"Sailin' Shoes" "Shoot Out" (and Mea Culpa)

Yesterday I posted on TrackingAngle.com a review of the Deluxe 3 LP Little Feat "Sailin' Shoes" set. The hype sticker says "Recut From the Original Master Tapes" but to me, just based on listening, it sounded more like a file-a very well produced one-this is a good sounding reissue: it's not compressed, there are no EQ games, though there's more bottom end than on the original or on Mobile Fidelity's all analog cut.
The producer insisted in a comment that it was cut from tape and he was prepared to prove it. I take his word for it and I've revised the review and apologized. I have no problem doing that when I'm wrong. Why I didn't check first before writing is explained in this video, in which you will hear 3 short excerpts, one from each record: original, new reissue and Mo-Fi-not necessarily in that order. Which is which is not identified in the video. I'd rather you comment about what you hear.
Despite digitizing and going through KZbin's algorithm I think the three excerpts are representative of what I heard live. You'll get a close up of the OMA K3 turntable fitted with the SAT CF1-12 arm and Lyra Atlas SL Lambda cartridge.
Pay particular attention to Richie Hayward's cymbal hits but overall one sounds more "real" and "right" to me. Granted the original was cut 50 years ago when the tape was fresh, but the record has also been played repeatedly for 50 years too! If anything this proves that records don't "wear out" if properly cared for!
Please listen on good headphones or through your audio system, not your computer speakers!
Subscribe to TrackingAngle KZbin channel!
Follow Tracking Angle on social media!
Facebook group: / 605454337542602
Twitter: / tracking_angle
Instagram: / trackingangle

[@ec-jy9sz]

My opinion 1. Is the newest release 2. Is the mofi 3. Is the original

[@wolfcarcass]

I can't be sure which is which, but I liked the second one best. That's after one listen, maybe it would change after more thorough listenings, who knows?

[@greggb681]

That K3 is PERFECTION!

[@marcellavankraaij]

listening on my iPhone , I like "2" the most

[@2ridiculous41]

3, 2, 1 for me in descending order.

[@pablov1973]

No 3, 1 and 2. Listening with good quality headphones through my audio interface.

[@JLeeeP]

#1 is clearly the Rhino. That's a house sound I've heard from many of their recent reissues and I don't like it. Nos. 2 and 3 are much closer but I hear the MFSL mid-bass bump in #2 so I'm going with #3 as the OG because it has that kind of warm chunk in the sound of the rhythm section that feels right for that era of Bernie. Edited to say that I was not aware that Mike had already identified some of the tracks in the comments. My picks are my own.

[@Geoduck.]

All three sounded good. The first was slightly lacking in comparison to the second and third. Dynamics were slightly less along with less detail. It seemed less organic sounding. Second and third were great although there were some very minor differences I could not really describe what they were.. The second recording was my favorite but tomorrow I might choose the third recording. Very hard to say. MacBook Pro - Audioquest Cobalt - high end vacuum tube amp - HD800S headphones.

[@johnpromano]

Michel. Funny you should compare the Grundman Sailing Shoes reissue. I just received the Dixie Chicken reissue from Rhino and I am disappointed. I’ve been a Feat fan since ‘74, was at Lisner for Waiting for Columbus shows, and have every pressing I can find, including early green label Warners pressing. My originals still have a superior presence. I was so hoping the Grundman from ‘original master tapes’ issues would finally open these tapes up. Guess I’ll have to wait for the Kevin Grey issues…

[@mostirreverent]

I don’t know, seems like two and three. Really good

[@klepp19]

I like 3,2 then 1 in that order!

[@Baz63]

I have a version of Little Feat's Waiting For Columbus reissued in 2022. via Rhino. To my aged ears it sounds 'digitized' but wonder if my ears are deceiving me? Can anyone confirm if this is the case or not? BTW version 1 sounds like the original.

[@classicrock7890]

2022 Columbus is AAA. Nobody as usual agrees which is original!

[@thegrimyeaper]

I'm 99% sure the first one is the old original. And while all instruments sound the most like the real thing in that one, I'd say the third one is the one I'd enjoy listening to the most.

