Album Reviews

I was going to email you with this very question in mind.I was in doubt myself when I seen this advertised and was hoping you may be able to clear it up. Thanks for saving me throwing my money away on another marketing scam. AAA forever!!!

This is my favorite album, and aside from the 1994 CD (Bob Ludvig) every modern edition, vinyl or CD, lacks the magic, musical and emotional. My go-to is a 1972 "dist. by Atco" US pressing. A world of color and detail! Yes the original sounds like a restoration! Re this latest piece of artisanship, frustratingly typical.

The only thing that would force the labels to up their game would be getting the retailers that sell their releases to push back on them. If our beloved Music Direct, Acoustic Sounds, and Soundstage Direct would either refuse to stock pressings of dubious origin or force the labels to provide an honest statement of the source that was then communicated to customers in the product descriptions, things would change. If Amazon and Urban Outfitters followed suit, things would change overnight. But as it stands, the current attitude at the major labels is all eye-rolls and insults whenever the topic of cutting vinyl from digital comes up. And I'm not saying that speculatively. I've suffered through those meetings and retorts of "fuck 'em...none of them can really tell the difference anyway, they just need something to bitch about in web forums." Of course, this always comes from people who don't have analog systems at all (apart from the requisite beater plastic turntable in the office).

Recently we were assured by one of the mastering engineers, himself, that the Peter Gabriel 1/2 speed 45rpm series reissues are the best these albums have ever sounded. Well, they're not close to how good even the Classic Records 33 reissues sound (as long as The copy you get has quiet vinyl). The new reissues can vary from okay to awful.

Don't always believe the hype from the record company itself.

Michael: An A in a circle? Or could it look like a playing record with a tonearm? and PR's signature?

These could easily be half speed mastered from the analogue tapes by almost any cutting studio. It doesn't need Abbey Road's fandangled digital system. Here's how it works :

Rotate turntable on cutting lathe at 16 2/3rd RPM.
Play 15ips analogue tape at speed of 7.5ips (or 30ips tape played at speed of 15ips)
Lower cutter head onto blank lacquer disc and hit "play" on the tape machine.

Records were cut at half speed well before Abbey Road introduced the digital system you mention.

The real question is this....

Are the original 40 year old analogue master tapes playable today?

If not, we should be glad they were transferred to digital back when they were still playable. Bear in mind that the ORIGINAL ANALOGUE MASTER will more than likely have each song spliced together onto the reel. The splicing tape fails and needs to carefully replaced. Certain magnetic tape sheds it's oxide layer on playback. It's not always possible to play a 40 year old tape.

The aforementioned is no excuse for deceptive advertising but it does mean we may never get the penultimate cut. It's not hard to specify if it was cut DIRECT from the analogue master and the omission of guaranteeing same is somewhat deceptive in itself.

You wrote: "It's time for consumers to put their collective feet down and stop buying this stuff. We must demand where possible, all-analog cuts from master tapes. Period. I understand why Queen did what it did for the box set I haven't heard mastered by Bob Ludwig. There were reasons. Here? I doubt there are any legitimate reasons."

I have been burned so many times taking chances on vague or deceptive source info and gotten a badly mastered, dead-sounding record or records and, in the words of my late father, "it burns my ass!" and dammit it does.

Just pressing various and sundry digital audio files to a vinyl record does not create any kind of audiophile product and charging consumers a premium for it is the friggin' height of cynical opportunism and it has to stop.

I never buy any new vinyl unless I've checked here and a few other spots to see if we're getting the real deal or what.

I think there are enough people who enjoy vinyl records and who are sensitive enough to SQ to build an organisation around this -- a pressure group, lobbying group, something.

Wasn't the 20th Anniversary In Utero set mastered all-analog at Abbey Road?

Abbey Road is not even the greatest of studios. I can think of several in London, Paris, LA and NY. The Beatles went there and that's it. But when you check it out, the Beatles albums dont sound THAT great. So these guys are just piggy backing the Beatles' fame.

And quite frankly, this obsession with working with original masters and so forth is ridiculous. To make a record sound great, the main thing that matters is how tracks are recorded, be it on tape or on hard drives.

I have the original LPs (USA) and never liked the sound - it's a little too murky, even if that was part of the artistic intent.
But the more recent remasters (40th anniversary) are way too bright and volume compressed - unlistenable IMO.
I listen either to the old LP or a 24/96 digital transcription I made myself. The sad part is that my homemade digital version sounds orders of magnitude better than all these latter day remasters.

I've been told that there is an SHM "flat transfer" from the original tapes on CD/SACD that sounds good, but it's Japanese and I haven't heard it.

