Personally I think conventional CDs pale in comparison to a clean original-pressing vinyl but I am very curious how they stack up against SACDs. Between the Buttons mono original pressing vs. SACD... I don't own an SACD player so I don't have an opinion on them but I do have vinyl. Please gimme the lowdown.

-Drake

Drake - I totally agree with you in regards to a good piece of vinyl up against a standard CD. But Buttons mono vs. Buttons SACD wouldn't really be the best comparison since, well, one's mono and one's stereo - they're two different mixes, so no matter what, there are going to be some fairly drastic discrepancies. I don't have a SACD player either (or, for that matter, a surround set-up), but I've just started picking up some non-ABCKO SACDs over the last couple of months.

First, I got a bunch of Creedence albums - 3 in hybrid SACD and 2 of the 20-bit remasters that came out in 2000. The 20-bits initially sounded better (meaning, brighter and punchier) and the SACDs seemed really flat... then I reprogrammed my ears and learned to appreciated the SACDs for what they are - the true representation of the master tape itself - a flat transfer. By not raising the levels through the roof, the music has a chance to breathe, and that makes it a lot more similar to the original vinyl as opposed to the digitally manipulated standard CDs with everything getting more jacked into the red with each passing year.

Then I got the Layla SACD and it's like night and day compared to the remaster from about 10 years ago - the SACD itself doesn't sound amazing, but when you compare it to other versions, you realize just how processed the other versions are. Granted, Layla was recorded in a way that makes Exile sound like it was done at Abbey Road, so it's never going to sound perfect.

My one gripe with the Stones SACDs is that there's a lot of noise reduction, especially on Now/Out Of Our Heads/Aftermath. It's also kind of useless to compare the 2002 SACDs to the '86 ABCKOS, as those just sounded like crap. The 2002s blow them away in every respect.

Anyway, hope that didn't come off as too pedantic, but I think that SACD - even a SACD hybrid on a regular CD player - is probably the closest approximation to the original vinyl that you can get.

Juan thank you for your well-thought-out response. I must agree with you about the SACDs (even in non-SACD mode since neither of us have an SACD player) are far superior to the Abkco CDs from the 80s. I guess what my question really boils down to is, are the SACDs better than the vinyl. As in, when I listen to Let It Bleed on vinyl, is it actually possible for the SACD version (not the 'normal' layer on the SACD, but the actual SA layer) to sound better than the vinyl counterpart. Tomorrow I may very well go down to my local circuit city, act like I'm interested in the latest, greatest, high-end, "spend a year's paycheck on one purchase" sound system, and ask them to play Let It Bleed in an SACD player for me...

-Drake

I too do not own an SACD player, but you don't need one to apreciate how great the Stones '02 releases sound. The 1986 CD's were dire, but does anyone here own any of the original 1984 releases? Now, they ARE BAD!

I have two of the 1984 releases. TSMR and one of the early albums. Can't remember which. The 1984 releases sound better than 1986 sometimes. The artwork is way better too.

JumpingKentFlash

CD was never good enough, period. SACD is good enough...though, in my personal opinion, not as good as vinyl on a quality record deck.
The industry knew damn well that CD technology wasn't good enough when they launched it. They just wanted our money and kidded themselves that they were selling "pure perfect sound for ever" [if I remember the hype correctly.]
What CD actually did was kill any real further advances in the domestic audio industry.
Better amplifiers and speakers became pointless because the source was crap ! . We got amplifiers and speakers which were optimised to make CD sound half way listenable...and that's usually the opposite of making them genuinely better!
Mass market interest in genuine HiFi has never really recovered.
SACD could be good thing. The problem now is that it will never really take off as a core mass market music medium.
Helped by years of poor CD sound, the industry now has us accepting the quality of horrendously compressed downloaded music files as the norm.
The lowest common denominator has prevailed.
It's very sad .
Folks who've never witnessed the best that vinyl can offer will never understand but for those of us who have...it's very, very sad.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-01-23 16:39 by Spud.

To get the full quality of vinyl, you need to have top quality equipment and of course, a record that is mint, to near mint condition.

Anyway, all formats are a compromise, the 'true' sound is the original mastertape.

