Quote
bassplayer617
I'm going to give a friend of mine the 1994 Virgin reissue, as the newest version will replace my previous ones.

DON'T! Keep it!

Quote
mrrockandroll

Quote
FreeBird
Given that it took them over thirty years to realize that Beggars Banquet ran way too slowly, I'm not surprised that these little details slipped by.

Did they speed up Beggars Banquet for CD release then???

I recall that being a yes.

Quote
mrrockandroll
Did they speed up Beggars Banquet for CD release then???

The 1986 release runs too slowly, but the 2002 release runs at the correct speed. They didn't really speed it up, they simply used a better master tape that was at the correct speed to begin with. There were several clues that they missed over the years:

1. A different mix of Street Fighting Man was released on single in the US at the correct speed. I do not know about the UK release, that one may simply have come from the (slow) LP master tape.
2. Presumably, its B-side No Expectations was also correct.
3. The mono mix of Sympathy for the Devil also runs at the correct speed, from what I've been told.
4. While I can understand people ignoring these, bootlegs related to the album also ran at the correct speed.
5. As I posted in another thread not too long ago, Salt of the Earth runs at the correct speed as the closing song of the Rock and Roll Circus (it's an instrumental version of the studio track, plus live vocals), then when the credits roll the slow version from Beggars Banquet is played.
6. Even without that direct jump from normal to slow, the songs simply sound wrong at their lower speed. Listen to the slow version of No Expectations - that wasn't the pitch of Mick's voice in those days! Street Fighting Man also sounds very, very wrong. I never liked the studio version until I heard it on Forty Licks. That's how much difference the correct speed makes!

It is generally agreed that when the speed is off by more than 1%, the difference becomes audible. In case of Beggars Banquet, the difference was about 1.5%. The engineers should've noticed - it's their job! The whole thing reeks of The Emperor's New Clothes.

Can't say I hear much of a difference to be honest. I love the original mix and production anyway. I think if it was cleaned up too much it might take away a little from this most brilliant album.

Far from being an audiophile myself, but differences are VERY noticeable I'd dare to say. I like it! And after reading all the comments on this thread I sense people reckon they did a good job with it. Can't skip a single track even though I'm bored to death with this album -that's how good it gets.

Quote
FreeBird

Quote
mrrockandroll
Did they speed up Beggars Banquet for CD release then???

The 1986 release runs too slowly, but the 2002 release runs at the correct speed. They didn't really speed it up, they simply used a better master tape that was at the correct speed to begin with.

To further add to the oddness that is the pitch/speed of 1968 era releases.

If I recall right, Jumpin' Jack Flash seems to be slighlty slower/lower in pitch than the original album(which is already wonky), but Child of the Moon is either fine and at concert pitch or only very slightly lower.

Did ABKCO also correct the speed for Jumpin' Jack Flash? If not they should have!

Quote
His Majesty
[If I recall right, Jumpin' Jack Flash seems to be slighlty slower/lower in pitch than the original album.

I dunno. Is the speed of tracks on the original release and CD release of Through The Past, Darkly as bad as the singles the same tracks? That's the 'original album' for JJF (and HTW).

I wrote this in another tread:

>>
Well, it is actually one of the main things that's bugging me most about this new Exile: they lifted the bass sort of out of the mix -it's not really fattening up the music as is so typical for the Stones and Wyman, but now the bass is clearly audible as a seperate instrument, with much more mids and treble. It's like when listening to the bass track when it's separated from the rest of the music.

It was the first thing I noticed when I played the new Exile (actually, they cut off the intro to Rocks Off, that's what I noticed first) -you now cleanly hear Bill's bass on Rocks Off, with all the little runs and counter notes. But, the music is not so fat anynore, and it lost much of its swampy warmth. The oomph seems to be gone a bit.
>>

To add, the raised midrange due to the lowering of the bottom makes Jagger's vocals stick out more, so now suddenly you can hear the lyrics much more clear than ever. I don't know, but it really does take something away from Exile.

Mathijs

Quote
His Majesty
To further add to the oddness that is the pitch/speed of 1968 era releases.

If I recall right, Jumpin' Jack Flash seems to be slighlty slower/lower in pitch than the original album(which is already wonky), but Child of the Moon is either fine and at concert pitch or only very slightly lower.

Did ABKCO also correct the speed for Jumpin' Jack Flash? If not they should have!

Not that I know, but I don't hear everything. When the Singles Collection was rereleased in 2002, many songs were suddenly playing at a different speed than before (and, to the best of my knowledge, all changes were improvements in this department). The most obvious change was Gotta Get Away, even more so than the Beggars Banquet tracks. As far as I can remember, that was the only song on any official release by any artist where I immediately realized that it was too slow upon hearing it for the first time. If you don't know what I mean and have the 1989 Singles Collection, just play the first song of the second disc. It just sounds very, very wrong because it plays WAY too slowly.

