Loading...
Done
Home > Music > +Rock > Prog-Rock | Art Rock

Jethro Tull - Aqualung [1997 DCC Compact Classics Gold GZS-1105] (1971) [PROPER]

Posted By : Virginia Plain | Date : 21 Oct 2008 07:21:00 | Comments : 25 |
|



Jethro Tull - Aqualung [1997 DCC Compact Classics Gold GZS-1105] (1971) [PROPER]
Flac (separate files)+CUE+LOG | 265 MB | Covers (300 dpi) included
Genre: Progressive Rock


Review by Greg Smith from SoundStage.com:

"You Gen Xers just don't GET it! Aqualung is an LP. The only CORRECT format for Aqualung is LP. Luckily DCC has the best sounding Aqualung LP ever released anywhere in the known universe. You're makin' me squirm real bad just THINKING about an Aqualung CD. "...Doug Blackburn

Doug better get used to squirming, because this month I'll take a look at not one, not two, but three different Aqualung CDs. The first one, which I'll dub "the original", often stood out in my CD collection for how bad it was. If I wanted a poorly mastered CD, I knew I could rely on Aqualung to provide it. So when the 25th Anniversary release came out, sporting the "digitally remastered" logo, I picked that up, too. This again failed to satisfy, for different reasons. The main focus of this review is the just released version from DCC. Have I finally found a pleasant Aqualung CD? Will Doug Blackburn ever stop abusing me for trying? You don't expect me to answer all these questions in the first paragraph of the review, I hope. This contest will have four rounds, and I just heard the opening bell.


The Master

You want an original master tape for Aqualung? Don't ask Chrysalis for it. It's fairly well known that the master tape they've been using for a while now is at least a 2nd generation copy. Considering how bad the original CD release sounds, I wouldn't be surprised to find they didn't even use that one--a cassette tape could easily capture the sound quality you'll find there. DCC had wanted to release Aqualung for years, but refused to use the same crummy version Chrysalis has. It's only recently that their detective work revealed another person on the grassy knoll, uh, I mean another master tape. Apparently Ian Anderson has the 1971 British release master in his personal possession. After some wheeling and dealing, he agreed to let DCC have it for one week. A million dollar insurance policy was obtained and tape went via courier across the ocean and into Steve Hoffman's hands. Bear in mind that this is a slightly different mix than the one all previous American releases of the album have been made from, so some of the differences I note later could very well be from differences in the master rather than differences in the CD mastering process.


The Technology

I don't even want to think about how poorly the mastering was done for the original Aqualung CD; it's just too traumatic. For the 25th anniversary of Aqualung, Chrysalis went all-out (by their standards) to make the most deluxe Aqualung possible. They used "state-of-the-art analogue to digital converters" and processed the result down to 16 bits with the Prism Sound Super-Noise-Shaping system. This claims to "reduce the apparent level of background noise and equally important, subtly modify the psycho-acoustic properties of the recording to enhance the sense of presence and realism." Translation: they processed the hell out of it. I'm sure they meant well, but the results are less than stunning. DCC doesn't spend all day running music through digital programs that try and make it sound better. They carefully construct a signal chain that converts the analog master to digital form so that it's as faithful as possible to what Steve Hoffman imagines the master is supposed to sound like. You've got a classic showdown here: Chrysalis with their fancy processing software vs. DCC and their judiciously applied analog technology.


The Sound

Here's a recipe for annoying your neighbors: load three distinct Aqualung CDs into a CD changer. Turn up the volume loud enough that you can hear as much low-level detail as possible. Play a track off of one, then advance through the changer two more times to hear the other versions. Go back to the ones you've already heard sometimes to clarify subtle points. Then, advance to the next track and start the process over for them. Lather, rinse, and repeat 10 more times to hear every song. Some days I wish I still had the almost deaf landlord who accompanied my first apartment; he used to play his TV so loud that I never worried about how much I turned my system up.

