Today, May 25, is Geek Pride Day. Fans of The Rolling Stones are not geeks to any extend. We are well respected. Just a bit enthusiastically obsessed, slightly eccentric people, over-focused on the favorite band. So, technically, this is not our holiday.

Thus, here will be presented some extremely boring technical analysis of one track: The Rolling Stones – Brown Sugar. This one, as well as Wild Horses, is a ‘transitional’ track between DECCA/ABKCO and Rolling Stones Records. It was digitalized, mastered and re-mastered numerous times by both companies. I shall not tell you which mastering sounds the best. Just numbers and curves. For this comparison the following versions and CDs were chosen:
1. Hot Rocks 2 (West Germany, 1985), apparently flat transfer made on MFSL equipment (see [www.iorr.org] and [www.lukpac.org] )
2. Hot Rocks 2 (Japan, 1987), Japanese product prepared using dupe tape of transfer 1
3. Hot Rocks 1964-1971 (West Germany for USA, 1986), transfer from unknown source, mastered by Andrew Loog Oldham for ABKCO 1986 edition (see. Musician April 1987 # 102 Rolling Stones on CD: You Can Get What You Need. By Scott Isler)
4. Singles Collection (1989 mastering), another ABKCO mastering from unknown source. This one is also on all Hot Rocks 1964-1971 since 1990.
5. Sticky Fingers (Japan for Europe, 1986). Mastered by Greg Calbi for 1986 re-issue of the RSR catalog on CBS. This mastering is used for all CBS CDs, no matter country of origin. (see. Musician April 1987 # 102 Rolling Stones on CD: You Can Get What You Need. By Scott Isler)
6. Sticky Fingers (Collector’s Edition, 1994), re-issue of the RSR catalog on Virgin. Mastered by Bob Ludwig. This mastering is used for all Virgin CDs, no matter country of origin.
7. Hot Rocks 1964-1971, 2002 SACD – Hybrid re-issue of DECCA/ABKCO catalog. Redbook CD-DA layer was used here. Mastered by Bob Ludwig. This mastering is used for all post 2002 ABKCO editions, no matter country of origin.
8. Sticky Fingers, 2009 remaster. Re-issue of RSR catalog on Polydor/Universal. Mastered by Stephen Marcussen. This mastering is used for all Polydor/Universal CDs.
9. Sticky Fingers. Japan only 2013 SHM-CD Platinum, HR cutting from the DSD master which was flat transferred from UK original analogue master tapes in 2011 (as it is claimed by manufacturer).

Sure, there are more
ABKCO: endless re-issues of Hot Rocks 1964-1971 from different parts of the world. Singles 1968-1971 box.
CBS: On CD (radio sampler), Made In The Shade, Rewind 1971-1984.
Virgin: Jump Back, 40 Licks, Made In The Shade
Polydor/Universal: Singles 1971-2006, Grrr!, Honk.
Usually one will find there slightly ‘tweaked’ versions of the nine mentioned above. Thus, these are left from consideration at this point.
Individual tracks were ripped using Exact Audio Copy (EAC) software (in secure mode, w/o normalization) from original CDs. The rips were analyzed using foobar2000 (Dynamic Range Meter plugin) and the following numbers were obtained.


Rips were dropped to Sound Forge and the waveforms are presented here

Hot Rocks 2 (West Germany, 1985) London 820 142-2


Hot Rocks 2 (Japan, 1987) London/Polydor K.K. P33L 25012


Hot Rocks 1964-1971 (West Germany for USA, 1986) ABKCO 66672


Singles Collection (1989 mastering) ABKCO 844 481-2


Sticky Fingers (Japan for Europe, 1986) CBS 450 195 2


Sticky Fingers (Collector’s Edition, 1994) Virgin 7243-8-39504-2-3


Hot Rocks 1964-1971 (SACD – Hybrid 2002) EU edition, redbook layer ABKCO 882 305 2


Sticky Fingers (remaster 2009) Deluxe Edition, 2015 Polydor 376 483-6


Sticky Fingers (DSD transfer, 2011) HD cutting SHM-CD Platinum, Japan 2013 Polydor UICY-40011


It is clearly seen that Virgin and Plydor/Universal versions are on the loud side. Some suffer from ‘brickwall’ mastering and clipping. Frequency analysis to come in the next post.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-05-25 18:05 by ironbelly.

