THought I'd have a bit of a clear out of duplicate cd's today...realised that I had three versions of Exile, one from way back, then a digital re-mastered and also last year's re-issue. I though I'd play all three just to make sure the latest one was the best version production wise. Strange thing was, and it might be my old ears that aren't up to the jb, but the original sounded better! I had always thought of it as a bit muddy, but it came through those speakers as sharp as anything. Is there anyone else who thinks that the original sounds better than the latest?



'some things, well, I can't refuse'

If your original is the CD from the 80's that's the best version on CD. It's definitely more rocking and grooving than all remastered versions that followed - including 2010 reissue.

It is from the 80's...can't believe the difference over the so called re-mastered versions



'some things, well, I can't refuse'

I was under the impression that the Virgin remasters from the early 90s were the best digital issues for all stones post '71 releases.

The initial releases were poorly done and the new remasters suffer from brickwalling.

Don't shoot the messenger.

What does the term 'brickwalling' mean treacle?



'some things, well, I can't refuse'

Quote
crumbling_mice
What does the term 'brickwalling' mean treacle?

If I understand the term correctly, the remastering to a much 'louder' level results in the highs and lows being cropped. That of course affects the quality of the overall sound. Anyone please feel free to 'enhance' or correct my understanding of brickwalling.

I see...thank you. I don't have a great deal of knowledge about recording techniques, but it begs the question, why can't they increase the volume and keep the highs andlows in...anybody?



'some things, well, I can't refuse'

"Brickwalling" in picture : the 3 stages of "Rip This Joint" digital remastering.

Pictures below are waveforms of the 1st minute of Rip This Joint.
A waveform is a way to picture music variations (to put it simply).


1) "Rip this Joint" on EOMS 80's CD





2) On Virgin remaster (1994)





3) On 2010 remaster






As you can see every time EOMS was remastered the sound level has been increased. To achieve this sound was compressed and peaks cropped.

What makes sound better the original CD is the wider dynamic range (difference between the quietest and loudest sound) If you reduce dynamic range in order to get a louder sound your music gets also more flat. On the 2010 remaster everything is set to sound loud. This makes the 2010 EOMS sounds actually more flat than the despised 80's CD.

By the way... this year's Hampton Coliseum release is even more compressed than Exile.

Interesting...and what a brilliant, thorough, scientific explanation...it all makes sense now...so glad I've kept the original. Thanks for that



'some things, well, I can't refuse'

I prefer the Virgin Remaster. I don't care much for those 80s CBS Stones CDs at all. The only ones I still have is Dirty Work, which I doubt would be improved by higher sonic fidelity, and Steel Wheels, which I haven't heard anyone say has been improved by remastering. I have a London CD, manufactured in Germany in the 80s, of their debut album that I wouldn't trade for anything.

hi guys - super interesting post.

So, how do you think would the original vinyl compares, in that respect, to the 3 CD versions above?

Crumbling, if you have a turntable I would love to hear your take on that - how the vinyl compares to your ears.

- swiss

Quote
swiss
hi guys - super interesting post.

So, how do you think would the original vinyl compares, in that respect, to the 3 CD versions above?

Crumbling, if you have a turntable I would love to hear your take on that - how the vinyl compares to your ears.

- swiss

I believe the jury still comes back to the original vinyl release being the best version, although there is also a virgin vinyl remaster...not sure about that.

Apparently the new vinyl remaster is the same as the new CD.

I listened to the CBS CD a few times after I got the Virgin CD and gave the CBS one away. The Virgin remasters sound the best I think.

What I'm not clear about is the level of the CBS (and Virgins for that matter) make them quieter just because when compared to the UMe remasters? Is the brickwalling what makes them so loud or is it the cropping and compression (with/without the brickwalling) that makes them so loud/louder? Nivana's Nevermind remaster sounds exactly the same as the original, as does U2's Achtung Baby. No louder but perhaps a bit more clear, a bit more oomph, if that is even the case.

I always love these discussions...
One thing I noticed about new 2010 remaster vs the Virgin is that the songs that were leftover and overdubbed/added onto for Exile - Sweet Virginia, Torn & Frayed, Sweet Black Angel, etc - seem much cleaerer/sonically improved over the versions on the Virgin Remaster as opposed as the tracks that were conceived at Nellcote - Tumbling Dice, Rocks Off, Happy, etc...

The Nellcote originated material couldn't be sonically improved due to the way the tapes were recorded and mixed. At least to my ears.

Does anyone know where one can get a copy of Mickboys Exile Revisited???

Thanks!

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
I listened to the CBS CD a few times after I got the Virgin CD and gave the CBS one away. The Virgin remasters sound the best I think.

What I'm not clear about is the level of the CBS (and Virgins for that matter) make them quieter just because when compared to the UMe remasters? Is the brickwalling what makes them so loud or is it the cropping and compression (with/without the brickwalling) that makes them so loud/louder? Nivana's Nevermind remaster sounds exactly the same as the original, as does U2's Achtung Baby. No louder but perhaps a bit more clear, a bit more oomph, if that is even the case.

I'm not sure if this is correct, but this is how I see it...think of turning up your stereo so loud, that the bass sounds distorted and the treble sounds distorted. If you were to turn down the bass and the treble, leaving the volume at the same level the distortion would go away, but so also would much of the sound (but not volume).

So the way I see it, turning it up so loud creates this dissonance that is cropped so you don't hear it (turning down the treble and bass, for a layman). In effect, the highs and lows are sacrificed.

Alright, I may be totally wrong in my description of what I think is going on, but that helps me sleep at night.

The reason why the other examples you have aren't a problem, is probably because they were already mastered at an optimum volume, and the volume was thankfully not increased in the new masters.

The only thing I would like to know, is WHY they bothered creating this issue, just for the sake of having it louder....I don't get where the advantage is and I'm presuming they know what they're doing, and had a reason.

I think the Japanese vinyl from the 80's is superior to any of the CDs. But I too feel the Virgin release sounds better than the remastered Universal.

Quote
kowalski
If your original is the CD from the 80's that's the best version on CD. It's definitely more rocking and grooving than all remastered versions that followed - including 2010 reissue.

No @#$%& way. Listen to "Sweet Virginia": on the original CD release, during the first chorus, you can literally hear the volume suddently turned down drastically; it's as if someone reached for the knob on your stereo and turned down the volume when Mick sings "Come on, come on down". Dreadful and unacceptable.

Quote
Glam Descendant

Quote
kowalski
If your original is the CD from the 80's that's the best version on CD. It's definitely more rocking and grooving than all remastered versions that followed - including 2010 reissue.

No @#$%& way. Listen to "Sweet Virginia": on the original CD release, during the first chorus, you can literally hear the volume suddently turned down drastically; it's as if someone reached for the knob on your stereo and turned down the volume when Mick sings "Come on, come on down". Dreadful and unacceptable.

I'd forgotten about that one!

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Glam Descendant

Quote
kowalski
If your original is the CD from the 80's that's the best version on CD. It's definitely more rocking and grooving than all remastered versions that followed - including 2010 reissue.

No @#$%& way. Listen to "Sweet Virginia": on the original CD release, during the first chorus, you can literally hear the volume suddently turned down drastically; it's as if someone reached for the knob on your stereo and turned down the volume when Mick sings "Come on, come on down". Dreadful and unacceptable.

I'd forgotten about that one!

Actually if you listen carefully sound level is progressively increasing before the first chorus. The volume drop you can hear during the chorus sounds like the engineer wanted to readjust volume.


I agree that the first CD release is not perfect and has some flaws (sound is harsher, artwork is not really on par with Virgin edition...). But I like it better because I can hear clearly all instruments rocking and swinging.

When I listen to the Virgin remaster I feel like they lost something in the process. Overall sound is softer and it has some sort of veil on it that makes music somehow dull/muffled. For example Loving Cup never quite take off on Virgin remaster. On original CD you can hear the piano driving the song very clearly.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-12 10:43 by kowalski.

Quote
kowalski

What makes sound better the original CD is the wider dynamic range (difference between the quietest and loudest sound) If you reduce dynamic range in order to get a louder sound your music gets also more flat. On the 2010 remaster everything is set to sound loud. This makes the 2010 EOMS sounds actually more flat than the despised 80's CD.

Not completely correct -from the graphs you can see the 90's remaster has the widest dynamic range (most highs and lows) and highest volume without being compressed. The 80's version has little compression, but also little volume and not very good dynamics. The 2010 remaster is overly compressed, compressing the highs and lows in order not to distort them. The best dynamics can be found on the old LP's, where the compression is much more natural occuring making it sound warm and fat while still maintaining good treble.

On CD, the 90's remaster is the best sounding by far. But do not forget that in the end it mostly comes down to the audio equipment that you are using. If you play a CD in your car on computer it is the audio card that defines the sound perceived.

Mathijs

Mathijs

Actually original CD has the widest dynamic range. Graphs above are only one minute of the song.

I posted this graphs only to show how music volume got increased through the years and how it can affect music quality.

Quote
swiss
hi guys - super interesting post.

So, how do you think would the original vinyl compares, in that respect, to the 3 CD versions above?

Crumbling, if you have a turntable I would love to hear your take on that - how the vinyl compares to your ears.

- swiss

Hi Swiss...good to have you back again. I still have my original Exile, with the postcards! Unfortunatly I don't have a turntable any more, which is ridiculous as I have about 200 vinyl LPs. From memory the vinyl was a much warmer sound with more depth. I played my copy to death so it had a lot of clicks and jumps on it, but that kind of adds to the experience!! I should reinvest in a new turntable and see what I have that is worth hanging on to.

I'm glad some of you pointed out the weird volume drop in Sweet Virginai ion the original cd - I always thought it was just me that had a dodgy copy... it is terrible, you are singing along, getting ready for the real loud bit and.pppftt it just drops away. I find it incredible that a professional engineer could let this happen, but even considering that, I still prefer the original cd to the various re-masters. I havent got a brilliant set up - NAD Amp, Sony CD player and some big floor standing B&W speakers, but through that set up it certainly has something the others don't.



'some things, well, I can't refuse'

I have a pretty good turntable, amp, graphic equalizer and speakers. The new vinyl sounds compressed and brickwalled, basically a vinyl version of the CD. But again, the Japanese import vinyl from the 80s sounds amazing. Very nice bottom to it, Charlie's drums in particular sound incredible. Far superior to the new CD.

When people are talking about the "80s version" of the CD, are you referring to the CBS "nice price" edition?

Quote
kowalski

Audacity, right kowalski? Good program, and free ...
the authors of the software call it "clipping", and
gives that undesired result, "compression".

I don't understand how they can do such a crap job
with "remastering", or whatever they're actually doing.

I just take the advice the advice of The Stones:
don't mess with the recording itself, and, "PLAY IT LOUD".

Quote
Father Ted
When people are talking about the "80s version" of the CD, are you referring to the CBS "nice price" edition?

I can't imagine there would be a difference. It would take more 'effort' to make a poorer version, so get it at the 'nice price'.

Quote
Father Ted
When people are talking about the "80s version" of the CD, are you referring to the CBS "nice price" edition?

I'm referring to this edition.
Again this edition is not perfect but for those who care about balance and dynamics it's rather good.

On the other hand Sticky Fingers in the same edition is not really good. Very thin and harsh sound. Other titles are worth it though : Goats Head Soup and Emotional Rescue both sound excellent in this edition...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-12 22:37 by kowalski.

This is all very interesting...and whilst i was aware there were differences between the varying editions, I wasn't aware of the reasons and variation extremes. What I still don't understand is that these so called professional producers/engineers etc can turn out finished cd's with such awful mistakes as Sweet Virginia on the 80s version and all the'brickwalling' on the later releases. If us mere mortals are aware of such crass work...then why the hell do these guys get paid huge amounts of money. Kowalski...how would you have produced the re-issues if you had the opportunity?



'some things, well, I can't refuse'

Quote
crumbling mice
Kowalski...how would you have produced the re-issues if you had the opportunity?

Try to find the best analog source and just transfer it to digital. No EQ, compression or whatever..

Actually this is how were done last year's SACD version of '71-'86 Stones albums. And they sound great! Natural and well balanced sound, and respectful of the original recording.

If you have a SACD player or a blu-ray player that can read SACD this is the way to go for digital Stones.

Quote
crumbling_mice
This is all very interesting...and whilst i was aware there were differences between the varying editions, I wasn't aware of the reasons and variation extremes. What I still don't understand is that these so called professional producers/engineers etc can turn out finished cd's with such awful mistakes as Sweet Virginia on the 80s version and all the'brickwalling' on the later releases. If us mere mortals are aware of such crass work...then why the hell do these guys get paid huge amounts of money. Kowalski...how would you have produced the re-issues if you had the opportunity?

The brickwalling is intentional. It's a trend in the industry, becoming both more prevalent and more "loud" in recent years.