Temptation's Greatest

[mysterysinger]

I find the mix on this PolyGram CD to be most agreeable. It is certainly loud yet very clear and you can hear everything nicely. Personally I do prefer stereo mixes [[and especially partial to the Tops "Ask The Lonely" and Vandellas "Third Finger, Left Hand" in stereo).

Brings home the point to me that you don't always know what you're getting. For a great stereo experience this CD version of the album would be hard to beat. "It's Growing" sounds incredible - none of that key clank, no crackle, clear vocals and for me is exactly what The Motown Sound is all about. No crackle on "My Girl" either. Love it.

The CD cover shows 20 bit digitally remastered which doesn't mean a lot to me. "Temptations Sing Smokey" shows 24 bit but doesn't quite seem the same though maybe it just needs more volume.

31453-0853-2

[woodward]

I find the mix on this PolyGram CD to be most agreeable. It is certainly loud yet very clear and you can hear everything nicely. Personally I do prefer stereo mixes [[and especially partial to the Tops "Ask The Lonely" and Vandellas "Third Finger, Left Hand" in stereo).

Brings home the point to me that you don't always know what you're getting. For a great stereo experience this CD version of the album would be hard to beat. "It's Growing" sounds incredible - none of that key clank, no crackle, clear vocals and for me is exactly what The Motown Sound is all about. No crackle on "My Girl" either. Love it.

The CD cover shows 20 bit digitally remastered which doesn't mean a lot to me. "Temptations Sing Smokey" shows 24 bit but doesn't quite seem the same though maybe it just needs more volume.

31453-0853-2

How ironic you bring this particular CD up. I just listened to it last week and I agree with you 100%. My all time favorite from this collection just happens to be Don't Look Back.

[mysterysinger]

Not a dud track on here. I too like "Don't Look Back" the instrumentation is superb and the vocals are incredibly good. I've sent off for Volume 2 in 20 bit and I hope it sounds as good.

[woodward]

Not a dud track on here. I too like "Don't Look Back" the instrumentation is superb and the vocals are incredibly good. I've sent off for Volume 2 in 20 bit and I hope it sounds as good.

I am a little confused on 20 bit, etc. How can I identify Volume 2 in 20 bit? Who did you get it from? I don't understand the "bit" language, can you explain for me and possibly other forum members? I have the 20 bit like the picture above, but It meant nothing to me when I purchased it. Thanks.

[mysterysinger]

I'm sure someone will know what it all means but as I say in post 1 it doesn't mean a great deal to me. Most of the remasters I have don't mention a bit rate. For it to be mentioned on the cover must have meant something back then in the earlier days, yet they often mention it in adverts too which is the only way I can tell. Example from Amazon below. It could, of course, simply be coincidence that this is one of the best sounding CDs in my collection. "Sing Smokey" shows as a 24 bit remaster!

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Greatest-Hit...+greatest+hits

[Sotosound]

I find the mix on this PolyGram CD to be most agreeable. It is certainly loud yet very clear and you can hear everything nicely. Personally I do prefer stereo mixes [[and especially partial to the Tops "Ask The Lonely" and Vandellas "Third Finger, Left Hand" in stereo).

Brings home the point to me that you don't always know what you're getting. For a great stereo experience this CD version of the album would be hard to beat. "It's Growing" sounds incredible - none of that key clank, no crackle, clear vocals and for me is exactly what The Motown Sound is all about. No crackle on "My Girl" either. Love it.

The CD cover shows 20 bit digitally remastered which doesn't mean a lot to me. "Temptations Sing Smokey" shows 24 bit but doesn't quite seem the same though maybe it just needs more volume.

31453-0853-2

Sometimes I love the stereo mixes and sometimes I love the mono mixes as well.

For instance, I love that tinny "key clank" on the single mix of "It's Growing". It ain't hi fi but it sounds great.

Also, isn't the crackle on "My Girl" actually the snare on the snare drum rattling to the sound of the bass line, i.e. a consequence of ensemble playing in a room rather than in a set of booths?

As for "Ask The Lonely", now that's unbeatable in stereo. Somehow Motown ballads nearly always sound better in stereo.

[woodward]

[QUOTE=mysterysinger;330059]I'm sure someone will know what it all means but as I say in post 1 it doesn't mean a great deal to me. Most of the remasters I have don't mention a bit rate. For it to be mentioned on the cover must have meant something back then in the earlier days, yet they often mention it in adverts too which is the only way I can tell. Example from Amazon below. It could, of course, simply be coincidence that this is one of the best sounding CDs in my collection. "Sing Smokey" shows as a 24 bit remaster!

