This is one of the benefits for me of BV's wonderful IORR as we get the real deal from honest Stones fans who tell it like it is warts and all . It doesn't mean we don't love the Stones it's just that everyone is keeping it real and telling the truth and for that I Thank everyone for there due diligence !

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
GerardHennessy

Quote
StonedRambler
As already mentioned, the main problem with the sound is that the high frequency content above 10k is mostly cut off.
Therefore if the record sounds okay to you or not may depend on your hearing. If you still hear a lot above 10k it will certainly bother you, if you don't you can't notice it of course. The same is the case with VL Uncut. I'm concined that there was a technical issue somewhere in the mixing or mastering chain that has to do with sampling rate. It really sounds like at one point it was downsampled to a sample rate below 44.1Khz. Which cuts of all the high frequencies above half of the sampling rate. Its most obvious on Micks vocals since Mick's voice contains a lot of overtones and on the cymbals and high percussion elements.
I'm sure the actual mix isn't that bad and kind of similar to Salt Lake if it didn't have that technical problem.

So - if you don't here it for the reasons above - please accept that the problem exists. Thanks.
Saying it isn't there only because you don't hear it is like getting a low resolution blue ray and stating it has "excellent picture quality" only because your eyes aren't good anymore to see the pixels.
I understand this is a highly personal topic and nobody likes to admit to themselves that they can't hear a lot of high frequencies anymore.

Now, if you find the guitars to quiet or the keyboards too loud that is more a matter of taste and while I also agree with that it has nothing to do with the technical problem on this release.

I don't hear all the imperfections you hear because I don't sit right in front of the speakers with some sort of technical device measuring all kinds of stuff. I actually listen to the music mate. I'm not listening out for some imperfection. And its a LIVE event. Of course it has imperfections.

You are making all kinds of subjective - not to mention impertinent - statements about the hearing and eyesight of a whole lot of people you have never even met. There is a kind of fascism in statements like 'your eyes are not good anymore to see the pixels' as well as 'no one likes to admit to themselves that they can't hear a lot of high frequencies anymore' That's incredibly intrusive, subjective, judgemental and condescending.

Stop trying to establish some kind of international standard for being allowed to listen to live concert recordings by The Stones. Otherwise I can see something like the following stickered on all future live releases. 'Not for sale to anyone whose ears cannot hear a sufficient number of high frequencies...'

Now I'm gonna go back and play my CD again before the Listening Police come round and take it away because my hearing may not meet the new international standard...

You're obviously incapable of understanding the science regarding sound. And here you are, mentioning fascism. YOU are the one taking offense to something you can not simply grasp.

You don't need to. Just STFU and listen and enjoy it, all of it, whatever IT is, on your own.

Don't comment.

It's really that simple.

Well I guess you have summarised it perfectly sir. The words 'don't comment!' That kind of says it all. Basically us simpletons who are 'obviously incapable of understand the science regarding sound' must sit in wonder and adoration while you lecture us about it all, and basically 'just STFU'
Oh dear. How improper of us!

Unfortunately I'm not a wannabee sound engineer, or owner of a house full of technical equipment to measure things. I'ma sad old git who has been listening to The Stones for 57 years on a whole lot of analogue equipment, and medium wave/AM radios, with appalling reception from distant transmitters. And enjoying every second of it. How dare I continue to enjoy them despite the fact I am 'incapable of understanding' the technical details of sound recording?

Oh yes, one final point. I have taken not one iota of offence, personally, at the condescending comments, insults and unpleasant personal references you have cast in my direction. I am not that fragile and precious. I have, however, summarised how your approach to debate and discussion can make others with different views and different beliefs, feel about themselves. People who have every right to express their opinion also. People who are fully entitled to assess the quality of a live album in any way they like. And people who may use their ears in any way they see fit.

Thank God there are no mandatory hearing tests - yet!! - for listening to recorded music. Or any kind of music. In the meantime I shall write to the actual medical specialists who test my hearing every year - and have explained everything about audio to me - to alert them to the fact they may need to consult you directly about my hearing test in 2022.

They are clearly getting it very wrong indeed!!

@Gerard
The whole point I was trying to make is that you can only judge the sound within your hearing range. And that what what GasLightStreets comment about "science of sound" was about.
Let's say for example your hearing range goes until 10k then you can surley say that it sounds good within the 20hz-10kHz range. But you can NOT know if it still sounds good between 10k and 20k. In this case there is a massive problem in that range that is really obvious and has nothing to do with being an audiophile, it's that dramatic. You have to accept that the problem exists and people who complain about it are not wrong or overly dramatic, just because it's outside of your hearing range. The only way to prove it to you is to show you the curve frequency spectrum, I can't let you hear it unfortunately.

