Quote
oldschool

Quote
flacnvinyl
- First off, THANK YOU to the source for this recording. I do not know you, or whether you frequent this board, but thank you. If you work in the TV/entertainment biz, you'll know all about how difficult it is to release something this sensitive. Only X number of people heard/saw/hand-their-hands on the masters/consoles/copies of this show. It is not a simple thing to release the show.

- I really do not get the need to overdub/redo the guitars on the tracks that were released officially. The performance is just fantastic, screwups n all.

- Why is this being released on vinyl? I have no connection with the source, but my ears tell me this is from a pristine VHS/Beta source. If it was available in an un-mastered un-compressed format, it would shine even more, but sounds great on CD/mp3.

- Charlie is great! So many moments when the whole band 'locks in' and nails it. Love those moments. My only real gripe is that Charlie's snare goes down in the mix during the acoustic set, but then never goes back up! It needs to be loud during those rockers!! I think it is just a compression/gain issue on the board, which was obviously fixed for the official b-side single releases (Black Limousine, Live With Me, etc..)

Great release. About to listen to it again driving home from studio...

Some people just prefer the sound of vinyl to digital formats or just collect vinyl. If there was no market for it the boot lables would not waste the time or money relasing in this format

It's the other way round: there's hardly a CD bootleg market anymore, but the vynil market still is quite good. So if you want to make money with bootlegs its best to release vynil.

Mathijs

Thanks, Mathijs. I'm listening now, and while the recording quality is good - it is a pretty dry soundboard in places. HTW doesn't sound too good, but it gets better and better. Finishing Far Away Eyes now.

Keith playing on Monkey Man is a showcase of what rock'n'roll is all about.

Fabulous!

PS: Chuck is counting in on all the songs. This counting is way up in the mix



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-10-10 13:24 by DandelionPowderman.

Great stuff, but why is Keith in the left channel and Ronnie in the right?

Yeah, good point, it's unusual.

When mixing, stuff like that (channel switching) happens very quickly. It's sloppy though, not noticing...

Quote
shadooby
Great stuff, but why is Keith in the left channel and Ronnie in the right?

Cause 0,5 + 0,5 = 1.

Slipping Away is surpringly good

Quote
flacnvinyl

Quote
oldschool

Quote
flacnvinyl
- First off, THANK YOU to the source for this recording. I do not know you, or whether you frequent this board, but thank you. If you work in the TV/entertainment biz, you'll know all about how difficult it is to release something this sensitive. Only X number of people heard/saw/hand-their-hands on the masters/consoles/copies of this show. It is not a simple thing to release the show.

- I really do not get the need to overdub/redo the guitars on the tracks that were released officially. The performance is just fantastic, screwups n all.

- Why is this being released on vinyl? I have no connection with the source, but my ears tell me this is from a pristine VHS/Beta source. If it was available in an un-mastered un-compressed format, it would shine even more, but sounds great on CD/mp3.

- Charlie is great! So many moments when the whole band 'locks in' and nails it. Love those moments. My only real gripe is that Charlie's snare goes down in the mix during the acoustic set, but then never goes back up! It needs to be loud during those rockers!! I think it is just a compression/gain issue on the board, which was obviously fixed for the official b-side single releases (Black Limousine, Live With Me, etc..)

Great release. About to listen to it again driving home from studio...

Some people just prefer the sound of vinyl to digital formats or just collect vinyl. If there was no market for it the boot lables would not waste the time or money relasing in this format

If the source is VHS then a CD is the absolute TOPS in terms of sound quality (44.1khz 16bit stereo). A record would simply be the sound of the CD plus scratches of the record. There is not added improvement of sound, given the source recording.

Depends on how you look at it.
We know that a low quality analogue source will be resticted in dynamic range and at the frequency extremes...but it won't suffer the more sinister loss of subtle pitch & timing information that the CD format is guilty of.

[ Ever heard music really swing ... or a blue note that raises your hair on a CD ? No . I thought not ;^) ]

Now if you're going to master the vinyl from the 44.1khz 16bit CD quality source, your're dead right and any preference for the vinyl would just be on the basis of things like a "warmer sound".

But if you master it from your original analogue source, the vinyl will have more musical inforamtion on it than the CD

Quote
shadooby
Great stuff, but why is Keith in the left channel and Ronnie in the right?

To make us feel like we're Charlie or Mick, on stage, with Keef on the left and Ronnie on the right.
If you want to be back in the audience, switch your speakers...