I was considering purchasing this Volume 2 but I ran into a problem. I did not realize it was a Japanese import available only through Amazon UK. The website for Amazon UK says the seller does not deliver to the US. So that leaves me out. Also the cost is L45.10 or USD $63.65 which is steep. I also tried to find out the songs that are included in this volume with no luck. Do you have any knowledge of what songs are included in this CD?

[thommg]

Well, the original LP release of Vol. 2 had this track line up:
Cloud Nine
I Wish It Would Rain
Ball of Confusion [[That's What the World Is Today)
[[I Know) I'm Losing You
I Can't Get Next to You
You're My Everything
Psychedelic Shack
Please Return Your Love To Me
Runaway Child, Running Wild
I Could Never Love Another [[After Loving You)
Don't Let the Joneses Get You Down
[[Loneliness Made Me Realize) It's You That I Need

I don't know if the CD lineup is the same but if it's a Japanese release of the original LP this would be it.

[thommg]

And I'll go on record as saying that All I Need is one of my absolute favorite Temptations songs and I don't think it gets the respect it deserves! I would drop it into the Vol. 2 collection in a heartbeat. ;-)

[woodward]

And I'll go on record as saying that All I Need is one of my absolute favorite Temptations songs and I don't think it gets the respect it deserves! I would drop it into the Vol. 2 collection in a heartbeat. ;-)

I agree with your thinking on All I Need. Fabulous song that brings back great memories. Thank you for the listing you provided, however, I don't think it is worth $64 USD do you? That's a lot of money.

[thommg]

I agree with your thinking on All I Need. Fabulous song that brings back great memories. Thank you for the listing you provided, however, I don't think it is worth $64 USD do you? That's a lot of money.

That would be only for completists. I have all those songs on different albums so I just make my own playlists for my mp3 player. $64 USD is too steep for me.

[lockhartgary]

And I'll go on record as saying that All I Need is one of my absolute favorite Temptations songs and I don't think it gets the respect it deserves! I would drop it into the Vol. 2 collection in a heartbeat. ;-)

I totally agree too!!

[RossHolloway]

And I'll go on record as saying that All I Need is one of my absolute favorite Temptations songs and I don't think it gets the respect it deserves! I would drop it into the Vol. 2 collection in a heartbeat. ;-)

It is certainly one of their greatly overlooked songs for some reason.

[mysterysinger]

Now 64usd is too much for volume 2. I've ordered a used copy for £6.53. I'm expecting the same tracklist as for the vinyl album [[so as above).

I do like "All I Need" which I first experienced via 16 Big Hits Volume 9 and it became my favourite track on there. I am in awe at the vocals on much of this Temptations stuff.

Played their Lost & Found CD recently and only then noticed "We'll Be Satisfied" is the same song as sung by Frank Wilson on the new Ace CD One Track Mind.

[ron]

[QUOTE=

Played their Lost & Found CD recently and only then noticed "We'll Be Satisfied" is the same song as sung by Frank Wilson on the new Ace CD One Track Mind.[/QUOTE]

And Marvin Gaye and Tammi Terrell, whose terrific version can only be found on their Complete Duets CD. What an ending!!

[soulster]

I'm sure someone will know what it all means but as I say in post 1 it doesn't mean a great deal to me. Most of the remasters I have don't mention a bit rate. For it to be mentioned on the cover must have meant something back then in the earlier days, yet they often mention it in adverts too which is the only way I can tell. Example from Amazon below. It could, of course, simply be coincidence that this is one of the best sounding CDs in my collection. "Sing Smokey" shows as a 24 bit remaster!

Thread-killer here!

I do know what it all means. The 20 and 24-bit language means, in layman's terms, that the engineer who worked on the CD transferred the master tapes to the digitizer with all of the fidelity of the tapes. But, since all CDs are only 16-bit, that newly-made high bit digital cannot be put on a CD without using something called dither. In this case, the trick is to get as much of that 20 or 24-bit sound to fit into that 16-bit container and still retain as much of that quality sound as possible.

Next: the reason that Polygram CD is louder [[and I had both the original Motown CD and this Polygram remaster) is because that CD engineer boosted the volume by the use of mastering compression. What that does is make the softer sounds in the music louder, and the louder sounds softer. It's the same thing FM radio stations do to make their signal stand out. Well, it's all nice to have the CD louder, but it comes at the expense of the accuracy of the sound. What you hear on that Polygram CD is NOT what is on the tapes! The tapes don't sound like that! The reason you hear such "clarity" is because the compression made the softer sounds louder to the ear. That is not the natural sound that was recorded onto the tapes.

