I know I am quite alone here defending the 2009 remasters, but as a matter of fact, I do like them. A lot.

Yes, I have ears: the Universals do sound on viagra when compared to the CBS or the Virgin versions. Yet, despite the latest revival of the CBS versions, I just don't like that first CD release, while the Virgins always sound a little flat when compared to the original vinyl.

Please note that my comments are influenced by the fact that I am blessed to have all versions, and multiple versions of the single different releases. I am not forced to choose one. I have to say that all of them, even the awful CBS, have their merits.

No, I don't think that the vinyl version (not even my original American pressing) should necessarily be used as the meter to judge the merits of the following releases.

What I like of the Universals is that they uncovered a mass of detail that wasn't easy to detect even on the original vinyl.

I have had the chance to listen to original master tapes on a proper systems before being reduced to vinyl, and I know that vinyl can be a very limiting media.

In any case, we all have our own taste, and there is no point in discussing tastes.

Reason why I started a new thread is that by coincidence I just found an old email with the information that Stephan Marcussen kindly gave me 5 years ago when I was preparing an article for a guitar mag on the new Exile remasters.

For the chronicles, despite the work and time spent, the article was eventually never published (and I even lost the rights to the piece).

It is about time I share this information with you (I don't think Stephan will mind)!

Q: The tapes. Apparently in an interview Don Was said that the original equalized master of Exile got lost. True? What tapes were used for the work? In what conditions were the tapes after almost 40 years? Did they need any restoration? What was done to preserve them for the future?

SM: We had what seemed to be the original masters, they were properly stored and in good condition.

Q: The project. Which indications, if any, were given by the band? It is said that Bob Ludwig's previous work for the Virgin edition was supposed to sound like the original vinyls did (many say that he succeeded, I don't - but that is another story and I am not blaming him at all). What was your goal? Make the definitive digital edition or take advantage of today's technology and try to improve it?

SM: This record was previously remastered fairly early in the life of the CD. It was time to take a look at remastering with today's know-how. Once I heard the tapes I knew I just wanted to capture the sound that was coming off of the tapes, they sound great. This sounds easy but the questions of which playback to use, which mastering tools and lastly how far to go all became relevant questions for me. I chose to look at this project as more of preserving and slightly enhancing the recordings instead of putting an aggressive mastering 'stamp' on the record. I do not think pushing the level would make a better record in this case.

Q: The work. What was done and how (I don't need many details only a quick overview)? Did Jagger cooperate?

SM: I worked with the Rolling Stones on this remastering. I would send reference discs to the band and they would respond with fairly detailed comments and I would then make changes and we would go back and forth until we reached our goal.

Q: The result. This is somehow related to question 2. Is the final result what you imagined could be? Personally I love this edition, I do believe that it is the best Exile one can buy on cd. A part from the details, the result is "musical" (if this makes any sense) and a great sonic experience. What do you think of it? Happy with the result? What did Jagger think (it is said that he was not too fond with how the original sounded)?


SM: Thank you for you enthusiastic comments, I am happy with the work I was able to do. I have had people comment on how they now are hearing things they missed before, I do not know if this is good or bad but I like the fact they are noticing new different things. Remember these are the same tapes they have always been so If you hear more maybe this is a good thing! I cannot speak for the band but I think they are happy.

Q: Appreciation. The reviews of the UMG versions are generally very positive. With the inevitable critics. The two main accusations are that the new edition of Exile is too "clean", and that too much compression was added. As I said, i truly love these remasters and, for what matters, I don't think that the original version was "muddy" at all (if played with a proper sound system). Yet these new remasters do sound different form the original vinyl versions. Ever felt like messing with a masterpiece? How do you respond to the accusation of "brickwalling" Exile? To be fair, even if "brickwalled" is too strong, the original vinyl version seems to have more dynamics. Was this done to modernize the sound of Exile or simply job done according to modern standards?


SM I knew when I was asked to remaster this album there would be some people that would be critical as well as some people that would enjoying the remastering. I have heard mostly positive feedback. I certainly was unsettled about the project as it was being discussed. Once I heard the original tapes I knew this would be a great project. Regarding limiting/brickwalling, what is the correct amount and judged by who? If you use a little, that is too much for some and not enough for others so? At the end of the day I think we have arrived at a very good place, the band is happy, the label is happy, and from what I can gather most people are enjoying the remastered album.

Q New tracks. By chance, do you know how was the new material treated to fit with the old one? What equipment was used to record the new material?