Quote
Spud

Quote
flacnvinyl

Quote
oldschool

Quote
flacnvinyl
- First off, THANK YOU to the source for this recording. I do not know you, or whether you frequent this board, but thank you. If you work in the TV/entertainment biz, you'll know all about how difficult it is to release something this sensitive. Only X number of people heard/saw/hand-their-hands on the masters/consoles/copies of this show. It is not a simple thing to release the show.

- I really do not get the need to overdub/redo the guitars on the tracks that were released officially. The performance is just fantastic, screwups n all.

- Why is this being released on vinyl? I have no connection with the source, but my ears tell me this is from a pristine VHS/Beta source. If it was available in an un-mastered un-compressed format, it would shine even more, but sounds great on CD/mp3.

- Charlie is great! So many moments when the whole band 'locks in' and nails it. Love those moments. My only real gripe is that Charlie's snare goes down in the mix during the acoustic set, but then never goes back up! It needs to be loud during those rockers!! I think it is just a compression/gain issue on the board, which was obviously fixed for the official b-side single releases (Black Limousine, Live With Me, etc..)

Great release. About to listen to it again driving home from studio...

Some people just prefer the sound of vinyl to digital formats or just collect vinyl. If there was no market for it the boot lables would not waste the time or money relasing in this format

If the source is VHS then a CD is the absolute TOPS in terms of sound quality (44.1khz 16bit stereo). A record would simply be the sound of the CD plus scratches of the record. There is not added improvement of sound, given the source recording.

Depends on how you look at it.
We know that a low quality analogue source will be resticted in dynamic range and at the frequency extremes...but it won't suffer the more sinister loss of subtle pitch & timing information that the CD format is guilty of.

[ Ever heard music really swing ... or a blue note that raises your hair on a CD ? No . I thought not ;^) ]

Now if you're going to master the vinyl from the 44.1khz 16bit CD quality source, your're dead right and any preference for the vinyl would just be on the basis of things like a "warmer sound".

But if you master it from your original analogue source, the vinyl will have more musical inforamtion on it than the CD

Due to the sampling rate and the D/A conversion process I agree that vinyl can more accurately replicate the analog waveform of the original analog tape if you have a perfect analog system which most home systems are not but CD's also have some advantages over vinyl in that they have wider dynamic range and do not require the compression of the original signal like vinyl does.

Also there are a number of factors in an analog vinyl system that add distortion, like the phono cartridge, which degrade the orginal analog signal.

There is no right or wrong in the vinyl vs CD discusion just a matter of personal preference.

Interesting article here which explains some of these points.

[www.npr.org]

Interesting that the speaker designers uses CD's to design his speakers as he feels it gives him a more accurate signal over vinyl.

CD will always give you nominally flatter response, which many speaker designers will still perceive as the holy grail of audio.

Analogue systems produce all kinds of distorations, both mechanical and electrical in origin.
These distortions however are primarily additive in nature and our ears are quite good at filtering it out from the largely intact musical signal.

Digital distortions in contrast tend to be subtractive. They don't add crackles, tape hiss, arm/cartridge resonances etc etc ...but they distort by loosing some of the musical information.
You can't hear anything "wrong" with the reproduction... but may be left with the impression that the sound is great but the musicians rubbish

I'm not completely anti-digital.
I just believe that it was launched long before it was good enough.
Home taping never killed music...but CD had a bloody good go !



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-10-10 17:40 by Spud.

Quote
Spud
Analogue systems produce all kinds of distorations, both mechanical and electrical in origin.
These distortions however are primarily additive in nature and our ears are quite good at filtering it out from the largely intact musical signal.

That is a matter of opinion with no scientific basis. Distortion is distortion and unless you have heard the original undistorted source you have no reference to "filter out" the distortions.

I have no dog in this fight as I like both vinyl and CD but prefer digital strictly for convenience these days. But as I said there is no wrong or right it is a matter of personal preference.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-10-10 17:48 by oldschool.

My dog stopped barking about it years ago . Gave up the fight I think.

I do know however that it's far easier to sing in tune with an analogue recording than a CD quality digital one.

[Ry Cooder said the same thing. He was one of the first well known artists to try digital recording in the early 80s . Said he struggled to sing in tune, tune up his guitar or play in time with it ].

I experimented with it in the HiFi shop I used to manage.
I'd try it on customers with the same result .
Not saying it's entirely scientific but the "observations" were very interesting ;^).

I have to admit that studio digital has come a long way since and is getting there.
The problem today is more that everything is produced and mastered for optimal play back on a bloody i-pod !



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-10-10 18:19 by Spud.

Quote
Spud
My dog stopped barking about it years ago . Gave up the fight I think.

I do know however that it's far easier to sing in tune with an analogue recording than a CD quality digital one.

