I wish they had put the original version of Waiting on a Friend on the remaster.

What a great album. Even the outtakes they gave us are excellent tracks.

A double album Goats Head Soup could have included Dancing in the Light, Separately, Waiting on a Friend, Tops, You Should Have Seen Her Ass, Hillside Blues,Travelin Man and Criss Cross

Quote
Irix
> Goats Head Soup 50 years today <

And in 50 years it'll be '100 Years Ago'

Happy Anniversary!

so see ya august 31, 2073

i'll be 82 i wonder how many us will still be here for it

It has the misfortune of following the "big four" and it's not quite on that level but I think it's still a great record. I seem to like it better with each passing year. The mood seems to capture the band at the time coming down from a run of rock n roll excellence that has never been topped before or since. Winter is a sublime song and I'd love to hear Keith try Coming Down Again live. Great record,

Quote
Big Al

Quote
lem motlow

Quote
Big Al
I’ve said it before in previous, related threads: Goats Head Soup was the Stones’ first, true, album of the 1970’s. Both Sticky Fingers and - though be it, to a lesser extent - Exile on Main Street, are still rooted in the late-60’s. For better or worse, Goats Head Soup was fresh and modern for it’s time. I’m my opinion, it’s weaker than the two LP’s that preceded it, yet it’s their first truly contemporary 70’s release. Angie isn’t the ‘Brian-era’ in any way. Here’s Mick vying for credibility and relevance amongst your Elton’s and Marc Bolan’s or the 1970’s music sphere.

Great insight- but totally wrong.
Sticky and Exile were VERY 1970s, the hope, peace and love, the acid dream was over.
This was the 1970s-music based in reality,ups and downs,friends passing away,loneliness of being away from home,heroin and cocaine and the blues.there was no 60s shit in that music.
Mick “ vying for credibility” is laughable.The Stones existed in the stratosphere in 73. A place only the Beatles had been and Zep were just getting a glimpse of.
Guys like Elton and T. Rex were just starting their careers, they were children compared to the Stones.
It’s funny how wrong you got it- Angie is Absolutely “Brian era” - a beautiful ballad in the realm of As tears go by ,Blue Turns to Grey or Lady Jane.

Ha! Well, we're all entitled to our differing opinions, I suppose. I still stand by my points. Yours are valid, too, of course.

Always love your posts AL, this stuff looks so severe in print. I just try not to use too many words so it looks a bit intense.of course it’s a storm in a tea cup



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-09-02 08:45 by lem motlow.

Quote
lem motlow


Always love your posts AL, this stuff looks so severe in print. I just try not to use too many words so it looks a bit intense.of course it’s a storm in a tea cup

Thank you, lem motlow! Likewise!

In relation to my initial post: were any of the Goats Head Soup tracks written in the 60’s? I suppose my assumption that they weren’t is another reason for feeling that this 1973 release represents their first ‘fully 70’s’ artistic statement.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
TravelinMan

Quote
Big Al

Quote
lem motlow

Quote
Big Al
I’ve said it before in previous, related threads: Goats Head Soup was the Stones’ first, true, album of the 1970’s. Both Sticky Fingers and - though be it, to a lesser extent - Exile on Main Street, are still rooted in the late-60’s. For better or worse, Goats Head Soup was fresh and modern for it’s time. I’m my opinion, it’s weaker than the two LP’s that preceded it, yet it’s their first truly contemporary 70’s release. Angie isn’t the ‘Brian-era’ in any way. Here’s Mick vying for credibility and relevance amongst your Elton’s and Marc Bolan’s or the 1970’s music sphere.

Great insight- but totally wrong.
Sticky and Exile were VERY 1970s, the hope, peace and love, the acid dream was over.
This was the 1970s-music based in reality,ups and downs,friends passing away,loneliness of being away from home,heroin and cocaine and the blues.there was no 60s shit in that music.
Mick “ vying for credibility” is laughable.The Stones existed in the stratosphere in 73. A place only the Beatles had been and Zep were just getting a glimpse of.
Guys like Elton and T. Rex were just starting their careers, they were children compared to the Stones.
It’s funny how wrong you got it- Angie is Absolutely “Brian era” - a beautiful ballad in the realm of As tears go by ,Blue Turns to Grey or Lady Jane.

