I was soooo looking forward to this one, especially 'Chantilly Lace' but was majorly disappointed. Only thing that sounded good was Charlie's cymbals - everything else was distant and muddled.

So what is the source of this? Is this a "best attempt" to improve the sound from the video source of the show? That's all I can figure out on this one. Too bad...

I saw The Stones at Slane Castle a few days before the Wembley concert. Same set list. And a very similar sound to that of the Wembley recording. At Slane Castle I was very disappointed indeed by the sound. And would use the very words you use to describe it. Distant & muddled. I'd also add that it was somewhat flat and forced.

This was my 1st Stones show . I was down the front . I remember it been loud !

I saw the Leeds show a month later and I was probably in the sweet spot for sound . It was near perfect , but I remember complaints about the wind affecting it further back


sc uk

It is always better having it in the sound quality as it is than not having it at all!

Maybe I benefit from having an inexpensive Sears turntable and 2nd-hand speakers but I love this release.. Or maybe I’ve listened to so many bootlegs of that tour that this sounds awesome in comparison

Quote
snoopy2
Maybe I benefit from having an inexpensive Sears turntable and 2nd-hand speakers but I love this release.. Or maybe I’ve listened to so many bootlegs of that tour that this sounds awesome in comparison

Nothing wrong with this release at all. And of course it is wonderful to have a recording of the concert. The sound is not awful by any means. It is perfectly audible. If I was selling it as a bootleg, I'd describe it as acceptable. The shortcomings in the sound are not in any way the fault of the recording. It is the sound produced on stage that the audience heard on the day. To me it is somewhat disappointing. A little bit muffled and lumpen. Its not the searing, stinging sound The Stones usually achieve.

It might simply be the limitations of the technology at the time. It might be the poor acoustics of Wembley itself. It might be a whole lot of things we don't know about. For me, the most interesting aspect of it all is that the sound at Wembley reminds me so clearly of the sound at Slane Castle. A totally different setting with none of the acoustic limitations that the old Wembley inflicted on performers. And the weather at Slane was excellent on the day, so it was most certainly not that....

Quote
GerardHennessy
I saw The Stones at Slane Castle a few days before the Wembley concert. Same set list. And a very similar sound to that of the Wembley recording. At Slane Castle I was very disappointed indeed by the sound. And would use the very words you use to describe it. Distant & muddled. I'd also add that it was somewhat flat and forced.

Slane was four weeks after Wembley. Sound was great where I was!

Quote
GerardHennessy

Quote
snoopy2
Maybe I benefit from having an inexpensive Sears turntable and 2nd-hand speakers but I love this release.. Or maybe I’ve listened to so many bootlegs of that tour that this sounds awesome in comparison

Nothing wrong with this release at all. And of course it is wonderful to have a recording of the concert. The sound is not awful by any means. It is perfectly audible. If I was selling it as a bootleg, I'd describe it as acceptable. The shortcomings in the sound are not in any way the fault of the recording. It is the sound produced on stage that the audience heard on the day. To me it is somewhat disappointing. A little bit muffled and lumpen. Its not the searing, stinging sound The Stones usually achieve.

It might simply be the limitations of the technology at the time. It might be the poor acoustics of Wembley itself. It might be a whole lot of things we don't know about. For me, the most interesting aspect of it all is that the sound at Wembley reminds me so clearly of the sound at Slane Castle. A totally different setting with none of the acoustic limitations that the old Wembley inflicted on performers. And the weather at Slane was excellent on the day, so it was most certainly not that....

Actually, that was the sound of the 1982 tour in general, and I've been to 20+ shows... Only the indoor shows in Frankfurt were better balanced & clearer. An austrian TV report described it as the sound of a "student band", well, that was exaggerated imo, but I would say it had a certain "garage" feel - and for me it was great how it was, definitely had a blast...

In case they had multitracks to work with, I see no reason why with all this modern technology a much better sound could not have been achieved, so I think they intentionally tried to recreate the sound as it could be heard by the audience back then - and I'm perfectly ok with that.

Quote
retired_dog

I've been to 20+ shows...

Maybe you could start a thread and tell us about your journey?
Back then you had to be motivated to follow the band across several countries.