Anyway, you can tell almost everything you need to know about how a given release of Aqualung is going to sound during the first few seconds of the title track. The opening guitar chords on the original are noisy, with The Big Tape Hiss (capitalized because it is so truly horrible). On a system with an exaggerated treble, The Hiss on this version will drive you out of the room. When you listen to the rest of the music, you find yourself asking questions. Is that vague modulated thump in the background supposed to be a bass or drum? Was that ugly distortion at one time the sound of the guitar strings? These questions and many others should be answered by the 20th anniversary version, but they aren't. The hiss is gone, sort of. See, the processing they used to get rid of the noise is far less effective in the louder parts than in the softer. So when you hear the space between notes, the hiss is totally gone. During the music itself, it's back. This constant fade in and out of the background noise is, to me, worse than a noise that happens all the time. I used to get the same pulsing effect when I sic'ed my dbx dynamic range expander on the original CD, and it wasn't any more pleasant then. There are actually some small improvements on the anniversary release of this song, but they really aren't worth dwelling on. The DCC version fixes up most of the problems you hear on the other versions. The hiss is quieted considerably compared with the original, and is always at that low level; much less distracting than the remaining noise left from the Prism processing. The bass is clear and way deeper, while at the top end the cymbals actually shimmer like they should. The soundstage is much larger, with the weird vocal echo in the middle sounding like it is in a much bigger space.

Moving on to Cross-Eyed Mary is a more pleasant experience. While the original still has The Hiss From Hell, the flute sounds decent and the kick drum comes through fairly well. The anniversary edition gets the expected hiss modulation by the music, and the kick drum picks up some impact. DCC's track actually lets you hear all the drum parts as distinct, rather than the generic "drum sound" the other versions portray. The double-tracked vocals really jump out at you on their version, and bass guitar rumbles just right.

Cheap Day Return shows more of the same pattern. While the bass sounds reasonable on the original, there's the usual hiss and a fake sound where the guitar body sounds are supposed to be. The 20th anniversary edition doesn't improve the problems at all, adding only hiss anomalies. DCC cleans up the noise without being irritating, while restoring the guitar nuances and making them sound like real instruments.

I've always been a big fan of Mother Goose, and it's one of the few spots where the original Chrysalis CD sounds pretty good. Compared with the previous three tracks, this one has better dynamics and a big fat kick drum. The bass on the 20th anniversary edition is even better, and actually edges out even the DCC version by my taste. What DCC does give you are the edges to the entire envelope of Ian's flute playing, with all the detail laid bare. The quiet singing and guitar of Wond'ring Aloud are totally ruined on the original CD, obscured by hiss (hey, wasn't that a Floyd album?). Happily, the crap is gone on both the 20th anniversary and DCC releases. The newer Chrysalis release takes the sense of space and aliveness along with the hiss when they processed it out, and it actually sounds worse than the original in that regard.

The laughing voices on Up To Me improve in a fashion that shouldn't surprise you if you've been reading along so far; they get better with each new version, floating more in space instead of just being random sound effects. Also no shock is that the bass is sucked away in the anniversary edition; the DCC release comes between the two, not being quite as pronounced as the original version. The really big gain you get from DCC is in the guitars, which, it is suddenly revealed by their remaster, actually have strings on them (a fact you'd never have guessed from how the other two sound). My God is an apt reaction to how bad the original Aqualung CD sounds, where again the Mother of All Hiss (unrelated to Mother Goose) obliterates the soft guitar opening. This time there's even a loud squeal to go with it. The squeal is still there in each of the other versions, albeit at a reduced level. The 20th anniversary version is fairly competitive with DCC's on this one, losing only a bit of the edges to the guitar notes.

A loud farting noise accompanies each of the bass guitar notes on the original version of Hymn 43, which is about average overall in mastering crumminess for this CD. Don't expect that Chrysalis will fix it, their new version is even less dynamic and the soundstage collapses ("enhance the sense of presence and realism", my ass). DCC saves this track, it's one of the most improved on their release. The recording sounds like it's in a much bigger space. And that bass guitar have been treated with the remastering equivalent of Gas-X, because there's a nice tight sound to it. Quite refreshing after hearing the other two.

Slipstream has differences just like the rest of the tracks, no need to beat that dead horse further. Nowadays, whenever I hear Locomotive Breath, I suddenly have this urge to go buy some beer (I hate selling out). All subtlety to the piano at the beginning is, of course, lost in the hiss and squeal of the first release. The DCC version has little hiss and the squeal is almost gone. Amazing, there's actually some action on those piano keys! The weird wobbling effect to the bass on this track comes through more cleanly than I'd ever heard it before. The 20th anniversary edition has less hiss than the DCC version, but the early piano part isn't quite as real. Once the track gets loud, there isn't as much of a difference.

As we Wind Up the disc, we find (all join in) more quiet piano parts you can barely hear and fake guitar bodies. The 20th anniversary edition restores this music, it's quite nice. Surprisingly, the DCC release is still pretty noisy, and overall I actually prefer the anniversary version in both that area and how the guitars sound. Amazing, something to like about it just as we were nearing the end.


