Gong - Radio Gnome Trilogy Remastered

[MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER]

I got tired of waiting for the Virgin version, so I spent a couple of days and remastered it myself from my pristine vinyl

here is a sample from my CDR:

http://mfi.re/listen/levfs02n121ctrm/2_TEASER.mp3

[JKL2000]

It seemed to me to be identical to the sound of the original Charly issue of Teapot.



Have you heard an original Virgin LP copy? Night and day. The CD issue was squashed and compressed and the left and right channels were switched. I'm not even a vinyl junkie, but the fidelity on the CD issue is shameful.

No, I've never heard the vinyl, though yeah, I've heard this before. If I ever hear of a CD release that is much closer to the LP's sound I'll buy it.

[JeffCarney]

I got tired of waiting for the Virgin version, so I spent a couple of days and remastered it myself from my pristine vinyl

here is a sample from my CDR:

http://mfi.re/listen/levfs02n121ctrm/2_TEASER.mp3

So ... you really think this particular section you've sampled will show off your vinyl ripping skills?

[Trane]

iirc, Decal also reissued the National Health and Daevid Allen albums originally released on the Charly sublabel Afffinity.

Oddly enough (for me anyway), RYM only lists one Virgin Camembert reissue in 73 and never since... Same for Teapot.

However, the Blue-skied artwork seems to be first used on the Virgin issue, while the Black-skied and mountains (which I tend to prefer) seems to be Charly-only

[JKL2000]

Does anyone know if the Gong Trilogy box (as opposed to the oversize 4CD digibook set) can be ordered in North America?

[MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER]

So ... you really think this particular section you've sampled will show off your vinyl ripping skills?

we know, we know... only you are the arbiter of all things audio. Has anyone bowed down to you lately? ... oh, I see.


for those who do not think they are the god of all audio fidelity, you can use/compare the sample I posted to see if this new Charly box is as good as the original Virgin LP issue

[JeffCarney]

we know, we know... only you are the arbiter of all things audio. Has anyone bowed down to you lately? ... oh, I see.


for those who do not think they are the god of all audio fidelity, you can use/compare the sample I posted to see if this new Charly box is as good as the original Virgin LP issue

Hope you get this sorted out.

My point was just that an ambient section isn't exactly that helpful to anyone wanting to hear what you've done.

Why not sample something with drums, bass, singing ... you know ... a band actually in full bloom? This quiet, spacey opening section doesn't allow for much understanding of what you've done with the tonality of things.

[calyx]

Oddly enough (for me anyway), RYM only lists one Virgin Camembert reissue in 73 and never since... Same for Teapot.

Maybe you should consider switching to Discogs for this kind of stuff ? It seems much more accurate. For instance, Virgin reissued "Camembert" in 1974, not 1973, and Discogs also has THAT date right.

http://www.discogs.com/Gong-Camember...e/master/27622

Interestingly, Discogs lists 1978 and 1984 Virgin LP reissues of "Flying Teapot", which is puzzling. And if you click on the sleeve, these do appear to be genuinely from those years (despite bearing the copyright date 1973), as the Virgin logo on the disc itself is clearly NOT the original 1973 logo, but the later, more famous version.

[JeffCarney]

the Virgin LP sounds fantastic. Just burn a CDR from your LP

Agreed.

Still curious about these and the extras are attractive. Also my UK vinyl copy of You is not that clean.

[JKL2000]

I got tired of waiting for the Virgin version, so I spent a couple of days and remastered it myself from my pristine vinyl

here is a sample from my CDR:

http://mfi.re/listen/levfs02n121ctrm/2_TEASER.mp3

Are you also writing your own booklet?

I keed, I keed!

[MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER]

here's a section with the band in full swing:

http://mfi.re/listen/9ycbyyjd6ukj0ol/2_TEASER_2.mp3

[JeffCarney]

here's a section with the band in full swing:

http://mfi.re/listen/9ycbyyjd6ukj0ol/2_TEASER_2.mp3

I wouldn't know how to comment on this other than to say that this screechy bright "remastering" isn't to my personal taste.

[MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER]

turn on your subwoofer
there's tons of fullness there if you have a decent sound system

[JeffCarney]

turn on your subwoofer
there's tons of fullness there if you have a decent sound system

Sound system is fine. Subwoofer employed.

Thanks for posting it. I don't get the idea of "remastering" vinyl with EQ, but if you like the way it sounds; great.

[MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER]

EQ is but a small percentage of what I do. There's a ton more involved than mere EQ

The sound that comes from an excellent quality LP played through an excellent quality turntable is sublime.
it surpasses any digital thing and yet it *can* be captured on digital medium to a great degree even though it still has to be chopped up into computer bits

my work is to preserve the superior sound of LPs adding very subtle tweaks using a lossless medium
hence, the work I do always sounds superior (to people who recognize the superiority of a quality vinyl pressing) to any digital transfer from decades old oxidized master tapes if the given vinyl was pressed within weeks of the original stereo master being created.
The original LP is always the best, but the lossless digital copy of that vinyl (especially with subtle, painstakingly detailed tweaks using a pro audio workstation) is 2nd best; better than official CD releases of the same album.

Again, this is in the case of *analog* stereo master tapes that are more than 20 years old. I'm unsure of oxidization degradation regarding *digital* master tape used from the 90s onward but original vinyl pressed shortly after a *digital* stereo master was recorded might still sound better than its CD sibling.

[JeffCarney]

The sound that comes from an excellent quality LP played through an excellent quality turntable is sublime.

Full agreement here.

my work is to preserve the superior sound of LPs adding very subtle tweaks using a lossless medium

I see. Well, I find nothing "subtle" about the amount of what sounds like upper midrange boost on the sample you uploaded. Of course, this is just down to taste. What might be subtle to you is extreme to another ...

hence, the work I do always sounds superior (to people who recognize the superiority of a quality vinyl pressing) to any digital transfer from decades old oxidized master tapes if the given vinyl was pressed within weeks of the original stereo master being created.
The original LP is always the best, but the lossless digital copy of that vinyl (especially with subtle, painstakingly detailed tweaks using a pro audio workstation) is 2nd best; better than official CD releases of the same album.

Tape oxidation of the nature you describe is said by some engineers who actually handle analog tapes for remastering to be unusual at best. Some mastering engineers chime in on this very thing in this thread. Steve Hoffman even claims a few posts in that in 25 years he's never once seen a tape with this problem:

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/thread...ination.92862/

[MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER]

Steve Hoffman even claims a few posts in that in 25 years he's never once seen a tape with this problem:

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/thread...ination.92862/

and yet, official CDs made from analog stereo masters sound like utter garbage compared to an mint condition LP of the same album
I'm sure that Steve Hoffman has some circular reasoning to try and explain away that fact

[JeffCarney]

and yet, official CDs made from analog stereo masters sound like utter garbage compared to an mint condition LP of the same album
I'm sure that Steve Hoffman has some circular reasoning to try and explain away that fact

I think there are many reasons CDs "sound like utter garbage" that have nothing to do with oxidation of the tapes.

The reason I linked that thread for you is to let you see what some engineers who actually handle tapes have to say about this theory.

In the end, it probably doesn't matter much how they get there, but I agree that CDs in general are an inferior medium to vinyl. When I do vinyl rips (straight; no EQ or any 'remastering' of any kind) they almost always sound far superior to even the best CD version I may have of a given album.

While Flying Teapot was always a mess on CD and every version seemed to originate from the same awful tape, I do think Angel's Egg and You sounded quite good when initially released on Virgin. Maybe not as good as clean vinyl, but absolutely acceptable.

[JKL2000]

I think there are many reasons CDs "sound like utter garbage" that have nothing to do with oxidation of the tapes.

The reason I linked that thread for you is to let you see what some engineers who actually handle tapes have to say about this theory.

In the end, it probably doesn't matter much how they get there, but I agree that CDs in general are an inferior medium to vinyl. When I do vinyl rips (straight; no EQ or any 'remastering' of any kind) they almost always sound far superior to even the best CD version I may have of a given album.

While Flying Teapot was always a mess on CD and every version seemed to originate from the same awful tape, I do think Angel's Egg and You sounded quite good when initially released on Virgin. Maybe not as good as clean vinyl, but absolutely acceptable.

Do you have any idea why the initial and later CD releases of Flying Teapot were handled differently from AE and You?