SM The new tracks aren't so new. My understanding is they are tracks that were not used on the original album whether they be alternate takes or other songs.

* * *

C

You can definitely hear new details on all the Universal remasters. They are also warmer-sounding (rounder) than their predecessors, but lack the punch of the Virgin releases.

However, the dynamics disappear somewhat with the overall undisputed mastering levels.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-04-27 20:37 by DandelionPowderman.

Reducing the dymanic range at all through remastering doesn't serve the music or properly represent the original tapes. Sounds like he was more concerned with pleasing the label and the band. Not sure I trust their 70 year old ears to tell me what's best in 2015. They were obviously happy with the original masters, bringing out more details is fine, even remixing the tracks can be interesting, but making it louder and reducing the dynamic range is not cool. Dynamics are too important to the listening experience to change, imo.

peace

Thanks for sharing Liddas.....

Quote "I do not know if this is good or bad".....I would say keep your vinyl records to get the original intentional feeling of the sound........

__________________________

Quote
Naturalust
Reducing the dymanic range at all through remastering doesn't serve the music or properly represent the original tapes. Sounds like he was more concerned with pleasing the label and the band. Not sure I trust their 70 year old ears to tell me what's best in 2015. They were obviously happy with the original masters, bringing out more details is fine, even remixing the tracks can be interesting, but making it louder and reducing the dynamic range is not cool. Dynamics are too important to the listening experience to change, imo.

peace

Amen Naturalust. Vinyl always had a very limited dynamic range.. When CD became the dominant form dynamic range was opened wide up. Clean digital signals, no surface noise... GORGEOUS. Far better for things like classical music etc.

I am amazed to this day that people fail to see the ridiculousness of mastering things so such incredible volumes. The loudness war is something I hope we will one day laugh about, but I don't see it stopping any time now.

This the reason why Hampton from the recently released series sounds like it has no life, compared to Still Life. If something is compressed to hell and mastered to have no dynamics, it just sounds loud all the time. No impact. Just abrassive.

What 'additional things' are you hearing Liddas, by virtue of the remaster? We know that there is cropping of the dynamic range, so we are definitely hearing less music than should be there.

Is there something additional that comes to the surface as a result of the volume being louder? Can't we just 'TURN IT LOUD' on our own and keep the range?

Am I overly simplifying this?

Quote
treaclefingers
What 'additional things' are you hearing Liddas, by virtue of the remaster? We know that there is cropping of the dynamic range, so we are definitely hearing less music than should be there.

Is there something additional that comes to the surface as a result of the volume being louder? Can't we just 'TURN IT LOUD' on our own and keep the range?

Am I overly simplifying this?

Not to get to geeky on you treacle but here is the deal:

Cropping the dynamic range doesn't really take away any of music information, it just makes it all closer to the same relative volume. Compression algorithms like mp3 are the one that take away musical information, its different from the compression of dynamic ranges which basically takes away differences in the loudest and softest music. Dynamic range compression shows up as less volume difference in the attack of drum hits and guitar chops and other instruments that have a louder initial pulse. In more extreme cases it takes away the dynamics of a performance where the musicians are purposefully lowering the volume for effect then raising it to create drama and build in a tune.

Nothing comes to the surface better in the process of compression it just makes everything closer to one volume and allows them to turn everything up without digital clipping. For instance on an uncompressed tune maybe the initial sound of the drum hits are up the max level already and therefore they can't make the whole mix louder without causing that drum attack to distort. By squashing it all and reducing the dynamics they can turn the whole mix up.

You may ask, why don't they just mix the overall drum track softer? Because then the drums don't sound loud enough compared to the other instruments. The initial pulse of drums and plucked guitars and other instruments is naturally louder initially and compression destroys this natural sound and fatigues your ears quickly, imo.

Yes we can just turn up the uncompressed stuff on our own but this is more about sounding just as loud as the track played before it to make it stand out. It's like a conversation between many people that starts getting loud and everybody starts to talk louder to be heard.... But strangely the guy who whispers usually gets the most attention!

peace

Re: The master tapes: I remember an interview with whomever did the original CD mastering (name escapes me, sorry) and he said what were marked as the master tapes sounded terrible. Then they found a copy of the master with various eq indications. That is what was actually used on the original vinyl and that tape is what they used to make the first CD. Maybe this "second" master was not available for the Universal version.

