Soft Machine - Third ... sound quality

[chalkpie]

At this point I hear "through" the sound quality - its really not an issue. "Moon in June" always (and still) sounded good to my ears, never understood why everybody says this is the wurst sounding album of all time - its certainly not winning any engineering awards - but I've heard worse.

[Scrotum Scissor]

^
Frankie, there's a plan now to have all copies of Third withdrawn/deleted/forgotten and replaced by a version in which the members of Dream Theater reproduce the music showcasing way/far/MUCH better sound quality.

[Steve F.]

If the multi-tracks existed, this would be a nightmare to try and remix, considering all the tape manipulation used.

Not really, because the tape manipulation is in sections generally separate from the 'band parts'. The opening to Out-Bloody. The ending of Out-Bloody. The violin on Moon In June (which probably went ONTO the multi-tracks manipulated - I don't think it was manipulated whilst being on the multi-master).

But these are just guesses and it's an intellectual exercise, since the tapes are gone.

Also, as I said, my belief is that the bad sound is much more recording decisions rather than mixing decisions. You might be able to improve things a little, but you can only SO polish a turd, as they say.

[Phlakaton]

The bottom line for ME - the sound is why I love this album so much. It has its charm for me that way. Murky thick soup - I wouldnt want to hear it in some cleaner or improved state... would ruin it.

[pb2015]

The bottom line for ME - the sound is why I love this album so much. It has its charm for me that way. Murky thick soup - I wouldnt want to hear it in some cleaner or improved state... would ruin it.

Yes. A bit like Bitches Brew (another landmark double album of the same era).

[Scrotum Scissor]

The bottom line for ME - the sound is why I love this album so much. It has its charm for me that way. Murky thick soup.

When I first got Third back in early '92 (IIRC; a CBS vinyl original from my local secondhand record dealer), each and every album I owned were played on an old combi-player desk - one of those large affairs featuring turntable, radio, manual equalizer and sometimes cassette function on the same deckrack. I believe the player was from about 1976, donning some peculiarly small yet surprisingly effective speakers. Anyway, Third sounded *marvellous* on that, and I grew into thinking this might have been exactly how the listening experience was intended to be. Later on, when I got new and better equipment, apparent "flaws" surfaced. Yet these didn't ever ruin my enjoyment as such, it just became an obstacle of prosaic detail in the music. So I basically agree with you, although I probably wouldn't write it down to "charm" but rather a bizarre sense of misunderstood esthetic. That immense power of the opening part in "Facelift" still cuts like a dagger into spiritual tissue, and I don't think I would have wanted to hear iit in any other fashion.

[Phlakaton]

When I first got Third back in early '92 (IIRC; a CBS vinyl original from my local secondhand record dealer), each and every album I owned were played on an old combi-player desk - one of those large affairs featuring turntable, radio, manual equalizer and sometimes cassette function on the same deckrack. I believe the player was from about 1976, donning some peculiarly small yet surprisingly effective speakers. Anyway, Third sounded *marvellous* on that, and I grew into thinking this might have been exactly how the listening experience was intended to be. Later on, when I got new and better equipment, apparent "flaws" surfaced. Yet these didn't ever ruin my enjoyment as such, it just became an obstacle of prosaic detail in the music. So I basically agree with you, although I probably wouldn't write it down to "charm" but rather a bizarre sense of misunderstood esthetic. That immense power of the opening part in "Facelift" still cuts like a dagger into spiritual tissue, and I don't think I would have wanted to hear iit in any other fashion.

Agreed... bootlegs have this kind of effect on me too. Some shows even though they might not be the best performance - the sound of the capture - perhaps a snappy snare - particularly crunchy bass - or slightly overblown guitar. It all makes for a sonic adventure that is different with each show (this applies to a ton of my Zappa collection).

[Facelift]

I checked the Hoffman forum for suggestions.

The general consensus seems to be the 2004 or 2005 Japanese reissue for CD, and the original UK pressing for vinyl.

The Japanese CD was even described as sounding "great" by one member. I haven't heard it but that seems hard to believe. Here are some quotes from that thread, which you may find useful:

"I love this album so I've heard a lot of versions. I have a lot of notes on it so bear with me while I try to make sense of it all here.
The original Columbia CD was badly no-noised. So was the first CD version in Japan (ESCA-5535). In fact all of those 1991 Japanese Sony CDs with the "ESCA" catalog #'s are no-noised, BIG TIME. Avoid that whole series.
The BGO was badly no-noised also. Since they don't usually use that stuff, I'm assuming Columbia sent them a DAT that was already hit with it.
The first version on CD that was any good was in 2004. Sony Japan. Catalog # MHCP-423. This was a DSD transfer, nice and hissy. Kind of loud but far better than any previous version. And I mean not even CLOSE! This version was reissued (jewel case version) in 2005. Catalog # MHCP-613.
In 2007, a new UK version came out (2CD set with bonus CD of the RAH 1970). This was no-noised again. Not nearly as bad as the early versions but disappointing. Then the Japanese Sony label started using this mastering. They issued it in 2007, catalog # MHCP 1292~93. Then they issued this same 2007 no-noised mastering on so-called "Blu-Spec" CD. Same thing again as the 2007 just priced higher. I haven't heard the "SHM" but unless they have reverted to the 2004 Japanese mastering I mentioned above, it's surely the same 2007 UK mastering, which is ok but inferior overall."


