QuoteAnitapal82 last shows beast of burden are clear evidence. BTW Beast of Burden was vote song - that means greater chance for imperfection generally.
Forum: Tell Me

Quotecorriecas You are entitled to your opinion.but i think there has been to much unfair hatred and Keef bashing the last few days.true he is not as good as in 1972 but then neither are we.the stones are getting old but so are we.we cant have sex like we did in 1972 can we.stones music is like sex to me.its rock n roll still divine and glorious and rough and it gives us happiness.the stones stil
Forum: Tell Me

In my opinion on those tracks (and many others) his playing contributes to band's sound well. When he screws up some intro or part of the songs in majority of cases he makes it better next show or even during that song he plays extended guitar later. Yes his skills are not the same as they were 20 years ago. But I do not think it is a problem that calls for solving or big criticism.
Forum: Tell Me

It's live music. Keith has always sometimes screwed his solos, especially intros. But he is still the king, his riffs and timing is unique and usually strong. Sympathy Brown Sugar Also blues numbers (Just your fool, ride em on down] sound great. Gimme Shelter from Munich has been very good. Keith knows what he is doing. Yes he is old. But he is there, feels the music and can roc
Forum: Tell Me

QuoteDandelionPowderman Quotejumpingjackflash5 Unfortunately, the versions on Youtube seem to be heavily compressed and limited to 16 Khz. Spek says that AAC downloaded has 126 kbps. The version I bought on Itunes of both songs sounds really better. The vinyl sounds good, but the production isn't my cup of tea.. Also I do not like much the production but the youtube version emphasizes
Forum: Tell Me

Unfortunately, the versions on Youtube seem to be heavily compressed and limited to 16 Khz. Spek says that AAC downloaded has 126 kbps. The version I bought on Itunes of both songs sounds really better.
Forum: Tell Me

The songs are decent. But the mix is compressed and Mick's voice is distorted similarly to some of the songs on Goddess in the Doorway. I think that more "natural" sound would fit better, although I admit that for this music style a little distortion can work. But not on the voice so much and generally lower. Generally I think that Jagger trusts too much to his producers and m
Forum: Tell Me

Black and Blue sounds great. Yes Some Girls has strange mix. If you have CD, you can try to upsample to 24/88.2 with Resampler On many DACs it sounds better.
Forum: Tell Me

If you want to make hi-res playback from recordings you already bought, you can use Ferocious Resampler and upsample existing tracks preferably to even number - e.g. 16/44.1 to 24/88.2 or 16/88.2 (for mobile or where space is concern), 16/48 to 24/96 or 16/96. There is no information above 20 kHz that can be heard, but most common DACs today oversample much worse than sw resamplers and the
Forum: Tell Me

Thank you! And looking forward to another great Stoned year
Forum: Tell Me

P.F. is Pour feliciter (abbreviation from French and it is used also here in Czechia) .... in english be happy in the forthcoming year I thought you know that
Forum: Tell Me

Hello all, this year has been highly successful for the Rolling Stones' fans. I wish you all the best, good health and strengthening friendships for next year! Jan (jumpingjackflash5)
Forum: Tell Me

Quotestraycatuk My only criticism of B&L is the production. Did MJ and bloody Don Was really spend a year getting this overloaded sound.Just your Fool is almost unlistenable . Where are the gaps, the air , the room ????? Got Live if you Want It EP had better production.............. They should have called Glyn Johns. sc uk Yes. The only weak side of Blue and Lonesome is mastering.
Forum: Tell Me

It is clear that vinyl has its properties and benefits. But in terms of fidelity it is for sure inferior to direct 24/48 digital recording, and probably also to the dithered and downsampled CD version from that master. Mixing/mastering/compression is another story.
Forum: Tell Me

48 kHz is completely enough for audible spectrum. 24 bit is another story, it would be great if 24/48 FLACs area available e.g. even for CD buyers on download. Vinyl can have nice distortion, can have that "analog" (RIAA) sound, but it is inferior to 24/48 digital audio.
Forum: Tell Me

Try deamplify by 3-4 db and apply ClipFix 95 or 98 per cent. Save in 24 bit and play back. Even the vocals then improve. A pity they put this out clipped, since the distortion they used does not work well when also clipped. That might be why vinyl version is perceived as better.
Forum: Tell Me

CD format requires "just" downconversion (resampling, dither) to 16/44.1. But the dynamic range is the same at 24/48,24/96 or whatever what used for digital workflow. For vinyl you need different mastering.
Forum: Tell Me

I Gotta Go Just Like I Treat You Little Rain
Forum: Tell Me

Yes I agree. A pity that industry has not standardized e.g. on 24/48 FLAC for distribution.
Forum: Tell Me

Alright - a pity that we that have bought CD do not have access to different master that was apparenlty used for vinyl.
Forum: Tell Me

Quotemidimannz I'm happy to wait for the vinyl ... For the reasons given above An option to download pre-cd mastering tracks would be even better. Vinyl is just a medium. I would be very happy if I can listen to what was actually recorded/mixed on studio analog tapes (with a bit of distortion that was applied). I fully respect mixing etc., but I suspect final CD mastering process used a l
Forum: Tell Me

Audacity can easy deamplify by selected value of dB. That is not a problem, I only search whether some free or very cheap alternative to Clip Fix is used.
Forum: Tell Me

I Gotta Go - Blue and Lonesome
Forum: Tell Me

Maybe for vinyl different, less compressed mastering was used. Unfortunately this has been recently common. By the way I do not complain for much the distortion that has been used during recording/production, that is +- OK. But the one caused by final mastering - further compression for CD/digital. It can be somewhat reversed by declipping, however.
Forum: Tell Me

Quotewhitem8 Not true. I have a high end system with a great DAC, and a fantastic turntable. A lot of my vinyl sounds much better than their digital cousin. Not all, but many. Far less hiss, more mid-range, and more clarity with subtle soundscapes (which are not easily converted via a bianary mode), and far less distortion. For example my Beatles USB with 24bit flac files sound much better with h
Forum: Tell Me

Digitize your vinyl to 24/48 FLAC and play from HDD/NAS. You will get the same sound quality as by playing from vinyl directly. And you will save your vinyl from repeated playback
Forum: Tell Me

Yes main problem with CD digital is 16 bit. 24/48 is (near) perfect. Vinyl might sound better to some ears, because it has/can have nice distortions for some type of music. But in terms of fidelity vinyl is worse even than properly mastered CD.
Forum: Tell Me

I do not have HD version and do not want much to buy it twice, moreover I am from Czech republic and web stores do not have HD version available.
Forum: Tell Me

I agree that overanalyzing can be bad for music. The compression+distortion on Blue and Lonesome is a bit too much, I think. I also preferred the older issues of Virgin/EMI catalogue since 2009 version were compressed.
Forum: Tell Me

Digital audio is only a storage for analog sound. The output from DAC is analog. Vinyl is totally marketing-hype today supported by the CD format limitations. If industry standardizes on 24/48 FLAC there wont be any need for vinyl. 16/44.1 is very good, but 24/48 is perfect.
Forum: Tell Me