Listen to an original mono pressing of "Play With Fire" and Then The New Box Set Version
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 окт 2016
- Plug a good USB DAC into your computer and compare an original London pressing of "Play With Fire" (from the UK-pressed FFRR version), with the new "Rolling Stones in Mono" box set.
Must be my ears but the original sounds amazingly good to me... You are lucky to own that pressing... Wow..
The original had more “presence” in that the highs of the tambourine, harpsichord and guitar strings were brighter and louder. On the reissue these were more muted. It seemed pretty striking and obvious to me.
The Original is harsh and dry. The reissue actually has some body and air to it so its easily better.
The original definitely has more presence. The reissue is flat.@@leon9021
That reissue is surprisingly good. It is a lot calmer than the original and therein lies the problem. Great rock and roll should be bursting with life and vitality. It should never be merely pleasant and this is why the originals (including this one) always trump the ersatz versions; they were created when the musicians and engineers were young and focused, in a world that was experiencing it for the first time. You just cannot replicate that 1/2 a century later.
I agree 💯. The first was unrefined, but had some emotional bite to it. More enjoyable imo
To my ears the original had a raw sound that had me feeling i was sitting right there.
Exactly what I thought!
The placebo effect is strong here. Blind tests are the only good tests.
That said thank you for taking the time to show these. Your videos have been very informative and helped me fall into this audiophile rabbit hole I am currently in.
The original has the secret ingredient missing in all reissues, which is the atmospheric air space of the studio, basically the weather of the air in the studio, that can't be forgotten, it gives a crispness to the instruments in that space. That's what's missing from the newer recording and the producers who've forgotten to take that in. I go with the Original Pressing for that reason alone.
The mono version is more alive it's definitely better
I think that’s just the reverb most mastering engineers added when cutting the lacquer for most records pressed during that time🤣. I like it too tho.
To my ears the original version sounds much better🎉. Amazing. Wow. Thanks for posting
The re-issue sounds much better. The vocal is much broader and smoother and the instruments are much clearer.
Very impressed.
Thanks.
broader smoother but less intense and missing the punch of the original.
Agreed. 100%. The reissue is superior and I’m not stuck on the notion that the original is always the best. Sometimes you have to realize. It’s just not and technology can improve it in every aspect
Beautiful, I vote for the first one. Purest of the 2.
My Stones mono box set has arrived and I've listened to several albums thus far, including "Out Of Our Heads." The sound is magnificent!!! Would highly recommend to everyone out there.
the reissue sounds cleaner to me. Plus the volume of the track is stronger, louder and much easier to understand the words. Music is in the background as it should be with a vocal. Great video thank you so much for it.
I think both are amazing in their own right, and would be delighted with either. Most importantly, that's a great song!
do more of these. I enjoyed that.
I could talk equipment with you for days, what you know about the record itself reminds me of the crazy details on old Jags I memorized as a technician.Thank you for the effort of recording the audio to youtube so well. I can hear it.
I'm liking the original mono LP. But fat chance finding one in listenable condition. Therefore, the reissue is a nice alternative.
Original best -- took me right back -- whole concert, sound, whole and not devoid of feeling --to me re-issue lost original feeling of music but emphasised Mick s voice more - no definitely original -- everything was there!!
RumbleBones great point
try discogs
To reduce emotional bias, play both versions but don't tell us which is which until the very end, or even in a second short video. That will approach a double-blind test to eliminate our built-in expectations and biases.
Instant blind A-B tests reveal short term reaction to the changeover and this can be confusing especially when the differences are subtle. Our best discernment of audio is never instant and requires more time. Long term listening tests can and do reveal considerably more than one off A-B switchovers.
*That's* a great point ❗
I wasn't really thinking about the fact that there might be a difference because my bias was that a "reissue" would be a replica of the original. I noticed a difference on the first note.
How truth that old wise saying that no worse blind than he or she who refuses to see...yet weirdly enough stubbornly swears by his or her own vision ...
How could you not tell the one that crackled like a mother fucker was the older one
beautiful, my dad used to put this on when I was young rediscovered it cause of west world such an awesome song such an awesome series. listening to the second version gives me the shivers, nothing else really touches this for me, other than cats in the cradle
you know your stuff! 22 year old massive stones fan here, I appreciate great sound! subscribed. Peace and love :)
Love your approach Michael
Thanks
I prefer the organic sound on the original. The reissue sounds good but too much like a CD: no nuances, no clear definition in the sound of the instruments as a whole (only the voice and two instruments are highlighted and the others sound distant) , no massive echo. That echo was a special chamber echo they had at the recording studio. I like that a lot, it makes RS early stuff sound really different and gives a cool, dark atmosphere to their sound. Not for everybody, though!
