Stones SACDs - the verdict on the mastering quality?

I just cant get on with the SACD/Cd mastering of Let It Bleed.

Some things are ok, but the mids seem forced and congested on some tracks, especially Gimme Shelter and You Cant Always Get What You Want.

What I notice on these tracks is Nicky Hopkins wonderful piano gets lost somehow, and is very hard to hear amongst everythin else. On previous issues of these songs, the piano did seem too have a bit more space of its own, which I found more enjoyable to listen to.

The other thing noticed is that Midnight Rambler and Monkey Man have a more high frequnecies in the right channel than the left, making the mix seem rather skewed in headphones...and the piano in Monkey Man seems forced and unnatural again.

Just my ameteur thoughts in this one mastering, dont know if anyone here agrees?

JJ

 

I'm with Stefan if I recall who said what. The reference has to be the old analog-sourced vinyl. The only SACD I bought when it came out was Let It Bleed, and it was beaten soundly by my early (but probably not 1st pressing as there is no poster) US London vinyl. It just doesn't have the life and projection of the vinyl. I'm sure the UK vinyl is even better.

Since then I have gotten most of the SACDs, and played some of them, and they are ok. I don't have the original ABCKOs to compare, just going with various vinyl copies I have.

Note, the CD layer via my Naim CDS sounds better than the SACD via Pioneer DV-47, so I'm only commenting on the CD layer.

 

I'd say this is in violation of forum rules.

 

Naw, he's not starting an objective vs. subjective debate, he's just saying that if you're going to do double blind testing, some ways of doing it are better than others. I don't think that's a violation of anything.

 

Comparing ABX to "sighted" testing and claiming its superiority is clearly a violation of the rules. I also find it offensive. I'm capable of listening carefully a well as critically, and making sound judgements about whether there are or are not differences in sound without someone telling me, I only thought I heard a difference because I expected one.

 

I don't have an opinion on these testing formats, ABX , double blind or whatever.

I've never understood why this type of thing is banned here and/or why people get so bent out of shape over the mere mention of it.

It mystifies me

 

Blair, why don't you read the explanation at http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showpost.php?p=173214&postcount=1. I think it states the case quite well.

 

What are your prefered digital choices for "LiB"?
Thanks.

 

Thanks Stefan,

I guess it answers the question: It's such a contentious issue with some, and prone to lots of misunderstanding/misrepresentation, it's a case of "let's not go there".

It also doesn't help that I don't understand the difference between the testing formats, and I'll think I'll leave it that way

 

Lookin' like we are close to consensus. I don't have many of the early Stones SACDs but the later one's are superb. All the Dylans that I have heard have been very good, with the one caveat being the decisions that were made to mult-channel or not multi-channel.

 

I wouldn't, because 1) I have actually done the ABX comparisons of Stones SACDs that I have described and 2) it is undeniably true that SCIENCE demands and relies on such controls, as I wrote. Your recourse to 'rules' that don't apply here, rather than substantial response, is noted.

 

Claiming that science considers it so, is simply a statement of fact. If you're saying that scientific standards often don't matter to audiophiles, I'd have to agree.

Well, your argument is with established scientific protocols, then, not with me. For a fact, a study of perceived audio quality that relied on your method, would never make it past peer review of scientific journal. Is it not allowed to say what's true?

 

Let's end any discussion of ABX and similar listening tests and get back to the Stones SACDs. Thank you.

 

I have 5 Stones SACDs, and I find them all to be good.

 

I have almost every Stones CD release on London, original ABKCO and all the SACD Hybrids.

All versions of Beggars and Let it Bleed sound very good. These albums were produced very well and any of the CD releases is a winner. I do prefer the London's by an edge though just for the mids.

Between the Buttons is hit and miss, gotta go for the Hybrid here. The SACD and redbook playback of the DSD just sounds so good compared to any format version before.

I really like the Londons and Hybrids for their first 4 albums. It's a shame the Chicago recordings don't come alive on these releases though.

