Body Electric - different mixes from Body & Soul?

THE place for your Sisters-related comments, questions and snippets of Sisters information. For those who do not know, The Sisters of Mercy are a rock'n'roll band. And a pop band. And an industrial groove machine. Or so they say. They make records. Lots of records, apparently. But not in your galaxy. They play concerts. Lots of concerts, actually. But you still cannot see them. So what's it all about, Alfie? This is one of the few tightly-moderated forums on Heartland, so please keep on-topic. All off-topic posts will either be moved or deleted. Chairman Bux is the editor and the editor's decision is final. Danke.
Post Reply
User avatar
susky
Road Kill
Posts: 48
Joined: 30 Jul 2011, 23:27
Location: under the falling....under the spell

Hi. Been a while since I've posted here. Hope everyone is well :) So, I was in the mood to listen to Body & Soul vinyl earlier today and my ipod is dead and turntable is still boxed up after a recent move. I had a friend do a rip from my original vinyl several years ago which I've played on my ipod. Here's the thing, so today without access to my vinyl or my vinyl-rip-via-ipod, I went onto youtube and hit play on someone's Body & Soul ep upload. Imagine my surprise when "Body Electric" comes on this youtube version and it sounds way different than the version I'm used to for the last decades. The one on youtube has like this shrill keyboard line (sounds almost like a theremin type of sound) that follows the rhythm guitar and bass during the "this place is death with walls". And there are these gunshot-like sound effects and these bright, anthemic keyboard notes when the bass picks up a bit later. Is this the original mix? A re-mix? Something the youtube user did to the song? The version I've known for decades had NONE of those keyboard things and the bass was much, much louder (so maybe those keyboard lines were always there but the bass guitar on the version I'm used to just buried the keyboard stuff in the mix and I never heard them?). The vocals and the instruments all sound exactly the same (I think) but the mix just sounds way different to the point where I'm hearing things that I never knew were there. Maybe my memory is going or I'm just hearing things! Help! Would love to know what this version is and whether this was the original mix. A million thanks. I fast-forwarded the theremin-like keys in the youtube vid:

https://youtu.be/qrx4rzBGdIw?t=3m58s
Top
User avatar
robertzombie
Overbomber
Posts: 4379
Joined: 05 Sep 2005, 12:49
Location: London

Before we go any further, is this the version you're used to hearing? https://youtu.be/ND-f7OGrahw
Top
User avatar
susky
Road Kill
Posts: 48
Joined: 30 Jul 2011, 23:27
Location: under the falling....under the spell

Hi robertzombie. Thanks for the reply. Nope, I'm familiar with the version you sent from the SBWBM compact disc. that version is a bit quicker and the bass and guitar seem to be playing in a slighter higher key. I finally got my ipod charged here and I'm now listening to the version I'm used to (wish I knew how to upload it so you can hear what I'm referring to). Like I mentioned, the bass is way louder on the version I'm used to and I don't hear any of that keyboard stuff. Now that I know to listen for them, I do hear the "gunshot"-like sounds and those anthemic keyboard notes that follow the drum hits in the middle of the song (between Andrew's two "ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh" squeals). I never really heard those before but now that I knew to listen for them I do hear them but they are really buried in the mix. Those theremin-like lines though I still can't hear because the bass is way louder. Thanks again for the reply!
Top
User avatar
susky
Road Kill
Posts: 48
Joined: 30 Jul 2011, 23:27
Location: under the falling....under the spell

I just listened to a bunch of different versions on youtube and they all seem to have that theremin-like keyboard thing running throughout the song. Listening to the version I'm used to, I still don't hear it at all even if I strain my ears. In fact, in the first portion of the song there are plenty of moments where the guitars hit open notes like during "and the body electric flashes on the bathroom wall" (and just before and after that line). In those "quieter" between-note moments where there's just the bass rumbling in the back and no guitars or vocals for a brief moment, I don't hear anything at all besides the bass and the drum machine. No keys.
Top
User avatar
susky
Road Kill
Posts: 48
Joined: 30 Jul 2011, 23:27
Location: under the falling....under the spell

