Rolling Stones 2002 Sacd Hybrids vs. Recent SHM SACD

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by mindblanking, Aug 23, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Six String

    Six String Senior Member

    Are they better than any vinyl versions (sticky fingers and exile)?
     
  2. mattdegu

    mattdegu Forum Resident

    Location:
    Cardiff, UK
    People like what they like of course, but the endlessly disseminated idea that Dirty Work isn't worth people's attention is one of the most depressing 'memes' on the internet. I urge anyone who hasn't to listen it properly.

    In my opinion it's a fine album, both lyrically and musically, and has a nice variety of tracks. It's got it's own 'zippy guitar' production of course, but really - so what? The Stones never stood still, and why should they? Sometimes I think this site is so obsessed with 'sound' that it loses track of song quality completely.
     
    macdaddysinfo and RogerB like this.
  3. botley

    botley Forum Resident

    I'm glad to hear one person say this because I'm writing a review now and with a few exceptions, I generally agree with you. The drum and vocal sound is AWFUL but there are some really nice guitar tones and clever ideas buried in there.

    Just had an opportunity to compare the SHM-SACD versions of "Let it Bleed" and "Exile" with the recent Blu-ray Audio versions of the same titles. Both appear to be from the same source.
     
    Clanceman likes this.
  4. Clanceman

    Clanceman Forum Resident

    Location:
    Portland, Or
    Botley, I'm looking forward to hitting the "like" button on that review.

    For those that haven't been to the Rolling Stones album by album thread. This mans writing is gold.

    One may or may not care for the latter day Stones catalog (I love it), but there has never been a better piece of writing related to "Undercover" than what you offered.
     
  5. botley

    botley Forum Resident

    Thanks!
     
    Clanceman likes this.
  6. BIG ED

    BIG ED Forum Resident

    This thread has rolled off track at bit...

    strictly speaking, updating from the start of this thread, when accessing "The Rolling Stones: 2002 SA-CD Hybrids vs. SHM SACD's" is one better than the other on a title-by-title basics?
    Or, do we now have the SHM's winning over all the old ABKCO's??
    BIG thanks.
     
  7. Clanceman

    Clanceman Forum Resident

    Location:
    Portland, Or
    No, the shm SACDs are not winning vs the 02 Abcko.

    If there is a corresponding 02' for the shm sacd.....e.g., Let It Bleed, the master is the same as the 2011 shm sacd, therefore the shm is not better.

    For the titles that were/are not Abcko titles......the shm sacd has no equal.
     
    Master_It_Right and BIG ED like this.
  8. marcfeld69

    marcfeld69 Forum Resident

    Some points:

    1. I was just having a good listen to my Japan hybrid SACDs. I noticed that a couple such as Out of Our Heads and England's Newest Hitmakers state 'stereo' on the CD labels, but mono in the grey booklets. However (though I cannot prove this), the tracks on England's Newest sound mono to me (I wish I knew). Any observations?

    2. I may post this elsewhere, but I was comparing the BB to a YouTube mono version and I realised there is virtually nothing in the middle to hear on the stereo version (it's all left and right, not much soundstage). I think if I ever see the mono at a reasonable price I'll get it (even though the tracks after Sympathy are fold-downs).

    3. Why didn't ABKO release the mono versions of Her Majesty's, LIB, BB on SACD or otherwise? Have these ever been released on CD? (I am really not bothered about the slight difference in speed that's been restored on the DSDs).

    [P.S. I didn't want to start a whole new thread, but I'll be happy to move this to another one if it's not appropriate to the OP's question.]
     
  9. Master_It_Right

    Master_It_Right Forum Resident

    That's what I thought too. The ABKCO titles are exactly the same as what's on the SHM stuff for those albums, but that everything else the SHM is better.
     
    Clanceman likes this.
  10. Adam9

    Adam9 Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй.

    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    1. They are mono. My London CD of the first album says stereo too.

    2. I'm listening to "No Expectations" right now. Acoustic guitar on the left, slide on the left and vocal and piano in the middle. All of the mixes have tons of stuff in the center.

    3. No mono versions on CD. I don't know why.
     
  11. marcfeld69

    marcfeld69 Forum Resident

    Thanks. Sorry, I only meant that on BB is was all left and right (intended)?
     
