Everybody seems to like the Ya-Ya's album but listening to it once again I can't help it: No other Stones album has such a poor muffeld sound. It seems like all treble is cut off. Even the bonus CD from the deluxe edition sounds so much better - thus the reason doesn't seem to be a result of 60s recording technology.
So what's wrong with the sonic quality of the Ya-Ya's album? Why is the sound so poor?
(please note: I'm not talking about the music).

Those guitars, bass and drums sound great to me.

Try Got Live If You Want It (LP) for poor sound quality.

Don't forget that Decca was in a hurry! The high quality "Liver than you'll ever be" bootleg album was on the market and very popular (and cheap!). My guess is that putting "yaya's" on the market was far more important than making it a perfect album.
Still, I thoroughly enjoyed both albums in those early years!

Quote
georgie48
Don't forget that Decca was in a hurry! The high quality "Liver than you'll ever be" bootleg album was on the market and very popular (and cheap!). My guess is that putting "yaya's" on the market was far more important than making it a perfect album.

well, that might be a reason, but it does not explain why the didn't remix/remaster it for the deluxe version (all other Decca album have been remastered and are sounding brillant)

It's a live album from 1969. It sounds awesome.

Then I like poor muffeld sound..............

__________________________

The treble is cut off...really, always thought it was so trebbly! Charlie Watt's hi hat and cymbals is smashing my ears and tweeters

SOUL

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
It's a live album from 1969. It sounds awesome.

But is it as good as the Brussel's Live album?
and no i dont mean the inferior 'official' Brussels Live Album release

Quote
slewan

Quote
georgie48
Don't forget that Decca was in a hurry! The high quality "Liver than you'll ever be" bootleg album was on the market and very popular (and cheap!). My guess is that putting "yaya's" on the market was far more important than making it a perfect album.

well, that might be a reason, but it does not explain why the didn't remix/remaster it for the deluxe version (all other Decca album have been remastered and are sounding brillant)

Sorry, I disagree with you. When Decca/London released Stones CDs for the first time (in the 80s) several of them had a very poor quality, sharp, noisy sound. Luckily, many years later they remade them in SACD quality.

Quote
georgie48

Sorry, I disagree with you. When Decca/London released Stones CDs for the first time (in the 80s) several of them had a very poor quality, sharp, noisy sound. Luckily, many years later they remade them in SACD quality.

I was refering to the remasters made in th early 2000s, not to that 80s crap, of course

Best live album evah......><. I got the wiggles in my knees when she looked at me and sweetly smiled.

I was surprised by the lack of difference in my earlier Ya Yas CD and the 2002 SACD remasters. There really isn't much of an improvement, while the other 2002 remasters were fantastic.

I only pretty much listen to live recordings these days and think it sounds awesome. Sorry but I don't hear muddy at all

Best live album hands down... it made me pants fall down!!

I remember when I heard the album when it first came out (and my initial introduction to the LP was from FM radio back in the day, and the first track that I heard was Midnight Rambler and it was absolute magic) on a tiny radio no less. Since then I have probably played this album with a reasonable level of volume - it has always sounded good to me. Have always loved the Sound.

Quote
slewan
Everybody seems to like the Ya-Ya's album but listening to it once again I can't help it: No other Stones album has such a poor muffeld sound. It seems like all treble is cut off. Even the bonus CD from the deluxe edition sounds so much better - thus the reason doesn't seem to be a result of 60s recording technology.
So what's wrong with the sonic quality of the Ya-Ya's album? Why is the sound so poor?
(please note: I'm not talking about the music).

Wax buildup - go to doctor, immediately!

Rod

my ears a good and I don't see any reason why the usually work very well but not with the YaYa's.
It's the recording that sounds like it has been recorded through a wall while the Stones are playing in another room

It's their only live album I listen to (with the occasional exception of a few songs from Brussels 1972 - and when I say "few", I mean Midnight Rambler).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-22 12:25 by matxil.

Quote
slewan
my ears a good and I don't see any reason why the usually work very well but not with the YaYa's.
It's the recording that sounds like it has been recorded through a wall while the Stones are playing in another room

The sonical difference with Ya-Yas, compared to a lot of other live albums, is the lack of effects in the mix: A dry drum sound, a guitar sound where you can hear exactly what kind of amp they're using and what kind of room they're playing in.

It sounds like a balanced rehearsal, really. It suits the music tremendously well, imo, but I wouldn't say that the sonical quality is poor. You can hear every instrument clearly, and there is a lot of bottom in the mix. Regarding lack of treble – Keith's guitar surely has a lot of treble when he turns it up. He keeps his volume a bit down while playing rhythm, blocking the treble - but that's nothing new when it comes to Keith.

The songs on the bonus disc (two of them acoustic) sound different because they're mixed today + some effects are added, I guess. The same songs sound poorer than the tracks on the original album on the DVD. How did they tune up Keith's guitar on Prodigal Son, btw?

