Tell Me :  Talk
Talk about your favorite band. 

Previous page Next page First page IORR home

For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.

Goto Page: PreviousFirst...1011121314151617181920Next
Current Page: 18 of 20
Re: The Rolling Stones In Mono
Posted by: Irix ()
Date: January 23, 2023 13:10

Quote
Spud

Analogue recording , mastering and to vinyl and vinyl playback are all very flawed process, with many problems and limitations ...

...but , for me, they don't lose as much musical information as the CD format does . [Digital is now very good...but CD isn't good digital]

With the 2016 Mono-Box you can make a nice experiment: it's available on CD, Vinyl and digitally in DSD - so it's possible to make a direct comparison between all three editions. But note that the 2016 Direct Stream Digital (DSD) is the source of all this.

Re: The Rolling Stones In Mono
Posted by: tioms ()
Date: January 23, 2023 15:16

How much is now sound better in color vinyl than earlier mono box in black vinyl???

Re: The Rolling Stones In Mono
Posted by: Spud ()
Date: January 23, 2023 15:34

Traditionally coloured vinyl is felt to to sound less good than the usual black...for reasons of the vinyl composition.

But there are far more important variables than that which govern the quality of sound.

How old were the stampers ? is probably one such more important question .

Re: The Rolling Stones In Mono
Posted by: VoodooLounge13 ()
Date: January 23, 2023 16:56

Quote
jackflash27
Number is printed/ filled in with pen (?) on bottom of the box. It’s clearly visible through the cellophane. It’s not necessary to open up.

Fantastic - thanks much! Can't wait for mine to get here today. So far, the only one not in the 5000's or higher was a guy on the Stones app, who had # 2300-sumthin.

Re: The Rolling Stones In Mono
Posted by: snoopy2 ()
Date: January 23, 2023 18:43

Quote
ash
Quote
MrEcho
Quote
wiredallnight
Why should I buy vinyl records in mono? It's like buying a VHS cassette in black & white.

Stereo for consumer use was first introduced in 1958. In the late 1950s and in the 1960s most LPs were usually released in separate mono and stereo versions. Singles were always in mono up until the late 1960s. In the late 1950s stereo LPs had a market share of well under 20% in the US. Even in 1966 over 60% of all LPs sold in the US were still mono. Radio was always in mono. As a consequence musicians and producers concentrated on getting the mono versions of their records right and regarded those as the primary products. The stereo versions were seen as novelties for a niche market. The stereo mixes were often made without personal supervision by artists and producers and therefore differed from the carefully constructed mono mixes authorized by the artists. Complicated overdubs and edits that were made on the mono mixes often were not recreated for the stereo versions.

When stereo became the new worldwide industry standard by 1970 (1968 in the US, 1969 in the UK), the mono versions of old records were no longer repressed and the stereo versions were accepted as the "standard" versions (especially by younger consumers, who did not know the mono versions).

In addition to a lack of artistic supervision early stereo mixes also suffered from the shortcomings of stereo technology in the 1960s. When cutting stereo lacquers loud bass notes tended to distort. Furthermore stereo pick-ups of the period often had problems tracking the grooves of loud bass notes and skipped. For those reasons the bass was usually dialed back in the stereo masters, which resulted in a rather "thin" bass sound on early stereo mixes. In comparison the mono mixes have much more bass and simply sound much heavier and rocking. Furthermore early stereo mixes were made in a way that overstated the stereo effect: the elements of the music were placed far apart in the stereo soundscape. Far to the left, far to the right and in the center. You do not hear a band, but separate elements that often distract from the overall effect.

Some mono versions are so-called fold-downs, which means that instead of creating two separate mixes the music was mixed in stereo and than the two channels were combined or folded down for the mono LPs. But even then engineers were always monitoring the mix in mono to make sure the mono worked. And again the bass was usually reduced in the stereo master for the reasons pointed out above. Furthermore you have to remember that the art of mixing mono sound had been perfected over a long period of time, while stereo was still a new thing in 1960s pop music. Consequently a carefully made fold-down from the period is still preferable to a crude stereo mix.