The Package

The original release of Aqualung came with a pathetic set of information about the album. The little four page liner notes give you a track listing, who was in the band, and the Aqualung hymn. That's it. The 25th anniversary release came with a big deluxe box, which of course makes it stick out of my collection in an irritating way. Inside the box is a regular sized jewel box, but the liner notes booklet that comes with it is also oversized so you can't just dispose of the outside box. Annoying, and for no good reason, since it's not enough bigger to justify on the basis of giving a better look at the artwork or anything. In their defense, you do get the nicest rendition of the cover in a CD size I've ever seen, with the painting texture revealing Aqualung's grubbiness in excellent form. You get the lyrics to all the songs and some quotes from reviews of the album. On the CD itself, you'll find another bonus--six extra tracks. Lick Your Fingers Clean is a track wisely left off the album, there's the Quad mix of Wind Up, and an interview with Ian Anderson. The other three tracks are BBC recordings of Song for Jeffrey, Fat Man, and Bouree. Interesting to hear, but certainly not compelling additions to the album. DCC's version comes between the other two; you get all the lyrics and artwork, but the graphics don't look quite as detailed as the anniversary edition and there's no bonus tracks.


The Winnuh!

I've been trying to find a Aqualung CD worth liking for a long time now. The original release sounds so bad it actively gets in the way of the music itself. The 25th anniversary version is better, but I'm so disturbed by the processing artifacts that I've only listening to it a few times in the year I've had it. If you really want to hear Aqualung clearly on CD, the DCC version is the obvious choice. I've found myself enjoying the songs quite a bit more than I ever had before.

I highly recommend snapping up a DCC Aqualung before they disappear. You see, there's a very painful trend I've been following lately. Many record companies are taking the opportunity to sell the same music to the public again by releasing remastered versions of recordings people already own. I'm usually all in favor of that. Recently, though, this has taken an ugly turn. Not content to merely make the best possible CD from the unprocessed master tape, the big record companies have taken to messing around with the music instead. Now, think about this: if Chrysalis spent their time making what, to their ears, is a perfectly good digital release of Aqualung, do you think they'll ever go back to the master again? I wouldn't be surprised at all to find that future releases of the album, be it on CD, DVD, or whatever, will come from the digital version they've already made and screwed up. After DCC's release is out of print, it may never be possible to get a proper digital release of this album again. It's not just this album that's a problem, either. Artists like The Who and Elton John have now remixed their classic albums and released the new versions as the standard. While some of these are very good, they are all different from the original music. When it comes time to release future versions of, say, Who's Next, you can bet that it's this remixed version you'll be getting. This is very upsetting to me, as I happen to find that particular version to be inferior to the well remastered version MCA had previously made available. I don't ever expect to find that available to buy again; I suspect all that will ever be released in the future are new digital transfers of the remixed version.

It's already becoming nearly impossible for anyone to get good copies of the original master tapes of many classic albums, especially since they are so prone to wear and degradation over time (not the mention loss). The work DCC is doing on albums like Aqualung is especially important when you realize that it may very well be the last time anyone ever touches the original master to sample that analog tape and make the best digital version possible. Don't say I didn't warn you if you wait to buy it and find that Aqualung has slipped between your greasy fingers, never to appear in such a listenable form again.



Taken from Steve Hoffman Forums:

Keith Hanlon: I read an interview where you described the long, hard struggle of getting master tapes for Dylan's "Highway 61 Revisited." What were the most difficult master tapes for you to locate?

Steve Hoffman: I'd have to say Jethro Tull's "Aqualung." I believe we waited seven years. That was an album that was recorded in one place, then a tape copy was made for America and a tape copy was made for England, and these tape copies are the ones that are marked "master." They've been EQed, and they've been compressed... slightly, in a good way. But nonetheless they were not the original masters. They kept sending us all these tapes marked "master." I kept saying to them, very kindly, "no no no, not this, not this, not this..." Finally, we got a hold of Ian Anderson, who said, "oh yeah, I have those in my garage." That was about five years into the project. At about seven years into it, he finally got around to sending us "Aqualung." It was a long struggle, but the project came out nicely. It's not that [the tapes were] lost, it was just that no one there realized that was what we wanted. They couldn't understand. "Well, here's a perfectly good tape that we used to make the LP. Why don't you just use that?" Well we don't want this $30 CD to sound like the LP because personally, I didn't think the LP sounded that hot!



