söndag 12 mars 2017


This is a tricky one. I'm treading thin ice here, but as I can't find anything posted on this relation before feel I have to give it a try and get the ball rolling. Had the mono version for decades and always loved it for its balance, power and presence. Lately been trying to find a corresponding stereo in my price range, decent enough to enjoy as well as compare and check if the mono by chance was a separate mix. Now I have (-2/-2 matrixes) and the outcome is somewhat surprising. "Marjorine" has the "cut circle" sign on rear sleeve for re-channeling which is appropriate and there is also a large sign under record number, as Regal, Starline and a couple of other EMI budget labels sometimes used to show if part of an issue was fake stereo. Don't know if to call any of the other tracks fakes, but for some of them I don't get well separated stereo either. Much of it close to mono where connecting channels just changes the width while the balance between the components remains about the same. Could maybe pass as some kind of rough compatible, but though connecting the channels gives a similar result it doesn't answer fully to the mono version either, that appearing a lot clearer and more natural than a straight fold would. I don't believe producers Denny Cordell and Tony Visconti (here working as mixing engineer) would have left behind a first hand stereo like this 1969. My guess is mono was the initial working mix and stereo made as an afterthought, at least that's how it sounds. I wished for one that could add something to the mono thus making it enjoyable also by comparison, but that's not the case here. Disappointing, but either I'm right about the context or not the mono still comes through a lot better all over and remains my first choice for a UK press. (RÄZ*) (JÖC*) (CPYC*) (MÅW*)

Inga kommentarer:

Skicka en kommentar