The reissue sounds better, the original has sibalance, distortion and an inconsistent level. Mind you, it can't hold a candle to the wax cylinder version...
Stfu
" organic sound on the original"
I agree. I think it sounds more harmonic.
Rob Jewell
A little harsh there, Rob.
Yes, Jony has is having some fun at the expense of audiophiles but he doesn’t deserve a whacking like that.
Exactly what I was going to say.
Very cool indeed Michael you have the benefit of both you lucky fella
Thank you for your effort, great vid. Great channel.
Super demo! Thanks M.F. Please do More.
Thank you ever so much for bringing the RCA Y connectors to my attention. I ordered some a few days ago, and they just arrived. Wow! What a difference! It wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that my monophonic records sound tenfold better! There's virtually no noise during the beginning and end of playback, even on the most visually worn records, and a general muddiness that plagued my Beatles singles in particular has entirely gone! I can clearly distinguish the bass on their early recordings, and I can pick up subtle nuances that I've never heard before, not even on the mono CDs! I had no idea that singles could sound this good, and the mono albums sound suitably fab as well. Again, I can't thank you enough.
What brand of RCA Y connectors did you purchase? THANKS!
They're VILTALCO cables. I'm sure any brand would serve you well, though.
the original has more character and felt more personal
Very cool thank you for the taking the time and posting the comparison of the two. At first I wasn't sure which one I liked when just listening off my iPad. I know silly me. Then I finally listened through my sennheiser hd650 headphones and the results I found where interesting. Certainly the original sounds vailed and vocals sound over saturated even distorted on the original, but I do find it richer in tone over the reissue. The reissue sounds much more detailed, better clarity, vocals were not over saturated and distorted a good thing, but I do find it thin and less rich in tone. So both have there issues. I would have to say I would have to find another version, neither do it for me lol.
either way, i need to get my hands on this LP in a format I can afford.
Try getting a US copy. Poorer track listing and a little lower quality, but WAY cheaper
Im def a fan of your vids man...Keep the fire burning!!!
Hi Mikey, the sound you get over youtube is amazing. Miss seeing you in Charlotte during events.
A bloody awesome sound from both
Wonderful show
I am really loving the records played on this channel Mikey.Thank you. I am a huge vinyl lover and listen, every day for a few hours when I can. I have been subscribed to Sterophile for years but now I have broadband internet it has opened up all the great videos you have uploaded. The quality you are showing is astounding. How do you record the audio for these videos?
original its personal taste clarity
I just read a bunch of comments! I know this song from the week it came out.
The Last Time was amazing, and this one was so soulful...it was astoundingly deep (and did sound as if it was after midnight, which did turn out to be true). I prefer the original, no question about it - because it Is real and it Is rawer in sound and has more Punch. Love the way Jagger ends up on 1 and 3 on the tambourine and then switches back to 2 and 4, as in the rest of the tune. It's more human, more fallible but beautifully captured in the wild...with Spector, experimenting in the middle of the night.
Love it! Remember, some of these recordings were done on 20-30 year old Studer, Ampex's or Revox's. They were using Ampex, Scotch or Raphone acetate.
Nice topic, great album, just got added to my wishlist!
The reissue seems to have an enhanced sharper sound, that is more digital like and less pleasant or involving. I'm for the original.
I like the harmonic textures of this turntable setup. Vocals are killer.
Thank you for the a/b comparison. Both recordings are great. I never heard this recording before but it brought up memories of being a kid and what it would sound like on a stereo of that vintage. The new recording seemed more intimate, you could hear more texture to the instruments and voice. I was thinking of poetry to music, there is a message here with impact but somehow more boring, but it more of a sound of being recorded live by a very good and dedicated and telanted OCD sound engineer. I can't say why but put it into words the recording reminds me of the live sound in a formal setting. I would be happy with both records, they are really close. After listening to both recordings I started thinking about equalizers and how do you choose the settings, what ever you do seems like it is just a variation of something else.
the reason I don't buy new vinyl....you notice the orig is flat, the re issue is warped. I have been burned a few times with that. why is it so hard for people to press a flat record? thanks for these video's Mike. Big fan of your channel and reviews.
kwd kwd
So true!
