finally listened concentratedly to latest remaster of classic stuff...SFTD in particular...keith's git sounds thin; mick is over-compressed...missing warmth...better seperation and definition on some frequeies, mostly toward the bottom...but not good overall imo.
i am not an expert or claiming to be one but i also have some age on me and am very very familiar with each stones album as it came out and heard each one over and over and over on several, many...a multiplicity evennnn, of mono and stereo setups for years and years...so i do have some frame of reference sonically on how these things hit the culture (and affected it too)....

the tremendous seductive warmth of sftd's powerful recorded challenge is missing in mick's voice...everythings hotter as we expected...but that DOES NOT have the warmth and full humanity of jags most terrific work imo...which makes more and more generations removed from other sources...listening to this silvery hot slash of mick's voice and keith's leads...a shame in a way methinks...
all this ultra modern hocus pocus and endless hype...for naught methinketh...

that ripping GASH that keith plays here chaged the world haaaa...incredibly focused performance...and it's a high endy silvery slash...as are ALL of michaels phillip's vocals...ultra loud; ultra hot hot hot...must've had the engineers slapping each other on the back with how much more 'present and hot' the remasters achieved...which is bullshit to me...good job everyone; they saved the day...right? no they took the warmth and impact out of the two leaders...still good it's the stones...BUT i did NOt enjoy it...the more i turned it loud (and it DID go loud!!) unlike original releases on cd etc...) all i got was that silvery compressed monotonous slash...they took off the lower mids...not good. not smart. not worth it. not respectful. not really translating those original historic performances in a HUMAN and realistic manner in my opinon. thnx for truding thru this w me...please respond agree or not.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-09-20 23:00 by Beelyboy.

bb, what in the hell are you going on about, buddy? it sounds like you're talking about a studio version of SFTD, so are you talking about the 2002 SACDs Beggars Banquet? The new remasters are SF and on (1971-2006). are you talking about a compilation remaster or an advanced live remaster of yaya's?

Whachoo goin' on about boi?

hey winter; good question; duhh on the answer. was listening KLOS L.A. last night on a really good stereo system, lots of power, very little coloration...these were my strong impressions i wanted to share here...i would guess it was the 02 studio remasters, but maybe the station added super compression?? (they sometimes do)...does your 02 stuff sound warm and natural to you? does it get super hot and loud without breakup? does it sound thin at all to you in contrast with older releases per se? curious...
no i don't have advanced remasters of yayas but way excited about it new tracks!!! and also ike and tina set!!! one HOPES HOPES HOPES they don't "DO" too much to the 69 tour sonically!!! (THE better bet for SFTD is that live version anyway imo)...
actually i'll try to snag advance of the yayas stuff...

I recently compared the 1987 Beggars to the 2002 Beggars and it's like comparing a Pinto to a BMW. Totally different. The 2002 Remasters sound INCREDIBLE and blow the CBS issues into being strictly a disc you play in the car or whatever where if it gets damaged you don't care. Ludwig did an excellent job on the ABKCO Remasters.

I saw a used UMe Sticky Fingers at Grimey's in Nashville recently and opted to not get it. The packaging is the same as the Virgin but the actual record itself is more of a CBS print. They skimped on going for the total package. And also based on reviews I've read about SF I have no reason to get it. I probably will never get the UMe reissues unless I find them for $5, at least the ones that have gotten good reviews for actually sounding better than the Virgins, which I still find hard to believe.

Quote
Beelyboy
hey winter; good question; duhh on the answer. was listening KLOS L.A. last night on a really good stereo system,

you are evaluating sound quality from a radio broadcast??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

that's like evaluating gourmet food by tasting the sh*t of the person that ate it.


IORR............but I like it!

now it makes sense; you were listening to a studio version of SFTD on the radio. You make a good point; maybe it was the station's broadcast that compressed it for radio. It's hard to know which cd version they played i guess. I love the '02 remasters, haven't made up my mind which, if any, of the new ones to get. I wish they had tried SACD for those too because of what they did for the bass, acoustics, background etc on BB and LIB. Then I would've snatched up SF, GHS, IORR, B&B immediately. But the concensus here seems to be that they're just all louder but without as much detail/warmth as the SACD stuff, which means that they will sound even moreso on the radio. Glad to know you're ok, heh heh, was hoping you weren't hallucinating....I was racking my brain.."what 2009 remaster of SFTD is beely going on about?" lol.