Tracklisting:
1. Aqualung (6:38)
2. Cross-Eyed Mary (4:11)
3. Cheap Day Return (1:25)
4. Mother Goose (3:56)
5. Wond'ring Aloud (1:57)
6. Up To Me (3:23)
7. My God (7:14)
8. Hymn 43 (3:21)
9. Slipstream (1:15)
10. Locomotive Breath (4:26)
11. Wind Up (6:04)

Total Time: 43:50

Line-Up:
- Ian Anderson / flute,acoustic guitar, electric guitar, vocals
- Martin Barre / electric guitar, descant recorder
- Clive Bunker /drums, percussion
- John Evans / piano, organ, mellotron
- Jeffrey Hammond-Hammond / bass, alto recorder, backing vocals

This album is a PROPER because the other 2 uploads of this pressing were not ripped correctly in EAC. 1st up (rbenavides) had incorrect read offset, 2nd up (chronograph) had C2: yes, and Disable Cache: no. Settings for this rip are all correct, No C2, Disabled Cache, correct Read Offset, Test & Copy.


Available at the following links:

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3

Password: www.AvaxHome.ru

ADVERTISING » High Speed Download « ADVERTISING




Posted By: NeilYoung Date: 21 Oct 2008 09:37:17
i have an aqualung cd also, but it contain extra (bonus) tracks and an interview with ian anderson. yes, you are right about sound quality. but main reason for it is given in that ian anderson interview and it is related to recording conditions. if i am not wrong (maybe didnt remember correctly) ian anderson said he prefered crest of a knave more than aqualung as best records.
I think when i will listen locomotive breath from your post, i can give my decision about this versions sound quality because in that song there is disturbing noise always for me.
finally, i didnt understand your short explanations about EAC ripping methods. I ve tried to use EAC in a blind way, dont knowing the parameters meanings. i generally use copy image & create cue sheet - compressed option, and for rippin g method secure mode with with enabling "drive is capable of retrieving c2 error info" because underneath there is an examine c2 feature command exists (after i did this test). I dont know much test & copy ripping.

Do you know where can i find info about how to rip in EAC in details, not a brief (short) descriptions in net.

thanks a lot!

EDIT: why always aqualung is shared, i think passion play and thick as a brick are better (may be teir best) albums.
(sorry i couldnt search in detail but this is active
http://avaxhome.ws/music/rock/progressive_rock/jethro_tull_thickasabrick_mfsl.html)
Posted By: Virginia Plain Date: 21 Oct 2008 10:37:39
NeilYoung,

Locomotive Breath always has that disturbing noise you mention (I assume it is the buzzing sound made by the bass guitar during the song), read the article a little closer, that track is mentioned in detail.

Regarding EAC ripping, C2 error info should not be used. Yes, I know there is a button to detect it, but to get the best rip from EAC, no matter what results you get from the test, always check the first 2 boxes and uncheck the third box manually in Secure Mode options. This is why:

Audio-CDs have two layers of error-correction: C1 (first layer) and C2 (second layer).
Both are done by the hardware itself, if a C1 error cannot be corrected it is passed to the second stage (C2) and the drive tries to correct it here.
Since there are lots of (corrected) C1-errors, the drive just silently corrects those and most drives cannot even report C1 (why flood the user with messages of errors, when they are 100% corrected?).


C2-errors are divided into three sub-types:

E12 = one bit defective, 100% correctable
E22 = two bits defective, 100% correctable
E32 = three or more bits defective, no correction possible

So it would make sense for a drive to only report the E32 (uncorrectable) C2-errors?
Yes, but unfortunately this depends on the manufacturer of the drive.
Some drives report all C2-errors, some different combinations of them.

Since we don't know which drive reports which types, the C2-feature is useless, because it might give false positives.

Another reason why C2 is useless: some CDs are intentionally contaminated with C2-errors by the manufacturer.
A normal CD-player does neither read nor recognize C2, only a computer does.
This is a subtle way of obstructing copying which is done by computer. Since we have no way determining, whether the C2 is real (tiny, invisible speckle of dust, micro-scratch, etc.) or intentional, we would also get false positives.

Concluding: deactivate the C2 error-recognition feature on your DAE software (DAE = Digital Audio Extraction).


Test & Copy is a feature of EAC where it will do a full rip of each track without writing data to the disc and then do a second rip where it writes data, and compare the two to each other to ensure that the CRC checksums match (this ensures that every single bit of data is identical in both rips so it can be more sure the data it is writing to the wav file is correct and accurate). This is akin to double-checking your work in a math problem before concluding on a final answer (to be absolutely sure you are correct).

