Rolling Stones Vinyl Box Sets Nov 2010

We're not talking about a Goldmine record listing here, but general description of an LP. I consider a lot of the LPs I own to be in "mint" condition because I take care of them. Besides, unopened, unplayed LPs are normally listed as SS ("still sealed").

To bring this back to the Stones... last night I was listening to my mint copy of Tattoo You, which I picked up a couple of years back for $5 used. There wasn't a single click on the entire LP and the cover is likewise in mint condition. I've got similar copies of all the post-Abkco LPs (except for Stripped, which is hard to find on vinyl at a reasonable price).

 

The Grading guidlines below are directly copied from the Goldmine site, which is the International Standard/Authority of record grading:

"MINT (M)
These are absolutely perfect in every way. Often rumored but rarely seen, Mint should never be used as a grade unless more than one person agrees that the record or sleeve truly is in this condition. There is no set percentage of the Near Mint value these can bring; it is best negotiated between buyer and seller.

NEAR MINT (NM OR M-)
A good description of a NM record is “it looks like it just came from a retail store and it was opened for the first time.” In other words, it’s nearly perfect. Many dealers won’t use a grade higher than this, implying (perhaps correctly) that no record or sleeve is ever truly perfect.

NM records are shiny, with no visible defects. Writing, stickers or other markings cannot appear on the label, nor can any “spindle marks” from someone trying to blindly put the record on the turntable. Major factory defects also must be absent; a record and label obviously pressed off center is not Near Mint. If played, it will do so with no surface noise. (NM records don’t have to be “never played”; a record used on an excellent turntable can remain NM after many plays if the disc is properly cared for.)

NM covers are free of creases, ring wear and seam splits of any kind.

NOTE: These are high standards, and they are not on a sliding scale. A record or sleeve from the 1950s must meet the same standards as one from the 1990s or 2000s to be Near Mint! It’s estimated that no more than 2 to 4 percent of all records remaining from the 1950s and 1960s are truly Near Mint. This is why they fetch such high prices, even for more common items.

Don’t assume your records are Near Mint. They must meet these standards to qualify!"

I myself would never grade a record as Mint, as even unopened and new, it can and does still have flaws.
That is why they are graded as SS or still sealed.

EDIT:
My post above was written and posted the same time that Stefan posted his response...I will leave it the same as others may find it helpful.


Rick

 

Decca

the stones 'remaster game' has been overplayed..
the CD releases have been remastered.. 4 times?! ..Ive lost count. silliness.

*sitting on a fence*

 

Huh? Four times? Only if you're counting that the ABKCO years were remastered twice and the post-ABKCO years were remastered twice, but that's a funny way to count it.

In fact, if you consider that the original ABKCO CDs were the first release on CD, and so not really "remastered" as much as simply "mastered for CD" -- then the SACD masters were done, meaning that's AT MOST two remasters, but depending on how you look at it, could be seen as just once.

Same with the post-ABKCO years... they came on the CBS CDs (so that's one, if you count it as a "remastering" even though it was the first time on CD), then Virgin remastered them (that's two, or the first "remastering"), and then Universal (so that's three, or the second "remastering").

 

I would suspect only the 2'nd box...

 

Well, then....anything goes. I want 2+2 to = 6.

 

That's the info I'm waiting on. I already have and greatly enjoy the 2003 DSD vinyl. However, If the Abkco years box is analog sourced I might just pull the trigger. Would be nice if they cut the price another $100 or so.

 

+1 providing of course that they're well mastered. Just because something is sourced from analog doesn't mean it'll automatically sound great. I've been through several analog-sourced copies of Hot Rocks that don't sound nearly as good as the DSD-sourced one!

 

Hot Rocks was not a great mastering, at least the original London. I understand it was done from copies of the masters or more likely copies of copies...
I agree, the DSD sourced Hot Rocks is a lot better. But the Hot Rocks tracks don't compare to the original Deccas...
The MoFi Hot Rocks in the box set is much, much better.

 

For the price they are asking they need to be quite explicit how these are being made. I expect most of us have a few of the DSD sourced vinyl. I can't justify that amount of money on basically the same thing.

 

Exactly my thoughts. I've gradually collected the entire set of Abkco DSD-sourced reissues (as well as the SACDs). If I knew this box was sourced from the original analog masters AND as carefully mastered as the 2002/2003 reissues, I'd most likely buy the Abkco box. Wihout knowing for sure, I'll pass.

 

If this stuff was analog sourced and done with the same sort of care as the recent Hendrix reissues, Miles Davis reissues or the recent Elvis 24K reissue, I'd pull the trigger on both boxes without hesitation.
Given Mr. Marcussens mastering record however, highly unlikely that I would be buying either of these.
If you've got originals in anything approaching decent shape, assuming these are digital mastering at or under DSD or 96/24 - What's the point???

