Surrealistic Pillow was one of my favorite albums "back in the day." I never actually owned a copy, it was my sister's, and I lost access to it in, what, 1974??? I never got the CD, never downloaded it. I finally bought a used vinyl copy, the vinyl itself looks great... but it sounds awful. Sounds slightly better than a transistor radio. There's not too much background noise, very very few scratches... but the audio is distorted and sounds like the bandwidth is all compressed. I wonder if it is simply worn out, or if it was never a good sounding record. I'd gladly search out another copy if I knew it would be better! Anyone have an opinion on how this gem should sound?

Surrealistic Pillow was one of my favorite albums "back in the day." I never actually owned a copy, it was my sister's, and I lost access to it in, what, 1974??? I never got the CD, never downloaded it. I finally bought a used vinyl copy, the vinyl itself looks great... but it sounds awful. Sounds slightly better than a transistor radio. There's not too much background noise, very very few scratches... but the audio is distorted and sounds like the bandwidth is all compressed. I wonder if it is simply worn out, or if it was never a good sounding record. I'd gladly search out another copy if I knew it would be better! Anyone have an opinion on how this gem should sound?

I think two versions where released, one stereo, one mono...but I don't think this is the issue.

I too have a copy of this one, and I too, am un-impressed with the sound quality...it is absolutely horrid. My copy looks great too. It plays fine, just sounds horrible, like you described. I don't know...played it once and vowed never to play again becuase it sounded so bad.

It's always sounded horrible...the mono version a little less so.

Yes the stereo version is too electronically channeled and the mono is a little less so as Celt said. Also on the Sundazed reissue 180gm it's the mono mix...a little better though but not by much

I had always thought this sounded fairly good for a rock record, so I had to interrupt my traversal of Mozart's Marriage of Figaro and play a side.

My copy is a grooved stereo black dog, a Rockway-pressed 4S/4S with A1 mothers/stampers on both sides, from about 1968.

The sound is definitely equalized toward the midrange to sound good on AM radios, but is otherwise unexceptional. The soundstage is wide and well-defined, the timbres and lines are clear, the instrumental colors distinct. The equalization brings everything forward, and I don't hear the tremendous depth and bass my system gets on simply-miked classical records.

But this is far from bad. You will hear similar sound on most West Coast rock records of that era, because that's what they were aiming at.

Yes the stereo version is too electronically channeled and the mono is a little less so as Celt said. Also on the Sundazed reissue 180gm it's the mono mix...a little better though but not by much

It is not electronically channeled. It was recorded on 1" eight-track analogue tape and mixed down to stereo and mono. I don't hear any 'doughnut hole' or pinging type effects. Instruments are placed throughout the soundstage and stay in place.

I had always thought this sounded fairly good for a rock record, so I had to interrupt my traversal of Mozart's Marriage of Figaro and play a side.

My copy is a grooved stereo black dog, a Rockway-pressed 4S/4S with A1 mothers/stampers on both sides, from about 1968.

The sound is definitely equalized toward the midrange to sound good on AM radios, but is otherwise unexceptional. The soundstage is wide and well-defined, the timbres and lines are clear, the instrumental colors distinct. The equalization brings everything forward, and I don't hear the tremendous depth and bass my system gets on simply-miked classical records.

But this is far from bad. You will hear similar sound on most West Coast rock records of that era, because that's what they were aiming at.

Well, I don't understand the information identifying the specific pressing (guess I've got some learnin' to do...) but I agree with everything else stated. The soundstage IS surprisingly well defined. The instruments ARE distinct. The bass IS attenuated (this is JACK CASADY, after all!!!)... and if the equalization was all that was a problem, I could easily live with it. But it just sounds so distorted... like everyone is singing through waxed paper. Guess I have to find another copy... Thanks! It's worth it.

Well, I don't understand the information identifying the specific pressing (guess I've got some learnin' to do...) but I agree with everything else stated. The soundstage IS surprisingly well defined. The instruments ARE distinct. The bass IS attenuated (this is JACK CASADY, after all!!!)... and if the equalization was all that was a problem, I could easily live with it. But it just sounds so distorted... like everyone is singing through waxed paper. Guess I have to find another copy... Thanks! It's worth it.

What you describe is the way a record equalized for a hot midrange will sound if they use worn-out stampers and a cheap vinyl mix. That would be typical of early 70s pressings.

I was at a SMAC meeting here a while back and Jim Salk of Salk Audio was there with some of his speakers. One of the guys played "Somebody to Love" and I can recall he comments about how poor the recording was; all screetchy and what. But like someone said in the end "It sounded great on the car stereo" :lmao:

Amazingly enough, some of the better mono mixes from that era were on the 45's.

I just went to the iTunes music store and listened to all the 30 second samples of the "remixed" digital download version of Surrealistic Pillow. All the distortion I'm hearing on my vinyl copy is gloriously preserved in the digital rendering. Interestingly, the digital "album" has some extra tracks, including the mono single mixes of Somebody to Love and White Rabbit. They sound amazingly better. There's a lot less reverb in the mix, but more importantly, the distortion is far less apparent. Now I guess I have to hunt down a mono copy of the LP.

The earlier CD version had the complete mono and stereo mixes on it. It's worth the search if you like the album.
(RCA 07863 68031-2)

It's always sounded horrible...the mono version a little less so.

Unfortunately true. This is where an EQ comes in handy.

I have nearly every pressing of this record. This is one of my favorite records performance wise and one of the worst as far as production goes. The best rendering in my opinion is the Sundazed reissue. Next up is the CD MFSL version w/ stereo and mono and then I would say the Japanese CD is next. The Sundazed is far ahead of the CD's though. You should be able to find a sealed copy in stock somewhere online.

Good luck jon but no matter how much you remove the medium the recording sucks.

rick

I have nearly every pressing of this record. This is one of my favorite records performance wise and one of the worst as far as production goes. The best rendering in my opinion is the Sundazed reissue. Next up is the CD MFSL version w/ stereo and mono and then I would say the Japanese CD is next. The Sundazed is far ahead of the CD's though. You should be able to find a sealed copy in stock somewhere online.

Good luck jon but no matter how much you remove the medium the recording sucks.

rick

Thanks, Rick.
I'll seek out the Sundazed issue. It's a shame, because listening through the deficiencies of the recording, the band SOUNDED wonderful... the way the voices mix, the instrumentation... the sound is all there, just masked by something gone wrong technically. I wonder if the original tapes exist, and if they are better than what we here on these mixes.

I am pretty sure they were limited by the number of tracks and no doubt budget plays into it as well.

Rick