I'm thing of upgrading some of these from the original cd's and wanted to know opinions on if the sound is improved over the original issues. I don't have an SACD player so i'm curious about the cd layer. The titles of interest are

Got Live If You Want It!
Flowers
Singles Collection: The London Years
Between the Buttons (UK)
Their Satanic Majesties Request
Beggars Banquet
Let It Bleed

I also read of some mixups with the speed and correct version of Ruby Tuesday. Not sure what that's about.

Quote
gomper076
I'm thing of upgrading some of these from the original cd's and wanted to know opinions on if the sound is improved over the original issues. I don't have an SACD player so i'm curious about the cd layer. The titles of interest are

Got Live If You Want It!
Flowers
Singles Collection: The London Years
Between the Buttons (UK)
Their Satanic Majesties Request
Beggars Banquet
Let It Bleed

I also read of some mixups with the speed and correct version of Ruby Tuesday. Not sure what that's about.

The only one of those I don't have is Got Live. I'm not knowledgeable enough on the topic of Ruby Tuesday speed to be of any help, but yes, these remastered versions are a vast improvement over the original releases and you'll be amazed particularly with Let It Bleed.

I don't have a SACD myself and am not too fussy when it comes to HI-end discussions. In any case, first of all, it depends on what you intend for "original CDs". I find that the "digitally remastered" series was a downgrade compared to the previous one, so if you have those, don't think twice and get the new ones.

If you have the old ones (w/o "digitally remastered" black band - first or following series) they are not bad to start with. That said.

Banquet is a major upgrade.

Bleed almost.

Buttons so and so.

The others I didn't upgrade so I do not know.

I bought the 2002 version of RS, Now, Heads, but I don't hear this HUGE difference between the old format and new.

C

Buttons, Satanic and Beggars are sure fire improvements over older cd releases.

Beggars Banquet in particular is noticably clearer and also plays at correct speed/pitch.

Guess, Lukpac is the answer
[www.lukpac.org]
Kind of outdated but (probably) most complete analys you can get.

The regular CD layer in itself it an upgrade. The FAQ is not outdated, it was simply everything you can tell about the collection.

Ruby Tuesday is missing a vocal in the chorus. Certain titles are speed corrected.

No more reprocessed mixes. They appear in mono or stereo as originally recorded. With a few exceptions, they are complete uncut tracks with no improper fade in or outs. You no longer need a PhD in Stones Discography to know what you need.

Got Live changes on each of the CD releases in some way including the 2002 reissues. Still waiting on that original LP release.

these and the vinyl box set covering the same era are the definitive IMHO, unless you have sealed versions of the original first pressing DECCA releases.

If you have the original "London" CD's from the 80's which were mastered by MFSL (even if it's not written on most of these CD's), depending on your own tastes you may have already the "definitive" versions on CD. Sound volume is very well balanced and stereo albums are very impressive (Aftermath on this CD collection is the best digital version to me).

In comparison the sound on 2002 remasters is more compressed and they may sound more "canned" and more processed. But they are very good too. The improvement is particularly noticeable on the first albums. From Aftermath they are on par with the London CD's.

Also worth mentioning is the fact that 2002 remasters were made by the same Bob Ludwig who remastered the post-'71 albums in 1994.

Kowalski is right again. Those 1986 pressings are terrific. It's amazing how terrible the later CD releases were in comparision; untill the 2002 reissues were released

Beggars Banquet 2002 version is the definitive release because it's at the correct speed.

Yes but of course

HELLO GOMPER76:

So you want to know everything there is to know about the Rolling Stones SACD releases:

Well then, go to the following website:

[www.lukpac.org]


SFTD

Quote
His Majesty
Beggars Banquet 2002 version is the definitive release because it's at the correct speed.

On the other hand people have been listening to the wrong speed version until 2002. So which one is the definitive version is not that easy.

Quote
kowalski

Quote
His Majesty
Beggars Banquet 2002 version is the definitive release because it's at the correct speed.