Just a few thoughts.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-22 12:15 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
slewan
my ears a good and I don't see any reason why the usually work very well but not with the YaYa's.
It's the recording that sounds like it has been recorded through a wall while the Stones are playing in another room

The sonical difference with Ya-Yas, compared to a lot of other live albums, is the lack of effects in the mix: A dry drum sound, a guitar sound where you can hear exactly what kind of amp they're using and what kind of room they're playing in.

It sounds like a balanced rehearsal, really. It suits the music tremendously well, imo, but I wouldn't say that the sonical quality is poor. You can hear every instrument clearly, and there is a lot of bottom in the mix. Regarding lack of treble – Keith's guitar surely has a lot of treble when he turns it up. He keeps his volume a bit down while playing rhythm, blocking the treble - but that's nothing new when it comes to Keith.

The songs on the bonus disc (two of them acoustic) sounds different because they're mixed today + some effects are added, I guess. The same songs sound poorer than the tracks on the original album on the DVD. How did they tune up Keith's guitar on Prodigal Son, btw?

Just a few thoughts.

That makes sense to me .

Despite the much discussed and debated overdubs...it's just less processed than many subsequent official live albums.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-25 13:03 by Spud.

I have to disagree with anyone calling Get Your Ya-Ya's Out poor sounding or muddy. As DandelionPowderman said above, each instrument is well balanced within the mix, and the guitars weave together beautifully.

I think what you are probably objecting to is both Mick+Keiths guitars and Bill Wymans bass overlap frequently in the lower mid frequencies, which is likely an accurate representation of what they actually sounded like, unlike more modern live recordings which apply heavy equalization to carve a spot for each instrument.

This is one of my favourite live albums ever, in my opinion the best vinyl edition sonically is the Mobile Fidelity from the boxset, not by a huge margin, but it is very well mastered and brings out everything you could hope from the masters. I base this on owning first pressings from the UK, US, Australia, and the Super Deluxe box.

Quote
georgie48

Quote
slewan

Quote
georgie48
Don't forget that Decca was in a hurry! The high quality "Liver than you'll ever be" bootleg album was on the market and very popular (and cheap!). My guess is that putting "yaya's" on the market was far more important than making it a perfect album.

well, that might be a reason, but it does not explain why the didn't remix/remaster it for the deluxe version (all other Decca album have been remastered and are sounding brillant)

Sorry, I disagree with you. When Decca/London released Stones CDs for the first time (in the 80s) several of them had a very poor quality, sharp, noisy sound. Luckily, many years later they remade them in SACD quality.

The 1986 remastered Abkco CD's were poor but there were some good CD releases Decca/London MFSL versions , Japanese releases , and to a lesser degree ..... some German CD's (such as 'Aftermath') were not bad.

Quote
ChrisMahavishnu

...I think what you are probably objecting to is both Mick+Keiths guitars and Bill Wymans bass overlap frequently in the lower mid frequencies, which is likely an accurate representation of what they actually sounded like, unlike more modern live recordings which apply heavy equalization to carve a spot for each instrument...

.

Good points

The upshot being that Ya Yas actually sounds something like a live show .

I bought Ya Ya's the same month it was released, and playing it on a decent turntable, amplifier and speakers/headphones, I (and people I knew) considered the sound excellent. Like some of the folks above, we thought there were LOTS of highs/treble. If anything, it sounded better to us, audio-wise, then other lives albums at the time.

Ya-Ya´s has the best sonic quality of all Decca recordings -

The London CD & the SACD remaster are wonderful.

I don´t like the 40th anniversary ed.

I can listen to Ya Yas through a variety of mediums, and always have done.

My first copy of it, on London CD, and as a poor student was via a beat box cd player. I then progressed to a Technics CD player, and then Denon, and now a Bang & Olufsen system. I always love it, albeit it has a certain something whether it be heard on a cheap boom box, or a high end stereo system.

Quote
Captainchaos

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
It's a live album from 1969. It sounds awesome.

But is it as good as the Brussel's Live album?
and no i dont mean the inferior 'official' Brussels Live Album release

Brussels is overrated with Mick Taylor's rubbish slide guitar sound.

Quote
umakmehrd
Best live album hands down... it made me pants fall down!!

Did ya bust a button on your trousers?

If you don't like the sound of the remastered CD (it's the same remaster since 2002 - even on the deluxe edition from 2009), get the London CD from the 80's, it sounds great too with a less compressed/limited sound.

Quote
The Sicilian

Quote
Captainchaos

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
It's a live album from 1969. It sounds awesome.

But is it as good as the Brussel's Live album?
and no i dont mean the inferior 'official' Brussels Live Album release

Brussels is overrated with Mick Taylor's rubbish slide guitar sound.

Brussels is overrated, no, Exhile is overrated.