Re-acquired the 1986 ABKCO of Got Live!, just for comparisons as I was under the suspicion that the 1986 and 2002 versions of this album were of the same mix. Surprisingly, there's some very slight differences, but they're close in balance. To begin, they don't stay in sync with each other, even though most of the edits between the songs are largely identical to the original CD. The audience levels are lower, and in some cases (I've Been Loving You Too Long), redone a bit to make the overdubbed audience more seamless. That's all I've got really, I had an old thread about some of it but I didn't have all of the sources at the time (still don't, just need the original stereo LP), so if I have the time I'm willing to do an update to that.
Question-I’ve never owned a cd copy of E. Rescue. How is the 2009 Remaster( B0024RID6A) UMG? Is it really loud and compressed? Are there better cd versions that are so much better it’s really worth upgrading if you’re not a real audiophile? Thx
Well, if you can find the CBS CD, that should sound fine or if you can find the Virgin, that should sound fine as well.
I really appreciate your info but since I’m not an audiophile and just an 67 year old fan I’m not sure what that all means. I just know there are certain various Stones cds that everyone warns to stay away from ( like some of the remastered cds like Exile from a few years ago so I got the Virgin older release). (Same I think with Tattoo You which I’m also looking to buy at some point). So just wondering if the 2009 remaster ER cd is one of those horrible ones. Thx for your help.
For the albums from Sticky Fingers onward, the best inexpensive option is always the original CBS/Rolling Stones Records CD. Half of the Virgin "remasters" are just louder versions of the CBS CDs. The 2009 remasters are horrendous, utterly vile. They will make you think you dislike the band. Do not waste your money.
Unfortunately, the best sounding discs from Sticky Fingers onward are the SHM-SACDs single layer discs from Japan which are no longer available.
When it comes to looking in the used bins here (as opposed to Discogs), I actually see the Virgin CDs more often than the original CBSes, in general. Of course on any given day it’s always a bit random, and when it comes to either, they all turn up eventually. I recently picked up the original Black and Blue (I’ve had the Virgin for a while), and I was very pleased when I played it the other day. I wasn’t comparing it to the Virgin then, but on its own I thought it sounded terrific — lively, balanced and crankable.
Stay away from the recent Japanese SHM-CDs (Rolling Stones Records era 1971-1986) with letter K in catalog number. These are 2009 remasters repacked in new Japanese paper sleeves. UICY-79241 through UICY-79249 from cdjapan - flat transfers UICY-79241K through UICY-79249K - available worldwide - 2009 remaster.
In the case of Tattoo You you need both. CBS has the original version of Slave. Virgin has an extended version.
Ah, correct, I forgot that. There's a handful of songs that are edited in one place but unedited somewhere else and it gets confusing trying to remember which one is which version, and where. "Luxury" is edited on CBS (early fade, matching original LP), unedited on Virgin, 2009, and flat transfer. "Time Waits For No One" is unedited on flat transfer (ticking clock drum beat at end doesn't fade out), edited on CBS, Virgin, and 2009 (fades out, matching original LP). "Fingerprint File" is sped up on CBS, Virgin, and 2009 (matching the original LP), original recorded speed on flat transfer only. I don't think the slower speed was ever released on vinyl, was it? "Slave" is edited on CBS and flat transfer (matching original LP), unedited on Virgin and 2009 (probably 2021 as well but I don't have that to confirm). Not just an early fade, there's several distinct chunks from the middle of the song that were trimmed out. Virgin sounds pretty good for the extended version. 2009 remaster sounds awful, and DR logs suggest the 2021 remaster is twice as loud as the '09. "Wanna Hold You" is unedited on CBS, Virgin, and 2009, edited (original LP edit I believe?) on flat transfer. So even within the same CD series, you're not getting all the unedited versions (or even all the edited versions for that matter). One thing's for sure though – the 2009 remasters are terrible.
Collection Comparison: Of course many want the London 'Hot Rocks' & 'More Hot Rocks' ceedees along with the ABKCO SA-CD versions; hence the price$. Around '77 got the '75 German "Rolled Gold" LP & was won over [sophomoric scrutiny-system/may have been influenced by the cover too ;-)]: Album details - Dynamic Range DB Was greatly disappointed by the '07 "Rolled Gold +" ABKCO ceedee release [too 'crunchy' for me YMWillV]: Disc 1 Album details - Dynamic Range DB Disc 2 Album details - Dynamic Range DB Have found '22 ABKCO 'Hot Rocks' to be a viable alternative to expensive earliers. Not as analog-like as Londons' & not as analytical as alternatives. Same SHM-CD [not a FanBoy] Bob Ludwig mastering: https://www.discogs.com/release/21788254-The-Rolling-Stones-Hot-Rocks-1964-1971 Not saying the '22 will be anyone's All-Time Fave; just an option.
