For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
nick
The 2002 SACD / CD releases were put out as they were originally recorded not as they were originally released and all that reprocessed stereo, fade ins and outs removed. Use that as a guide in consideration of this collection.
Quote
lukpacQuote
frenki09
Soooooo true! Aftermath is almost unlistenable in stereo. It's that dead space...
"stereo mixes were pretty crude: everything was left, centre or right, with lots of dead space in between"
It's a big relief to FINALLY have the mono releases out. I thought Brenda would never bother saying 'yes' to the mono versions being released...
Depends on the song.
Mother's Little Helper is definitely a bit overly discrete in stereo. But Under My Thumb arguably sounds great in stereo.
Quote
MrEcho
Mono and Stereo: Some General Points
[this is from an article published on www.rdf.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk some time ago about Bob Dylan's 1960s mono discs, but the basic facts also apply to The Rolling Stones' 1960s catalogue]
Stereo was not a new technology [in the 1960s], but its impact at that time was still very much in the classical and audiophile market. For popular music, mono was still very much the standard format. Singles were always mono, and stereo LPs only accounted for about 5% of sales even in the USA. Radio airplay - all AM - would always be from the mono version.
(...)
Quote
frenki09Quote
MrEcho
Mono and Stereo: Some General Points
[this is from an article published on www.rdf.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk some time ago about Bob Dylan's 1960s mono discs, but the basic facts also apply to The Rolling Stones' 1960s catalogue]
Stereo was not a new technology [in the 1960s], but its impact at that time was still very much in the classical and audiophile market. For popular music, mono was still very much the standard format. Singles were always mono, and stereo LPs only accounted for about 5% of sales even in the USA. Radio airplay - all AM - would always be from the mono version.
(...)
I found this article (not just this quote) really interesting and very detailed. It's on page 6 if you are interested in reading it.
However, I have been wondering that if stereo LP's only accounted for about 5% of sales, why it is more difficult to find MONO versions of LP's from the 60's.
If I understand correctly people pay nice money for MONO LP's while the stereo release of the same album is widely available for a few bucks on sites like eBay.
A Satanic MONO LP is still a thought after item...
So why is it that MONO LP's seem to be more difficult to find than stereo LP's. I don't mean the Stones only; any MONO releases from the 60's.
where did you see that the download card was for hd files? I assumed mp3s but would love flacs or HDQuote
DrPete
I bit the bullet and got vinyl with the singles too. Am now even more excited about it, especially which the download card in HD
Quote
tioms
IMO. You are thinking wrong.
The 2 boxes before are now:
on E bay:
LP Box 1964-1969.......between £350 & £550
LP Box-1971-2005.......rare to find one.
That's my opinion.
Remember: No secound edition.
Greets,
Quote
ironbelly
Can we already start moaning about packaging, mastering, wrong versions of the songs etc.?
Quote
JumpinJimFQuote
ironbelly
Can we already start moaning about packaging, mastering, wrong versions of the songs etc.?
Certainly. It is essential to start the moaning before anyone is in possession of any actual facts. It is a much higher class of moaning than the banal moaning that happens once people actually have the product.
Quote
ironbellyQuote
JumpinJimFQuote
ironbelly
Can we already start moaning about packaging, mastering, wrong versions of the songs etc.?
Certainly. It is essential to start the moaning before anyone is in possession of any actual facts. It is a much higher class of moaning than the banal moaning that happens once people actually have the product.
Technically, we have a couple of facts from that preview in Billboard. And some of those facts are slightly alarming.
1. Once the tapes are in hand, Landi continues, “You start with a really great machine, like this Ampex ATR-102, which was made in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s,” - this means they run playback on relatively new machines.
2. “When we embarked upon restoring the Stones’ catalog, we did a test between an Ampex with electronics from a solid state machine like this -- this particular one has upgraded electronics -- and an older Ampex with tube electronics." - thus, some tapes were transferred using solid state electronics, while the others - on tube electronics. This makes one think the CDs could sound 'patchy'.
3. “And sometimes the old tube machine actually sounds better,” Klein adds. “It reproduces the sound of the tape more authentically, rather than putting it on a machine that sounds too precise or too clinical." - ouch! Knowing the way they did 2002 remaster I feel most of the new remaster could be too precise or too clinical.
4. The tapes are transferred to high-resolution DSD and PCM digital formats, and sent to “super-genius mastering engineer” Bob Ludwig at his Gateway Mastering studio, where he masters the catalog from the DSD digital source files. - do you think they actually re-done all previously issued mono tracks? Can you imagine for a second that Klein company would pay twice the same guy for the same job?
5. The set isn't perfect: The art in the booklet is rather perfunctory and, in the CD version, the type is tiny; while the album covers are nearly exact reproductions of the originals, that makes them nearly illegible when shrunk down to CD size, and the lack of an inner sleeve means the discs fall out alarmingly easily. - so the artwork for ordinary CD edition is rather cheap. I do not know about Japanese version, that suppose to have better mini-LP replicas.
6. And the last, but not the least - LPs will be pressed from digital sources but not purely analog
Surely I did! The first day it appeared on pre-order.Quote
Maindefender
So Ironbelly can it be assumed you haven't ordered this?