Quote
jbwelda
>Gotcha! What about LPs, are they now brickwalled too?

I used to think they just used the cd masters to master vinyl at most major labels but I think I was wrong about that or maybe it depends. These Stones releases have been touting the LPs are mastered from tapes specifically made for the vinyl master, and I have heard other record companies follow this rule at least when they can.



>And if so, maybe it is best to stick with older or original pressings as >opposed to modern "reprints" or "repressings" or "remixes"?

Thats always the best bet but of course now you have to look for clean older pressings. But if you already have them, many will tell you you have the best you can get. I always had problems with commercial pressings back then but at least they are not overdriven like these days (with digital media).


>And up to what year are you safe, that is "pre-brickwall"?

Well that really depends on a lot of things, some companies realized the error of their ways and have started trying to reduce the levels and compression on their releases. Its a case by case basis pretty much; others here can tell you way more about specific stuff than I probably could.


>What about the 2002 Abkco SACD releases, were they brickwalled? What about >these new CD "SHN" discs, which are supposed to be so godlike?

Good questions I will leave to the experts. I always get confused trying to keep that stuff straight.

jb

An LP is an album, not a format. It was originally a format, due to the speed the disc could have more songs on it than an EP, but it's evolved to equivilate an album (same for "record"). A 10 track compact disc or 10 track download is an LP or record as well.


Can vinyl be brickwalled? Only if the source is and the print isn't - because a vinyl album mastered too loud can not play. A squashed signal is a squashed signal - for digital it can be cranked up as loud as possible, volume be damned.

Can't do that for vinyl - it has a volume limit directly via the needle. So technically, yes, a vinyl album can be brickwalled but it will still play.


Part of the reason the reinvention of mastering occurred because of and for the CD format was, partially, what Bob Ludwig did for the Virgin remasters: there was headroom discovered regarding the signal, therefor the music could be louder.

More importantly, taking a vinyl master and making it the CD master doesn't sound like the vinyl result, it sounds like a bad copy. So, what I can recall from reading about this way back then, after Ludwig had remastered a bunch of albums and they had a listen, Mick noticed some things were flat. So they figured out what it was and listened to STICKY FINGERS and EXILE, especially, for the bass and the horns, where they sat in the mixes, to figure out how to get the CDs to sound like the original vinyl releases.

Whether they did is subjective - how can one truly know if it sounds the same? It's not possible.

But it's possible to get it to sound just as good for the different format. I, for one, think they did that. Those Virgin remasters sound excellent - and what Ludwig did for the ABKCO 2002 remasters is just as excellent.


In regard to the pre-brickwall sound, it's a bit hazy. I've never noticed a big difference in sound levels from CDs in 1988 and 1989 to 1992 through 1993 (although the quality of sound from a new album in 1988 vs a 1970s album out on CD in 1986 does sound different). The mix aside, the sound (volume) difference is noticed, saying 'not a big difference' - there is a difference but it's not out of whack compared to something between 1994 and 2004.

So basically, if you want Stones CDs that aren't brickwalled, the Columbia/CBS/Sony editions (all with the white spine and red print) are the vinyl masters to CD and they sound just fine, really, and then there's the Virgin remasters.

To my knowledge none of the ABKCO releases are brickwalled. I don't know anything about the SACD or SHN releases and their mastering quality. One would think they wouldn't be brickwalled since it's about quality.


In general regarding any artist release, pretty much anything pre-1994 or so should not be brickwalled. Louder, yes, but not slammed. That didn't happen until the mid-late 1990s - and based on some albums I have, not everything was being slammed. A few years later it seems everything was being slammed, even country music.


Streaming services have ended the loudness wars since everything is at the same level. If Metallica releases a new album and the mastering dude cranked it to the moon it won't work on Spotify etc because it will just be a mess - it will have to be mastered at a reasonable volume.


Alain Jourgensen (from the band Ministry) purposely mastered his albums to be as loud as possible because he wanted the Ministry albums to sound industrial.