Ha! Well, we're all entitled to our differing opinions, I suppose. I still stand by my points. Yours are valid, too, of course.

Yeah, I'm not sure opinions be "wrong" haha

For me, Sticky Fingers is very polished and concise, Exile is rockin' lofi (almost a throwback to 50's music) and sprawling, while Goats is dim and druggy—a cloudy comedown. The song that perfectly encapsulates this is "Coming Down Again".

Of course opinions can be wrong.

That aside, lem motlow missed the entire point. And then gets angry! Beyond silly. And, ha ha, pointless.

In this regard, no an opinion of what an album means to somebody personally cannot be wrong.

Quote
TravelinMan

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
TravelinMan

Quote
Big Al

Quote
lem motlow

Quote
Big Al
I’ve said it before in previous, related threads: Goats Head Soup was the Stones’ first, true, album of the 1970’s. Both Sticky Fingers and - though be it, to a lesser extent - Exile on Main Street, are still rooted in the late-60’s. For better or worse, Goats Head Soup was fresh and modern for it’s time. I’m my opinion, it’s weaker than the two LP’s that preceded it, yet it’s their first truly contemporary 70’s release. Angie isn’t the ‘Brian-era’ in any way. Here’s Mick vying for credibility and relevance amongst your Elton’s and Marc Bolan’s or the 1970’s music sphere.

Great insight- but totally wrong.
Sticky and Exile were VERY 1970s, the hope, peace and love, the acid dream was over.
This was the 1970s-music based in reality,ups and downs,friends passing away,loneliness of being away from home,heroin and cocaine and the blues.there was no 60s shit in that music.
Mick “ vying for credibility” is laughable.The Stones existed in the stratosphere in 73. A place only the Beatles had been and Zep were just getting a glimpse of.
Guys like Elton and T. Rex were just starting their careers, they were children compared to the Stones.
It’s funny how wrong you got it- Angie is Absolutely “Brian era” - a beautiful ballad in the realm of As tears go by ,Blue Turns to Grey or Lady Jane.

Ha! Well, we're all entitled to our differing opinions, I suppose. I still stand by my points. Yours are valid, too, of course.

Yeah, I'm not sure opinions be "wrong" haha

For me, Sticky Fingers is very polished and concise, Exile is rockin' lofi (almost a throwback to 50's music) and sprawling, while Goats is dim and druggy—a cloudy comedown. The song that perfectly encapsulates this is "Coming Down Again".

Of course opinions can be wrong.

That aside, lem motlow missed the entire point. And then gets angry! Beyond silly. And, ha ha, pointless.

In this regard, no an opinion of what an album means to somebody personally cannot be wrong.

I agree.

However, the opinion can still be wrong. It's subjective, of course, but facts must come into play regarding opinion.

Obviously with a band, a song, an album, a song, a single, it's 100% subjective.

However, I extremely doubt someone will be blasting the whatever remix of You Got Me Rocking or Rock In A Hard Place and you'll think it's good.

what guitars were used on ghs k.richards les paul jr? newman jones? i assume m.taylor just used his les paul.fender twins for both? just curious have'nt seen much print on this.

Rolling Stones - 'Coming Down Again' - (96kHs New Mix) - 2023

video: [youtu.be]

Interesting, I have both the CBS remaster and the Virgin remaster, I just realized. Is there a consensus on which one is better? Is anyone aware of a site/link that compares the different versions?

I don't think you can beat the original vinyl...but I do enjoy the Giles Martin reworking more than I expected to.

It unsettlingly puts the emphasis on on different instrumental tracks here and there... but it's a good alternative listen.

Quote
LeonidP
Interesting, I have both the CBS remaster and the Virgin remaster, I just realized. Is there a consensus on which one is better?

Reaching a consensus on an audio forum is like finding hen's teeth. However, when it comes to The Rolling Stones CDs, the popular opinion tends to favor the 1994 Virgin remaster. That said, this is an oversimplification.

Quote
LeonidP
Is anyone aware of a site/link that compares the different versions?

No, you should surf for an answer here and/or Steve Hoffman Music Forums.

If you'll set aside the preoccupation about 'inferior sound quality of CBS CDs' and use audio analysis tools the result might be surprising.