[Ry Cooder said the same thing. He was one of the first well known artists to try digital recording in the early 80s . Said he struggled to sing in tune, tune up his guitar or play in time with it ].

I experimented with it in the HiFi shop I used to manage.
I'd try it on customers with the same result .
Not saying it's entirely scientific but the "observations" were very interesting ;^).

I have to admit that studio digital has come a long way since and is getting there.
The problem today is more that everything is produced and mastered for optimal play back on a bloody i-pod !

Interesting comment about the singing in tune as you would expect digital to be more accurate pitch wise as there is no wow and flutter involved causing speed variations.

I agree with you about today's digital recordings. The people mastering the music basically compress the hell out of it and boost the volume to close to clipping levels negating the dynamic range advantages of digital recordings. Just kills any subtle textures of the music.

But in our case we are dealing with bootleg recordings which in most cases are less then perfect so I wonder if there really is any advantage with vinyl that people normally perceive with a professionally mixed and mastered offical recording.

Quote
oldschool

Quote
Spud
My dog stopped barking about it years ago . Gave up the fight I think.

I do know however that it's far easier to sing in tune with an analogue recording than a CD quality digital one.

[Ry Cooder said the same thing. He was one of the first well known artists to try digital recording in the early 80s . Said he struggled to sing in tune, tune up his guitar or play in time with it ].

I experimented with it in the HiFi shop I used to manage.
I'd try it on customers with the same result .
Not saying it's entirely scientific but the "observations" were very interesting ;^).

I have to admit that studio digital has come a long way since and is getting there.
The problem today is more that everything is produced and mastered for optimal play back on a bloody i-pod !

Interesting comment about the singing in tune as you would expect digital to be more accurate pitch wise as there is no wow and flutter involved causing speed variations.

I agree with you about today's digital recordings. The people mastering the music basically compress the hell out of it and boost the volume to close to clipping levels negating the dynamic range advantages of digital recordings. Just kills any subtle textures of the music.

But in our case we are dealing with bootleg recordings which in most cases are less then perfect so I wonder if there really is any advantage with vinyl that people normally perceiv

with a professionally mixed and mastered offical recording.

The main thing is that it's all great fun

I just remembered an interesting tidbit (for anyone who cares)...I recorded the Stripped TV special around 95 and afterword noticed that Keef was in the left channel and Ronnie in the right. So I'm thinking, man somewhere in this mess of wires I've got a left where I should have a right (and vice versa), but now I realize that the original soundboard engineer had to have screwed this up from the start. No big deal but this has got to be what happened.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-10-11 01:45 by shadooby.

The debate is not CD vs Vinyl, it is VHS VS CD!!

I agree.. if a great analog source was available then a vinyl pressing sourced from that would be great. This is not the case for Brixton. The source is a VHStape. No one is missing out on anything by listening to CD.

Vinyl does not make anything new appear in the sound spectrum. It maintains detail and is beautiful!! I love vinyl! VHS is a warbly compressed lossy format and the CD transfer is the highest sound quality possible given the source.

A 96kHz 24bit rip of the VHS is indistinguishable from the CD (44.1 kHz 16bit). The vinyl is a waste on this recording aside from collectors who simply want a physical disc. The CD will sound the same and through wear n tear the vinyl will degrade and sound worse over time.

Quote
Spud

I do know however that it's far easier to sing in tune with an analogue recording than a CD quality digital one.

That's absolute bollocks.

Mathijs

Must be just me then


But seriously , Try it.

Compare an old completly analogue recording, played back on analogue systems, to any recording which has passed through an early or CD quality conversion.

There has always been something not quite right with CD, and that's part of it.

You can try it comparing old analogue Stones albums and later digital re-masters . Listen to how the vocal harmonies work and try to fit your own voice in there. You might be surprised.
Listen also to hear the pitch of maybe an acoustic guitar humming low in the mix. on CD you too often hear just it's "sound" and there aren't any actual notes audible.

Alternatively ...I'm as mad as a fish

Poor Ronnie finally got to play Black Limousine again.

By the way, who plays button harmonica on Far Away Eyes?

Mathijs

Quote
Spud
Must be just me then


But seriously , Try it.

Compare an old completly analogue recording, played back on analogue systems, to any recording which has passed through an early or CD quality conversion.

There has always been something not quite right with CD, and that's part of it.

You can try it comparing old analogue Stones albums and later digital re-masters . Listen to how the vocal harmonies work and try to fit your own voice in there. You might be surprised.
Listen also to hear the pitch of maybe an acoustic guitar humming low in the mix. on CD you too often hear just it's "sound" and there aren't any actual notes audible.

