Stones SACDs - the verdict on the mastering quality?

Do you happen to remember which thread this was in? Closest post I've been able to find is this one, but the situation there is a bit different.

 

Dave,

that can not happen. I still think you are confusing the bit-wise equality of two audio files and the equality of the peak levels.

 

..

 

Nope, that's not it Matthew. Sorry I don't recall which thread Roland talks about this.

 

Just for clarification, what I did was that I boosted the treble slightly and the peak levels of each track did not change.

I used this as an example to show that same peak levels don't necessarily mean that the mastering is exactly the same, although when you change EQ by larger amounts, the peak levels will change.

I did not do a cancellation test after the slight boost, and I am quite sure that the files would not cancel out completely. I am not a big fan of those cancellation tests, but that is another story.

Still, to me, comparing peak levels is a helpful way to see whether two CD's are probably made from the same original transfer, and in most cases probably are digitally identical.

Whether two digitally identical CD's can sound different or must sound the same is a different story.

By the way, this was my original post I think:

http://stevehoffman.tv/forums/showpost.php?p=3192842&postcount=164

 

Maybe so Andreas, we've been at this exchange now for at least 3 years. You're a great guy and I do not agree with a flawed instrument of measurement that's been proved to be such for me. The last time I checked the words "the verdict on the mastering quality?" meant how do they sound and not how do they appear in a computer program. I'll peacefully bow out now.

 

That's about the only useful thing I've seen of this comparing bits business. Trying to use a program to determine what will come out of your speakers has never worked for me considering all variables. It seems only helpful to prevent wasting money on some newly bad sounding ie: compressed to Halifax, mastering.

 

Not possible.

 

You cannot boost high end (or low end, or middle end) even 'slightly', and remain a bit-perfect copy of the unboosted version. It's impossible

They won't. Invert/mixpaste may produce what looks like a 'flat line' at low resolution when the differences are tiny, but at higher resolution -- or more properly, a bit comparison -- they will be different.

Think about it. You can't alter data and then claim the data remains exactly the same. Any EQ change is an alteration of the audio data.

A 'ripping program' with a bit-comparison tool is far more sensitive to objective difference in the data , than any ear will ever be.

 

Is there a consumer computer program that can accurately describe the differences of imaging details between two different CD pressings of the same album?

 

If the 'imaging differences' are due to different mastering, the pressings will
not be bit-identical, and any decent bit-comparison tool -- such as that included with Exact Audio Copy -- will show that.

If the data are exactly the same on the two pressings by such measure, real 'imaging differences' indicate that something's wrong with the manufacture or playback of one of the discs, such that the identical data aren't being read with identical accuracy. And that sort of error too can be detected at levels far below what any ear could detect.

The other possibility is that the difference is imaginary. If so...no amount of objective measurement or scientific listening tests will ever detect it.

Your own sig file says 'it's all in the mastering' -- I agree. Mastering the same source differently, produces CDs with different data on them.

 

Yes, yes, a million times yes!

I think the SACDs are good for what they are (outside of Aftermath and Between The Buttons, which have annoying NR problems and pointless stereo narrowing). I don't like some of the EQ choices on several tracks, but the majority sound quite good to me, even if the London CDs are better. It's a sure bet that the SACDs are much better than almost all of the old ABKCO CDs.

But the piecemeal approach they took leaves me baffled. Why did they choose to re-issue some UK albums (Out of Our Heads, Aftermath, Between The Buttons), but not others (the first album, No. 2)? Why didn't they use stereo mixes that London had previously issued, such as "Get Off Of My Cloud," the wide stereo "Satisfaction," or "Play With Fire?" Why not use some never-officially-released stereo mixes like "19th Nervous Breakdown," or "The Last Time?" Why did they fade down the long "Tell Me?" Why not reuse the uncensored/longer "Under Assistant West Coast Promotion Man?" (They'd already used it on their old Singles Collection Box!) Where was "Con le mie Lacrime?" Yeah, it's just Jagger singing "As Tears Go By" in Italian, but if EMI can reissue "Sie Liebt Dich" and "Komm, Gib Mir Deine Hand" on CD, why couldn't ABKCO do it? Some fans would have undoubtedly been happy to have it.

They also could have made more of an effort to provide both mono and stereo mixes, when possible. Yeah, running time would have been an issue for the likes of Aftermath UK and Beggars, but there aren't that many unused mixes... the only stereo stuff I'm aware of was all done at Chess and RCA anyway. Those discs are short enough that adding a few bonus tracks wouldn't have hurt... I don't think it would even have pushed any of the pre-Aftermath discs over 20 tracks, which requires a higher/different publishing royalty rate in the US.