1. The digital content of the Virgin CD GHS is perfectly in sync with that of the CBS. It also contains the very same mix. It seems that the CBS-made A->D transfer was used as the starting point for the Virgin remaster.
2. A soft limiter was applied to the CBS-sourced material during the 'Virgin remaster.' The Virgin CD is louder compared to the CBS. All tracks on the Virgin CD are clipped/limited to -0.20 Decibel, except for 07-Hide Your Love (-0.30 Decibel) and 09-Can You Hear The Music? (-0.57 Decibel). In other words, the Virgin CD is almost uniform in loudness, whereas the peak values on the CBS CD are lower and show a broader distribution from -0.33 to -2.52 Decibel (indicating less limiting/clipping).
3. Some equalization and noise reduction were applied during the 'Virgin remaster.' Nearly all tracks show a reduction in bass frequencies (below 200 Hz), while the mid-range around 1.5-2 kHz has been slightly enhanced. Additionally, noise reduction has been applied, resulting in a sharp roll-off of frequencies above 10 kHz on most tracks of the Virgin CD compared to the CBS disc. This might be a result of noise shaping / dithering tool. It was an integral part of UV22 algorithm used during remastering. Application of dithering also is revealed via rapid increase in frequencies above 20 kHz. These adjustments are not uniform across the entire Virgin CD—some tracks are affected more than others. Below is a typical example (graphical representation).
Here is an amplitude-frequency chart for track 10 - Star, Star.

And this is a differential amplitude-frequency chart for the same 10-Star, Star with CBS track used as a base line. The red line (Virgin) is what was modified during remastering.

So, essentially, Virgin CD GHS is a louder clone of CBS CD with cosmetic touches of soft limiter, equalization and noise shaping. But hardly those touches drastically changed the overall muddy sound of the record.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2025-03-08 13:09 by ironbelly.

I was going to say, LeonidP, that at some point ironbelly will probably post something.

I can't remember which thread or threads but ironbelly has explained the Virgin remasters not being different with some albums (I can't remember specifically but I'm gonna guess it's the entire 1980s with exception to TATTOO YOU) or very little to slightly different (1970s).

I vaguely remember reading about the initial remastering with Ludwig and how Mick wasn't happy with it. What I can't remember is if that was in Goldmine or some kind of industry magazine like Recording Magazine, it was in 1994 when the remasters came out, but the one thing Mick wanted to improve was the sound of the horns on STICKY and EXILE and they found original pressings and Ludwig was able to come up with something that made the horns sound like the original vinyl.

Apparently after that Mick didn't care. The slight increase in volume given the digital medium was probably an improvement and this is especially noticeable with the Marccussen redisasters that, based on what I have listened to yet alone what a lot of people have said, are unlistenable. Which is why people probably love the Virgin remasters.

I recently got the Atlantic original CD release of REWIND and compared it to the CBS/Columbia reissue and they sound exactly the same. Since Virgin didn't reissue REWIND there's only JUMP BACK to compare to and it is a bit louder and some tracks have a bit more ass to them so it's possibly an improvement.

MADE IN THE SHADE and SUCKING were remastered later and have more lower end and are my preferred choice for those songs than any other comp or album when making a playlist at home ie not earbuds or phone but speakers.

For the sake of being an audio geek, having the CBS and Virgin CDs is worth it. As much as I can't stand DIRTY WORK and STEEL WHEELS is a bit boring I still got the Virgin remasters because, well, that's just what happens I guess.

Except for the true remix of GHS, as far as I can tell, the UMG releases have been brutalized. Which is really... oh hell no, not going there - unfortunate.

The remix version is nice. Take Criss Cross and throw in Through The Lonely Nights from RARITIES (and if you really want to get nerdy, Tops, Waiting On A Friend and Short And Curlies) and there's a 'of the times' playlist.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
GOATS HEAD SOUP:



Recorded:

October 17-31, 1970: Rolling Stones Mobile Unit, Mick Jagger's home Stargroves, Newbury & Olympic Sound Studios, London, England;
November 25-30, 1972: Dynamic Sound Studios, Kingston, Jamaica
December 6-13, 1972: Dynamic Sound Studios, Kingston, Jamaica
January 16-18, 1973: SIR Studios, Los Angeles, USA
May 23-June 20, 1973: Island Recording Studios, London, England

Mixed:

May 23-June 20, 1973: Island Recording Studios, London, England
Mid-August 1973: Soundpush Studios, Blaricum, Netherlands

Producer: Jimmy Miller
Chief engineer: Andy Johns
Mixer: Andy Johns
Released: August 1973
Original label: Rolling Stones Records (on WEA)


Contributing musicians:

Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, Charlie Watts, Bill Wyman, Mick Taylor, Nicky Hopkins, Ian Stewart, Billy Preston, Bobby Keys, Jim Price, Jim Horn, Chuck Findley, Jimmy Miller, Rebop, Pascal, Nick Harrison (arranger).