  12. marcfeld69

    marcfeld69 Forum Resident

    Thanks. Do you mean better sonically?
     
  13. Adam9

    Adam9 Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй.

    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    I'm not sure I understand.
     
  14. marcfeld69

    marcfeld69 Forum Resident

    I just mean there's very little depth. Everything is louder from the left and right, unlike, say, most Lynyrd Skynyrd albums, where you really get a lot in the centre.
     
  15. Adam9

    Adam9 Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй.

    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    Sorry, I still don't get it. I'll have to listen to some Skynyrd and see if I understand.
     
  16. marcfeld69

    marcfeld69 Forum Resident

    Not just Skynyrd. Just imaging, more instruments heard in the middle.
     
  17. Adam9

    Adam9 Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй.

    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    Maybe it's just 60's stereo mixes compared to 70's?
     
    marcfeld69 likes this.
  18. marcfeld69

    marcfeld69 Forum Resident

    Guess it could be, or my system, or I need to play it louder. I'll have to compare it with the Clearly Classic vinyl (same mastering) and eventually an original, when I get one.
     
  19. Master_It_Right

    Master_It_Right Forum Resident

    Yes, better sonically. I own the CBS, Virgin and UMG releases of this album aside from the SHM. My opinion was that the Virgin was the best of the three until I heard the SHM. More clarity on all the songs compared to the Virgin and it sounds like there is no compression. Nice and dynamic.

    I have Exile, GHS, IORR, B&B and Emotional Rescue on the way so I will have to compare those to the Virgin ones I own. Emotional Rescue I only have the UMG and I didn't think it sounded terrible, just a little heavy.

    The Platinum ones cost ~$30 plus shipping, so if you're a little put off by the price, then get the Virgins. They are good, but not as good as the SHM's imo, if all the SHM's are as good as Sticky Fingers. I really felt like it was a huge improvement over previous CD releases.
     
  20. marcb

    marcb Senior Member

    Location:
    DC area
    I'm listening to the '02 SACD right now. As Adam9 indicated, there is plenty of stuff in the center of the Beggars mixes. And left-center & right-center too - listen to the vocal on Sympathy or Jigsaw Puzzle...left center. Or the opening guitar of Parachute Woman...right center. But it is clearly a late 60's mix where the mixing rules hadn't become so formulaic and they would take risks and occasionally pan the drums or bass hard left or hard right for musical/artistic effect.

    Just listen to Street Fighting Man. Tons of stuff going on there. Vocals center. Drums start hard left for the verses (high hat center-left) and them move toward center-right for the choruses and the coda with other instruments coming in to fill the hard left in the chorus sections. The bass starts center-left and then moves to the center for the first chorus, but unlike the drums, it pretty much stays there and doesn't move back for the 2nd verse. Occasional claves accents in the center.

    Or Stray Cat Blues -- pretty standard stuff...vocals, bass, drums, precussion (and one lone barely audible rhythm guitar) - center; guitars/piano/organ - hard left and hard right.

    Maybe what you're hearing is (what sounds to me) the bass often being recorded direct and drums that often aren't close miked with a dozen mikes so they don't take up so much room in the mix and muddy up an otherwise mostly acoustic album.
     
    Adam9, marcfeld69 and cc-- like this.
  21. marcb

    marcb Senior Member

    Location:
    DC area
    I agree. I prefer the SHM-SACDs of all of the post-Abkco releases over any digital releases (and I have all of the SACDs -- and either the CBS or Virgins, if not both, for most of them). Not all are preferred by the same margin, but preferred nonetheless.
     
  22. Master_It_Right

    Master_It_Right Forum Resident

    Idk why UMG didn't master their discs like the SHM's.
     
  23. marcb

    marcb Senior Member

    Location:
    DC area
    Because they weren't aimed at those of us here that prefer uncompressed, unlimited, tastefully EQ'd recordings...
     
  24. Partyslammer

    Partyslammer Lord Of The New Church

    Even the SHM-SACD of "Some Girls" over the mid 90's Virgin CD release?
     
  25. marcb

    marcb Senior Member

    Location:
    DC area
    Yes. The Virgin makes an already hard recording sound even harder to me. The SACD sounds more analog to me.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine