Vinyl is no better than CDs if object to brick-walling:

[gearspace.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2026-04-14 16:31 by bv.

If the production is digital, it's kind of pointless with a Vinyl. Other than a gimmick. Who records and mixes in analog these days ?

Quote
skytrench

Who records and mixes in analog these days ?

'Out Of Our Heads' (US version) was re-released for RSD 2025 as mastered directly from the original first-generation analog mono album master tape by Carl Rowatti at Trutone Mastering using an all-analog chain from a Studer A80 tape machine to a Neumann SP-77 soundboard to a Neumann VMS-70 cutting lathe - [RecordStoreDay.com] . See also: [TrutoneMastering.com] . Carl Rowatti mastered also the 2015 Satisfaction 50th anniversary 12" Vinyl - [ABKCO.com] .



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2026-04-14 13:25 by Irix.

Quote
Irix

Quote
skytrench

Who records and mixes in analog these days ?

'Out Of Our Heads' (US version) was re-released for RSD 2025 as mastered directly from the original first-generation analog mono album master tape by Carl Rowatti at Trutone Mastering using an all-analog chain from a Studer A80 tape machine to a Neumann SP-77 soundboard to a Neumann VMS-70 cutting lathe - [RecordStoreDay.com] . See also: [TruToneMastering.com] .

So, does this new remaster sound like the 1965 LP?

Quote
Big Al

So, does this new remaster sound like the 1965 LP?

Dunno, but there were comparisons of the 2025 RSD re-release with other editions. With the help of advanced search engines with new technology:

"Analog vs Digital – Which pressing of Out of Our Heads sounds better?"



[www.YouTube.com]


"Out of Our Heads RSD 2025 - Review & Comparison"



[www.YouTube.com]


"Out of Our Heads RSD Review and Comparison"



[www.YouTube.com]


"Several comparisons describe the 2025 cut as having fuller bass and slightly smoother high end, with vocals and guitars coming across more clearly than on older reissues. One reviewer said it sounds 'really good' and would recommend it especially if you do not already own an original pressing. The main split is between people who prefer the new pressing’s cleaner, less harsh presentation and people who miss the raw energy of vintage copies. Some listeners felt the Record Store Day edition is a bit less aggressive or lively than an original UK or early U.S. pressing, even if it reduces some distortion and sibilance. The 2025 RSD pressing is often described as slightly more detailed, warmer in the bass, and a bit more analog-sounding versus the 2023/2016 mono-box version. Overall, the 2025 re-release is being received as a strong sounding mono reissue, with the most common praise going to its bass, clarity, and reduced distortion. The most common criticism is simply that it may not beat the best original pressings in raw excitement."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2026-04-14 14:25 by Irix.

It has been some time since I listened to a vinyl record of any kind. From what I remember, 'newer' LP'S sound significantly poorer in comparison to the 60's 45's and LP's that my father kept hold of. I'm not very technically-minded when it comes to audio, but I recollect how sonically impressive the Stones' early Decca 45's were, and my absolute favourite - for sound - was the 45rpm I'd listen to of the Who's 'Pictures of Lilly' It was so incredibly loud, and not in the brick-walled' sense.

Quote
Irix

Quote
skytrench

Who records and mixes in analog these days ?

'Out Of Our Heads' (US version) was re-released for RSD 2025 as mastered directly from the original first-generation analog mono album master tape by Carl Rowatti at Trutone Mastering using an all-analog chain from a Studer A80 tape machine to a Neumann SP-77 soundboard to a Neumann VMS-70 cutting lathe - [RecordStoreDay.com] . See also: [TrutoneMastering.com] . Carl Rowatti mastered also the 2015 Satisfaction 50th anniversary 12" Vinyl - [ABKCO.com] .

So that would be a complete analog chain until the vinyl pressing, which hopefully reads from an analog source. But these were recordings/mixings done in the 60's, so is this is relevant for today's recordings?