If you want to hear the sound that musicians of the late 1950s and the 1960s wanted their audience to hear, you need to listen to the mono mixes.

Superb explanation. For any doubters, compare the original single (mono) of Get Off Of My Cloud to the stereo mix on Decembers Children.
If any Stones fans can stomach it, compare the mono Sgt Pepper to stereo Pepper. The mono has all sorts of phasing, ADT (automatic double tracking) etc. not present in stereo. It just sounds far more cohesive and is a completely different listening experience. You can hear the extra care that went into it whereas the stereo is, bang that left , bang that right, no phasing etc..
When the (stereo) cd came out, George Harrison was complaining that they'd used the wrong tape. Lennon too complained about stereo mixes being used in the 70s.
About 3 Fab4 LP's had good stereo mixes but as Mr Echo says, if you want to hear a record as intended by the artist, almost without exception until 1968, you really need the mono. It was the main "market" and the artists frequently had no involvement with the stereo mix.
Here's a good video with Glyn Johns explaining all this with specific Stones detail.
[www.youtube.com]

Both these posts were quite informative to me.. As someone who always purchased the cheapest turntable I could afford, stacked records to keep the party going, bumped the turntable quite often dancing or wrestling around, and was generally just into the “songs” over quality of sound I never paid much attention to the history of mono/stereo or their differences.. Now I have to go spend more money tracking down the mono of all my early stuff! (And invest in a decent turntable/speakers cuz frankly my speakers are thrift shop purchases)

Your posts also got me thinking about the different quality of releases, my Some Girls vinyl for instance (an original copy by the way) has always sounded thin and somewhat screechy/high end to me so I usually just put in my CD version. Anyone know if this is due to the low end equipment I play it on? The mix? Most of my other Stones’ vinyl sound fine, but SG can be grating if I play it before my coffee.. As for stereo left and right I have also always been intrigued by my copy of Lou Reeds The Blue Mask mentioning which side Lou’s guitar was on in the liner notes and wondered how it somehow differed from playing the CD in the car cuz frankly I never heard much difference.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-01-23 18:44 by snoopy2.

Re: The Rolling Stones In Mono
Posted by: VoodooLounge13 ()
Date: January 23, 2023 21:26

Well mine just arrived.......#8914 from Groovesland. Curious where the low numbers went.

Re: The Rolling Stones In Mono
Posted by: Testify ()
Date: January 23, 2023 22:12

Quote
snoopy2
Quote
ash
Quote
MrEcho
Quote
wiredallnight
Why should I buy vinyl records in mono? It's like buying a VHS cassette in black & white.

Stereo for consumer use was first introduced in 1958. In the late 1950s and in the 1960s most LPs were usually released in separate mono and stereo versions. Singles were always in mono up until the late 1960s. In the late 1950s stereo LPs had a market share of well under 20% in the US. Even in 1966 over 60% of all LPs sold in the US were still mono. Radio was always in mono. As a consequence musicians and producers concentrated on getting the mono versions of their records right and regarded those as the primary products. The stereo versions were seen as novelties for a niche market. The stereo mixes were often made without personal supervision by artists and producers and therefore differed from the carefully constructed mono mixes authorized by the artists. Complicated overdubs and edits that were made on the mono mixes often were not recreated for the stereo versions.

When stereo became the new worldwide industry standard by 1970 (1968 in the US, 1969 in the UK), the mono versions of old records were no longer repressed and the stereo versions were accepted as the "standard" versions (especially by younger consumers, who did not know the mono versions).

In addition to a lack of artistic supervision early stereo mixes also suffered from the shortcomings of stereo technology in the 1960s. When cutting stereo lacquers loud bass notes tended to distort. Furthermore stereo pick-ups of the period often had problems tracking the grooves of loud bass notes and skipped. For those reasons the bass was usually dialed back in the stereo masters, which resulted in a rather "thin" bass sound on early stereo mixes. In comparison the mono mixes have much more bass and simply sound much heavier and rocking. Furthermore early stereo mixes were made in a way that overstated the stereo effect: the elements of the music were placed far apart in the stereo soundscape. Far to the left, far to the right and in the center. You do not hear a band, but separate elements that often distract from the overall effect.