Yes, from 1971 and on, the CBS and/or Virgin CDs are a safe bet. The 2009 Universal remasters are overhated - Universal's 24bit digital downloads of the 2009 "Tattoo You", "Voodoo Lounge", and "Bridges" are all very good. Not award-winners, but very good. Deluxe editions/remasters/new albums done on Universal since 2009 are all crap on toast. Unless Giles Martin had a role.
I could maybe agree that they're "over-hated", but seeing those called "very good" is perhaps the most I've ever disagreed with a non-political opinion in my life. I was not an audiophile when I picked up the 2009 remasters, and I could not understand why listening to my favourite songs was such an unenjoyable experience. At the recommendation of forum members, I sought out the Virgin CDs, and that's pretty much when I became an audiophile. Even though I now think the Virgins are uniformly inferior to the CBS discs, they were such a revelation back when I was only used to the '09s. For the record, the 2009 remasters of Voodoo Lounge and Bridges To Babylon are very, very similar to the original CDs, just louder. I compared the EQ of Voodoo Lounge and it was virtually identical. I think it might be a fresh tape transfer as I recall them not syncing up precisely (I don't have a rip of the Virgin CD handy at the moment to compare), but the sound is not hugely different apart from being about 2 to 2.5 dB louder. Bridges To Babylon basically sounds like the old CD with further limiting; there is a lot of cancellation in a null test. As for Tattoo You, well, it's a matter of taste, but I find it far too compressed and the midrange is too harsh and nasally for my liking. Emotional Rescue is the only one from that series I'd come even close to praising, as it lacks that midrange boost – but it's still heavily compressed, which the CBS CD you can get for two or three dollars isn't. And IMO the CBS has better EQ anyway. I'm not taking shots at you for liking those discs. There's nothing at all wrong with that, no offense meant to you. But someone asked for recommendations, and CDs whose sound I disliked so much I basically became an audiophile as a result are being described as "very good"... well, I have to comment.
So that I understand this all correctly, for Emtional Rescue, when I look on Discogs and it refers to “Rolling Stones Records” as the label, is that the same ( version) as CBS and thus the one that’s easiest on the ears ? And-as a follow up, where then does Virgin label fit in to the same “easiest on the ears” criteria (and best sound quality) I’m looking for as a non-audiophile? Same questions for Tattoo You? Thx!
Yes, looking at Discogs (Emotional Rescue, for example), filtering on “CD”, you’re going to see the first releases in 1986 by Rolling Stones Records (with U.S. releases having a “CK” catalog number). Beginning in 1994, you’ll see Virgin releases. (Leaving aside the “easiest on the ears” question, which I will leave to others.)
This discussion made me compare my CBS and Virgin CDs of Sticky Fingers. I think they're both good options, but the compromised dynamics and the "I Got The Blues" transfer kick it down a notch. Even though I think it would benefit from some of the EQ choices and tonality the Virgin has, the CBS has been barely winning out some of these comparisons (again, because of the Virgin's EQ choices). For example, "Bitch" sounds a bit muddy on the CBS. Even though the Virgin has the better transfer, the boosted midrange ultimately prevented it from clicking for me (even if you look past the limiting), so I stuck with the CBS on that song. Basically, the CBS is likely to be the more desired option for being more of a "raw" presentation, though you can't really go wrong with either.
My only 16bit 2009 is Undercover, which has been digitally cursed even from the days of CBS. I've pondered snapping more 24bits up before Universal discovers a way of reducing DR to 1, but I've got everything in DSD up tbrough Dirty Work, so I think I've gotten to the point of diminishing returns there.
Not sure what you mean by this. If I'm reading right, you're looking for a higher resolution Undercover? The Japanese flat transfer SHM-SACD from DSD should be what you want then. The sonic improvement of 24-bit audio is most noticeable for masters that are extremely quiet (or at least have passages that are extremely quiet) which definitely does not apply to the '09 remaster. As for being "digitally cursed", the production is what it is, but Messrs. Marcussen and Whitmore did not do it any favours in their treatment of it. It sounds significantly more digital and certainly makes me curse a lot more than the flat transfer or CBS (or hell, even the Virgin, which is just a louder clone of the CBS). Of course, I can't and won't stop you from buying the 24-bit download if you really want to.
With even the first digital version of Undercover (a personal favorite) I was able to lay my hands on (the CBS CD), the listening experience started out at digital fatigue and eventually reached pain. I eventually got the DSD, but it was no relief, and I figure that's about as far as we're gonna go under Universal. There's an additional couplet in "Wanna Hold You" which first appeared on CD which indicates that in the 80s, Sony was handed over something besides the master prepped for vinyl, for better or worse. I avoided commenting on 2009 CDs for the benefit of noobs, and my extremely limited experience. They could indeed be very very awful, and I suspect they are. @Ironbelly documented a problem with the Virgin 1994 Emotional Rescue transfer in particular, but I chalk that up without reservation as a happy accident. It's a singular Virgin CD worth seeking, IMHO.