Whether a record is brickwalled or not has nothing to do with the consumer medium (vinyl or streaming) but with the mastering.

You can press a brickwalled master on a vinyl or put a dynamic master on Spotify just the same.

Yes, to the last and some posts above; this has always been my suspicion, based on Hackney Diamonds.

Brickwalling is a new term to me, but when looking it up, I understand this is not an off topic subject. It is highly relevant if you listen to "Rough and Twisted", the new Stones single.

Brickwalling means pushing the entire sound into the maximum, like a wall of sound. This is how commercials on TV push the sound to the upper limits, to call upon your attention, and how kids scream loud, they just use max volume on every word, everything they say, because kindergarten is a competition in getting attention, soft spoken is not a term or way of talking they know.

When I play "Rough and Twisted", it is like the entire PA system, every instrument, every chord, is fighting for attention. Every instrument is turned into max power.

In music terms I would assume the entire song and every instrument is instructed to play "fortissimo", the opposite of "pianissimo", which is soft playing.

The opposite of brickwall sound is "As Tears Go By". No way that song could be brickwalled, or the "Aftermath", or "Between The Buttons" albums.

Sure brickwalling is hurting your ears. Not physically, but emotional. Also, it is hurting your mind. I am hypersensitive, due to being overworked for my entire life. I can not play brickwalled music, I can not go into shopping malls, and I do not survive in loud environments, like a octail bparty, but still, I have no problem going to Stones shows, because that is not unwanted sounds, it is wanted, from start to finish. Listening to the mixing of Rough and Twisted" is painful for me. The opposite is "Memory Motel". Even "Sway" is dynamic, it does not force itself into your ears and mind from start to finish.

Digital or analog is no difference. They bring on the same sound level to your ears. During my university days, I was doing my computer master degree in applied science within hearing, regardin hearing and how to avoid and repair hearing loss throug developing software controlling hearing aids. The smallest muscle in the human body is the stapes muscle (musculus stapedius), connecting the small bones in the air with the eardum. When loud sound is appearing, the stapes muscle will protect your hearing, by tightening up. If the sound (music) is more than 85-90 dB over time, the stapes will protect your ear, but after two hours or more, it will not be able to tighten anymore, and hearing loss will begin. A gunshot is high pitch, and more than 110-120 dB, and will immediately damage your hearing, especially above 5kHz to 10 kHz, because it is happening so fast, that the stapes muscle will not be able to react soon enough. That is why ear protection is important in such occations. You will not be able to enjoy music the same way, and you will not hear grasshoppers during the late summer.

Back to brickwalling - it is extremely annoing for some, like me, but it will not damage your ear/hearing, unless it is on a very high volume, and for several hours. Analog or digila is the same. In fact, the human ear is not very accurate, a variation of less than 3 dB may not be sensed for many.

Netflix has been using extreme brickwalling in some of their series, like the new Norwegian crime series - Jo Nesbø's Detective Harry Hole. All sounds like breaking a glass, stepping on a wodden piece, or opening a door, is tunes to max. I can not watch or listen to it, because the sound is to loud, nerve wrecking, no soft and easy sound, everything tuned to max. But still, it is not hurting or damaging your ears, but your mind.

I just do not understand why a production has to be brickwalled that way, may be it is modern, keeping your attention, but I hate it.

Bjornulf

I hate brickwalling too. There's also one aspect I really don't understand. Many artists release different mixes of their music but why don't they offer an non-brickwalled mix, too?

As far as getting the "benefit" of a vinyl record, it depends on more than the digital master. The phonograph's pre-amp and the amplifier/receiver must also be analog (tube). Most people don't go to the expense of buying analog versions of these two components, negating most, if not all, of the "benefit" of buying vinyl. You also need to buy a high quality cartridge, well over $200 (Mobile Fidelity's high end cartridge is $1,500) to complete the system.