Some mono versions are so-called fold-downs, which means that instead of creating two separate mixes the music was mixed in stereo and than the two channels were combined or folded down for the mono LPs. But even then engineers were always monitoring the mix in mono to make sure the mono worked. And again the bass was usually reduced in the stereo master for the reasons pointed out above. Furthermore you have to remember that the art of mixing mono sound had been perfected over a long period of time, while stereo was still a new thing in 1960s pop music. Consequently a carefully made fold-down from the period is still preferable to a crude stereo mix.

If you want to hear the sound that musicians of the late 1950s and the 1960s wanted their audience to hear, you need to listen to the mono mixes.

Superb explanation. For any doubters, compare the original single (mono) of Get Off Of My Cloud to the stereo mix on Decembers Children.
If any Stones fans can stomach it, compare the mono Sgt Pepper to stereo Pepper. The mono has all sorts of phasing, ADT (automatic double tracking) etc. not present in stereo. It just sounds far more cohesive and is a completely different listening experience. You can hear the extra care that went into it whereas the stereo is, bang that left , bang that right, no phasing etc..
When the (stereo) cd came out, George Harrison was complaining that they'd used the wrong tape. Lennon too complained about stereo mixes being used in the 70s.
About 3 Fab4 LP's had good stereo mixes but as Mr Echo says, if you want to hear a record as intended by the artist, almost without exception until 1968, you really need the mono. It was the main "market" and the artists frequently had no involvement with the stereo mix.
Here's a good video with Glyn Johns explaining all this with specific Stones detail.
[www.youtube.com]

Both these posts were quite informative to me.. As someone who always purchased the cheapest turntable I could afford, stacked records to keep the party going, bumped the turntable quite often dancing or wrestling around, and was generally just into the “songs” over quality of sound I never paid much attention to the history of mono/stereo or their differences.. Now I have to go spend more money tracking down the mono of all my early stuff! (And invest in a decent turntable/speakers cuz frankly my speakers are thrift shop purchases)

Your posts also got me thinking about the different quality of releases, my Some Girls vinyl for instance (an original copy by the way) has always sounded thin and somewhat screechy/high end to me so I usually just put in my CD version. Anyone know if this is due to the low end equipment I play it on? The mix? Most of my other Stones’ vinyl sound fine, but SG can be grating if I play it before my coffee.. As for stereo left and right I have also always been intrigued by my copy of Lou Reeds The Blue Mask mentioning which side Lou’s guitar was on in the liner notes and wondered how it somehow differed from playing the CD in the car cuz frankly I never heard much difference.

For what it's worth I agree with the two posts...in some songs it's also very evident, so this mono collection is worth having, I bought it a few years ago and it made me re-evaluate some songs (albums) that stereo version managed to screw up.

Re: The Rolling Stones In Mono
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: January 24, 2023 17:04

Quote
Testify
Quote
snoopy2
Quote
ash
Quote
MrEcho
Quote
wiredallnight
Why should I buy vinyl records in mono? It's like buying a VHS cassette in black & white.

Stereo for consumer use was first introduced in 1958. In the late 1950s and in the 1960s most LPs were usually released in separate mono and stereo versions. Singles were always in mono up until the late 1960s. In the late 1950s stereo LPs had a market share of well under 20% in the US. Even in 1966 over 60% of all LPs sold in the US were still mono. Radio was always in mono. As a consequence musicians and producers concentrated on getting the mono versions of their records right and regarded those as the primary products. The stereo versions were seen as novelties for a niche market. The stereo mixes were often made without personal supervision by artists and producers and therefore differed from the carefully constructed mono mixes authorized by the artists. Complicated overdubs and edits that were made on the mono mixes often were not recreated for the stereo versions.

When stereo became the new worldwide industry standard by 1970 (1968 in the US, 1969 in the UK), the mono versions of old records were no longer repressed and the stereo versions were accepted as the "standard" versions (especially by younger consumers, who did not know the mono versions).