Amazing and frustrating that an album of such importance keeps. Isi g the mark with each subsequent reissue. Hard not to see the Stones themselves as only in it for the money, which is truly shameful---imagine the joy and commercial success of a reissue done right. In your opinions (Mikey and the community) of all the versions out there, which release of Exile is the best sounding?

I understand that digital copies are made from analog tapes to produce vinyl records, and some can be quite good, and I assume it's because the original tapes may be fragile and need to be protected.

What I don't understand is why they don't make ANALOG copies of the tapes to use for vinyl cutting?

The Mono Masters LP's and Magical Mystery Tour in the Beatles Mono box were cut from analog copies, and they sound great. Same with the recent red and blue reissues, analog copies with great sound.

Is it cost prohibitive?

I like the idea of collaborating on some form of 3rd party AAA certification body that could discover, certify and maintain accurate listings of AAA vinyl editions. It could also help understand and standardize the vernacular of editions.

3rd party certification! Like certifying gluten free, or grass fed beef...It would help, and lead to awareness within the vinyl consumer base. And I too have wondered, why not transfer to analog tape? One tip off re the original "Exile" is that there is (intentional I suspect) a long (5 to 10 seconds) pause between "Just Want To See His Face" & "Let It Loose"...Not replicated on any of the later versions. The sense of "murk" seems part of the mood of post-Altamont ennui/exhaustion that the album also pushes back against. Much of "Goats Head" is terrific, but that album is one uninviting sonic picture made by the best people in the business...

I'm currently reading Greenfield's book on the making of this album.
The sense of murk may have something to do with the recording space being a basement.
If you listen to the LP knowing that- it's pretty cool.
Andy Johns went through heck to get that stuff on tape.
That said- I imagine the condition of those original tapes not being very good.(?)

I have an original US press and it sounds OK.
And yes- it's a sin how god awful that re-master sounds.
Jagger has said, revisting the past is boring- so maybe he doesn't care.
Keith talks a lot about the sound and searching for a new sound- so all jokes aside- he should be tuned into what is being released of his legacy.
Surprised he signed off on it.

Would love to see an early Stones Mono box similar to the Beatles box.

For such a classic record as this, it is almost unbelievable that there has not been a reissue to do this justice since the original "Artisan" pressings.

And it seems to have a very convoluted history.
For me, the best sounding versions are the original first pressings mastered at Artisan, of which the German pressing using the Artisan plates is out in front. Because of the better vinyl quality. However, the German press uses Artisan plates for sides 2,3,4, but side 1 being of local/unknown providence. And it’s noticeable. Side 1 sounds flatter, more distant than the others sides. What happened?? Maybe the plate or lacquer that was shipped got damaged and a tape copy was used locally?? Seems to be a general case, all four of my copies are the same.

To add to the weirdness, the UK first press uses the Artisan mastering on all four sides… But the vinyl is noisier than the German. The American first press sounds great, but, noisy vinyl, noisier than the UK - at least on the two I own.

For the reissues, when Bob Ludwig did the 1994 Virgin reissue, "apparently" the original tape used for the original pressings was AWOL, worn out, stolen or otherwise unusable. So "apparently" using the three track tapes, he or someone mixed a new one using a U.S. first pressing as reference. So on that CD you hear Bob Ludwig doing working his magic and doing whatever he does on the Virgin CD. And for a CD, that sounds great. This is what I heard and I'd love to know if it's correct. Whatever, it's a clearer, more focused mix than the original.

Coming to the recent SHM - SACD reissue, the Japanese single layer SACD. Playing them, I think this is actually a different tape yet again for the SACD. Bringing us up to three.
The SACD sounds great, there is more there, there for the SACD, all the extra bits coming across from DSD, like 705kbs for the CD vs. 2,800 kbs for the SACD... So I play the SACD or the LP if I'm going to play this. That said, the SACD, if I was guessing sounds like a 2nd or 3rd gen. copy of a master. If I had to guess...

It has to be said though - in my opinion.... -- Bob Ludwigs mastering is the best of the lot. Pity it's only a CD. He did a vinyl issue of that mastering, but that was screwed up by Virgin and sounds just flat and lifeless. It's awful. That one has been relegated to the cellar never to see the light of day again...
Now what happened to that tape he apparently mixed???

At the bottom of the list, sounding truly bad, awful, disgraceful is the recent squashed reissue. That sounds bad on both vinyl and CD. With the bonus tracks - in my opinion - an utter waste of time. Sounding equally bad. The various boots out there - Taxile on main street, etc. - have more mojo than those contrived efforts.

Will someone, someone, anyone, please dig out Bob Ludwigs tape and do a proper all analogue reissue?
And while you're at it, do one at 33 and one at 45rpm for the true obsessives who have this record imprinted onto their brains.