Now: I do not like the stereo mixes for several reasons. First and foremost: they are not the sound I heard on those 45 RPM singles, the ones that sold, the ones that got the songs on the top of the charts, and the ones that got played on the radio. The 45s were mixed to mono, and have that special sound quality with the balance that the producers intended for us to hear. In the case of The Temptations, and pretty much everything recorded in the 60s and early 70s, the mono mixes are different from the stereo mixes. Sometimes, the mono mixes have parts in the music that just don't appear on the stereo mixes, and never will! Many of the mono mixes ever run longer than the stereo mixes, which were often faded earlier. A good example of this is "My Girl". The reason the stereo mixes just don't sound like that golden mono 45 mix is because the balances can't be recreated in stereo correctly. If you want the hit singles, you have to go for the mono! Period. The bass was also better on the mono mixes, as the stereo mixes often lack it. The stereo mixes often sound thin and trebly.

BTW, the original Temptations Greatest Hits vinyl album, which came out in both stereo and mono on November 16, 1966. But, even the original stereo album had the mono mix of "My Girl" on it. Also, "Since I Lost My Baby" is rechanneled stereo, or fake stereo!

[soulster]

And I'll go on record as saying that All I Need is one of my absolute favorite Temptations songs and I don't think it gets the respect it deserves! I would drop it into the Vol. 2 collection in a heartbeat. ;-)

Me too! It's also one of my favorite songs. But, again, the mono mix is different. There are no background vocals during the first verse on the mono single, which I prefer.

Since the stereo mixes are so prevalent today, compare the mono and stereo mixes of "Ball Of Confusion". Perfect example of how they screwed up the stereo. The mono single mix is powerful and brash, just like what was intended. The stereo sounds wimpy and weak.

I've had my say. I hope i've made my points. Carry on...

[mysterysinger]

Thanks Soulster I suspected something along those lines. It doesn't diminish my love for that 20 bit Greatest Hits CD [[remastered by Kevin Reeves) and that is the standard for myself by which at other CDs will be judged. Mono mixes are plentiful and I have those too, but in most cases, though not all, give me a decent stereo mix please. I didn't really grow up listening to Motown music so that radio sound means nothing to me.

One example of where I prefer the mono version is Martha's "Jimmy Mack". The stereo version that appeared on 16 Big Hits 8 doesn't sound as good but the stereo single mix is a lot better. Conversely, give me the stereo version of " Third Finger, Left Hand" anytime over the mono one.

[soulster]

Thanks Soulster I suspected something along those lines. It doesn't diminish my love for that 20 bit Greatest Hits CD [[remastered by Kevin Reeves) and that is the standard for myself by which at other CDs will be judged. Mono mixes are plentiful and I have those too, but in most cases, though not all, give me a decent stereo mix please. I didn't really grow up listening to Motown music so that radio sound means nothing to me.

Well, it's not a "radio" sound at all. Many people have a gross misconception of what mono is. Mono can contain the full frequency spectrum and dynamic range of ant stereo mix. The only differences is that you don't have different elements coming out of different speakers.

Since I was alive in the 60s, I grew up on both stereo albums and mono 45s played on a hi-fi stereo. I own all the mono mixes on CD or lossless downloads, and most of the essential stereo mixes, most of which were produced by Harry Weinger.

One example of where I prefer the mono version is Martha's "Jimmy Mack". The stereo version that appeared on 16 Big Hits 8 doesn't sound as good but the stereo single mix is a lot better. Conversely, give me the stereo version of " Third Finger, Left Hand" anytime over the mono one.

We all have our favorites regarding mono vs. stereo for any particular song, but, overall, if you want the actual hit versions, you have to go mono.

[Sotosound]

Agree with Mr Thread Killer about "My Girl". The Cooley High remix ended up lopsided because of how the track was originally recorded.

Also agree about "Ball Of Confusion", although I do have a sneaking affection for the 21st century stereo remix found on the US Psychedlic Soul double CD.

The original stereo mix of "Ball Of Confusion" also seems to have an unwanted and slightly out of tune additional vocal track by Eddie Kendricks in the first chorus. Yuk!

[soulster]

Agree with Mr Thread Killer about "My Girl". The Cooley High remix ended up lopsided because of how the track was originally recorded.

Also agree about "Ball Of Confusion", although I do have a sneaking affection for the 21st century stereo remix found on the US Psychedlic Soul double CD.