In addition to a lack of artistic supervision early stereo mixes also suffered from the shortcomings of stereo technology in the 1960s. When cutting stereo lacquers loud bass notes tended to distort. Furthermore stereo pick-ups of the period often had problems tracking the grooves of loud bass notes and skipped. For those reasons the bass was usually dialed back in the stereo masters, which resulted in a rather "thin" bass sound on early stereo mixes. In comparison the mono mixes have much more bass and simply sound much heavier and rocking. Furthermore early stereo mixes were made in a way that overstated the stereo effect: the elements of the music were placed far apart in the stereo soundscape. Far to the left, far to the right and in the center. You do not hear a band, but separate elements that often distract from the overall effect.

Some mono versions are so-called fold-downs, which means that instead of creating two separate mixes the music was mixed in stereo and than the two channels were combined or folded down for the mono LPs. But even then engineers were always monitoring the mix in mono to make sure the mono worked. And again the bass was usually reduced in the stereo master for the reasons pointed out above. Furthermore you have to remember that the art of mixing mono sound had been perfected over a long period of time, while stereo was still a new thing in 1960s pop music. Consequently a carefully made fold-down from the period is still preferable to a crude stereo mix.

If you want to hear the sound that musicians of the late 1950s and the 1960s wanted their audience to hear, you need to listen to the mono mixes.

Superb explanation. For any doubters, compare the original single (mono) of Get Off Of My Cloud to the stereo mix on Decembers Children.
If any Stones fans can stomach it, compare the mono Sgt Pepper to stereo Pepper. The mono has all sorts of phasing, ADT (automatic double tracking) etc. not present in stereo. It just sounds far more cohesive and is a completely different listening experience. You can hear the extra care that went into it whereas the stereo is, bang that left , bang that right, no phasing etc..
When the (stereo) cd came out, George Harrison was complaining that they'd used the wrong tape. Lennon too complained about stereo mixes being used in the 70s.
About 3 Fab4 LP's had good stereo mixes but as Mr Echo says, if you want to hear a record as intended by the artist, almost without exception until 1968, you really need the mono. It was the main "market" and the artists frequently had no involvement with the stereo mix.
Here's a good video with Glyn Johns explaining all this with specific Stones detail.
[www.youtube.com]

Both these posts were quite informative to me.. As someone who always purchased the cheapest turntable I could afford, stacked records to keep the party going, bumped the turntable quite often dancing or wrestling around, and was generally just into the “songs” over quality of sound I never paid much attention to the history of mono/stereo or their differences.. Now I have to go spend more money tracking down the mono of all my early stuff! (And invest in a decent turntable/speakers cuz frankly my speakers are thrift shop purchases)

Your posts also got me thinking about the different quality of releases, my Some Girls vinyl for instance (an original copy by the way) has always sounded thin and somewhat screechy/high end to me so I usually just put in my CD version. Anyone know if this is due to the low end equipment I play it on? The mix? Most of my other Stones’ vinyl sound fine, but SG can be grating if I play it before my coffee.. As for stereo left and right I have also always been intrigued by my copy of Lou Reeds The Blue Mask mentioning which side Lou’s guitar was on in the liner notes and wondered how it somehow differed from playing the CD in the car cuz frankly I never heard much difference.

For what it's worth I agree with the two posts...in some songs it's also very evident, so this mono collection is worth having, I bought it a few years ago and it made me re-evaluate some songs (albums) that stereo version managed to screw up.

Agreed. And this goes for the Beatles set too. Listening to Sgt. Pepper is almost like a different album. When they say, "as it was originally intended to be heard", it's not just marketing hype.

Re: The Rolling Stones In Mono
Posted by: Irix ()
Date: January 25, 2023 13:35

"The Rolling Stones' In Mono: it's great but it borders on abuse" - [www.LouderSound.com] , [Twitter.com] .

Re: The Rolling Stones In Mono
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: January 25, 2023 16:06

Quote
Irix
"The Rolling Stones' In Mono: it's great but it borders on abuse" - [www.LouderSound.com] , [Twitter.com] .

hmmm...spot on.