[@trackingangle929]

Third is OG

[@thegrimyeaper]

@@trackingangle929 Whoa. That is blowing my mind.

[@mcflash23]

​@@trackingangle929was the 2nd the reissue?

[@LyndonSoulGroove]

Hi Mike All very good ,but I think the version 3 has more 3 dimensionality so guess original

[@peterw6490]

1 mofi 2 new mastering 3 original promo Bernie mastered it from the tapes but he chose to master it the way you are hearing it that was his choice

[@KS-yy2fu]

Thx for your honest words. Was thinking about to get the new cut I will stay with my canadian 70s press. No3 here sounded best to me. It's interesting that your verdict on Columbus was quite different.

[@mgb1970]

Great comparison and review Michael. I dig your glasses - who makes the frames? Thanks!

[@deeg8849]

You the man Frem. Been a while since we had a stir it up video. Dig how you set the table and then let your guests devour the meal while you left the room. I love my OG and all my Feat albums. (Especially this one). I may be wrong (tough to hear precisely through video) but ver 1 came up shortly to me. Preferred 2 and 3 second. How you going to advise results? (Seperate bud)

[@George9436-o3g]

version 2 in lower end version 3 for highs

[@brianlewis5042]

#1 …not as dynamic #2 &3 …both are very similar, but #3 is a little more open and the cymbal hits are more defined I guess if you are a person who is new to collecting vinyl records, the reissue will get you 90% there. Like many albums of the past, they just sound better.

[@robertgough5804]

Know the album 3.1.2 for me best to worst 2 being mofi

[@airgead5391]

From good to worse: 1, 3, 2. listening on my laptop with rather cheap USB connected small speakers. 1 seems to me the original

[@Nerdrific]

#1 is the original. #3 is the MOFI. #2 is aptly placed because it was the worst.

[@AnthonyWalczak-z1e]

The third version sounds best.

[@gonzol46]

Track 3 is org i Think 😊👍

[@andrewlittleboy8532]

2nd one was flat. The 3rd I thought could be MOFI and the first one original that I actually liked so I’d go, 1 original 3 MOFI 2 new one

[@Thebarleymasher]

Can’t tell any difference on my iPad. Not surprising.

[@shakinghell1318]

1 the worst for me. A bit screechy! 2 & 3 best for me, I can’t separate them. Listening on my iPhone, mind, and generally can’t hear much of any differences in a comparison 😊

[@lawrencesmith8183]

Number 3 sounds best on my computer.......

[@sofakingcrazy1943]

3 > original

[@lewiswaddo5045]

3, 2, 1 for me. 1 being the worst…

[@jlcougilljr]

Michael, i would have to say that the versions where from worst to best, version-1 being shit , and versions-2 & 3 being close but i would give version-3 a slight edge for being the best of them. that's how my ears hear it. SO, when will we find out your playing order of them? Fremer rocks!!!!!!!! \m/ \m/

[@robbiedetroitstigermanviny8883]

Fremer is God!!! If no one else appreciates you I do. Thank you Mr. Fremer for all that you do!

[@Darrin.Crawford]

@abefroman3466 No he's not.

[@DingleBerry88]

Love Fremer. “God” is a little over the top”

[@robbiedetroitstigermanviny8883]

@@DingleBerry88 its a reference back to the old saying Clapton is God. Inside joke.

[@BillsBoxOfSound]

Number 2 sounded like a number 2. 1 and three had much more clarity in all the instruments.

[@JohnHughes-ng6qi]

The 3rd has the most high frequency content, a bit brighter. The 1st has a it more detail on the cymbals, but is more rolled off. The 2nd is more congested in the highs. So, I like the 3rd best. I'd put my money on 3 being original, just because the extra treble might be a healthier tape, but again, it could be a bit of PCM edge getting through. That'd all I can tell from YT.

