Quote
drewmaster

Quote
Brano
I'm no audio expert, but people who are (like Steve Hoffman) claim that the Virgin remasters sound pretty good and don't have much (if any) room for improvement.

Anybody who says the Virgins don't have much room for improvement never listened to them on a really good system and compared them to, for example, the ABKCO remasters.

Drew

Like I said these are not my claims (I don't have hi-fi equipment), but from people who are crazy about (original, untampered) sound quality, and the consensus is that the Virgins sound very good, so while they could be slightly better it probably won't be worth double dipping. If the CD sounds as close as it can to the original LP there's not much you can do with it to improve it. The reason why ABKCO remasters were such an improvement is because the originals from the 80s sucked in the first place (unlike the Virgins) and the original master tapes were found in some cases (eg. Beggars Banquet and Let It Bleed). But even ABKCOs have some problems like noise reduction in places and boosted bass. And even though technology has advanced there are still loads of examples where remasters sound worse than the older CDs, mostly because they are done by sound engineers who change the way original albums sound with compression, noise reduction, EQ-ing etc. to make them sound more "modern". While these may sound cleaner and louder at first, they don't have the fidelity and the warmth of the originals. Anyway, like StonesTod said, you can't get a better quality on CD than on a good LP with all the technology in the world, except the before mentioned Beggars Banquet which uses the correct speed tape for the first time on the ABKCO remasters and sounds better than original LPs.

Quote
Brano

Like I said these are not my claims (I don't have hi-fi equipment), but from people who are crazy about (original, untampered) sound quality, and the consensus is that the Virgins sound very good, so while they could be slightly better it probably won't be worth double dipping. If the CD sounds as close as it can to the original LP there's not much you can do with it to improve it. The reason why ABKCO remasters were such an improvement is because the originals from the 80s sucked in the first place (unlike the Virgins) and the original master tapes were found in some cases (eg. Beggars Banquet and Let It Bleed). But even ABKCOs have some problems like noise reduction in places and boosted bass. And even though technology has advanced there are still loads of examples where remasters sound worse than the older CDs, mostly because they are done by sound engineers who change the way original albums sound with compression, noise reduction, EQ-ing etc. to make them sound more "modern". While these may sound cleaner and louder at first, they don't have the fidelity and the warmth of the originals. Anyway, like StonesTod said, you can't get a better quality on CD than on a good LP with all the technology in the world, except the before mentioned Beggars Banquet which uses the correct speed tape for the first time on the ABKCO remasters and sounds better than original LPs.

A few reactions to your post:

1) Someone who is "crazy about" sound quality, as you put it, is (by definition) not going to settle for anything less than the absolute best. In other words, "very good" is not good enough for a true audiophile.
2) My point was not that the ABKCOs remasters are a vast improvement over the original ABKCOs, it is that they are so much better than the Virgins.
3) These days, you CAN get better sound quality (fidelity, warmth, etc) on CD than a good LP. While CDs from the 80s were thinner and tinnier in sound than their LP counterparts, those days are long gone.

Drew

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Jan Richards
That is exactly what is going to happen. After five years another one comes along and gets the rights to issue the same stuff again. And they will issue it again because the new company will have to get back all money given to stones for the rights to issue old Stones albums.
A major part of the record companies income is from sale of old stuff. The old stuff just has to be available. This goes for Stones, Dylan; Abba or just about anyone who had a number one top hit in the 60's 70's and 80's

The difference with Dylan though, Jan - is that, apart from 1 year (1974) he's always been with one label.

His back catalogue has always been available - its never been deleted. The only occasions when Dylan albums which have ever been deleted were when the 2 albums he made with Island/Asylum (Planet Waves/before The Flood) were briefly deleted by that label in the early 80's, before CBS acquired the rights. The 'Dylan' album which was released without his approval in 1973 by CBS when he left the label has not been available on CD for over a decade.

According to a newspaper article which was reporinted in the new issue of IORR, the Stones back catalogue generates £1.5 million a year, but Universal reckon it should be doing better. The new deal signed by the Stones was for £7.5 million over a period of 5 years. It doesnt specifically mention anything about new or archive releases.

Gazza, you ar missing my point. It does not matter if an artist has had the same record company since 1952. Dylan's back catalog is available yes. Why should not The Stones back catalog then be available?? As Stones now is with a new company, then naturally the new company will issue the stuff again.The thing is that the artists records should be available. This is what the whole thing is about. It is not about giving unissued material to fans or not...