I agree, Mike. I hate this trend of mysteriously sourced LP releases. On a lot of them I can't find reviews (Steve Perry's "Street Talk", for example) but at least I knew it was a 96/24 source, so I stuck with my original pressing.

I wanted a Robocop LP and found a re-release. Was it AAA? I had no clue. After listening to it I discovered that it was, but it was a picture disc and had a lot of surface noise as a result.

Generally, unless I see a review from a place that I trust (I bought the TRON OST because of your review, for one) I just steer clear of all modern re-releases because I must assume they come from dubious sources. To make matters worse, the consumer is being downright lied to with this Stones LP. Pathetic.

Gotta love the new lingo of oldness. Ironic here of course because Artisan cut the originals. Even more ironic because this is one of the easiest "still the best" first masterings to find used. It was a number one record. There are several master lacquers, written in two hands (one with Gs that look like Gs, one that look like 9s; sides are often mixed). In the US, stampers from these original lacquers were used at least through the 1977 issue with 75 Rock and the W pill logo--perhaps there are copies that don't, but some of them are still original mastering. And Artisan plates were also used in Canada, the UK, Germany, the Netherlands, and possibly others.

The first side on my unipak 1841 copy that is on the heaviest vinyl (and thus surely an actual 1972) also isn't stamped with the Artisan stamp like the first press German, but the hand writing the rest is the same, so I am sure they just forgot the stamp, and this is still a genuine first press Artisan master.

And PR is a plant (Presswell), not an engineer.

I've been meaning to share this with Michale in an email, but I think this is the appropriate posting to share with the group.

This is the sticker/label the Chicago-based indie label KRANKY has used:

AAA
analog-analog-analog
no digital process was used in the
production of this sound recording!
pressed on premium grade 150 gram vinyl

Very specific and to the point. I wish I could post a picture because this is beautiful.

This is from "Secret Name" by LOW, and I know it is on a few other LOW titles. Not sure about the other artists or titles in the Kranky catalog.

I think it is a model to adopt, once we can get labels to be forthcoming with this sort of info.

The only "message" delivered to marketing wonks is that "Oh well, no one wants LPs. Again."

And we know this, because of how "audiophile" LPs such as this continue to be made. They don't know, because unless they read Internet comments, they can't hear the message. Sales popularity should point to why something is bought, but sales unpopularity just results in the assumption that the product "was fine" but no body wants it. The "why" doesn't get addressed.

I don't know the answer to this continuously frustrating situation.

I agree with john ryan horse on his favorite versions of Exile. I have a UK vinyl pressing that sounds great (not sure what vintage) and the 1994 Bob Ludwig CD is nice as well. In 1972,I remember dropping my Shure (N55?)stylus that was on my second hand Garrard table and hearing the first chords of "Rocks Off" like it was yesterday. AND seeing The Stones in June 1972 with Stevie Wonder opening.....never forget that

I recently bought an original US, complete with the postcards. I had never heard the entire album before. I had read about the "murkiness" of the sound. It ain't audiophile, per se, but it sounds natural and analog. The music flows. Certain cuts sound better than others. None of it sounds bad, some of it sounds really good. I have heard FAR WORSE sounding albums. On a scale of 1-10, I'd give the album sonically somewhere between a 7 and 8. That ain't hay.

I recently bought a copy of the Sundazed reissue of "The '5' Royales" (originally released by King in 1959); the front and back cover graphics are reproduced. Funny, this rock 'n' roll record, marketed to kids mostly, has a blurb on the back: "King records are produced and recorded utilizing the latest in electronic equipment and production techniques - Telefunken mikes, Ampex tape recorders, Scully mastering lathe, Grampion recording head. Pure nickel processing and virgin materials...[assure] the listener of the ultimate in sound reproduction, full frequency range response, and the quietest surfaces possible."
King was hardly known for audiophile recordings (check James Brown's 1967 "Live At The Garden"), but the very fact that this paragraph was included in ALL CAPS on this title (regardless of whether it was possibly used at the time on all King LPs) and half a century later companies can dissemble when it comes to expensive audiophile LPs struck me as worth noting. BTW the reissued album sounds terrific!

...gibes with what I've read many times over the years. Even Geoff Emerick admits that Abbey Road was far from state of the art, and technologically years behind the best U.S. studios at the time. He blames conservative, stodgy (and frugal) management, which repeatedly told Martin to just "make do" with what was already in place. The Beatles, once they became a known quantity, scored the best studio most of the time, but even that studio didn't go 8-track until, what, Yellow Submarine? (The movie soundtrack, not Revolver.) Those of us with decent stereos can hear every one of those four tracks on Sgt. Pepper's.

