Sam, Tracey and I have been trying to figure out some things with the two known sources for '89 Cuyahoga Falls, and along the way the lineage for "Fine Time" on Retro (claims to be from Chicago, but in reality is from this Cuyahoga Falls show). It was suggested to move this here to NOOL for you guys to contribute, so I am.
The rest of this post are the discussions to this point about these things.
First things first: ATR here means the tape that was sourced by ATR as part of the Whittaker stash. Whenever you see ATR, read "cassette tape source/version". ATR sounds like it was sourced from cassette and is the most-complete version of this gig so far. Clocks in at 75:36.
DAT or DAT0 means the other source that's surfaced for this gig, which is missing some of the banter/tunings/etc between songs that ARE on ATR's version. DAT0 sounds like a DAT clone, absolutely perfect, pristine sound. Clocks in at 73:35.
thehappyone and lammah are one and the same person, Sam. drewc is me.
From: drewc This is royally fucked up.
Track 1 on ATR is about 12 cents too fast. But, and this is where it gets interesting, later on in the gig (trying to figure out where) it matches tempo EXACTLY with the DAT source. Fine Time is spot-on, as is TPK. Working my way backwards to see where it suddenly gets to the right tempo...
I think Ceremony is the diverging point. It's too fast on ATR but perfect on DAT. Run, the next song, seems to be perfect on both.
Interestingly enough, this ATR version contains the "lesson in amateur dramatics" BS quip before Run, which is absent from the DAT version.
Drew
From: thehappyone
I think Ceremony is the diverging point. It's too fast on ATR but perfect on DAT. Run, the next song, seems to be perfect on both.
That's pretty early on in the gig (3rd song). I don't even want to know how that could happen. Again, I strongly suspect issues related to DAT archival.
Interestingly enough, this ATR version contains the "lesson in amateur dramatics" BS quip before Run, which is absent from the DAT version.
The versions are EQ'ed differently enough for me to believe that they are different recordings, and not merely the same recording travelling though different paths. The question is why would a soundboard DAT have edits like that, I don't think any of the other '89 ones do, though I don't think we've checked that against aud versions of Irvine Meadows and Pine Knob. My speculation is that the first version *is* a copy of the soundboard master, and that the second version (like maybe the others) was taken from the in-house audio/video feed, but this could be completely in error.
I suggested this elsewhere, but you may want to blog these findings in the STG remastering thread.
--Sam
From: drewc So far I've morphed them all through the end of Run and they sound just fine. Every song on the DAT is missing a chunk of tuning/banter/Hooky bass fiddling/etc that's on ATR, and they mesh just fine. The background crowd levels are the same on both, interestingly enough, which makes me wonder even more if these did at one point have the same source but were edited/EQed differently for different uses - i.e. the DAT version may very well be closer off the master, but perhaps edited at some point by Andy Robinson at HQ or whomever with eye towards future release, while the ATR version had had some post-processing EQ applied but no edits for whatever other use. Analog tape also naturally boosts low frequencies so that might account for the deeper low end on the ATR version vs. the DAT one, in which case it's also just as likely NO eq was done - just a case of natural tape compression/dynamics.
Drew
From: thehappyone Interesting findings...your explanation regarding the origination of the different versions may be correct.
From: drewc
Interesting findings...your explanation regarding the origination of the different versions may be correct.
Furthermore, Hooky's Fine Time outro has a few of the SAME diginoise glitches on both versions. The ATR is mostly glitch-free, but there's one point where a glitch is identical across both versions. This would tend to boost the "same source different usage" theory too.
Drew
From: thehappyone
Furthermore, Hooky's Fine Time outro has a few of the SAME diginoise glitches on both versions. The ATR is mostly glitch-free, but there's one point where a glitch is identical across both versions. This would tend to boost the "same source different usage" theory too.
Hrm...that could be the real reason why the Retro version didn't have the outro, not because they had something against Hooky's end-of-song riffing.
From: drewc, posted on Sharingthegroove in a mastering/remastering discussion Sam directed me to take the New Order '89 Cuyahoga editing over here, so I am.
What we have are 2 different copies of what is looking more and more like the same original source. Copy A we shall call ATR, after the person who sourced it. Copy B we shall call DAT.
ATR has more low end, analog-sounding compression, might have some analog hiss, and is the *mostly* complete version of this gig. There are lots of audible glitches here though, including the most bizarre diginoise distortion I've ever heard at the end of "Bizarre Love Triangle".