[@franciscoop1063]

Track No.3 is the OG

[@trackingangle929]

You are CORRECT!!!! I don’t think it’s all that difficult to hear those cymbals ring or the overall coherence…

[@seansrecords]

1 seems like a mess to me .. 2&3 were better .. hard to tell whats what on YT though, 3 is possibly mofi & 2 OG 😂 howd i do i had a hard time getting a decent cut of this record , ended up with the reissue from a few years ago as the early UK s i had all sounded muddy

[@danawhite384]

Just finished having a listen to the new pressing and enjoyed it tremendously. For the blind test I'm guessing 1 is OG, 2 is MoFi, 3 is Rhino.

[@dimebagdave77]

Manythnx, always cool to hear your opinion 🤘 edit: 2 was good, 3 was best to my ears

[@classicrock7890]

The two remastered discs in the new set have greater clarity than the supposed AAA album. None of them sound 'digital'. The actual record does not sound thin but a bit rolled off. Likely the tape lost some top end. In the video I'm guessing 3 is original but I'm not sure between the other 2 (on computer speakers). Never though the Mo-FI was that great but maybe not far behind my UK copy. The guy at Rhino is insisting it's AAA on Hoffman and playing the record I wouldn't think otherwise. It's getting difficult when we can't be certain that 'cut from tape' actually means that.

[@TheAgeOfAnalog]

I too have a nice promo copy that sounds wonderful. So, my guesses? #1 Rhino #2 Original #3 MoFi

[@markkern1240]

2 and 3 sound similar. 1 sounds like the higher-end mid-range to the lower-range high-end is slightly muted.

[@zizendorf]

Okay...let's go! 3, 2, 1 for me. While I played it through my computer, it's connected to an integrated amp and 3 way Polk Audio bookshelfs. #1 is just dead. I was using the cymbals as the determining factor. Michael, I like your taste in music. I have the original pressing and I'm glad I took good care of my albums in the 70's. During college, I'd take any/all requests from friends. But, nobody touched my albums! Also, did I hear you say "Rough Mix"?! Were you referring to my Pete Townsend and Ronnie Lane album? Wow, that's another superlative album. I have the original in mint condition. Oh, and btw, please do some detail dusting on your turntable. LOL

[@mcflash23]

My take is #2 is the recent release you suspect to be cut from a digital file, the other 2 are analog. If I had to guess which is the mofi, I'd say it's the 3rd one

[@staggerlee6794]

All I know is, #1 sounded the least clear. I think #2 is the best but to be perfectly honest I found telling 2 and 3 apart pretty difficult.

[@briantrev1]

The second recording sounded a bit subdued compared to 1 and 3.

[@apolloguitars]

#1 is thin and digital sounding. #2 and 3 are very close. Punchier. Balanced. Sound great.

[@tinostabile3256]

Hi Michael. Yep yours are great ears... and if my ears are good... I hear the best version and the one you so succinctly described in version 3. The cymbals are indeed clearer. Thank you for this exquisite exercise.

[@bacarandii]

I don't know which is best but #3 sounded best to me. #1 sounded a bit tinny.

[@budsmoker4201120]

I just got the oj version for 5 bucks it sounds awesome!

[@jackhill7140]

I didn’t like the first example.

[@zundap100]

In the last two years I have been focused on buying old vinyl pressings. The sound of new reissues and especially remasters is often not that good. I don't like the sound where the compressors boost the low-sounding parts and lower the loud-sounding parts. It's even worse when they try to correct everything with equalizers and then spoil everything even more.

[@OdesseyOracle78]

Have you heard the Rhino Dixie Chicken? Is that one any better?

[@Raskolnikov1863]

Love you Mike! You brought vinyl back almost single handed! I liked three best. 1 was bright and 2 was slow.

[@theworldaccordingto4555]

Yeah I agree with that. And 2 was slower.

[@AmberChiaCasting]

the speaker sounds and looking like a heavy drinker !

[@festersuncle6298]

Version # 3 is Nova on a bagel.