Quote
winter
I wish they had tried SACD for those too

I'm a big fan of SACD stereo and especially SACD 5.1 disks.
I also wish SACD technology would have caught on.....but at least they
were smart enough to make hybrids to play on regular cd players.

Please clarify...because even though I'm a fan of SACD, I'm not an expert.
Are the DSD versions, which came out after the SACD hybrids, the same
except that they are NOT SACD compatible? In other words..I'm not exactly
sure what the relationship between SACD & DSD is.


IORR............but I like it!

If anything they should sound even more full on the radio since it always sounds bigger and better on the radio. It was probably a 1987 disc.

radio stations have always compress audio and that was ok back before the the loudness war began but compressing something that's already been compressed makes the audio almost unbearable to listen to.

Quote
skipstone
If anything they should sound even more full on the radio since it always sounds bigger and better on the radio.

bigger & better on radio?
i guess..instead of buying remastered CDs..you should just record the songs
off the radio..onto your 8-tracks.

sorry ..but no music sounds better on radio
than it does from a cd (or similar) from a decent stereo system.


IORR............but I like it!

You listen to songs on the radio and then listen at home and they sound totally different. They loose the bigness that radio has but are more clear. Compressed CDs played on the radio means nothing. They get bigger from the station. Gimme Shelter sounds amazing on the radio but only good at home.

Quote
skipstone
You listen to songs on the radio and then listen at home and they sound totally different. They loose the bigness that radio has but are more clear. Compressed CDs played on the radio means nothing. They get bigger from the station. Gimme Shelter sounds amazing on the radio but only good at home.

sorry..but you'll never convince me that the same cd played over the radio is "bigger & better"
than when played on a good home system. maybe the settings on your home stereo are screwed up. ??


IORR............but I like it!

Like when they crank the volume during TV ads ... esp the junk-food ones...



ROCKMAN

I've heard plenty of songs on the radio that sounded bigger and better than I've listened to on anything else but a radio. It's not at home. It's anywhere. Some songs just sound better on the radio. Sorry you can't hear that or accept that. But I know what I hear and it's not shit. I heard She's So Cold on the radio on day and was floored by how good it sounded and then went home and played it on several sound systems and it never once sounded as good. Home audio systems are very dry. The radio beefs everything up. That's a big difference. Yeah I know they're supposed to sound like they do at home - but the radio gives them a bump and it's huge.

as far as i know a lot of commercial radio stations in north america (or anywhere else) actually plays cd s but sound files (mp3 or wave) from computers.

Quote
skipstone
...then went home and played it on several sound systems and it never once sounded as good.

really?? several??

maybe it's just the thrill of unexpectedly hearing a Stones song on the radio that
gives you that shiver up your leg.

i'm still not convinced.


IORR............but I like it!

It's compression and loudness that makes the radio sound pleasing. But what you gain in "bigness", you lose in clarity, definition, finesse etc. It's like the difference between KFC and a nice lamb roast you wife spent half the afternoon cooking. Bass and loudness = salt and sugar.

Several meaning over the years, different stereos, boom boxes, etc...

Yes, I have 18 stereos throughout my house...

Quote
skipstone
I've heard plenty of songs on the radio that sounded bigger and better than I've listened to on anything else but a radio. It's not at home. It's anywhere. Some songs just sound better on the radio. Sorry you can't hear that or accept that. But I know what I hear and it's not shit. I heard She's So Cold on the radio on day and was floored by how good it sounded and then went home and played it on several sound systems and it never once sounded as good. Home audio systems are very dry. The radio beefs everything up. That's a big difference. Yeah I know they're supposed to sound like they do at home - but the radio gives them a bump and it's huge.

YES SIR SKIPPER !!! I always had you figured as a genius and now I finally have written proof that my gut feeling was 100% correct-a-mundo.... a Brain Surgeon AND a Rocket Scientist - Totally Unbelievable !!! Go, Go , Go Little Skipper......

Quote
sweet neo con

Quote
skipstone
If anything they should sound even more full on the radio since it always sounds bigger and better on the radio.

bigger & better on radio?
i guess..instead of buying remastered CDs..you should just record the songs
off the radio..onto your 8-tracks.

LOL - Gotta agree with "SNC" on this one (plus it was damn funny AND clever - Good one "Sweet-a-roon-er" )")......

Ah, Helter - I do know a lot about plants and music seeing that both are my careers. My observations are just that, I hear what I hear and for years I wondered why songs on the radio always sounded better than the did at home. And in a way you're right - hearing She's So Cold on the radio is a nice treat. If my observations amuse you, fantastico!