No older records were ever warped.
hahaha
Don’t have a shit tonearm and problem solved. I’ll assume you like pops and crackles from the old version too then…
do more videos i really enjoy what you do thanks
You can really tell the subtle differences but both are golden..rock on boys ❤❤❤
oh yeah for you
o gosh you knkw so much about this. You are really great and the best!
Enjoys, refreshing, and easy to tell the difference.
Wow had no idea
Super cool! Both are are pretty wicked
there seems to be more air in the original mix My friend and I as teens were impressed that they had pimples right on the cover photo just the same as us!
Keef was always part of the zit-geist.
thank you for your time and the upload m8.
streaming from the tube the original sounds awesome more life like BUT of course wish I can pop over whit few ice cold guinness let you to change my opinion
god bless
Fantastic A/B Michael. I am also in agreement that the original sounded better, BUT, the reissue is not bad. I think you forgot to talk about the Y connector, love to hear your opinion on that (its what I use, well, I built my own mono switch, but still, same idea).
Brilliant channel. Subbed.
Wow, the reissue sounds really good! The tonality of the harpsichord really stands out to me, and Mick's vocal sounds very palpable. I am pleasantly surprised that I prefer the reissue. I know that a RUclips stream of record is only going to give us a taste of the sound quality.
I defo agree too. It's often difficult to tell via RUclips compression, etc but I think this is pretty clear as day. The vinyl sound DEATHLY quiet, and on top of that there's a little bit more presence and clarity. They've done a damned good job here.
The Re-Issue is sounding compressed. The instruments sounding less outlined.
Compressed and outwashed sound colors compared to the original.
The original was cut with limited bandwidth, especially in the bass and dynamics in order to play back on any mono record player back in the 60s, the reissue has full bandwidth and dynamic range.
My favorite stone song... thanks .
EJ Korvettes! I remember they had a great record department back in the 70s!
Awesome. Stunning sound, I give the edge to the original. Great video, would love to know your thoughts.
Hi Michael,
Thank you for doing this comparison.
I Personally Loved the sound quality of the original mono pressing much better you own. There seems to be quite a bit of compression on the re-issue with Nothing standing out with such detail (Tambourine, Harpsichord especially) as your original, except there is more bass, but in my opinion seems almost like too much bass.
Original Pressing seems better by far !
One last question, I know the Gramophone Stampers codes, but what is the Stamper codes on your Original that Decca used?
You said the word "Buck" and I understood how they correspond as "B" meaning 1 and so on, but my question is what is Full Name Buck...? , Or maybe I heard you wrong?
Thank You,
Peace
Brian
Ok Michael,
I love your channel man !
Peace
Master tapes start to lose information within 3 month after recording. what will happen after 40 years?Whats lost you can`t get back from / in reissues , only from first press.
They both sounded like RUclips videos to me.
Funny that .... ok. even allowing for YT compression and the joys of recording a recording, its not hard to hear the improved detail and separation on the second recording from nothing more than a Fiio DAC/amp into a pair of their FH1 IEMs : hardly the stuff of audiophile dreams, but its easy enough to distinguish one from the other. Mr Fremer's recordings are better than a certain YTer who goes from one high-end audio show to the next trying vainly to record what people are hearing in the rooms - if the industry had to depend on those videos for ongoing interest, it would be dead in the water.
Hahah.. Awesome.
@Peaches Peaches - if you can't hear the difference, blame yourself.
They sound like shit any way you present them.
Arthur Watts I have to totally disagree. The first, original sounded a bit better on this end. Much more alive, in the room, while the second seemed compressed, normalized. The first, Mick's voice is more up in your "ears", the second, balanced out, not like it sounded back in the days :) I really get tired of engineers/mixers, re-mastering, re-doing what already has done it, and done it well enough. As far as the comments you hear about telling the difference on YT videos, get a brain. Garbage in, becomes garbage out. Even if it is played through more garbage, just sounds even worse. Better sounding recordings/guitars/tone stacks/tubes/carbon resistors....a French horn, etc. etc. will be reflected even through that garbage trail.