I just sent an email to my buddy who did the vinyl rip for me many years ago. Maybe he purposely put a different version of "Body Electric" on my ipod? I haven't played my original vinyl in ages and am just used to this version here on the ipod. Is there a place on this site where I can upload an mp3 so you can hear?
Top
User avatar
susky
Road Kill
Posts: 48
Joined: 30 Jul 2011, 23:27
Location: under the falling....under the spell

OK, here's the version of "Body Electric" from Body & Soul I've been referring to as the one I'm used to. Just uploaded to this file transfer site from my ipod. File transfer site says this link will expire in 7 days which may be easily remedied by the rest of planet earth but I'm helpless when it comes to software. Anyone know where this version came from?

http://we.tl/gFwKnHAEXh
Top
User avatar
robertzombie
Overbomber
Posts: 4379
Joined: 05 Sep 2005, 12:49
Location: London

Listening now
Top
User avatar
mh
Above the Chemist
Posts: 8066
Joined: 23 Jun 2003, 14:41
Location: A city built on rock 'n' roll

There was only two versions of Body Electric officially released: the original 7" single version (also available on the They Shall Not Pass compilation but with a different fade-out, which only recently came to light), and a re-recording on the Body & Soul 12".

Bootleggers in the past have had a bad habit of releasing re-EQ'd versions of songs and calling them "demos", but we're pretty much wise to that behaviour now and can easily detect them. There's also the usual truckload of genuine demos and live versions.

The aberrant version you've discovered is the Body & Soul 12" version, but re-EQ'd. Probably just a really bad vinyl rip rather than anything more nefarious.
If I told them once, I told them a hundred times to put 'Spinal Tap' first and 'Puppet Show' last.
Top
User avatar
susky
Road Kill
Posts: 48
Joined: 30 Jul 2011, 23:27
Location: under the falling....under the spell

Wow, excellent. Thanks for the info guys. I had no idea I was listening to a re-EQ'd version all this while! Dare I say I prefer this re-EQ'd one? Sacrilege? Maybe. It's probably because I'm just personally/sentimentally/autobiographically used to this re-EQ'd version now that I want to say I prefer it. But listening to both side by side, I do feel that the re-EQ'd one without the keyboards is a bit more thunderous and more oppressively heavy (these are good things in my book!) in its overall atmosphere. Still haven't heard back from my friend who did the "vinyl rip" for me years ago. Maybe he re-EQ'd it? I don't know. A million thanks for all the info, guys.
Top
User avatar
robertzombie
Overbomber
Posts: 4379
Joined: 05 Sep 2005, 12:49
Location: London

The reason why your one sounds odd is because it is in mono and runs two seconds fast. It's been transferred or rendered incorrectly.

Here's how it should sound, listen to the lead guitar in the right channel: https://www.sendspace.com/file/trhooy
Top
User avatar
mh
Above the Chemist
Posts: 8066
Joined: 23 Jun 2003, 14:41
Location: A city built on rock 'n' roll

Ummm, now I'm confused. The one that you say is the one you're used to, I'm assuming that's the download version you put up, and that's the proper one (if a tad compressed). The YouTube link in your first post is the re-EQ'd one: treble way up, bass way down.
If I told them once, I told them a hundred times to put 'Spinal Tap' first and 'Puppet Show' last.
Top
User avatar
Pista
Cureboi
Posts: 17497
Joined: 25 Jun 2006, 15:03
Location: Lost In A Forest
Contact:
Contact Pista

I'd take YT stuff with a pinch of salt really. Any herbert can upload any old stuff in any old manner with any old gear & it's usually mostly shocking in terms of quality.
I see people putting footage up from VHS tapes claiming it's HD, which (unless they found all the missing pixels down the back of the sofa) is utter tosh.

