After the iPod was invented, all music was essentially mobile. Formats and listeners aren’t exclusive…people buy vinyl and still stream those tracks when they’re away from home. but back in the early 2000’s, there was a brief window for a better format to take hold, I suppose. But this is the music industry we’re talking about.
It didn't take a psychic to figure out that games and DVDs offered more value for the dollar to the kids for years and years. (I'm not into gaming, but my BiL used to have huge binders of games on disc. Isn't everything hosted an/or DRMed by remote servers today?)
Is there any difference in mastering between the 2002 ABKO CDs and SACDs? Other than the obvious. I don't own an SACD player and am wondering whether I am missing something by not owning the SACD. I have the 2002 ABKO CDs.
Assuming the redbook layers of the SACDs are the same mastering as the CDs, I am hard pressed to hear any discernible difference between the SACD and CD versions. I have the SACDs. I once bought a 2002 CD of More Hot Rocks by mistake and later replaced it with the SACD version but probably I needn't have bothered. I don't think you are missing anything with your CDs.
Thanks for the info. Much appreciated! It's just from doing a bit of research I always see the SACDs being recommended but never the standard CD editions. If the redbook layer of the SACD is identical to the normal 2002 CD it seems I'm not missing anything
There is a trick, an audiophile trick. Those 2002 hybrid SACD discs (in digipaks) are dual layers. Which means if one has SACD player he can play high resolution SACD. If one uses regular CD player - he will play only CDDA 44.1 kHz/16 bit. Later re-issues in jewel cases were CDDA only. Mastering is the same both for SACD and CDDA. Now the question is if one can distinguish HR SACD from CDDA. If your ears are old and wear, most probably, you'll hear no difference. But a lot of people from this forum will assure you that SACD sounds better and with more details. And this is true, because SACD is as close to original analog sound as you can get in digital world. But the rest is up to your ears and equipment.
There might be an odd difference here or there, but I believe by and large the SACDs, the CD layer of the SACDs and the CDs from that series all used the same DSD masters as the source.
I have the entire digipak Hybrid SA—CD ABKCO era set. I couldn’t hear the difference between red book 16/44 and DSD 24/94. I had an SACD transport connected to a top of the line Pioneer Elite receiver via HDMI. A faux THX style speaker array based on Paradigm’s respected Atom v.2 mains. Both layers sounded great.
When I heard the 2002 SACDs (SACD layer), it was light years better than what I heard before which was the 80s digitally remastered releases and a few beat up 60s vinyl. There was bass, presence and fuller sound. Since owning them I’ve never felt the need to listen to the red book layers
Is the 2002 ABKO SACDs/CDs the best way to listen to the albums from the 60's? I'm talking specifically about Aftermath (UK), Beggars, and Let It Bleed. Or is it a case by case basis, and sometimes a vinyl is better?
For Beggars and Let It Bleed - probably, yes. For Aftermath - old West German London 820 050-2 (if you want stereo) or new Japanese SHM-CD (if you want mono). As a matter of fact there is not such a thing as a perfect mastering/sound within the same series. It depends. You always can refer to FAQ http://www.lukpac.org/stereostones/stones-cd-faq.txt It is a bit outdated, though, and with a few factual mistakes, but in general it is correct.
Please read the Lukpac review referenced above. I agree about the West German, London, Mobile Fidelity Aftermath CD. The listening experience is sublime. Right up there with my 3 channel Kind of Blue single layer SACD. For the rest of the Decca / London era, the SACDs sound fine.
I have given it a bit of a read. I will read the entirety of it later. It mainly concerns which CD version is best for the 60's records. I was just wondering whether a vinyl of this era of the Stones trumped any CD version. The CDs do seem like the way to go for 60's Stones. Lucky for me I already have the 2002 ABKO CDs of the albums I like the most. Which appear to be largely definitive. I might grab that London CD of Aftermath that @Ironbelly mentioned though. I've been getting back into the Rolling Stones lately. Just listened to my 2002 ABKO of Let It Bleed. Now I have Singles Collection: The London Years on. Which I deem to be the best compilation ever. And that goes for any genre of music. Everyone should have a copy of it.
"Best" is a subjective term. As is vinyl vs digital. And even within vinyl, there are great pressings and not so great pressings. Plus the Stones catalog is generally hard to pin down and there are different versions of albums in different countries, tapes all over the p But, by and large, the 2022 ABKCOs are excellent versions - even the vinyl versions - but are not without some occasional issue (Aftermath being one of them - as mentioned above by ironbelly).
Sure. But this forum is entirely subjective It is when all these subjective opinions tend to form a pattern that it becomes slightly objective, and then a consensus of sorts is formed.
For the 80s CDs, are you talking about the ABKCO ones or the London ones? I thought the WG and Japanese Londons used different mastering than the ABKCO ones sold in the US?
WG and Japanese London CDs all (but December's Children) came from the same tape transfers. I.e., mixes are the same, but mastering/equalization is slightly different. It seems that Japanese CDs were made from dub tapes or the tapes were played back on different equipment. I believe only GYYYO are almost identical (other than cue points), the rest are slightly different. Japanese made London CD of December's Children is a weirdo. It is completely mono and out of sync with respect to WG London. It is hard to tell what they did to that disc, but it is different both from WG London and US ABKCO. Old US ABKCO is completely different from WG London. Both in terms of tape transfer and mastering.
Absolutely not. Vinyl is pretty much the way to go with the Stones. The Mono box is now my "go-to" for Stones vinyl. The reissue is on amazon for like $300, for 16 LPs. It sounds great and is very well-mastered.
It is based on that infamous 'MFSL tape transfer' that was used for West German London CD Afretmath [820 050-2]. Although, digitally it is not identical to West German disc. Apparently, it was made from a dub tape and is equalized a bit differently. But still, it came with those 'wide stereo' mixes.
