Quote
ironbelly

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Dorn

Quote
ironbelly

Quote
treaclefingers
OK, I'm glad we got all that figured out!

So to paraphrase Ironbelly, "stick with the vinyl releases!"

I'll add the Abbey Road half speed master from a couple of years ago is a good option, if you don't have a clean copy of the original release.

Actually, stick to old CBS CDs

the old ones from the 80´s ??

Funny I actually bought Exile when it came out in the 80s so have that copy...I haven't listened to it in some time but recall thinking it wasn't that great.

I was young and foolish then so who knows...though now I'm old and foolish.

You know, I was kidding. But there is a drop of truth there.
Actually, not a single series of CDs - CBS, Virgin, Polydor, flat transfers - is an ultimate case. Some of CBS CDs are better than Virgin. Some Virgins are better than CBS. Some Virgins are CBS + soft limiting. That is a tough case. Even a few 'flat transfers' are worse comparing to earlier editions.

For Exile there is no perfect edition for sure. You can prefer any. Every version of Exile on CD have its own bugs. I do not want to start a holy war here. It is a sensitive question.

PS. For Exile, apart of playback speed issue, flat transfer 2011 in terms of loudness and tonality is closer to CBS than to Virgin. So, you know...

I have a lot of copies of Exile...on CD always like the Virgin copy. I've yet to do a side-by-side 'taste test' so to speak but probably something worth looking at. I read a while back that the blu ray version released just a few years ago, (which I didn't get) alongside Let It Bleed and GRRR! (which I did buy, and is amazing), was definitely worth getting. I knew I should have back then...don't want to pay $100 for it now.

If you can ever find the Blu Ray version at a decent price, get it. I heard Blu Ray Let It Bleed isn't that great. But Blu Ray Exile is fantastic.

Quote
treaclefingers
OK, I'm glad we got all that figured out!

So to paraphrase Ironbelly, "stick with the vinyl releases!"

I'll add the Abbey Road half speed master from a couple of years ago is a good option, if you don't have a clean copy of the original release.

I'll second that . The first Abbey Road remaster is OK...if still a little "in yer face". The later one in the 71-2016 box set is little more relaxed and natural in sound.

None, however, can quite match an original Artisan pressing in decent nick.

[Though I also have a very soft spot for my German "Electrola" version. Not sure when that was originally issued but I think I picked it up in the early 80s.]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-08-11 10:58 by Spud.

Quote
24FPS
If you can ever find the Blu Ray version at a decent price, get it. I heard Blu Ray Let It Bleed isn't that great. But Blu Ray Exile is fantastic.

Not quite that.
Blu Ray Let It Bleed contains converted to PCM and downsampled material from 2002 SACD. You know, those SACD-hybrid CDs in digipaks, mastered by Bob Ludwig.
Blu Ray Exile On Main Street contains converted to PCM and downsampled material from 2011 SACD. I.e., originated from flat transfer of the original analogue master tapes. That SHM-SACD was mentioned above, UIGY-9081.
Blu Ray Grrr! is a mixed bag. Decca/London tracks are converted to PCM and downsampled material from 2002 SACD discs. Post-1971 tracks are HR PCM cuts of 2009 mastered material. Which means those are brickwalled in mastering initially and no Hi-Res would help in this case.
So, technically, Let it Bleed and Exile are both OK. Grrr! is 50% OK, 50% useless. In any case you do not need Blu Ray if you got SACD.

Those 2002 SACD CDs were an amazing eye-opener at the time of their release. I remember replacing all of my old Abkco CDs with those as an upgrade, I was so blown away by the sound. 71-81 I still have just the Virgin reissues, aside from any Super Deluxe album reissues, whereby I have the Super Deluxe version and the 2CD version. Though for Sticky, I believe I have all versions, and for EOMS, I also have the rarities edition, which I wish they would have offered on all of the Super Deluxes. I think it's nice to just be able to pop in the bonus tracks every now and again.

Now, this 2011 SACD version of EOMS, I'm assuming it's long out of print, first and foremost, but was the entire 71-81 done in SACD? Do they all surpass the Virgin versions? I had IORR on CBS cassette back in the early 90's.....

