Rolling Stones Blue and Lonesome vinyl or cd?

This has been a good page of discussion which I've enjoyed. Coffee, a cool summer morning and some really thoughtful posts.

 

That's a really thought-provoking post BurtThomasWard, which I enjoyed reading.

There was a thread started just recently, the topic of which was 'does anybody here buy music any more?' I made a number of points in response to this, a couple of which I will mention again here:
IMHO, the ease and accessibility of downloading music has led to us in some respects 'taking music for granted' and has served to erode and dilute the excitement we used to feel about going to a record store and shelling out our hard-earned cash for a new release by one of our favourite artists. In fact, half the time when I download something, I have not even listened to it before I start downloading something else.

There's a lot of people on these forums who know a heck of a lot about the technical aspects of audio. In fact, I'm sometimes in awe about how much forum members know about this stuff. Where do they get this knowledge, and indeed how do they find the time? Heck, I'm flat out getting up and going to work, eating, sleeping and paying my bills most of the time. But I say most respectfully that sometimes these days I am glad that I have such a primitive understanding of the technical aspects and musically uneducated ears, because most of the time I absolutely love the sound quality of new releases by my favourite artists. Two random examples of newish releases that have taken a bit of a beating in internet land for their sound quality: Pink Floyd The Early Years 1965-1972, and Lonesome and Blue by The Rolling Stones. I absolutely love the sound on these (and I still don't know what the terms 'compressed' and 'overdriven' actually mean).

P.s I love the album art for the new Stones album. How can anyone not like the iconic tongue logo?

 

I guess they've repressed the vinyl. I just received a copy of the LP from Barnes & Noble, which I honestly don't remember ordering. OK, now I have two. . . . . . .

 

Cool

 

Think a rapid repress was done on both sides of the pond as it was out of stock everywhere here in the UK and Europe, now it back to order at Amazon, hopefully the quality is still there in the vinyl repress.

 

Sorry for the lateness of my reply to your fine post. It's been a few of those days this week...

I never got into downloading music, because I like the package. The art, the thought that (sometimes) goes into making a cover. Lyric sheets. Session data. Pictures. All that old fashioned BS, really. I had access to Spotify for a couple of year because of my former GF. At first it seemed great, but soon it became too much. I started skipping tracks, endlessly searching for the next kick. Then I started to get annoyed with all the albums and songs that were missing. And then I got rid of it (after first getting rid of said GF). Not my scene and IMO very hurtful for the future of recorded music.

I do not think it is necessarily that way. I think that people that obsess over minute details in sound and different mixes, pressings and masterings like a few do here, often let it get in the way of enjoying listening. They analyse and get hung up on what it is supposed to sound like in their heads and that sometimes prevents them from just listening with their hearts. I have pretty good ears myself, also for flaws, mastering mistakes and such, but it still is the music that is my focus and obsession.

Lucky, eh?

 

Curious, does it still have the made in France type sticker on it? Was asking to see if we ever truly get a US pressing.

 

Yes it does. I'm 99% sure it will be MPO and sound about as congested as the version I already have.

 

I finally got around to cleaning the vinyl and putting it on last week.

And I have to say also, I am a real fan of this record. Even the compressed, clipped, brickwalled product Stephen Marcussen came out with.
The vinyl - to me - sounds a lot better than the High Rez. download. It is more open, more dynamic, more alive. It has a bit more depth too.
Funnily enough, the soundstage is about the same, which makes me think that the High Rez. and the vinyl started with much the same high resolution digital files.

The soundstage is not big, it doesn't compare to a good analog recording. If I was guessing, I would say 88.2/24 to 96/24 or so.
I put on 192/24 high resolution download of Willie Dixons, "I am the Blues" after Blue and Lonesome. Which wasn't a great idea, the soundstage opened up, nice dynamics and beautiful open sound. The comparison unfortunately did not help Blue and Lonesome.
That said, the vinyl is a substantial improvement over the digital.

The vinyl has a mastering credit to Ron Masterson. Which presumably explains the difference. I guess if Stephen Marcussen had mastered the vinyl, it would have been the same as Exile on Main Street. Where as I remember, he did both CD and vinyl. They were both equally bad.

In any case, to me, the vinyl is a big improvement over the high resolution digital.

 

Got my B & L vinyl today, I'm guessing it's the second pressing as its from Amazon in which was out of stock until last week, can't see anything on it to show its a second pressing though at a quick glance.
Not amazing sound, but better then listening to Spotify, less harsh, vinyl is of good quality, as almost every other MPO pressing I've ever had, quite, flat bright, bit of a waste having it across 2 LP's could have fitted onto 1 OK, specially with its limited sound stage. That said, love the gatefold, nice pictures, printed inner sleeves, nice feel to the package, just wish the vinyls weren't so thick or packed so tight ad they always split the covers somewhere.

 

I don't think it is marketing "snake oil". I believe it was Barry Diament who said that IF it really IS the same mastering, the SHM gets the listener a little bit closer to that mastering, and he at least seemed to think audibly so. He said that on this forum. My guess is that he likely has "somewhat" better gear than I, and maybe better ears (or not) as well.

