Stones SACDs - the verdict on the mastering quality?

Your post was in reply to lv70smusic's reply to this:

 

Exactly. He used the 88.2/24bit recorded DSD layer for comparison of the waveforms, not for the listening test.

 

Andreas, you're trying to grow orange-flavoured apples!

There's no such thing as a 88.2/24-bit recorded DSD layer! A sampling rate of 88.2 with 24-bit depth is PCM technology. DSD features a bit depth of 1 bit sampled at 2.8224 MHz.

 

I'm with you Dave on this one.

I don't think the SACD's are bad by any means, but I prefer the original London CD's.

 

Same with me. I'm quite surprised that the original London CDs are viewed quite critically, at least in this thread. I'd argue there's much less fiddling with the master tapes by contrast to the SACDs. Isn't that what's usually preferred over here?

 

Depends on the album.

Take Let It Bleed which I just sold. The SACD reportedly uses the original master tape for the first time ever. When they found this tape they discovered a lack of gaps between each track. Kind of like the Beatles White Album. Not a suite but no gaps.

The ABKCO CD is obviously crap. The London CD isn't but it definitely has gaps. They last about three seconds and if you crank it up, there's tape hiss. Either they inserted pieces of tape or used a different master and there can only be one true master.

I remember reading about the SACD's correct pitch but track for track the London CD has the same pitches so maybe it's the ABKCO CD that's wrong.

My guess is the SACD uses the better tape. I still prefer the London CD.

 

I never read anything about Let It Bleed ever being issued at the wrong pitch. You might be thinking of Beggar's Banquet, which indeed was released at the correct pitch for the first time ever when the 2002 SACD Hybrid was released.


As far as Let It Bleed - I like both the SACD and the London, for different reasons. The SACD has great presence like no other version. The sound really opens up. The London is a bit more dynamic, dark, and mysterious...more "dramatic" if you will, which I think really suits this music well. I don't really care what tape they used for it, I love it. Whenever I'm in the mood to hear this album, I try to rotate the versions because I love them both. One thing that irks me ever so slightly is that Gimmie Shelter fades out a split second too early on the London CD. Shame shame...

As for gaps, the original US London Let it Bleed vinyl had no (or very little) gaps between the tracks. The original Decca vinyl had gaps, based on what I read here.

 

And you still have the issue of quite a few wide-stereo-tracks still only available on the London-CDs, not only Aftermath/Between The Buttons albums, but thinking of Satisfaction, Get off of my cloud and Play with fire, for instance.

 

Greatly put - that's really how I feel about that version as well. And that's why I especially like the London CD because that dark & mysterious feeling is what really fits VERY well especially to Midnight Ramber... the dramatic - as you put it - opening always gives me goose-pimples

 

In the case of Let It Bleed, the 2002 remaster uses a better tape source than the London CD which is evident from the wider stereo image and an overall cleaner sound (with no sign of noise reduction).

 

Check out Love in Vain in wave forms. On SACD the right channel has nothing but the London CD has a little bit of music there. That still doesn't move me. I like the sound of the London CD. The SACD sounds veiled or something, I can't put my finger on it.

Interesting about the Decca vinyl's gaps. So what's the deal, gaps or no gaps? Did London make a mistake and leave out gaps? Or did Decca add them in against the Stones' wishes?

 

To be honest - I haven't noticed that the stereo image of LIB on the London CDs is particularly narrow yet. And with regards to the cleanness of the sound of the London's - see MikePs post above on the mysterious sound

 

I have an original US London pressing that's in fine shape, but is pretty lifeless sounding as compared to the London CD and the SACD Hybrid. It's a compressed murky mess, as opposed to the London CD which is murky but very dynamic. I pull it out every few years and get about halfway through side 1 before I've had enough. I love to watch that dark blue London label spin around though.

 

I like some Londons but not all. Some of their CD's are really puzzling. For example, they all use that atrocious, castrated stereo mix of "Get Off My Cloud". "She's a Rainbow" fades out too soon on More Hot Rocks. "Please Go Home" fades up in the intro on the London Flowers - completely unacceptable.

Also, I know that the London Between The Buttons gets a lot of love around here, but to me it sounds like a worn out cassette tape playing at the wrong speed (listen to "Who's Been Sleeping Here" - yuck!). I'm not too fond of the SACD Hybrid BTB, but it's the least of three evils (the other being the old ABKCO CD).

That said, I really love these Londons:

Let It Bleed, as I noted above.

Beggars Banquet - the SACD Hybrid is awesome, but on ocassion I still like to listen to this album at the slower, "incorrect" speed.

Aftermath - more natural sounding than the SACD Hybrids, though I like those too

Hot Rocks 1 (stereo mixes of "Satisfaction" and "Get off My Cloud" notwithstanding)

Hot Rocks 2

The rest I could take or leave.

 

Just a note: IIRC, the London and old-ABKCO "Let it Bleed" and "Beggars" are really, really close...not much of a major difference between the two.

Also: The London "Buttons" and the ABKCO "Buttons" seem to be taken from the same basic tape, although ABKCO's is obviously futzed with.

 

Have you heard the 12x5 SACD? It's a huge upgrade over the London.

 

Ahem, here is what you wrote in the FAQ:

 

"Let it Bleed" and "Beggars"

I just listened to these (SACD layer).
I mean WOW!

 

I no longer have the old ABKCO but I do not recall it being as dynamic as the London. The intro to Gimme Shelter for example- on the London it starts of real quiet and builds and builds so that by the time the first verse starts, it's roaring. I do not remember hearing that on the old ABKCO CD, but maybe I just didn't notice it.

 

I'm new to all of this (trying to jump in with both toes) But I have really enjoyed the SACD's. I never was a fan before (never listened to before collecting SACD actually ) but have been surprised at how much I've been enjoying the ones I have picked up.

It sounds like getting the older Beggars Banquette to compare with my SACD version is the best way to hear what everyone is talking about.

or is there a better album combination (older CD and newer SACD) to try?

 

I think that particular album is the worst to compare mastering choices because the source quality of the two versions is so completely different.

 

Because to do that properly would require two of the same player, to keep the switching intervals short, and it would require a double-blind setup. It would also be hard to time-synch the playback of two players, which is easy to do with software-based playback. Working with sound files rather than physical media makes controlled comparison much more straighforward.

And besides, I have good reason to believe my method suffices: For any SACD hybrid, I am able to objectively compare three 'captures': the CD layer rip (Exact Audio Copy set to 'secure'), a digital recording of the analog CD output ('pure direct' output captured via M-audio 2496 soundcard, digitizing at 88.2 or 96 kHz, 24bit), and a digital recording of the analog DSD output (ditto). When I've done this, the two CD waveforms ALWAYS appear, and measure, extremely similarly, once peak levels are matched....suggesting that my playback and recording setup is very accurate. From that I make the assumption that the re-digitizaion of the DSD analog output is also very accurate, though there's no DSD 'rip' to confirm that. (Recently I've been able to 'rip' DVD-A, and again the comparison of ripped digital to re-digitized analog, shows extreme accuracy of the latter.)

By this method , the difference between DSD and CD layers of Dark Side of the Moon , reported by Stereophile, was easily confirmed by comparing the waveforms (the CD layer is visibly and measurably far more compressed). The two can also be readily ABX'd by me. But the waveforms of Stones CD (analog and digital rips) vs DSD layers are practically interchangeable. Mr. Ludwig was telling the truth...these really do look like straight transcodes of DSD to CD. And I can't tell them apart in ABX listening tests either.

Your mileage may vary, but you've got to travel down the same road as I did to find out

 

or CD layer-->D/A converter ->A/D converter->88.2/24 -> D/A converter, which I also do as a 'control'. And I am able to measure all output files for difference likely to be in the audible range, in addition to doing listening tests.

These methods are far less potentially 'flawed', if done carefully, than sighted comparison, from a scientific point of view. Sighted comparison, on the other hand...the method you appeared to use to determine that one layer sounded significantly different than the other ....is considered to be fundamentally flawed for that purpose, in science.

The similarly excellent sound of the two layers is a testament to good mastering.

 

But to do ABX listening, it makes things much easier to manage if they are converted to soundfiles first. And that means PCM.

I use them for both.


Now all the naysayers have to do is point me to the scientific body of work that says a 88.2/24 bit PCM transcode (or 44.1/16 for that matter) really is likely to sound different from a DSD analog source, and I'll cheerfully concede that my ABX tests were probably whacked, despite the concordance with the waveform data.