Quote
lapaz62

Quote
The Sicilian

Quote
Captainchaos

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

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

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

Brussels is overrated, no, Exhile is overrated.

I thiNK Brussells sounds great too - but it is the Stones in '73. This was a totally different sound. Different PAs by then. Keith was not the low end-y sound anymore, but a releatively harsh Tele. Taylor is WAY more to the forefront with that equally sharp Slide Les Paul sound. Charlie played differently. The crowd is in another place.

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

At least I'm not the only one... I always found the sound muffled as well but back in the 70s when I bought my first copy I had cheap equipment and didn't notice that much of a difference compared to other recordings. Nowadays I'm using better equipment and the sound is bad, no matter how good the instruments are seperated. It's like listening through a thick velvet curtain. Like listening to a 5th generation tape with Dolby switched on. And yes, the bonus CD/Vinyl is much (!!) better.
For the guitar-work I prefer Ya-Ya's but for the sonic experience it's Brussels.

Quote
Winning Ugly VXII

Quote
georgie48

Quote
slewan

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

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

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

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

You are right. I discovered some of those Japanese ones many years later. I trust you on the (some) German ones, but I am happy with my sacd collection. Frankly, I often listen in my car and there one tends to take "sound quality" for what it is. Enjoyment is what really matters, right?

I like the way it sounds; warts and all; at least the versions I've had. I like the fact that it was just 8 tracks at most wasn't it? I mean they fixed it a little here and there but they were not spreading out 24 or 48 tracks and doing endless tiny digital increments and compressing everything; it's pretty much right there. Love the scene in GS where they are mixing it on what was state of the art (and stil may be haha!!) and how primitive it all looked; huge knobs for each track; it might have even been four track; i haven't looked in at it in a while...anyway when it came out I didn't have any sonic issues with it at all; it seemed to cut right through everywhere it needed to. It was like a technicolor version of my Liver Than You'll Ever Be vinyl boot, one of the artificats I still have from those long ago years.
I've been listening to this version for a bit; it seems it could add a little eq here or there but it seems to work find for me. It confused me how many different versions and re-masters have been put out and what might have been great or what versions might habe squleched some important vitality. is there pretty much one, or maybe two versions that most fans agree are the ace releases of this album? I never notived poor sonic quality at the beginning when I saw the movie and rushed to buy the album.

Not sure just when I came across this compilation but it has been a stalwart friend.
[www.youtube.com]
"Sympathy For The Devil (Live From Madison Square Garden, New York/1969)" by The Rolling Stones
Get All Your Ya Ya's Out

listening now; once again this version of sftd is just over the top brilliant guitars. i love this stuff. this is damn near perfect track to track just brilliant and fine wonderful stuff.
I can hear every Charlie nuance right up front; this is the good stuff!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-23 23:35 by hopkins.

To my ears from when I was a kid and had this on vinyl the sound was always fine and clear and you could hear all 5 Stones clear as a bell .There are far worse live recordings and some newer than Ya -Ya's

I think it is fine. Yes, a bit muddy, but fits. I particularly like the Deluxe vinyl remaster, and my Japanese import from the 80s is superb!

For over 40 years through countless issues, reissues, and presentations, I have always felt that while great performances, the Ya Yas trax were missing much of the high-end crispiness of the subsequent live releases such as LYL, WTWCD from Sucking in the 70s, Still Life, Flashpoint, and on after. It's not quite as bad as "Dolby-B", but it evokes some memories of that horrible affectation.

I also have always felt that one of the reasons that so many of us love the Brussels recordings is that not only are the performances capturing the Stones at an incredible peak performance (different, but equal to Ya Yas), but here, from BedSpring Symphony forward, one has been able to hear the high-end stuff.

This is not to bash Ya Yas, so keep your flame-throwers in your holsters. Instead, it is to observe that the recording is unique in the Stones' quiver of live-released output to where it stands alone insofar not only for the band's amazing performance(s), but for the method of capture.

At least that's how I see it .....

stonesstein

Kick me like you did before
I can't even feel the pain no more
Rocks Off, 1972

Quote
The Sicilian

Quote
Captainchaos

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

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

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

Umm. clearly you have no taste. I assume you like bon joki and that ilk.

Ya Yas was the first live album I ever heard and so for me I thought everything about it, including the sound was fantastic. Of course, I had nothing to compare it to, but it obviously remains an iconic album. True, later live albums would be a bit crisper but it's hard to beat the performances on Ya Yas.

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

I bought my copy in 1973 from a store that had it in inventory since its release and it kicked ass from the first needle drop..I bought one of the Abkco "remastered digitally from master tapes" LP years later and it did not have half the fidelity of my original and only about 2/3 of the volume..



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-25 21:39 by scottkeef.

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

Decca didn't have anything to do with it, other than releasing the final product. It was recorded by Glyn Johns, and the overdubbing and mixing was handled by Johns, Roy Thomas Baker, and Chris Kimsey, working with the Stones.

Quote
georgie48
Sorry, I disagree with you. When Decca/London released Stones CDs for the first time (in the 80s) several of them had a very poor quality, sharp, noisy sound. Luckily, many years later they remade them in SACD quality.

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

Depends on the CD.

Quote
24FPS
I was surprised by the lack of difference in my earlier Ya Yas CD and the 2002 SACD remasters. There really isn't much of an improvement, while the other 2002 remasters were fantastic.

The original ABKCO CD of Ya-Ya's sounds very similar to the SACD. The London CD sounds quite different, arguably inferior.

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

Are you sure about that? I was under the impression they were unused vintage mixes.

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

Again, it depends. Some of the original ABKCO CDs are still best. And you seem to be confused about the other CDs. There were London/Decca CDs, some of which were mastered by MFSL, which were pressed in Germany. Those were issued with slight tweaking in Japan, where a few more unique titles were eventually released. The London CD of Aftermath is still the best sounding digital stereo version of that album.

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

Depends on the album. Some of the London CDs, Aftermath in particular, are superior. Others, such as Beggars Banquet, are decidedly inferior. Ya-Ya's is one of the titles where the SACD is superior.

<Are you sure about that? I was under the impression they were unused vintage mixes>

It was the other way around. My bad.

The songs on the dvd did sound bad, not the bonus songs on the. cd

Since the deluxe issue with the 5 new songs I wondered why those sound better than the album. Plus I wish they would put the whole thing together and in correct order.

Quote
lukpac

Quote
georgie48

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

Again, it depends. Some of the original ABKCO CDs are still best. And you seem to be confused about the other CDs. There were London/Decca CDs, some of which were mastered by MFSL, which were pressed in Germany. Those were issued with slight tweaking in Japan, where a few more unique titles were eventually released. The London CD of Aftermath is still the best sounding digital stereo version of that album.

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

Depends on the album. Some of the London CDs, Aftermath in particular, are superior. Others, such as Beggars Banquet, are decidedly inferior. Ya-Ya's is one of the titles where the SACD is superior.

Which Abkco CD's are still the best?? We're talking the 1986 CD's,right?? Without any London logo. They all sound poor to me.

GYYYO .... not a huge difference to the 2002 release but I still prefer the 2002 version.

The 2002 "Beggars' Banquet" was a huge improvement however the mix of "Stray Cat Blues" in the studio version was messed up.

I am not confused at all. I just did not have the time to look up the exact catalog numbers.

"AfterMath" London and Abkco logos ;
The Decca Record Company LTD.
London,England
CD is manufactured by PolyGram in Hanover, West Germany
820 050-2
AAD
MCPS
820 050-2
by PolyGram



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-02 14:35 by Winning Ugly VXII.