Alternatively ...I'm as mad as a fish

I don't know what you're saying exactly, to be honest. Maybe what you mean is that old analogue recordings sometimes aren’t pitch-perfect. Examples are Jumping Jack Flash and the entire original Beggars –both ran a tad slow, making the pitch slightly flat. And in the old days of 2 and 4 track it could happen that when you bounces 4 tracks to become 2 the result could be a tad flat or sharp. On really old machines this could not be fixed, so you had to tune the instruments for the overdub slightly flat or sharp. But from the late-60’s on equipment became so much better this didn’t happen anymore.

Mathijs

No, it's nothing to do with that.

I'm sorry I can't explain it better . Just put it down to the ravings of a mad man

Maybe if I said that digital formats with inadequate resolution don't seem to convey pitch information in way that our analogue ears can easily assimilate ?
[It doesn't sound out of tune...just a little atonal.

In some ways I don't think musicians are always best placed to judge the sound quality of reproduced music.
If for example the pitch of certain notes in a bass line isn't well preserved, we won't notice because our ears sort of know already what the notes should be.
[I use that example because we've all heard dodgy Hi Fi systems that make the bass and kick drum sound like one big boomy mess]

Spud,

Crazy old man or not, you're doing an OK job with your descriptions, at least for me. I'd love to be able see/hear a demonstration of it. That is, if it's actually true. Not that I don't believe you, I just haven't been able to convince my brain that what your describing is actually possible to have happen. Maybe one of the audiophiles around here could run a test to prove or disprove the theory.

A possible test:
After confirming the tuning of a single note on a single instrument (I'd guess either a piano, organ, tone generator, pitch pipe or tuning fork would be preferrable) with both analog and digital tuners, simutaneously record that instrument onto both analog and digital recorders. After recording, play back that note and analyze the recorded tone again with both analog and digital tuners. I know this is a simple description but I'm presenting this as merely a starting point. If I had the tools & lab myself, I'm sure that I'd come up with some more variables that needed to be worked out to make the experiment scientificly valid.

C'mon IORR recording experts, time to put your expertise to work and see if we can "shine a light" on this theory.

Personally, this musician is guessing that A=440 recorded and reproduced is going to be A=440 regardless of A/A A/D D/D or D/A. In all the years I've been recording and overdubbing in both digital and analog recording environments, this is the first time that I've ever heard of this potential anomoly. Knowing that I don't know it all is what is making me interested in finding out if this is actually true.

Damn I love it when this place makes me THINK!

Peace,
Mr DJA

Bless you Mr DJA

I fully agree that your A at 440 will remain an A at 440 under those conditions, or indeed under any other currently applicable test criteria.

The thing which maybe, even today, remains little understood
is the ear/brain interface and how it works to dicipher a musical signal to provide that deep emotional enjoyment we get from it.

It's maybe not so much whether a digital signal can play an A440, but whether it can capture the full beauty of how a guitar player might wobble it... or curl it soulfully up to the that blue note between the A the A#.

My issue I suppose is with CD and the inadequate early 80s digital technology which spawned it. It just doesn't capture enough dots for the ear and brain to properly join for a complete picture.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-10-11 18:40 by Spud.

Well, i really like this show.


Strange that they switched the solo's from black limousine. On the official recording Keith s solo is first, live it's together with Mick his harmonica solo

Thanks again for sharing. Good sound for a boot. Quite good rendition over all with totally messed up moments like the second half of MR. Keith on top, but it seems to me as if Ronnie gets weaker and weaker during this gig, in any case he is far from the quality he proves nowadays. And unfortunately Chuck is too prominent in the mix as it is the case always in the Vegas era gigs. A honky tonk piano on MR, terrible ... Can't stand that guy anymore ...

Quote
Spud
Bless you Mr DJA

I fully agree that your A at 440 will remain an A at 440 under those conditions, or indeed under any other currently applicable test criteria.

The thing which maybe, even today, remains little understood
is the ear/brain interface and how it works to dicipher a musical signal to provide that deep emotional enjoyment we get from it.

It's maybe not so much whether a digital signal can play an A440, but whether it can capture the full beauty of how a guitar player might wobble it... or curl it soulfully up to the that blue note between the A the A#.

My issue I suppose is with CD and the inadequate early 80s digital technology which spawned it. It just doesn't capture enough dots for the ear and brain to properly join for a complete picture.

Spud,

And on that last description I think there is agreement that there are limitations in the digital area. Where analog is able to just record and reproduce the actual linear wave forms that are being produced by the instruments, digital is capturing thousands of individual "points/dots" on the linear wave forms and reproducing them as a continuous "line" when in fact the digital line is actualy many individual points (samples/dots) placed close enough together to produce a linear waveform. Scarry to think that there is another crazy old brain that works similarly to mine!