Chances are this BE has been posted by someone who has messed about with it & they couldn't even be bothered to chop it into tracks. :wink:
Cheers.
Steve
Just like the old days
TheCureCommunity
Top
User avatar
susky
Road Kill
Posts: 48
Joined: 30 Jul 2011, 23:27
Location: under the falling....under the spell

Wow, robertzombie. Insane that you pinpointed that. I downloaded your FLAC and have been playing it and then listening to the one I'm used to (mono one as you suggested). So, maybe it's not keys per se that I'm hearing on these youtube videos (that theremin thing I keep talking about) but just something going on with the lead guitar in the right channel which my mono version lacks because I have a doubled left channel-only mono version? Incredible ear! PS....To think I had a version 2 seconds too fast for all these years of this classic tune! Sacrilege! I came to Sisters for the doom and gloom and here's me with a sped up one. Ugh. Thanks again!
Top
User avatar
susky
Road Kill
Posts: 48
Joined: 30 Jul 2011, 23:27
Location: under the falling....under the spell

mh, yes you got it. The one I said I was used to is the one I put up for download which you are suggesting is the "real" version (though possibly mine is mono and a tad quick). The re-EQ'd version is the youtube one I posted earlier in the thread. Excellent to know the heavier, bass-ier one is the "correct" version and the one I thought I heard more bright keys in might just be the imposter!
Top
User avatar
robertzombie
Overbomber
Posts: 4379
Joined: 05 Sep 2005, 12:49
Location: London

Susky: The one you put up for download is wrong in every way. The Youtube one in your original post is closer to correct. If I may say so, I believe mine is the most accurate of the three. The song does have keyboards on it and should not be as bass heavy as your mono version. It is bass heavy because of the stereo-mono fold down.

You may wish to compare your other Body And Soul EP tracks against my needledrop: https://youtu.be/u8Qu33Z5qRM
Top
User avatar
susky
Road Kill
Posts: 48
Joined: 30 Jul 2011, 23:27
Location: under the falling....under the spell

robertzombie, I just hit play on your needledrop. Sounds beautiful....and saves me from unpacking my gear just yet ;) Many many thanks.
Top
User avatar
Nikolas Vitus Lagartija
Overbomber
Posts: 2476
Joined: 04 Aug 2011, 23:35
Location: Scotland
Contact:
Contact Nikolas Vitus Lagartija

It must seem like Christmas to @robertzombie, who for ages has been the only HLer with an interest in the mechanics of the Sisters sound. First @Gaijin comes along, then on the same day @susky reappears and @sathvyre signs up.
:notworthy: to all four of you. In the same way as @pista's Sisters Images Game made me appreciate :von: 's lyrics more, the recent audiophile threads have increased my interest in his work as a producer. Until recently I had taken the Tony James line (what was it he said in the HL interview ? "There are 200 versions and only Eldo can tell the difference" or something similar).
The recent discussions would have :von: purring like one of his cats ("It's taken them thirty five years but at last they're beginning to get it") if he has been having a quick gander at HL (to see if he can get away without performing live this year for example). Keep up the good work !
Top
User avatar
susky
Road Kill
Posts: 48
Joined: 30 Jul 2011, 23:27
Location: under the falling....under the spell

robertzombie wrote:Susky: The one you put up for download is wrong in every way. The Youtube one in your original post is closer to correct. If I may say so, I believe mine is the most accurate of the three. The song does have keyboards on it and should not be as bass heavy as your mono version. It is bass heavy because of the stereo-mono fold down.

You may wish to compare your other Body And Soul EP tracks against my needledrop: https://youtu.be/u8Qu33Z5qRM
Well, it's 1:15am, my alarm clock is set to sound-off at 5:30am and yet I'm about to hit play (for the 4th time) on your excellent Body & Soul needledrop via youtube (I did 3 passes of your Reptile House upload as well earlier). Can't stop. My brother-in-law got me a pair of monitor headphones as a birthday present (I certainly married up!) recently and I'm in heaven here. A million thanks for these uploads! Feels like I'm hearing this stuff for the first time all over again :notworthy:
Top
User avatar
robertzombie
Overbomber
Posts: 4379
Joined: 05 Sep 2005, 12:49
Location: London

