Mixing for the stadium and mixing the multitracks later in a studio are two entirely different exercises. There's no reason the latter can't sound as crisp and detailed (and dynamic) as possible, especially considering it's the Stones, and certainly the equipment used to capture the recording was top-notch. Everything is close-mic'd and recorded to multitrack: recording the Stones at a club for Stripped and recording them in a stadium are essentially the same exercise.
I didn’t say Steely Dan “audiophile” level of home sound - although really good sound is easily doable. There are countless examples of this. You are conflating compression at the individual/track level and compression of the overall stereo or 5.1 mix. Two entirely different animals. I guarantee you when Keith Richards puts an acoustic guitar on a studio track, it gets compressed too. And there isn’t “serious” compression going on live before it gets to the recording gear. Where is this magical compressor BEFORE the guitar track is recorded? The compression is mostly happening at the mixing stage - be it live or in the studio later on. Again, getting good sound for a live audience and a home audience are not mutually exclusive.
Alright, I'll have to give the earlier release another listen. l don't recall thinking it was any particular audio achievement - all these Stones concert releases of recent years have had the usual big concert sound. But audio memory is terrible and I have not done a proper A/B comparison. More to follow.
The studio recording presented in 5.1 is the same different animal as the big concert recording delivered in 5.1. There's no conflation there. I also guarantee that Keith's acoustic gets compressed on the studio recording as well, but review my statement and you'll see that I only said, in studio, the compression is not applied between the acoustic guitar and microphone. After that, the compression is the engineer's decision. I imagine the recording engineer could receive uncompressed acoustic guitar at the Stones concert, but that would not be representative of what is sent to the audience. If they are to keep fidelity with what the audience receives, the recording engineer for the live show is receiving an already compressed acoustic guitar. Getting good sound for a live audience and subsequent recording is indeed possible. If it is a small audience, it can be excellent sound. Excellent sound to an audience of 90,000 is not going to approach the same excellence as that for sound recorded without the 90,000 cheering Stones fans.
90,000+ cheering people still get into Mick's mic. They influence Keith and Ron to turn it up more - yes, that loudness can be compensated for at the mixing desk but the result is more compression. That said, sure, the producers could give us the more direct crisp soundboard stuff with much less ambience and audience, but they want to present the grandeur of the event and be faithful to the sound that was heard. Knowing they are applying the same desire for faithful representation, the Stripped recording is where I'd look for the better live sound.
Check out the audio from the Biggest Bang set that came out in 2007 and compare it with this. I get what you're saying instinctively but I don't think it's really true. (Of course a little audience noise is picked up, but Mick is so far from the crowd that it's not really a factor). I mean, maybe they're trying to make it sound bad on purpose so it feels like you're in a stadium. But there's other examples: like St. Louis 1997 (the bootleg sourced from the PPV or just an audio rip from the official DVD) sounds night and day from the Bremen & Buenos Aires even though they're all from cavernous stadiums on the same tour. St. Louis is a really well-mixed, crisp, dynamic presentation, whereas the recent vault releases are muddy and compressed to hell. The venue has almost nothing to do with it, really.
The venue has everything to do with the legitimate producer's vision. By that, I mean they usually want to present the event faithfully. If it's a large affair, they are not going to give just the soundboard feed with no audience or ambience. The illegitimate producer (bootlegs) presents what they have. If what they have is strictly the soundboard feed, it can be very crisp and present with much better sound but not faithful to what was heard out in the audience. Hence, knowing that the legit producers want to present the Stones in front of 90,000 or more people - in all it's grandeur - I'm not looking to such releases for great sound quality. Reasonably good professional sound quality, yes - and that's what I'm hearing on this recent release. I will have to dig out the 2007 version. If this new one is only a remaster, as opposed to remix, I'll be surprised if I hear a significant difference.
It's a total remix. I ripped the audio from Four Flicks and Biggest Bang before I got rid of my DVD collection so it's easy to compare the two. Not that the 2007 one is going to win any audio awards, but it sounds good, and has some nice dynamics. I don't think emulating the crappy sound in the kind of cavernous settings the Stones play in is something to strive for. Of course you want it to capture the atmosphere, but no one goes to those gigs for great sound. There's a balance to be found when mixing live material.
Yet again, the two are not mutually exclusive. You can have good concert sound and create a very high fidelity recording of the same show. There are many, many examples of this. What little compression - if any - added to instruments before the sound reaches the recorder wouldn’t change that. Honestly, all of what you’re saying is just being an apologist for the sound of many of their live releases. There is nothing unique about the Stones live performance or concert sound requirements which precludes them from creating a good sounding mix after-the-fact of the same performance. The problem isn’t the canvas, it’s the humans working with the canvas.
Cite some examples. We agree that good sound from a studio recording v. a concert recording of 90,000+ is not a mutually exclusive occurrence. I think the current BluRay of the Stones Copacabana is an example of a good recording - but it is not excellent (owing to the less than ideal environment with which the recording is made and for which I am indeed an apologist). I am not aware of a legitimate concert recording of a 5 piece, guitar-based, classic rock band playing to a similarly sized event that approaches the quality of an excellent studio recording.
Yes, no one goes to these gigs for great sound, at least not primarily, and there is indeed a balance - I'll call it compromises - to be made in the mixing. That was my point in questioning the focus on sound quality for a concert recording of this magnitude. That said, I appreciate your note that this issue is a remix. I could have answered my own question by looking at the hype sticker in the new set. I'm frustrated that I haven't yet found my copy of Four Flicks to hear just how significant is the change in sound.
On that one the recording itself also happened to be engineered by some hack named Glyn Johns so maybe he had something to do with it!
I have to say, I am impressed with "Love in Vain" on the Stones at Leeds recording. "Under My Thumb" and others are the usual loud concert kinda thing lacking studio-recording clarity.
Agree completely , everything from late 80s on sounds the same and has been released to death ..i just dont think there are any quality early mid 70s video with Taylor playing out there , i think we saw the best with Ladies and Gentlemen
Rush/ZZ Top have the real amps set up off stage in sound isolation rooms. I watched ZZT MontreUx over the weekend and shocked at Gibbons incredible guitar tone. Wireless guitar to boot!! All 2019 Stones tour reports seems be highly positive of the sound. Except maybe some windy Chicago nosebleeds.
These aren't concerts though - they're Blu-Ray and DVD presentations of the concerts, with multi-track audio that can be mixed and treated. They are intended for 2 or 3 quiet folks at home. That's who is watching them. It's like saying that, if I go to the World Cup final and have a really bad seat, can only see one end of the pitch and have water dripping on my head from the stadium roof, the Blu-Ray of the match shouldn't show the best camera angles, with the clearest picture quality and I shouldn't watch it from my lounge in comfort because that wouldn't be accurate. If this is supposed to replicate the stadium experience, we shouldn't even get more than one camera angle.
Fun observations! Yes, these BluRays and DVD's are indeed representations of concerts and I have to adjust my position such that - when I say the producer's desire is to bring the concert experience to the few at home - that that is limited to the audio portion as no audience member at the actual concert is flying around the venue and getting into each band members face. If you are saying that the intention of the producers can't be to deliver some of the concert audio experience to those at home because the visual is not the same experience, that is too say they are unimaginative and I don't believe that is the case.
It' s on my hard drive in a folder labeled "Stones at Leeds" - on further investigation I see I have it on the Sticky Fingers deluxe set.
Is there going to be a significant difference in picture quality between the DVD and blu-ray editions, given the age of these shows?
Did anyone else pre-order vinyl of this well in advance and not receive it yet? (From MusicVaultz, Canadian website for Universal, who show the product to interested buyers now as "Buy now, more stock coming soon")
Yes, I have not seen any sign of it. In fact, I forgot where I even ordered it from, it's been so long. I think it was Amazon and I recall it saying the release date was some time in August.