There is a page where you can get full, complete set-up guides for EAC so you can be sure your rips are as accurate as can be:

http://www.xs.vc/eac/index.html

If you follow the guides on that site, you can't go wrong.

BTW, look at who posted that album you linked to ;)
Posted By: NeilYoung Date: 21 Oct 2008 11:45:35
"BTW, look at who posted that album you linked to ;)"

Yes I know, I am downloading that one too now. There is only passion play left, I will search for it.

Thank you very very very much for all the beatiful music sharing with us...
Many thanks for EAC information also.

EDIT: I coudnt reach your past posts by "see other publications of this author", also I tried ...blogs/Virginia_Plain (maybe they are same).
Posted By: Virginia Plain Date: 21 Oct 2008 12:51:55
Try:

http://avaxhome.ws/blogs/Virginia Plain

yes, put an actual space in there, it really works (funny method but true)
Posted By: verb Date: 21 Oct 2008 19:25:26
Thanks!!!!!
Posted By: bungynik Date: 21 Oct 2008 20:38:04
Well considering C2 error corrections, you are wright in the part where you say that we do not know is drive is really capable for C2 correction. But there is the drives for which are C2 confirmed and thus is better to use C2=YES than C2=no. This option will not affect accuracy of your rip... just the ripping time!!!

Look.... EAC have to read data from Disc, not from cache!!!! When you check drive caches audio data you will force EAC to flush the cache and to read directly from disc (defeat cache). So if your drive caches data this option is "have to". On the other side if your drive do not cache audio data than it's not important are you gonna check this or not! If you are not sure about your drive features then it's safer to check this option. You all must be aware that when you check this, EAC cache flushing routine will slow down ripping speed!

As a matter of C2... most drives capable for C2 error correction will do this better than EAC and in most of the cases only drive is capable to correct C2 errors. In that way it will increase your ripping confidence and speed. I know that there are a different opinions about that, but mostly the root of this is suspicion in drive capabilities.
But most of the stand alone CD players, even the audiophile ones do not even have ability of C2 errors correction (some of them can't correct even C1 errors)! Instead they use routines to skip those errors!

Stand alone players have constant angular rotation speed Computer Cd Roms have variable speed so they can read single data much more time than stand alone player, so the error correction can be performed much easier! The only way to perform ECC is to read data many times and to compare readings of the same data. There is another way usually performed in Lo-Fi equipment... just skip unreadable data and continue playing!!!
This is why a lot of my neighbors used to say : You pay so much money for your player and it doesn't play average CD and I pay 30Euros for mine but I can listen every CD!!!


But one thing is sure.... I'm always using C2=Yes and Defeat audio cache=no but I know what my drives are capable for!!! But considering that your rips are always perfect I will definitely grab this one!!! But when you speak about C2 and Defeat audio cache and before you say that this is not proper settings you should check the log file to see what drive is used for rip. The settings you are recommending is the preventive kind of settings and those settings should work no matter what kind of drive you are using, but it does not mean that the EAC rip not set on this way will be improper. It just give you safety if you are not trusting in ripper knowledge!!!!

Thank you for this very much!!!
Posted By: Virginia Plain Date: 22 Oct 2008 04:36:40
Yes, I understand your point about your drive, but having the settings as I specified originally ensures that the audio was read right, because as you stated they are preventative settings that will work properly with any drive, and a quick glimpse at the log file without knowledge of what particular drives are capable of, those settings will let the end user know that the audio was extracted properly. If your drive is one of those old drives that does not cache audio data, you should provide a Feurio log showing that this is true:

http://www.feurio.com/English/Download/download_install.shtml

...otherwise the end user will just assume you don't know what you are doing in regards to setting EAC up and look around for a better rip to replace yours, as there are tons of EAC setup guides around, and they all pretty much conform to a single style of setup.

Trust is a really tough thing to come by, and certainly even tougher to establish from an internet user to an anonymous audience of end users.
Posted By: bungynik Date: 22 Oct 2008 18:25:17
Ok! I'm using TEAC CD-540E for audio extraction and I'm standing behind the opinion that this is probably the best drive for this job. It has extremely well implemented C2 error correction, it doesn't caches audio data and on all tests it was qualified as the best drive for audio extraction, and it was stated in those tests that it's better for this job then Plextor! The second drive that I'm using is Optiarc AD-7200A which doesn't have C2 implemented on such high level, but it's still well enough to perform the job. But if you have god CD without scratches, hair or dust than C2 is irrelevant! And it is much more secure and accurate if you have a drive capable to correct C2 data when you have to work with old or scratched disc! But when I think a little, it is true that your point of view has more sense 'cause lot of downloaders do not care to check is the drive in log file is C2 capable or is it caching data, but on the other hand it's his problem. They gonna get a fully proper rip and it is on them to waste some time if they do not trust to uploader!!! But I fully agree that in the case like mine is appropriate to supply the Fuerio log or log from some other program that will confirm that your drive is set according with real capabilities!!! This is something that you perform once and you can use log with every upload. So if drive caches less than 64k of data it is assumed that drive do not caching data because EAC will never request less then 64K of data!!!