Dancing with Mr. D
100 Years Ago
Coming Down Again
Doo Doo Doo Doo Doo (Heartbreaker)
Angie
Silver Train
Hide Your Love
Winter
Can You Hear the Music
Star Star


What are your thoughts on this album?

I was listening to Hide Your Love with headphones, and heard a guitar in the right channel for the first time! It comes in round 2:04 and does a classic Keith lick round 3:36.

Quote
GasLightStreet
Ironbelly, I can't remember if you posted about the UMG remasters. Have you?

They must be a riot to look at. Search doesn't show anything. It generally doesn't. Must be my weak cell signal for the hotspot.

I did occasionally. For example, here:
[iorr.org]
There’s not much to talk about. That remaster is LOUD. Star Star on GHS is censored. The single version of Miss You on Jump Back was replaced with the album version. The rest follows the pattern of the Virgin 1994 release. There's nothing new or unusual in terms of different mixes or variations.

The main issue with the 2009 remaster is that it’s brickwalled.
CD CBS, 1986 - Official Dynamic Range value: DR11-15 (depending on the disc and track)
CD Virgin, 1994 - Official Dynamic Range value: DR9-13
CD UM, 2009-2010 - Official Dynamic Range value: DR5-7
On UM remaster everything is upfront, loud (and sometimes distorted). The sounds that were buried in the mix on the CBS and Virgin CDs, are almost at the same level as the instruments on the UM remaster. It is a kind of a mess.

However, the UM discs do have some use. They were mastered for portable and average equipment (like boomboxes or computer audio) and/or for nomadic listening style. They work well in aggressive environments. I have them loaded on my phone for listening on the train or airplane. They should be fine in a car on the highway. I haven’t tried them for jogging in the park with headphones, but they might be fine for that too. Also, if your ears have logged a lot of mileage, that extra loudness and compression can give the impression of added clarity and detail. It's like turning up the volume on a TV — sure, you hear more, but that doesn't mean the audio quality has improved .

Quote
ironbelly

However, the UM discs do have some use. They were mastered for portable and average equipment

"Everything seems somehow mixed for kitchen radios, car stereos or thinly squawking smartphones" - German HiFi-Magazine Stereo 1/2022 about the mastering of the 2021 ABBA album Voyage (by Universal Music).

Quote
ironbelly

Quote
GasLightStreet
Ironbelly, I can't remember if you posted about the UMG remasters. Have you?

They must be a riot to look at. Search doesn't show anything. It generally doesn't. Must be my weak cell signal for the hotspot.

I did occasionally. For example, here:
[iorr.org]
There’s not much to talk about. That remaster is LOUD. Star Star on GHS is censored. The single version of Miss You on Jump Back was replaced with the album version. The rest follows the pattern of the Virgin 1994 release. There's nothing new or unusual in terms of different mixes or variations.

The main issue with the 2009 remaster is that it’s brickwalled.
CD CBS, 1986 - Official Dynamic Range value: DR11-15 (depending on the disc and track)
CD Virgin, 1994 - Official Dynamic Range value: DR9-13
CD UM, 2009-2010 - Official Dynamic Range value: DR5-7
On UM remaster everything is upfront, loud (and sometimes distorted). The sounds that were buried in the mix on the CBS and Virgin CDs, are almost at the same level as the instruments on the UM remaster. It is a kind of a mess.

However, the UM discs do have some use. They were mastered for portable and average equipment (like boomboxes or computer audio) and/or for nomadic listening style. They work well in aggressive environments. I have them loaded on my phone for listening on the train or airplane. They should be fine in a car on the highway. I haven’t tried them for jogging in the park with headphones, but they might be fine for that too. Also, if your ears have logged a lot of mileage, that extra loudness and compression can give the impression of added clarity and detail. It's like turning up the volume on a TV — sure, you hear more, but that doesn't mean the audio quality has improved .

