s, cause I bought it in Australia, which at that time or any time probably had a minimal amount of Hendrix fans, and probably an over zealous retailer bought to many copies, and thus my copy was still on the shelf. It has or had, I don't know for sure, cause I gave it to my brother, a contest sleeve attached to the inside, with prizes to be won etc. if you entered. What would that copy be worth these days? One problem, the title track has a deep scratch through it, compliments of my brother. Bummer I know.
Recently I saw your Video of The Doors, after seen it I got very curios about the process of Analog Prod and it was mind blowing; every step of the way is the best of the best. Iam a newbie with the audiophile technical stuff but an overwhelming music enthusiast scince my teens. I enjoy your videos and like your attitude towards music. So cool to learned from you. Please keep up what you are doing. Its darn good!!! I salute you from Bogota Colombia South America
"Oulala" 😊 like in France Thank you so much to present on your channel my favorite band. Hope to watch, here, a review for the next Jimi Hendrix release: the full lives at Fillmore East with the Band of Gypsys. Merci et à bientôt.
🤣 Thank you Patrick! I must admit that these continue reissues and new fake albums of Jimi who in reality made only 4 albums is kind of absurd...but I am glad that Jimi's legacy is still present!
@@anadialog I understand, sometime it's to much reissues, you're right. As I'm really fan of Band of Gypsys, they play more groovy, funky and jazzy and all shows are differents, I need it to listen really good music, maybe the last buy.
interesting how you have build up the video. I watched to the video and stopped before your judgement. I Downloaded the files and listened. For me the Mono version was a clear winner. The 2 stereo versions were lower and sounded about equal. I was positive surprised that you came to the same conclusion. Despite the amount of money you have put on the table No placebo effect for you :-) keep up the good work !
This was tough since this is an album that I've only heard the stereo version of. Comparing the two stereo versions side by side, it seemed the AP version...especially for the price...had more surface noise & tape hiss than what I'd expect for paying any form of a premium for. Sure, the packaging is amazing and the record LOOKS beautiful...but I honestly preferred the SME version MORE between those two. Now adding the older Mono pressing into everything, it gave me the experience (no pun intended) of how I would've heard it on a good mono system back in 1967 (I was born 8 years later btw)...and for my money, I'd prefer this version as well. Both the SME & CR versions seemed to actually be sourced from the original analog tapes from 1967. That UHQR seemed like it was from a hard disk recording laid onto insert 2" tape without any care for removing hiss and EVEN THOUGH it's stating it's hand pressed...I'm calling BS on AP. Seems like they threw in a bunch of awesome packaging trinkets to make you feel like it's something special when it's just another standard reissue but on translucent vinyl. The documentation included about UHQR seems like literal snake oil. Of course, I'm basing this all off a 1 minute clip so maybe I'm way off. One final thing, screw Sony for blocking the audio. I'm shrouded WMG didn't try blocking as well since it was originally on Reprise (which is STILL WMG) in the 🇺🇸 and Track Records (which is now UMG) in Europe (which I know that's where you are). How SME got involved in any Hendrix reissues is beyond me. Maybe his estate sold the rights to them...who knows...but ehf them anyways. Greedy jerks!
quote: "of how I would've heard it on a good mono system back in 1967" This is what I am thinking about this mono Record. Since I cannot hear it with the proper equipment, I don`t dare to judge! I just think that the mono Version sounds a little bit richer compared to the others...But this has to be proofed... ;-)
Sorry but your assumptions are way off line. The AP packaging can't be called snake oil and both this and Classic are from the original tapes or those that Experience Hendrix have. The Classic was done before EH acquired the catalogue rights hence they were able to use the defunct Track label for authenticity from Polygram. The AP is hand pressed but so was the Classic 200 gram. Probably the same presses that Classic Records had before AP bought them out. For what it's worth I always find clear or clarity vinyl a tad noisier. Tape hiss is likely more prominent because this cutting and pressing process is simply more revealing. I do not find surface noise or tape hiss to be at intrusive levels on any of these versions.
@@classicrock7890 thanks for reiterating my statement about being way off basing my opinion from a digital audio clip. I mentioned the tape hiss because the recent reissue of Abbey Road has no tape hiss whatsoever (to my ears anyways) and it's a small fraction of the original cost of that UHQR edition. I don't mind the hiss since it doesn't hinder my enjoyment but the lack of it let's you hear things you might have never noticed before. Again, just my opinion. No opinion it's right or wrong.
@@classicrock7890 I disagree, I have all these version on vinyl and the one with most tape hiss is the UHQR. Its pretty quiet beyond that, but my Sony is also dead quiet anyway, you dont need any better than that. Also, I dont think the Classic was hand pressed, only their clarity vinyl records were, just like for AP.
@@twistedviewlabs The hiss is likely increased because of how Bernie masters his music. I have a full review and comparison of all these releases and you can clearly hear the tape hiss going up and down as he moves certain sounds forward in the mix for example. That is how the UHQR gets really great sound though, it brings things out and I feel most midrange sounds, especially drums are better on it than any other version.