Cheers!!
Posted By: traste Date: 22 Oct 2008 23:04:30
@ bungynik:

There has to be certain standards when you measure quality. You can't say "I have the best ripper in the world and therefore I don't need to follow the rules". At least not if you want respect in the sharing community.

A ripping standard for sharers ensuring accurate rips has indeed developed during the last years and there is no need to questioning this standard just because you trust YOUR drive so much. Sharing is also about caring...

(Actually, I think you are wrong about the C2 error correction reliability too, but that's not relevant here since my point is only to emphasize the importance of the ripping standard.)

Bottom line:

Use EAC with the following settings

Read mode : Secure
Utilize accurate stream : Yes (if your drive support it, most new do)
Defeat audio cache : Yes
Make use of C2 pointers : No

Also use the AccurateRip feature or at least use read offset correction.



@ Virginia Plain:

I totally appreciate your effort! Great quality uploads, great info, great scans. Thanks!
Posted By: bungynik Date: 23 Oct 2008 15:52:54
@traste

It's not on you to decide what is wrong and what is wright and your opinion can be relevant if you are or you can prove that you are some authority on this field. So if I offer you something that is perfect by any standard and if you do not posses the knowledge to evaluate the quality of that than you should download something else or not to download at all! So please do not comment something that you obviously don't know nothing about. What I was wrote here is something that I meant to be a kind of discussion with somebody who knows what he speaking about. I'm not interested at all what yo "think" only what you know!! If I "think" that you do not know a word what I have discussing with Virginia Plain, it can be (or not) only my opinion because I do not have a proof, but if I say that I "know" that you don't have a clue what you and we talked about than I should have a proof for that. So you should share your knowledge here... not your "thinking".

Use EAC with the following settings

Read mode : Secure
Utilize accurate stream : Yes (if your drive support it, most new do)
Defeat audio cache : Yes
Make use of C2 pointers : No

Also use the AccurateRip feature or at least use read offset correction.


Good morning Colombo!!!

Ohh... I have thought that you have posted something new..... well thank you for your good will to share this knowledge with me and all of us... now I have learned something new and I'm grateful :))

Jokes on side, now seriously: "traste" you don't need to spare your typing skill on something that we have already elaborated in discussion, and what's more we have harmonize our opinions and is obviously that we don't need you to be "qualified" judge. If you have something to write on more expertly level, I'll be glad to learn something from you (hope for free). Or you think that you know more than Andre? So write to him to wipe those options and to pre-set EAC according to your "standards", so that we can send you the post cards as well::)) If you are not capable to elaborate the facts that you are writing about, please don't write (I said PLEASE, 'cause It's on you to decide how smart and wise you will be). If you pretend to be authority on this field, than please write as authority.
Posted By: Virginia Plain Date: 24 Oct 2008 06:53:14
In all actuality, traste speaks the truth. Join some forums sometime where audiophiles trade lossless files between them, and you will see the same standards there as a rule. Rips that are otherwise are rejected. I actually wish AvaxHome would adopt such standard, because it is for quality control that measures like that are implemented. Maybe your drive doesn't cache data, well you are among a HUGE minority, as most people have a drive from the last 5 years, and almost all new drives do. Maybe your drive handles C2 correctly, the way it should, well again, you are in a huge minority, as, even though most drives test in EAC as being able to support C2, they do not implement it properly, and manufacturers looking to copy-protect CDs often mess around with the C2 information. The quote I pasted to begin with regarding C2 errors was from a very well respected place of lossless audiophiles. I will not name names, but rest assured that people who know what they are talking about follow these standards. It is simply for these reasons that a standard needed to be made, and was made. Few drives are without a read cache, but most are with one, and a rip will be proper either way with the drives that do not, so a standard was made to disable the cache, as it will not affect the rip from drives that do not cache data, but it will with drives that do cache. The entire purpose behind using a program like EAC with a secure mode is for that function, to make sure you are reading directly from the disc for the entire duration of the track, and to be able to double check each sector against itself. If you are all about speed of ripping, you have your priorities mixed up, and should be ripping mp3 instead, as you obviously care more about quantity than quality. If you are looking to make an exact copy, you should be prepared to put the kind of tender loving care into the rip as quality is your main goal.

