Rolling Stones Beggars Banquet deluxe

As you can't get anything from any other amazon cept the US one comparing the US price - $US38 + $10.95 shipping + GST = $AUD 71 bucks

the Amazon Aust price is $AUD59 without shipping - if youre a prime member its free and if not its what it is (I cant see it as Im a prime member) but assuming its 10/12/14 dollars the price is basically the same

around 70 aust dollars

It's a pity UK amazon is unavailable as subtracting the VAT and the cheaper postage it would be around $AUD50 delivered

 

Many thanks.

 

A community service ebay announcement......................

At approximately 6 am tomorrow morning Australian time Face Records in Japan are selling a near new vinyl 50th Anniversay Beggars Banquet (w/Obi & 12") as Used.

 

The 2003 Abkco is good enough for me. It is too bad that unlike the London CD version that ran too slow, on the new version half the songs run too fast. I had to reverse engineer forum member Pig Whisperer's excellent speed settings for the London CD to make the album sound right. Some of the songs Jagger's vocals sounded like he was inhaling helium. Thanks Audacity!

 

Too fast by what measure?

 

The song times of the speed corrected London CD to the song times of the ABCKO tracks when pulled into Audacity. Also to these old ears

 

But where did the speed correction for the London CD come from? Because “sounds right to me” does not necessarily mean “correct”. Robert Johnson, anyone?

 

The percentage increases to the speed of each song for the London CD were from forum member Pig Whisperer and another member had similar values for the original ABKCO cd. All I did was reverse engineer those values to slow the new version down. Granted a lot of it may coincide with hearing the slower version, however I only had the original London CD for a short time. Its not like I've been playing it 30 years. So calling it subjective may be a valid argument. However until you put in the legwork and do the comparison yourself, its a bit unreasonable to simply dismiss my opinion outright. Also, a number of other forum members have commented on the vocals sounding way off on the new mastering. I'm not some lone nut holding to this viewpoint. If you search the threads it will validate my take on this mastering.

 

My point remains: “it sounds good to me” isn’t a measure of correctness. It may sound nice, but that doesn’t mean it’s right.

 

OK, I agree to disagree if you want to dissect the meaning of correct. This reminds me of a certain politician defining what the meaning of "is" is.

 

There’s nothing to dissect. Correct is correct, and is objective. “Sounds good to me” is subjective. If something slower than the SACD sounds good to you, that’s fine, it just doesn’t necessarily make it correct.

Now, if there’s any evidence that shows the 2002 and later releases are at the wrong speed, I’d love to see it. But to this point I haven’t seen any.

 

OK you win. You are correct, and I am incorrect. Does that sound good to you? All kidding aside, you did win the grammatical argument and I admit your breakdown of my statement is 100 percent correct. Kudos to you for standing your ground.

 

so i don't have time to read all 60 pages lol. im thinking of buying beggars 50th anniversary off amazon. if there any consensus on this reissue, does it compare to the original? or a waste of money?

 

I just listened to the SACD for the first time the other day. I broke down and bought the Japanese version (vs the US version which is the Japan version, I think) when it was about $28 on Amazon.
I'd say it was an entirely unnecessary purchase but it's better than I thought it would be. I didn't care for the stereo remaster of "Satanic..."
But, to generalize, it's much more up front and forward sounding... but not bright. It's quite smooth sounding. It's a great transfer. But there's not much depth to the presentation and that's were I'm not sure if repeated listens will see me favoring this or the other versions I have. Nevertheless, I'm pleasantly surprised by it.

 

I wouldn't have expected it after the "Satanic Majesties" remaster, which I didn't like, but this new remaster is my preferred SACD version of Beggars Banquet, now.
I haven't done a comparison to the original London cd, but that'll happen at some point.

I find this remaster more immersive and more tonally saturated. I get more involved in the music.
There's not as much space/depth in this remaster, on my system, but it's smooth sounding and I find a lot more to like than to dislike about it.

It makes me wonder what was done differently for this remaster versus the 2002 remaster. Is it all EQ? Somehow making a better transfer of the tapes?

 

The labels have learned a lot more about mastering for DSD and SACD in the time since those 2002 transfers were first made. I don't think any deeper explanation is really needed beyond that.

 

Suggesting better gear/software since that time?

Of course, I didn't feel the "Satanic Majesties" remaster was a step forward, at all.
I liked the London cd and the 2002 SACD, better.

 

Different transfer, different EQ, more limiting.

There is, as above.

 

I had "Beggars Banquet" vinyl SKDL 4955, 800 084-1 1985 "Digitally Remastered" and last ABKCO SACD .


In your opinion, should you buy this new edition? in cd or vinyl?

 

It was pretty much unanimous that they nailed BB on that first SACD release and the vinyl LPs cut from that DSD master (I think 2002) with the right and true master tape, speed locked in correctly for the first time, and very tastefully EQ'd.

Has something come along since and truly blown the original DSD mastering out of the water?

 

The 2002 is worlds better than anything that came before, apart from the big dropout in the middle of Stray Cat Blues, which as it turns out is actually a transfer issue, not on the tape, as the 2018 remaster has no damage in that spot, though it does have a different dropout just before it.

One thing that does stand out between the 2002 and 2018 is that the 2002 transfer is actually a little wobbly in the imaging, like one channel has a slight waver to it. It’s a shame the 2018 is compressed, it would have been much better than the 2002 as the transfer is actually much improved.

 

Perhaps ABKCO should stop using Bob Ludwig? Any thoughts?

 

I'm not sure how much he is to blame, at least in this case. The A/D transfers were done by Teri Landi at ABKCO, and I'm *guessing* the limiting was at ABKCO's direction.

 

But later RL is in general nothing like the vintage RL, with compression, limiting, and outright brickwalling rather common in recent decade or more.

 

I haven’t read any of the other posts, but I wouldn’t give up that easily. “Correct” is only objective if the definition of correct is certain.