Rips were imported to Adobe Audition and spectral analysis was preformed for each track. The results were exported to data files. These were used to build spectral diagrams and for further graphic manipulations in Origin.
The raw data looks like this.


Kind of hazy. It is hard to distinguish differences, everything looks about the same. Sure, raw (not normalized) data for Virgin and Polydor/UM remasters are situated above the others. But tiny details are missing. To make it clearer a baseline was chosen. A while ago Steve Hoffman stated: ‘Listen to BROWN SUGAR or WILD HORSES on HOT ROCKS 2, the correct old London import CD mastered by MoFi back in the day. That's the actual tonality of the true master tape. (Made in WGermany by PolyGram)’. I.e. he believes that the sound of the old WG London CD is the closet one to the original master tape. Trust the pro (c) Keith Richards. So, the version from CD Hot Rocks 2 [London 820 142-2] was used as a baseline for subtraction. It looks like this.


This line was subtracted from all spectra.

As a result, 1985 London WG is transformed to a straight line located at 0 dB. It does not mean that that this mastering is ‘correct and completely flat’. This plot just shows how other versions differ from 1985 London WG. E.g. 1987 P33L Japan has less bass below ~150Hz and less HF above 8kHz, while between ~200Hz and ~3kHz it is virtually the same as 1985 London WG (with amplitude shift). Also, we do not have information how and why those differences appear. It could be EQ choices by mastering engineer, tape machine alignment, the source itself, etc. Obviously, that ALO made something strange for 1986 ABKCO remaster. 1986 CBS and 1989 ABKCO seem to start with the same source/used the same approach but ABKCO (as usual) cut HF range. That 1986 CBS curve explains why many people does not like old CBS CD Sticky Fingers. It is short on bass, that deep in 300-600Hz range does not add ‘body’ to the track sound either. It is necessary to play with the knobs on your system to get that CD sound right and punchy.

Post-CBS versions show different behavior.

It looks that the residual part, i.e. bass boost below 100Hz, ‘brilliance’/’sparky’ boost in 8-10kHz range the bump around 1.5kHz and deep around 3kHz follows equal-loudness contour (Fletcher–Munson curves). This contour assures different frequencies to have equal-loudness perception level. It looks like equal-loudness contour (or similar) was added atop of flat transfer. This is the way they try to make different parts the frequency spectra to be precept by a listener uniformly. Also, Marcussen’s EQ curve seem to be less bumpy comparing to Ludwig’s. Maybe this is the result of higher loudness and compression (Fletcher–Munson curves have different shapes for different sound pressure levels).

The new 2011 ‘Japanese Flat Transfer’ is not that flat with respect to 1985 London WG either. The behavior qualitatively repeats Virgin and Polydor/UM curves for frequency range above 1kHz (i.e., looks like an analogue to Fletcher–Munson curve was added to upper midrange and above). Although, variations in amplitude are smaller and below 1kHz the curve is quantitatively close to 1985 London WG. Again, there is no clue how they got there and if this EQ was on the original master tape or was added to ‘make it sounds better’. In the latter case one should not call 2011 DSD Japanese transfer ‘flat’.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2021-05-25 18:09 by ironbelly.

Wow, thank you for sharing your hard work. It's interesting to see how the dynamics changed through the years and labels. Cheers!

well that went to hell in a handbasket pretty quickly there.

jb

None of these CD versions managed to reproduce the original sound on vinyl. The bass thump present on the vinyl is almost gone on the CD. I'd say the closest version is the one the 2011 SACD (but still not quite there).

I have no idea what all this means. I'd have to listen to each one, blindfolded (or at least not see the label) to determine which is best.

The bass thump present on the vinyl is almost gone on the CD.


Yep .... sad but true



ROCKMAN

Quote
24FPS
I have no idea what all this means. I'd have to listen to each one, blindfolded (or at least not see the label) to determine which is best.

