Different masterings of Someone Put You Hand Out?

Maxym

Proud Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2021
Donations
$6.00
Messages
981
Points
63
For those who have the occasion to compare them, does Someone Put Your Hand Out sound different on the original promo CDs from the early '90s , compared to the version that was released on The Ultimate Collection?

(I am asking because I usually prefer master from before 2000 and, I didn't check them all, but some songs on The Ultimate Collection sound like remasters. I am not asking Some Put Your Hand Out demo ! )
 
Thanks.

I realised that I have old .wav and .mp3 files (from different sources) of the this song, both sound like they have gone a long way across many tapes before digitization. Not perfect but I used these as comparison, and ... yes for me the Ultimate Collection version is a typical post 2K remaster and I was wondering why when I re-listened to it from the Ultimate Collection, I didn't find it as good as I thought it was back then, before TUC...
Also just ordered the cheapest 1992 CD I could find (they're not really cheap), so that flaw in my collection should be corrected soon.
 
Actually, this happens on many works, many of which artists are still alive today.

The closest related thing I ever heard MJ say was in some long interview he gave to a radio I think when Invincible was released (I would actually like to find back this interview if any one has the link), he said something like "You have to listen to it loud because otherwise you don't hear everything we've done."

I've also heard, I think from the Brud Sundberg interview series that MJ was very technically knowledgeable. However I don't know if that means that he had any real "audiophile" notions... I felt like saying "you have to listen to it loud", was the closest thing he could say to "you have to listen to it on good audio gear with that will provide a good dynamic range, a good frequency response curve and allow to hear clearer instrument separation... etc." ... Or maybe he was aware that this was too audio-geeky to be said on radio and so he just said "loud"...
But also, that's what most post-2K remasteres are about, getting everything super loud. What bugs me with those is that they often swallow the vocals, and add percussion overdubs in songs that didn't need them.
 
Last edited:
I recall someone that I find to be quite knowledgeable saying that MJ thought the mastering of the special editions sounded awful after they came out. (It was either those or TUC, can't remember exactly) So I think he probably did know but it wasn't something he necessarily controlled or tried hard enough to control.
 
Actually, this happens on many works, many of which artists are still alive today.

The closest related thing I ever heard MJ say was in some long interview he gave to a radio I think when Invincible was released (I would actually like to find back this interview if any one has the link), he said something like "You have to listen to it loud because otherwise you don't hear everything we've done."

I've also heard, I think from the Brud Sundberg interview series that MJ was very technically knowledgeable. However I don't know if that means that he had any real "audiophile" notions... I felt like saying "you have to listen to it loud", was the closest thing he could say to "you have to listen to it on good audio gear with that will provide a good dynamic range and allow hear clearer instrument separation... etc." ... Or maybe he was aware that this was too audio-geeky to be said on radio and so he just said "loud"...
But also, that's what most post-2K remasteres are about, getting everything super loud. What bugs me with those is that they often swallow the vocals, and add percussion overdubs in songs that didn't need them.

It's kinda funny he said that because when you turn invincible up it makes your ears bleed because of how over compressed it is lol.
 
Last edited:
...but it wasn't something he necessarily controlled or tried hard enough to control.

I was about to say, yes I think the reason must be something like this something like this yes.
I guess many artists don't really control the final mastering...
 
About Michael Jackson having any real "audiophile" notions or being technically knowledgeable, there is also the fact that he kept demanding that his ‘Invincible’ album should be recorded on Analog, and not on Pro Tools (digital).

Rodney Jerkins spoke about that in one of his interviews:

“…I like digital because it's a lot cleaner, but I love the warmth of analog. There's nothing like Neve EQs and analog mixes on vocals and tracks. It makes everything warm and Pro Tools is not able to capture the true essence of analog yet. Sometimes I use both …The last time I used analog was on Michael Jackson in 2000 [‘Invincible’ album]. He was a little scared of Pro Tools. We tried to get him to use it, but he didn't want to go that route yet and I understand: He came from the school of analog. But experimenting with new toys keeps you ahead of the game…” (Rodney Jerkins, Mix On Line)

On October 26th (2001), Michael Jackson stated that the listener should buy the actual CD in order to feel the real punch of the sound of his new album, rather than listening the album over the Internet or small speakers:

“…Well, the sound is…sonically, we always try to make sure we have, you know, pristine, detailed, uh, you know, the best sound, the best engineers, the best technicians available ... That’s one of my favorite things, hearing the music really loud. ‘Cause I like to play music loud. I mean, it’s, uh… If you play something over the Internet or small speakers, it doesn’t have the same punch. That’s why you have to buy it. You have to buy that CD to really hear that punch. It makes a huge difference. Huge difference. There’s no comparison. Buying the CD is the best thing…” (Michael Jackson, Online Audio Chat, 2001)

The singer cared a lot about the pristine, detailed sound of his studio albums in general, judging also by the fact that he demanded his ‘HIStory’ album to have the most elaborate and expensive mastering process (the ‘HIStory’ album still these days remains the most expensive album of all time, in terms of mastering costs).
 
mj_frenzy;4320894 said:
About Michael Jackson having any real "audiophile" notions or being technically knowledgeable, there is also the fact that he kept demanding that his ‘Invincible’ album should be recorded on Analog, and not on Pro Tools (digital).

Rodney Jerkins spoke about that in one of his interviews:

“…I like digital because it's a lot cleaner, but I love the warmth of analog. There's nothing like Neve EQs and analog mixes on vocals and tracks. It makes everything warm and Pro Tools is not able to capture the true essence of analog yet. Sometimes I use both …The last time I used analog was on Michael Jackson in 2000 [‘Invincible’ album]. He was a little scared of Pro Tools. We tried to get him to use it, but he didn't want to go that route yet and I understand: He came from the school of analog. But experimenting with new toys keeps you ahead of the game…” (Rodney Jerkins, Mix On Line)

On October 26th (2001), Michael Jackson stated that the listener should buy the actual CD in order to feel the real punch of the sound of his new album, rather than listening the album over the Internet or small speakers:

“…Well, the sound is…sonically, we always try to make sure we have, you know, pristine, detailed, uh, you know, the best sound, the best engineers, the best technicians available ... That’s one of my favorite things, hearing the music really loud. ‘Cause I like to play music loud. I mean, it’s, uh… If you play something over the Internet or small speakers, it doesn’t have the same punch. That’s why you have to buy it. You have to buy that CD to really hear that punch. It makes a huge difference. Huge difference. There’s no comparison. Buying the CD is the best thing…” (Michael Jackson, Online Audio Chat, 2001)

The singer cared a lot about the pristine, detailed sound of his studio albums in general, judging also by the fact that he demanded his ‘HIStory’ album to have the most elaborate and expensive mastering process (the ‘HIStory’ album still these days remains the most expensive album of all time, in terms of mastering costs).

In my humble opinion HIStory is not only Michaels best sounding album, strictly speaking of the audio, mixing and mastering quality, but that album is one of the best sounding albums i've ever heard. It is mixed so perfectly that you can hear every little single detail on the record even on songs like 2bad and Tabloid Junkie.
 
Just received the promo CD, I can confirm that it sounds much better than what is on The Ultimate Collection.

Question: Do you know how to recognize if it is the 1991 first pressing or the 1992 re-issue? (Discogs is being very vague and even seems to contain errors about it.)
 
Everything on the ultimate collection is mastered really badly.
Yeah, that includes Invincible, SE, T25, KOP and TII.

Buying the CD is the best thing
Yeah, of course he would say that. He wants to sell copies of his new CD, lol.

I did hear an interview once about setting up the equipment for a live show, saying how you should feel the bass in your chest.

In my humble opinion HIStory is not only Michaels best sounding album, strictly speaking of the audio, mixing and mastering quality, but that album is one of the best sounding albums i've ever heard. It is mixed so perfectly that you can hear every little single detail on the record even on songs like 2bad and Tabloid Junkie.
Well, there's a Grammy Award for Best Engineered Album.
Dangerous, Bad and Thriller all won. History was nominated but didn't win. But the gold CD helped.
 
I have what sounds like the original promo cut from 1992, it's mastered differently, obviously, but it has a slight ticking intro and overall sounds different than the 2004 version. Is this accurate or a fanmade fluke?
 
Back
Top