[www.amazon.com]

They list

Track 11 & 12 (feat. Jimmy Page)

Quote
exilestones

Great pic!
Btw... have you noticed the marks (more like craters) on Keef's arm?

Don't know if you ever got an answer to this...

Japanese and U.S. blu rays are the same region code so they will play on a U.S. player. Sometimes extras are formatted in the DVD standard, but that's OK in the case of Japan since they also use the NTSC standard.

I have a number of blu rays purchased directly from CDJapan and they all play fine on a standard U.S. blu ray player.

Duck

Quote
HTD
Don't know if you ever got an answer to this...

Japanese and U.S. blu rays are the same region code so they will play on a U.S. player. Sometimes extras are formatted in the DVD standard, but that's OK in the case of Japan since they also use the NTSC standard.

I have a number of blu rays purchased directly from CDJapan and they all play fine on a standard U.S. blu ray player.

Duck

Thanks

I took screenshots from the video announcing "Scarlet" but not sure how to post them here. You can see what I'm talking about at (0:54) and (1:03) in the video. There are two studio log pictures shown:

The first one is from Village Recorders Studio on February 2nd, 1973. Number of tracks recorded is 16. Engineers: Baker Bigsby & Andy Johns. The tracks shown are:

- You Should Have Seen Her Ass
- Starf*cker
- Doo Doo Doo Doo Doo
- Through The Lonely Hours

The second one is from May 1973. Producer: Jimmy Miller. It says "Goats Head Soup Tracks." The tracks shown are:

- She's Got You By The Balls [Short and Curlies from IT'S ONLY ROCK 'N ROLL]
- Hide Your Love
- Starf*cker
- Silver Train
- Angie (Dolby TK 2 - Not Master)
- Angie (No Dolby)

I call it an LP if it is on vinyl, same with an EP.

I call it a CD if it is on one of those shiny little disks, even an EP.

I call it nothingness if it is a download, a few bits that will get lost in the next computer crash or cloud dissipation.

Maybe I should put a key to my vocabulary in my .sig

jb

Quote
jbwelda
I call it an LP if it is on vinyl, same with an EP.

I call it a CD if it is on one of those shiny little disks, even an EP.

I call it nothingness if it is a download, a few bits that will get lost in the next computer crash or cloud dissipation.

Maybe I should put a key to my vocabulary in my .sig

jb

Well, ha ha, that's fine - but when a magazine or site does an article on someone having a new LP coming out no one should assume that it means a vinyl record, it just means an album.

Those shitty little discs sound great, better than vinyl. If I wanted noise with my listening experience I'll open a window to let someone's mower screw it up.

Got to listen to some music at a record pressing plant in Kansas on very expensive high end equipment. The vinyl record sounded great, and never was it said which was which, the vinyl album or CD album. The issue was how long can vinyl sound that pristine. It can't.

This is great!

Quote
bye bye johnny

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-07-23 03:20 by georgemcdonnell314.

Well my friend I guess we have to agree to disagree...there was a time when CDs had the potential to sound great, but that was cast aside a long time ago for reasons including record companies not wanting pristine copies of their masters out amongst the great unwashed. As for longevity, its just not true CDs last forever and in fact vinyl has proven by far the more durable medium with at least a modicum of care. CDs, on the other hand, have only been around for thirty or so years and in that time there have been numerous reports of degradation, leading to unplayability, along with a disappearance of the hardware to play them on. I, personally, have not had any instances of degradation that I know of, but I do believe the others that it is possible and in fact happening.

And perhaps you misread my post, I did not say "shitty" disks, I said "shiny" disks.