For my part, my hearing goes until 15k. If a young person who still hears higher frequencies than me tells me that a record has sound problems in the 15-20k range I could not judge it. But I would not deny that the problems exist, just because I can't hear it.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2021-07-15 18:39 by StonedRambler.

He don't care; let him wallow in the sty of muddy sound and love it. Probably needs to clean the wax out of his ancient ears but he isn't going to hear that (figuratively and literally) either. You are wasting your (virtual) breath on lumpen prole.

jb

Quote
StonedRambler
@Gerard
The whole point I was trying to make is that you can only judge the sound within your hearing range. And that what what GasLightStreets comment about "science of sound" was about.
Let's say for example your hearing range goes until 10k then you can surley say that it sounds good within the 20hz-10kHz range. But you can NOT know if it still sounds good between 10k and 20k. In this case there is a massive problem in that range that is really obvious and has nothing to do with being an audiophile, it's that dramatic. You have to accept that the problem exists and people who complain about it are not wrong or overly dramatic, just because it's outside of your hearing range. The only way to prove it to you is to show you the curve frequency spectrum, I can't let you hear it unfortunately.

For my part, my hearing goes until 15k. If a young person who still hears higher frequencies than me tells me that a record has sound problems in the 15-20k range I could not judge it. But I would not deny that the problems exist, just because I can't hear it.

We won't argue any further sir. I take your wider point and we will leave it at that. Life is too short and too precious to argue with a fellow Stones fan.

Bottom line for me is that, whatever our respective perspectives on this issue we are both passionate about the band. A band I have loved, worshipped, been infuriated by, frustrated beyond belief by, but yet I'm still in there. Still that 13 year old kid who heard It's All Over Now in 1964 and had his life transformed by it. And is it not great that The Stones can still generate debate, discussion, disagreement and passion amongst their fans.

Long may it, and they continue.

Keep well my friend, keep safe, and keep rocking to The Stones.

Cheers!

Listened to the vinyl today and it doesn’t sound good. Will be sending it back for a refund. Also it sounds like a pretty boring show. Maybe the Blu-Ray doesn’t make it seem like that, but purely just from the audio it’s certainly nothing special.

I remember when they played Hampden Park, Glasgow for the Bigger Bang tour and it was broadcast live for BBC radio. I remember that sounding like a pretty fun show - good banter between Keith and the crowd. Would like to see that get an official release someday.

Still say the super Deluxe set shoulda
come with a free bucket of sand from Copacabana Beach .....



ROCKMAN

Somebody on Steve Hoffman's music forum
____
My DVD appears to have issues. No visible scratches on it but it struggles 1/3 of the way into the show and can't play anything from "Rambler" to "Sympathy."
____
DVD from Deluxe box.

I'm a budding audiophile. Actually, I'm more than OK at it.
I've been able to build hi-fi systems at different prices points with good to excellent results.
I'm a headphone aficionado. My collection is diverse. It ranges from basic to esoteric.
I spent over 30 years in retail consumer electronics. I've sold $50,000 home systems.
I painstakingly research a purchase.
I've seen the Rolling Stones over 45 times.
I've collected audience and soundboard bootlegs since 1981.
I've listened to every Stones show made available on IORR
I've been to an audiologist to preserve my hearing.
I'd like to consider myself an amateur expert on the subject.
In my opinion, the MIX chosen for the Copacabana show is subpar. The opening number JJF, starts off with the iconic riff. In under 30 seconds, Keith and Ronnie virtually disappear, with their guitars lower in the mix. The vocals are prominent, with Chuck plinking away, overtop the guitars. I've listened to this release on Tidal in MQA, and it's marginally better at bringing out the guitars. I've played the DVD's thru an SMSL budget DAC on my Edifier HiRes certified active speakers. I've played the audio from my CD player thru my computer, through a Dragonfly Red DAC on my HiRes IEM's.
Here's the thing- I want to LIKE this Copa release. I've tried everything I know how to do, to improve the sound on it. Other than the MQA release on Tidal (which is only marginally better, not outstanding) it is unlistenable to me. I've put the CD's and DVD back in the box set they came in. The SLC DVD, on the other hand, is taking up residence in my blu-ray player and is seeing lots of use. I've gotten a 48KHZ hi-res audio rip that is on my phone and on my computer. The quality of this mix is like comparing AM radio to front row seat at the Stones mixing desk.
The guitars are up front, in the mix. You can hear Ronnie and Keith SCRAPING the strings, you can hear the licks, riffs and make out that ancient form of weaving Keith and Ronnie both speak about. They trade these licks and riffs back and forth. Ronnie or Keith gives a fill for each other. Listening to music is not a zero sum game. The vocals, background instruments and similar don't suffer from this guitar mix. In fact, just the opposite. during You Got Me Rocking and She's So Cold, I could feel that crackling energy I feel when I'm at the show.
The fact that the Copa mix is sonically sub-par, when compared to the SLC bonus, should not diminish anyone's enjoyment of the Copa recording. I still listen to good audience recordings. If some of you out there find it "fine" or you're enjoying the experience? Great..