The stereo remix of "My Girl" that comes closest to the mono mix...and matches the mono 45 length, is found on the 2-CD set "The Motown Story: The 60s". But, it still isn't the single and has faults. And, like you said, it is all because of how the song was recorded and mixed. It started out on a four-track, then they transferred it to eight-track and worked on it some more. But, by the time they did the transfer, a considerable amount of bouncing had already taken place.

[mr_june]

This is one of the most interesting threads I've seen in some time here. I had to read it 2X as the first go round was not enough. Stereo vs. mono is a good topic in of itself. Back in the early 90's or late 80's I saw that a Archie Bell & The Drells album [[probably "I Can't Stop Dancing") was released on CD by a popular company that is right on the tip of my tongue but alas. The original LP was in stereo so I didn't think twice about checking on that aspect when deciding on a purchase.

When I got the CD it was in mono and I was disappointed as I was use to the nice separation in the left and right channels. If you are use to hearing something one way you it can be difficult to accept it any other way. It's just like two versions of a song that you like with slight changes. The first one heard usually wins the day but as I found, it's not guaranteed to keep first place.

Here is an example. The movie "Circus of Horrors" has that nice song "Look For A Star." I kept that song in my head for a long, long time and when DVD arrived I bought a copy of the movie. I liked that song and wanted to put it on a compilation CD of my own making so I hunted down a CD version. To my surprise the CD version was a bit different from the movie version. During the middle break in the song a lady in high voice is featured but the other version has a trumpet taking that role. Sine I play the CD version much more than I watch the movie I found after some time that I grew to like that version better though at a first listen, I did not like it. That's happened more than once with me.

I guess I say all this to say that what you hear first and like, doesn't always stay that way. The matter of stereo vs. mono is a bit harder for me though. That channel separation is much preferred as I like to isolate musical phrases, parts, background singers as much as possible.

When you are listening to something you like and you notice that it has a great arrangement with little gems being played in the background that don't always appear on the first or ninth playing but one day you hear something you didn't hear before and it's mixed pretty darn low most of the time. That's what I hear on a lot of Motown and Philly songs. Some of those parts are mixed very low and every time I play songs mixed that way, I always wish that I could raise the sound level of that instrument or voice. That part is worth it's own thread.

[mysterysinger]

It is a serious subject because you don't always know whether you're getting a mono or stereo version of a song. Some CDs label tracks properly. If a collection is labelled a single collection that's a bit of a clue but I think it has been a bit hit and miss with some CDs. I think things have improved though.

[soulster]

This is one of the most interesting threads I've seen in some time here. I had to read it 2X as the first go round was not enough. Stereo vs. mono is a good topic in of itself. Back in the early 90's or late 80's I saw that a Archie Bell & The Drells album [[probably "I Can't Stop Dancing") was released on CD by a popular company that is right on the tip of my tongue but alas. The original LP was in stereo so I didn't think twice about checking on that aspect when deciding on a purchase.

Can you take a look at your CD and tell us what company made it? Can you read the liner notes and see if there is any comments on the mono issue? By 1968, Atlantic Records were issuing only stereo, so this has me curious. However, the 45 RPM singles were still mostly mono.

When I got the CD it was in mono and I was disappointed as I was use to the nice separation in the left and right channels. If you are use to hearing something one way you it can be difficult to accept it any other way. It's just like two versions of a song that you like with slight changes. The first one heard usually wins the day but as I found, it's not guaranteed to keep first place.

It's a personal thing, but I usually go for the mono versions, not necessarily because I heard them first, or what I am used to, but because I like to hear how [[up to 1968) the mono sounded, and mono mixes is what the producers, engineers, and artists always went for. The mono mixes are usually more solid with clearer drums and vocals, and less reverb.

I guess I say all this to say that what you hear first and like, doesn't always stay that way. The matter of stereo vs. mono is a bit harder for me though. That channel separation is much preferred as I like to isolate musical phrases, parts, background singers as much as possible.

The problem is that the stereo mixes of this are are often bad. Sometimes the vocals and drums are all panned to one side and the music is panned to the other, or some unnatural set up. Or, the sound is so washed out in reverb that it doesn't sound anything solid. The bass is lacking, or something. There are elements that the producer never intended for the listener to hear. That's why they preferred mono.

I grew up with both stereo and mono, but, I like to hear how the hit singles sounded. Most of the time, when you hear the stereo, you just don't have the "hit".

[soulster]

It is a serious subject because you don't always know whether you're getting a mono or stereo version of a song. Some CDs label tracks properly. If a collection is labelled a single collection that's a bit of a clue but I think it has been a bit hit and miss with some CDs. I think things have improved though.