You asked for it
I made six samples from the following CDs:
1. Hot Rocks 2 (West Germany, 1985) London 820 142-2 Matrix 820 142-2 01 * AM XN
2. Hot Rocks 1964-1971 (West Germany for USA, 1986) ABKCO 66672 Matrix CD2 607-1/2 2896 512 01 *
3. Sticky Fingers (Japan for Europe, 1986) CBS 450 195 2 Matrix DIDP-10578 11A1 +++++
4. Sticky Fingers (Collector’s Edition, 1994) Virgin 7243-8-39504-2-3 Matrix :MASTERED: :BY NIMBUS: 39504-2 :
5. Sticky Fingers (remaster 2009) Deluxe Edition, 2015 Polydor 376 483-6 Matrix [Arvato logo] 56064444/00602527015620 21
6. Sticky Fingers (DSD transfer, 2011) HD cutting SHM-CD Platinum, Japan 2013
Polydor UICY-40011 Matrix [Universal Music Logo] UICY-40011 H1T

I took a dice and shuffled the samples' randomly. So the number of the track from the above list does not correspond to the number of the sample. You can make a blind test and return with your answers. 'I like Sx the best, Sy sounds awful' or whatever.

Sample 1 (S1)
[www.dropbox.com]

Sample 2 (S2)
[www.dropbox.com]

Sample 3 (S3)
[www.dropbox.com]

Sample 4 (S4)
[www.dropbox.com]

Sample 5 (S5)
[www.dropbox.com]

Sample 6 (S6)
[www.dropbox.com]

Next Monday I'll tell you which sample correspond to which CD. Have fun over weekend

Any member of the band should be amazed by this thread...

.... Yep Chuck would be chucklin' ....



ROCKMAN

You still have 24 hours to pass the blind test and determine your favorite mastering

Thanks!

Another Hot Rocks is coming out in July for Record Store Day - 50th anniversary edition. You'll have one more Hot Rocks to review.

Interesting thing about Hot Rocks, we never know which version of each song we'll get from one release to another. Do you have a complete Hot Rocks comparisons? You're the man, Iron Belly!


++++++++

The Rolling Stones - Hot Rocks (50th Anniversary Edition) (July 17, 2021)

RSD Drops Exclusive! A double LP pressed on Yellow 180g vinyl with expanded original artwork. Includes two 8.5"x11" lithographs printed on embossed archival paper featuring photographs by Michael Joseph, and printed inner sleeves with "211 Reasons Why The Rolling Stones is the World’s Greatest Rock and Roll Band" from original London Records Edition. Remastered by Bob Ludwig, Gateway Mastering. Lacquer cutting by Sean Magee, Abbey Road Studios.

It would be great if they reissued the original hot rocks with the alternate versions of what, wild horses and one other. I searched for years for a copy of that, even had the matrix number in my wallet.

jb

Seems nobody want to share the results of blind test.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024-01-10 15:25 by ironbelly.

Quote
jbwelda
It would be great if they reissued the original hot rocks with the alternate versions of what, wild horses and one other. I searched for years for a copy of that, even had the matrix number in my wallet.

jb

Shelley Hot Rocks must have date "11/18/71 Shlly" on side 4 (London Stereophonic) etched in the space between the last song and the label. Not the 12/5/71 date. Very important detail.


Someone sent this to me years ago:

The name ‘Shelley’ reappeared for a short time afterwards with either a later date or no date at all.

The original Shelley 11-18-71, with the alternate takes, may fetch $1000 USd in Near Mint condition. A second pressing with the word Shelley, with or without a later date, will still get you double ($25-30) a regular pressing ($12-15). Thus far, reports of 11-18-71, 12-3-71, and 12-6-71 have been clearly identified.

Shelley is found on all four sides, but the date 11-18-71 need only be on side four. It is possible to come across a set that has that specific date on any of the other three sides except the fourth, yet that is meaningless.
Reports tell of an edition which has Shelley 11-18-71 on the first three sides, but not on the crucial fourth side. Again, this indicates a later edition and it will not include the alternate takes.

Also, the name will may not be written in the same precise manner as in the image shown above. Though it is more common to see script, there are editions that have Shelley in block print. Of all known 11-18-71 (side four) editions, Shelley (though it appears as 'Shlley') is written in script. This should also help defeat the notion that Shelley was a person with access to the master plate and the cause of this first pressing issue. Even if someone inconsistently spelled their name Shelley, Shlley or Shelly, they would not do it in strikingly different handwriting.