DAT is named as such because it is supposedly from a clone of DAT0 - and it certainly sounds like a raw soundboard feed taped onto DAT (not so much low end, crystalline highs, etc). There have been edits made in this version, removing much of the between-song banter, tunings, guitar/bass squiggling, etc. However it is 99% diginoise free, especially of the sort that plague ATR. There is zero analog hiss present, at least that I can tell.
Both are (for the most part) beautiful soundboard recordings. The crowd noise between songs is the same on both versions, to the best that I can tell - all the way down to the levels.
Why the divergence? Why two different versions of what likely is the same source? Several theories:
There really ARE two sources (!) - one copy recorded analog, and one copy recorded digital. But both at the same gig? Not likely. Another possibility is that there were two DAT machines doing their thing there, one with the raw soundboard feed and another made on-the-spot with EQ etc. for broadcast/future release/what have you. Again though, it just doesn't seem likely.
DAT0 goes back to Manchester with the band after the tour. Band then does some work on the recording, with an eye towards possible future release. They put together a version editing out some of the between-song stuff that probably wouldn't appear on a live record. A copy of this on DAT leaks out via unknown persons and eventually makes its way to the New Order trading community.
Meanwhile, the original recording itself (with no edits) ALSO gets out, possibly on analog cassette as opposed to a DAT clone (this would explain the analog-sounding compression, low-end boost, possible tape hiss present in ATR). ATR gets this copy and passes it along to friends in the New Order trading circle. In this exact fashion a number of raw soundboard shows, including this one, leaked from the band to the community - there was a box of tapes found at Peter Hook's studio and auctioned off on eBay, while in the meantime the seller made copies of the gigs for UK traders before shipping it off to the winning bidder who likely would have kept it all close to his chest.
- ATR is really the master version and leaks as such on DAT, but somewhere down the line it gets edited by a trader (while still on DAT) and traded as DAT clones or CD-R until we find it here. Meanwhile, a copy of the original ATR master is made on cassette and gets traded about in its entirety. The ATR master on DAT is still out there in the wild but rare (not likely, there are people in the trading scene who are very close to the band who would know about such things). This is unlikely because why would a trader edit a gig on DAT? Any which way you shake it, the entire gig will fit onto 1 CDR.
I am becoming convinced that 2) is the likely scenario. It just makes more sense - you know, Occam's Razor and all.
Anyhow, on with the show. Our goal here: Make the most complete version possible from these two divergent sources, keeping the song audio from DAT while splicing in the missing banter/tunings/etc from ATR. Also, there is an extended bass outro on the final song "Fine Time" that is fairly heavily glitchy on DAT but mostly clean on ATR, so we want to use ATR's version of that as well (tacking it onto the DAT version of the main song).
I've already done most of the editing but Sam wanted us to discuss it here. Would you guys have any suggestions?
Here's a fun game of "Spot the Join" - can you find where I spliced in the ATR version of the outro on this sample? http://drewc.dyndns.org/890705_Cuyahoga_HookyOutro.mp3
If you guys need source clips please let me know - but you know, the versions are clean enough I can't find my own edits on the ones I've done already!
Drew
From: thehappyone (on STG, in response to my post) Drew, fascinating analysis but the problem with (2) is that why this particular gig? I'm not sure that it was that great of a performance, Irvine Meadows and even the Detroit one would have made better choices. Listen to "Ceremony", for instance. Also, the mastering on the DAT0 version is still suggestive of raw soundboard, and not something suitable for a live release, unless it was caught "in progress" or something. Also, I believe DAT0 has circulated longer than ATR, which surfaced along with the other mixers that popped out around the time of Retro's release. What is interesting to consider is that the live version of "Fine Time" on Retro, despite being labelled as being from Chicago 30 Jun 1989, *is* actually from Cayahoga, and must be based on the DAT master. Of course, instead of trying to preserve the bass outro they just crossfaded audience noise into another track to give the illusion that the live disc was one discrete performance. What would support (2) as the likely hypothesis is if we can find audience sources of Irvine Meadows and Pine Knob that also have more between-song content than the DATs do...Technique only had two singles before the 'Run2' abortion, maybe if there had been a fourth the live tracks would have been used to fill out the single, as had been done on the JD Atmosphere CD-S rerelease, though that is a completely different context.