Jan Richards

[www.stonesondecca.com]

Quote
drewmaster
A few reactions to your post:

1) Someone who is "crazy about" sound quality, as you put it, is (by definition) not going to settle for anything less than the absolute best. In other words, "very good" is not good enough for a true audiophile.
2) My point was not that the ABKCOs remasters are a vast improvement over the original ABKCOs, it is that they are so much better than the Virgins.
3) These days, you CAN get better sound quality (fidelity, warmth, etc) on CD than a good LP. While CDs from the 80s were thinner and tinnier in sound than their LP counterparts, those days are long gone.

Drew

1) It is if it's gonna cost him a lot of money to get just a "slightly" better sound. If it was released on SACD that would be a different story.
2) You can't really compare those cause they're not the same albums, they're recorded differently. For example, Let It Bleed will always sound better and cleaner than Some Girls or Exile. You can only compare the CDs with the original tapes, the more similar the better.
3) Theoretically and subjectively, CDs can never sound better than LPs.

I won't talk about this anymore cause it's stupid, let's just wait for the expert reviews and then we will see. I really hope they sound better, but like I said if something is remastered doesn't necessarally mean it's better (for example Who's Next was remastered a couple of times and the best version is still the one from the 80s).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-04-04 21:01 by Brano.

Be careful with the language - CDs are LPs. CDs are records. CDs are albums. Cassettes are records. It's the medium. Think of it like this - a CD is an even longer Long Player. At least they can be.

Mick made sure that when Virgin (Ludwig) remastered the albums that they sound exactly like the original vinyl issues. So they were mastered to sound like the vinyl albums. THAT is why they sounded so much better than the CBS/Sonys because those were just the vinyl masters.

So Ludwig took that knowledge and experience to the ABKCOs and made them sound as good as possible. Regardless of mastering, the best sounding Stones albums to my ears are Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers, Emotional Rescue and Tattoo You as far as the sonic scape goes - mix, tone, EQ, separation. There are others that sound good or pretty good but not like those 4. How the turn out this go round compared to the last one remains to be seen. But the Virgins sound a million times better than the CBS/Sonys (I have yet to get the ABKCO Remasters so I can't comment on Let It Bleed but from what I've heard on Forty Licks the ABKCOs sound great).

The only improvement I could see with the Universals over the Virgins is...there is more memory now than ever before available. But how does that work in accordance to how the original vinyl albums sound...with THAT technology compared to today? Today's technology does not mean it's better exactly. Right? But how that transfers I don't know. UMG can make the vinyl issues sound just as good as the originals if they are remastered for that. Which, if you think about it, they don't have to be because the original master is just that. And that's what Mick wanted and that's what he got. I'm curious to see what he has to say this time.

Well technically, LPs are 33 1/3 gramophone records although now they've become synonymous with all albums but I agree with the rest of your post. Those 4 albums mentioned really sound great, I also like Black'n'Blue. Also from the earlier stuff the Chess tracks (Little Red Rooster, I Can't Be Satisfied, Down The Road Apiece...) sound awesome, it's a shame all their early albums weren't recorded there. You must get the ABKCO remaster of Beggars Banquet cause it's much clearer sounding and for the first time ever it's in the correct speed and therefore the right key, which is obvious if you play guitar to it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-04-04 22:35 by Brano.

bottom line with this stuff is that if there is no extra bonus material i wont buy it, does not matter how pretty the box is its what is in it that counts

Quote
Gazza
The Stones are a big selling act compared to the vast majority of artists in the world today. If there's a market for archive releases for artists like The Who, Bob Dylan, Neil Young etc, then its absolutely nonsensical to assume there isn't one for the Rolling Stones. Anyone who cant see that is simply buying into this stupid myth that almost everyone who goes to see a Stones show only knows or cares about something like 10 songs.

... Or maybe the Stones just think that just because there's a market for something, doesn't mean they should release it. Even if there's a fan-demand for it, the only thing that should count is their own opinion. And if they don't care, then that's just how it is. Bowie released Santa Monica 1972 last year. Not that it isn't a killer live album, but it's too much crawling for the fans I think. Why on earth did he even release that? Same goes for the Stones. I'd love to see a box of great stuff as much as the next guy, but if they don't want to do that now, or never, or after they've finished, then it's THEIR desicion and then THAT is "controlling your releases". Isn't it?
A big congratulations to Bob Dylan, Neil Young, Bruce Springsteen and The Who from me. They've released great stuff from their vaults. Why should the Stones do that just because someone else did it? That's what I don't understand. Are they still aping The Beatles, are we in a time-warp back to 1964 or have I missed something here?



