Quote
latebloomer
I'm just gonna rely on the audiophiles here to tell me whether it's worth it....

Hey bloomer, theoretically it could produce a more accurate sounding record but if your ears are over 40 years old I doubt you're going to hear much of a difference. A lot of the original 1/2 speed masters were done to compensate for equipment limitations in perfectly reproducing high frequencies. Exile to me is a kind of record that benefited from it's more muddy blended mixes and lower frequency warmness, I can't imagine hearing the high transients and cymbal hits would help it much.

That being said, anytime a new record is mastered there are a lot of other things that can be tweaked such as EQ and compression which can have a more noticeable effect on the final product. I have heard 1/2 speed masters that were the same or worse but very few which were actually better. I can only conclude that it wasn't necessarily due to the speed of the mastering.

I think things like the overall dynamic range are much more important and noticeable with the new masters. I'm not sure how this new Exile stacks up but the chances of it being such an improvement as to justify another expenditure for the record are pretty low, imo. In other words, 1/2 speed mastering these is synonymous with double invoicing.

Quote
Naturalust
Exile to me is a kind of record that benefited from it's more muddy blended mixes and lower frequency warmness, I can't imagine hearing the high transients and cymbal hits would help it much.

I wholeheartedly agree, Sir.
The 2010 remaster did bring out some of those upper frequencies, and while it was an OK affair (I can't say I get worked up over it) the original still is the masterpiece to me. Over at the Hoffman forum I think it is the heavy slab of an Artisan US firstpressing they still rave about as the one to get if your into the 72-version. Don´t think I have that one, but as you say, ears belonging to anybody over 40 won´t hear much difference. Cheers!

The studio says they used the original analog master tapes for the remaster. I am looking forward to hearing this!

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
latebloomer
I'm just gonna rely on the audiophiles here to tell me whether it's worth it....

Hey bloomer, theoretically it could produce a more accurate sounding record but if your ears are over 40 years old I doubt you're going to hear much of a difference....

Well you could have stopped there my dear...
Thank you kindly all the same for that helpful information. I'll wait until it comes out and see what the experts here say after they've had a chance to give it a listen.

Half speed mastering or not. I don't think a recording like Exile will benefit much from beeing half speed mastered. It's a muddy recording lacking of nuances so I guess there is nothing hidden that will appear in full clarity? To achieve that I think the whole album needs to be remixed, but then the sound of Exile, that we like, would be lost. However a recording like SF gained a lot from a half speed mastering. I have the MFSL mastering and it is a step up from the original that can be heard even with my ears, going on 63.

Quote
Matt
Half speed mastering or not. I don't think a recording like Exile will benefit much from beeing half speed mastered. It's a muddy recording lacking of nuances so I guess there is nothing hidden that will appear in full clarity? To achieve that I think the whole album needs to be remixed, but then the sound of Exile, that we like, would be lost. However a recording like SF gained a lot from a half speed mastering. I have the MFSL mastering and it is a step up from the original that can be heard even with my ears, going on 63.

One of my points is that it could be other aspect of the re-mastering that produced the improved sound you heard on SF. Simple EQ changes can be much more dramatic than the improvements from the half speed aspect of the mastering. In fact if you are 63 and have been listing to rock music much of your life I would bet that's the case.

I do like your idea of remixing some of these old records though! That's where we would truly be able to hear greater differences in the songs. The technology to achieve separation of instruments, reduce the noise floor and automate the mixes has changed so much since Exile I imagine it would be dramatic. Would it ruin it? Maybe, but I'd be willing to spring for another copy just to find out. I smile thinking about being able to hear Bill and Nicky more clearly and kind of frown thinking about how bad a more modern vocal treatment could be. Fun to imagine.

I have this: [www.discogs.com] German reissue from the late 1970s. It's still relatively easy to find at decent prices and in good condition and it sounds great.

It's even clearer : the new reissue will be made from the same files used for the dreadfull 2010 reissue!

From analogplanet.com :

UMe Abbey Road 1/2 Speed Mastered Series Update: We Ask the Tough Questions

"Miles Showell, who oversees Abbey Road's 1/2 speed mastering responded recently to a series of questions I posed to him. I want to thank him for taking the time to do so. Please read. And please, keep your comments civil and respectful. I think Mr. Showell's comments make clear the seriousness with which he approached this work.