I don't know about these Blu-Rays. I must have missed an announcement somewhere along the way for those.

I almost bought a copy of the Abbey Road half-speed master EOMS a few years back. Had it in hand at Newbury, and I remember thinking that the packaging seemed an awful lot like the original. I ended up not buying it, and at one time Walmart was selling them for as little as $29.98, and I still didn't grab one. Now, they're rather pricey.

Quote
VoodooLounge13

Now, this 2011 SACD version of EOMS, I'm assuming it's long out of print, first and foremost, but was the entire 71-81 done in SACD?

Yes. All post-1971 catalog up to Dirty Work was issued as SACD. And all were flat transfers from original master tapes. Here is the list.

But those discs were sold in Japan only.

Currently, SACDs 2011/2014, SHM-platinum CDs and SHM-CDs from 2013/2014 are OOP and rather pricey on the second hand market.

The only digital version of Exile made from flat transfer of the original master tape that is still present on the market is:
Catalog No.: UICY-79242 (NO LETTER 'K' IN CATALOG NUMBER)
JAN/ISBN: 4988031397558
Product Type: CD SHM-CD
You can get it from cdjapan
[www.cdjapan.co.jp]

Otherwise try to find Blu Ray edition that was mentioned above. But be ready to shell off ~$50.

Thanks ironbelly. So can I assume that all of the above editions are from the same master tapes, regardless of the year of release? Not counting SW-forward? For example is SF 2011-12 SACD the same source as the SHM 2013-15 version? And the same for all the other albums. I do prefer the SACD versions, as I think sound-wise they are a bit better, but maybe that's just my own personal preference. I am surprised that the Super Deluxes didn't have mastering from the original tapes.

As a follow-up question, was there any improvement in the technology of SACD CD's between 2011-12 and 2014? In my mind I would think the 2014 versions would be slightly better if only because the technology might be slightly improved - could be well off on that point though!

And were the Virgin's pulled from the masters too, or no?

Quote
VoodooLounge13

was there any improvement in the technology of SACD CD's between 2011-12 and 2014?

No improvements, since the 2014 SACDs were just a repress of the 2011 SACDs.

Got it. Thanks Irix!

VoodooLounge13
A lot of questions. Fortunately, Irix already answered one .
All the editions listed above used the same tape transfer. I.e., SHM-SACD, SHM-platinum CD and SHM-CD of (let's say, Sticky Fingers) came from the same DSD tape transfer made in 2011.

Initially, the original master tapes were transferred to DSD (2.82MHz/1bit). This material went to SACD disc 2011 or 2014. This is as close as you can get to the original analogue master tape in digital world.

In 2013 DSD files were converted to HR PCM 176.4kHz/24bit and further to standard CDDA 44.1kHz/16bit using a procedure that is called in the booklets 'HR (High Resolution) cutting from 176.4kHz/24bit at Victor Creative Media' (whatever it means, no details revealed).


This material was used to made SHM-platinum and SHM-CDs listed in the table above. It was not remastered or re-equalized, just converted and downsampled. Here we are a bit further away from the original master tapes because the digital material is of lower resolution.

Now regarding old CBS and Virgin CDs. Those also came from master tapes or low generation copies. It is known that in 1986 CBS used for Exile equalized dub tape prepared for vinyl production because the master tape they had in hands sounded awful. Anyway, those CDs were prepared from digital material that was made using antique A/D converters (for CBS) or using Apogee + UV22 algorithm (for Virgin) and mastered. And here is a trick that was explained by Steve Hoffman.
______
Remember, gang. This is the rule for mixed recordings, as stupid as it reads:

Master tape means UNMASTERED TAPE.

When you master something you use the UNMASTERED MASTER and MASTER IT to something , either DSD, CD, LACQUER, etc.

A master tape isn't mastered until it's mastered! A master tape is essentially WHAT IS APPROVED FOR MASTERING, hence it is marked MASTER. In other words, "Hey, Mr. Mastering engineer, USE THIS and do your mastering stuff to it to make it sound really good".

Therefore, a flat transfer of a master tape almost never sounds good "straight". But, sometimes it does and when it does, it is up to the mastering engineer to let it alone.

If you understand that, you understand all.
___________
Mastering usually includes application of compressor, limiter, re-equalization, using noise reduction, adding echo, playing with stereo scene etc. Whatever Mr. Mastering engineer has in mind. For example, most of the tracks from the recent Anniversary edition of Tattoo You obviously came from the same tape transfer as 2011 SACD but were made loud and compressed/bickwalled to death.

Thus, aside the different A/D transfer conditions, CBS and Virgin CDs include additional step in preparation of the digital material – mastering. Those 2011/2012/2014 Japanese SHM-SACD and 2013/2015/2020 SHM-CDs just represent direct (flat) transfer of the original master tapes without mastering tricks. These are like what was approved for mastering by the band. What they heard from the monitors in the studio. For good or for bad. Again, a quote from Steve Hoffman
____
I was sent STICKY FINGERS and GOATS from my friend in Japan. Also IT'S ONLY. Never played any of them except FINGERS which sounds to me like a flat transfer from the original tape. Needs mastering work to get it to sound its best but if you crank it up enough, it works.

Can't help you with the rest, sorry. Still in their plastic wraps.

These albums (other than the fine sounding BLACK AND BLUE) were all mixed so badly they give me a headache. That's why I usually go for the old vinyl when I'm in the mood..

I know that didn't help...
_______
So, you know… If the record was made in a hot basement by a band under influence with a guy in the same conditions at the controls in a studio you should not expect perfect audiophile record. Sure, all these do not pardon brickwall mastering added atop in 2009.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2023-08-12 15:49 by ironbelly.

Quote
ironbelly
VoodooLounge13
A lot of questions. Fortunately, Irix already answered one .
All the editions listed above used the same tape transfer. I.e., SHM-SACD, SHM-platinum CD and SHM-CD of (let's say, Sticky Fingers) came from the same DSD tape transfer made in 2011.

Initially, the original master tapes were transferred to DSD (2.82MHz/1bit). This material went to SACD disc 2011 or 2014. This is as close as you can get to the original analogue master tape in digital world.

In 2013 DSD files were converted to HR PCM 176.4kHz/24bit and further to standard CDDA 44.1kHz/16bit using a procedure that is called in the booklets 'HR (High Resolution) cutting from 176.4kHz/24bit at Victor Creative Media' (whatever it means, no details revealed).


This material was used to made SHM-platinum and SHM-CDs listed in the table above. It was not remastered or re-equalized, just converted and downsampled. Here we are a bit further away from the original master tapes because the digital material is of lower resolution.

Now regarding old CBS and Virgin CDs. Those also came from master tapes or low generation copies. It is known that in 1986 CBS used for Exile equalized dub tape prepared for vinyl production because the master tape they had in hands sounded awful. Anyway, those CDs were prepared from digital material that was made using antique A/D converters (for CBS) or using Apogee + UV22 algorithm (for Virgin) and mastered. And here is a trick that was explained by Steve Hoffman.
______
Remember, gang. This is the rule for mixed recordings, as stupid as it reads:

Master tape means UNMASTERED TAPE.

When you master something you use the UNMASTERED MASTER and MASTER IT to something , either DSD, CD, LACQUER, etc.

A master tape isn't mastered until it's mastered! A master tape is essentially WHAT IS APPROVED FOR MASTERING, hence it is marked MASTER. In other words, "Hey, Mr. Mastering engineer, USE THIS and do your mastering stuff to it to make it sound really good".

Therefore, a flat transfer of a master tape almost never sounds good "straight". But, sometimes it does and when it does, it is up to the mastering engineer to let it alone.

If you understand that, you understand all.
___________
Mastering usually includes application of compressor, limiter, re-equalization, using noise reduction, adding echo, playing with stereo scene etc. Whatever Mr. Mastering engineer has in mind. For example, most of the tracks from the recent Anniversary edition of Tattoo You obviously came from the same tape transfer as 2011 SACD but were made loud and compressed/bickwalled to death.

Thus, aside the different A/D transfer conditions, CBS and Virgin CDs include additional step in preparation of the digital material – mastering. Those 2011/2012/2014 Japanese SHM-SACD and 2013/2015/2020 SHM-CDs just represent direct (flat) transfer of the original master tapes without mastering tricks. These are like what was approved for mastering by the band. What they heard from the monitors in the studio. For good or for bad. Again, a quote from Steve Hoffman
____
I was sent STICKY FINGERS and GOATS from my friend in Japan. Also IT'S ONLY. Never played any of them except FINGERS which sounds to me like a flat transfer from the original tape. Needs mastering work to get it to sound its best but if you crank it up enough, it works.

Can't help you with the rest, sorry. Still in their plastic wraps.

These albums (other than the fine sounding BLACK AND BLUE) were all mixed so badly they give me a headache. That's why I usually go for the old vinyl when I'm in the mood..

I know that didn't help...
_______
So, you know… If the record was made in a hot basement by a band under influence with a guy in the same conditions at the controls in a studio you should not expect perfect audiophile record. Sure, all these do not pardon brickwall mastering added atop in 2009.

So...to boil it all down...you're saying "stick with the vinyl"?

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
ironbelly
VoodooLounge13
A lot of questions. Fortunately, Irix already answered one .
All the editions listed above used the same tape transfer. I.e., SHM-SACD, SHM-platinum CD and SHM-CD of (let's say, Sticky Fingers) came from the same DSD tape transfer made in 2011.

Initially, the original master tapes were transferred to DSD (2.82MHz/1bit). This material went to SACD disc 2011 or 2014. This is as close as you can get to the original analogue master tape in digital world.

In 2013 DSD files were converted to HR PCM 176.4kHz/24bit and further to standard CDDA 44.1kHz/16bit using a procedure that is called in the booklets 'HR (High Resolution) cutting from 176.4kHz/24bit at Victor Creative Media' (whatever it means, no details revealed).


This material was used to made SHM-platinum and SHM-CDs listed in the table above. It was not remastered or re-equalized, just converted and downsampled. Here we are a bit further away from the original master tapes because the digital material is of lower resolution.

Now regarding old CBS and Virgin CDs. Those also came from master tapes or low generation copies. It is known that in 1986 CBS used for Exile equalized dub tape prepared for vinyl production because the master tape they had in hands sounded awful. Anyway, those CDs were prepared from digital material that was made using antique A/D converters (for CBS) or using Apogee + UV22 algorithm (for Virgin) and mastered. And here is a trick that was explained by Steve Hoffman.
______
Remember, gang. This is the rule for mixed recordings, as stupid as it reads:

Master tape means UNMASTERED TAPE.

When you master something you use the UNMASTERED MASTER and MASTER IT to something , either DSD, CD, LACQUER, etc.

A master tape isn't mastered until it's mastered! A master tape is essentially WHAT IS APPROVED FOR MASTERING, hence it is marked MASTER. In other words, "Hey, Mr. Mastering engineer, USE THIS and do your mastering stuff to it to make it sound really good".

Therefore, a flat transfer of a master tape almost never sounds good "straight". But, sometimes it does and when it does, it is up to the mastering engineer to let it alone.

If you understand that, you understand all.
___________
Mastering usually includes application of compressor, limiter, re-equalization, using noise reduction, adding echo, playing with stereo scene etc. Whatever Mr. Mastering engineer has in mind. For example, most of the tracks from the recent Anniversary edition of Tattoo You obviously came from the same tape transfer as 2011 SACD but were made loud and compressed/bickwalled to death.

Thus, aside the different A/D transfer conditions, CBS and Virgin CDs include additional step in preparation of the digital material – mastering. Those 2011/2012/2014 Japanese SHM-SACD and 2013/2015/2020 SHM-CDs just represent direct (flat) transfer of the original master tapes without mastering tricks. These are like what was approved for mastering by the band. What they heard from the monitors in the studio. For good or for bad. Again, a quote from Steve Hoffman
____
I was sent STICKY FINGERS and GOATS from my friend in Japan. Also IT'S ONLY. Never played any of them except FINGERS which sounds to me like a flat transfer from the original tape. Needs mastering work to get it to sound its best but if you crank it up enough, it works.

Can't help you with the rest, sorry. Still in their plastic wraps.