[calyx]

Do you have any idea why the initial and later CD releases of Flying Teapot were handled differently from AE and You?

Because, based on the former Gong members' anti-Charly appeal, Charly were never given access to the original master tapes and their reissues were taken from an interior copy.

[JJ88]

I never found out how the version Charly put out on CD differed musically from the Virgin record. Reversed channels have been mentioned on this thread, but that's about all.

The whole thing is a sprawling mess, unfortunately.

[JKL2000]

I never found out how the version Charly put out on CD differed musically from the Virgin record. Reversed channels have been mentioned on this thread, but that's about all.

The whole thing is a sprawling mess, unfortunately.

Prog fluster cuck.

[Trane]

Maybe you should consider switching to Discogs for this kind of stuff ? It seems much more accurate. For instance, Virgin reissued "Camembert" in 1974, not 1973, and Discogs also has THAT date right.

http://www.discogs.com/Gong-Camember...e/master/27622

Interestingly, Discogs lists 1978 and 1984 Virgin LP reissues of "Flying Teapot", which is puzzling. And if you click on the sleeve, these do appear to be genuinely from those years (despite bearing the copyright date 1973), as the Virgin logo on the disc itself is clearly NOT the original 1973 logo, but the later, more famous version.

yeah, I tend to use RYM for easy and quicker reading (you can see the different covers of a given album just by placing your cursor on the artwork)

I checked on Discopgs the different label description, and they're hardly exhaustive on the actual label logos



@Jeff, I stumbled a few weeks ago in discussing with you for those Victor mini-lp (I didn't think they were Charly releases), because for the first time, they had used those Virgin artworks for Angel's and You. Prior to that, Charly had used two different artworks for those two albums (making four ugly artworks)

[strawberrybrick]

I really think this needs repeating... From the Planet Gong facebook page (sticky first post)


OFFICIAL BAND STATEMENT

We, the surviving members of Gong, do not support Charly Records upcoming reissue of the Radio Gnome trilogy.

None of the surviving members of the lineups that created those recordings
were ever signed to Charly Records.

The truth is that during the making of Flying Teapot in January 1973, the band learned that the record company - BYG Records (also known as Promodisc) - had gone bust, it's Paris office stripped bare, no phones working. The band was abandoned at the Manor Studios midway through the album. Virgin - at the time just a chain of record stores and The Manor studios - was about to launch their record label.

Faced with an unpaid recording bill, they decided to cut their losses and release Flying Teapot as the second release on the new Virgin Records label. That's the true story.

The booklet advertised as accompanying the Charly/BYG Release is full of untruths, lies and falsehoods claiming to represent Charly and BYG Records as some sort of poor victim of Virgin's wickedness. The truth is that none of the musicians on those recordings has ever received a penny of royalty payments for the Charly/BYG releases, or even a statement. This is understandable because we NEVER signed to BYG or Charly Records as Gong.

Meanwhile, forty years later, we still receive statements from Virgin and, for those of us who cleared our advances, royalty payments, even though Virgin has since been sold to EMI and now is owned by Universal Records.

We know and can confirm as a 100% corroborated fact that the Original Masters of these albums reside in the Virgin Records Archive, and that Charly has never at any time been given access to them, so Charly's claim to have used the Original Masters is false.

Charly has been brazenly abusing our rights as artists for decades. None of us are rich or powerful enough to sue them. All we can do is to let you, our lovely Gong fans, know that we do not support this release. We will be supporting a new boxed set to be released by Universal in a few months with our full collaboration.

DO NOT BUY THIS RELEASE

[strawberrybrick]

Just a few points...

In my email with Gong types, they categorically state that Charly DO NOT have rights to any artwork from Angel's Egg or You, and that any masters they are using are decades old COPIES, and by no means originals.

One thing that is under wraps is that some past member(s) of the Trilogy Gong did give master copies to Charly, which seems to be the basis for Charly's claim to be able to release all of these.

I've asked why they haven't gone after Charly in court, as others have, and the answer is that they don't think it would resolve anything. My guess - and it's only a guess - is that Universal has a) access to original everything, b) tidy'd things up with surviving Gongsters, and c) by letting Charly go ahead with this unauthorized release, has cleared the way morally and perhaps legally with a new, fully approved, Universal release.

So we should just be patient, and wait for the Universal box to appear...