Although I've never had such high status as a Rocket Scientist and a Brain Surgeon.

Dearest Skipper, let me get serious for a moment. I have tons of radio (FM Stereo) broadcasts from the 70's and 80's on 10", 7 1/2 inches per second reel to reel tape (King Biscuit Flower Hour - The Stones, The Who, Pretenders, The Kinks, etc) and they sound like shit compared to Ya-Ya's or Live at Leeds, etc. Radio sound ALWAYS sucked due to the compression - so they say - and whatever else.... Maybe it sounded good to you cause you had your best speakers hooked up to your best, most powerful amp/receiver or something - don't know for sure from where I sit now, years later.... All I can say is at least that's how things sounded/went down at the Helter Compound/Estate back in the day of Radio Broadcasts.... Just a FYI kinda thing mi lively amigo..... BTW, what kind of plants you messin' with exactly ....

if you want cds to sound like they do on the radio , rip the cds to your pc as wav files download audacity compress the songs and then burn a copy of it

The albums have been remastered to take advantage of digital sound's advantages (supposedly). But any CDs on the airwaves?

Aren't regular over-the-air radio broadcasts still "analog" ?

When a CD is broadcast ... and changed into analog airwaves...
If you compare the sound in your living room, can the CD on the radio ever sound as good as the same CD when you play it on your home stereo system?



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2009-09-21 21:31 by schillid.

The reason why some songs sound better on the radio is that when they mix and master a song it usually is specifically with radio in mind. Some studios play the song thru a radio speaker so they can get an idea at the mixing and mastering stage as to what it sounds like on the radio. Now the reason why we have "loud" records is purely to do with radio because the bigger and better it sounds the more likely the public are going to go into a shop or download it off itunes.

NickB

You can't always get what you want.....

www.myspace.com/thesonkings

If you prefer compressed loudnessed sound, you may actually prefer radio-sound to cd-sound, but I think it's safe to say that most of us don't.

[www.reverbnation.com]

I find it hard to believe that anyone would prefer FM stereo to a CD. If you said you prefer songs the way they sound in DVD soundtracks, I'd tend to agree.

i don't think radio sound is shit at all. radio sound was exactly how EVERYBODY in the world caught hip to these amazing beat groups, especially our crew...

i appreciate the comments, except for the usual blowhard attitudes...
i was listening through a top of the line tuner with a top of the line matched amplifer giving hundred watts per side...tons of headroom for almost any listening situcation...i listen critically to lots of sources lots of times...
and have since the nineteen fifties...one fine day i put on a new york station and couldn't believe what i heard at all...and it wasn't a lot of high end garbage...you could HEAR and FEEL the soul believe me...from the crystals and ronnettes and martha and the vandellas and dion and dylan and beat groups and beyond...sould, warmth...natural sounds capturing natrual REAL performances....

snc and HS always have a weird agenda rather than a real opinon anyway...proving what?
tnx winter for keeping me on track...i don't like it when i hear distinct thin-ness and overbearing heat on rs songs...they played U2 right after...and it warm warm warm ...and edge has a thin sound anyway...as does bonos tenor...it was warm man...i know what i hear and i know (sorta) what i'm trying to share here...

Helter. I remember, specifically, when The Cult's Fire Woman was released I heard it on the radio quite a few times before I got the single and album. I was stunned at how it wasn't as big compared to the radio. It just had more to it. Granted, it sounded good on CD and vinyl, but for some reason the radio just sounded...more. And I've heard Stones songs do the same thing.

Not all radio stations though. I dunno what that's all about. It seems that it was the high end that had more sheen to it or just something. I managed to get all 4 of the Sonic Temple promos and there's nothing different about them.

I still have never truly grasped what compression does. It's evil. Every time I put my guitar through one I hate it. Yet it seems that is what makes the radio sound so big.

I grow banana plants and palm trees among other tropicals (hibiscus, ginger, jatropha, brugmansia, etc). I have 18 kinds of banana plants (soon it will up to hopefully 30, maybe more) and 28 kinds of palm trees (or some number like that, I can't recall exactly off the top of my head but it's a lot compared to all but one person I know but compared to some people that I know of, it's just a drop in the bucket). I'll have over 40 kinds of palms in another year if all goes well. I can grow up to over 60 kinds where I live.

Perhaps I'm the only one, but I have no interest in the re-masters. I have my vinyl and my CD's and that's enough. The technology was good enough back then so they do not require re-jigging.