These albums (other than the fine sounding BLACK AND BLUE) were all mixed so badly they give me a headache. That's why I usually go for the old vinyl when I'm in the mood..

I know that didn't help...
_______
So, you know… If the record was made in a hot basement by a band under influence with a guy in the same conditions at the controls in a studio you should not expect perfect audiophile record. Sure, all these do not pardon brickwall mastering added atop in 2009.

So...to boil it all down...you're saying "stick with the vinyl"?

It is not me. It is Steve Hoffman's recommendation
[forums.stevehoffman.tv]
I do not care about vinyl, you know

If "Artisan pressing" are considered top shelf I wonder that version was not released on CD or re-released on vinyl for mass market purchase instead of these other "types"?

As for whether the Exile SACD (which I didn't know existed) or Exile Blu Ray sounds better, isn't the Blu Ray disc able to handle more information, and therefore might be a bit better?

Quote
sotob
If "Artisan pressing" are considered top shelf I wonder that version was not released on CD or re-released on vinyl for mass market purchase instead of these other "types"?

Because vinyl and CDDA are different formats. Analogue vs. digital.
Because vinyl pressings depend on many factors. Most probably they just can not reproduce conditions to clone Artisan pressing.

Quote
24FPS
As for whether the Exile SACD (which I didn't know existed) or Exile Blu Ray sounds better, isn't the Blu Ray disc able to handle more information, and therefore might be a bit better?

Blu Ray is a derivative from SACD.
Initial transfer was done as DSD (Direct Stream Digital). Blu Ray was conversion of the initial DSD to PCM (Pulse Code Modulation). It is just different way of the coding. So, no matter how much Blue Ray can handle you shall not get anything better than initial DSD. Hardly you will notice differences.

DSD (SACD) sounds a bit more detailed and natural than HiRes-PCM (192KHz/24bit) - the difference is subtle but hearable in direct A/B comparison via headphones.

Great thread and thanks to all who have shared their insights.

I've come to the conclusion that no matter the release it will never sound "great" whatever that means. It will never sound like Keef playing next to you no matter what release you have, etc. Just enjoy the tunes I guess regardless of what you have...

I personally can not hear the difference between numerous release (Virgin, Aritsian) beside some sound slightly brighter (treble), which can modified by EQ depending on what YOU like...

Quote
sotob
Great thread and thanks to all who have shared their insights.

I've come to the conclusion that no matter the release it will never sound "great" whatever that means. It will never sound like Keef playing next to you no matter what release you have, etc. Just enjoy the tunes I guess regardless of what you have...

I personally can not hear the difference between numerous release (Virgin, Aritsian) beside some sound slightly brighter (treble), which can modified by EQ depending on what YOU like...

Very true. Don’t forget about your stereo equipment and the sound of your room that you have it in. So many factors. Some people might laugh but my hearing is more perceptive during early morning hours. That’s another factor.

Quote
ironbelly

Quote
sotob
If "Artisan pressing" are considered top shelf I wonder that version was not released on CD or re-released on vinyl for mass market purchase instead of these other "types"?

Because vinyl and CDDA are different formats. Analogue vs. digital.
Because vinyl pressings depend on many factors. Most probably they just can not reproduce conditions to clone Artisan pressing.

Quote
24FPS
As for whether the Exile SACD (which I didn't know existed) or Exile Blu Ray sounds better, isn't the Blu Ray disc able to handle more information, and therefore might be a bit better?

Blu Ray is a derivative from SACD.
Initial transfer was done as DSD (Direct Stream Digital). Blu Ray was conversion of the initial DSD to PCM (Pulse Code Modulation). It is just different way of the coding. So, no matter how much Blue Ray can handle you shall not get anything better than initial DSD. Hardly you will notice differences.

Well, at least I don't hunt down the Japanese SACD/DSD. It sounds like the Blu Ray is about as good. And with my surround sound speakers it's really great.

Quote
ironbelly

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
ironbelly
VoodooLounge13
A lot of questions. Fortunately, Irix already answered one .
All the editions listed above used the same tape transfer. I.e., SHM-SACD, SHM-platinum CD and SHM-CD of (let's say, Sticky Fingers) came from the same DSD tape transfer made in 2011.