If you want to hear the limiter at play, listen to the instrumental bridge on the original.. You can hear the dynamics being pulled in rhythmically, almost as though it were breathing in opposite direction. Then listen to the reissue and you hear no such inverse pulsating.
Duh this is the wall of sound sound. Fairchild limiters that pull up all the echo and verb sounds.
Hey Michael! Great and very useful video! but you didn't told us how to get the most out of the stereo cartridge to listen to mono records... i was very interested to know about that!
I always listen to the Beatles mono reissues and what i do is, i've got my preamp plugged to a little mixer i have, so i mute either the L o R channel and pan the other to the middle, so the same channel comes out of both speakers... that's the "MONOest" way i've found to play them, but i feel like i'm missing something...
Korvette's used a small square price tag on the shrink wrap marked "E. J. Korvette". Sam Goody used a razor blade to open a small area of shrink in usually the lower right-hand corner of the rear, and hand-wrote the price in ballpoint pen. So the original copy is likely neither ...
Widescreen Mono...Wonderful. The original kicks ass, I have not heard it sound so good in decades. The reissue sound is uneven and the bass is boomy. To my ears of course. Thanks Mike. Clayton. P.S. 2nd listen to the reissue first half actually not too bad, but 2nd half the uneven and booming bass or low end guitar is quite noticeable..Will put on repeat. ;)
Out of Our Heads... original pressing.. nice! Terrific album.
So good to see these on your system... through my laptop speakers. :( ;)
The original is more engaging, the re-issue is more hypnotic. For deep listening I might prefer one today, the other one tomorrow.
They both sound great. The sound may be (or seem to be) a bit fuller in the remastered version.
50 Years Strong And The Rolling Stones Sound As Fresh As Ever~
Nice to see that the record clamp shares the same virtues as my deck.
I think the original sounds a little more 'open' and has more life in it. But no complaints about either, great review and nice setup!
No comparison. Even on RUclips you can sense the depth and space of the original. The reissue sounds muffled and compressed by comparison.
Exactly
true. the reissue sounds pitiful.
It still sounds good enough to listen to, but you're right. It was noticible the most on the last part of the chorus. It lacked that sort of step-up punch to it on the reissue.
Nick Maione
In most cases originals are better, but sometimes the reissue is better
Crapshoot
Nick Maione
Outstanding turntable
Mick Jagger’s voice, amazing
i think the reissue sound a lot better the old one has a little bit of noise. im listening on my B&O H6 headphones and a can hear every detail.
Great video.
Is it just me or is the reissue pressed from a digitally cleaned up master? It sounds like they took some of the edge off the highs.
So we agree, and because you are a highly recognized subject matter expert, you don't know how good that makes me feel. Thanks for the response. Shana Tova.
Yes, just you, because he said the reissue is from'65, not quite digital yet ;)
The original master (heard in true stereo on the withdrawn first West German CD pressing of "Hot Rocks", where the double album was divided into 2 CD's "Hot Rocks 1" & "Hot Rocks 2") is indeed hissy, so some "cleaning up" may have been done on all vinyl pressings. Keith Richards was especially upset by the inclusion of a true stereo "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction" on those CD's, and insisted that ABKCO/London withdraw the CD's. Be cautioned that later West German pressings may list those songs as "stereo" on the artwork, but the discs actually have mono mixes of "Play With Fire", "Get Off of My Cloud" & "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction"
Long time ago I found out that my favorite artists 'remasterings' were strangely different than what the originals were like. Maybe, as in all things so in music. To have been there and heard them back in the day was and will always be the best sounds. Unfortunately, others somehow get to the mixing of remastered music and it never gets to be what it was.
omg, how can anybody prefer the reissue? the original and that perfect early pressing sounds sooo great!
What about the y connectors for the mono sound is it just two stereo to mono connected together?
I purchased some original Rolling Stones Records frrr. Some are lightly scratched no problem on play. I purchased an ultrasonic for cleaning. It does a great job. My question is why do I still get the crackle popping sound? Doesn’t happen to all my records but continues with some?