 

I've got almost the whole series(except "Aftermath(U.S.A.)" & "Between The Buttons(UK)",which are redundant).
I am generally satisfied. My only complaints involve the following:
1.The use(throughout the series) of an incorrect mix of "Ruby Tuesday", which lacks some harmony vocals on the chorus.
2.The use of a fake stereo "Satisfaction" on "Hot Rocks"
3.The presentation of "Play With Fire","Mother's Little Helper" & "Get Off of My Cloud" in needless mono on "Hot Rocks". The original West German London "Hot Rocks 1/2" CD's had them in true stereo.
4.While I appreciate the added tracks on "More Hot Rocks",ABKCO overloooked the fact that the UK("Rolling Stones No.2") version of "Everybody Needs Somebody to Love" exists in stereo(check the UK Decca vinyl L.P. "Rock N'Rolling Stones")
5.Rolling Off the highs when presenting "Aftermath(UK)".I prefer the West German "London" CD.
6.The failure to include the live medley "Everybody Needs Somebody to Love/Pail in My Heart" & the Italian language version of "As Tears Go By"(Con Lie Me Lacrime"),so that the series could contain the complete British Decca recordings.

 

I recently purchased a copy (straight redbook) of "Aftermath UK". When I was looking for this disc in the stores I realized the SACD hybrids were out of print and I was concerned that the new CDs that were out might not sound as good. The SACDs have received lots of praise around here for sure. BTW I don't have an SACD player.

I was able to compare my CD with the redbook part of a friends SACD. We both thought the regular CD sounded a little nicer. Slightly more clear and relaxed. The SACD playing the redbook layer sounded a little strained in direct comparison.

I'm wondering if the new CD releases were altered in some way? It was not as dramatic a difference as might be expected from a new mastering but there was a difference.

I've always loved the stones on the radio but for some reason never got into their albums too much so I'm probably not looking at getting more than one or two of their other CDs. If I were going to collect the series I'd do some comparisons at home to check out the differences. If you don't need the SACD capability it might be better to get the regular CDs.

J

 

well here's a link with some opinion http://www.lukpac.org/stereostones/stones-cd-faq.txt


The whole thing is pretty confusing. As I understand it they only gave Ludwig DSD sources, not actual analog tapes, which were said to be from the best available sources, not necessarily masters. You'd think with a band like the Stones they would know where the master tapes are. It's interesting that the original cd's said "from the master tapes" but none of the SACD's do, and some of the old cd's had MFSL on them, supposedly the tapes used for the MFSL Stones Lp box were dropped onto PCM and used on some of the early cd issues. For my own opinion a) I do hear a difference between cd and sacd layers especially on Let it bleed b) I preferred none of the older cd's to my Lp's or the sacd's. I only compared Let it Bleed, Get yer ya ya's out, and Satanic Majesties. I had no cd version for beggars banquet, the sacd was my first digital version of that album. If Ludwg had the master tapes they might have come out better, but the SACD's sound pretty good and you can buy them for a reasonable cost.

 

It would be very easy to check. Rip both CD versions (standalone, and CD hybrid layer) using an accurate ripper (Exact Audio Copy, dbPoweramp) and compare them as data. Any alteration of the data will show itself.

 

If master tapes are worn out or damaged, they might not necessarily be the best ones to use, compared to ,say, a safety.

 

Is your CD/SACD player up to the same level quality wise as your turntable?

 

Not true. Roland in another thread talks about how he boosted, ever so slightly, the top end on a file using EAC and when compared to the original showed no difference what so ever.

 

But shortly before the release, people involved with the Rolling Stones SACD project told the now-defunct "ICE Magazine" that they had found the original masters for 90% of the tracks.

 

This is simply not possible. You either misunderstood Roland, or he made an error.

I believe you can alter the eq slightly and end up with the same EAC peak values. But that's completely different from saying "it showed no difference what so ever".

 

I did not misunderstand Roland, Andreas.

How so, if they cancel out without adjustments of any kind like Roland told us then "according to EAC" they are exactly the same?

If you can alter the eq. as you've suggested and they cancel out completely it tells me the ripping program can't really detect as much as some members would like to believe. This follows exactly why I will never trust a computer program over my system and ears.