Initially, the original master tapes were transferred to DSD (2.82MHz/1bit). This material went to SACD disc 2011 or 2014. This is as close as you can get to the original analogue master tape in digital world.

In 2013 DSD files were converted to HR PCM 176.4kHz/24bit and further to standard CDDA 44.1kHz/16bit using a procedure that is called in the booklets 'HR (High Resolution) cutting from 176.4kHz/24bit at Victor Creative Media' (whatever it means, no details revealed).


This material was used to made SHM-platinum and SHM-CDs listed in the table above. It was not remastered or re-equalized, just converted and downsampled. Here we are a bit further away from the original master tapes because the digital material is of lower resolution.

Now regarding old CBS and Virgin CDs. Those also came from master tapes or low generation copies. It is known that in 1986 CBS used for Exile equalized dub tape prepared for vinyl production because the master tape they had in hands sounded awful. Anyway, those CDs were prepared from digital material that was made using antique A/D converters (for CBS) or using Apogee + UV22 algorithm (for Virgin) and mastered. And here is a trick that was explained by Steve Hoffman.
______
Remember, gang. This is the rule for mixed recordings, as stupid as it reads:

Master tape means UNMASTERED TAPE.

When you master something you use the UNMASTERED MASTER and MASTER IT to something , either DSD, CD, LACQUER, etc.

A master tape isn't mastered until it's mastered! A master tape is essentially WHAT IS APPROVED FOR MASTERING, hence it is marked MASTER. In other words, "Hey, Mr. Mastering engineer, USE THIS and do your mastering stuff to it to make it sound really good".

Therefore, a flat transfer of a master tape almost never sounds good "straight". But, sometimes it does and when it does, it is up to the mastering engineer to let it alone.

If you understand that, you understand all.
___________
Mastering usually includes application of compressor, limiter, re-equalization, using noise reduction, adding echo, playing with stereo scene etc. Whatever Mr. Mastering engineer has in mind. For example, most of the tracks from the recent Anniversary edition of Tattoo You obviously came from the same tape transfer as 2011 SACD but were made loud and compressed/bickwalled to death.

Thus, aside the different A/D transfer conditions, CBS and Virgin CDs include additional step in preparation of the digital material – mastering. Those 2011/2012/2014 Japanese SHM-SACD and 2013/2015/2020 SHM-CDs just represent direct (flat) transfer of the original master tapes without mastering tricks. These are like what was approved for mastering by the band. What they heard from the monitors in the studio. For good or for bad. Again, a quote from Steve Hoffman
____
I was sent STICKY FINGERS and GOATS from my friend in Japan. Also IT'S ONLY. Never played any of them except FINGERS which sounds to me like a flat transfer from the original tape. Needs mastering work to get it to sound its best but if you crank it up enough, it works.

Can't help you with the rest, sorry. Still in their plastic wraps.

These albums (other than the fine sounding BLACK AND BLUE) were all mixed so badly they give me a headache. That's why I usually go for the old vinyl when I'm in the mood..

I know that didn't help...
_______
So, you know… If the record was made in a hot basement by a band under influence with a guy in the same conditions at the controls in a studio you should not expect perfect audiophile record. Sure, all these do not pardon brickwall mastering added atop in 2009.

So...to boil it all down...you're saying "stick with the vinyl"?

It is not me. It is Steve Hoffman's recommendation
[forums.stevehoffman.tv]
I do not care about vinyl, you know

You're blowing my mind right now! And who is this "Steve Haufman" you refer to?

Quote
treaclefingers

You're blowing my mind right now! And who is this "Steve Haufman" you refer to?

Virtually unknown person . No relation to our boys. Never mastered their albums.

But even though both SACD and SHM are pulled from the same source, the SHM CDs don't have the same sound as the SACD CDs, do they? I thought I'd read on here somewhere once that SACD is the process and SHM is just the quality of the CD plastic itself, or am I wrong about that? Such that, technically, the SACD SHM-CD would then be the definitive version, whereas the plain SHM CD would not have the same expanse upon listening as a SACD. I think of those Abkco reissues and how sonically better they sounded upon release. Beggars especially I truly loved in that format.

Quote
VoodooLounge13
But even though both SACD and SHM are pulled from the same source, the SHM CDs don't have the same sound as the SACD CDs, do they? I thought I'd read on here somewhere once that SACD is the process and SHM is just the quality of the CD plastic itself, or am I wrong about that? Such that, technically, the SACD SHM-CD would then be the definitive version, whereas the plain SHM CD would not have the same expanse upon listening as a SACD. I think of those Abkco reissues and how sonically better they sounded upon release. Beggars especially I truly loved in that format.

I believe you are correct. The 2002 was a 'hybrid' release meaning it had two layers and you could play it on a regular CD - because SACD wasn't a large market - was great because you could always 'update' later.

The fact that new rereleases are on SHM either means that they've thrown in the towel on SACD, or perhaps more cynically, once we've bought the whole catalogue in SHM they'll move to the SACD/SHM combined option.

It never ends.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-08-14 16:12 by treaclefingers.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-08-14 16:11 by treaclefingers.

Thanks treacle. I confused myself on this thread! For some reason I was thinking that the 2014 edition was only SHM and not SACD. So I can just go with the 2014 editions, which are a little cheaper (not by much mind you!) and most likely easier to come by, to go along with my wonderful Virgin versions. Ugh. Hate having multiple CD copies of the same thing for just trying to have a definitive sounding version! LOL Good Lord I thought it was bad enough when I was sucked into buying all versions of a Super Deluxe!!!

Quote
treaclefingers
I believe you are correct. The 2002 was a 'hybrid' release meaning it had two layers and you could play it on a regular CD - because SACD wasn't a large market - was great because you could always 'update' later.

when i copy those 2002 ABKCO SACD onto my PC, let´s say with windows media player, would teh CD layer be copied or the SACD one ?

Quote
Dorn

Quote
treaclefingers
I believe you are correct. The 2002 was a 'hybrid' release meaning it had two layers and you could play it on a regular CD - because SACD wasn't a large market - was great because you could always 'update' later.

when i copy those 2002 ABKCO SACD onto my PC, let´s say with windows media player, would teh CD layer be copied or the SACD one ?

This way you are getting regular CDDA layer, i.e., regular CD 44.1kHZ/16bit.
To copy SACD you'll need to make some mumbo-jumbo with old PlayStation 3 or something. You can not copy SACD layer directly. As well as you can not play straightforward DSF (DSD) files.

Quote
VoodooLounge13
Thanks treacle. I confused myself on this thread! For some reason I was thinking that the 2014 edition was only SHM and not SACD. So I can just go with the 2014 editions, which are a little cheaper (not by much mind you!) and most likely easier to come by, to go along with my wonderful Virgin versions. Ugh. Hate having multiple CD copies of the same thing for just trying to have a definitive sounding version! LOL Good Lord I thought it was bad enough when I was sucked into buying all versions of a Super Deluxe!!!

All Japanese SHM-SACD discs listed in the table above are not an easy catch. It does not matter 2011 or 2014. And they are overpriced on the second hand market.

Quote
ironbelly

Quote
VoodooLounge13
Thanks treacle. I confused myself on this thread! For some reason I was thinking that the 2014 edition was only SHM and not SACD. So I can just go with the 2014 editions, which are a little cheaper (not by much mind you!) and most likely easier to come by, to go along with my wonderful Virgin versions. Ugh. Hate having multiple CD copies of the same thing for just trying to have a definitive sounding version! LOL Good Lord I thought it was bad enough when I was sucked into buying all versions of a Super Deluxe!!!

All Japanese SHM-SACD discs listed in the table above are not an easy catch. It does not matter 2011 or 2014. And they are overpriced on the second hand market.

It seems the 2011 versions are mini-LP versions, no? That's what I've found online for descriptions anyway. I don't need to pay again for those, as I do very much love the Virgin ones, and the slightly larger size. If the companies were to re-do the entire catalog in 7-inch packaging with SACD technology flat transferred from the original "unmastered" tapes, I'd have a hard time not buying the whole damn catalog again! Love those 7-inch versions they did!!!