Basically, I agree with what Luke and David say in their FAQ--this reissue program was done in a hurry, to get 'em out for the 40th anniversary tour. They didn't think it out properly, and while the SACDs are good, they could have been better--and not just from a sound quality standpoint.

 

I had a Rega P3 and a Denon 2910 when I did the comparison. I suppose each is considered "entry level". I still have the Denon but have a P5 table now. I liked certain things the sacd offered and the vinyl had its virtues too. A few of my stones cd's were West German and had the master tape banner, but I cant remember much else about them. I should have just thrown them in the closet instead of trading them, maybe I had one the collectors like, but I dont think so. Do you prefer the old cd's or the sacd? What titles had MFSL? are those the ones people seek?

 

How do I see differences when they cancel out?

Actually I believe it shows the limitations of a man made computer program.

You seriously believe this? I've heard a lot of chatter over the years about this imagine thing and the only imagine I can find is John Lennon's in my collection. Strangers/non-audiophiles can hear the differences I speak of when visiting. The differences are a permanent thing with being able to sound the same for everyone, every time.

This we agree on.

 

I'd say it shows the limitations of reading comprehension skills. Originally, Dave, you cited Roland's post and insisted you hadn't misunderstood it. Even though, as we see, Roland confirms that you misunderstood. He didn't use EAC to boost the treble -- I'm not an EAC user, but my understanding is the program doesn't have EQ capability.

And he didn't say that a comparison showed that EAC recognized the EQ'd file as identical, bit-for-bit, to the original. Only that the volume peaks remained the same.

And he even answers the question, "How do I see differences when they cancel out?" -- see that, where he says, " I did not do a cancellation test after the slight boost, and I am quite sure that the files would not cancel out completely"?

 

Lloyd, this conversation will completely hi-jack the original posters thread so I won't be responding any further.

Bottom line, I don't listen to my music through a computer. The end result is between my semi-decent system and my ears. The variables, just listening and not reading, are incredible if you take the time.

 

Lloyd, I don't think this discussion will lead anywhere.

It all comes down to whether you think/believe if two CD's which turn out to contain the same digital files can sound different or cannot sound different, depending on other variables than digital content itself (pressing etc.).

We have people on this forum from each "group", and I don't think we'll be able to convince the other "group" to change their mind.

I always/often try to bridge the gap between the two groups by stating

- I very often am not able to hear a difference between digitally identical CD's
- I am definitely able with some CD-R's to hear a difference between an original CD and a CD-R (and these are digitally identical)
- digitally identical CD's will always sound very similar to me (I would never describe the difference as being large)
- in a few instances I feel/think that I was able to hear such a difference (depending on the pressing)

If we can accept that both "groups" exist and respect each other (agree to disagree), then everything is fine.

 

It doesn't come down to that at all. Dave claimed files with different EQ would be seen by EAC as identical:

As has been pointed out, this is 100% false. Alter the EQ and the files won't "cancel out completely", nor will EAC report them as identical. Whether one hears differences between different pressings of the same data is immaterial. How can one argue against the effectiveness of something if your understanding of it is incorrect?

Satisfaction isn't in fake stereo, it's just a really poor (true) stereo mix. The rhythm and vocal are centered, while the acoustic guitar and piano are delayed and split left and right. Similar to the stereo mix of Wonderful World.

I don't see Mother's Little Helper as being a big deal, since it's in stereo on Aftermath. They clearly didn't like the stereo mix, as it is in mono elsewhere. I have to wonder about the other two - I believe those were first released in stereo on CD. It is unclear where those tapes came from. It is also unclear why The Last Time, 19th Nervous Breakdown and Have You Seen Your Mother, Baby haven't been officially released in stereo.

 

What does everyone think of the redbook layer of Get Your Ya Yas Out?

 

LIB sounds too "digital" to me. I prefer the London version of this.

 

I'm in agreement there. I was listening to the redbook layer of LIB last weekend in the car, and I couldn't believe how bad it sounds. I swear I hear distortion on Live With Me and Midnight Rambler. I prefer the original '86 ABKCO.

 

I like it. Sounds excellent to my ears.

 

Great news! I have this on order from Amazon and I can't cancel!

 

Dave, please don't take this the wrong way but it sounds to me like Lloyd showed you where you were mistaken and now you don't want to play anymore.

That's a very specious point to make. Almost everyone here listens to music on non-pc based systems.

 

This actually is not what the thread originator has asked for. "Sound quality" is what they've asked for and unless a program can describe in detail the differences it is the program that's immaterial.

So I made a mistake in what Roland said. Roland corrected me both tactfully and gracefully. I can be wrong and live with it, can you?

I'm still not convinced a computer program can tell intricate differences between different pressings that sound different. We have definite proof, unless you don't believe Barry Diament, that this is reality no matter what a computer program says.