Thank you for sharing this interview. Great read.
As I said in another thread, these remasters could have sounded really good. But the crushed dynamic range means all the effort put in the carefull transfers from the original tapes have been ruined to me. Actually every time I try to listen to these remasters I first like the sound of it, but after a couple of tracks I just get bothered by the listening as every track seems to sound about the same. All the musicality seems to have been lost in the remastering process.

Quote
71Tele
Re: The master tapes: I remember an interview with whomever did the original CD mastering (name escapes me, sorry) and he said what were marked as the master tapes sounded terrible. Then they found a copy of the master with various eq indications. That is what was actually used on the original vinyl and that tape is what they used to make the first CD. Maybe this "second" master was not available for the Universal version.

I remember this interview too (I think it was an interview of mastering engineer Greg Calbi). That's why the original EOMS CD is still valuable to me.

They will eventually remaster all the stuff with labels saying "maximum dynamic range!" and get all the audiophiles to buy the product one more time. I'll be waiting......

peace

Quote
Naturalust
They will eventually remaster all the stuff with labels saying "maximum dynamic range!" and get all the audiophiles to buy the product one more time. I'll be waiting......

peace

Japan already did this recently with their SHM-CD series... And all the audiophiles jumped on it.

Quote
treaclefingers
What 'additional things' are you hearing Liddas, by virtue of the remaster? We know that there is cropping of the dynamic range, so we are definitely hearing less music than should be there.

Is there something additional that comes to the surface as a result of the volume being louder? Can't we just 'TURN IT LOUD' on our own and keep the range?

Am I overly simplifying this?

Should have written "noticing" instead of "hearing"!

For example, I had never noticed before the interaction between Nicky's piano and Keith's slide part on ventilator (with something not exactly in sync in the first couple of verses ...), Taylor's pull-off work on the instrumental breaks of Turd on the Run, these kind of details.

C

Quote
liddas

Quote
treaclefingers
What 'additional things' are you hearing Liddas, by virtue of the remaster? We know that there is cropping of the dynamic range, so we are definitely hearing less music than should be there.

Is there something additional that comes to the surface as a result of the volume being louder? Can't we just 'TURN IT LOUD' on our own and keep the range?

Am I overly simplifying this?

Should have written "noticing" instead of "hearing"!

For example, I had never noticed before the interaction between Nicky's piano and Keith's slide part on ventilator (with something not exactly in sync in the first couple of verses ...), Taylor's pull-off work on the instrumental breaks of Turd on the Run, these kind of details.

C

Keith's pull-offs, though, but they're definitely more audible on the UMG remasters.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Keith's pull-offs, though, but they're definitely more audible on the UMG remasters.

God knows, but while I can't think of one example of similar guitar work by Keith in any other song, we all can agree that MT is a well known pull-off aficionado!

What makes you think it was Keith?

C

Quote
liddas

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Keith's pull-offs, though, but they're definitely more audible on the UMG remasters.

God knows, but while I can't think of one example of similar guitar work by Keith in any other song, we all can agree that MT is a well known pull-off aficionado!

What makes you think it was Keith?

C

He's the only guitar player on TOTR, according to the Stones sites and the usual experts [timeisonourside.com]

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
liddas

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Keith's pull-offs, though, but they're definitely more audible on the UMG remasters.

God knows, but while I can't think of one example of similar guitar work by Keith in any other song, we all can agree that MT is a well known pull-off aficionado!

What makes you think it was Keith?

C

He's the only guitar player on TOTR, according to the Stones sites and the usual experts [timeisonourside.com]

Fair enough, but do you really think it's Keith?

The man is always capable of surprising me, but this time ...

C

Quote
liddas

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
liddas

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Keith's pull-offs, though, but they're definitely more audible on the UMG remasters.

God knows, but while I can't think of one example of similar guitar work by Keith in any other song, we all can agree that MT is a well known pull-off aficionado!

What makes you think it was Keith?

C

He's the only guitar player on TOTR, according to the Stones sites and the usual experts [timeisonourside.com]

Fair enough, but do you really think it's Keith?

The man is always capable of surprising me, but this time ...

C

I didn't at first, but when I really listened I heard it was Keith.

One gets fooled by the tempo and the rhythm, but the licks are really simple, effective and repetitive – like the maestro does when he's on the top of his game.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
treaclefingers
What 'additional things' are you hearing Liddas, by virtue of the remaster? We know that there is cropping of the dynamic range, so we are definitely hearing less music than should be there.