I have actually grown rather fond of the snap crackle and pop that sometimes manifests with vinyl playback. Blame it on 50 years of listening to Jamaican vinyl.

jb

Quote
jbwelda
Well my friend I guess we have to agree to disagree...there was a time when CDs had the potential to sound great, but that was cast aside a long time ago for reasons including record companies not wanting pristine copies of their masters out amongst the great unwashed. As for longevity, its just not true CDs last forever and in fact vinyl has proven by far the more durable medium with at least a modicum of care. CDs, on the other hand, have only been around for thirty or so years and in that time there have been numerous reports of degradation, leading to unplayability, along with a disappearance of the hardware to play them on. I, personally, have not had any instances of degradation that I know of, but I do believe the others that it is possible and in fact happening.

And perhaps you misread my post, I did not say "shitty" disks, I said "shiny" disks.

I have actually grown rather fond of the snap crackle and pop that sometimes manifests with vinyl playback. Blame it on 50 years of listening to Jamaican vinyl.

jb

LOL! I did misread it! My bad! Maybe I saw it somewhere else... can't remember.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
jbwelda
>Gotcha! What about LPs, are they now brickwalled too?

I used to think they just used the cd masters to master vinyl at most major labels but I think I was wrong about that or maybe it depends. These Stones releases have been touting the LPs are mastered from tapes specifically made for the vinyl master, and I have heard other record companies follow this rule at least when they can.



>And if so, maybe it is best to stick with older or original pressings as >opposed to modern "reprints" or "repressings" or "remixes"?

Thats always the best bet but of course now you have to look for clean older pressings. But if you already have them, many will tell you you have the best you can get. I always had problems with commercial pressings back then but at least they are not overdriven like these days (with digital media).


>And up to what year are you safe, that is "pre-brickwall"?

Well that really depends on a lot of things, some companies realized the error of their ways and have started trying to reduce the levels and compression on their releases. Its a case by case basis pretty much; others here can tell you way more about specific stuff than I probably could.


>What about the 2002 Abkco SACD releases, were they brickwalled? What about >these new CD "SHN" discs, which are supposed to be so godlike?

Good questions I will leave to the experts. I always get confused trying to keep that stuff straight.

jb

An LP is an album, not a format. It was originally a format, due to the speed the disc could have more songs on it than an EP, but it's evolved to equivilate an album (same for "record"). A 10 track compact disc or 10 track download is an LP or record as well.


Can vinyl be brickwalled? Only if the source is and the print isn't - because a vinyl album mastered too loud can not play. A squashed signal is a squashed signal - for digital it can be cranked up as loud as possible, volume be damned.

Can't do that for vinyl - it has a volume limit directly via the needle. So technically, yes, a vinyl album can be brickwalled but it will still play.


Part of the reason the reinvention of mastering occurred because of and for the CD format was, partially, what Bob Ludwig did for the Virgin remasters: there was headroom discovered regarding the signal, therefor the music could be louder.

More importantly, taking a vinyl master and making it the CD master doesn't sound like the vinyl result, it sounds like a bad copy. So, what I can recall from reading about this way back then, after Ludwig had remastered a bunch of albums and they had a listen, Mick noticed some things were flat. So they figured out what it was and listened to STICKY FINGERS and EXILE, especially, for the bass and the horns, where they sat in the mixes, to figure out how to get the CDs to sound like the original vinyl releases.

Whether they did is subjective - how can one truly know if it sounds the same? It's not possible.

But it's possible to get it to sound just as good for the different format. I, for one, think they did that. Those Virgin remasters sound excellent - and what Ludwig did for the ABKCO 2002 remasters is just as excellent.


In regard to the pre-brickwall sound, it's a bit hazy. I've never noticed a big difference in sound levels from CDs in 1988 and 1989 to 1992 through 1993 (although the quality of sound from a new album in 1988 vs a 1970s album out on CD in 1986 does sound different). The mix aside, the sound (volume) difference is noticed, saying 'not a big difference' - there is a difference but it's not out of whack compared to something between 1994 and 2004.

So basically, if you want Stones CDs that aren't brickwalled, the Columbia/CBS/Sony editions (all with the white spine and red print) are the vinyl masters to CD and they sound just fine, really, and then there's the Virgin remasters.

To my knowledge none of the ABKCO releases are brickwalled. I don't know anything about the SACD or SHN releases and their mastering quality. One would think they wouldn't be brickwalled since it's about quality.


In general regarding any artist release, pretty much anything pre-1994 or so should not be brickwalled. Louder, yes, but not slammed. That didn't happen until the mid-late 1990s - and based on some albums I have, not everything was being slammed. A few years later it seems everything was being slammed, even country music.


Streaming services have ended the loudness wars since everything is at the same level. If Metallica releases a new album and the mastering dude cranked it to the moon it won't work on Spotify etc because it will just be a mess - it will have to be mastered at a reasonable volume.


Alain Jourgensen (from the band Ministry) purposely mastered his albums to be as loud as possible because he wanted the Ministry albums to sound industrial.

That post took quite a bit of time and work to put together, thank you. How did you come by your knowledge? I think I'll start buying up the CBS editions and for Abkco releases, I'll stick with continuing to acquire the rest of the hybrid SACD 2002 releases. But I need to read up on SHM. I believe I've heard that they are metal or steel rather than plastic and I guess will last longer but don't know about how the quality of the sound compares to other types of media (trying not to make a mistake in my terminology). I do know they are expensive.


plexi



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-07-23 11:39 by timbernardis.

Quote
timbernardis

But I need to read up on SHN.

Is this a typo? Do you mean the Japanese SHM-CDs/SACDs?

Quote
Irix

Quote
timbernardis

But I need to read up on SHN.

Is this a typo? Do you mean the Japanese SHM-CDs/SACDs?

Yes. Glad u caught that. I will correct it in a minute. Thanks.


plexi

Quote
timbernardis

But I need to read up on SHM.

A description of the SHM/UHQ-Material can be found here: [www.CDJapan.co.jp] , [Forums.SteveHoffman.tv] . They're basically still plastic (no metal/steel).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-07-23 12:00 by Irix.

Irix -- I asked a related question of u in the SHM thread.


plexi

Good night, it's 3 am here in Montana. Will check these two threads tomorrow.


plexi

Quote
timbernardis

That post took quite a bit of time and work to put together, thank you. How did you come by your knowledge? I think I'll start buying up the CBS editions and for Abkco releases, I'll stick with continuing to acquire the rest of the hybrid SACD 2002 releases. But I need to read up on SHM. I believe I've heard that they are metal or steel rather than plastic and I guess will last longer but don't know about how the quality of the sound compares to other types of media (trying not to make a mistake in my terminology). I do know they are expensive.


plexi

SHM is just different plastic with better properties that allow lower read errors during playback. Because pits are better shaped, optical properties are better etc. errors correction mechanism of your player is on less frequently and the sound supposed to be less distorted comparing CDs pressed using regular polycarbonate. The technology of production is no different comparing to regular CD. Just different material.

On the other hand you have mastering. If somebody brickwalled sound to DR6 - nothing will help. As I said on the other thread old Japanese Tattoo You [CP35-3032] with black triangle label made in 1983 still sounds much better comparing to Japanese SHM-CD Tattoo You produced from Marcussen 2009 remaster.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-07-23 13:33 by ironbelly.

Quote
timbernardis

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
jbwelda
>Gotcha! What about LPs, are they now brickwalled too?

I used to think they just used the cd masters to master vinyl at most major labels but I think I was wrong about that or maybe it depends. These Stones releases have been touting the LPs are mastered from tapes specifically made for the vinyl master, and I have heard other record companies follow this rule at least when they can.



>And if so, maybe it is best to stick with older or original pressings as >opposed to modern "reprints" or "repressings" or "remixes"?

Thats always the best bet but of course now you have to look for clean older pressings. But if you already have them, many will tell you you have the best you can get. I always had problems with commercial pressings back then but at least they are not overdriven like these days (with digital media).


>And up to what year are you safe, that is "pre-brickwall"?

Well that really depends on a lot of things, some companies realized the error of their ways and have started trying to reduce the levels and compression on their releases. Its a case by case basis pretty much; others here can tell you way more about specific stuff than I probably could.


>What about the 2002 Abkco SACD releases, were they brickwalled? What about >these new CD "SHN" discs, which are supposed to be so godlike?

Good questions I will leave to the experts. I always get confused trying to keep that stuff straight.

jb

An LP is an album, not a format. It was originally a format, due to the speed the disc could have more songs on it than an EP, but it's evolved to equivilate an album (same for "record"). A 10 track compact disc or 10 track download is an LP or record as well.


Can vinyl be brickwalled? Only if the source is and the print isn't - because a vinyl album mastered too loud can not play. A squashed signal is a squashed signal - for digital it can be cranked up as loud as possible, volume be damned.

Can't do that for vinyl - it has a volume limit directly via the needle. So technically, yes, a vinyl album can be brickwalled but it will still play.


Part of the reason the reinvention of mastering occurred because of and for the CD format was, partially, what Bob Ludwig did for the Virgin remasters: there was headroom discovered regarding the signal, therefor the music could be louder.

More importantly, taking a vinyl master and making it the CD master doesn't sound like the vinyl result, it sounds like a bad copy. So, what I can recall from reading about this way back then, after Ludwig had remastered a bunch of albums and they had a listen, Mick noticed some things were flat. So they figured out what it was and listened to STICKY FINGERS and EXILE, especially, for the bass and the horns, where they sat in the mixes, to figure out how to get the CDs to sound like the original vinyl releases.

Whether they did is subjective - how can one truly know if it sounds the same? It's not possible.

But it's possible to get it to sound just as good for the different format. I, for one, think they did that. Those Virgin remasters sound excellent - and what Ludwig did for the ABKCO 2002 remasters is just as excellent.


In regard to the pre-brickwall sound, it's a bit hazy. I've never noticed a big difference in sound levels from CDs in 1988 and 1989 to 1992 through 1993 (although the quality of sound from a new album in 1988 vs a 1970s album out on CD in 1986 does sound different). The mix aside, the sound (volume) difference is noticed, saying 'not a big difference' - there is a difference but it's not out of whack compared to something between 1994 and 2004.

So basically, if you want Stones CDs that aren't brickwalled, the Columbia/CBS/Sony editions (all with the white spine and red print) are the vinyl masters to CD and they sound just fine, really, and then there's the Virgin remasters.

To my knowledge none of the ABKCO releases are brickwalled. I don't know anything about the SACD or SHN releases and their mastering quality. One would think they wouldn't be brickwalled since it's about quality.


In general regarding any artist release, pretty much anything pre-1994 or so should not be brickwalled. Louder, yes, but not slammed. That didn't happen until the mid-late 1990s - and based on some albums I have, not everything was being slammed. A few years later it seems everything was being slammed, even country music.


Streaming services have ended the loudness wars since everything is at the same level. If Metallica releases a new album and the mastering dude cranked it to the moon it won't work on Spotify etc because it will just be a mess - it will have to be mastered at a reasonable volume.


Alain Jourgensen (from the band Ministry) purposely mastered his albums to be as loud as possible because he wanted the Ministry albums to sound industrial.

That post took quite a bit of time and work to put together, thank you. How did you come by your knowledge? I think I'll start buying up the CBS editions and for Abkco releases, I'll stick with continuing to acquire the rest of the hybrid SACD 2002 releases.

plexi

I studied audio engineering in college, although I didn't finish for a degree - and had some, let's say, being a musician issues over being technically inclined. But I learned some things, one of them being how to edit with tape, which in some aspects tweaked my "listening experience" because I started to notice where things were edited when done just OK or obviously poorly (some things I'll never un-hear: the hack job edit of Everything Is Turning To Gold and Brown Sugar on LOVE YOU LIVE and of course Rocks Off from LIVE LICKS is so bad a 3000 year old fossil could hear how poorly it was done or maybe weirder things, like how the live Black Limousine from the LARS single is extremely different from the BRIXTON show that it's from), and have always been interested in various aspects of music oriented technology, recording wise and live (there was a magazine, I think it was Popular Science, that had a fantastic geeky article on U2's THE JOSHUA TREE tour in 2017, as far as I recall, and all that went into the stage that I found quite fascinating). Back when the digital technology was evolving I had quite an interest in finding out various details - Tower Records was a wonder for scouring trade mags for various things, which is how I found out about Bob Ludwig and Mick Jagger with the Virgin remasters.

There was also some mag about recording and there was a feature on the making of VOODOO LOUNGE that was pretty interesting.

Weirdly enough I learned how to be in an extremely loud environment and how to minimize hearing damage by studying the science of acoustics. I got a db reader to use for a month and would step in front of fire engines to record how loud their sirens were and would set it to read the rumbling of a building - fascinating stuff for an audio geek about every day things in life that most people don't pay any mind to because life is so 'turn the key, put in gear, step on pedal and go' oriented.

It's waned in the past few years with the world of distribution changing so drastically and often (as well as my life going through massive upheaval, which has really surprised me and screwed me up) and not having the rather nice audio gear I used to have (speakers, amp, "Super Doppler 6000" kind of CD player, etc - the home stereo) and has been more focused strictly on recording, editing and mixing.

Recording in various studios with Pro Tools and editing and mixing has also brought an awareness to things that is quite entertaining in some aspects - most people say 'Yeah that sounds good but now it can be done in a bedroom' and have absolutely no idea what it takes to get it to sound that way.

I've used ear buds to listen to music and it's horrible, I don't know how people can do it for hours on end, especially when jogging etc.

By no means am I "an expert", as people love to go on about this year, but I guess I have some, dare I use the term, expertise, in various aspects of music. And with that is being open to learning new things - because otherwise how can one get to wear they are to begin with?

Maybe one day I'll get the SMH-CDs or whatever, ha ha, I can't remember at the moment, and enjoy the sonic quality of that format. Until then I'm mostly relying on a pretty good set of headphones for WAV files and mp3s and, hilariously, listening to CDs on my blown out speakers in my truck!

because the Brussels Affair vinyl and cd are not sold separately, only together with the boxes

Quote
mick64

because the Brussels Affair vinyl and cd are not sold separately, only together with the boxes

Yes, Brussels Affair is only available as part of the 3CD+BR or 4LP. Or as Download - [iorr.org] .

Someone knows why this song it's not on GHS reissue??!!!
One of the best outtakes ever...
[youtu.be]

Well, to start with, Living In The Heart of Love belongs to the IORR sessions.

Quote
Erik_Snow
Well, to start with, Living In The Heart of Love belongs to the IORR sessions.

...1974, just like Scarlet.
I don’t think they follow exactly the years of the sessions!!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-07-24 10:41 by KRiffhard.

You could always file an official complaint

I’m sorry but this was such a wasted opportunity. And lazy. The bonus tracks on this are laughable. Only three real genuine interesting ones, the rest instrumentals!? Really? I want to hear Mick sing? And then the rest are just different mixes of songs that are already on the album? I’m sorry this is lame and whoever is the curator should be fired. And I blame Mick too because he’s lazy and does not like to look at the past and research this shit. Scarlet? That goes on it’s only rock ‘n’ roll which deserves a release of its own. Brussels I already have on vinyl and a digital copy and a box set. They could’ve at least picked a different show from the tour! Again this is just lazy and a cash grab.

A cash grab? Imagine that. Yeah, fire Mick!

We haven't even heard it yet, and the pitchforks and torches are out already.

jb

I don’t need to hear instrumental versions to know that they’re going to be instrumental! It’s lame I have tons of bootleg material from those sessions that would be way more interesting. Why not put on the original version of waiting for a friend and tops? And you should have seen her ass?

Ahhhh ya get the same shit everytime
The Stones release something ....

Wish Stones would do a blues album ....
But then when they do BlueLonsome... AAAhhhh its all covers .... Duh!!!



ROCKMAN