Anyway, I would think that fixing the pitch of some Exile songs that got messed up during overdubs would be impossible without performing some serious digital signal processing, and that's exactly the kind of "messing with the bible" that Keith didn't want.

Not a fan of the remix. Did any of you try listening all the way through? It's not pleasurable anymore --- it's so loud and sterile.

The loudness and compression make each song stand out like a single rather than a part of the whole masterpiece. The murkiness of the album has been digitally scrubbed and this is not a good thing.

Quote
skipstone

Quote
His Majesty
[If I recall right, Jumpin' Jack Flash seems to be slighlty slower/lower in pitch than the original album.

I dunno. Is the speed of tracks on the original release and CD release of Through The Past, Darkly as bad as the singles the same tracks? That's the 'original album' for JJF (and HTW).

Just focusing on 68 releases, ie the JJF single compared to pitch/speed of Beggars.

For example, the pitch of B is slightly lower on JJF than the pitch B on Beggars Banquet. If you were to play along on guitar, you have to ever so slightly tune down a touch when you move from playing along with the album, to the single... then you ahve to tune up a bit to play along with Child of the Moon.

Good times!

Quote
His Majesty
Just focusing on 68 releases, ie the JJF single compared to pitch/speed of Beggars.

For example, the pitch of B is slightly lower on JJF than the pitch B on Beggars Banquet. If you were to play along on guitar, you have to ever so slightly tune down a touch when you move from playing along with the album, to the single... then you ahve to tune up a bit to play along with Child of the Moon.

Good times!

Ah, okay. I see what you mean now. Well, I don't play an instrument and I've never had any kind of musical training, so I can't compare those things. I used to sing in musicals for ten years, so I'm more focused on the vocals. I can hear a pitch change in vocals but not in instruments (unless it gets really bad, of course), in cases where I don't have a correct version to compare it to.

The songs I mentioned sounded weird to me because of the speed and the pitch of Mick's voice, not because of the pitch of the instruments (when it comes to speed and pitch, I know you can't change one without changing the other unless you resort to digital trickery, but I think you know what I mean).



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-05-23 18:07 by FreeBird.

Quote
Mathijs
I wrote this in another tread:

>>

(actually, they cut off the intro to Rocks Off, that's what I noticed first)

Mathijs

After reading all the posts it is this one that is most disturbing. I was on my way to Vintage Vynil to pick up the CD and am now not looking forward to what I else I will hear. I know what to expect. It will not sound anything like the original vinyl that I grew up listening to. The sound of the needle hitting the grooves and the intro to Rocks Off stays with you your whole life. Even the loss of fidelity on the inner tracks ( Loving Cup and Soul Survivor ) are part of the magic.

OH well. Thats is progress. My original CD from the 80's is awful so this will be an improvment. And I guess I have to track down the Virgin re-issue. ( Nick I will be calling you )

Quote
Mathijs
I wrote this in another tread:

>>
Well, it is actually one of the main things that's bugging me most about this new Exile: they lifted the bass sort of out of the mix -it's not really fattening up the music as is so typical for the Stones and Wyman, but now the bass is clearly audible as a seperate instrument, with much more mids and treble. It's like when listening to the bass track when it's separated from the rest of the music.

It was the first thing I noticed when I played the new Exile (actually, they cut off the intro to Rocks Off, that's what I noticed first) -you now cleanly hear Bill's bass on Rocks Off, with all the little runs and counter notes. But, the music is not so fat anynore, and it lost much of its swampy warmth. The oomph seems to be gone a bit.
>>

To add, the raised midrange due to the lowering of the bottom makes Jagger's vocals stick out more, so now suddenly you can hear the lyrics much more clear than ever. I don't know, but it really does take something away from Exile.

Mathijs

>>actually, they cut off the intro to Rocks Off,<<

er what? an intro went missing?
No way, nothing was cut off!
I checked my original '72 vinyl,my old CBS CD and the new UMG reissue.

does it sound different? - yep, it sure does, the bass indeed is more audible due to removing the very low rumble which on the older issues only takes up space and energy - or like you said makes the 'swampy warmth'.

with all the space and energy saved, it leaves room for all the nuances that can now be heared, plus it brings up the overall average level.
I enjoy the hell out of the snappy and punchy sound. just listen to Bill and Charlie - they're just double dynamite. spot on.
the mushy sound before didn't help much to make that discernable.

if it bugs you that much you can still revert to older versions. heck, even the vinyl is availlable.

on more point on energy saving - on an iPod or such you don't have to crank the volume as much as you used to, which saves batteries.

The beginning of "Rocks Off" is not missing. I have no idea how anyone could even come to that conclusion.

I have not yet had the time to properly compare the different releases.