 

Elusive Disc lists these sets as being pressed at GZ in the Czech Republic. This is really scary considering GZ also pressed the latest Elton John/Leon Russell LP and I found that to be absolutely dismal. The LPs were noisy as hell most of the way through all 4 sides, were quite scuffed, and dished to boot--this on a $29.99 list LP. I would expect vinyl to be of exceptional quality at that price and the fact that the price of each box is close to $400 gives me pause. Like, I think I'll pass until I hear that they didn't botch these sets completely. Anyone else have similar experience with GZ vinyl?

 

Actually there's a member here from GZ, GeorgeZ, and he's talked a lot about improvements they've made to their pressing. He recently commented in the Black Crowes Croweology thread since GZ did it, and I have to say it's one of the most flawless pressings I own. If the new Stones LPs are pressed with the same quality, there'll be nothing to worry about. I'm going to PM him and invite him to this thread to comment. Maybe he can shed some light on the mastering sources.

 

GZ pressed the Exile deluxe vinyl. nice, clean pressing.

 

The last 3 Black Crowes albums, including Croweology, have 'Vinyl Record Guru' in the deadwax which is apparently a pressing company located in Canada. Does VRG farm the pressing out to GZ vinyl in Europe?

And I agree, Croweology is a FLAWLESS pressing

Would love to hear GeorgeZ comment on the sources utilized in the new Stones boxes if possible

 

Just these two bits of information will ensure these box sets will be a sonic disaster, worse than the recent Exile digitized vinyl.

GZ digital vinyl is the cheapest most crappy LP pressing plant in the world. They only press LP's sourced from CD's as apparantly they do not have any appropriate analog equipment.

This is a real pity, but typical of a POS record company like Universal music who clearly done this the cheapest way possible to suposedly maximise profits.

Thank god for Warners and Columbia with Neil Young and Bob Dylan that they still care enough about the music to make it an artform.

 

Do you have any evidence to back up your wild accusations and complete rubbishing of a company??????

I doubt it very much. Does 16 posts give you a right to destroy a company?

The man from GZ who posted here seemed to be very on the ball, and he did say they can master from many sources, including analogue tape if they get supplied it, but obviously they get what they are given from the record company.

 

I can't comment on the GZ pressings, but Turntable is the most experienced vinyl-phile (and music lover) I have ever had the pleasure of meeting. Don't let his mere 16 posts fool you, there isn't much he hasn't listened to, music-wise or pressing-wise.

Hopefully though, GZ have lifted their game as suggested earlier in this thread.

Cheers,
Jake

 

Sorry, I have 16 posts on this forum. If I had a zero on the end, would that make me more credible?. And how the hell does my post destroy a company ?

I have bought several GZ digital pressings and they sound completly digital - flat, one dimentional and just terrible sounding.the pressings themselves superficially are quite nice, but not how they have been transferred to vinyl IMO. I will never consiously buy another, sometimes on new releases you have no choice.

They state on their web site that they have changed the vinyl formulation - You use an industry standard record flattener like the Furatech / Air Tight or the OEM manuafacturer Orb industries from Japan. the vinyl cooks and comes up with blisters as the formulation seems to be too soft. Guess what, this will have long term effects on the playability of the vinyl. That is, the ability for the vinyl to deform and snap back into shape after being played.


Again, please read their web site on how they master the music before it pressed - completely digitized.

http://www.gzvinyl.cz/vinyl-27/news-31/new-vinyl-mastering-619

The are the cheapest, hence a company like Universal using them for the pathetic back to black series and now the Stones. We deserve better.

Google around and you will see that their pressings are universally panned as poor sounding.

A great band like the Rolling Stones deserve better. Imagine how much better these re-issues would be if the Vinyl fractory from the UK or Pallas from Germany were actively involved in the vinyl masters / pressings.

I will be very happy if the GZ pressings of these Stones albums truely sound great, but I am not holding my breath.

All I am trying to do is make the buyer beware.

cheers

 

Guess what?

You are ALL SPECULATING...

I posted an interview with a guy who mastered the Abkco box (the first one) and he is not Marcussen...
Gosh some guy on here who decides that both are mastered by the same person without any proof who has no source to back it up gets all your panties in a twist and when there IS evidence that someone has done this properly is actually given everybody ignores it....

It seems to me that most of the time this place attracts "glass is half empty" types...

 

Also - GZ is a PRESSING PLANT.

The mastering isn't being done there....

 

I hope you are right Paul

 

Me too...

 

Exactly. They can only work with what they are given. Don't blame GZ blame the record company that sends them a crap file.