Rolling Stones Between the Buttons SACD

I've been buying Stones LPs and CDs for 40 years, the 2002 DSD releases are the best in my opinion, better detail. more information.

 

It depends on the song/album.

 

This. If you wait a bit, the mono version (with the U.K. Track list) should be available separately from the recently released Rolling Stones Mono box. Doesn't appear to have the issues that either the London or the SACD have (speed issues, no-noise, plus since it's mono, there's no chance for it to be narrowed, please correct me if I'm wrong on any of this). I believe the new mono CD will be my go-to version of this album.

 

It's fine if you want the mono mix. I prefer the stereo mix though.

 

Overall....... compared to UK 70s/80s/90s LPs incl the ABCKO ones, to my
ears the DSD easily sound better. The MOFI CDs aren't bad, but especially when compared on a very high end system (luckily I used to work for a hi end retailer) the DSD
especially the SACD layer just bought me closer to the music, that was 14 years ago, I even remember the system, it was that memorable an occasion.

 

I like the 2002 ABKCO SACD.

 

Definitely fair! I always felt this album sounds more Stones-y in mono, but the stereo mix is great too, definitely one of the better ones of the era (and sounds a lot better than Aftermath does in stereo, IMO, though that hasn't translated digitally)

 

The Aftermath stereo mix varies a bit depending on the song, but the London CD is a great representation of it.

 

The London Aftermath CD still delights me. I remember first playing it, having heard the US LP and the SACD and some bootleg mono version and I was like, "Oh well, this can't be all it's cracked up to OH, HELLO!"

 

Agree on the ABKCO SACD's. Best digital versions which used the best sourced tapes. Perfect? No, but close to it as far as my ears are concerned, that's the SACD -DSD not the redbook layer I'm speaking of.

 

Most would disagree about Aftermath, for example.

 

Agreed there, hands down the best digital version of the stereo mix. That being said, the mix itself sounds like everything was recorded with the band at the end of a tunnel. That seemed to be RCA Studios style for mixing stereo though, Surrealistic Pillow sounds very similar. Oddly enough, Buttons was partially recorded at RCA as well but doesn't have the same issue, probably since it was also partially done at Olympic. Ultimately I prefer mono for both but when it comes to the stereo mix, London discs are the best digital options for both, period.

 

RCA did like their reverb, and I actually suspect that on the 3-track material it was printed directly to the 3-track tapes; it's just more noticeable in stereo both because of the separation and the fact that the overdubs are usually higher in level than the mono mixes. It seems like for the 4-track material the reverb was added in mixing, and those mixes are more cohesive.

It is still unclear to me exactly what was recorded and mixed where for Buttons, but regardless, I'm assuming Oldham specifically wanted a more dry sound.

 

It's been a long time since I've given that a spin. I'm going back in my mind to the 2002 series as a whole. Was there a title or two that sounds better on the original 1980's CD, perhaps, but I really enjoyed all of the 2002 SACD's as I recall. Did the original Aftermath CD sound better to you?

 

The London CD sounds far better, yes.

 

What about the redbook layer of the SACD? I don't think I've ever played them. Same thing?

 

Same mastering on the CD and SACD layers.

 

The London Aftermath CD was one of the earlier CDs that I bought when it came out back in, what, 1985/6? It really amazed me how good it sounded back then (and that was on a 'lesser' system), and how good it still sounds today.

 

That's true. It would sound the same just in low-fi. What did you find was the problem with Aftermath that it ranks so low to you?

 

Noise reduction, stereo narrowing, and EQ that makes the sound even more murky.

 

I'm going to grab it and give it spin. Just received the new Tubes live in Germany on Musikladen 1981 DVD and CD and wanted to get to that, it may have to wait for until the I'm done with Aftermath. Thanks, @lukpac

 

Reporting back, comparing the ABKCO CD476 to the SACD. SACD for me. Even with the artifacts you describe, and I hear some of them, it's still an improvement in sound vs the redbook from 1980's. It's a tradeoff but I still like the SACD. I'm not hearing more murky, but that's just me. I never liked those early ABKCO discs. Was thrilled to dump them. I admire your encyclopedic knowledge of the Stones tape vault thou and enjoy reading your contributions here. That's nothing murky in that!

 

The original ABKCO CD is garbage. We're talking about the original London CD.

https://www.discogs.com/The-Rolling-Stones-Aftermath/release/3711386

 

I was wondering what was going on with your love for that disc. Got it. I had all of the original ABKCO, and found them to be garbage too. Would you agree the SACD is an upgrade to that version?

 

Yes, although it's better in some ways and worse in others.

The original ABKCO CDs aren't all garbage though. A few are superior to their corresponding London CDs, and there are even some things that are arguably better than on the SACDs.