Early in the CD age, the reason a lot of CDs didn't get labelled stereo or mono is because the record company knew the public was largely ignorant on how mono sounds, and shied away from anything that said "MONO", so they left it off the packaging. Many people still think mono will sound like a small, tinny transistor radio. Rhino/Atlantic was perhaps the first company to finally proudly advertise that something was in mono. They know that there are people like me out there who want to hear historically accurate sound.

[mysterysinger]

Yes you're right Soulster, it cuts both ways as it is equally important to know what version before you buy if you are wanting either stereo or mono. You may want both, of course.

[soulster]

The quote i'm always reminded of that was made by engineer Tom Daly is: "The mono single mix is never wrong!".

To give a good example of how the mono mix sounds superior, check out the mono and stereo mixes of The Temptations "The Way You Do The Things You Do" and compare them. The vocals were recorded right there in Berry Gordy's office, and on the mono mix, they sound nice, clean, clear, and unprocessed, while on the stereo mic, they are all washed out in reverb. Though the rest weren't done in Berry's office, the same quality of the mono mixes compared to the stereo is the same for pretty much all of the Temptations songs.

I'm guessing you didn't buy 45s in the 60s, but if you want to know exactly sound Berry Gordy and the producers wanted, and how the 45s sounded like, go for the mono boxed set or the singles collection that came out a few years ago.

To illustrate how some mono mixes were unique and one of a kind, listen to the mono single and stereo mixes of Jimmy Ruffin's "I've Passed This Way Before". The stereo mix is missing the orchestra and background singers. It sounds bare and unfinished compared to the single.

[mysterysinger]

Just an update since the Temptations Greatest Hits Volume 2 CD in 20 bit version has now arrived at last and is every bit as good as the first volume. Clear and loud and you can hear everything perfectly. Not everyone's cup of tea obviously but to my ears exactly what I prefer. Not that you can go far wrong with anything Temptations though.

[thommg]

Just an update since the Temptations Greatest Hits Volume 2 CD in 20 bit version has now arrived at last and is every bit as good as the first volume. Clear and loud and you can hear everything perfectly. Not everyone's cup of tea obviously but to my ears exactly what I prefer. Not that you can go far wrong with anything Temptations though.

Is the track listing the same as the LP?

[mysterysinger]

Is the track listing the same as the LP?

Yes - this is the CD [[in this case a Japanese issue POCT1593)

Attachment 11287

[mr_june]

Can you take a look at your CD and tell us what company made it? Can you read the liner notes and see if there is any comments on the mono issue? By 1968, Atlantic Records were issuing only stereo, so this has me curious. However, the 45 RPM singles were still mostly mono.

It's a personal thing, but I usually go for the mono versions, not necessarily because I heard them first, or what I am used to, but because I like to hear how [[up to 1968) the mono sounded, and mono mixes is what the producers, engineers, and artists always went for. The mono mixes are usually more solid with clearer drums and vocals, and less reverb.

The problem is that the stereo mixes of this are are often bad. Sometimes the vocals and drums are all panned to one side and the music is panned to the other, or some unnatural set up. Or, the sound is so washed out in reverb that it doesn't sound anything solid. The bass is lacking, or something. There are elements that the producer never intended for the listener to hear. That's why they preferred mono.

I grew up with both stereo and mono, but, I like to hear how the hit singles sounded. Most of the time, when you hear the stereo, you just don't have the "hit".

Sorry to reply so late Soulster. It was Rhino Records put out that mono version. I learned something about mono vs. stereo. I'll bet the average person would choose 2 channels over 1 any day. I use to think that mono was a cheaper way to do music and stereo was the best. I still like that separation and actually wish I had access to the different tracts that make up a record so that I could do my own levels [[lol).

The original Greatest Hits Pt.2 is one of my all time favorite albums that I've ever purchased. For the art work and the songs. It brings back some good memories.

[soulster]

Sorry to reply so late Soulster. It was Rhino Records put out that mono version. I learned something about mono vs. stereo. I'll bet the average person would choose 2 channels over 1 any day. I use to think that mono was a cheaper way to do music and stereo was the best.

If Rhino/Atlantic put that mono CD out, it means a mono master exists, and that the album was issued in mono in the 60s at some point.

A problem is that a lot of people pick stereo because they are misinformed about mono. Most people don't know anything about how records are made, and why mono mixes usually sounded superior over stereo in the 60s and early 70s. They have just been brainwashed to believe that stereo mixes are always better. Mono isn't inferior, but too many stereo mixes are just plain bad. The producers and artists just didn't put as much time and effort into the stereo mixes as they did the mono mixes.