So, yeah, I digress, but my point is that Abbey Road, especially as it was in the 60s & 70s, shouldn't be considered any kind of benchmark. The best thing it had going for it was George Martin.

I believe Miles Showell has the capability to cut from analogue but most (if not all) the release so far have been from 24/96. Some of the Repertoire label titles he has done are rather good however. I too doubt very much this is from tape but it could be a new flat transfer rather than the earlier compressed remaster. Here's hoping. I did think the most recent Sticky Fingers sounded rather good - a rare occasion were I disagreed with Mr Fremer.

It is really a shame that with analog tapes available we are often getting digitally mastered vinyl. It is really defeating the purpose.

Reading all this & just checked my EOMS which I bought ~ '73-4 ... that pic of the Artisan logo is there on the UK '72 pressing S1 ... will play it tomorrow on my just upgraded TT to see if it still sounds as 'murky' as it did decades ago on my old AR XB1 ... oh yeh, better go wash it first ... new TT, new habits ...

After reading this article I decided that I was going to find a UK copy of this album. A quick note to Mr Fremer which he promptly answered (thank you very much) with what to look for and what to ask the seller,and wham bam thank you mam, I'm now the proud owner of a org. 1972 UK Artisan copy in very good shape(for a 44 year old album).How does it compare, well In my humble opinion, there is no comparison. The Pure Audio Blu-Ray has to be cut from the new digital remaster as it is so glaringly bright it almost hurts the ears, still much better that the newer cd, that I also own. As for the SHM single layer SACD, MUCH! better, this one must be cut from the org tapes, as it levels the 96/24 Blu-Ray, no comparison there. Now for the crem della crem, as good as the SHM SACD is over the Blu-Ray, the org UK lp is over the SACD. It is that good, bottom end slam (not bloat) soundstage, mids, top end, all better! All this from a 44 yr old album. Sure there is a little surface noise, as one might expect from a album that old, but nothing I can't live with. If you can find a reasonable priced copy (I payed $70 US) buy one, it's worth it. Can't remember off hand but I'm sure I payed over $50 US for the SACD and around $25 US for the Blu-Ray. I hope this was of some help.

I too am getting increasingly incensed at the so called "vinyl revival" marketing fraud. My view is that the major record companies are preparing the market for high resolution streaming and producing high resolution digital files for that market. High res digital has yet to widely penetrate the mainstream and the companies need to turn a profit. So, in the meantime market a completely false "vinyl revival" and press those files to LP's label them as "audiophile" and charge top dollar.

Looks like your suspicions were correct. However, in the remaining Q/A, they go on to sing praises regarding the digital sources for this project. Any validity to their claims?

https://thesoundofvinyl.com/*/Abbey-Road-Studios/Exile-On-Main-Street/4Z...

4.What was the source for this record?
24bit/96khz digital transfers supplied by the Stones made from original ¼” tapes. This album was cut from a high-resolution digital transfer from the best known analogue tape in existence. Only minimal sympathetic equalisation was applied to the transfer to keep everything as pure as possible. Also, as this was an analogue, vinyl only high quality release, I did not apply any digital limiting. This is added to almost all digital releases to make them appear to be loud and is responsible for “the loudness war” and in almost every case is anything but natural and pure sounding.

I'm not joking either! Listening to this album at reasonable volume is very difficult on my system. If I make it through I enjoy the silence at the end. Living in Perth, Australia (I'm British) it is difficult to source high quality used vinyl. There is much of it around, but it is mostly junk that nobody wants with the occasional gem. As such, I end up relying on reissues on a regular basis, which is very disappointing when they turn out with poor sound.

and it really had dynamics and the details stood out very good, it had magic in Just want to see His Face, and that says it all for me. When I compared it with my old Artisan it was in parts even better yet beaten overall because it somehow missed that analogue space, still I am very glad with this excellent pressing! It sounds better than all other, except the first Artisan, though that one is murkier by the way, and I do like how this Abby Road edition has more clearness. If I really had to choose, I would have a difficulty, want them both I guess!

Hi, have finally registered on site though frequent browser and mailed Mr.Fremer directly many times to add my 2 cents worth here.I was MASSIVELY sceptical about these Miles Showell Abbey road half speed masters until they released Brian Eno's before and after science on 45.I took a chance, and although Miles takes into digital domain before cutting laquer I couldn't argue with the results.See his response to Mikey elsswhere on this site.I have since bought many others in the series, and they are all really GOOD sounding records.It seems EXILE has been damned here without anyone actually hearing it.I own it, and an AVID/SME/BENZ SONUS FABER system and it is very, very good IMHO.Proof in the pudding, don't write these remasters off without listening to a few, I was angry about the digital part of the process as a purist importing vinyl into South Africa for the last 15 years but seriously, the results really speak for themselves.