Yeah. Or a crappy video on an HD TV!

How bizarre that UMG replaced the UK single edit of Miss You with the LP version on JUMP BACK. That's ridiculous.

I did get the Japanese TWFNO and Star Star is the edited version! I've only listened to it on a boom box but I'm confident that (and REWIND, which I did not get) is brickwalled because, duh, it's UMG.

Quote
GasLightStreet
How bizarre that UMG replaced the UK single edit of Miss You with the LP version on JUMP BACK. That's ridiculous.

I did get the Japanese TWFNO and Star Star is the edited version! I've only listened to it on a boom box but I'm confident that (and REWIND, which I did not get) is brickwalled because, duh, it's UMG.

Most probably they did not care about the version of Miss You and just loaded the first they had reached.
Among those 5 Japanese SHM-CDs/Compilations:
- Sticky Fingers (Spanish version) [1971] [UICY-78937]
- Made in the Shade [1975] [UICY-78938]
- Time Waits for No One: Anthology 1971-1977 [1979] [UICY-78939]
- Sucking in the 70's [1981] [UICY-78940]
- Rewind 1971-1984 (European version) [1984] [UICY-78941]
only Sucking in the 70's is not brickwalled. It is an exact clone of the previous 2005 Virgin remaster. All the rest are based on UMG brickwalled material. I got them because there was a sale on French FNAC, like 6€ per disc. I did it purely from completist / 'postage stamps' collection reasons.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2025-03-13 21:41 by ironbelly.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I was listening to Hide Your Love with headphones, and heard a guitar in the right channel for the first time! It comes in round 2:04 and does a classic Keith lick round 3:36.

The baritone sax comes in at 2:04

That blues lick at 3:36 sounds like a classic Taylor Bluesbreakers lick. It might have been from his original take.

Quote
TravelinMan

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I was listening to Hide Your Love with headphones, and heard a guitar in the right channel for the first time! It comes in round 2:04 and does a classic Keith lick round 3:36.

The baritone sax comes in at 2:04

That blues lick at 3:36 sounds like a classic Taylor Bluesbreakers lick. It might have been from his original take.

Listen to how that lick ends, and you'll hear it's not Taylor.

I didn't mean the sax, there's also a rhythm guitar entering at 2:04.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
TravelinMan

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I was listening to Hide Your Love with headphones, and heard a guitar in the right channel for the first time! It comes in round 2:04 and does a classic Keith lick round 3:36.

The baritone sax comes in at 2:04

That blues lick at 3:36 sounds like a classic Taylor Bluesbreakers lick. It might have been from his original take.

Listen to how that lick ends, and you'll hear it's not Taylor.

I didn't mean the sax, there's also a rhythm guitar entering at 2:04.

I think all guitars are by Jagger and Taylor, I doubt Keith did a guitar overdub, he did overdub the bass.

Mathijs

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
TravelinMan

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I was listening to Hide Your Love with headphones, and heard a guitar in the right channel for the first time! It comes in round 2:04 and does a classic Keith lick round 3:36.

The baritone sax comes in at 2:04

That blues lick at 3:36 sounds like a classic Taylor Bluesbreakers lick. It might have been from his original take.

Listen to how that lick ends, and you'll hear it's not Taylor.

I didn't mean the sax, there's also a rhythm guitar entering at 2:04.

I’ll listen again today, but if it’s the faint lick on the right at that time stamp, I mean, that’s the fluidity of Taylor.

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
TravelinMan

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I was listening to Hide Your Love with headphones, and heard a guitar in the right channel for the first time! It comes in round 2:04 and does a classic Keith lick round 3:36.

The baritone sax comes in at 2:04

That blues lick at 3:36 sounds like a classic Taylor Bluesbreakers lick. It might have been from his original take.

Listen to how that lick ends, and you'll hear it's not Taylor.

I didn't mean the sax, there's also a rhythm guitar entering at 2:04.

I think all guitars are by Jagger and Taylor, I doubt Keith did a guitar overdub, he did overdub the bass.

Mathijs

I agree and yes, the bass definitely sounds like an overdub.

I wish everybody could hear the new remix of GHS on a Japanese SHM CD. I think that combination turned it into a whole listening experience for me. It's like a soul album. I remember thinking the vinyl back in '73 was mixed very unevenly.

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
TravelinMan

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I was listening to Hide Your Love with headphones, and heard a guitar in the right channel for the first time! It comes in round 2:04 and does a classic Keith lick round 3:36.

The baritone sax comes in at 2:04

That blues lick at 3:36 sounds like a classic Taylor Bluesbreakers lick. It might have been from his original take.

Listen to how that lick ends, and you'll hear it's not Taylor.

I didn't mean the sax, there's also a rhythm guitar entering at 2:04.

I think all guitars are by Jagger and Taylor, I doubt Keith did a guitar overdub, he did overdub the bass.

Mathijs

A little more audible on this mix:
[youtu.be]

It does sound like Keith.
At the end of the song too.

Quote
24FPS
I wish everybody could hear the new remix of GHS on a Japanese SHM CD. I think that combination turned it into a whole listening experience for me. It's like a soul album. I remember thinking the vinyl back in '73 was mixed very unevenly.

Oh, no, not SHM-CD audiophile snake oil again!

This is a regular GHS CD from EU edition
Catalog # 089 396-4
Matrix: 00602508939662 A0103246436-0101 28 A00 (Universal logo)
Mould SID code: IFPI 944P
Mastering SID code: IFPI L538


And here is a SHM CD from Japanese Superdeluxe set
Catalog # UICY - 79170
Matrix: UICX-75346 MT 261 (Universal logo)
Mould SID code: IFPI 4465
Mastering SID code: IFPI LT46

I have both editions.

Here are waveforms from Track 1 – Dancing With Mr. D.
The upper pair (in blue) is the left and the right channels for the track from EU disc. The bottom pair (in purple) – for the track from Japanese SHM CD.


This is the result of a subtraction ‘SHM-CD’ – ‘EU’.

As you see the result is an absolute zero. I.e., these tracks from SHM-CD and EU CD are absolutely identical digital clones. The same is valid for other tracks.

Please explain to me how the combination of SHM and new mastering provides a new listening experience. After all, SHM-CD contains the same digital material as a regular CD. The Super Hard Material doesn’t affect the bitrate, loudness, equalization, or mastering approaches. Therefore, the differences in sound quality between an SHM-CD and a regular CD are, at best, illusory. Frankly, I’d argue there are no differences at all.

Keep in mind that the official Dynamic Range value for the entire remastered/remixed album is DR6. For example, Dancing With Mr. D. (analyzed above) has DR6, while Silver Train is squashed to an unbelievably low DR4. It’s a shame. This new remix/remaster on CD is a complete mess. It's nearly impossible to enjoy with the loudness and compression values of those levels (look at the 'brick wall' type waveforms above).

Once again, Super Hard Material (assuming the mastering is the same) is, in 99% of cases, nothing more than snake oil for audiophiles. Just like "green marker" to paint the center and the edges of a CD, "CD stabilizer rubber rings," "audiophile fuses," "audiophile speaker cables," "cable elevators" to dampen vibrations, "isolation platforms," and "audiophile power cords," it’s all part of the same overhyped trend.

Sure, if you're using a CD player, you might notice subtle (or not that subtle) differences between discs from different manufacturers. But for that, you’ll need a CD with good mastering. Unfortunately, that’s not the case here. This GHS remix/remaster is loud and brickwalled. No amount of audiophile mumbo-jumbo will make it sound better. In fact, you’re dealing with 100% pure placebo.

Honestly, in this case, when it comes to sound quality, I think an OBI strip and a mini-vinyl replica paper jacket would do more for your listening experience than SHM material ever could .

Quote
ironbelly

Quote
24FPS
I wish everybody could hear the new remix of GHS on a Japanese SHM CD. I think that combination turned it into a whole listening experience for me. It's like a soul album. I remember thinking the vinyl back in '73 was mixed very unevenly.

Oh, no, not SHM-CD audiophile snake oil again!