Thanks
'Play With Fire' = early memories for me as with many folk. It was amongst the very 1'st songs i liked from age circa 7 yrs. My elder sister & bro's would buy singles weekly & then they'd discard certain ones a week or 3 later, & i'd listen to & collect what i liked in a tall biscuit tin, unchallenged. I didn't understand the A & B-side concept but i preferred "Play w..." on that Stone's 45, years later noticed it was the B-side (in the u.k. single at least) of a huge Stones hit i can't recall, tho i preferred it's B-Side then. I've recently bought an "A.T Mono3/L.P. MC" & first put on a mono "Summit" label (?) pressing of Bizet's Carmen Suit ...i was blown away! I'd played it before with stereo m.c. but It now sounded clearer, very much cleaner (in "snap, crackle & pop terms ...with virtually none) & an almost silent background. P.S, I hope this dude has got children or younger relatives who would appreciate his L.P. collection because in the distant future i.e. in a good few decade's time ...i can imagine big interest & some devious "Spy Vs Spy" tactics of scheming by outsiders itching to get first pick from his collection. A very good friend of mine of 45 years & one of the biggest s/h record dealers in Cambridgeshire passed away 3 years ago & the tactics i saw from his friends, acquaintances & practical strangers (claiming all sorts) to get first pick of his personal collection of 13 - 14 thousand (we estimated with tape-measure) ...were disgusting & involved threats & fighting talk behind backs at times, i stayed right out of it! (i had known him longest of all but some vultures started using length of friendship to claim rights to 1'st pick, then came a battle of cash offers ...It got very ugly
Back in the 60s I bought a mono version of the Stones album "Got Live If You Want It!" because I didn't have a stereo record player only a mono record player-and sometimes I put a quarter on the tone arm to stop the skipping.
I would like to know what changes were made from the original mono recording for the reissue version? Like many others, in this video the mono recording sounds better to me - even with some of the audio hiss.
Hi Michael. I love your channel. I have question how does a step-up transformer work. I have a lehman audio black cube statement, but some people say step up's are better. Cartridge is a ortofon vivo blue.
Thank You.
A tough one, but the original sounded a little bit better on my headphones. Maybe because of Mick´s voice, kinda up front and clearer.
There's noticeable pitch modulation (especially audible on the guitar opening) that isn't present on the re-issue.
Much better contrast on the reissue. Makes it come more alive
That distortion on the high freqs that gets specially noticeable when he sings louder... i wasnt expecting it to be on the reissue too, i wonder if the master just had this saturation on purpose..
I have one question, is an Audio Technica ATLP60 a good record player for beginners?
Wrapped is an understatement.
Aw I love your record reviews
The original has its good points as does the reissue
Phil Spector love TAMBOURINES, period!!! Multiple tambourines were one of the "secrets" of the Wall of Sound.
I love the reissue. There's more presence to it.
More videos like this, please
They both sound really good regardless of people's opinions on the original being faulty or not sounding perfect which the original is excellent and it was a snapshot of a moment in time that they recorded that in the studio and it's way more pleasing to my ears than the reissue..
I would not have allowed Jagger anywhere near a tambourine in a recording studio.
I have the original single when it was released. Uk version. Sounded great on my mono record player when I was ten years old. It was a b side.
Have you made a comparison video between an original Beatles UK LP vs the latest mono reissues, which were said to come from the original tapes? Thanks!
the original voice sounded closer to the mike and instruments as fill. the reissue sounded more blended or instruments levels were raised to match vocals. i like the original sound better.
So is the reissue true mono (ie only horizontal cart movement) or is it ‘dual stereo’ (ie vertical and horizontal movement but the same signal on both groove walls?
I ask this as you used the mono cart for both but without vertical movement you could shred the grooves if it’s a dual mono disc....
The original sounds like it was recorded in a bedroom. The reissue has a studio sounding mastering. I can see why the majority of people like the original, less processed.
With a dac phone and headphones honestly couldnt tel the difference without it the mono sound warmer and more open
Great ominous track either way. V2 sounds crisper, possibly because the eq pulls out a little more clarity in the upper mids, so maybe being a little thinner as a result kills a minute amount of low end warmth. Still a gritty old masterpiece. Nice to hear it again.
Michael, I know you've received plenty of criticism from some members of the "audio community" in the past. It doesn't sway you in your mission. I also love the historic commentary you provide
The original had more compression which makes it more 1960s and rockin'. The reissue sounds like an academic document. This is my impression through RUclips data stream direct to my laptop speakers. Actually I think it has one speaker firing down.
I heard Live at Leeds from venyl as a teenager. The sound was so much better than mp3!
Good evening. What turntable, arm, head, amplifiers and speakers does it play with? thanks!