Nikolas Vitus Lagartija wrote:It must seem like Christmas to @robertzombie, who for ages has been the only HLer with an interest in the mechanics of the Sisters sound. First @Gaijin comes along, then on the same day @susky reappears and @sathvyre signs up.
:notworthy: to all four of you. In the same way as @pista's Sisters Images Game made me appreciate :von: 's lyrics more, the recent audiophile threads have increased my interest in his work as a producer. Until recently I had taken the Tony James line (what was it he said in the HL interview ? "There are 200 versions and only Eldo can tell the difference" or something similar).
The recent discussions would have :von: purring like one of his cats ("It's taken them thirty five years but at last they're beginning to get it") if he has been having a quick gander at HL (to see if he can get away without performing live this year for example). Keep up the good work !
It sure is great to see people getting enthused about nuances and EQ! :D

Glad you're enjoying the transfers, Susky.
Top
User avatar
lsind
Road Kill
Posts: 61
Joined: 17 Apr 2010, 18:54
Location: somewhere in the centre of France

Sorry in advance, my question is not entirely related to the topic discussed here, but in a way, it is, since we're judging the quality & EQing of tracks as heard on YT videos. Anyway:
I did some research about Youtube HD and read that even when a video is "HD", the sound quality can hardly be called "High Definition", being lossy anyway, about 126k.
RobertZombie or anybody else, can you please confirm or contradict this?
Top
User avatar
robertzombie
Overbomber
Posts: 4379
Joined: 05 Sep 2005, 12:49
Location: London

Correct, youtube audio is not "HD". I believe the maximum you can get on it is AAC 384 kbps. It's still useful for judging tracks but it shouldn't be used for any serious comparison work.
Top
User avatar
Dan
Overbomber
Posts: 2009
Joined: 25 Sep 2002, 01:00
Location: Leeds

lsind wrote:Sorry in advance, my question is not entirely related to the topic discussed here, but in a way, it is, since we're judging the quality & EQing of tracks as heard on YT videos. Anyway:
I did some research about Youtube HD and read that even when a video is "HD", the sound quality can hardly be called "High Definition", being lossy anyway, about 126k.
RobertZombie or anybody else, can you please confirm or contradict this?
(using http://en.savefrom.net ...)

mp4 360p - 96kbps
mp4 720p - 192kbps
(When I've downloaded higher than 720p mp4's (1040 or whatever it is) they always have 192kbps audio, so I assumed that's the highest you can get. I've never found anything like 384kbps but maybe savefrom doesn't offer you every option - can anyone give another site that does?)

It also offers an audio only option at 128kbps.

When I've compared the difference spectrally between the 128 and 192 there's barely a gnats nadger between them so the benefit of the 192 over the 128 is very small.

You'll find all sorts of different bitrates with older videos, uploaded 5+ years ago, because it wasn't as standardised then.
Top
User avatar
robertzombie
Overbomber
Posts: 4379
Joined: 05 Sep 2005, 12:49
Location: London

See here: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/1722171?hl=en

Also of note, the audio quality doesn't change with the video quality.

If you're seeing no difference spectrally, the it's probably a case of having a 128 kbps encoding within a 192 container.
Top
User avatar
Dan
Overbomber
Posts: 2009
Joined: 25 Sep 2002, 01:00
Location: Leeds

Advanced encoding settings

Recommended bitrates
Am I missing something here? As far as I was aware: you upload your video, and get what you're given.

Or can the uploader choose their own encoding settings, perhaps hidden behind several nested menus?
Top
User avatar
robertzombie
Overbomber
Posts: 4379
Joined: 05 Sep 2005, 12:49
Location: London

The idea is to encode the video (in your software) to the spec that Youtube requires, that way it won't be *re*encoded by Youtube. If you feed it a file with a 384 kbps AAC audio track, it'll stay that way.
Top
Post Reply

Return to “Sisters Chat”