Stones SACDs - the verdict on the mastering quality?

They were reissued as redbook only discs (in jewel cases)

 

Bob Ludwig quoted on Lukpac's FAQ says otherwise -- some compression was added to match the compression used on the old LPs.

The RS SACDs I have -- Hot Rocks, Beggars, Let It Bleed, Satanic Majesties, and Ya Yas -- all sound as good as those albums ever have (allowing for the peculiar 'Ruby Tuesday' mix). And thankfully, the CD layers are audibly indistinguishable from the DSD layers.

 

True but I beleive he was talking about analog compression, not digital.

 

The CD layer is DSD.

 

No, the CD layer is PCM...transcoded from DSD.

 

Yes.

 

You mean Bob Ludwig added analog compression before the songs were transferred to DSD?

 

Bob Ludwig in Pro Audio Review: ...For some tracks I used my vintage Neumann Disk Mastering Console and Manley, Millennia Media or NTP analog compressors to get the "correct" sound. Compressing them further for mere level sake alone was not done. Thus, they are compressed as needed, but not squished. I wanted these reissues to have as much musical longevity as possible, and high compression tires the ears

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?p=128630&highlight=Bob+Ludwig#post128630

 

No they're not. I've A-Bed them and heard a blurring of detail in the highs. I know you won't agree with this because we've argued on here about these before, but for the record, not everyone agrees that the CD layers are "indistinguishable from the DSD layers." The CD layers are very close and for the Stones reissues that are good, the CDs are very good, but to my ears, they are not completely indistinguishable.

Of course the UK boxed Decca vinyl copy of Let It Bleed I got last weekend blows both all the digital versions I've heard right out of the water. It sounds like Charlie Watts is playing in the room and not just a recording of Charlie Watts playing in the room. But that's a story for another thread.

 

I can't speak for the Decca vinyl, but I have an early US London pressing and I'll take the SACD over that any day of the week.

 

I've never heard the US London pressing, but I've read mixed comments. I can also say that to my ears the DSD-sourced vinyl is nicer than the SACD with a subtle but noticeable addition of air around the instruments. I'm disappointed with the LIB SACD anyway as it sounds veiled to me compared to BB, which is absolutely stunning on SACD (and the vinyl version goes one step further).

 

Yeah, I saw that too. Another reason why I'm not crazy about the SACDs. I only care what sounds best, not what's on the original vinyl and I rather have more dynamics. Those recordings were never that dynamic to begin with so ditching the compressor wouldn't have been radical IMO. I know Ludwig means well but if you want an SACD to sound like old vinyl from 1968, why not add tics and pops while you're at it? Press a new record if you want vinyl but don't do this for the SACD.

 

I won't deny the absolute possibility that they could sound different...I don't know every detail of how the transcode was done. But from my own listening tests (via double-blind ABX), and comparison of the waveforms of 88.2/24bit recorded DSD layer vs ripped CD layers, these are both audibly and measurably so close as to be likely to be indistinguishable.

And I'm frankly no longer interested in reports from 'sighted' comparisons of such files. Sorry.

 

Love them or hate them, they are what they are, and probably the last we will see of anything new tried on their stuff of any promise. I like mine on SACD over anything else I have. I gathered up all the compilations on SACD while I could find them.

 

Is that even a fair comparison, though? You're not really comparing the SACD layer to the cd layer. You are listening to the SACD layer after it's been converted to analog and then back to digital and then back to analog again. Why not just do a listening test, using the same player, playing back the SACD layer and the cd layer, having someone else select which layer you listen to so it's a blind test for you?

 

The SACD of "Beggars Banquet" is "da bomb" as the young'ns would say.

I nearly crapped my pants when I heard it.

 

Amen! I totally agree. I just listened to "Let It Bleed" and I do notice differences between layers. I must admit that PCM does produce a more realistic high piano key and every once and a while it does a certain cymbal sound better but other than that, DSD wins every time, and yes there is a difference IMHO.

 

Moreover, comparing an 88.2/24 recording of a DSD player's analog output to a 44.1/16 redbook CD layer is flawed as a "scientific" approach!

DSD layer -> D/A converter -> A/D converter -> 88.2/24 -> D/A converter
CD layer ->D/A converter

And what does SACD versus CD have to do with the mastering quality of the Stones SACDs?

 

Ditto! You should hear the vinyl version. It's even nicer plus the packaging is beautifully rendered.

 

I have em all and they sound good to me...

 

All the LPs or SACDs?

 

sacd

 

Where do you get from his post that he listened "to the SACD layer after it's been converted to analog and then back to digital and then back to analog again"? I think he merely recorded and converted the SACD layer in order to compare and measure waveforms.

 

How else would you record DSD to PCM ?

 

What does this have to do with my post? You don't need to record DSD to PCM in order to listen to it.