"Only the indoor shows in Frankfurt were better balanced & clearer."

Funny, since Festhalle is known to have desastrous sound, at least
the shows I have heard there in the 2000s (non Stones).
On the other side, the 1982 recording tell their own story.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-07-18 16:31 by falo01.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
GerardHennessy
I saw The Stones at Slane Castle a few days before the Wembley concert. Same set list. And a very similar sound to that of the Wembley recording. At Slane Castle I was very disappointed indeed by the sound. And would use the very words you use to describe it. Distant & muddled. I'd also add that it was somewhat flat and forced.

Slane was four weeks after Wembley. Sound was great where I was!

Ahh, the wonders of old age! While I certainly remember the sound at Slane, which WAS disappointing, at least to me, I must stand corrected about the dates and thank you for correcting my mistake. It was Leeds they played next, not Wembley, which took place, as you said, several week earlier. In June to be exact.

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
GerardHennessy

Quote
snoopy2
Maybe I benefit from having an inexpensive Sears turntable and 2nd-hand speakers but I love this release.. Or maybe I’ve listened to so many bootlegs of that tour that this sounds awesome in comparison

Nothing wrong with this release at all. And of course it is wonderful to have a recording of the concert. The sound is not awful by any means. It is perfectly audible. If I was selling it as a bootleg, I'd describe it as acceptable. The shortcomings in the sound are not in any way the fault of the recording. It is the sound produced on stage that the audience heard on the day. To me it is somewhat disappointing. A little bit muffled and lumpen. Its not the searing, stinging sound The Stones usually achieve.

It might simply be the limitations of the technology at the time. It might be the poor acoustics of Wembley itself. It might be a whole lot of things we don't know about. For me, the most interesting aspect of it all is that the sound at Wembley reminds me so clearly of the sound at Slane Castle. A totally different setting with none of the acoustic limitations that the old Wembley inflicted on performers. And the weather at Slane was excellent on the day, so it was most certainly not that....

Actually, that was the sound of the 1982 tour in general, and I've been to 20+ shows... Only the indoor shows in Frankfurt were better balanced & clearer. An austrian TV report described it as the sound of a "student band", well, that was exaggerated imo, but I would say it had a certain "garage" feel - and for me it was great how it was, definitely had a blast...

In case they had multitracks to work with, I see no reason why with all this modern technology a much better sound could not have been achieved, so I think they intentionally tried to recreate the sound as it could be heard by the audience back then - and I'm perfectly ok with that.

Thank you. I'm envious that you attended so many events. And very pleased you had as blast. Your overall reflections about the sound in general accord very much with my own. And I think you are spot on in what you say about them leaving the sound 'as was'. I think the band have deliberately retained the sound and feel of the performance they delivered back then. Rather than artificially tarting it up.

Quote
falo01
"Only the indoor shows in Frankfurt were better balanced & clearer."

Funny, since Festhalle is known to have desastrous sound, at least
the shows I have heard there in the 2000s (non Stones).
On the other side, the 1982 recording tell their own story.

Concerning Frankfurt, I should have added "although also far from perfect". While the outdoor shows sounded decidedly mid-heavy at the expense of the higher end and therefore a bit muddy, but really punchy and "in your face", the Frankfurt indoors were mixwise better balanced and clearer, but lacked the punch of the outdoors, probably also due to the fact that PA speakers were hanging down from the ceiling!

Anyway, that's how I remember the 1982 outdoor vs. indoor sound from my positions that were usually upfront. LTB who provided the tapes of all three Frankfurt shows for Captain Acid's recent remasters usually recorded from the mid of the venues/mixing desk positions, and concerning Frankfurt 1982, in one case from his seat high above, so his different positions need to be considered if you're judging Frankfurt 1982 from these tapes...

But it also needs to be said that soundwise, 1989 and onwards was in a different league compared to 1982...



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2023-07-19 11:09 by retired_dog.