One thing he did clarify is that the 96/24 source used for the upcoming Exile on Main Street is the same one Stephen Marcussen produced for the anniversary box set. What's less clear is whether or not the unacceptable dynamic compression was added during the initial A/D transfer or if it was added when the box set lacquers were cut.

Here's what Mr. Showell had to say in response to my questions (which are italicized):

With regard to “Exile on Main Street”, the previous vinyl editions cut from a digital source supplied by The Rolling Stones were dreadful. They were dynamically “squashed” and sonically a distant 10th place (at best) compared to the original, mastered at Artisan Sound. In my opinion a waste of PVC. So before again buying, what my readers want to know is: was the “squashing” done in the original digital transfer or were the full dynamics preserved in the transfer that will hopefully lead to a better result.

MS: This is one that is not easy for me to answer reliably as I have heard neither the master tapes nor the original Artisan Sound cut. Probably best to ask Steven Marcussen Mastering about how exactly the transfers were done. Ultimately The Rolling Stones own the masters on this album, have been involved and have approved Steven’s work on this release. In reality it is their album and whatever anyone else might feel about the sound, it is the artist’s decision on exactly how it should be presented. I would personally say that it is not for me or anyone else to over-rule them on this point. (...)"

Quote
vudicus
Half speed mastering is not a great idea.
You tend to get a rather thin sounding product, lacking bottom end.

Ditto that .

It was certainly the case with the Mobile Fidelity half speed master of SF and with numerous other half speed masters I've owned or heard.

Of the various copies of Exile I own, I have two favourites.
As is usually the case, the original 72 pressing takes some beating for dynamics , vibrancy and sheer "balls".

My other fav is a German pressing I think I bought in the 80s.
It's not so loud but is very sweet sounding with good clarity that really captures the natural timbre of the voices & instruments.

It's almost like the original pressing for dancin' and the German cut for listenin'



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2016-02-02 11:24 by Spud.

The 2011 Japan flat transfer from the master tapes SHM-SACD and SHM-CD is the one to get.
Great sound. Lots of 'air' and very crankable!

I'd be very wary of this release- there's not a lot of clear information about what the exact source is.

Quote
jammingedward
The 2011 Japan flat transfer from the master tapes SHM-SACD and SHM-CD is the one to get.
Great sound. Lots of 'air' and very crankable!

I'd be very wary of this release- there's not a lot of clear information about what the exact source is.

Read two post above : the same Stephen Marcussen digital remaster used for the 2010 reissue will be used.

This seems strange, because on the website it says it was mastered from the analog tapes.
I am still interested in this, and will get it. And will compare from the 72 pressing I have and the Japanese import (which is my fav).

I find this remastering business very confusing.

In the pre-digital era, I am assuming that the original 16 or 32-track analog tape recording was mixed down to a stereo track also on analog tape.

In my mind, that stereo analog tape is "the master." Any equalization or compression or limiting was done on that master tape in the original recording studio by the artists and producers and that should NOT be touched or played with in any way.

What I recently learned is that ironically enough, there often had to be one more equalization pass done before the original analog master tape was connected to the lathe machine that cut the master pressing disks. Even though records are RIAA equalized to reduce the amplitude of the bass signals, bass still requires a wider groove spacing on the record. So to make most if not all releases fit onto the physical LP record, they had to equalize out some bass. This was to the dismay of the recording artist, but life is full of compromises.

So that means what we think of as the "original vinyl recording" was often not what the artist produced in the recording studio and wanted to have on record. Bass simply consumes too much vinyl real estate and it was often reduced in amplitude.

Ironically enough, when CDs came out that bass amplitude problem went away, but then a whole new slew of complaints were heard because of CDs themselves.

In my mind, there could/should be two "master re-releases" for a classic album and the assumption is that they will be released on CD or in high-definition digital format:

1) The original release as it was put on record, with the original compromises made in the bass levels so that the recording would fit on the record. That is the release that "we all know."

2) The original master recordings that the artists crafted in the studio before any compromises were made in the bass levels. These are the "unheard masters that the artist originally intended the audience to hear."

However, in BOTH CASES, NO MODERN COMPRESSION MONKEYSHINES. Do NOT "remix" an original stereo mix, period. DO NOT TOUCH the original stereo master tapes, and don't even dare think about playing with the original 16 or 32-track analog recording tape to "remix" that. Keep your dirty paws off of the original artist's work.