From: drewc (in response to Sam's post)
quote:
Originally posted by lammah Drew, fascinating analysis but the problem with (2) is that why this particular gig? I'm not sure that it was that great of a performance, Irvine Meadows and even the Detroit one would have made better choices.
Yeah, but each of those has their own glitches too - Cuyahoga I think was the best of the three performance-wise. Detroit was decent too, but who knows... "Ceremony" at Irvine was screwed up because Hooky's bass dropped out after the intro for about 30 seconds. If (2) is the case I'm sure they had their reasons for mucking with the recording.
quote:
Listen to "Ceremony", for instance. Also, the mastering on the DAT0 version is still suggestive of raw soundboard, and not something suitable for a live release, unless it was caught "in progress" or something. Also, I believe DAT0 has circulated longer than ATR, which surfaced along with the other mixers that popped out around the time of Retro's release.
Which just furthers my arguments Obviously DAT0 would need mastering for release, at which point they'd do EQ and levels to bring it up to release quality. Clearly nothing but editing has been done to DAT0 - but that begs the question: why??? You and I would never edit out material from a gig. I can't think of anyone who WOULD - unless I was a band member or someone in the band's employ prepping something either for private listening (possible) or public release (also possible). It's also entirely possible that NOTHING's been done EQ-wise to ATR - it could all be due to analog cassette sourcing (analog tape has natural compression effects, boosted low-end, and of course audible hiss - all three of which exist on ATR).
quote:
What is interesting to consider is that the live version of "Fine Time" on Retro, despite being labelled as being from Chicago 30 Jun 1989, *is* actually from Cayahoga, and must be based on the DAT master. Of course, instead of trying to preserve the bass outro they just crossfaded audience noise into another track to give the illusion that the live disc was one discrete performance.
Another monkeywrench to consider is the whole Chicago/Cleveland fiasco itself. THE BAND DIDN'T KNOW THEMSELVES WHAT GIG THEY HAD!!! The notes that came with the ATR mixers that "popped out around the time of Retro's release" indicated that this gig was in fact Chicago - but it's since been proven to be Cuyahoga (Cleveland). It's entirely possible that DAT0 was lost by the band long before the Retro idea came about, and all they had was the box of tapes that ended up leaving Hooky's studio. Are you sure the Retro version is based on the DAT master? Which DAT are we speaking of here - DAT0 as we have been talking about all along, or another DAT that has the ATR sound characteristics, or heaven forbid an analog cassette source? To my ears, the Retro version sounds much closer to ATR than DAT0, disregarding whatever post-processing has been done to the Retro version.
quote:
What would support (2) as the likely hypothesis is if we can find audience sources of Irvine Meadows and Pine Knob that also have more between-song content than the DATs do...Technique only had two singles before the 'Run2' abortion, maybe if there had been a fourth the live tracks would have been used to fill out the single, as had been done on the JD Atmosphere CD-S rerelease, though that is a completely different context.
First - are we sure Irvine and Pine Knob were ATR-sourced as in definitively part of the Whittaker box? Did they escape as DATs or as analog cassettes? Because what's been seeded here certainly does not sound anything remotely like analog sourced. I suspect that Irvine, Pine Knob DAT and Cuyahoga DAT all were leaked by the same person prior to ATR, as you say for the Cuyahoga DAT above. Maybe they only had Cuyahoga to pick from because they lost the Irvine/Detroit gigs long before, and all that existed (or all they could find, knowing how lazy they are they probably didn't look hard enough in Hooky's basement ;) ) was a cassette dub of the *very original* Cuyahoga master, mislabeled at that. Pure speculation of course, but we're allowed, aren't we?
Someone here says they're getting a clone of Irvine DAT0, and if that is the case, I have to ask "where did all these valuable DAT0 tapes come from???" When did they originally escape the band, and what is their lineage? We'll probably never know the answers to some of these but it certainly makes for fascinating discussion and analysis.
Second, Irvine certainly has much, if not all, of the between-song stuff left in (the Pete DeFreitas quote, the jibing about getting a dub of the new album, the PiL blurb, etc) than the Cuyahoga DAT - but as you said we can't be certain without AUD sources to compare with. To put it another way, if Irvine was "the live album" so-to-speak I would be very surprised to hear any of those things on there, including much of the tuning/Hooky squibbles/etc. besides maybe the Pete DeFreitas quote. However, regarding Detroit, I haven't listened to it enough to speak with any knowledge of it so I won't.