Re: The Rolling Stones In Mono
Posted by: liddas ()
Date: January 25, 2023 17:18

I assume there is no way to buy the singular items, correct?

C

Re: The Rolling Stones In Mono
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: January 25, 2023 17:22

Quote
liddas
I assume there is no way to buy the singular items, correct?

C

There will be when invariably these start popping up on EBAY as a few people will split up the boxes to sell individual titles for a profit. But no announcements for individual mono titles officially being released, and probably not going to happen.

Re: The Rolling Stones In Mono
Posted by: liddas ()
Date: January 25, 2023 17:32

Thank you!

C

Re: The Rolling Stones In Mono
Posted by: ironbelly ()
Date: January 25, 2023 19:28

Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
liddas
I assume there is no way to buy the singular items, correct?

C

There will be when invariably these start popping up on EBAY as a few people will split up the boxes to sell individual titles for a profit. But no announcements for individual mono titles officially being released, and probably not going to happen.
Well, individual SHM-CDs are available. I would say that in Europe they are widely available and reasonably priced.

Why people are buying vinyl records anyway? winking smiley

Re: The Rolling Stones In Mono
Posted by: Irix ()
Date: January 26, 2023 17:30

Mono-Box (Color-LPs) - available again & still € 354.99 - [www.Bravado.de] .

Also still available for € 349.99 on [www.Amazon.fr] and for € ~346 (PLN 1631) on [www.Amazon.pl] .



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-01-26 22:35 by Irix.

Re: The Rolling Stones In Mono
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: January 26, 2023 19:22

Quote
ironbelly
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
liddas
I assume there is no way to buy the singular items, correct?

C

There will be when invariably these start popping up on EBAY as a few people will split up the boxes to sell individual titles for a profit. But no announcements for individual mono titles officially being released, and probably not going to happen.
Well, individual SHM-CDs are available. I would say that in Europe they are widely available and reasonably priced.

Why people are buying vinyl records anyway? winking smiley

CDs? That's so, 1990s! smoking smiley

Re: The Rolling Stones In Mono
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: January 26, 2023 19:27

Quote
Irix
Mono-Box (Color-LPs) - available again & still € 354.99 - [www.Bravado.de] .

Not a bad price but definitely a fair bit higher than could have been had after Christmas. Sure beats amazon.ca price of $699 (down from $785 a couple of days ago - €541 and not including tax!).

This set will set out much quicker than the 2016 and retailers are already starting to reflect that in their pricing.

Re: The Rolling Stones In Mono
Posted by: NedKellyBandit ()
Date: January 26, 2023 20:10

I received mine from Bravado a few days ago. This is a great Box.
The Vinyl sounds fantastic. >grinning smiley<

Re: The Rolling Stones In Mono
Posted by: ironbelly ()
Date: January 26, 2023 20:45

Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
ironbelly
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
liddas
I assume there is no way to buy the singular items, correct?

C

There will be when invariably these start popping up on EBAY as a few people will split up the boxes to sell individual titles for a profit. But no announcements for individual mono titles officially being released, and probably not going to happen.
Well, individual SHM-CDs are available. I would say that in Europe they are widely available and reasonably priced.

Why people are buying vinyl records anyway? winking smiley

CDs? That's so, 1990s! smoking smiley
Still, a bit more serious than 'millennial' colored vinyl smoking smiley

Re: The Rolling Stones In Mono
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: January 26, 2023 21:24

Quote
ironbelly
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
ironbelly
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
liddas
I assume there is no way to buy the singular items, correct?

C

There will be when invariably these start popping up on EBAY as a few people will split up the boxes to sell individual titles for a profit. But no announcements for individual mono titles officially being released, and probably not going to happen.
Well, individual SHM-CDs are available. I would say that in Europe they are widely available and reasonably priced.

Why people are buying vinyl records anyway? winking smiley

CDs? That's so, 1990s! smoking smiley
Still, a bit more serious than 'millennial' colored vinyl smoking smiley

Not fair to hold my youth against me you old codger! spinning smiley sticking its tongue out

Re: The Rolling Stones In Mono
Posted by: stonesstein ()
Date: January 27, 2023 00:34

Just got #3923/10,000 from ABKCo in Ferndale, MI USA.