That said, audiophile vinyl can be half-speed mastered for more precise cutting as well as many are now manufactured for 45 rpm, increasing fidelity and reducing needle noise. As mentioned by others, the quality of vinyl is also important. Virgin (material unused previously, not the record label) was a big selling point a few years ago, but may not be as popular now. But you pay for that also. Mobile Fidelity uses something called "Super Vinyl" to improve reproduction.

Purely speculation, but I'd guess that the vast majority of turntable owners and vinyl buyers don't have an analog system, so hearing any major difference is probably unlikely. Compounding that, many use a USB connection to connect their turntable, using a digital connection for the turntable, wiping out the "gains."

I do have a turntable -- not really high end and my system is not tube-based -- but I use it solely for "ripping" albums that never made it to CD. But for me personally, the advances in digital recording, durability, and portability make the CD my choice. Even though the current Redbook CD standard for CD manufacture has been around since the 1980's,improvements in the digital to analog converters in the CD player have improved fidelity and in my mind that has further enhanced fidelity.

Despite all this, to me, beauty is in the ear of the beholder. If playing a vinyl record helps you enjoy the music more, play vinyl.

I agree with the other posts, brickwalled is brickwalled, whether you listen to it on vinyl or CD.

As far a getting a non-brickwalled mix, oftentimes blu ray audio versions of some albums are not brickwalled since they are targeted to those who typically are listening on a surround or Atmos system and not an mp3 version of the music.

I guess I should label this "off topic" since I really went off in a tangent here . . .

Duck

Quote
bv

I just do not understand why a production has to be brickwalled that way

Mainly because music mastered this way sounds better in the form of a streamed compressed file when listened through headphones or bluetooth speakers, which is how almost everybody nowadays experiences music.

Cycles.

In the early ages of pop music youngsters were excited by the noise ("play it loud"!!!) of rock and roll while their parents - who grew up with music which was mainly not amplified - where horrified.

Maybe, hopefully, some day we will return to a more dynamic sound. Who knows.

C

Actually I like the description of brickwalling made by Steve Hoffman better.
[forums.stevehoffman.tv]

Quote
HTD
As far as getting the "benefit" of a vinyl record, it depends on more than the digital master. The phonograph's pre-amp and the amplifier/receiver must also be analog (tube).

Probably I didn't understand you correctly, but solid state amps can excellent too ... At least my Linns are!

C

Quote
ironbelly
Actually I like the description of brickwalling made by Steve Hoffman better.
[forums.stevehoffman.tv]

Got it.

Bjornulf

well, maybe distinction might be drawn between brickwalling as an artistic expression and general brickwalling of almost every sound recording.

Rough and Twisted works well for me but I don't want to see a Stones album featuring a brickwalled sound on all songs.

Quote
skytrench

But these were recordings/mixings done in the 60's, so is this is relevant for today's recordings?

A handful search results about recent analogue albums:

- Johnny Rock & Friends: 'For the Record' — recorded & mixed on analog tape, with all-analog mastering to lacquer - [www.YouTube.com] ,

- Foo Fighters: 'Wasting Light' — frequently described as recorded to tape and analog-heavy, but not fully verified for the entire chain,

- Jack White: 'Blunderbuss' — widely treated as analog-recorded and analog-mastered,

- The White Stripes: 'Elephant' — often cited as all-analog,

- My Bloody Valentine: 'm b v' — commonly described as recorded, mixed, and mastered entirely in analog,

- John Mellencamp: 'No Better Than This' — commonly cited as an analog-recorded album.


2026 release: Al Di Meola - 'One Of These Nights' [Original Analog Master Edition] - DMM (Direct Metal Mastering) as well as mastered onto analogue Tape - [www.In-Akustik.com] .

AAA-mastered special Vinyl releases - [www.VinylVision3000.com] - with Chris Jagger and Dick Taylor as special guests for the Prague band '333'.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2026-05-13 14:55 by Irix.

Quote
skytrench
If the production is digital, it's kind of pointless with a Vinyl. Other than a gimmick. Who records and mixes in analog these days ?

