ICE Mag Watchdog Answers Stones SACD Questions

Man! It's getting hot in here!

I am happy the new SACD/CDs. Other than the big hits, I only becme familiar with much of the Stones music twelve years ago when I bought the ABKO Hot Rocks CD. I had the LP before then but I never listened to it beyond "Satisfaction". I paid no attention to the stereo/mono content, or how wide or narrow the stereo spread was.

I am now familiar with much of their catalog now, and I have noticed *some* type of NR on the intro of some song, but I don't mind.

Ruby Tuesday does bother me, though...

 

I'm not disagreeing with anyone who has a problem with them. Lord knows I have isues with many CDs.

I can see your point that SACD is supposed to be the cream of the crop. You should get THE master tape. That didn't happen here.

I'll duck out of here before you all find that rope I hid...

 

David Goodwin, you are my hero.

 

For those of you who don't have the time to read all of what David wrote, the text inside this book contains just two words...

 

I read the post. Clavius.

Okay, I'll bite. What are the two words?

 

I'm joking!

Gotta lighten it up somehow!

 

Nice, David. I hope this makes you feel better.

 

Duh!

 

Come on, Ed. Have you listened to "Lady Jane" on the new Singles Collection? There isn't a person in the world who wouldn't notice that level of hiss in the intro, no matter what he was playing it on.

Now, compare the hiss levels to "Lady Jane" on the new Aftermath. [I fully realize they are different mixes.] The change is done relatively subtly. It doesn't hit like a tidal wave or whatever David said.

I prefer all the hiss, personally. But in the real world, most people, normal or abnormal, would find that full level of hiss objectionable.

LPs tend to mask some of that hiss because of their inherent surface noise.

 

In this case, what Luke said. Thanks, David, very nice job, too. Sorry you had to do it, but what's going on with these pro-ABKCO trollers? Scary!


FFF (not using naughty words)

 

Fellas! Let's all try to cool off, at least until tomorrow... then it's Boxing Day.

 

Hey Paul, let me ask you again: have you heard the London Aftermath CD? Have you compared it to the SACD? Why exactly are you so keen on defending the SACD, anyway?

 

Yeah, FFF, if I'm trolling I guess I'm catching a lot.

 

Interesting, since I haven't heard a single complaint about the level of hiss on Lady Jane on the new singles box. Not one.

See above.

If that hiss is so "terrible", how come people haven't been complaining about it all these years? On old ABKCO CDs. On the London CD of Aftermath, which has gotten rave reviews for its sound for years. If that hiss is such a problem, where are all the complaints?

 

Aaah . . . can someone explain the difference between edited and unedited profanity in David's post?

On a serious note, however, I'd like to offer a personal thanks, David, from one of those "9 or 10 people" out there who care that the project be done properly. My biggest complaint about the new ABKCOs is the overall veiled/dark sound--one listen to the London "Aftermath" confirms this difference. My question is: what accounts for this "veiled/dark" sound? Would noise reduction alone account for it? Or NR in conjunction with EQing? Of course I can answer my own question and choose the latter. But my point is that the end result isn't as good as it otherwise could have been had there been either less tampering with the masters or had there been more "careful" tampering so as to produce a more natural final product [again, I think "Aftermath" serves as a good example as a "sound" that so many members here seem to like. It, to me, has an overall sound very similar to the DCC issue of "Highway 61."].

There is very little to like about the new ABKCO issues [the shameless duplication of titles/songs, no combined stereo/mono mixes, no bonus tracks or liners for starters], but the use of original/lower generation tape sources is certainly something to be happy about. But having said that, there's simply "something wrong" with the end result. And for all Bob Ludwig's protestations to the contrary, I just don't see that the reissues match the best vinyl sources. There was a good deal more tampering with the tapes than either he or ABKCO has been thus far been willing to admit.

 

While NR, narrow stereo, etc are all problems on Aftermath, I think the biggest problem in sound comes with the EQ. That album is pretty murky to begin with, and some of the EQ on the SACD makes that even more so. NOT the right direction to take.

Hmmm. As above, I've always found Aftermath a bit dark/murky (which isn't a good thing IMO). I think it's a combo of the RCA recording method (slashing high end at every turn possible) and the echo printed on the mix. Not that I don't like the sound of, say, Under My Thumb, but IMO the recording/mixing technique got a lot better for Between The Buttons.

 

I'm afraid I don't understand your "Hmmm." Are you referring to the London "Aftermath"? My point is that the SACDs, overall, have a "veiled/dark" sound. The London "Aftermath" and the DCC "Highway 61"--a record from the same era [to use one well-known example]--don't. Meaning that veiled/dark sound isn't consistent with the era or the vinyl sources that Bob Ludwig claims to have been faithful to.

 

Ron,

For the sake of accuracy, I said, "There are about 9 or 10 people in the world who care if the soundstage was narrowed slightly on some particular song." I made no claim that there were only 9 or 10 people who cared whether the project was done properly. The statements do not mean the same thing.

I don't understand your point in bringing Steve's gold "H61R" disc into the discussion just because it is also from the mid-1960s. It has nothing remotely to do with Stones recordings, unless you want to say that "Like A Rolling Stone" has something to do with the Stones.

 

Seriously...

Paul, you've made what? Over 700 posts to this forum? Of course you are not a troll. You are a valued member who has a strong opinion. You are entitled to your opinions, David and Luke should appreciate that.

To everyone reading this thread: we are all welcome to disagree as much as we choose, but let us remain civil.

 

My point was just that the recording/mixing was pretty murky to begin with. I'd agree 100% that the SACD is *more* dark/veiled/murky, but *any* issue of Aftermath (including the London CD) is a lot more murky than say, Between The Buttons.

 

Too shay!

 

Point taken.

Maybe it was a mistake to mention "Highway 61." The point I wanted to make was that the London "Aftermath" sounds open/spacious/natural with a nice balance between highs, mids and lows [like "Highway 61"--just another example of a "sound" from the same era that I think sounds very good and faithful to the original], a sound I very much prefer to the SACDs. The London "Aftermath" sounds natural/unprocessed [a good thing] while the SACDs sound processed and not as natural. Does that help?

 

Re: Seriously...

Both they DON'T....EVER!....MERRY CHRISTMAS...

 

By that token, then, it wouldn't be "fair" of you to give good or bad marks to certain Rod Stewart CDs, since you haven't heard the actual master tapes, right? I mean, what's different between that and the Aftermath discussion?