Have not yet opened it, as I have an engagement this evening.

OTHER than colored-wax, is there anything different with the new Box than the 2016 Box? I presume there are no 7" therein, but otherwise, anyone notice anything different?

Thanks to all.


stonesstein
kick me like you kicked before
I can't even feel the pain no more
"Rocks Off" 1972

Re: The Rolling Stones In Mono
Posted by: Irix ()
Date: January 27, 2023 00:40

Quote
stonesstein

anyone notice anything different?

Paul Sinclair of SuperDeluxeEdition.com says there're no differences to the 2016 Box except the color of the Vinyl (Pos. 2:40) :



[www.YouTube.com]

Re: The Rolling Stones In Mono
Posted by: ironbelly ()
Date: January 27, 2023 00:42

Quote
stonesstein
Just got #3923/10,000 from ABKCo in Ferndale, MI USA.

Have not yet opened it, as I have an engagement this evening.

OTHER than colored-wax, is there anything different with the new Box than the 2016 Box? I presume there are no 7" therein, but otherwise, anyone notice anything different?

Thanks to all.
1. Glossy finish of the box itself
2. Paper inner sleeves. You need to wash the record before playing
That what vinyl purists said on Steve Hoffman's music forum



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-01-27 00:43 by ironbelly.

Re: The Rolling Stones In Mono
Posted by: Irix ()
Date: January 27, 2023 00:55

Quote
ironbelly

1. Glossy finish of the box itself

That's what can be seen in the unboxing-video by SDE - the front of the 2016 box is completely glossy, but on the 2023 box only the RS lettering (and 'in mono') is glossy while the b/w-photo is matte.

Re: The Rolling Stones In Mono
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: January 27, 2023 02:04

Quote
ironbelly
Quote
stonesstein
Just got #3923/10,000 from ABKCo in Ferndale, MI USA.

Have not yet opened it, as I have an engagement this evening.

OTHER than colored-wax, is there anything different with the new Box than the 2016 Box? I presume there are no 7" therein, but otherwise, anyone notice anything different?

Thanks to all.
1. Glossy finish of the box itself
2. Paper inner sleeves. You need to wash the record before playing
That what vinyl purists said on Steve Hoffman's music forum

That AND No. 2 is warped/dished but playable for most people.

There is also some feedback that there is an audible difference to the negative, when compared to 2016 but I think the jury is still out on that. The recording itself is apparently quieter than 2016, so the noise floor is higher but as it's still a dead quiet pressing, it doesn't make that much difference.

I know all this because I read, not because I've listened, because I'm STILL WAITING to get my copy!

Re: The Rolling Stones In Mono
Posted by: stonesstein ()
Date: January 27, 2023 05:52

Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
ironbelly
Quote
stonesstein
Just got #3923/10,000 from ABKCo in Ferndale, MI USA.

Have not yet opened it, as I have an engagement this evening.

OTHER than colored-wax, is there anything different with the new Box than the 2016 Box? I presume there are no 7" therein, but otherwise, anyone notice anything different?

Thanks to all.
1. Glossy finish of the box itself
2. Paper inner sleeves. You need to wash the record before playing
That what vinyl purists said on Steve Hoffman's music forum

That AND No. 2 is warped/dished but playable for most people.

There is also some feedback that there is an audible difference to the negative, when compared to 2016 but I think the jury is still out on that. The recording itself is apparently quieter than 2016, so the noise floor is higher but as it's still a dead quiet pressing, it doesn't make that much difference.

I know all this because I read, not because I've listened, because I'm STILL WAITING to get my copy!

Thanks to Ironbelly for true knowledge! From where did your 2022 copy come and what number is it?

Treacle, yer day is coming, Bubba! When you get it, let's swap notes!!!

Thanks to all!


stonesstein
kick me like you kicked before
I can't even feel the pain no more
"Rocks Off" 1972

Re: The Rolling Stones In Mono
Posted by: ironbelly ()
Date: January 27, 2023 10:30

Quote
stonesstein
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
ironbelly
Quote
stonesstein
Just got #3923/10,000 from ABKCo in Ferndale, MI USA.

