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

So mine arrived today and I just played it - Definately my digital go to version. Sounds much cleaner than any CD I have heard, and much more alive and dynamic. It's actually a pretty busy record - lots of stuff going on. The only thing I noticed is that the title track sounds kind of wimpy and hollow - maybe because of no eq boosting of the midrange? The electric guitars are not bad, but the accoustic and rythem track are kind of flat. At any rate, it doesn't sound dolbyfied anymore, although I still wouldn't call it an audiophile recording.

Time Waits For No One sounds great. Mick doesn't get lost in Luxury (although there is a lot of sibilance in his vocals on that song in particular, so maybe he was made to sound buried to hide it). Dance Little Sister kicks.

A slowed down version of Fingerprint File has been available on boots - I'm thinking the Mickboy "remaster" Short and Curlies has it clocking in at 6:50, but here it is even slower, at 7:01, and I agree - It sounds better to me than the standard issue.

 

Seems to be more a problem of the final mastering than the actual mix of the recordings.. The trax from IORR on the Made In The Shade LP Compilation sound not at all out of place, compared to the stuff from Sticky Fingers, Exile or Goats Head Soup.
These albums are generally the worst by The Stones from an audiophile pov. Recorded on various occasions, diverse studios or basements often mixed on the Stones Mobile after countless hours of rehearsing, TSMR was at least recorded in a London studio with some kind of regular schedule.....
Who mastered IORR back in the days ? Know what ? I like that LoFi Stones sound on IORR once I get accustomed to it.
Reminds me of playing a Cassette back in the LP days. Once your ears were adjusted to the lower fidelity it didn't matter much if the music was good...
Who mastered IORR = Bernie Grundman ?

 

Bingo, You Got It!
remember back in that day, a 45 minute Lp was considered GENEROUS! and mastering work on the level and depth of the groove was a science into itself.
So, yeah, without a doubt I'd say that both speeding up AND fading was done to fit all that music, with standard decibel output, on a standard LP. I didn't figure it out until I was remastering IORR for my personal use and just as a lark, slowed the pitch down on FingerPrint File and it worked! Imho. So this doesnt surprise me. What surprises me is that someone is doing this legit in Japan and not a word about it anywhere but here! Cmon! A direct Flat transfer of the original 2 track mixdown masters onto SACD in an almost 'closet' type fashion???????????? This is just tooooooo weird to make sense out of. But we are seeing the end days of the cd format and probably the dvd format, so they might just be shooting to thrill to get that last amount of cash out of us who will pay such *****ing stupid prices. BUT....if I end up with a SACD/DSD of the original tape.....FINALLY AFTER ALL THESE DECADES....then, it's worth it to me. I'll be dumping all my other issues onto the 2nd hand market. and then my casket awaits me!
The Beave

 

After the first listen I can tell that it's rarther muddy and compressed. Okay, it's a lo-fi album originally, but the SACD sounds like an aged demo. Quite a disappointment

 

Complete opposite of my impression, but ok...

 

I haven't played my copy of IORR (or LOVE YOU LIVE) on SACD yet, but it's nice to know it sounds good. Jeez, and DIRTY WORK and TATTOO YOU are on their way to me already, too.

 

Ditto That! ... Available on SACD would be a whole lot better ...

ALSO: Any comments about "Rolling Stones: Ladies & Gentlemen" film on DVD? How about the 3 DVD set: "Rolling Stones: Ladies & Gentlemen" ... sound track quality?

 

I'm with tkl7 on this - my impressions are entirely opposite; this SACD is my preferred digital version over the others (and yes, I have them all).

 

I'll give it a few more spins; who knows, maybe it'd be worth hundreds of dollars when I make up my mind

 

Soundtrack is nice; truth be told, it could actually be a little louder......or mastered a bit "hotter".
I've seen some reviews saying it supplants Ya Ya's as the ultimate live Stones document; I don't agree with that, but it is good. The film itself catches them right before they would start to dip into gimmickry live - re: the inflatable phallus of a few years later.