All of that said, my take on that sort of stuff (gold discs, SHM, Blu-Spec, and so on) is that at most more of the bits get read in an environment where a CD that is PLAYED on a CD player gets (most of) its bits scanned in one pass in real time, with error correction governed by the onboard chipset taking care of the rest. More bits read would theoretically mean fewer errors to tax your chipset. And a better chipset meaning a better job of error correction. But if (and ONLY if) an SHM-CD and a standard CD with the exact same mastering are both ripped to a file, then "played" from the file, then ALL those bits get read regardless, and there SHOULD be absolutely no difference at all, assuming it really is the same mastering and thus the same bits.

Given the varying capabilities of different levels of CD players (from portable Walkman to high end transport with DAC), it may well follow that any differences will tend to be most pronounced, if at all, on lesser players needing more help, diminishing perhaps as the capability of the gear playing it improves toward, but never equals, ripped files. But whether the lesser quality of the post-conversion path toward what would also be presumably cheaper speakers or earbuds allows one to actually HEAR those differences is another matter. For that matter, if a laptop's cheap onboard DAC and signal path to a headphone jack is used to power cheaper speakers or earbuds, I'm not so sure that one can even hear any differences with ripped files.

When I HAVE had a problem with an SHM-CD, it has been because it is also the mastering that is different from (and worse than), say, a very well mastered standard CD up for comparison. So I always make sure that I know the mastering of both before choosing. Some of the more recent SHM platinum CDs have actually been quite stellar, though I personally think that much of that is perhaps more due to a better mastering than any other factor. CD Japan has touted some of those, for instance, as "flat transfers" from original analog tapes by, say, Seth Foster and others. I would expect that to do much more for the sound than SHM optics.

In the end, however much we all want one, there is NO hard and fast rule of thumb. Never was, and never will be. Do your own research, draw inferences, and beware knee jerk opinions based on rule of thumb by those who have actually never listened.

I think the bottom line for this particular very new title is that it is likely exactly the same mastering, digital files sent to Japan for that purpose. So if you are just going to rip to files, don't bother with SHM-CD at all and save your money. But if you are going to play it on a CD player, there may be a marginal benefit, perhaps even audibly so, depending on your gear.

 

The vinyl sounds great. Played Side 4 yesterday and was impressed with the deep bass. Can't say how it compares to the CD, but from what I have read, the CD doesn't come across that well. The music is what is appealing here as well. Takes me back to the early Stones from 1964 and '65, when a great percentage of their albums was covers from the Blues masters. Somewhere, Brian Jones is smiling.

 

The CD is painfully loud.

 

I may be too late with this post, but the SHM CD's and SHM SACD's from CD Japan can be ordered from Import CD's for less money and faster shipping time.

 

Just realized I never got around to posting here.

Love the album and have listened several times, though I can understand peoples comments regarding the harsh mastering. Doesn't hurt my ears or anything, but there is some nice interplay that gets a bit lost at times that I'd like to hear more clearly. Doesn't ruin my enjoyment though.

By the way, regarding my equipment profile, I listened to it the first time with a Guinness Extra Dark.

Q: Would you fancy a Guinness mate?

A: Sure, I'll have a Guinness.

Mark

 

I agree in the most general sense, however, I would add that though I've seen better, I've also seen much worse, including from the Stones. Case in point: "Grrr". And several other candidates from the Stones as well.

As far as your other point, if the golden age of album cover design is over, it may be just as much because the golden age of albums is pretty much over, and has been for quite some time now. In an earlier time (late 1960s-mid-1970s), with a VERY crowded pond, it was almost essential for survival to have a great album cover to stand a bit above the crowd. Now worthy new releases trickle out at a rate of, oh, about one or two a YEAR. Different world today.

 

I'm inclined to agree with this after finally receiving my "Xmas gift" of the LP last weekend (don't ask...).

Frankly I was expecting worse. Yes, it could have used less compression and limiting, but it doesn't exhibit the harshness of many similarly compressed, limited recordings. However the bottom-end, while somewhat deep on most of the tunes, lacks nuance.

Nevertheless I do find that I'm not overwhelmed by the album. It's not bad - but I'm left wondering if a little more dynamics and nuance would have resulted in greater visceral impact for me.

One question, does anyone find the left channel of the vinyl to be mostly 1-2dBs louder than the right channel? I did a needledrop of it yesterday and noticed that both the waveforms and listening showed a moderate channel imbalance (although I admit my perception I'm hearing an imbalance could be a placebo effect).

 

I don't think one needs to go THAT far back. "Hejira", "Wish You Were Here", "Rumours", "London Calling", "Born in the USA", "Lonesome Jubilee", "Nevermind", "Odelay", "Yankee Hotel Foxtrot" and so on. Even most recently, "Endless River" by Floyd. I even thought Henley's "Cass County" (simple photo of the artist though it was) did a good job of conveying the album's vibe.

 

Dusted this baby off and spinning the vinyl right now. Kicking my ass every bit as much as the first time I heard it. Absolutely brilliant album!!!

 

never clicked with me. I should give it another listen.

 

I listened to the whole thing just an hour ago. I like it. Think I like it more than at its first spinning months back.^^

 

Great post.

You’ve inspired me to leave the office, race home.......& happily get my ass kicked tonight.

 

Listening to the vinyl for the first time and it's better than I expected, especially after reading all 48 pages of this thread I've spun the cd a few but the vinyl sounds less harsh and smoother. My ears even perked up like the good old days of discovering a new Rolling Stones album.

 

I play the vinyl quite regularly, would have preferred a single album though.

 

how's the HR download?