Why does my original vinyl of "Let It Bleed" sound better than my SACD?

If you can here the metronome, all is well.

 

Original
breath of life
SACD
surgical masked

 

Likewise, Merry Clayton's vocals were done in Los Angeles. Below is a quote from Mick where he indicates the album was mixed in LA as well:

One of the most striking moments in the interview is when Jagger describes the circumstances surrounding soul singer Merry Clayton's powerful background vocals. “When we got to Los Angeles and we were mixing it, we thought, ‘Well, it’d be great to have a woman come and do the rape/murder verse,’ or chorus or whatever you want to call it,” said Jagger. “We randomly phoned up this poor lady in the middle of the night, and she arrived in her curlers and proceeded to do that in one or two takes, which is pretty amazing. She came in and knocked off this rather odd lyric. It’s not the sort of lyric you give anyone–’Rape, murder/It’s just a shot away’–but she really got into it, as you can hear on the record.”

http://www.openculture.com/2013/06/mick_jagger_tells_the_story_behind_gimme_shelter.html

Where it was mastered I have no idea, although a Bell Sound Studios acetate can be seen here:

http://rollingstonesvaults.blogspot.com/2011/05/xmas-ep.html

 

I've n e v e r liked the SACD sound.

I have 2 and 2 is 2 to many.

 

When it comes to these US/UK hybrid recorded albums (and there are many of them) the only way to tell is: compare pressings. I went through a number of US and UK Let It Bleed pressings to find my keeper or go-to copy. It was pretty clear to my ears that the UK's used either a better tape source, or, the totality of mastering and better vinyl resulted in the Decca's having a little less veil to them: more immediacy or presence and a silkiness to the high end information. That being said, the best US London pressings are pretty close in sound overall.

Early Stones tracks recorded in LA and Chicago likewise wound up on tapes that must have been brought back to Decca in London. The first 4 US Stones albums were manufactured in some numbers by Decca and shipped to the US for placement in US covers. Again I went through quite a few US pressings to see if any could 'beat' those UK Decca's and none did. Close, in a few cases, but the UK's just had that extra mojo.

On this subject a number of US acts recorded albums at Olympic Studios (Eagles, Ozark Mt. Daredevils, America, etc.) but all in all I found the US pressings were superior over the UK pressings. It suggests that the final masters came home with the bands which would make sense given that the labels were American as well and probably wanted to physically retain the master.

 

"Either those cats get those Pantone colors right, man, or we don't play..."

LOVE this photo.

 

I thought they did something funky with the Let It Bleed SACD mastering? I don't have it anymore, but there was something kind of weird with the reverb, and when you cranked some quiet parts where it's just, say, an acoustic guitar, it didn't seem quite as dry as other masterings I have of the same track.

 

Sadly, she had a miscarriage shortly after this late night encounter with the devil.

 

The original CD was mastered from an LP production tape that had the bass frequencies summed. In the case of Love In Vain, that means that quite a bit of guitar sound bleeds into the other (otherwise vacant) channel.

The SACD was apparently mastered from the master, that has extreme separation. So certain things are more audible than they were before, without anything to cover them up.

 

IMO this is another example of vinyl vs. X where X is digital (SACD, DVD Audio, Blu ray, Redbook, etc.).

I think many vinyl fans just like the RIAA equalization curve and can easily look past surface noise.

 

Ah, misty audio memories....

Man do audio nuts love fighting. It isn't good enough that Let It Bleed can sound great on vintage LPs. The SACD must suck in order for the full vinyl pleasure to be appreciated. The only problem is, IT DOESN'T SUCK.

IMO, naturally.

 

Nobody listens to the RIAA curve. It gets applied during cutting and then it is reversed on playback. While it affects what can get cut, especially in terms of high frequencies, it doesn't have a sound in and of itself.

 

Man are boilerplate arguments stupid.

I don't even have this on vinyl, I even QUIT vinyl several years ago because it was a pain in the ass to deal with. So no, it has nothing to do with format and I personally couldn't care less what it's pressed on.

 

Peace, my friend.

You're right that I probably shouldn't have quoted your post since I was mainly commenting on this thread's inability to fathom the possibility that BOTH the vinyl and the SACD can sound good, whereas all you did was offer a recollection of thinking the SACD mastering job was botched.

I'll add that I don't think I quite deserved the declaration-of-flame-war retaliation of having my comment called "stupid."

 

OK
Yep, people post guesses here & there on the internet; just you didn't post it was a guess so people took the post seriously. Not their fault.

See?
While the "?" in your second posts on the subject makes it more clear.

That's all.

 

Again, I will just suggest that the OP do a blind test between this record that sounds so good, and the 2002 reissue that apparently doesn't sound as good.

 

Yeah butt, you can't listen too vinyl playback w/o it.

 

I don't have a UK Decca Let It Bleed, but I do have an Australian Decca pressing, and it's just that little bit better than my U.S. London copy.

I've probably said this before, but, in the case of the pre-Satanic albums, I would say that the U.S. copies have that extra mojo, in that they seem to be cut hotter and rawer. I have a perfect original Decca mono Out of Our Heads that I paid a small fortune for, and it sounds great, but, compared to the tracks it has in common with the U.S. Out Of Our Heads, it's a little more sterile and clinical. The UK Decca probably sounds better in the abstract, but the U.S. mono rocks harder. That's my take on it, at least. The single best-sounding 60s Stones album I've ever heard remains my copy of the U.S. London stereo Satanic with the 3-D cover. The London mono Between the Buttons can sound pretty good as well.

 

I'm almost sure I could tell the difference. A nice original copy of Exile eluded me for a long time, but, when I finally got one, on the first spin, the breath of life, or whatever you want to call it, jumped out of the speakers in the way that it doesn't from the Ludwig CD. And I like the Ludwig CD, I think he did a great job on it, and I've probably listened to it 100+ times. There's just more air, feel, groove, whatever on the original LP.

 

Care to set up a proper blind test and see if you can tell?

 

Not really, no.

The better sound of the Exile LP did jump out at me immediately the first time I spun it, maybe it was a placebo effect, maybe I'm brainwashed by the cult of analog, but that's what I prefer. I have most of Stones CD/SACD hybrids, they're certainly not bad, neither is the Ludwig Exile CD, I just prefer the original records.

 

You would be "blind" too any one doing a "Blind Test" here, there, & everywhere.
So, how would you prove it was properly administered? Or, even what results where truly achieved.
What's a "proper" blind test in audio between two different formats; would all equipment have too be equally??

One 'click' and 'that's the record' would be recordnizED!
Would one have too burn a track from each too playback from the same disc or what?!?!

BIG believer in "blind tastings" by-the-way.

 

Well, I'm sure my dad's 1968 CD pressing of Beggars Banquet sounded much better than any of the vinyl that was pressed. And I'm sure it will sound AMAZING on your system too.

 

I beg to differ. After being digitized, we hear things on those old recordings that we weren't supposed to hear. The "film" has been removed and the songs have been cleaned up, for better or worse.