Until today, the standard of any comparison was the 72 vinyl version, played with a more than decent system (linn). The qualities that I always loved of that version and that I did not find in the following CBS and Virgin releases was the warmth of the acoustic instruments (in the CBS versions the acoustic side could have been recorded with an Ovation!) and the sound of cymbals and horn section.

I never found the sound of the vinyl version to be so muddy as is generally presented. Quite the opposite.

When the CBS CD came out, the first thing I noticed was the "bassy", less defined sound and the feeling that "something" was missing. Probably that had a lot to do also with the level of my CD player (one of first a sonys).

The Virgin was a huge improvement on the CBS (but it is fair to say that I also upgraded my CD player). Still, an A B comparison between Virgin and vinyl was clearly in favor of the vinyl version. I am speaking of general quality of the sound.

Now the first thing I've noticed with the UMGs is a level of definition that matches the original vinyl. I have just upgraded once again the cd player to a new Naim that is a wonder, so this could be part of the explanation. Bass more defined, highs more defined. Acoustic instruments sound tridimensional. Cymbals and brass sound as they should.

True that the new UMG sound slightly more in your face, and that probably is due to the added compression as noted by Freebird.

Compression or not, the UMG overall quality of sound (to my ears) is a great step forwards from the Virgins.

C

Quote
ajc68
The beginning of "Rocks Off" is not missing. I have no idea how anyone could even come to that conclusion.

The intro to Rocks Off now has a fade in -the first bar has a raise in volume, whereas the original was full blast from the start go.

Mathijs

This re-master is definetly clearer sounding than any of the other cd releases. Though I think the Virgin re-master isn't bad either. Still this one is even more improved.
The old CBS issue sounds crappy compared to all the others

[www.reverbnation.com]

There is no fade-in to be heared nor seen.
here's a screenshot of a bit more than the 1.st bar of Rocks Off.
CBS version top, UMG version bottom. for a reference of what we're looking at,
marker 01, 02, 03 show the Snare hits (top)
marker 01 on the bottom where Mick starts singing.
we can see an overall volume increase but no fade-in.

Just got it. Think its sounds great. Exile meets Tattoo You?

Quote
morkos1
Not a fan of the remix.

Remix of what?

Quote
His Majesty
Just focusing on 68 releases, ie the JJF single compared to pitch/speed of Beggars.

For example, the pitch of B is slightly lower on JJF than the pitch B on Beggars Banquet.

I must have bought bunk copies of Beggars Banquet all these years.

Quote
Elmo Lewis
Just got it. Think its sounds great. Exile meets Tattoo You?

Not a bad description Elmo. Does have a distinctive style/clash of old and new styles.

"It's just some friends of mine and they're busting down the door"

There's an increased treble with the remaster. The vocals and other parts have a sandpapery crispness - not sure if this is a good thing or not, but seems consistent with how modern records are often mixed. Anyway I'm not a fan of the remaster - yes you can hear things that wren't so evident before (eg. a low pitched backing vocal in the early part of Just Wanna See His Face), but the heavy compression puts me off. Since the rerelease of EOMS I've been listening to this album a lot - the previous mastering that is (downloaded c.2008/09 from iTunes, presumably this is the Virgin remaster), not the UMG version.

Quote
skipstone

Quote
bassplayer617
I'm going to give a friend of mine the 1994 Virgin reissue, as the newest version will replace my previous ones.

DON'T! Keep it!

Totally agree with skipstone on this one.

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
skipstone

Quote
bassplayer617
I'm going to give a friend of mine the 1994 Virgin reissue, as the newest version will replace my previous ones.

DON'T! Keep it!

Totally agree with skipstone on this one.

As a completist, have to agree...KEEP THEM ALL!

>> The beginning of "Rocks Off" is not missing. I have no idea how anyone could even come to that conclusion. <<

maybe someone has a flawed copy and should return it?

Ok, for a moment I thought I was hearing ghosts, but luckily my hearing still is not impaired. It's not the CD -it's my car's audio system that fades in the music for what ever reason. It does that with all CD's I play.

For the second CD my car's system is showing the name of the CD as "Sticky Fingers" and the numbers start with Brown Sugar and end with Moonlight Mile. Go figure.

Mathijs

Just scored a copy of the CBS Exile and am listening to this mastering for the first time in about 16 years (gave my old one ot a friend when the Virgin came out). Aside from some obvious glitches ("Sweet Virginia" being the big one, humming between some tracks being the other), I like it a lot more than the new remaster. It's not very dynamic, but it's got that nice Exile "blend". I still think the Virgin is the best of both worlds, but the '10 is just way too processed-sounding - it's all in your face.

In short, I think the CBS is getting a bad rap. It's very one-dimensional, but it's not the sonic s***storm like it's reputation would suggest.

Are there steel drums on "Loving Cup"?!? During the "gimme little drink" fade-out? Never noticed that before on the Virgin or the UMG - go CBS!