This is a regular GHS CD from EU edition
Catalog # 089 396-4
Matrix: 00602508939662 A0103246436-0101 28 A00 (Universal logo)
Mould SID code: IFPI 944P
Mastering SID code: IFPI L538


And here is a SHM CD from Japanese Superdeluxe set
Catalog # UICY - 79170
Matrix: UICX-75346 MT 261 (Universal logo)
Mould SID code: IFPI 4465
Mastering SID code: IFPI LT46

I have both editions.

Here are waveforms from Track 1 – Dancing With Mr. D.
The upper pair (in blue) is the left and the right channels for the track from EU disc. The bottom pair (in purple) – for the track from Japanese SHM CD.


This is the result of a subtraction ‘SHM-CD’ – ‘EU’.

As you see the result is an absolute zero. I.e., these tracks from SHM-CD and EU CD are absolutely identical digital clones. The same is valid for other tracks.

Please explain to me how the combination of SHM and new mastering provides a new listening experience. After all, SHM-CD contains the same digital material as a regular CD. The Super Hard Material doesn’t affect the bitrate, loudness, equalization, or mastering approaches. Therefore, the differences in sound quality between an SHM-CD and a regular CD are, at best, illusory. Frankly, I’d argue there are no differences at all.

Keep in mind that the official Dynamic Range value for the entire remastered/remixed album is DR6. For example, Dancing With Mr. D. (analyzed above) has DR6, while Silver Train is squashed to an unbelievably low DR4. It’s a shame. This new remix/remaster on CD is a complete mess. It's nearly impossible to enjoy with the loudness and compression values of those levels (look at the 'brick wall' type waveforms above).

Once again, Super Hard Material (assuming the mastering is the same) is, in 99% of cases, nothing more than snake oil for audiophiles. Just like "green marker" to paint the center and the edges of a CD, "CD stabilizer rubber rings," "audiophile fuses," "audiophile speaker cables," "cable elevators" to dampen vibrations, "isolation platforms," and "audiophile power cords," it’s all part of the same overhyped trend.

Sure, if you're using a CD player, you might notice subtle (or not that subtle) differences between discs from different manufacturers. But for that, you’ll need a CD with good mastering. Unfortunately, that’s not the case here. This GHS remix/remaster is loud and brickwalled. No amount of audiophile mumbo-jumbo will make it sound better. In fact, you’re dealing with 100% pure placebo.

Honestly, in this case, when it comes to sound quality, I think an OBI strip and a mini-vinyl replica paper jacket would do more for your listening experience than SHM material ever could .

But you have to admit, the SHM is certainly a darker orange.

It's mind bending that the industry continues with brickwalling when a majority of listeners think it sucks.

No one at the top of whatever labels does anything about it. "It's done for ear pods/phones" - it still sounds like crap.

Apple has its own mastering for iTunes/AppleMusic. I have no idea if it's better than a CD (at least for the same timeline regarding new releases) or any other streaming platform.

What does “Mastered for iTunes” mean?

The brief for producers on “Mastered for iTunes” points out that for years digital audio has been produced for the compact disc, and that now AAC is the new standard for digital music, and is capable of higher quality files than just encoding from the CD. They urge users of the program to master the recordings with the environment they will be used in in mind, in this case, a digital file will be listened to on the go, as well as in home settings. They ask that producers pay attention to clipping, and other issues which may have been an issue over the years in other digital masters. The tracks are quality checked for publication by iTunes. They also urge use of higher bit recordings in the creation of these files, however the end format is still considered a lossy format, and whether all of this makes any difference is up to you the end user.

The process itself takes a high sample rate format, and uses a high grade sample rate conversion step to bring the master to a standard 44.1kHz but outputs it as a 32-bit floating file. Often with downsampling audio, its common for peaks to increase and cause distortion. The way Apple does this conversion prevents this from happening. They then take the file and encode to AAC without any additional dithering. The file may not sound different to many ears, but the goal is to sound as close as possible to the original 24-bit master.

[www.u2songs.com]

Some bands/artists insist on not having their singles/albums brickwalled, like U2, as far as I know, for CD reissues. Edge has talked about it. The original release sounds great (at least from JOSHUA TREE onward) so the reissue is slightly tweaked for whatever reason, maybe a boost of low end, whatever.

Quote
treaclefingers
But you have to admit, the SHM is certainly a darker orange.

Absolutely! 146% correct! But still, not even close to red Polydor label