Thank you dennycranium, I was second guessing myself a little since my hearing has suffered around 50 years of loud Rock And Roll. Oddly I can still make out some nuances here and there with constant ringing in the ears. Anyhow, want to say again no offense to people that are satisfied with the discs. Rock on!

Quote
frankotero
Thank you dennycranium, I was second guessing myself a little since my hearing has suffered around 50 years of loud Rock And Roll. Oddly I can still make out some nuances here and there with constant ringing in the ears. Anyhow, want to say again no offense to people that are satisfied with the discs. Rock on!

No worries!

Just bought the RSD Rain Fall Down -Copacabana single. Sounds like it’s ripped from a vhs video. I’ve read all the IORR reviews, but didn’t expect it really to sound THIS bad.

Quote
padre69
Just bought the RSD Rain Fall Down -Copacabana single. Sounds like it’s ripped from a vhs video. I’ve read all the IORR reviews, but didn’t expect it really to sound THIS bad.

Did you actually open and play that single?

This is a crime against collector's community! This is a sin! You should go to church this Sunday. And send 10 dollars to the Church of the Sacred Bleeding Heart of Jesus, located somewhere in Los Angeles, California.

Quote
ironbelly

Quote
padre69
Just bought the RSD Rain Fall Down -Copacabana single. Sounds like it’s ripped from a vhs video. I’ve read all the IORR reviews, but didn’t expect it really to sound THIS bad.

Did you actually open and play that single?

This is a crime against collector's community! This is a sin! You should go to church this Sunday. And send 10 dollars to the Church of the Sacred Bleeding Heart of Jesus, located somewhere in Los Angeles, California.

AND run all the red lights, in his honor...

[www.youtube.com]

This is pretty cool. Is the whole show available or just this song?

The Salt Lake City show's included in the deluxe edition of "A Bigger Bang Live On Copacabana Beach"

[iorr.org]

see here: [iorr.org]

Thanks for the info!

There is something wrong with his solos. I don't know whether they are off-key or off-pace or both at the same time...

The studio version is amongst Keith's worst imo, and watching/hearing it live doesn't really improve it at all.
Funny to see Keith kick at an imaginary object at the 50 second mark though...he would usually only do that if he was actually playing something.
In this case, seems an involuntary reaction to something in the air........

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
Hairball
The studio version is amongst Keith's worst imo, and watching/hearing it live doesn't really improve it at all.

I reaaly like the ABB version but they should have re-arranged completely the tune for live interpretations.
Obviously a guitar-based arrangement doesn't work live (Keef can't "hold" the song by himself) so they should have asked Chuck to play fat funky Hammond B-3 licks on that one.
Maybe on the next tour?

Quote
Stoneage
There is something wrong with his solos. I don't know whether they are off-key or off-pace or both at the same time...

Yes it sounds off, the songs goes in A/F#m but he plays the solo in a position he would use in a song in D/B#m, the single tones do work but it feels like he thinks the song goes in D.

I think the problem is that he mistakenly starts playing the solo for Slipping Away, which was the other song he played that night. Woody’s visible bemusement when Keith starts soloing is pretty funny and sort of confirms this. Also, I think he might have flipped the order of the two songs in the set because he plays Infamy with the guitar usually used for Slipping Away. Maybe that’s what unconsciously nudged him to start playing the Slipping Away solo. It’s a nice gig but Keith is a bit unfocused here and there.

dear TURBO, it sounds like a good guess !
It is quite strange that this "unstable version" is officially released.

This has got to be the weirdest riff Keith come up with

Its a dreadful song but actually I think I like this version better than the album version. I think his solo is OK - it is in the right key I think, and its sort of the standard solo he plays on every song these days...

Horrible

It inspires me to create a "Let's Work vs. Infamy" thread.

A mashup from Let’s Work and Infamy!