Absolutely correct.

Rollin' Stone Blues on Hackney Diamonds was recorded analog on tape. Compare that one with the other tracks on the album. You feel you're sitting in the same room with Mick and Keith.

Quote
bv
When I play "Rough and Twisted", it is like the entire PA system, every instrument, every chord, is fighting for attention. Every instrument is turned into max power.

In music terms I would assume the entire song and every instrument is instructed to play "fortissimo", the opposite of "pianissimo", which is soft playing.

I agree. And I would suggest that both the track itself and its brickwalled production reflect the same core underlying belief: that loudness = energy = excitement.

Dynamics and subtlety have no importance in this belief system.

Only brute force matters.

That's not what the Stones used to be about.

Drew

If you think that analog is better than digital because before was full analog then you are almost completly wrong.

To my known the first digital part in an analogue chain has been introduced during end of the sixties, at the vinyl cutting step, and digital did spread the recording intustry during all the seventies way before the compact disc digital audio was issued. During all these years the chain could be a mix of digital with analog link and nobody bothered the "digital" vs "analogue" debate until the DDD logo appeared.

We are living in reversed value, in the 80's we were looking for all digital and now we are celebrating the all analog.
But both are ignorant of the reality of what makes a good recording and what does not.

Brickwalling is definitly a bad habit when in aim of good sound but brickwalling is convenient for our modern way of listening music in noisy surrounding. I wonder if music lovers one dy could be treated without brickwalling but this is currently a lost battle.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2026-04-14 22:11 by ds1984.

Quote
drewmaster

Quote
bv
When I play "Rough and Twisted", it is like the entire PA system, every instrument, every chord, is fighting for attention. Every instrument is turned into max power.

In music terms I would assume the entire song and every instrument is instructed to play "fortissimo", the opposite of "pianissimo", which is soft playing.

I agree. And I would suggest that both the track itself and its brickwalled production reflect the same core underlying belief: that loudness = energy = excitement.

Dynamics and subtlety have no importance in this belief system.

Only brute force matters.

That's not what the Stones used to be about.

Drew

+1

The upcoming album will be mixed (and mastered) in a similar way to Hackney Diamonds.

Serban Ghenea, Andrew Watts "house mixer", is known for his very in-the-face, up-front sounding mixes. In fact he's THE pop mixer of our times, mixing everything from Taylor Swift, The Weekend, Bruno Mars... Just take a look at his massive discography: [serbanghenea.com]

He's known to already mix into a master chain, including saturation, limiting and compression. A lot of that stuff is already happening before mastering.

This is the sound that Andrew and Mick want and it's their artistic choice. It's a modern pop sound.

In fact it's also a generational thing. Young people often prefer brickwalled mixes, also because they grew up with it and listening on ear pods. It's rather the older people who complain about it...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2026-04-14 21:22 by StonedRambler.

Quote
Irix

Quote
skytrench

But these were recordings/mixings done in the 60's, so is this is relevant for today's recordings?

A handful search results about recent analogue albums:

- Johnny Rock & Friends: 'For the Record' — recorded & mixed on analog tape, with all-analog mastering to lacquer - [www.YouTube.com] ,

- Foo Fighters: 'Wasting Light' — frequently described as recorded to tape and analog-heavy, but not fully verified for the entire chain,

- Jack White: 'Blunderbuss' — widely treated as analog-recorded and analog-mastered,

- The White Stripes: 'Elephant' — often cited as all-analog,

- My Bloody Valentine: 'm b v' — commonly described as recorded, mixed, and mastered entirely in analog,

- John Mellencamp: 'No Better Than This' — commonly cited as an analog-recorded album.

Re: Foo Fighters Wasting Light. Early CDs of this album contained actual analog tape from the recording sessions. The one I bought had this in it.

Quote
StonedRambler
Serban Ghenea

Very interesting, great post StonedRambler (I cut it to save space).