Is there something additional that comes to the surface as a result of the volume being louder? Can't we just 'TURN IT LOUD' on our own and keep the range?

Am I overly simplifying this?

Not to get to geeky on you treacle but here is the deal:

Cropping the dynamic range doesn't really take away any of music information, it just makes it all closer to the same relative volume. Compression algorithms like mp3 are the one that take away musical information, its different from the compression of dynamic ranges which basically takes away differences in the loudest and softest music. Dynamic range compression shows up as less volume difference in the attack of drum hits and guitar chops and other instruments that have a louder initial pulse. In more extreme cases it takes away the dynamics of a performance where the musicians are purposefully lowering the volume for effect then raising it to create drama and build in a tune.

Nothing comes to the surface better in the process of compression it just makes everything closer to one volume and allows them to turn everything up without digital clipping. For instance on an uncompressed tune maybe the initial sound of the drum hits are up the max level already and therefore they can't make the whole mix louder without causing that drum attack to distort. By squashing it all and reducing the dynamics they can turn the whole mix up.

You may ask, why don't they just mix the overall drum track softer? Because then the drums don't sound loud enough compared to the other instruments. The initial pulse of drums and plucked guitars and other instruments is naturally louder initially and compression destroys this natural sound and fatigues your ears quickly, imo.

Yes we can just turn up the uncompressed stuff on our own but this is more about sounding just as loud as the track played before it to make it stand out. It's like a conversation between many people that starts getting loud and everybody starts to talk louder to be heard.... But strangely the guy who whispers usually gets the most attention!

peace

OK, thx for the detail, but to paraphrase it succinctly, are you saying there is no cropping at the higher and lower levels, and that it's just being squashed? That doesn't jive with how I've seen the explanation described previously.

Sorry to continue however to me at least, there seems to be different explanations on what is going on here, with the compression.

"I do not think pushing the level would make a better record in this case."

And that's exactly what he did - he pushed the level and did not make a better record in "this case". He took a great LP and ruined it. Thank Virgin and Bob Ludwig and Mick Jagger they did a proper remastering.

Yes, let's SMASH everything AS LOUD AS POSSIBLE because we can and then pat ourselves on the back by saying it's "current" or it's about the technology now or whatever bullshit while bragging about how "we" did whatever in the case of making it "current" for the garbage mentality of the AS LOUD AS POSSIBLE IS BEST music industry.

Stephen Marcussen - a sheep.

I've noticed comments over the years about how one can hear whatever on the UMe remasters so I play the Virgin remasters and... I hear the same thing.

"Regarding limiting/brickwalling, what is the correct amount and judged by who?"

Uh, there is no "correct amount" of brickwalling. People that like to listen to things that breathe - or at least people who give a flying @#$%& about what they're listening to. What an idiot! Obviously he doesn't listen to albums on CD through a stereo.

OK, the new Exile is loud.

But there is much more that comes with it.

As a matter of fact, none of the previous "common man" non audiophile CD releases were perfect.

The CBS sure had more dynamic range, their sound waves sure look great. So what? It sounds awful. The Gibson sound like Ovations, cymbals like cans and saxophones like fog horns.

The Virgins received some Viagra, but not too much. That's why they sound better, but only when compared to the previous CBS version. I am sorry, but when I play my old vinyls, what I hear has nothing to do with the Virgins.

As I said, sure, the Universals are loud. But at least the instruments sound great. Despite the lack of dynamic range, these CDs are something I can compare with the vinyls.

If I have to listen to the whole LP, probably I would still go for the vinyl version. But one song at a time, give me the Universals any time.

But, again, a slightly brickwalled sound doesn't bother me to much like it seems to bother others here. Californication is still one of my fav CDs from the 90s.

C

I hear ya. It just bothers the hell out of me that the UMe remasters are completely unlistenable for me. And the two extra discs are cranked up way too much.

Perhaps with the newer recordings it's not as bad (Soundgarden, RHCP, etc) somehow but for older recordings it's just terrible.

From Kowalski's Taylor Swift thread...

Quote
kowalski
[www.billboard.com]

"Take Taylor Swift's 1989, which clocked in at a fairly compressed DR6 rating. While Shepherd says that's pretty standard for modern pop music, it's still much louder than classic heavy metal LPs like AC/DC's Back in Black (DR12) and Metallica's The Black Album (DR11). In comparison, Metallica's more recent Death Magnetic reached a blistering DR3 level, while Skrillex's Recess charts at DR4."

"The issue is not new -- Shepherd notes that the Beatles tried to compete with the loudness they heard on vinyl Motown releases -- but he identifies a turning point in the late 90s with the advent of CDs. As engineers began overusing techniques like dynamic range compression to compete for louder masters, sound quality suffered."

"Beyond a certain point, it sounds flat, lifeless, has less of an emotional impact, and can even sound crushed and distorted," Shepherd says. "Unfortunately, that's where a lot of mainstream pop and rock is at."

"Shepherd believes artists and engineers will soon realize the audio arms race is "pointless." He also cites recent albums like Daft Punk's Random Access Memories (DR8) and Jack White's Lazaretto (DR10) that were commercial and critical successes despite employing conservative compression levels. "They prove that you don ’t need that loudness," he says."

Full Billboard article : Taylor Swift's '1989' Is Louder Than AC/DC's 'Back in Black' -- Here's Why

Ian Shepherd's original article : So Taylor Swift is louder than Motorhead, AC/DC and The Sex Pistols… – wait, WHAT?

Quote
treaclefingers
OK, thx for the detail, but to paraphrase it succinctly, are you saying there is no cropping at the higher and lower levels, and that it's just being squashed? That doesn't jive with how I've seen the explanation described previously.

Sorry to continue however to me at least, there seems to be different explanations on what is going on here, with the compression.

Dynamic range (DR) compression doesn't crop musical content, it's still there. For instance if an original song went from 2 to 9 on a 1 to 10 volume scale, after DR compression in might go from 3 to 7. Then some engineers turn the whole song up to say 6 to 10 in order to get it to sound louder. ie) the loudness wars.

Data compression is a whole other thing. Algorithms that convert songs to mp3 do indeed crop musical content in order to make the file smaller. High frequencies are often eliminated in the process, cropped out so to speak.

When people talk about "compression" these days it either data compression or dynamic range compression but they are two very different techniques. Probably the source for a lot of confusion. Both techniques have their advantages but have been over used to the point of negatively effecting the listening experience.

peace

It's possible to open up the soundscape AS WELL AS "brickwalling" the overall sound volume. Marcussen did both.

The result is that the master has become rich on details, but poor on dynamics, imo.

And painful!

Quote
DandelionPowderman
It's possible to open up the soundscape AS WELL AS "brickwalling" the overall sound volume. Marcussen did both.

The result is that the master has become rich on details, but poor on dynamics, imo.

You may be right, great use of EQ and other mastering techniques can certainly bring more details to the surface but it's a shame because he could have done that without brickwalling the records. You may hear more details but your ears are going to be complaining if you try to listen to them for any extended period of time.

peace

Quote
71Tele
Re: The master tapes: I remember an interview with whomever did the original CD mastering (name escapes me, sorry) and he said what were marked as the master tapes sounded terrible. Then they found a copy of the master with various eq indications. That is what was actually used on the original vinyl and that tape is what they used to make the first CD. Maybe this "second" master was not available for the Universal version.

Are you talking about
Musician - April 1987 # 102
Rolling Stones on CD: You Can Get What You Need. By Scott Isler
???
Here is a link to that article
[forums.stevehoffman.tv]
Kind of fun to read those 30 years old approaches.

THE AGE -- 29 April 2015



ROCKMAN

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
treaclefingers
OK, thx for the detail, but to paraphrase it succinctly, are you saying there is no cropping at the higher and lower levels, and that it's just being squashed? That doesn't jive with how I've seen the explanation described previously.

Sorry to continue however to me at least, there seems to be different explanations on what is going on here, with the compression.

Dynamic range (DR) compression doesn't crop musical content, it's still there. For instance if an original song went from 2 to 9 on a 1 to 10 volume scale, after DR compression in might go from 3 to 7. Then some engineers turn the whole song up to say 6 to 10 in order to get it to sound louder. ie) the loudness wars.

Data compression is a whole other thing. Algorithms that convert songs to mp3 do indeed crop musical content in order to make the file smaller. High frequencies are often eliminated in the process, cropped out so to speak.

When people talk about "compression" these days it either data compression or dynamic range compression but they are two very different techniques. Probably the source for a lot of confusion. Both techniques have their advantages but have been over used to the point of negatively effecting the listening experience.

peace

OK thank you very much Naturalust for that explanation, I appreciate it and that finally makes sense.