Rolling Stones- It's Only Rock N Roll SHM-SACD Reviews

RE: "Fingerprint File" Perhaps the song was sped up because people at Atlantic were worried about skipping issues if they kept the song at the original speed? The bass on this song has always been pretty strong and I'm wondering if the sonics and the speed of the song would have caused skips when people were playing them on their turntables.

 

Yeah rethinking my original opinion I agree because the above makes this disc unique. While SF and Live both sound outstanding imo and are well worth picking up as well IORR will probably end up being the most collectable of the bunch given these other qualities. But hell, I'd just say suck it up live on beans and rice for a month and grab them all while you can. To some that may sound insane but damn these are insanely good. And after all, it's only r'n'r.

 

Another one added to the wishlist. Can't wait to give this one a spin.

 

I must buy this also. Great to see Stones records from the 70's era released on Sack-Dee......

 

...obviously it's time to buy a SACD player...
I guess I'll have to live on rice and beans for the rest of the year...

 

That lays it out pretty solid. Thanks for taking the time

Thanks to sberger, as well.

 

I go this yesterday. Certainly no sonic marvel of a recording in the first place but an enjoyable listen.

 

Are you saying that the new SHM-SACD is louder in volume than the already slightly compressed 1994 Virgin remaster? Is this a result of your SACD player having a louder output or is this the result of the mastering?

Compared to the original CD mastering, the 1994 remaster does indeed sound a little compressed, and I prefer the original mastering.

 

That's interesting. After listening to both clips above, and the full song on Youtube, the SHM-SACD clip sounds phasey.

 

my analogue rip is from a low cost dvd player (into my PC's soundcard) and was done to show the difference in speed on FF and the cold ending of TWFNO. neither the rip nor the waveform are to be taken as representative of the disc itself. of course there's plenty of deliberate phasing on FF, but i'm guessing you mean an audio error, not a guitar effect?

 

OK - I've ordered a copy

 

It could also be a loose cable somewhere.

The phase doesn't seem to be present on the Universal clip or the Youtube clip.

 

IORR is my least fav Stones' recording w/ Mick Taylor. Regardless it does have Time Waits for No One, which is a great tune and one the few that I've heard (read) Jagger & Richards credit MT w/ writing. I'd be curious to know -- how's the tempo of TWWFNO on the new SHM-SACD? On my old CD of IORR it sounded like Jagger's vocals were sped up to an unnatural pitch. It wasn't like MJ was using that ridiculous falsetto (sp?) he'd embrace later, but that his vocals were recorded in a lower key and then later raised to match the key the song was in. Anyone else notice this?

 

The louder SHM-SACD was played back through the same player as the CD (Sony XA5400ES). I would have to assume that the SHM-SACD was mastered louder. Just because the volume of the presentation is louder doesn't mean it was compressed (I assume).

 

I am not sure about the technology DSD, but I would assume that a constant tone recorded/mastered in pure DSD which hits 0 dB has the same loudness as the same tone recorded/mastered in redbook.

Since the 1994 Virgin CD already reaches 0 dB and is already dynamically reduced somewhat (compared to needledrops and the original CD mastering), wouldn't the conclusion be that the SHM-SACD has been dynamically reduced by some sort of technology? I don't know of any other technology in digital to make it louder (when your peaks already reach 0 dB) than to use some form of compression/limiting.

 

Some players decode DSD and PCM at a different volume. Could be just that.

We won't know for certain if the SACD is compressed until someone who's sure of his methodology has made a rip of it and posted a waveform.

 

It is recommended for multiformat players that "the analog CD-DA output of a fully modulated signal is equal to the analog Super Audio CD output for a 0 dB SA-CD signal." But note that the reference level 0 dB SA-CD corresponds to -6 dBFS, so it is my understanding that SACDs can be made louder than CDs without resorting to compression and clipping. (The allowed peak level of SACDs is actually +3.1 dB SA-CD, not +6 dB, so they can't be twice as loud as long as all specifications and recommendations are respected.) Source: Super Audio CD System Description - Audio Signal Properties, Version 1.3 (2003), Annex E.1.

 

Yeah. Really boomy lower midrange on many cuts--I suspect our host would leap for the parametric EQ. My guess is the 100-150 Hz range would need some serious reduction to get rid of the sonic sludge of the masters.

And man, are some of the stereo mixes wonky! Snare drums panned way right, Nicky Hopkins' piano sounds like it was run thru those fake stereo effects used to create duophonic Beach Boys albums, the "Where's Mick's vocal?It's here somewhere" effect as "Luxury" starts...

 

You can be certain that you do (or not) like the "sound" but can you be certain those who created the music did not intend / prefer the "sound" you refer to as "the sonic sludge of the masters"?

My guess, based on what I have heard (actually read) many artists say (but clearly not a conclusion that all artists feel this way), is that those who create music are generally far more interested in the music and lyrics, the songs, and the performances, than the "sound" ... I'm not saying that they don't care at all about the "sound" -- just that THEIR preferences don't necessarily align, or have to align!, with the preferences of the many people who will ultimately hear what they create and that the "sound" is often of secondary concern to the songs and performances -- and even the FEEL ...

 

Yes, Keith Richards, for sure, and I believe Mick Jagger have stated that they do not like the sound of this album in interviews.

 

If that's the case then I would take their word for it that sound of the record did not (or, see my final comment, DOES not now) properly reflect their desires/intentions ... I would agree with that because when I first heard IORR (LP, day of release, like every album from Aftermath forward) my first reaction (and I don't know what sonic qualities would cause this) was "that the album's sound was "fake" or "canned" or "not organic" i.e. just "off" in some way that I had not experienced with any of the the immediatley preceding albums on Rolling Stones Stones Records.

Rightly or wrongly, as I am not a music industry professional so I really don't know who is ultimately responsible for what when it comes to the "sound" of an album, I immediately chalked that up to the album being the first record produced by The Glimmer Twins rather than Jimmy Miller.

So it seems sort of funny that Mick and Keith would NOW feel that way about the sound of IORR, given that it was their first "production" credit back THEN. But as I said, I found the IORR sound disappointing as well.

 

And yet they self-produced Satanic Majesties and - regardless of what people feel about the musical content - sounds well-recorded to me.

 

I have to agree that TSMR sounds much better to me than IORR does ... so perhaps the "Keith Harwood sound" was taking precedence over the "Andy Johns sound"? (the mixing of most except "Fingerprint File" credited to KH) ... I have no idea what brought on the change I noticed that I even have trouble describing -- I just know that I have always felt that IORR sounded "off" from what had come before -- whether intentional or not.

 

If the Stones really loved the sound of IORR, all their subsequent records would've had that sound.

As for intent, consider the irony that the worst-sounding cuts of an album entitled "It's Only Rock & Roll" are the rock & roll cuts. "Till The Last Time", "Time Waits For No One" and "Fingerprint File" all sound fine.

As it is, Black and Blue's mixes blow the doors off this, which tells me they recognized after the fact that there was room for improvement.

 

Agreed on all points vonwegen (though like I said, I would not want the "sound" of B&B imposed on all their previous albums) ... and it seems like the same key people were responsible for the sound of IORR and B&B ... so perhaps it was a learning/growth for all involved? different locations? equipment? all of the above?