On the other hand people have been listening to the wrong speed version until 2002. So which one is the definitive version is not that easy.

Not everyone, because record speed can be altered slightly at the deck.

Quote
Erik_Snow
Kowalski is right again. Those 1986 pressings are terrific. It's amazing how terrible the later CD releases were in comparision; untill the 2002 reissues were released

As far as I recall there have only been to issues on CD of the 1960s albums - the 1986 ones and the 2002's. Beggars 2002 blows 1986 out of the water and beyond.

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
Erik_Snow
Kowalski is right again. Those 1986 pressings are terrific. It's amazing how terrible the later CD releases were in comparision; untill the 2002 reissues were released

As far as I recall there have only been to issues on CD of the 1960s albums - the 1986 ones and the 2002's. Beggars 2002 blows 1986 out of the water and beyond.

It's possible that the "ABKCO Digitally remastered" CD releases, which sounds like crap were also released in 1986. I can't remember
But the CDs Kowalski is speaking of are the LONDON CDs from 1986, which were pressed in Germany. Those were the first RS CDs I bought, and they were brilliant. WHen I later, in the 90s, bought some of the ABKCO releases, as the LONDON CDs weren't available in the shops anymore....I couldn't believe how bad they sounded

So there are at least 2 different CD releases from the mid 80s. I think you in America only had the crappy sounding ones....that German edition was sold out after a while.

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
Erik_Snow
Kowalski is right again. Those 1986 pressings are terrific. It's amazing how terrible the later CD releases were in comparision; untill the 2002 reissues were released

As far as I recall there have only been to issues on CD of the 1960s albums - the 1986 ones and the 2002's. Beggars 2002 blows 1986 out of the water and beyond.

"London" CD's were issued in the mid 80's but in the 90's ABKCO reissued these albums under the banner "digitally remastered from original master recording". Then again - with proper and true remastering this time - they reissued them in 2002.

Edit : Erik Snow summed up the whole thing quite well in the message above.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-10-30 02:44 by kowalski.

I have the UK Buttons (and UK Aftermath, Ya-Ya's and Metamorphisis).
HUUUUUGE improvement, yes. Particularily Aftermath and Buttons.

[thepowergoats.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-10-30 03:25 by jamesfdouglas.

I have the German CD for their first album and it is indeed fantastic. Other than that the 2002 SACD releases are the best. The exceptions being Got Live and Ya Yas, neither of which I found to be much of an improvement.

Thanks for the link and info. Looks like I should upgrade most of the ones I listed since I only have the ABKCO one with the "digitally remastered" black strip on the cover.

If you only Have the ones with the black strip on the cover, you are in for a treat. The 2002 editions was a major upgrade.

Beggar's is awesome.

JumpingKentFlash

Quote
kowalski

The improvement is particularly noticeable on the first albums. From Aftermath they are on par with the London CD's.

For me its the other way round. What I truly love of the 2002 edition is the sound of acoustic guitars. It has the "presence" and fullness of the vinyl edition, while it was quite flat on the CD version (the London version). Same applies to the early CBS CDs. Beggars 2002 CD doesn't sound like the original LP (speed issue aside) but both are a great musical experience.

With the first albums, there is some difference between the early london and the 2002, but I can't decide which is better. Bass is boomier on the new ones. But in any case I prefer the LPs.

C

The 2002 versions played on a SACD player are truly the ultimate.

Quote
24FPS
I have the German CD for their first album and it is indeed fantastic.

As a matter of fact there are two different versions of the first album on German London in terms of sound and mastering.