Beggars Banquet on the CD/SACD release is the best it's ever been.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-01-23 16:20 by His Majesty.

I once read a very interesting interview with Neil Young where he in detail tried to explain why it´s so unsatisfactory to listen to a CD compared to vinyl. It all came down to the fact that the sound is in fact totally manipulated and artificial. The fact that there is no distorsion at all on a CD only makes the sound to clinical and "untrue". SACD is only a more effective technique to fool our poor ears...

ALL reproduced sound is manipulated and artificial.

True.
But there are fundemenatl differences in the way that the original signal is distorted by analogue and by digital processes.
Digital distortions are largely by way of losing information...which is a less obvious but musically more damaging distortion than the additive harmonic distortions and noise attributed to analogue processing.

Beggars Banquet would sound better still if transferred again from the best analogue masters,at the right speed, onto vinyl by a good cutting engineer.

It's not true to say that records need to be "mint" either. A bit of surface noise does not intrude when a record is played on a deck with a good dynamic range. The better the equipment, the less fussy it is about the perceived condition of the record...which is of course contary to the popular conception of the issue.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-01-23 18:43 by Spud.

for Stones Vinyl www.soundstagedirect.com

His Majesty Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ALL reproduced sound is manipulated and
> artificial.


Of course, but analog sound is more true to the source. That´s why many groups are recording with analog equipment today and then digitalize it.

Spud Wrote:

> Beggars Banquet would sound better still if
> transferred again from the best analogue
> masters,at the right speed, onto vinyl by a good
> cutting engineer.

Ah, has this been done? I recall 'mobile fidelity' perhaps?


> It's not true to say that records need to be
> "mint" either. A bit of surface noise does not
> intrude when a record is played on a deck with a
> good dynamic range. The better the equipment, the
> less fussy it is about the perceived condition of
> the record...which is of course contary to the
> popular opinion.

It depends how bad the 'bit' of surface noise is.

Just an information.
This is new age-appropriate toy but is running short of stocks in our country.
Check below.
[www.teacgf-350.com]

Vinyl better than a digitized source?? If that argument was relevant we would still be buying turntables and with a shure stylus.

And analog tv is better than digital. 8 tracks are better than cassettes.

> Vinyl better than a digitized source?? If that
> argument was relevant we would still be buying
> turntables and with a shure stylus.
>
> And analog tv is better than digital. 8 tracks are
> better than cassettes.

Never underestimate the power of a Boomer who Can't Let It Go...

Quite so !

Also, there are more albums being released on vinyl today than have been for many years...and a lot of younger folks, never before exposed to the medium, are getting into it.

[The problem is getting the retailer to admit they exist when you want to order a release on vinyl]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-01-23 17:55 by Spud.

CDs have gotten better in the past 5 or so years. Before then, it was easily the case that vinyl usually sounded better, IF you got a decent turntable and maintained it and kept your records clean. But people weren't doing that and so thought CDs sounded better right off the bat. Now CDs can sound ok, but the whole "remastering" thing has become such a cliche that even poor remasters are accepted as worthwhile improvements.

Spud Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Also, there are more albums being released on
> vinyl today than have been for many years...and a
> lot of younger folks, never before exposed to the
> medium, are getting into it.

I'm not claiming your wrong but I have never seen anyone buying vinyl except a rapper scratcher.

Vinyl is dead and has become an e-bay thrifty. 99% of the music buying public probably does not lock themselves in a basement and disect every track on a recording. Who has time for that.

The Sicilian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Spud Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Also, there are more albums being released on
> > vinyl today than have been for many years...and
> a
> > lot of younger folks, never before exposed to
> the
> > medium, are getting into it.
>
> I'm not claiming your wrong but I have never seen
> anyone buying vinyl except a rapper scratcher.
> Vinyl is dead and has become an e-bay thrifty.

Lots of people buy vinyl new and old! Plus, it's anything but cheap tracking down original releases.

99%
> of the music buying public probably does not lock
> themselves in a basement and disect every track on
> a recording. Who has time for that.

Me, but not to disect the sound quality!

> Vinyl is dead and has become an e-bay thrifty. 99%
> of the music buying public probably does not lock
> themselves in a basement and disect every track on
> a recording. Who has time for that.