(No pun intended of course).

JumpingKentFlash

.....I think a lot of people are missing the point.....they built a legend...a mythological mega icon brand and they ain't playin' with it.......it's the old show biz saying...leave them wanting more......Jagger/Richards have equally and carefully crafted this image and it's not gonna change in the near future.....until....that is..... some one offers a Swiss vault full of cash...up front.....Bill German has laid out their thinking very clearly........which by the way is probably why there is no comment about the book from the Stones...a little too close to home perhaps????



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-04-05 00:34 by Rip This.

Interesting that Exile seems to be singled out for "special treatment" when I always thought that Mick felt it was grossly overated.

Don't hold your breath for "the special treatment". It probably is the Montreux rehearsels from the tv broadcast, which we all have.

agreed, the special treatment will be more of a trick than a treat, although i pray iam wrong

Mo chance of any 1972 US tour live tracks as a bonus then?

With the way things are now, have been for a little while, technology and access to whatever, to simply reissue these albums is OK in one way - but to leave out any extra material that is finished - B-sides, finished takes, live tracks from singles or that were intended for singles or EPs, and various remixes, yet alone UMG's bullshit hype about the LP packaging being true to the original - which Virgin did with exception to Dirty Work and Steel Wheels - is almost a hand to the face of fans.

Screw what Mick thinks. It's Keith who is interested, it seems, in unleashing the goodies. Mick is a hypocrite.

Quote
Jan Richards

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Jan Richards
That is exactly what is going to happen. After five years another one comes along and gets the rights to issue the same stuff again. And they will issue it again because the new company will have to get back all money given to stones for the rights to issue old Stones albums.
A major part of the record companies income is from sale of old stuff. The old stuff just has to be available. This goes for Stones, Dylan; Abba or just about anyone who had a number one top hit in the 60's 70's and 80's

The difference with Dylan though, Jan - is that, apart from 1 year (1974) he's always been with one label.

His back catalogue has always been available - its never been deleted. The only occasions when Dylan albums which have ever been deleted were when the 2 albums he made with Island/Asylum (Planet Waves/before The Flood) were briefly deleted by that label in the early 80's, before CBS acquired the rights. The 'Dylan' album which was released without his approval in 1973 by CBS when he left the label has not been available on CD for over a decade.

According to a newspaper article which was reporinted in the new issue of IORR, the Stones back catalogue generates £1.5 million a year, but Universal reckon it should be doing better. The new deal signed by the Stones was for £7.5 million over a period of 5 years. It doesnt specifically mention anything about new or archive releases.

Gazza, you ar missing my point. It does not matter if an artist has had the same record company since 1952. Dylan's back catalog is available yes. Why should not The Stones back catalog then be available?? As Stones now is with a new company, then naturally the new company will issue the stuff again.The thing is that the artists records should be available. This is what the whole thing is about. It is not about giving unissued material to fans or not...

Of course it should be available. I've absolutely no problem with Universal remastering it and making it available as EMI have decided to delete the same albums. Obviously we want the Stones music to be there for everyone. However, the point remains that if any artist is going to repackage and reissue the same material for the 7th or 8th time every time they change label or when a new format comes in, then it ceases to have much interest if there's not going to be something to entice people to buy it again. Some of these albums have sold 8-10 million copies each and theyve only been deleted for a matter of months, not years - so there cant be many people who would be interested who havent had ample opportunity to buy them already. So, the appeal to even the casual consumer is minimal. For those of us who already own them (sometimes several times over), its going to need something a bit extra to get many people to part with their cash to buy them again and a bit of remastering isnt that enticing to me personally, I'm afraid. If its what others get excited about, then good for them. However, in an era where downloading is rife, where people are watching their expenditure, a reissue without anything extra just isnt that interesting.

And ABB is less than four years old. Has technology improved THAT much since September 2005 that I should buy this album again?