1st and 2nd pressings (4 pages booklet with red stripe in left upper corner and long cold ended Tel Me (4.05)) looks like this
_______________________________________________________________________
Track | Start | Length | Start sector | End sector | Peak Level
------------------------------------------------------------------
1 | 0:00.32 | 2:23.08 | 32 | 10764 | 71.0 %
2 | 2:23.40 | 2:18.60 | 10765 | 21174 | 78.7 %
3 | 4:42.25 | 2:11.15 | 21175 | 31014 | 69.8 %
4 | 6:53.40 | 3:35.27 | 31015 | 47166 | 87.7 %
5 | 10:28.67 | 2:31.00 | 47167 | 58491 | 75.6 %
6 | 12:59.67 | 2:40.20 | 58492 | 70511 | 75.5 %
7 | 15:40.12 | 2:36.38 | 70512 | 82249 | 72.0 %
8 | 18:16.50 | 2:34.12 | 82250 | 93811 | 78.0 %
9 | 20:50.62 | 4:09.13 | 93812 | 112499 | 79.3 %
10 | 25:00.00 | 2:57.02 | 112500 | 125776 | 84.9 %
11 | 27:57.02 | 2:02.48 | 125777 | 134974 | 86.3 %
12 | 29:59.50 | 3:08.65 | 134975 | 149139 | 84.7 %
__________________________________________________________________________

3rd to 6th German Pressings (12 pages booklet, Tell Me (3.52) fades early)

Track | Start | Length | Start sector | End sector | Peak Level
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1 | 0:00.33 | 2:25.10 | 33 | 10917 | 77.8 %
2 | 2:25.43 | 2:21.35 | 10918 | 21527 | 66.3 %
3 | 4:47.03 | 2:14.02 | 21528 | 31579 | 78.7 %
4 | 7:01.05 | 3:38.15 | 31580 | 47944 | 83.5 %
5 | 10:39.20 | 2:34.55 | 47945 | 59549 | 83.4 %
6 | 13:14.00 | 2:44.28 | 59550 | 71877 | 71.6 %
7 | 15:58.28 | 2:39.20 | 71878 | 83822 | 85.3 %
8 | 18:37.48 | 2:38.22 | 83823 | 95694 | 88.3 %
9 | 21:15.70 | 3:52.40 | 95695 | 113134 | 85.7 %
10 | 25:08.35 | 2:59.35 | 113135 | 126594 | 79.6 %
11 | 28:07.70 | 2:06.43 | 126595 | 136087 | 79.6 %
12 | 30:14.38 | 3:10.00 | 136088 | 150337 | 72.6 %


The funny thing is - Mona (I Need You Baby) has almost nothing above 16kHz for 1st and 2nd pressings but is OK for 3rd to 6th. It seems that they redone this disc or change the tape for later pressings.

gET THEM ALL.

aLL THE 2002 ARE, BY FAR, MAJOR SONic improvements regarding the original CD releaes of the 80´s.

I have them both and can tell you that.

But the best sounding Stones is on Vinyl...

collect 'em all!

Quote
StonesTod
collect 'em all!

download'em for free all!

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
StonesTod
collect 'em all!

download'em for free all!

absolutely. but a small donation is welcomed, too...

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
Erik_Snow
Kowalski is right again. Those 1986 pressings are terrific. It's amazing how terrible the later CD releases were in comparision; untill the 2002 reissues were released

As far as I recall there have only been to issues on CD of the 1960s albums - the 1986 ones and the 2002's. Beggars 2002 blows 1986 out of the water and beyond.

It's possible that the "ABKCO Digitally remastered" CD releases, which sounds like crap were also released in 1986. I can't remember
But the CDs Kowalski is speaking of are the LONDON CDs from 1986, which were pressed in Germany. Those were the first RS CDs I bought, and they were brilliant. WHen I later, in the 90s, bought some of the ABKCO releases, as the LONDON CDs weren't available in the shops anymore....I couldn't believe how bad they sounded

So there are at least 2 different CD releases from the mid 80s. I think you in America only had the crappy sounding ones....that German edition was sold out after a while.

I completely forgot about that! I have, somewhere, disc 2 of the LONDON Hot Rocks. That's the only one I ever saw. All the rest were the 1986 ABKCO Digital Remasters with exception to the singles collection The London Years.