Same people who post to strangers on a rolling stones interent fan site?

In the context of the mass market, you're perfectly right of course.
Which is pretty much the conclusion in my first post in this thread.

Doesn't mean that some of us won't still swear by vinyl though...and there does appear to be a bouyant enough market to justify it's continued production.

Absolutely. You "mass market" guys are singing a tune from 10 years ago... vinyl is doing better now than then.

vinyl is going to outlast the cd..you watch..

go to used record stores.. the only ones that will stick around will be the ones with vinyl...

warner has just announced they will be pressing lots of vinyl..

there's plenty of articles about the death of the cd at the hands of mp3s but how people still buy vinyl ..

there's a lot more new titles being pressed on vinyl today than 10 years ago....

stoned_in_dc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> vinyl is going to outlast the cd..you watch..
>
And quite rightly so. Growing up in the vinyl era, I never liked CDs that much. When CDs were invented in the early 80's, I was at first impressed by the improved usability and the fact that no scratches or pops like on bad vinyl pressing could be heard. But when I started to compare all those early CD releases with their vinyl counterparts in my collection, I quickly learned to praise the good old vinyl for its superior sound - warmer, richer, more natural sounding than those often harsh, thin and clinical CDs. Despite that, the CD always looked like a cheap plastic product - whereas LP's always had this artsy feel...

Also... playing a vinyl album is more of an 'event', you have the nice larger cover to admire(especially if the album has a far out sleeve) and you have to get up to change sides.

I find I 'concentrate' more when I listen to an lp... Active listening!

CD's encourage passive listening, but they are way more handy for working out parts and so on.

The Sicilian, you are both wrong and right.

>Vinyl better than a digitized source?? If that argument was relevant we would still be buying turntables and with a shure stylus.<

This is a matter of taste and does not by any means make the argument irrelevant.
The electronics and home entertainment industry has decided in the early 80s to try and impose the new CD format (just like they have tried and imposed stuff all along in our consumerism society). This is "why" people went along with it and threw their turntables away.
My entry-level Thorens turntable bought in 1981 still works wonders TODAY and gives plenty of musical joy. You think an electronics industry exec is going to send his kid to college in the 21st century with that kind of consumerism?

Vinyl dead? I see a lot of excitement over vinyl (new and vintage) these days around me, but who knows how long it's going to last: you just might be right!

If music buying people these days can get thrilled (and not repulsed) by those ridiculously overcompressed CDs (such as the last Rolling Stones one) they try sell them as state-of-the-art, you most certainly are right they could not stand a well recorded, masterered and pressed vinyl LP...

I am not at all a vinyl aficionado. It's a pain in the ass to clean them, you can't borrow them (unless to VERY trusted people, and not even then), you can't take them away with you, you have to change sides, turntables are extremely expensive, its hard to find new needles.

The only positive side with the old discs is the cover, often a piece of art and more than once the only reason for buying the thing.

BUT I love quality music.

As a matter of fact, the digital audio encoding standard which was chosen for CDs was a compromise solution. The output was inferior to the old lps (but since 90% of the consumers had crappy audio equipment in the first place, who would notice). But it is far better than the absolutely unacceptable mp3s or ipod format (yes, it can be worse).

So it's not much analog vs digital, but a question of standard. SACD's standard is much improved. To make an example old cds were like low resolution pics, the sacd present a highre resolution, thanks to the more capable formats.

Then there is all the process to create, and edit music, but that is a completely differnt story

C

i really only like to buy vinyl...

i just love the stuff..... its my religion frankly..

having said that i'dlike to check out the stones sacd's just to see what the fuss is about... the allmusicguide's s.t. erlewine writes major platitudes about the sacd's and he knows his stuff.. he ain't the bullshitting type....

meanwhile though i just keep collecting the vinyl.... i go the aftermath mono, satanic mono, 12 by 5 mono and rollingstones now ffrr mono this past two weeks... what i really want is the first one, and the beggars and let it bleed monos which i did not know even existed!

people are sheep..now the music industry has got them paying 99 cents for a compressed file...

SACD beats any vinyl release.