H&V cantina: Box set or SS/WH two-fer?

[Jeff]

Anyone have opinions as to which is the better-sounding version?

[Mahalo]

On careful listening, I thought the 2fer was better...the lead vox didn't seem to break up as much.

[Bicyclerider]

Which 2fer?  I prefer the 1990 2fer, with noise reduction but with better EQ (less harsh).

[Mahalo]

I think I have the later 2fer...I cross referenced the two over the headphones and I figured the 2fer sounded slightly clearer.

'nother question...anyone prefer the box version of Surf's Up relative to the latter 2fer version?

[Jeff]

Which 2fer?  I prefer the 1990 2fer, with noise reduction but with better EQ (less harsh).

Well, either two-fer, I suppose; I have both.  I had assumed the '01 was better than the '90, but I haven't listened to them closely enough to know for sure.

[Bicyclerider]

The '01 has no noise reduction, which might sound like a good think sonically, but in this case I think the noise reduction tames some of the tape problems of harshness and distortion.  Either that or the EQ treble boost used for the '01 2fers has wrecked havoc on the song.  The box set version also used no noise reduction and may have a better EQ, I'll have to get it out and compare it to the '90 version.

[Black Tiger]

Are all the earlier two-fers better than their later counterparts?

[chris.metcalfe]

Are all the earlier two-fers better than their later counterparts?

I don't think so - I thought the newer ones sounded clearer and more detailed throughout. Also true of the Brother twofers vs the Caribou single CD issues.

[Bicyclerider]

It's all personal preference, but the increased loudness/compression used on the 01 2fers as well as the treble boosted EQ makes many (on the Steve Hoffman forums) prefer the '90 releases.  The Japanese Pastmasters is apparently the closest to the master tapes (no EQ of any kind, no noise reduction) and is preferred by many but there were tape problems on several tracks and the master tapes are bass heavy.  Pastmasters have no bonus tracks.

[The Song Of The Grange]

I have been frustrated with the sound on both versions.  I ended out building a replica in Pro Tools using pieces from the later 45 version, which I thought sounded very good on the Hawthorne, CA release.  I still had to use much of the Cantina recording, but I got maybe 50% of the song in stereo.  Not ideal, but a nice experiment to listen to.

[Bicyclerider]

Does anyone else  think the Hawthorne stereo version blows away the mono single version?  Brian buried the backing track on the single and overemphasized the organ.  I don't think you could call the single version mix "rushed" - he did multiple mixes over five months - but single really suffers from the mix.

[Mahalo]

I do. While the mono version has more nostalgia it seems to have less umph.

[Sheriff John Stone]

Does anyone else  think the Hawthorne stereo version blows away the mono single version?  Brian buried the backing track on the single and overemphasized the organ.  I don't think you could call the single version mix "rushed" - he did multiple mixes over five months - but single really suffers from the mix.

I agree with you. However, that Hawthorne version is mastered too LOUD. When you put it on a comp with other songs, it blasts you away.

[runnersdialzero]

Does anyone else  think the Hawthorne stereo version blows away the mono single version?  Brian buried the backing track on the single and overemphasized the organ.  I don't think you could call the single version mix "rushed" - he did multiple mixes over five months - but single really suffers from the mix.

I agree with you. However, that Hawthorne version is mastered too LOUD. When you put it on a comp with other songs, it blasts you away.

I noticed that right away, too. I got all AOISJFI)SAJF when I heard there was a stereo mix of this version but was disappointed when I heard how compressed it was.

It still sounded really muddy, anyways, and it's always irked me how buried the snare is.

[petsite]

1990 CD version.  Hands down. Only becuase the NO-NOISe process does exactly what is was intened to do...take out noise. The GV Box is ok..but the 2001 2fer version has excessive noise, or I should say you can hear the noise (higher resolution, 24 bit vs 16 bit). Mark did the best he could with what he had. I still think the 1990 no-noised version is best. Now if we could just find that master......

[Mahalo]

Is the 1990 version the same that appears on the SOT 16 CD? COmparing the SOT version to the box set and 2001 twofer it sounds much different, more quiet for lack of a better word.

[Bicyclerider]

Yes, it's the same - SOT took the cantina version off the 1990 2fer.

[Marty77]

Does anyone else  think the Hawthorne stereo version blows away the mono single version?  Brian buried the backing track on the single and overemphasized the organ.  I don't think you could call the single version mix "rushed" - he did multiple mixes over five months - but single really suffers from the mix.

I agree with BW on this when he said that H&V (I preseume he meant the Cantina version) made him sound constipated. The Smiley version sounds odly compressed like they are all out of breath or something. I assumed this was due to a lot of smoking going on at the home studio sessions but the stereo version on Hawthorne is presumably from the same sessions and it sounds great. The vocals really pop out from the track without seeming pushed.