For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
On Viagra and has less dynamics looks like thisQuote
StonedRambler
Honestly - for IORR I actually think the 2009 Universal master is the best. Yes it's a bit on Viagra and has less dynamics but doesn't sound as dull and lifeless as other releases.
It's probably the only album in the Stones catalogue that I prefer the Universal master. Give it a try.
A friend of mine said that the original UK vinyl sounds great, not at all as flat as the ones after it. Have you heard that and could it be really so?Quote
Mathijs
If there is one album that is in need of a remastering it is IORR. All releases sound dull and flat as they mastered the life out of it.
Mathijs
Quote
padre69A friend of mine said that the original UK vinyl sounds great, not at all as flat as the ones after it. Have you heard that and could it be really so?Quote
Mathijs
If there is one album that is in need of a remastering it is IORR. All releases sound dull and flat as they mastered the life out of it.
Mathijs
´Quote
StonedRambler
Honestly - for IORR I actually think the 2009 Universal master is the best. Yes it's a bit on Viagra and has less dynamics but doesn't sound as dull and lifeless as other releases.
It's probably the only album in the Stones catalogue that I prefer the Universal master. Give it a try.
Thank you for your great technical analysis.Since they were both recorded at Musicland could IORR be remixed to sound like Black n Blue? And could L&G be remixed to sound better?Quote
ironbellyOn Viagra and has less dynamics looks like thisQuote
StonedRambler
Honestly - for IORR I actually think the 2009 Universal master is the best. Yes it's a bit on Viagra and has less dynamics but doesn't sound as dull and lifeless as other releases.
It's probably the only album in the Stones catalogue that I prefer the Universal master. Give it a try.
1986 CBS - Official DR value: DR12
1994 Virgin - Official DR value: DR10
2009 UM - Official DR value: DR6
2011 flat transfer - Official DR value: DR11
All 2009 remasters are virtually unalienable in the normal environment. They were done for 'nomad listening'. I keep them in mp3 on my phone to listen on a train or in the plane via headphones during long trips . Otherwise they caused headache.
This album do not need a remaster. It needs a remix. Because nothing can make it sound crystal clear (and it is not necessary, per se).
Here is another thing. A comparison of amplitude/frequency charts.
These are original charts for title track
These are differential charts. I.e., what was added during mastering atop of the master tape. Flat transfer 2011 was used as a base line.
As you can see all guys - Ted Jensen for CBS, Bob Ludwig for Virgin and Stephen Marcussen for Universal - added kind of similar 'smile' atop of flat transfer. But Marcussen also compressed everything to DR5 (for this track) making it absolutely messy sounding. Now it is not dull sounding but loud and messy because all instruments are almost on the same level. Well, for cheap headphones and aggressive environment this will do .
It depends if they have original multitracks. If those are lost the chances are slim for both albums.Quote
Taylor1
Thank you for your great technical analysis.Since they were both recorded at Musicland could IORR be remixed to sound like Black n Blue? And could L&G be remixed to sound better?
Quote
Taylor1
Since they were both recorded at Musicland could IORR be remixed to sound like Black n Blue? And could L&G be remixed to sound better?
Quote
mosthigh
There's a bootleg called 'It's Only Goat's Head Soup' from 2006 which sounds pretty damn crisp to me, although I haven't heard every official release.
[www.discogs.com]
Quote
SpudQuote
padre69A friend of mine said that the original UK vinyl sounds great, not at all as flat as the ones after it. Have you heard that and could it be really so?Quote
Mathijs
If there is one album that is in need of a remastering it is IORR. All releases sound dull and flat as they mastered the life out of it.
Mathijs
Yes, the original vinyl release did sound better in terms of dynamics, life and presence.
But the rot then set in even with vinyl. The Subsequent EMI period pressings were relatively flat and tired sounding...
...and that's well before all the "Digitally Disastered" varients.
Edited just to add..
Even the cover suffered. The original had a weird, waxy feel that seemed to suite and emphasise the vibe of the cheesy cover art.
That was largely lost too
Quote
buffalo7478
I don't think there is a single weak track on Beggars, Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers or Exile (though almost every album prior or since has one or many). Having the right 'someone' in-charge of the process - from fleshing out songs to quality recording, mixing and mastering may have helped GHS, IORR and beyond? or maybe the magic was gone?
Quote
SomeGuy
For me IORR is a top album alright. It's got more raw and raunchy songs on it than its immediate, softer predecessors in that it has the guitars turned up more loudly than before, Jagger singing more abrasive than usually (not always a good thing though here it works), the drums are heavier. ...
Quote
SomeGuy
For me IORR is a top album alright. It's got more raw and raunchy songs on it than its immediate, softer predecessors in that it has the guitars turned up more loudly than before, Jagger singing more abrasive than usually (not always a good thing though here it works), the drums are heavier. To me it is their first more modern, fresh sounding and almost hard rock like record they made, before turning towards the more fashionable punkish, LoFi sounds of SG (speaking of sound guality, SG is about as bad as it gets).
Somehow, IORR is a bit like an Undercover of ten years earlier: as Mick stated about Undercover, The Stones were about to turn into a hard rock outfit. But then, both albums have some experimentation as well.
I guess I'm in the minority but what the heck.
Quote
MathijsQuote
SomeGuy
For me IORR is a top album alright. It's got more raw and raunchy songs on it than its immediate, softer predecessors in that it has the guitars turned up more loudly than before, Jagger singing more abrasive than usually (not always a good thing though here it works), the drums are heavier. To me it is their first more modern, fresh sounding and almost hard rock like record they made, before turning towards the more fashionable punkish, LoFi sounds of SG (speaking of sound guality, SG is about as bad as it gets).
Somehow, IORR is a bit like an Undercover of ten years earlier: as Mick stated about Undercover, The Stones were about to turn into a hard rock outfit. But then, both albums have some experimentation as well.
I guess I'm in the minority but what the heck.
IORR is completely dull sounding -check the snare drum on If You Can't Rock Me. There's no snap, crackle and pop, it's a dull thud on a wet carton box. The guitars on this song are a midrange blur, to the extent that it took me 10 years to hear that the rhythm Wah guitar isn't a guitar at all but Billy Preston on the clavinet. All the energy has been sucked out of the record by compressing it to death. The only track that sounds good, strangely, is Fingerprint File.
The LoFi sound on SG is a clear choice, they wanted to sound like a garage band. But still, the drums sound better than ever, with Beast of Burden as -IMO- their best sounding track ever recorded.
Mathijs
Quote
TravelinManQuote
MathijsQuote
SomeGuy
For me IORR is a top album alright. It's got more raw and raunchy songs on it than its immediate, softer predecessors in that it has the guitars turned up more loudly than before, Jagger singing more abrasive than usually (not always a good thing though here it works), the drums are heavier. To me it is their first more modern, fresh sounding and almost hard rock like record they made, before turning towards the more fashionable punkish, LoFi sounds of SG (speaking of sound guality, SG is about as bad as it gets).
Somehow, IORR is a bit like an Undercover of ten years earlier: as Mick stated about Undercover, The Stones were about to turn into a hard rock outfit. But then, both albums have some experimentation as well.
I guess I'm in the minority but what the heck.
IORR is completely dull sounding -check the snare drum on If You Can't Rock Me. There's no snap, crackle and pop, it's a dull thud on a wet carton box. The guitars on this song are a midrange blur, to the extent that it took me 10 years to hear that the rhythm Wah guitar isn't a guitar at all but Billy Preston on the clavinet. All the energy has been sucked out of the record by compressing it to death. The only track that sounds good, strangely, is Fingerprint File.
The LoFi sound on SG is a clear choice, they wanted to sound like a garage band. But still, the drums sound better than ever, with Beast of Burden as -IMO- their best sounding track ever recorded.
Mathijs
Yeah, I agree here. Glyn Johns mixed Fingerprint File, if I recall correctly.
Andy Johns did an interview on this record because he recorded about half of it and quit. He couldn't believe what they did to it in the mixing stage. IMO, the Glimmers needed somebody like Miller or either of the Johns (and later Kimsey) for feedback. I'm not sure they had that here.
I'm not sure who mixed Black and Blue, but I seem to remember it sounds much better.
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Black And Blue sounds wonderful, imo. I can understand if it's too clean for others, but for me it's very pleasant to listen to.
.
Quote
Elmo Lewis
I know absolutely nothing of the technical aspects, I just know the album sounds muffled (for lack of a better word). Maybe dull.
I love most of the songs on here, but the production leaves something to be desired. Ditto Ronnie's Gimme Some Neck.
Glimmers first time out?
Quote
Elmo Lewis
I know absolutely nothing of the technical aspects, I just know the album sounds muffled (for lack of a better word). Maybe dull.
I love most of the songs on here, but the production leaves something to be desired. Ditto Ronnie's Gimme Some Neck.
Glimmers first time out?