Shouldn't we be having this kind of discussion on NOOL?
Drew
From: thehappyone, by email Not replying in public, didn't want to venture further offtopic. For others on jdbt wondering what I'm talking about, this refers to Drew's post at the end of this tread:
http://www.sharingthegroove.org/msgboard/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49230&perpage=20&pagenumber=18
It's also entirely possible that NOTHING's been done EQ-wise to ATR - it could all be due to analog cassette sourcing (analog tape has natural compression effects, boosted low-end, and of course audible hiss - all three of which exist on ATR).
This should be simple enough to check...just dub some of DAT0 onto a cassette and see if it sounds like ATR. :)
Another monkeywrench to consider is the whole Chicago/Cleveland fiasco itself. THE BAND DIDN'T KNOW THEMSELVES WHAT GIG THEY HAD!!!
Or their management didn't, same thing. Suggests to me that the DATs could have been stolen from them or lost when Factory collapsed.
To my ears, the Retro version sounds much closer to ATR than DAT0, disregarding whatever post-processing has been done to the Retro version.
Yeah, it very well could be sourced from there, but it's interesting that the outro solo was edited out, which I thought may have been done because of the glitches. But that assumes the glitches are on DAT0 itself and weren't introduced into the copying process. The question to ask is whether ATR was aware of the '89 DATs besides the one in the Whittaker box...I can't imagine that he wasn't...
First - are we sure Irvine and Pine Knob were ATR-sourced as in definitively part of the Whittaker box?
I'm arguing that they were NOT sourced that way. Sorry I wasn't clear on that point.
Did they escape as DATs or as analog cassettes? Because what's been seeded here certainly does not sound anything remotely like analog sourced.
Exactly.
I suspect that Irvine, Pine Knob DAT and Cuyahoga DAT all were leaked by the same person prior to ATR, as you say for the Cuyahoga DAT above. Maybe they only had Cuyahoga to pick from because they lost the > Irvine/Detroit gigs long before, and all that existed (or all they > could find, knowing how lazy they are they probably didn't look hard > enough in Hooky's basement ;) ) was a cassette dub of the *very > original* Cuyahoga master, mislabeled at that. Pure speculation of course, but we're allowed, aren't we?
Maybe we should sick Five, et al. on the version on Retro to see if they can determine whether DAT0 or ATR was the more likely source.
Sounds like a fairly likely possibility. Still begs the question of why the DAT0 was edited.
I think I figured out why! ATR clocks in at 75:36. DAT0 clocks in at 73:35. So I bet the editing was done to get the material to fit on a 74 minute disk, suggesting that it wasn't of recent vintage or traded among those that trusted the 80 minute format, and the "amateur dramatics" comment was cut by accident. Feel free to edit your post to reflect this possibility, as I didn't comment so to keep the thread ontopic.
Shouldn't we be having this kind of discussion on NOOL? :D
Yes, we should, dammit, if only to figure out where these DATs leaked from, and why the first three songs on ATR ran 12 cents fast. Go ahead and post your findings so far.
You might also try to get in touch with David Molyneux (nickname Molly) who followed the band across their 89 tour (search for his posts on NOOL for fascinating reading, assuming that they're still on there).
See: http://www.neworderonline.com/MessageList.aspx?ThreadID=8596
(the following threads also have interesting '89 anecdotes) http://www.neworderonline.com/MessageList.aspx?ThreadID=8253 http://www.neworderonline.com/MessageList.aspx?ThreadID=12034
--Sam
From: drewc
I suspect that Irvine, Pine Knob DAT and Cuyahoga DAT all were leaked by the same person prior to ATR, as you say for the Cuyahoga DAT above. Maybe they only had Cuyahoga to pick from because they lost the > > Irvine/Detroit gigs long before, and all that existed (or all they > > could find, knowing how lazy they are they probably didn't look hard > > enough in Hooky's basement ;) ) was a cassette dub of the *very > > original* Cuyahoga master, mislabeled at that. Pure speculation of course, but we're allowed, aren't we?
Maybe we should sick Five, et al. on the version on Retro to see if they can determine whether DAT0 or ATR was the more likely source.