Using a visual representation, under extreme magnification, I'd "see" analog as a continuous un-broken line (which I can't seem to get to display in this font) while digital would look more like: ---------------

I'm ready to be corrected by the guys who know more about it than I do! I only hope that they can "dumb down" the technology enough for me to understand the explination or I'll have to keep using my current analogy!

Peace,
Mr DJA

Spud,

You are SPOT ON about the magic that does NOT exist with CD as a format. I can't agree more. There is a legitimate reason that many of us (myself included) collect vinyl. Have a very specific memory of when I realized that CDs were inferior...

I was 11 years old (early 90s) and my father had purchased several Stones CDs for me. Our hobby was basically purchasing one every month or so. We had the records, but through years of wear (decades since they were his original pressings) we decided to get the 'latest and greatest'. I remember how crisp, clean and detailed She's So Cold sounded on vinyl... then I remember hearing the CD...

You said something very apt... I remember those 'notes' as if it was the very first time... Same with Can't You Hear Me Knocking... When those notes hit it shakes you to the core. On CD, I felt like something was 'missing'.

I agree with you COMPLETELY about the power and presence of analog. Many of my friends have been blown away after hearing someone like Radiohead or Wilco through my home sound system, or the studio setup (HS80Ms, paired NS10 sub, Audiotechnica turntable).. Their comments are normally something along the lines of "I never heard that before".

Brixton, however, is sourced from VHS. If we did an A/B test, I am willing to bet that no one would be able to tell the difference between a CD and vinyl version, aside from the crackling.

Now, to help illustrate everything...



The image above explains why we hear something unique in vinyl that we don't get in other mediums. It CANT translate fully since CD is so limited in resolution and depth.

As to VHS... Originally it was 100Hz to 10kHz, and then the hi-fi VHS decks had full 20Hz to 20kHz. The Brixton source really is great, but vinyl is simply not necessary aside from collectors who really want it on record. If I were at the show, I could see the purchase.. However, CD is more than enough resolution and depth to capture the recording perfectly.

VHS to CD or VHS to vinyl. Either way, you are hearing a VHS source.

CD is 'better' than VHS.
Vinyl is 'better' than VHS.

The format you choose for Brixton really doesn't matter. You are hearing either a clean VHS source (CD) or the VHS + crackling (vinyl).

Quote
flacnvinyl
Spud,

You are SPOT ON about the magic that does NOT exist with CD as a format. I can't agree more. There is a legitimate reason that many of us (myself included) collect vinyl. Have a very specific memory of when I realized that CDs were inferior...

I was 11 years old (early 90s) and my father had purchased several Stones CDs for me. Our hobby was basically purchasing one every month or so. We had the records, but through years of wear (decades since they were his original pressings) we decided to get the 'latest and greatest'. I remember how crisp, clean and detailed She's So Cold sounded on vinyl... then I remember hearing the CD...

You said something very apt... I remember those 'notes' as if it was the very first time... Same with Can't You Hear Me Knocking... When those notes hit it shakes you to the core. On CD, I felt like something was 'missing'.

I agree with you COMPLETELY about the power and presence of analog. Many of my friends have been blown away after hearing someone like Radiohead or Wilco through my home sound system, or the studio setup (HS80Ms, paired NS10 sub, Audiotechnica turntable).. Their comments are normally something along the lines of "I never heard that before".

Brixton, however, is sourced from VHS. If we did an A/B test, I am willing to bet that no one would be able to tell the difference between a CD and vinyl version, aside from the crackling.

Now, to help illustrate everything...



The image above explains why we hear something unique in vinyl that we don't get in other mediums. It CANT translate fully since CD is so limited in resolution and depth.

As to VHS... Originally it was 100Hz to 10kHz, and then the hi-fi VHS decks had full 20Hz to 20kHz. The Brixton source really is great, but vinyl is simply not necessary aside from collectors who really want it on record. If I were at the show, I could see the purchase.. However, CD is more than enough resolution and depth to capture the recording perfectly.

VHS to CD or VHS to vinyl. Either way, you are hearing a VHS source.

CD is 'better' than VHS.
Vinyl is 'better' than VHS.

The format you choose for Brixton really doesn't matter. You are hearing either a clean VHS source (CD) or the VHS + crackling (vinyl).

Very well put,I have a version of this sent to me by a good friend and I am happy with the sound.
He sent it to me cos he is aware that I am not as financially secure as I was in previous times.
I was going to buy the box set later on when funds are more fluid,so your explanation is very helpful.