Have not yet opened it, as I have an engagement this evening.

OTHER than colored-wax, is there anything different with the new Box than the 2016 Box? I presume there are no 7" therein, but otherwise, anyone notice anything different?

Thanks to all.
1. Glossy finish of the box itself
2. Paper inner sleeves. You need to wash the record before playing
That what vinyl purists said on Steve Hoffman's music forum

That AND No. 2 is warped/dished but playable for most people.

There is also some feedback that there is an audible difference to the negative, when compared to 2016 but I think the jury is still out on that. The recording itself is apparently quieter than 2016, so the noise floor is higher but as it's still a dead quiet pressing, it doesn't make that much difference.

I know all this because I read, not because I've listened, because I'm STILL WAITING to get my copy!

Thanks to Ironbelly for true knowledge! From where did your 2022 copy come and what number is it?

Treacle, yer day is coming, Bubba! When you get it, let's swap notes!!!

Thanks to all!
That was information came from open sources - from here, Steve Hoffman's music forum, youtube reviews... I did not purchase neither 2016 nor 2023 vinyl box sets.

Imaged above are CD boxes.

Re: The Rolling Stones In Mono
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: January 27, 2023 16:06

Quote
stonesstein
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
ironbelly
Quote
stonesstein
Just got #3923/10,000 from ABKCo in Ferndale, MI USA.

Have not yet opened it, as I have an engagement this evening.

OTHER than colored-wax, is there anything different with the new Box than the 2016 Box? I presume there are no 7" therein, but otherwise, anyone notice anything different?

Thanks to all.
1. Glossy finish of the box itself
2. Paper inner sleeves. You need to wash the record before playing
That what vinyl purists said on Steve Hoffman's music forum

That AND No. 2 is warped/dished but playable for most people.

There is also some feedback that there is an audible difference to the negative, when compared to 2016 but I think the jury is still out on that. The recording itself is apparently quieter than 2016, so the noise floor is higher but as it's still a dead quiet pressing, it doesn't make that much difference.

I know all this because I read, not because I've listened, because I'm STILL WAITING to get my copy!

Thanks to Ironbelly for true knowledge! From where did your 2022 copy come and what number is it?

Treacle, yer day is coming, Bubba! When you get it, let's swap notes!!!

Thanks to all!

Yes it is indeed, next week presumably. Not sure why this set in particular has me so enthusiastic...is it the colours? Is it that I ordered it in June 2022, only to have that order cancelled and have ordered it two more times?

I'll weigh in with my number for sure.

Re: The Rolling Stones In Mono
Posted by: jackflash27 ()
Date: January 27, 2023 16:55

Quote
Irix
Quote
stonesstein

anyone notice anything different?

Paul Sinclair of SuperDeluxeEdition.com says there're no differences to the 2016 Box except the color of the Vinyl (Pos. 2:40) :



[www.YouTube.com]

This Paul Sinclair guy is quite a Beatles fan, isn't he? He's comparing everything with The Beatles' releases. 'This is Revolver era', 'This should be their response to Sgt. Peppers's', 'I wanna be your man, the song The Beatles gave to the Stones', 'At that time The Beatles had already 4 albums released', etc.etc. It's a bit annoying I have to say.

Re: The Rolling Stones In Mono
Posted by: blackadder ()
Date: January 30, 2023 00:45

Hello all,

Can someone confirm if he/ahe has or hasn't received it from amazon.es?

I ordered it on july 2. It said that it would be delivered on january 30.
It's still not sent and still not debited from my credit card. I tried to contact amazon.ed but getting useful information from them is a drama. So hopefully someone who ordered there as well can tell me if he/she received it.

It's not looking good in my opinion.

Thanks in advanced!

Goto Page: PreviousFirst...1011121314151617181920Next
Current Page: 18 of 20


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 423
Record Number of Users: 206 on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests: 6295 on November 30, 2021 14:09

Previous page Next page First page IORR home