Just checked out all his listed mixes and choosing him as a mixer/masterer shows complete lack of artistic integrity from the Stones (or the boss Mick - if he ever had any). Serban specializes in bubble gum pop as I would call it. Shallow catchy music for the masses. Sure I can like many of the songs, but it's got nothing to do with the Stones, rock 'n roll, subtlety, depth of instrumentation etc. Like you say, in your face stuff. Don wasn't much better with his depth and that again shows lack of understanding from the Stones camp. Or greed that was never realised with this strategy. Wanting to conform - that's totally against what I expect the Stones to stand for.

I see the website claims Serban to have mixed Forty Licks, that's inaccurate. Besides Don't Stop and the other 3 throwaway tracks, most tracks were already mixed long ago. To quote Lemmy:

Some waste of time you are
And you're so popular
Well this is it you bitch
I've got to make a switch
You find some other john
I know what's goin' on
---
I thought you were for real
Just one more rip-off deal

Quote
skytrench

Just checked out all his listed mixes and choosing him as a mixer/masterer shows complete lack of artistic integrity from the Stones (or the boss Mick - if he ever had any). Serban specializes in bubble gum pop as I would call it. Shallow catchy music for the masses. Sure I can like many of the songs, but it's got nothing to do with the Stones, rock 'n roll, subtlety, depth of instrumentation etc. Like you say, in your face stuff.

Wanting to conform - that's totally against what I expect the Stones to stand for.

+1

Drew

Quote
skytrench

Quote
StonedRambler
Serban Ghenea

I see the website claims Serban to have mixed Forty Licks, that's inaccurate. Besides Don't Stop and the other 3 throwaway tracks, most tracks were already mixed long ago. To quote Lemmy:

Serban mixed the Neptunes Remix of Sympathy for the devil which seems to appear on some editions of Forty Licks, therefore he‘s credited for Forty Licks

Quote
skytrench

Quote
StonedRambler
Serban Ghenea

Very interesting, great post StonedRambler (I cut it to save space).

Just checked out all his listed mixes and choosing him as a mixer/masterer shows complete lack of artistic integrity from the Stones (or the boss Mick - if he ever had any). Serban specializes in bubble gum pop as I would call it. Shallow catchy music for the masses. Sure I can like many of the songs, but it's got nothing to do with the Stones, rock 'n roll, subtlety, depth of instrumentation etc. Like you say, in your face stuff. Don wasn't much better with his depth and that again shows lack of understanding from the Stones camp. Or greed that was never realised with this strategy. Wanting to conform - that's totally against what I expect the Stones to stand for.

Or that’s just what the artistic vision of the Stones these days is like. I remember Mick explicitly saying to Andrew that the record should be mixed like a modern pop record and not sound like Sticky Fingers.

The Stones have always changed their sound depending on the time. Some girls sounds different than Sticky Fingers. Steel Wheels sound different than Some Girls. And Hackney Diamonds sounds like a record done in the 2020s.

It ain’t the 60s, 70s or 80 anymore. Now it’s the 20s and that sound will shape the upcoming Stones record as well as the next one.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2026-04-14 22:55 by StonedRambler.

Quote
StonedRambler

Serban Ghenea, Andrew Watts "house mixer", is known for his very in-the-face, up-front sounding mixes.

Plus the brickwalled mastering by Matt Colton .... a terrible duo in terms of sound quality.

Quote
StonedRambler
Or that’s just what the artistic vision of the Stones these days is like. I remember Mick explicitly saying to Andrew that the record should be mixed like a modern pop record and not sound like Sticky Fingers.

The Stones have always changed their sound depending on the time. Some girls sounds different than Sticky Fingers. Steel Wheels sound different than Some Girls. And Hackney Diamonds sounds like a record done in the 2020s.

It ain’t the 60s, 70s or 80 anymore. Now it’s the 20s and that sound will shape the upcoming Stones record as well as the next one.

It's like asking a master chef to work for McDonalds!