I know some people will groan that I even suggested CDs. I am of the school that you can't tell if it is a CD or a vinyl record or a digital audio file, presuming that all components in each case are quality components. I personally think that CDs have been given a bad rap.

In a related theme, I read an article about A-B comparing of a Pono player and an iPhone. More people preferred the sound of the iPhone. However, I think the majority of people could not tell the difference.

Hey kowalski, what's the point in having a vinyl LP brickwalled!!!!???? It's bad enough the CD LP is brickwalled!

AUUUUGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MileHigh, good points. Indeed the how-ever-many-tracks-multitrack master tapes mixdown is the master.

These days a Pro Tools recording put to vinyl is strictly a money grab under the guise of 'it's on vinyl, mannnn' and it automatically sounds good, which is bunk. Then again, there are morons out there that think contrails are "chemtrails" so nothing surprises me.

So simply taking what's on a CD and putting it on vinyl just makes it sound better.

Uh huh. Right.


Anyway, as seen with Keith's record and some other bands and artists that still use 2 inch tape, that is where the for-vinyl-release master comes in because it does sound different than the digital master, regardless of what medium the LP is released on (I'm of the skool that likes CDs over downloads or whatever). I suppose if bands/artists had their way they'd release all of their vinyl albums as 45s instead of 33s because of the space that can be used for the bass. Of course, it would end up being a quadruple album or whatever strictly by the amount of discs required but it would probably sound better.

Or... just release it on CD with it sounding the way it should sound.

Interesting post MileHigh. A couple of comments.

Often times there is actually more that one master stereo tape of the original material. Not only are exact copies run off to preserve one and use the other to be sent to the mastering lab, etc, but there are sometimes different mixes all preserved as masters. When we used to present final mixes to artists and record companies they would often ask for 3 or more masters with changes such as main vocal -3dB, main vocal 0dB and main vocal +3dB or ones with different EQ treatment like "make one shimmer more on the high end", or
"separate the bass guitar and kick drum better". My experience is the artists were pretty keen on what they wanted to hear but you would laugh your ass off at some of the management descriptions for changes.

We always presented all the different final mix masters to them and were never quite sure which ones were used and sent to the mastering lab. I was never asked to wipe any of the mixes. I suspect that similar treatment is done for Stones records, there are probably more differently mixed "masters" in the vaults than they would like people to believe. Mostly the changes are subtle in my experience.

In any case, I agree with you the ones picked by the artist in the final mixdown stage are probably the best to use for any remastering, But since the remastering is really similar to a remix without the ability to change the placements in the stereo field or the relative levels of the instruments in can have huge effects on the finished product as we all know. as much or more as remixes of the original multitracks. I also agree, preserve the overall dynamic range at all costs. There is usually plenty of compression used in the original multitracks and adding too much more in the mastering stage in order to increase loudness in criminal.

But what about multitrack remixes if the original artists are involved? That is fair game in my opinion and can produce some really interesting results. The proof is always going to be in the final product. Should they be allowed to make new stereo master of our favorite classics? Hell yeah, there are no rules, as long as they have the original masters to fall back on, who cares?

Naturalust - good points about more than one master. There clearly are also masters made for the singles as well as the B-sides, EPs and remixes.

Consider SUCKING IN THE SEVENTIES and any songs from that comp featured on later comps. Any information about the SITS compilation is that Jagger and Kimsey remixed most of those songs pre-SOME GIRLS tracks when in the midst of working on the GHS-ER leftovers for TATTOO YOU and in fact they sound to be the B-side edits or even meant for B-side edits, like Time Waits For No One, not remixes: nothing sounds any different, just shortened, like Crazy Mama, Beast Of Burden and Fool To Cry.

There is not one realistic reason why they would have remixed any of those songs for a contract filling compilation.

Naturalust - thanks for all of that additional information. After learning about the three mixes for the three vocal levels (almost like bracketing an exposure in photography) that makes sense and does not surprise me. I suppose an artist will make test pressings of the three mixes and have a listen on various sources from studio monitors, to home stereos, and perhaps even a low-powered transmitter and radio combination. Of course we know that Mick often tended to like having his vocals buried in the mix.

I think for the past 40-odd-years there have been a lot of Stones and other songs where I have made up the lyrics that were unintelligible (to me). It's sometimes a shock to then go and look up the lyrics and read them. I have a similar problem when watching movies sometimes. Somebody will say something and there will be a few second stretch where all that I can hear is unintelligible gibberish (to me). I read once how for your native language you can often understand what someone is saying when only about 15% of the enunciated sounds are clear. We have an innate ability to fill in the gaps. But sometimes by "gap filler" goes awry and I can listen to the same bit of movie dialogue 15 times in a row and still only hear a stretch of unintelligible gibberish.

Anyway, a comment about records and equalization compromises that I assume most people know. Starting in the late 1970s they did disco singles on full LP records and they were cut at 45 RPM. I assume they did not have to make any compromises on the bass levels for disco singles, and they were "nearly indestructible" as compared to regular full-length LP records. I remember seeing Miss You as a disco single. Horror of horrors! lol

Hey Mile High you make an excellent point about filling in the gaps with our brains! I can think of many times where I was in the shower or something and heard some music and thought it was a masterpiece, perfect and amazing, inspirational and divine and went running out to the stereo to find out more and realized it was something much less and my mind was playing tricks on me. Like wtf?

There might just be some of that going on with muffled lyrics, buried vocals and muddied (but not too muddied) mixes where we all hear just what we need to hear.

Went to A hi-fi fair in Stockholm last saturday and learned a lot about super pressings, half speed mastering, high resolution sound files etc. The conclusion was that CD SACD, high res, half speed mastered vinyl etc can all sound good, but if the recording is not good from the beginning nothing will ever help. A good recording on CD can sound much better than a not so good recording in high res. It was demonstrated by a good recording from 1964 on CD and a not so good recording in high res recorded just a couple of years ago.So if you think Exile does not sound good the half-speed mastered version will probably not make a big change.

[shop.abbeyroad.com]

From the campaign email:

"Exile on Main St has never sounded better on vinyl, and it probably never will...

A limited edition batch of vinyl has been mastered at half speed at the world famous Abbey Road Studios.

Cut from a high-res digital transfer from the best-known analogue source in existence - the original quarter-inch tapes, the process uses custom-built equipment allowing for twice the mastering time, producing the highest quality audio possible.

Each pressing comes in deluxe packaging with an obi strip and a certificate of authenticity from Abbey Road, plus reproductions of the twelve original postcard inserts taken by Norman Seef, art director for the original 1972 pressing of the album."

Half-Speed Mastering at Abbey Road (yt link)


Also :

"4.What was the source for this record?

24bit/96khz digital transfers supplied by the Stones made from original ¼” tapes. This album was cut from a high-resolution digital transfer from the best known analogue tape in existence. Only minimal sympathetic equalisation was applied to the transfer to keep everything as pure as possible. Also, as this was an analogue, vinyl only high quality release, I did not apply any digital limiting. This is added to almost all digital releases to make them appear to be loud and is responsible for “the loudness war” and in almost every case is anything but natural and pure sounding.

5.Why could it not be cut ‘all analogue’?

The biggest variable when cutting from tape is the replay machine. Every individual roller in the tape’s path will have a direct effect on the quality of the audio emanating from the machine. In addition to this, there is the issue of the sub 30Hz low-frequency roll off on an advance head disc-cutting tape machine which in effect will come into play at 60 Hz when running at half speed. In addition to this, there are also some unpredictable frequency anomalies in the 35-38 Hz region with analogue tape that will double up at half speed. These are all problems if you want to hear as originally intended the lowest register of the bass end on a recording. There is also the lesser potential problem of tape weave that effectively increases at lower speeds and leads to less high frequency stability and the possibility of minor azimuth errors. Even if these problems could be overcome, the source tapes for this album are held in an archive in America. The days of shipping precious analogue masters over the Atlantic are long gone. Even if Universal were to break their internal no overseas shipping rule, it would be close to impossible to get insurance cover for the tapes. Also analogue tape becomes degraded with each pass over the replay heads. These tapes are getting old and it is no longer considered good practise to play and play and play precious old original masters for fear of wearing them out. I can completely understand the reasons for the concerns that some people have when cutting classic albums from digital sources. Historically, there have been some horrible digital transfers used as a vinyl cutting source. This has absolutely not been the case with this series. Micro-management of the audio and attention to detail has been the order of the day.

6.Are there any advantages to this working method?

Yes, any problems with the tape can be treated far more accurately digitally than they could be by using traditional analogue techniques. For example de-essing. I can, by clever editing, target just the offending “sss” and leave intact the rest of the audio. Therefore high-hats, bright guitars and snare drums are not affected or reduced in impact. Using an analogue scatter-gun de-esser approach would also trigger the limiter in many parts of the audio that do not need to be worked on. The de-esser cannot tell a bright guitar from bright vocal and will smooth everything out leading to dull guitars or soft snare drums and weak hi-hats. Targeting the “sss” sounds in the vocal as I have done in this series is time consuming but is worthwhile in the pursuit of the very best possible sounding record. Also if there was any damage to the analogue tape (drop-outs and clicks for example) this can by and large be restored using modern digital methods in a way that is unobtrusive and this would be impossible using analogue methods. For the record, none of the albums in this series have been de-noised. Only clicks and drop-outs have been repaired.

Miles Showell – Mastering Engineer, Abbey Road Studios"
[shop.abbeyroad.com]


Note: Considering this (no digital limiting applied), it's possible the digital master provided was the one found on the Exile blu-ray which is actually the same as the one on the Japanese SACD - and not the dreadful 2010 "dynamically squeezed" remaster...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-03-01 01:18 by kowalski.

I am 64 years old, to my old ears both the SACD and Bluray Audio editions sound good, no need to spend $50.00 for another new attempt!

Kowalski, that was a fascinating post! Thanks so much. I ordered it and will compare it with the other two three vinyl versions I have. I know it will surely beat the recent deluxe pressing. I am curious of the sound difference between this half-master when compared to my British 72 pressing and my 1980's Japanese pressing (my favorite out of all the Exiles on the street).

Quote
whitem8
Kowalski, that was a fascinating post! Thanks so much. I ordered it and will compare it with the other two three vinyl versions I have. I know it will surely beat the recent deluxe pressing. I am curious of the sound difference between this half-master when compared to my British 72 pressing and my 1980's Japanese pressing (my favorite out of all the Exiles on the street).

Note that we don't know exactly what digital source was used. There is the Stephen Marcussen remastered version (the one found on the last vinyl reissue - from 2010) and there is the flat transfer found on the Japanese SACD and the audio blu-ray.

If they really used the flat transfer from the original tapes it could become one of the best ever version on vinyl...

I received the UMG Mail as well this morning. 44€. I can take the risk
If I remember I already have 3 vinyl versions.
Sure the Shm cd releases are excellent. I made some tests with many Sabbath releases as well as Stones ones. Each time the cd source is better. Although you have to compare with a turntable and CD player or streamer which are not equal ! This is the issue.

"we know it's a bit late but we hope you don't mind if we stay"

Chance to win it here

A video to watch is interesting but to save you time the answer to the question you have to supply is All genres.

Here is the link:

[zaphod.uk.vvhp.net]

I guess it'll be a very limited pressing .... So take Howard Tate's advice and get it while you can



ROCKMAN

Hello Stones Fans,

Baudelaire needs some help. I have the Japanese version of this album ESS 50050 and it sounds absolutely fantastic! I have a few copies of the USA pressings in addition to the 2010 box and the 2001 Virgin reissue. I pre-ordered the MFSL version this morning. Am I good enough with the Japanese pressing? Are there folks like me out there who don't feel confident about this new release? I mean, it sounds like it could be fantastic and I have the MFSL of "Some Girls" and "SF". I am 47 years old so are my ears shot too old to appreciate this new release? My turntable is a Technics and it's pretty good (not a $1000 or more state of the art machine) and I have a very good receiver. My speakers could be bettered, but I have some great headphones and the Jap version sounds great on the headphones.

What to do? Spend the $60 anyway? It's supposed to be very limited and I already collect tons of Stones records. I'm thinking that I'll just get it anyway. It is my second favorite rock album of all time anyways after "Pet Sounds" and that album hasn't received the MFSL treatment. Rockman, tell me what to do!

Charles Baudelaire
1821-1867



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-03-02 05:53 by charlesbaudelaire.

For those who want to compare the sound quality of the new 1/2-speed-master Vinyl: SHM-SACD and Pure Audio Blu-ray.

Quote
Irix
For those who want to compare the sound quality of the new 1/2-speed-master Vinyl: SHM-SACD and Pure Audio Blu-ray.

To be able to hear the difference you would need a DAC that can play DSD stream and high resolution PCM stream. Don't play those on a PC basic soundcard.
Also the blu-ray and the SACD share the same source (the flat transfer) but we don't know yet what was used for the new vinyl.