https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/ Copyright (c) 2006-2013 Web Wiz Forums - All Rights Reserved. Sat, 18 Apr 2026 05:10:08 +0000 Sat, 11 Jan 2014 05:17:14 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Web Wiz Forums 12.07 360 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/RSS_post_feed.asp?TID=1869 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum//images/Top-40-Music-on-CD-Forum-Logo.png https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/ https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1869&PID=40223&title=neil-diamond-sweet-caroline#40223 Author: Bill Cahill
Subject: 1869
Posted: 11 January 2014 at 5:17am

Agree on the high hat reverb present on the single only. Also the reverb on the vocal sounds different on the mono mix verses the stereo mix, as if different reverb units were used. ]]> Sat, 11 Jan 2014 05:17:14 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1869&PID=40223&title=neil-diamond-sweet-caroline#40223 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1869&PID=40217&title=neil-diamond-sweet-caroline#40217 Author: aaronk
Subject: 1869
Posted: 10 January 2014 at 8:06pm

I just compared the stereo version from "The Essential" CD to the mono mix, and there is no doubt that the 45 is a dedicated mono mix. This is one stereo version I've never cared for--too wide for my tastes.

The one thing that really stuck out that probably qualifies as a "version" difference in the database is the presence of a "chirp" like echo on the hi-hat taps. During the verses, immediately following each hi-hat, you can clearly hear some sort of echo/reverb on the 45 mix that is not present on the stereo copy I have.]]> Fri, 10 Jan 2014 20:06:59 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1869&PID=40217&title=neil-diamond-sweet-caroline#40217 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1869&PID=40215&title=neil-diamond-sweet-caroline#40215 Author: aaronk
Subject: 1869
Posted: 10 January 2014 at 7:45pm

It seems there were multiple pressings, some of which were at slightly different speeds. I have two copies in my possession, one with matrix number 279-T21 and one with 279 T3. The T21 copy runs just a hair short of 3:22. The T3 copy runs 3:26! This is not a case of a later fade out; it runs about 2% slower than the other copy. When I first put it on the turntable, I thought I had accidentally bumped the pitch adjust slider. The slower copy is also mastered with quite a bit more high end. It appears to be the same mono mix on both copies, despite the differences in speed and EQ.]]> Fri, 10 Jan 2014 19:45:21 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1869&PID=40215&title=neil-diamond-sweet-caroline#40215 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1869&PID=9256&title=neil-diamond-sweet-caroline#9256 Author: Pat Downey
Subject: 1869
Posted: 16 March 2007 at 5:36am

I retimed my 45 and come up with a running time of (3:22). ]]> Fri, 16 Mar 2007 05:36:51 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1869&PID=9256&title=neil-diamond-sweet-caroline#9256 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1869&PID=9255&title=neil-diamond-sweet-caroline#9255 Author: jimct
Subject: 1869
Posted: 15 March 2007 at 11:28pm

I don't mean to slightly contradict the actual 45 timing currently in the database (for the second time in two days, no less!), but I just timed my listed (2:50) commercial 45 for you, Grant, and I got an actual time of (3:21), not the db-shown (3:23). Based on the number of current database CDs having a time in the (3:19-3:20) range, I would say no, Grant, "Sweet Caroline" wasn't sped up.]]> Thu, 15 Mar 2007 23:28:54 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1869&PID=9255&title=neil-diamond-sweet-caroline#9255 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1869&PID=9250&title=neil-diamond-sweet-caroline#9250 Author: The Hits Man
Subject: 1869
Posted: 15 March 2007 at 7:33pm

Quick question, was the 45 sped up? ]]> Thu, 15 Mar 2007 19:33:45 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1869&PID=9250&title=neil-diamond-sweet-caroline#9250