[@josezambranocassella4536]

3 and 1 are the best ones. 2 sucks

[@Sans_Solo_]

#3 original #2 Mofi #1 new release

[@hifitommy]

#1 is the newest. ...hifitommy

[@machinehead6564]

2 sounds best and nice to see you again

[@theaudiophilecorner]

Please, calm down

[@kirmussaudio7578]

Try the Kirmuss Restoration process on this record. Use the 5 minute cycle first, , then followed by four 2 minute cycles with the ionization spray brushed on the record. Then a final 5 minute cycle. Use the bunny cloth to remove any water from the surface of the record between cycles. Finish as usual. You should hear a difference. Some new pressings have serious amounts of release agent that has surfaced.

[@HD-Tech]

I'll take #2

[@Cognitobot]

I liked #1 best

[@slistone1940]

So which is it?

[@melockavich9596]

no 3 the best

[@BillOpdyke]

3 then 2 then 1

[@2packs4sure]

Man it's really tough but if I had to pick one I pick track 3 as the best

[@melockavich9596]

2 is best

[@theoinmaine2485]

2 is the 🦏

[@NickP333]

My thoughts, right or wrong: 1 - Rhino 2 - MoFi 3 - Original Thanks, Michael. You really can hear subtle differences, especially on those 16th notes on the ride.

[@512bb]

And that's why Chad is the only one I trust in the reissue game, honest integrity is everything.

[@mazzysmusic]

What’s not honest with this release ? Jason from Rhino from the git go announced that the main album was all analogue with the two supplemental records from digital files.

[@JimmyV1530]

Chad's a huckster like all the rest...just another salesman.

[@512bb]

@@mazzysmusic I said nothing about this release, I knew nothing about it, my comment was pretty clear & concise.

[@512bb]

@@JimmyV1530 I've known Chad for 35 years and you have no clue what you are talking about.

[@guitjammin4710]

Michael: I'm going with #1 is the original Promo copy, #2 is the new Rhino pressing and #3 is the MoFi? I have the CD version of the new Rhino pressing for my car I was also interested in the extra "live" songs. However, I was disappointed with how sloppy the live songs were and it seems clear to me that LF was a better band in the studio more focused and sharp). IMO

[@MrLovell1971]

Track 1 the new Rhino Track 2 Mofi Track 3 OG

[@Gary-fk9pu]

I'm no expert and I listen to a lot of digital music, as well as vinyl. I listened to this through a fairly cheap Chromebook computer. Before I read any comments my take was Version 1 sounded a little compressed and lifeless to me, it just didn't sound good. I assumed this was the new issue of the album. Version 2 was better, but it didn't sound great, and I couldn't believe this was going to be the best of the three. Again it lacked a little space, it just didn't quite fly. Version 3 sounded a lot better, the guitars sounded a lot more natural, overall like the recording had been set free from something after listening to the other two versions. So, Version 3 I assume is the original album.

[@LouisMartinez-o9g]

First thing...let me thank you Michael for taking the time to make these comparisons...quite telling indeed!! For my ears the hands down winner is #2 which definitely sounds more musical to begin with, with all instruments sounding fuller and more like themselves, especially the cymbals!!...I definitely hear the tinniness of the cymbals and lack of weight to the music in cut #1 which sounds a lot like digital to me....and for #3 it also lacks the robustness and musical weight of #2. In the final analysis, you can't do better than an original that was cut and mastered via analog recording!!

[@jefferyroy2566]

Which do you prefer for slide: Lowell and his Craftsman spark plug socket or Duane with a Coricidin bottle?

[@ericwhite6912]

The second one sounded punchier to my ears. Hey, when in doubt, go back to the OG! Either way, can't go wrong with Little Feat!

[@koylesmasterpeice]

Two and three were close for me, but I would give the edge to 3 as the best. One was by far the worst sounding.

[@vinyllpcare3619]

I couldn't really express a preference based on my PC's sound. I actually own the MoFi release but my primary copy is an original Japan issue. I do have a sweet sounding CD which sounds very good to me. I would rather hear this live before I could express a preference. I'm very interested to know what is what when Mikey choses to reveal that information.

[@burner8959]

I'm in the 3,2,1, gang. The third one definitely sounds the best. Two is quite close, just not as detailed. One was a hot mess. I am of the opinion that today's records just don't sound as good. I picked up the RSD Grateful Dead box set, as soon as I put it on and heard the drums it immediately sounded digitally flat to me. I picked up Nathaniel Rateliff's album S.O.B.. I had listened to the songs on that album many times on KZbin, before I bought the vinyl, and the vinyl doesn't sound as good to my ears. It's flat. Less life too it. I just seem disappointed by anything I've gotten new lately.

[@HoomanR17]

Michael.. trick question: have you ever heard a reissue that sounded "Fresher" than the OG? If there are none I wouldn't be surprised, I've yet to hear one. If there's more than one, would love a full video!

[@larryeckerdt9750]

I’m old and diabetic. I can’t hear much above 10KHz anymore, after 30 years on a too loud stage. And I heard #3 as the best version.

[@Divertedflight]

Listening on Bose headphones.... hey, what was that look? Version one and two seemed more like each other to my sixty year old ears. The second seemed more rounded off, and even somewhat more distant in the vocal. Though many might prefer it that way. If I was hearing this on a tinny iPhone I think I'd like the 2nd one more.

[@anjovandijk9797]

Hi Michael the fact that it sounded digital which somebody confirmed mentioning quote: no it was cut from a file, raises a question sleight of topic about the Technics su r1000 which digitizes vinyl and is high on my wishlist. Have you heard it or could you give your take on this digitizing amplifier

[@screamallyouwant]

Michael, can you please make a video covering turntable mats? I can’t think of a better suited person for it. Cheers!

[@papabear1417]

2nd and 3rd sound the best to me. The first sounds washed out. Very similar to my OG Rumours and the 2009 reissue. The da dum tischhhhhh at the beginning of Dreams is very different

[@tattyshoesshigure5731]

To my ears it’s 3-2-1 best to worst. Always loved the sleeve art on this album, in fact on all Little Feat albums!

[@dead_formats]

1 = mofi - 2 = Most recent cut - 3 - Original

[@artyfhartie2269]

Call me stupid but I think your turntable is spinning backwards

[@onsenkuma1979]

Thanks so much for this, Mike. I had a UK pressing back in '74 that I wish I'd kept. I have both the MOFI and the new pressing. In listening to 'Willin'' on the MOFI a few months ago, it occurred to me that it sounded...off...compared to the Japanese SHM CD. Mainly for that reason I decided to buy the new pressing because I'd heard the BG would be cutting it from the original tapes. I just haven't had the chance to give it a listen yet. Based on your review though, I'll be hanging onto the MOFI...

[@paulhovenga4138]

Crazy that we can hear these comparisons through all this interweb of mess.... But my pic best to worst, 3-2-1. The first being the least enjoyable. No decay and washed out sounding, as you described the reissue to be. If I am correct, your system does a fine job of revealing digital!

[@polypetalous]

I dunno too damn noisy in this house… all the same any reason to listen to Little Feat is a win in my book.

[@robinwoodbury2563]

Thanks Michael, this was very enlightening. As a former drummer who has plenty of high-frequency hearing still intact, the #3 track has the most pleasing sound, with that cymbal you wisely focused on having the most solid 'ting' upon strike and by far the liveliest and longest decay.

[@rixvspinner]

Version 2. My OG Little Feat albums do just fine thanks

[@jasonsmith2032]

Hi - we enjoyed this comparison and look forward to the reveal.

[@revelry1969]

1 and 3 are close. 3 sounds a little better to me. 2. Has the flat high hat missing the ting

[@kloss213]

All 3 sounded different maybe the 3rd was the better sound.

[@R3TR0R4V3]

2, 3, then 1 for me.

[@seraphin_creates]

i agree, without betting my head on it 😅

[@alexxbaudwhyn7572]

Time indices 4:59 v1 Start 5:09 v1 Cymbals start 5:39 v2 Start 5:49 v2 Cymbals start 6:22 v3 Start 6:32 v3 Cymbals start

[@rite-note1702]

I prefer my original cd to all of these