...HOLY MACKERAL!!!----30 friggin' pages of this BS??!!----HAR HAR --unbelievable!!!.....'jeez..we REALLY need a NEW album to listen to and talk about because this is just...scary..

STONES JAM!! MICKEYS RULES!!! (burp) NADER IN 2016!!!!! GO GIANTS!!

Quote
Gazza
And ABB is less than four years old. Has technology improved THAT much since September 2005 that I should buy this album again?

No it hasn't (The technology). But for this particular release I'm hoping that they use the LP sound, or the sound from the Japanese version (Sounding much better, though LIND has that Rocks-Off-Live-Licksesque audio mistake in the end).

JumpingKentFlash

i was wondering if though the stones own the original tapes , maybe cbs and virgin own the masters that they released

u know what I fear for the Exile re-issue? I could see those buggers just putting it out as 2 cds so it ran like the album with no extras.
Disc 1- Rocks Off thru Loving Cup
Disc 2 Happy thru Soul Survivor
and then of course the price could go up to a double cd.

Quote
barbabang
Don't hold your breath for "the special treatment". It probably is the Montreux rehearsels from the tv broadcast, which we all have.

-Don't forget the postcards!

Could Love You Live fit on one CD?

Quote
skipstone
Could Love You Live fit on one CD?

No. The running time is just over 83 minutes.

Of course, if they were desperate enough, they could trim a few songs even further with edits that they hope no one will notice ...

I am not in any kind of wait mode for any deluxe edition, because what I have gathered on this thread is there is little room for audio improvement and what is left may lend itself to another don was, et al touch. The nice box with the fancy art work, like if you buy it, you have a one of a kind masterpiece?????
Now if they added some never heard songs from yesteryear, that would be very worthwhile.

Quote
MKjan
I am not in any kind of wait mode for any deluxe edition, because what I have gathered on this thread is there is little room for audio improvement and what is left may lend itself to another don was, et al touch. The nice box with the fancy art work, like if you buy it, you have a one of a kind masterpiece?????
Now if they added some never heard songs from yesteryear, that would be very worthwhile.

Agree 100%.

I am more concerned as to when the Stones back catalogue will be issued on 78 rpm. I've been waiting a long time.

Quote
MKjan
I am not in any kind of wait mode for any deluxe edition, because what I have gathered on this thread is there is little room for audio improvement and what is left may lend itself to another don was, et al touch. The nice box with the fancy art work, like if you buy it, you have a one of a kind masterpiece?????
Now if they added some never heard songs from yesteryear, that would be very worthwhile.

.... But it's just never good enough. If they put such songs on the CDs as a bonus, people bitch that they have to buy all the albums again. Even if they made a box of such stuff, there would be a problem with that too. We, the fans, don't deserve squat when all we really do is piss and moan about everything we do. Nobody is happy until the Stones' next DVD start with a message from Charlie going: "This DVD is dedicated to (Insert IORR Username Here)".

JumpingKentFlash



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-04-05 17:44 by JumpingKentFlash.

Quote
JumpingKentFlash

Quote
MKjan
I am not in any kind of wait mode for any deluxe edition, because what I have gathered on this thread is there is little room for audio improvement and what is left may lend itself to another don was, et al touch. The nice box with the fancy art work, like if you buy it, you have a one of a kind masterpiece?????
Now if they added some never heard songs from yesteryear, that would be very worthwhile.

.... But it's just never good enough. If they put such songs on the CDs as a bonus, people bitch that they have to buy all the albums again. Even if they made a box of such stuff, there would be a problem with that too. We, the fans, don't deserve squat when all we really do is piss and moan about everything we do. Nobody is happy until the Stones' next DVD start with a message from Charlie going: "This DVD is dedicated to (Insert IORR Username Here)".

Agreed. I reckon Rolling Stones fans should shut up and take what they are given. It's a rock and roll band not a democracy.

Quote
Sir Craven of Cottage

Agreed. I reckon Rolling Stones fans should shut up and take what they are given. It's a rock and roll band not a democracy.

I second that emotion. The Rolling Stones owe us nothing ... absolutely nothing. They have given us joy beyond measure for almost 5 decades, and as far as I'm concerned, they can do whatever the hell they want to. Be thankful, not resentful, and maybe you'll get what you need.

Drew

nonsence, they owe us the vaults if nothing else

Quote
melillo
nonsence, they owe us the vaults if nothing else

How do you reckon?

JumpingKentFlash