I am probably wrong but I thought for the Stones deluxe sets ie SF, Exile, and Tattoo You the version of the album was the 2009 remastering again? GHS was a remix. I have the Universal 24 bit downloads of most of the SF on catalogue and thought they were based on the 2009 remasters? Is that correct?
For Deluxe sets: SF - 2009 remaster. EOMS - 2010 remaster (initially, EOMS was not a part of the 2009 reissue program. Thus the remaster appeared for the first time on deluxe in 2010). GHS - remixed by Giles Martin. TY - new remaster, not equivalent to 2009. Even more loud and compressed. All Universal 24 bit downloads - previously these were based on 2009 remaster. Well, I am not sure about GHS and TY, they might change those to match the recent editions. But I doubt they did this.
I would say, all Virgin CDs suffer from peak shaving. Not only Emotional Rescue. But the amount of 'shaving' varies from disc to disc and from track to track. It looks like a problem of soft clipping (or limiting) that was applied during mastering procedure.
Tattoo You core album was definitely reheated in 2020-2021, and tastes like it. Giles' core GHS is a standout. Some Girls was definitely Somebody's First Big Project. For some reason, (a stroke of decency?) the third leg of the SF SDE (i.e., Leeds) was never released in 24bit.
I feared ahead of time that TY 2009 would be disappeared with the release of the SDE box, but that did not happen.24bit TY 2009 remained available alongside the SDE.
Thanks to you both. Re GHS I don't think the original mix is in print as it were on cd or download at this point in time. I think the Japanese card sleeve in 2013 was the last reissue on cd also on Platinum cd and SHM-SACD. Complicated stuff. Usually for the post 71 catalogue up to Dirty Work I play the CBS cds, the Virgin's and the Japanese flat transfer SHM-SACDs. I have the 2009 downloads for the car.
Original mix of GHS is still in print. But 2009 remaster it is. Label: Rolling Stones Records / Polydor / Universal Catalog Number: UICY-80299K Barcode: 6 02567 90611 7 Label Number CD: UICY-80299K Matrix CD: (4X Universal Logo) UICY-94573 1W V Mastering SID Code: IFPI L244 Mould SID Code: IFPI 4011 Release Date 07-07-2023 It was released last year for the whole world as mini LP replica. The Rolling Stones - Goats Head Soup CD is a digital copy of 2010 Japanese edition UICY-94573. Sleeve and extras (other than the second OBI) are copies of those used for Japanese SHM-CD platinum and SHM-CD in 2013 and 2020.
Question on BTB UK 2002 two remaster versions- I have a basic receiver, 2 speaker, cd player system so I gather the SACD layer is useless for me. So Is there any reason why I should still get the SACD version of the above or just get the regular remaster of the same cd ? In other words besides the fact that I hate jewel cases, any other advantages to the SACD version for my purposes? Thx all!
I wouldn't pay a premium for the 2002 digipak, hybrid SACD. If you find one for cheap, sure buy it, but I wouldn't obsess over it. I'm perfectly happy to listen to the redbook layer converted to 256 AAC files on my iThingy. I also own the sub par London CD and it's NEVER on my iThingy. Happy hunting and listening, Michael
BTB London CD is a very good mixed bag like the 2002 but not "sub-par". You might be thinking of the old Abkco CD that the OP is discussing.
I’m not an audiophile, so is “ is the red book “ layer what you’re saying I’d be listening to on my basic stereo system? Secondly, regarding the 2 versions ( SACD 2002 and non SACD 2002) there’s no advantages at all in favor of the SACD in my situation if I understand what you’re saying? Is the packaging the same ( other than digipack vs jewel case)?
One other BTB Question— Are the 2002 stereo versions ( whether SACD or not) the best versions or are older versions just as good or even markedly better ?
I definitley own the London Between The Buttons. Maybe sub par is harsh, but my children with sharper ears and I both prefer the 2002 remaster. WhenMatthew put the London BTB files on his iThingy he called me to ask if there was something wrong with the CD. Matthew's ears have gone as far as making a playlist of London Calling from the fabulous remasting found on the original Clash On Broadway boxset.
Redbook is the standard CD resolution. To my ears the 2002 CD sound fine. With you current setup, there's no benefit to the SACD. The standard jewel case CD will sound great. If you want to fully explore the digital CD history of the Decca / London era, please read this, http://www.lukpac.org/stereostones/stones-cd-faq.txt
The SACD layer of the 2002 hybrids is stereo, not multi-channel (although one multichannel of "Sympathy" remixes was released), so the showstopper isn't the lack of a multichannel man-cave; it's whether your shiny disc player accommodates and plays the discs in question. Back at the time, I bought a NIB Pioneer disc player with 2-channel analog out, which boasted SACD compatibility. I never unboxed it, so I'll never know.
The only difference is the packaging. You would be paying extra for a digipak sleeve. The 2002 jewel case version is fine for what you're looking for. The London CD is more audiophile-style, but some songs seem to be from slightly inferior tapes than the 2002, and it has low volume levels. The 2002 has some fiddling (noise reduction on intros, occasional narrowing). Neither is perfect. The old Abkco CD that you started the discussion about is bad.
In the future, any 2002 Abkco jewel case or 1994 Virgin would be the best choice for your Stones needs on CD.
Well, the old ABKCO CD is not 100% bad. Because Ruby Tuesday is a copy of a track from London 820 138-2 CD (allegedly mastered by MFSL) with 0.06dB shift. So 1/12 of the CD is good. The rest, well, it is A.L. Oldham production .
Old CBS CK 40500 or CDCBS 450206 2 or 32DP 609 or 23DP 5578 or SRCS 6213. Any Virgin edition will also do.
Absolutely. But the OP is not an audiophile and doesn't want to spend a lot of money, but wants good sound quality. So streamlining/sticking with the 2002 Abkco and 1997 Virgins should suit his needs easy.