I do not mean to insult here, just instill the notion that quality over quantity is what should be kept in mind when ripping a lossless album. It is not enough that you know what the specs of your drive are. Most people do not, and when they obtain one of your rips, they assume it was not ripped correctly, and they waste time looking for, and downloading a different rip of the same album to replace it. Bandwidth is not cheap these days, with ISPs throttling people and putting stupid caps on their allowed download GBs, so spending time and bandwidth downloading albums to replace perfectly good ones is not right. This is what people will do when seeing one of your log files with Defeat Audio Cache: No
Posted By: bungynik Date: 24 Oct 2008 14:03:17
Well I am on couple of audiophile forums (and I do not want to mention their names), but also what I'm talking about is my job. this is my profession and mainly I do not learning from audiophile forums but in labs!! I didn't mention the speed as priority neither once, and of course that I preferring the quality over quantity. Other way I wouldn't download your lossless aqualung but mp3. I know the rules on P**** and etc. but those rules are made and introduced recently to protect the downloaders and to introduce the standards of quality, 'cause lot of uploaders and seeders have a very little knowledge about ripping (properly) and even less about computer equipment and drives. But if you have material that was ripped without setting the appropriate offset, do you think that there will be any audible differences between no-offset and correct-offset rips? I would like to know on which kind of equipment you can hear the difference in 48 samples. But most of the stand alone CD players, even the audiophile ones do not even have ability of C2 errors correction (some of them can't correct even C1 errors), and I don't want to speak about offset reading errors which neither one manufacturer do not take in accout 'cause this do not have influence on sound quality! Instead they use routines to skip those errors and you always listen the music with missing offset samples! So tell me.... Is this changing the experience you have when you listen your music, or you think that our brains are capable to process sound digitally and to find missing samples or whatever! If you pursuit those nonsenses you will end in situation to sit in your music room and when you press play, you will start to search for errors and missing samples etc. and then.... you will forget that experience of music is more important then those technicalities. I am in this 'cause it is my job and I living from this and believe me I know what I'm talking about. There will be no difference when you listen music with or without missing samples or CRC on Null samples.

And what is more important, on most on those audiophile forum and sites they recommending Burrrn or what else for burning of audio CD!! So why you are setting the read offset in EAC if you are burning with program that can not set the write offset!!?? Right now only EAC is capable to burn audio CD properly!!!
Or if you have the different pressing of Sony mastersound or Black Triangle edition? Which is the correct on? Accurate rip is different for different pressing so who is the one who can determine in which pressing they have lost or added samples? Or you will assume that Abbey Road (BT) only first pressing for Toshiba is correct and the other four or five are not?

I want to notify: You are right when you say that those settings that you have suggested will produce the appropriate rip, even if riper do not know anything about ripping proces!!! But then He have to set Null samples used in CRC calculations, Fill up missing offset samples with silence etc... But please... I have burned the aqualung with offset 0 (old) and yours on MoFi CD-R and I have listen this on very, very expensive and well balanced equipment and I, as well as nobody from mine Audiophile friends do not understand what I'm talking about when I'm saying that those are different DCC Aqualung!!! They are in "bad relations" with computer equipment but in very well relations with audiophile equipment, so please tell me how to explain them that those are different things and especially how to explain to one of them who have extremely well aural capabilities and he is payed extremely well because of that!!!

So I AGREE WITH YOU , but again it's on the one who downloading to decide, and by the way, bandwidth is much, much cheaper that when you have to by 50$ CD!!! In small audiophile communities we know who is who and who is capable to produce a proper rip on any equipment and who is not. And on one of those forums I have read the opinion from a person who is on Avax as well, and which opinion I truly respect! So, with his permission I will post this opinion here on Avax as well!!! I'm waiting the answer from him!!
Posted By: Iminshock! Date: 26 Oct 2008 01:16:16
thanks Virginia Plain, best quality, as always.
Posted By: micaus11 Date: 20 Nov 2008 12:05:31
I read through some of the above with great interest. The following link is not a mirror or whatever, just posted for comparison. There is no artwork as the above post is excellent. This post;

[url=rapidshare.com/files/165477461/Jethro_Tull_-_Aqualung__1971.rar]rapidshare.com/files/165477461/Jethro_Tull_-_Aqualung__1971.rar[/url]

is just the album.ripped on a Linn / Naim system from my vinyl copy of an Original Half Speed Master version. It sounds brilliant on the turntable.