"I have three different versions on CD: The Columbia CD (CGK 30339), the BGO CD (BGO CD180, remastered 1993) and the 2007 Sony 2 CD set. The Columbia CD is possibly from the worst source of these three with the most drop-outs, but it has some nice wide stereo imaging and the most conservative eq. The BGO CD is more dynamic and sounds more focused, but it has some narrowing during intros and what I suspect some noise reduction. The 2007 Sony CD set has a lot more bass content and appears to be somewhat compressed because of that, and it has also a suspiciously low hiss level."


"The 2005 is phase-inverted compared to the original Columbia CD. Hiss level is about the same on both, and since the hiss level is so high and stable, my conclusion is that neither the Columbia CD nor the 2005 Sony Japan CD are noise-reduced. Overall, I think the difference between the two on the first 30 seconds of Moon In June is minimal, maybe a bit more top end on the Japan CD."


"I like the old Columbia CD. It's rubbish, of course (as this album will always be, sound-wise), but it's well-EQ'd, dynamic, non-noise-reduced rubbish.".

In my opinion, the best sounding versions of Third is the BBC sessions album.

[Steve F.]

In my opinion, the best sounding versions of Third is the BBC sessions album.

This.

[Steve F.]

I checked the Hoffman forum for suggestions.

The general consensus seems to be the 2004 or 2005 Japanese reissue for CD, and the original UK pressing for vinyl.

<snip>
The first version on CD that was any good was in 2004. Sony Japan. Catalog # MHCP-423. This was a DSD transfer, nice and hissy. Kind of loud but far better than any previous version.

as I said, I own this.

It's certainly 'good' (by the shitty standards we are talking about here) but - imo - it still sounds like crap and *I* wouldn't personally say it is 'far better' than any other version.

IMO.

[arturs]

Scrotem's and Phlakton's perspectives pretty much sum up my experience too. I bought 3rd in 1980 or so after looking for it for maybe a year. I'm guessing I had gotten interested in 3rd from the very positive review in the (Red cover) Rolling Stone Record Guide. Certainly none of my friends had ever heard of Soft Machine.

I was 14 at the time and had a low end stereo. 3rd just sounded like it was intended, I assumed. I knew nothing about production or mixing or multitracks. Facelift was like a monster that jumped out of the speakers. Distorted, hell yeah!

[JJ88]

as I said, I own this.

It's certainly 'good' (by the shitty standards we are talking about here) but - imo - it still sounds like crap and *I* wouldn't personally say it is 'far better' than any other version.

IMO.

I'm unfamiliar with the mastering concerned but it wouldn't surprise me. There's a lot of exaggeration on that forum. It's an invaluable resource but I take some of the more OTT opinions with a pinch of salt.

Third is an 'it is what it is' experience. It's still their best album, I think.

[Dave (in MA)]

IMO, instead of obsessing over seeking the holy grail Third that doesn't exist, get your hands on some of the SM and related stuff from roughly the same period, like Virtually, Backwards, either/both of the BBC Radio compilations on Hux, the Peel Sessions, Wyatt's 68, maybe even Spaced.

[Steve F.]

IMO, instead of obsessing over seeking the holy grail Third that doesn't exist, get your hands on some of the SM and related stuff from roughly the same period, like Virtually, Backwards, either/both of the BBC Radio compilations on Hux, the Peel Sessions, Wyatt's 68, maybe even Spaced.

Well, yes. Of course I would agree!

[Dave (in MA)]

Well, yes. Of course I would agree!

So as to not come off as a total Cuneiform suckup, I listed some other labels' stuff!

[rcarlberg]

Myself, I never really understood the disdain for Third sound quality.

Yes, it is distorted. The bass and the organ have fuzz boxes on them, so the horns and drums were overdriven to the point of distortion too. I figure it was the sound they were going for -- early grunge. Early heavy metal. It is consistent all the way through and this "sound" is part-and-parcel of the album for me.

It would be like complaining about the sound quality of the guitar on the Beatles' "Revolution" -- that was the INTENT, man.

[nosebone]

We're talking about microphone levels in the red and overloading, creating ugly unwanted distortion.

[Dave (in MA)]

Yes. A bit like Bitches Brew (another landmark double album of the same era).

I always had a mental connection between Third and At Fillmore ever since I got my hands on this in the late 70s.

[Dave (in MA)]

Third is an audiophile's dream compared to Drop.

[Steve F.]

Third is an audiophile's dream compared to Drop.

Unfair comparison.

One is a major label studio release.

One is an archival release from 40 year old live tapes.

[Facelift]

Third is an audiophile's dream compared to Drop.

...And Drop is an audiophile's dream compared to the April, 1970 Ronnie Scott's live recordings.

Once you get into the realm of live archival stuff things can get pretty bad, as we all know.

Plus, Drop came with a disclaimer about how bad the sound was.

[Phlakaton]

...And Drop is an audiophile's dream compared to the April, 1970 Ronnie Scott's live recordings.

Once you get into the realm of live archival stuff things can get pretty bad, as we all know.

Plus, Drop came with a disclaimer about how bad the sound was.

Jeesh... Drop? Its certainly not a great sounding recording... but as a document for that era and considering the year of the recording - I find it pretty good. Phil Howard! Sound... heh.

[Dave (in MA)]

Unfair comparison.

One is a major label studio release.

One is an archival release from 40 year old live tapes.

I wasn't trying to be unfair, just an example of what most of us are willing to put up with.

[Dave (in MA)]

Plus, Drop came with a disclaimer about how bad the sound was.

Only once you bought the thing and looked in the booklet, right?

[Dave (in MA)]

Jeesh... Drop? Its certainly not a great sounding recording... but as a document for that era and considering the year of the recording - I find it pretty good. Phil Howard! Sound... heh.

Too bad there wasn't a better recording of a Howard show.