DSD is the best version for the intro (incredible 3D) of analog production, but bernie grundman tape player is not the same like the original recording (but is the best infos), and the mastered desk too (not original desk). for the recording on one night : ( alien working great ) but if 6 was 9 is the only one from original record.
I have a question over the Digital vs. Analogue sound debate. I have heard that there is no real significant difference in sound between Digital and Analogue and that if there is a sound difference the human ear can't detect it. Is this true? Do you think Digital has the potential to sound just as good as analogue? Do you think there is a significant sound difference and if so how significant is it?
Digital will always sound a bit different. I don't think the best digital playback is close to the best analogue but in terms of affordable hi-fi it can be close and preferable for budget systems. I certainly can hear the difference but there is some fine 'analogue' sounding vinyl out there sourced from high quality digital.
This is and will always be a debate because in the end it is a matter of taste and gear. If digital is properly converted, mixed and especially mastered in high resolution then I believe that we can get very close to an high quality analog recording if not identical. The problem is that labels and producers don't do that!
@@neveragain8088 Good question. Most albums are cut from hi-res files rather than tape. Often the mastering for vinyl is done at the pressing plant. I suggest you find the Fremer video on GZ Vinyl.
I think you should reverse the question, is there a potential for analog to sound as good as digital? I would say yes. If both mediums are taken to their limits they are almost both so good its hard to tell which is better. But statistically digital is a better format overall.
I actually own all 3 versions in your video. The AP stereo is the best stereo I have heard but the improvement over the standard version is not going to in any way reflect the price. My impression is of greater smoothness and crankability. It needs more volume than the standard version. The Classic Records version is exceptional and I don't think the AP betters it. However we are comparing Stereo and Mono. Don't have the AP mono but on Hoffman forum there is a split opinion as to which is best. If you had ordered the AP pre release at $100 you probably wouldn't be so disappointed. Bernie Grundman cut both Classic Mono and AP versions. His cutting chain is claimed to be better than 20 yrs ago but of course the tape is the limiting factor here. To be honest for 1967 this is an exceptional sounding recording whatever version you prefer. I would say the standard version you have is probably the George Marino cut and I do think his Hendrix titles err slightly on the bright side.
The Marino cuts are great quality and a bargain price. IMO there is a better Marino cut he did for Universal (Back To Black) before EH switched to Sony Legacy.
I think the original Record was mixed for the general public which was mostly mono based single speaker turntables - the later remasters of the record on CD seemed to utilize more of a quadraphonic mix to get the swirls and pans - which are cool - I still think the Mono version is the best
I agree the Stereo versions were so similar so clearly not worth the extra outlay, the mono on the other hand was wonderful, the vocals were so much clearer
If you listen to the records on a good system there is a significant difference. Whether you think the AP is better or worth the outlay is a personal decision. I do like to own a few 'ultimate' quality pressings as an indicator as to how good a sound my current system is actually capable of.
@@simonmarsden66 I have both records, there is a difference, if its big or small is subjective. One thing is for sure, its not a difference most will spend 100$ for.
Analog productions version has 100% stereo image. Sony has been panned back to like 95% I don't like when they narrow the stereofield of these old stereo records in remastering
I wonder if it is because of the cutting head used to cut the lacquer? I know cartridges have different levels of stereo separation so a similar thing may be the case for lacquer cutting heads.
Hi, a bit late to this thread. I only have the UHQR stereo version, so have nothing to compare it with, although the mono version here sounds better. But the UHQR has this buttery smoothness that the hi-res file here does not reproduce... However, what I found upsetting is that my record has some pops and crackles not only in between tracks but also in the final 10-20 seconds of almost every track. Is your record quiet?
Jimi was more of a stereo guy (so am I), so the stereo version would be the best to him! Not saying the mono isn't good, but he was more into the stereo mixes! Opposite of the Beatles! All 3 sounded great, but I like the box set better! It's a little quieter!
that is not true. his first 2 albums sounds best in mono. and they were intendent by hendrix that way. electric ladyland on the other hand was only mixed in stereo and has a great stereo mix! but hendrix was not really satisfied, he thought that stereo would sound like sourround sound (5.1 mixes fro example).
When producing a LP the record label sending the master to the LP manufacturer. To be able to put it to the format vinyl and work with the short comings they are making a pre-mastering and in that process some information is removed from the master. The result of the pre-mastering are the signals that are going to the cutting head. Then the whole production with plating, mother's, farther and sons. Are made as stampers. And also you add the black powder in the plastic/vinyl and so on the list is endless of degraded production steps along the way. Then when the record is done you AGAIN can compare what the TT are giving from the end product. And what you sent to the cutting head. The difference are what the whole production chain loses information. So today a tune is recorded in ~95% of the time in the digital domain. To put that into a LP is not a loss less format. You can not go from LP and back to the master. There are information lost forever. LP is like MP3 a lossy format. So when we are in the digital domain (yes this Jimmy Hendrix is analogue recorded) then let stay there in a loss less format. But people like me like the lossy LPs but with this knowledge. We can do better decisions when we buy a new cartridge, RIAA, TT and so on. That it do not matter how much money you throw at it you start with a lossy LP and the finest information are already lost forever and is not retrievable.
Im sorry, maybe im NOT a audiophile man but!, i really enjoyed the 2015 version. To me it sounds very warm, th bass sounds really good to me and the guitar are more clear. Now you can kill me.
they used the old mettal parts from classic records standart version for hendrix and tull ... now they just put diffrent vinyl to it and sell it 4 times the price .. that´s genius from a marketing point ...
For hendrix, no. For Jethro Tull, maybe, we will have to see. But buying the tull record from classic now costs you several 100s of dollars, if anything they will make it cheaper now with the re release.
it was already told that they bought classic records inc all mettal parts and just use better vinyl ... also the hendrixs mono classic version goes on ebay for 60-70 bucks and i got the tull test press a 2 months ago for 65 bucks on discogs .. setting it to a high price does not say it sold for this price
@@vmvlev They purhcased Classic Records yes, and they have done some repressings of their stuff. Some of it for 30 or 50$, no crazy prices there. The mono Classic is not he same as the UHQR mono as mentioned and we dont yet know what the UHQR Aqualung will be. Lucky you, because the statistical average (for what its actually sold for) is 300$, and it has sold for more than 400$ on Discogs. On Ebay probably more. Also, there is no record of a Tull Classic 4LP set that has sold for 65$. Link the Discogs page to it.
dude you argue alot but dont read .. i sayd i got the tp of the single aqualung for 65 .. and i dont get what you debate .. do you defend your 100$ hendrix record ? or what ? if you pay silly 100+ bucks for a record that most people would say it dont even sounds better than thats your problem .. im from the eu so i have to pay 200 bucks an i would never do that no matter whats on the record
back in the day it was standart to have a good sound quallity now you have to pay 100 bucks ( and 200 in the EU).. i would say lol but there is nuthing funny about it
He literally stated that the standard 20$ version sounds almost as good as the 100$ one. Are you mad just because you didnt get your copy or something?
@@vmvlev Great, because as mentioned you dont have to do that to get good sound, unlike what you first said about having to spend a fortune for quality.
Sounds great! No need to spend $$$$. It's all relative. When time will come, you will sense the need to upgrade. Up till then, "your set-up" is the best set-up in the world! Plus its fun to gradually toon and tweak your system.
So you have 1 out of 5000? Jimi Hendrix? WOW... you're such a BadAss lol...But, to come to the Mono-Version, I think I cannot compare a mono Version via the Internet with two Stereo files. It is 35 Years since I had my last experience with mono Records... and I want to have a mono Cartridge for my Turntables first before I try out this kind of reproduction. I am convinced that YOU have the proper equipment to do so, but I must do a step into this direction first. Until now, I am a Stereophile audiophile... So, I miss this one step in my education lol... I am also convinced, that a mono-record is a totally different experience in analog and vinyl... and what I heard about it, there should be some absolute excellent pressings out there! But, this is still an unknown Land for an old Klingon like me... Quap`lah! lol...
Yes, it's true, you do need a good mono cart or at least a switch or amp along the way. For the comparison I used the same stereo cart to have s similar result but I used my mobo switch on my phono preamp...specific albums MUST be heard in mono and they do sound amazing, I also love 78s...I did a specific video on both...
Oh, man. I always cringe when I see that UHQR copy! I was stupid for waiting, not to mention had to take care of a lot of bills in the time there was left to buy even a stereo copy. I’ve already got a mono copy from MOV, and while some will say it doesn’t compare to the AP pressing (which I’m sure it doesn’t), is good enough for me. It looks like I’ll be paying the “flipper” cost for that album when I finally buy one, if I’m even able. The moral of the story: Don’t wait! Put off a bill or two if you’ve gotta for just one month or something. One of my biggest regrets in all my 30+ years of record collecting!
Thank you for the files! It made me not feel so badly about not being able to pick up the AP pressing. I’ve already got the a more recent Legacy stereo copy, which I will be very happy with. Much thanks to you again! 🎶🔊🙂
Dont feel bad, you might regret the purchase anyway. The current reissues are fine as well, although I dont know about the MOV ones, the Sterling cuts are good for sure though.
Re-sell that overpriced copy and get an original Reprise Stereo from 67 or 68 which I have sounds fantastic cost about $40 on Discogs (5yrs ago maybe). I read that you think the Stereo is fake or rubbish I disagree but you can find original mono on Discogs too which is probably better than that new version also. Also I watched your videos on original and reissues. You talk about half speed mastering and 45rpm mastering of Lp’s. These are completely opposite ideas, one saying slower is more accurate the other faster, so which is better and why? Is it just marketing? I agree with you about heavy vinyl what a drag. I have some ultra thin Lps from the 1970s that sound fine so I’m guessing this is just marketing too.
Yes, I should get an original! No, not fake (in other cases it is). I just think the mono sounds better. Half speed and 45rpm are not in contrast, you can master a 45rpm record with the half speed mastering technique! One is a matter of vinyl per revolution one is the cutting speed. They can be both very good to enhance sound. In my video I underlined how the recent Abbey Road half speed are pretty bad, not all of them but most are. So in that case it is marketing.
The cymbals were much better with the deluxe version .... The Mono version does not sound good and I reckon because it is digitized.. It just sounds dull ..I am sure it would be much better if I could hear it on a real analog system
@@anadialog You misunderstood what I am saying.. I KNOW your albums are analog but the digitization of the song in the cyber land is taking the quality away from it by the time it gets to my ears ..
@@anadialog exactly, takes too much space! same for the damn MoFi's One Step, those companies make that HUGE packings to charge a lot money for, they try to make that looks expensive, again I just want a damn record jacket like the old days, I don't need all that extra box.
![ANA[DIA]LOG](http://yt3.ggpht.com/50CpmGNilS8aoMlarZVhI_GxRDoZdbj4ZgwCMZXg-Rq2PrEvCytlE6RVyLUrNY-rwE_sAlZ1Zw=s48-c-k-c0x00ffffff-no-rj)
Thank you for sharing the audio files. So many people are willing to share their thoughts, but not the actual music for us to decide ourselves! You're a star!
I actually got all 3 of these now, plus I had the UK track original. I should say that the current release is actually not just your ordinary deal, it was done from tape too and George Marino knows how to master and cut very well himself.
I reviewed them on Discogs too, heres a summary of my listening between the UHQR, Sterling and UK cuts.
Being lucky enough to get one of the very last copies available, although still number 3507 strangely enough, I decided to compare very in depth with my UK track original and Sterling 2010 cut.
At first I went in expecting everything to be improved across the board, however that turns out to be rather high expectations even for 100$. The others were from tape as well after all.
On a first impression basis its easy to note some of the advantages for the UHQR, having great presence and detail all around. But I examined most tracks one after another to be as fair as can be.
briefly, I must mention that I love the decision to finally bring out Jimi's vocals on the opening radio track, EXP. It was always so quite and buried, making me fantasize about adjusting that part if I ever were to master this album myself. Im glad Grundman and I could agree on this small detail change, and perhaps it was already on his other cuts of the album like the Mono Classic or Sony, but I digress.
Starting out with the UK and moving up to the Sterling I was enjoying the overall louder and more clear mastering, which really sounds well rounded to me even still, bringing the bass and crispness up a hefty amount.
Its too bad then that the UHQR actually decides to shy out somewhat on the bass in comparison, even compared to the UK on some parts, but this is mostly because of their EQs. Its less loose and still audible mind you, but doesn't have much impact unlike the Sterling.
On the other hand, Grundman, as he usually likes to do, brings out the drums just oh so well. Its the most striking difference Id say, combined with the slightly superior presence and punch of the UHQR, as well as the refinement which I have no idea how the man does it, just makes the cymbals and reverb so lush and brimming with realism, to the extent which the tape allows anyway. Its near Jazz album levels of sweetness.
My UK Track is also quite nice in this regard but with the lack of presence it really doesn't do much for the cut in the end.
Vocals also have a somewhat more in the room conjuration but it really goes for the entire mid range frequencies.
As always, Grundman also separates and projects all the sounds so masterfully in the soundstage. A great example of this is the guitar on Spanish Castle Magic where certain notes I never picked up on before really struck me as more highlighted, perhaps even manually like the intro vocals.
However, one downside to all these positives is the tape hiss. Fortunately this is rarely a big issue but it is vastly more audible on certain parts compared to the Sterling or UK. The EXP intro for example, as mentioned Jimi's line is brought out more but its clear to hear that the tape hiss increases right before he speaks.
This doesn't mean that its louder necessarily, in fact the Sterling is the loudest but doesn't suffer from this at all from a listeners perspective. It is audible here too, like at the end of Castles Made of Sand, but never bothered me. On the UHQR it does somewhat take me out of it and hampers the immersion on that song.
One aspect which can not be determined through song by song listening though, is ear fatigue. Its likely the most damning aspect of the Sterling cut and if it wasn't for it I would be harder pressed to decide on a favorite release.
This is something I never did quite feel with the UK or UHQR, they simply are less harsh somehow, probably with the more refined drums on Grundmans cut and the overall more laid back performance of the UK, coupled with its lower EQ which at times muffles vocals too much.
Lastly, one should lead into the pressing quality of each. There was much talk of the UHQRs high quality pressing method, borrowed from Classic Records, the packaging also includes information on it. Although I cant say its the quietest pressing Ive heard, its more than enough so, as the aforementioned tape hiss overrides any amazing pressing quality. My Sterling is near dead quiet for its playing levels anyway, and who would ever demanded more? Unfortunately my UK is a bit crackly, as most copies these days, and I really suggest anyone finding a close to NM example if they want to fully enjoy this release. Not to mention it needing to be played about 30% louder than your average record, which only adds to the problem.
In the end, Im quite happy with all my purchases, neither of them will surely lose their value.
To summarize:
The UHQR is a midrange king, with amazing presence and detail, only suffering from tape hiss and slight lack of bass.
The Sterling is a modern like approach with crispness and bass to boot, but being slightly harsh and artificial at times.
The UK is a laid back yet mostly natural sounding piece of history, dropping points for lack of presence and muffling.
Personal Current Ranking:
1. UHQR
2. Sterling
3. UK Track
?. US Steamboat
Equipment Used:
Rega RP1 with Paratrace tipped Nagaoka MP-200
Cyrus 2 Amplifier
System Fidelity SF-3050 Tower Speakers
Custom made HQ Speaker Cables
Very nice and detailed review! Thanks for sharing!
Hi. I have a UK copy I bought in about 1974 - 76. I think it could be old stock from late 60s to early 70s, cause I bought it in Australia, which at that time or any time probably had a minimal amount of Hendrix fans, and probably an over zealous retailer bought to many copies, and thus my copy was still on the shelf. It has or had, I don't know for sure, cause I gave it to my brother, a contest sleeve attached to the inside, with prizes to be won etc. if you entered. What would that copy be worth these days? One problem, the title track has a deep scratch through it, compliments of my brother. Bummer I know.
@@mvagusta6757 depends on how it plays but given you mention a scratch and no poster Ill assume 50 - 100$ max. Perfect copies can go for 500$.
good info
Recently I saw your Video of The Doors, after seen it I got very curios about the process of Analog Prod and it was mind blowing; every step of the way is the best of the best.
Iam a newbie with the audiophile technical stuff but an overwhelming music enthusiast scince my teens.
I enjoy your videos and like your attitude towards music.
So cool to learned from you. Please keep up what you are doing. Its darn good!!!
I salute you from Bogota Colombia South America
Thank you so much!
It doesn't matter that youtube blocked the recording I still love your video
"Oulala" 😊 like in France
Thank you so much to present on your channel my favorite band. Hope to watch, here, a review for the next Jimi Hendrix release: the full lives at Fillmore East with the Band of Gypsys.
Merci et à bientôt.
🤣 Thank you Patrick! I must admit that these continue reissues and new fake albums of Jimi who in reality made only 4 albums is kind of absurd...but I am glad that Jimi's legacy is still present!
@@anadialog I understand, sometime it's to much reissues, you're right.
As I'm really fan of Band of Gypsys, they play more groovy, funky and jazzy and all shows are differents, I need it to listen really good music, maybe the last buy.
interesting how you have build up the video. I watched to the video and stopped before your judgement. I Downloaded the files and listened.
For me the Mono version was a clear winner. The 2 stereo versions were lower and sounded about equal.
I was positive surprised that you came to the same conclusion. Despite the amount of money you have put on the table No placebo effect for you :-)
keep up the good work !
I'm not a mono fan at all but that mono version sounds ludicrously good.
This was tough since this is an album that I've only heard the stereo version of. Comparing the two stereo versions side by side, it seemed the AP version...especially for the price...had more surface noise & tape hiss than what I'd expect for paying any form of a premium for. Sure, the packaging is amazing and the record LOOKS beautiful...but I honestly preferred the SME version MORE between those two. Now adding the older Mono pressing into everything, it gave me the experience (no pun intended) of how I would've heard it on a good mono system back in 1967 (I was born 8 years later btw)...and for my money, I'd prefer this version as well. Both the SME & CR versions seemed to actually be sourced from the original analog tapes from 1967. That UHQR seemed like it was from a hard disk recording laid onto insert 2" tape without any care for removing hiss and EVEN THOUGH it's stating it's hand pressed...I'm calling BS on AP. Seems like they threw in a bunch of awesome packaging trinkets to make you feel like it's something special when it's just another standard reissue but on translucent vinyl. The documentation included about UHQR seems like literal snake oil. Of course, I'm basing this all off a 1 minute clip so maybe I'm way off. One final thing, screw Sony for blocking the audio. I'm shrouded WMG didn't try blocking as well since it was originally on Reprise (which is STILL WMG) in the 🇺🇸 and Track Records (which is now UMG) in Europe (which I know that's where you are). How SME got involved in any Hendrix reissues is beyond me. Maybe his estate sold the rights to them...who knows...but ehf them anyways. Greedy jerks!
quote: "of how I would've heard it on a good mono system back in 1967" This is what I am thinking about this mono Record. Since I cannot hear it with the proper equipment, I don`t dare to judge! I just think that the mono Version sounds a little bit richer compared to the others...But this has to be proofed... ;-)
Sorry but your assumptions are way off line. The AP packaging can't be called snake oil and both this and Classic are from the original tapes or those that Experience Hendrix have. The Classic was done before EH acquired the catalogue rights hence they were able to use the defunct Track label for authenticity from Polygram. The AP is hand pressed but so was the Classic 200 gram. Probably the same presses that Classic Records had before AP bought them out. For what it's worth I always find clear or clarity vinyl a tad noisier. Tape hiss is likely more prominent because this cutting and pressing process is simply more revealing. I do not find surface noise or tape hiss to be at intrusive levels on any of these versions.