Now I have done this on mp3 320, so many will dismiss it automatically. That was, in part, deliberate.

I have compared the above post and my version. To my ears, my version is definitely better, but there maybe a good reason for that. The mp3 version can be played on RealPlayer, but I played the flac on Media Monkey, which I think is an inferior player.

The idea is for objective comment, and in no way do I want to have a go at this post, as its a corker, so much effort put into it, I really appreciate that. I would just like some constructive comment.
Posted By: micaus11 Date: 20 Nov 2008 12:06:31
Sorry I stuffed up the link, I'll try again

http://rapidshare.com/files/165477461/Jethro_Tull_-_Aqualung__1971.rar
Posted By: BlackwatchPlaid Date: 21 Nov 2008 09:41:52
I have compared the above post and my version. To my ears, my version is definitely better, but there maybe a good reason for that. The mp3 version can be played on RealPlayer, but I played the flac on Media Monkey, which I think is an inferior player.


Ditch both of those players and use Foobar2000, there is no substitute. Not to mention RealPlayer is major bloatware, not all that good for your PC.
Posted By: micaus11 Date: 21 Nov 2008 12:54:16
Thanks for that. Have loaded and played both versions on the same player, FooBar Interestingly, the Original Half Speed Master still sounds better, especially in the bottom end. In fact, its so much deeper.
Posted By: shoober Date: 28 Mar 2009 16:28:53
I agree with hoffman when he said the lp version didnt sound "that hot". the original lp sounded kinda flat, and dull. i downloaded aksman's (great ripper) vinyl of the quiex 200g reissue in 24/96 and it sounded the same as the original (prob cuz they used the same tape). im really excited to see how this dcc version sounds since its the uk mix AND its the original master tape. THANK YOU VIRGINIA PLAIN for correctly ripping this. ur a good man lol.

I jus listened to the full album and WOOOOOOW!!!! it sounds amazing!!!! Since im kinda an audiophile i also took the time to research the MFSL version. Heres wat i found. i took this from the Steve Hoffman (the dude who mastered the DCC version) website.

"""What I tried to do, was to give you the true sound of the master tapes with a bit of "Steve enhancemnt" thrown in for a more "Breath Of Life" sound.

Now, I can't go back in time and tell the mixer of "Aqualung" to turn the bass guitar track up, but I would never EQ in a bunch of floppy rumble down there just to get some extra boom. I mean, *****, it took me years just to get the real tapes from Ian's house.

MFSL used the American EQ copy (production master) to cut from. This version already was compressed compared to the master tape, and some primitive EQ added in. Now, it is a know fact that MOST (but not all) music fans LIKE compression. They respond well to it. It makes stuff louder and more "exciting". And of course, adding the MFSL "smile curve" helps, too. Just adds that oomph that doesn't exist in real life. Same reason most folks love new "remasters". Louder is everything...Sigh.

For me, using all of the tone changing stuff that was added to the EQ dub, and then adding all of the MoFi EQ on top of it, with some wacky half speed mastering on top of it....Well, I just didn't want to distort the original sound of the hard-fought master tapes that way.

I like the way the DCC version sounds. It has natural vocals, and a tonality that is missing from ALL other versions.

The problem with Rock 'em - Sock 'em bass, is that it is like having a subwoofer turned on all of the time. After it's all over, you have a headache. Folks can dial in some thump down there if they want. The important thing, is that they can dial it OUT again when they grow weary of that sound!"""


I hope this helps some of your audiophiles like me out there. DEFF GET THIS DCC VERSION!!!
also thanks again virginia plain for uploading this. :)
Posted By: luckburz Date: 17 May 2009 15:36:43
Thanks a lot!
Posted By: zeus2zeus Date: 09 Jul 2009 09:53:40
Thank you for your excellent post! The quality is exceptional. Your effort in assembling this great upload is much appreciated.
Posted By: lkrushel Date: 25 Sep 2009 18:30:03
Thank you very much!
Posted By: EDTOPIA Date: 27 Oct 2009 12:29:04
Bravoooooo! Thank You
Posted By: grissyboy Date: 30 Oct 2009 11:51:57
error Track 11 is broken. So I downloaded the last file again and same error. Shucks
Posted By: imlek Date: 27 Jun 2010 16:55:59
Thankx mate.
Posted By: berlinerpunk Date: 25 Apr 2011 18:32:47
Hello Virginia Plain, is it possible that you can please repost this? thx :)
Recent searches: