Exile on Naim Street
Posted by: PBenny1066 on 11 June 2010
Anybody tried the re-release of this Stones classic. Wonderful album but I thought the sound quality of the original was awful - sounded like it was recorded in a dingy basement. Which of course it was.
Any views appreciated before I shell out for the remastered version.
Paul
Any views appreciated before I shell out for the remastered version.
Paul
Posted on: 11 June 2010 by Sloop John B
Don't bother.
compressed to bits and LOUD.
I nearly cried, it exemplifies all I hate about modern record labels and they truly deserve their fate.
From googling it after my purchase it's 6dB louder than the original cd version and to my ears is horribly compressed.
Good pun btw
SJB
compressed to bits and LOUD.
I nearly cried, it exemplifies all I hate about modern record labels and they truly deserve their fate.
From googling it after my purchase it's 6dB louder than the original cd version and to my ears is horribly compressed.
Good pun btw
SJB
Posted on: 11 June 2010 by Mike Hughes
Don't bother. The "extras" might be politely described as veering between laughable and peripheral. The recording itself is marginally improved but we are truly talking marginal as in barely showing itself up on a great system. It's not a remaster that sparkles IMHO. It's no more symptomatic of the Stones shoddy approach to their legacy than any of the other reissues I guess. We're not exactly in Beatles In Mono territory here.
In short then... it's firing blanks.
In short then... it's firing blanks.
Posted on: 11 June 2010 by TomK
I disagree. I liked it and it definitely sounds better than the version I already had, which is now quite old. Rocks Off is my favourite and I hear the guitars much clearly defined than before. And I think the second CD is well worth having on its own. Some first class stuff there.
Just shows how opinions differ.
And I like the thread title too
Just shows how opinions differ.
And I like the thread title too
Posted on: 11 June 2010 by Sloop John B
Indeed from another forum
and from the same thread
If I can't get past 8 o'clock on my pre I rarely like the resulting sound.
SJB
quote:It's brickwalled to hell and very bright. Fine for the average pleb listening in the car, but my ears need better than this!
Disappointing. Thanks anyway ruskaval. Most people seem to love it - but then again, in tests most people (sadly) can't tell the difference between lossless and 192kbps MP3. Most people just don't listen very deeply, and that's why record companies can get away with mastering music like this.
and from the same thread
quote:
Unbelievable ! I've got the original vinyl and original CD, but this version beats them all.
This is the best album The Stones ever made and in my opinion it will prove in the coming years that it surpasses many albums by other groups.
In this studio-remixing it is maybe the very best "rock"-album of all times. It has all in it: originality and musical creativity. This is a very classical rockcd.
If I can't get past 8 o'clock on my pre I rarely like the resulting sound.
SJB
Posted on: 11 June 2010 by King Size
quote:Originally posted by Sloop John B:
...exemplifies all I hate about modern record labels and they truly deserve their fate.
SJB
Your post pre-supposes that it is the record company and not the artist who is responsible for the SQ of a release.
This opinion is oft repeated on various fora with little or no evidence to back it up.
FWIW - I work for a major record company and recently highlighted my concerns about the SQ of a particular album that is about to be released. The album was delivered like that by the artist and that is how they wanted it to sound - the record co had nothing to do with it.
Posted on: 11 June 2010 by fred simon
quote:Originally posted by King Size:quote:Originally posted by Sloop John B:
...exemplifies all I hate about modern record labels and they truly deserve their fate.
SJB
Your post pre-supposes that it is the record company and not the artist who is responsible for the SQ of a release.
Mr. Size is correct, especially considering it's the Stones. You think Fred and Barney are gonna let the label decide how it sounds? No ... they hold the cards.
Posted on: 11 June 2010 by ewemon
quote:Originally posted by King Size:quote:Originally posted by Sloop John B:
...exemplifies all I hate about modern record labels and they truly deserve their fate.
SJB
Your post pre-supposes that it is the record company and not the artist who is responsible for the SQ of a release.
This opinion is oft repeated on various fora with little or no evidence to back it up.
FWIW - I work for a major record company and recently highlighted my concerns about the SQ of a particular album that is about to be released. The album was delivered like that by the artist and that is how they wanted it to sound - the record co had nothing to do with it.
You are both right as it depends on the control the artist has over their product as well.
There is also another thread re the sound quality of this album where I stated I personally didn't like it as they have squashed the dynamics of the music.
Posted on: 12 June 2010 by MilesSmiles
The re-master went right to the back of the shelf --- horrible compression. 
Posted on: 14 June 2010 by GraemeH
quote:Originally posted by PBenny1066:
Anybody tried the re-release of this Stones classic. Wonderful album but I thought the sound quality of the original was awful - sounded like it was recorded in a dingy basement. Which of course it was.
Any views appreciated before I shell out for the remastered version.
Paul
Hi Paul - I'm going to go against the prevailing view here. I know this recording pretty well having had early vinyl and later CD pressings over 25 years or so.
I think the new remaster really is a step-up in terms of resolution and relative 'balance' of the sometimes complex and congested instrumentation. It needs a fine system to sort it all out mind you but I'm very pleased I made the purchase.
At '9 o'clock' on the 252 into the 135's there are moments for me where I'm right in that basement now!
Best
Graeme
Posted on: 15 June 2010 by Sloop John B
quote:Originally posted by Graeme Hutton:quote:Originally posted by PBenny1066:
Anybody tried the re-release of this Stones classic. Wonderful album but I thought the sound quality of the original was awful - sounded like it was recorded in a dingy basement. Which of course it was.
Any views appreciated before I shell out for the remastered version.
Paul
Hi Paul - I'm going to go against the prevailing view here. I know this recording pretty well having had early vinyl and later CD pressings over 25 years or so.
I think the new remaster really is a step-up in terms of resolution and relative 'balance' of the sometimes complex and congested instrumentation. It needs a fine system to sort it all out mind you but I'm very pleased I made the purchase.
At '9 o'clock' on the 252 into the 135's there are moments for me where I'm right in that basement now!
Best
Graeme
I'm intrigued.
I just put this on again in case I've missed something and once again my response is negative.
Out of a matter of interest Graeme have you come across other reamsterings that you didn't like from the point of view of compression?
It's interesting to realise that what I consider detrimental to my listening pleasure is considered a positive by others.
à chacun son goût
SJB
Posted on: 15 June 2010 by GraemeH
quote:Originally posted by Sloop John B:quote:Originally posted by Graeme Hutton:quote:Originally posted by PBenny1066:
Anybody tried the re-release of this Stones classic. Wonderful album but I thought the sound quality of the original was awful - sounded like it was recorded in a dingy basement. Which of course it was.
Any views appreciated before I shell out for the remastered version.
Paul
Hi Paul - I'm going to go against the prevailing view here. I know this recording pretty well having had early vinyl and later CD pressings over 25 years or so.
I think the new remaster really is a step-up in terms of resolution and relative 'balance' of the sometimes complex and congested instrumentation. It needs a fine system to sort it all out mind you but I'm very pleased I made the purchase.
At '9 o'clock' on the 252 into the 135's there are moments for me where I'm right in that basement now!
Best
Graeme
I'm intrigued.
I just put this on again in case I've missed something and once again my response is negative.
Out of a matter of interest Graeme have you come across other reamsterings that you didn't like from the point of view of compression?
It's interesting to realise that what I consider detrimental to my listening pleasure is considered a positive by others.
à chacun son goût
SJB
Steely Dan remasterings from early 2000's are pretty awful compared to the 'MCLD' suffix series of which 'Aja' was done by Steve Hoffman and is excellent IMHO.
With regard to 'Exile' I think the remaster is clearly a balancing act to meet the ipod generation but give extra resolution - I suspect at 10 o'clock on my 252 it would sound hellish!
I'll re spin my 1994 Virgin mastering again and post more.
Graeme
Posted on: 16 June 2010 by Timbo
I'm so lucky to have a couple of copies of the original record - still in good nick.
Tim
Tim
Posted on: 16 June 2010 by GraemeH
quote:I'm intrigued.
I just put this on again in case I've missed something and once again my response is negative.
Out of a matter of interest Graeme have you come across other reamsterings that you didn't like from the point of view of compression?
It's interesting to realise that what I consider detrimental to my listening pleasure is considered a positive by others.
à chacun son goût
SJB - Had a direct comparison now between my 1994 Virgin (netherlands Bob Lubwig edition) and the 2010 remaster and I remain convinced the recent remaster improves this difficult recording.
Each musician is clearer in the mix to my ears with more space around them, but, most importantly, the music hangs together better and drives along with more emotional connection to the listener.....All IMHO of course.
Loudness is marginal over the '94 on my system and certainly not to the extent anything sounds compressed.
Best
Graeme
Posted on: 16 June 2010 by King Size
Graeme, I would tend to agree with your last statement that the loudness is marginal over the '94 re-master and that it isn't overly compressed.
Having said that my preference is probably for the '04 remaster, but I don't think the new one is as bad as some are claiming.
Having said that my preference is probably for the '04 remaster, but I don't think the new one is as bad as some are claiming.
Posted on: 16 June 2010 by Sloop John B
Thanks for taking the time to assess Graeme.
I must do a thorough A v B myself this evening to confirm or negate my current opinion.
SJB
I must do a thorough A v B myself this evening to confirm or negate my current opinion.
SJB
Posted on: 17 June 2010 by Sloop John B
I can confirm my initial opinion as well.
For me there is a huge loss in dynamic range.
I want to turn up the volume to accentuate the drums but there's no dynamic range here so everything just gets louder.
I get fatigued quite quickly with the 2010 remaster.
Mind you I don't consider it a difficult recording, it's a nice scuzzy blues record.
Just goes to show nowt as queer as folk.
SJB
For me there is a huge loss in dynamic range.
I want to turn up the volume to accentuate the drums but there's no dynamic range here so everything just gets louder.
I get fatigued quite quickly with the 2010 remaster.
Mind you I don't consider it a difficult recording, it's a nice scuzzy blues record.
Just goes to show nowt as queer as folk.
SJB
Posted on: 17 June 2010 by GraemeH
quote:Originally posted by Sloop John B:
I can confirm my initial opinion as well.
For me there is a huge loss in dynamic range.
I want to turn up the volume to accentuate the drums but there's no dynamic range here so everything just gets louder.
I get fatigued quite quickly with the 2010 remaster.
Mind you I don't consider it a difficult recording, it's a nice scuzzy blues record.
Just goes to show nowt as queer as folk.
SJB
SJB - Curiously I find the drums far mor present and natural in the mix than the '94. Mind you, I do notice my Spendor A6 are quite 'percussive' -fast and driving -that way.....or maybe it's the 135's (trying to convince myself not to get a 300!)
Best
Graeme
Posted on: 19 June 2010 by PBenny1066
Many Thanks all, interesting diversity of opinion. I think I'll give it a go, I'm sure Ron needs the money, although on second thoughts he presumably won't see anything from Exile.
On a different note, I'm trying to educate myself in some of the very basics about why recoding sound so different from each other - I mean, the very basics of recording, mixing, mastering etc..
Any references greatly appreciated. It's only rock n roll, but I compressed it !
Paul
On a different note, I'm trying to educate myself in some of the very basics about why recoding sound so different from each other - I mean, the very basics of recording, mixing, mastering etc..
Any references greatly appreciated. It's only rock n roll, but I compressed it !
Paul
Posted on: 19 June 2010 by Sloop John B
Posted on: 23 June 2010 by GraemeH
quote:Originally posted by Sloop John B:
I can confirm my initial opinion as well.
For me there is a huge loss in dynamic range.
I want to turn up the volume to accentuate the drums but there's no dynamic range here so everything just gets louder.
I get fatigued quite quickly with the 2010 remaster.
Mind you I don't consider it a difficult recording, it's a nice scuzzy blues record.
Just goes to show nowt as queer as folk.
SJB
SJB - I've just aquired an original 1980's CBS mastering on CD which, according to some, has very good dynamics in relation to the Virgin '94.
It should be with me in the next few days and so I'll post my findings for anyone who remains interested......(sound of tumbleweed blowing through....).
Graeme
Posted on: 23 June 2010 by Timbo
Just got Road to Escondido by JJ cale and eric Clapton on vinyl. Sounds awful, just loud and this I think is a remaster..
Tim
Tim
Posted on: 23 June 2010 by pcstockton
quote:Originally posted by Sloop John B:
Don't bother.
compressed to bits and LOUD.
I nearly cried, it exemplifies all I hate about modern record labels and they truly deserve their fate.
From googling it after my purchase it's 6dB louder than the original cd version and to my ears is horribly compressed.
Good pun btw
Agreed on all fronts.
I will stick with my Virgin remaster.
Posted on: 24 June 2010 by King Size
quote:Originally posted by pcstockton:quote:Originally posted by Sloop John B:
Don't bother.
compressed to bits and LOUD.
I nearly cried, it exemplifies all I hate about modern record labels and they truly deserve their fate.
From googling it after my purchase it's 6dB louder than the original cd version and to my ears is horribly compressed.
Good pun btw
Agreed on all fronts.
I will stick with my Virgin remaster.
As I replied to SJB's original post. This viewpoint pre-supposes that it is the record company and not the artist who is responsible for the SQ of a release.
This opinion is oft repeated on various fora with little or no evidence to back it up.
Posted on: 24 June 2010 by pcstockton
I really dont care whose fault it is. If it is bad it is bad.
Posted on: 25 June 2010 by Christopher_M
Think I'll be sticking with my original record, though unlike Timbo, I've just got the one 
.
Chris
.Chris