 

My final opinion:
I don't like the ultra-analog sound on this SACD similar to the sound of 10th gen cassette copy.
I have no nostalgia for high-gen cassette copies whatsoever and I just don't get why in 2011 someone wants to revive it.

 

These are the master tapes; that's just the way the albums sounds, unfortunately. Perhaps you have not heard the original vinyl? Or perhaps you are comparing it to Black & Blue or Tattoo You, two albums with a very different (and frankly, much better) sound than IORR.

 

You don't like ultra analog sound? Ok, stop buying SHM-SACDs. And in this SACD you are listening to the most original master tape. You don't like that either?

 

I'm comparing to CBS CD which I find much better sounding, yet of course not audiophile due to the nature of the original recording.

I don't buy that this is THE SOUND of the original master tape; unless it is severely damaged to unusable condition.

 

As far as IORR is concerned, I suspect that "Fingerprint File" is at its original speed only on the original master tapes, which were transferred as is to DSD for this release.

 

I just got this one today. Frankly your ears or system or both must be completely the opposite of mine. The SACD definitely doesn't sound like it's coming from a damaged tape to me.

Assuming the SACD was cut flat from the UK master, the CBS CD sounds like either a dub of a dub of a dub or the vinyl cutting master with top end rolled off (which given the evidence re: Fingerprint File, that's what it likely was). Whatever was used on the CBS CD, it sounds to me like the top end was rolled off and there's a bottom-end boost.

Regardless it's a very noticeable difference to my ears -- and I don't say that often. Everything -- especially the bass and kick drum -- has more definition. I prefer the SACD over the old CBS CD, however that's not to say that the SACD couldn't use a little "mastering". For instance, the guitars seem a little less "ballsy" on the SACD, IMO.

I have the 1994 master as well, but haven't compared it yet.

 

To me the album always sounded like a cassette quality album vs everything else being LP quality; but as i said before I don't mind since my ears and my mind only need 30 seconds to get used to that lower fidelity sound, and once you accept the sound for what it is then you will hear lots of great music and lots of fine details as well. My guess is that they lost some of the fidelity along the engineering/mixing and production process. Both glimmer twins say they were not very happy with the result. A typical first try..
For that it is darn good and the music is among the best 10 Rolling Stones albums and that means the world to me !
So I am sure that the master tapes won't sound any better than the finished product. I heard Aftermath , BB, LIB from hdtracks (SACD quality) and those reveal everything put on that master tape.
So I doubt that the mistake is in the DSD masterig !

 

I prefer the 94 over the CBS, which sounds like mud through a rusty faucet. The SACD smokes both.

 

Another possibility, presumed the master tape is in good condition - did they adjust azymuth during the transfer?

 

This is totally wrong comparison - the albums you mention were remastered for SACD in 2003, and that release matches what should be expected from SACD format. I like the sound o f those. Still some people don't like that sound because it's too detailed and revealing the flaws of the original recording. But this IORR SACD remaster is done in a completely different manner, it's just a bucket of mud.

 

I've listened to this one a half a dozen times now. I have no idea what you're hearing. It isn't perfect, but IMO it neither sounds like there is anything wrong with the azimuth nor does it sound like a bucket of mud.

 

Agreed. In comparison to other CD pressings, I'm not hearing any of the issues that leshafunk is hearing. I personally recommend the SACD over other digital versions if you're a fan of the album/can justify the high price point.

 

leshafunk,
As someone who bought this album when it came out back in late '74, the album has always had a wonky feel to it. It was wonky the first time I played my vinyl copy I bought back then. You're just hearing the final product and its imperfections with a lot more clarity that I suspect you were ready for.

 

Right
and how would you know that they made such a mess from the SACD master of IORR out of all the Stones albums? Done by the same crew and with the same critical ears and eyes on the transfer. That's bollocks !

The master of IORR is just not on the same quality level compared to the rest of the Stones albums and even the producers say so !
Facts are facts if you don't like how this SACD sounds then the album is not for you neither on LP, tape or CBS CD. they all share the same flaws in the fidelity appartement.