@@classicrock7890 thanks for reiterating my statement about being way off basing my opinion from a digital audio clip. I mentioned the tape hiss because the recent reissue of Abbey Road has no tape hiss whatsoever (to my ears anyways) and it's a small fraction of the original cost of that UHQR edition. I don't mind the hiss since it doesn't hinder my enjoyment but the lack of it let's you hear things you might have never noticed before. Again, just my opinion. No opinion it's right or wrong.
@@classicrock7890 I disagree, I have all these version on vinyl and the one with most tape hiss is the UHQR. Its pretty quiet beyond that, but my Sony is also dead quiet anyway, you dont need any better than that. Also, I dont think the Classic was hand pressed, only their clarity vinyl records were, just like for AP.
@@twistedviewlabs The hiss is likely increased because of how Bernie masters his music. I have a full review and comparison of all these releases and you can clearly hear the tape hiss going up and down as he moves certain sounds forward in the mix for example. That is how the UHQR gets really great sound though, it brings things out and I feel most midrange sounds, especially drums are better on it than any other version.
DSD is the best version for the intro (incredible 3D) of analog production, but bernie grundman tape player is not the same like the original recording (but is the best infos), and the mastered desk too (not original desk).
for the recording on one night : ( alien working great ) but if 6 was 9 is the only one from original record.
I have a question over the Digital vs. Analogue sound debate. I have heard that there is no real significant difference in sound between Digital and Analogue and that if there is a sound difference the human ear can't detect it. Is this true? Do you think Digital has the potential to sound just as good as analogue? Do you think there is a significant sound difference and if so how significant is it?
Digital will always sound a bit different. I don't think the best digital playback is close to the best analogue but in terms of affordable hi-fi it can be close and preferable for budget systems. I certainly can hear the difference but there is some fine 'analogue' sounding vinyl out there sourced from high quality digital.
This is and will always be a debate because in the end it is a matter of taste and gear. If digital is properly converted, mixed and especially mastered in high resolution then I believe that we can get very close to an high quality analog recording if not identical. The problem is that labels and producers don't do that!
ANA[DIA]LOG Why don't labels and producers master digital tapes correctly and so on? Is for logistic reasons or greed or what?
@@neveragain8088 Good question. Most albums are cut from hi-res files rather than tape. Often the mastering for vinyl is done at the pressing plant. I suggest you find the Fremer video on GZ Vinyl.
I think you should reverse the question, is there a potential for analog to sound as good as digital? I would say yes. If both mediums are taken to their limits they are almost both so good its hard to tell which is better. But statistically digital is a better format overall.
I actually own all 3 versions in your video. The AP stereo is the best stereo I have heard but the improvement over the standard version is not going to in any way reflect the price. My impression is of greater smoothness and crankability. It needs more volume than the standard version. The Classic Records version is exceptional and I don't think the AP betters it. However we are comparing Stereo and Mono. Don't have the AP mono but on Hoffman forum there is a split opinion as to which is best. If you had ordered the AP pre release at $100 you probably wouldn't be so disappointed. Bernie Grundman cut both Classic Mono and AP versions. His cutting chain is claimed to be better than 20 yrs ago but of course the tape is the limiting factor here. To be honest for 1967 this is an exceptional sounding recording whatever version you prefer. I would say the standard version you have is probably the George Marino cut and I do think his Hendrix titles err slightly on the bright side.
I agree with you analysis. The Marino cut may be a little bright but at that price I was not expecting all that quality, plus it's an AAA release!
The Marino cuts are great quality and a bargain price. IMO there is a better Marino cut he did for Universal (Back To Black) before EH switched to Sony Legacy.
I think the original Record was mixed for the general public which was mostly mono based single speaker turntables - the later remasters of the record on CD seemed to utilize more of a quadraphonic mix to get the swirls and pans - which are cool - I still think the Mono version is the best
I agree the Stereo versions were so similar so clearly not worth the extra outlay, the mono on the other hand was wonderful, the vocals were so much clearer
If you listen to the records on a good system there is a significant difference. Whether you think the AP is better or worth the outlay is a personal decision. I do like to own a few 'ultimate' quality pressings as an indicator as to how good a sound my current system is actually capable of.
@@classicrock7890 I listened on my Quad system still stand by my statement.
@@simonmarsden66 I have both records, there is a difference, if its big or small is subjective. One thing is for sure, its not a difference most will spend 100$ for.
Analog productions version has 100% stereo image. Sony has been panned back to like 95% I don't like when they narrow the stereofield of these old stereo records in remastering
I wonder if it is because of the cutting head used to cut the lacquer? I know cartridges have different levels of stereo separation so a similar thing may be the case for lacquer cutting heads.
Hi
I.don't see a big different between the 2019 and 2015 version.
However i'm not a big fan of mono mastering.but in.this.case it sounds better to me
Agreed entirely
I hear more low end in the 2015
Suprising to here that you liked that version most.
mr. Finglish (Bäd English Recs)
I can’t believe I’m saying this but I really liked the mono version.
Mono has a great potential and very food sound when correctly reproduced. Check my video on the topic: ua-cam.com/video/m6q2JBOiD80/v-deo.html
UK mono on track records. best version.
Hi, a bit late to this thread. I only have the UHQR stereo version, so have nothing to compare it with, although the mono version here sounds better. But the UHQR has this buttery smoothness that the hi-res file here does not reproduce... However, what I found upsetting is that my record has some pops and crackles not only in between tracks but also in the final 10-20 seconds of almost every track. Is your record quiet?
Mine is pretty quiet, but I was expecting dead quiet at this price range and packaging.
Jimi was more of a stereo guy (so am I), so the stereo version would be the best to him! Not saying the mono isn't good, but he was more into the stereo mixes! Opposite of the Beatles! All 3 sounded great, but I like the box set better! It's a little quieter!
that is not true.
his first 2 albums sounds best in mono. and they were intendent by hendrix that way.
electric ladyland on the other hand was only mixed in stereo and has a great stereo mix! but hendrix was not really satisfied, he thought that stereo would sound like sourround sound (5.1 mixes fro example).
I agree the mono version sounds much better
When producing a LP the record label sending the master to the LP manufacturer.
To be able to put it to the format vinyl and work with the short comings they are making a pre-mastering and in that process some information is removed from the master.
The result of the pre-mastering are the signals that are going to the cutting head. Then the whole production with plating, mother's, farther and sons. Are made as stampers. And also you add the black powder in the plastic/vinyl and so on the list is endless of degraded production steps along the way.
Then when the record is done you AGAIN can compare what the TT are giving from the end product. And what you sent to the cutting head.
The difference are what the whole production chain loses information.
So today a tune is recorded in ~95% of the time in the digital domain. To put that into a LP is not a loss less format. You can not go from LP and back to the master. There are information lost forever. LP is like MP3 a lossy format.
So when we are in the digital domain (yes this Jimmy Hendrix is analogue recorded) then let stay there in a loss less format. But people like me like the lossy LPs but with this knowledge. We can do better decisions when we buy a new cartridge, RIAA, TT and so on.
That it do not matter how much money you throw at it you start with a lossy LP and the finest information are already lost forever and is not retrievable.
Some LPs sound near in the room and real on the right gear. You dont need more information than that.
mono for sure my choice
Im sorry, maybe im NOT a audiophile man but!, i really enjoyed the 2015 version. To me it sounds very warm, th bass sounds really good to me and the guitar are more clear. Now you can kill me.
Me too!
Tape machine is Tube NOS, not the original tape machine and roll off is not the same
they used the old mettal parts from classic records standart version for hendrix and tull ... now they just put diffrent vinyl to it and sell it 4 times the price .. that´s genius from a marketing point ...
For hendrix, no. For Jethro Tull, maybe, we will have to see. But buying the tull record from classic now costs you several 100s of dollars, if anything they will make it cheaper now with the re release.
it was already told that they bought classic records inc all mettal parts and just use better vinyl ... also the hendrixs mono classic version goes on ebay for 60-70 bucks and i got the tull test press a 2 months ago for 65 bucks on discogs .. setting it to a high price does not say it sold for this price
@@vmvlev They purhcased Classic Records yes, and they have done some repressings of their stuff. Some of it for 30 or 50$, no crazy prices there.
The mono Classic is not he same as the UHQR mono as mentioned and we dont yet know what the UHQR Aqualung will be.
Lucky you, because the statistical average (for what its actually sold for) is 300$, and it has sold for more than 400$ on Discogs. On Ebay probably more.
Also, there is no record of a Tull Classic 4LP set that has sold for 65$. Link the Discogs page to it.
@@leon9021 www.discogs.com/Jethro-Tull-Aqualung/release/2234382
dude you argue alot but dont read .. i sayd i got the tp of the single aqualung for 65 .. and i dont get what you debate .. do you defend your 100$ hendrix record ? or what ? if you pay silly 100+ bucks for a record that most people would say it dont even sounds better than thats your problem .. im from the eu so i have to pay 200 bucks an i would never do that no matter whats on the record
back in the day it was standart to have a good sound quallity now you have to pay 100 bucks ( and 200 in the EU).. i would say lol but there is nuthing funny about it
I'd say much more unfortunately...
He literally stated that the standard 20$ version sounds almost as good as the 100$ one. Are you mad just because you didnt get your copy or something?
@@leon9021 there is no way i pay 200 bucks for a new single record .. like i explaind up there
@@vmvlev Great, because as mentioned you dont have to do that to get good sound, unlike what you first said about having to spend a fortune for quality.
The links are broken 🥹
Just tried them. The test tracks are working fine. Try a different browser!
@@anadialog I tried 3 differents browsers, no one of them the links works
Listened to all tracks, than listened to the same minute in Tidal. The latter sounded better to me than all three versions. What do I know...
Go for Tidal!
@@anadialog Thank you. Love watching your videos! Btw, Listened with Sennheiser 58x paired with Schiit Fulla 2. Not even close to your rig.
Sounds great! No need to spend $$$$. It's all relative. When time will come, you will sense the need to upgrade. Up till then, "your set-up" is the best set-up in the world! Plus its fun to gradually toon and tweak your system.
So you have 1 out of 5000? Jimi Hendrix? WOW... you're such a BadAss lol...But, to come to the Mono-Version, I think I cannot compare a mono Version via the Internet with two Stereo files. It is 35 Years since I had my last experience with mono Records... and I want to have a mono Cartridge for my Turntables first before I try out this kind of reproduction. I am convinced that YOU have the proper equipment to do so, but I must do a step into this direction first. Until now, I am a Stereophile audiophile... So, I miss this one step in my education lol...
I am also convinced, that a mono-record is a totally different experience in analog and vinyl... and what I heard about it, there should be some absolute excellent pressings out there! But, this is still an unknown Land for an old Klingon like me... Quap`lah! lol...
Yes, it's true, you do need a good mono cart or at least a switch or amp along the way. For the comparison I used the same stereo cart to have s similar result but I used my mobo switch on my phono preamp...specific albums MUST be heard in mono and they do sound amazing, I also love 78s...I did a specific video on both...
To my ears the Analog Productions sounds a little clearer and crispr and the cymbals are also more pronounced .
You are correct.
Oh, man. I always cringe when I see that UHQR copy! I was stupid for waiting, not to mention had to take care of a lot of bills in the time there was left to buy even a stereo copy. I’ve already got a mono copy from MOV, and while some will say it doesn’t compare to the AP pressing (which I’m sure it doesn’t), is good enough for me. It looks like I’ll be paying the “flipper” cost for that album when I finally buy one, if I’m even able.
The moral of the story: Don’t wait! Put off a bill or two if you’ve gotta for just one month or something. One of my biggest regrets in all my 30+ years of record collecting!
Thank you for the files! It made me not feel so badly about not being able to pick up the AP pressing. I’ve already got the a more recent Legacy stereo copy, which I will be very happy with. Much thanks to you again! 🎶🔊🙂
Thank you Nick, yes its surprisingly good!
Dont feel bad, you might regret the purchase anyway. The current reissues are fine as well, although I dont know about the MOV ones, the Sterling cuts are good for sure though.
The package alone screams 'overpriced!' ..
True...nothing compared to what MoFi is doing...much much more overpriced...
For the money AP packaging is far nicer than Mo-Fi 45 rpm one step releases.
Comparing the two stereo versions...that's a very expensive box!
Too expensive, especially for the quality of the record...
Re-sell that overpriced copy and get an original Reprise Stereo from 67 or 68 which I have sounds fantastic cost about $40 on Discogs (5yrs ago maybe). I read that you think the Stereo is fake or rubbish I disagree but you can find original mono on Discogs too which is probably better than that new version also.
Also I watched your videos on original and reissues. You talk about half speed mastering and 45rpm mastering of Lp’s. These are completely opposite ideas, one saying slower is more accurate the other faster, so which is better and why? Is it just marketing?
I agree with you about heavy vinyl what a drag. I have some ultra thin Lps from the 1970s that sound fine so I’m guessing this is just marketing too.
Interesting
I have US 68 stereo copy in vg+ condition. I enjoy it
Yes, I should get an original! No, not fake (in other cases it is). I just think the mono sounds better. Half speed and 45rpm are not in contrast, you can master a 45rpm record with the half speed mastering technique! One is a matter of vinyl per revolution one is the cutting speed. They can be both very good to enhance sound. In my video I underlined how the recent Abbey Road half speed are pretty bad, not all of them but most are. So in that case it is marketing.
Waste of Money! 😠 Jimi is spinning in his grave right now!😠
True...
The cymbals were much better with the deluxe version .... The Mono version does not sound good and I reckon because it is digitized.. It just sounds dull ..I am sure it would be much better if I could hear it on a real analog system
I can guarantee that they are all 100% analog AAA all the way!
@@anadialog You misunderstood what I am saying.. I KNOW your albums are analog but the digitization of the song in the cyber land is taking the quality away from it by the time it gets to my ears ..
@@VIDSTORAGE aha! Now get it. You mean on UA-cam...
talk about super quiet vinyl!! you can't hear anything!!
3. 🙋♂️
I hate those big boxes, why they not just sell the jacket inside for less price and that is, I want a record! not a book wood!
True...plus, we don't have anymore room! At least I don't!
@@anadialog exactly, takes too much space! same for the damn MoFi's One Step, those companies make that HUGE packings to charge a lot money for, they try to make that looks expensive, again I just want a damn record jacket like the old days, I don't need all that extra box.
Blue gel🔷material...