Christ, what a nightmare. Fine Time Retro version is *slow*, and not by some measly 10 cents! I'm trying to take 90-second clips of each version for the guys in the remastering thread to have at it with, and in both ATR and DAT versions the 90 second clip ends at the exact same point.
I should interject here and say that ATR and DAT versions all match up perfectly tempo/pitch-wise with Technique (i.e. they're perfect).
The 90-second clip from the Retro version ends at an entirely different point, and the pitch is off by almost exactly half a semitone! I've basically narrowed it down best I could to 50.2 cents, hopefully that's close enough so we're all working off the same reference.
Why on earth would they slow it down for Retro, if this was deliberate? Lends even MORE credence to the theory that Retro version was sourced from analog tape if it wasn't deliberately slowed down (DATs in and of themselves don't have speed issues, it's impossible because of the format).
Drew
From: drewc OK, for your enjoyment, here are 3 samples, the same 90 seconds of Fine Time from all three sources.
http://drewc.dyndns.org/890705_FineTime_ATR_90s.mp3 This is the version that I believe was the Retro source. It's still full of the glitches that plagued this version, I didn't remove them.
http://drewc.dyndns.org/890705_FineTime_DAT_90s.mp3 This is the raw DAT0 version as seeded by Superblast! - it sounds like a completely raw SBD feed recorded onto DAT with no post-processing.
http://drewc.dyndns.org/890705_FineTime_RETRO_90s.mp3 As the name implies this is the Retro version. I've pitched it up by 50.2 cents as I mentioned earlier. Funny thing with this is the samples are offset in SoundForge L vs R by a fraction, whereby in the other two versions they line up exactly. I wonder if they removed glitches from one channel only on the Retro version???
Here's what I mean.
Every other stereo WAV file I've seen looks like this, including DAT and ATR above. Top is left, bottom is right:
--------|||-|---|||||--------- L --------|||-|---|||||--------- R
Retro's WAV looks like this (slightly exaggerated, but not much!):
--------|||-|---|||||--------- L ---------|||-|---|||||-------- R
Weird, huh?
I'm going to post these MP3 samples in the remastering thread and have those gurus go at it.
Drew
From: drewc, posted in Remastering thread on STG Source sample lineage help
Five, sol, et.al.,
Here's a neat project for all you DSP gurus.
We are trying to determine the lineage of this song http://drewc.dyndns.org/890705_FineTime_RETRO_90s.mp3 (90 second clip, LAME 320kbps MP3). This is from the "Retro" official box set.
We have two possibilities, as discussed here earlier.
Possiblilty One (most likely in my opinion), the "ATR" version. http://drewc.dyndns.org/890705_FineTime_ATR_90s.mp3 (90 second clip, LAME 320kbps MP3) There are glitches in this version, I did not remove them because they may prove key to this debate (see below).
Possibility Two, the "DAT" version (raw soundboard feed, from a DAT0 clone) http://drewc.dyndns.org/890705_FineTime_DAT_90s.mp3 (90 second clip, LAME 320kbps MP3)
I tried to get the same exact 90 seconds for each one, and I've come pretty damn close. There was one huge problem in that the version we are trying to source - the first sample linked above, the one off the official box set - ran more than a half-semitone too slow! No shit. It's as if it came from a cassette master that was itself taped at the wrong speed. The two source possibilities (ATR and DAT) both checked out perfectly pitch/tempo-wise from the get-go.
Can you guys help us clear this up? Is the RETRO version sonically linked more to ATR than to DAT? Are there any characteristics of RETRO that match one or another of the two source samples? Anything that differentiates one source or the other? Ignoring the obviously-edited-in crowd noise at the beginning of RETRO that is...
Also, there's another funny thing about RETRO. The samples are offset in SoundForge L vs R by a fraction, whereby in the other two versions (ATR and DAT) they line up exactly. Did they remove the glitches I mentioned above improperly, that is only from one channel at a time, thereby causing the L/R to offset?
Here's what I mean.
Every other stereo WAV file I've seen looks like this, including DAT and ATR above. Top is left, bottom is right:
--------|||-|---|||||--------- L --------|||-|---|||||--------- R
RETRO's WAV looks like this (slightly exaggerated, but not much!):
--------|||-|---|||||--------- L ---------|||-|---|||||-------- R
See what I mean?
Any/all ways you guys can help would be very welcome!
Drew
Whew. Please discuss!
Drew