Quote
GerardHennessy

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
GerardHennessy

Quote
snoopy2
Maybe I benefit from having an inexpensive Sears turntable and 2nd-hand speakers but I love this release.. Or maybe I’ve listened to so many bootlegs of that tour that this sounds awesome in comparison

Nothing wrong with this release at all. And of course it is wonderful to have a recording of the concert. The sound is not awful by any means. It is perfectly audible. If I was selling it as a bootleg, I'd describe it as acceptable. The shortcomings in the sound are not in any way the fault of the recording. It is the sound produced on stage that the audience heard on the day. To me it is somewhat disappointing. A little bit muffled and lumpen. Its not the searing, stinging sound The Stones usually achieve.

It might simply be the limitations of the technology at the time. It might be the poor acoustics of Wembley itself. It might be a whole lot of things we don't know about. For me, the most interesting aspect of it all is that the sound at Wembley reminds me so clearly of the sound at Slane Castle. A totally different setting with none of the acoustic limitations that the old Wembley inflicted on performers. And the weather at Slane was excellent on the day, so it was most certainly not that....

Actually, that was the sound of the 1982 tour in general, and I've been to 20+ shows... Only the indoor shows in Frankfurt were better balanced & clearer. An austrian TV report described it as the sound of a "student band", well, that was exaggerated imo, but I would say it had a certain "garage" feel - and for me it was great how it was, definitely had a blast...

In case they had multitracks to work with, I see no reason why with all this modern technology a much better sound could not have been achieved, so I think they intentionally tried to recreate the sound as it could be heard by the audience back then - and I'm perfectly ok with that.

Thank you. I'm envious that you attended so many events. And very pleased you had as blast. Your overall reflections about the sound in general accord very much with my own. And I think you are spot on in what you say about them leaving the sound 'as was'. I think the band have deliberately retained the sound and feel of the performance they delivered back then. Rather than artificially tarting it up.

Gerald, thank you for your kind response. Thinking about it (again!), considering the fact that this was not a standalone release, but a bonus disc for a limited box set, I would not rule out the possibility that due to a limited budget, they just dug out an old rough mix from the multitracks instead of "artificially tarting it up" what would have been considerably more expensive - like, "Hey, this sounds good enough, it's only for a collector's box set anyway!"... Just a thought!

Could also be the reason why they simply recycled Brussels 1973 for GHS Super Deluxe instead of releasing Wembley 1973 or other previously unreleased professionally recorded shows from that tour...

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
GerardHennessy

Quote
snoopy2
Maybe I benefit from having an inexpensive Sears turntable and 2nd-hand speakers but I love this release.. Or maybe I’ve listened to so many bootlegs of that tour that this sounds awesome in comparison

Nothing wrong with this release at all. And of course it is wonderful to have a recording of the concert. The sound is not awful by any means. It is perfectly audible. If I was selling it as a bootleg, I'd describe it as acceptable. The shortcomings in the sound are not in any way the fault of the recording. It is the sound produced on stage that the audience heard on the day. To me it is somewhat disappointing. A little bit muffled and lumpen. Its not the searing, stinging sound The Stones usually achieve.

It might simply be the limitations of the technology at the time. It might be the poor acoustics of Wembley itself. It might be a whole lot of things we don't know about. For me, the most interesting aspect of it all is that the sound at Wembley reminds me so clearly of the sound at Slane Castle. A totally different setting with none of the acoustic limitations that the old Wembley inflicted on performers. And the weather at Slane was excellent on the day, so it was most certainly not that....

Actually, that was the sound of the 1982 tour in general, and I've been to 20+ shows... Only the indoor shows in Frankfurt were better balanced & clearer. An austrian TV report described it as the sound of a "student band", well, that was exaggerated imo, but I would say it had a certain "garage" feel - and for me it was great how it was, definitely had a blast...

In case they had multitracks to work with, I see no reason why with all this modern technology a much better sound could not have been achieved, so I think they intentionally tried to recreate the sound as it could be heard by the audience back then - and I'm perfectly ok with that.

The 1982 tour had a somewhat peculiar sound that can be heard on soundboards and audience tapes, and to me it mostly is a strange hollow, distant, mid-heavy Keith sound, and Bill's bass has lots of mids as well. They used quite some echo on Charlie's drums as well, and the result is that a 1982 show is immediately identifiable.

I am not sure what it is as they used the same equipment as they did on the 1981 tour. It could be different microphones and different mike placement, and a different PA altogether.

Mathijs