Quote
Britney

Quote
Barn Owl
...and will they be released on memory sticks?

Great marketing idea: The Memory Motel Stick, or The Sticky Finger.

My problem with the " Shine A Light " memory stick was that it was only 512 mb for a two cd set @ 700 mb each cd.They compressed the music.They should have used a 2 GB memory stick > 1 GB for each CD (as there are no 750 mb memory sticks that I've heard of).

edit

Vilhelm
Nordic Stones Vikings



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-08-23 02:27 by mickijaggeroo.

Quote
Winning Ugly VXII

Quote
Britney

Quote
Barn Owl
...and will they be released on memory sticks?

Great marketing idea: The Memory Motel Stick, or The Sticky Finger.

My problem with the " Shine A Light " memory stick was that it was only 512 mb for a two cd set @ 700 mb each cd.They compressed the music.They should have used a 2 GB memory stick > 1 GB for each CD (as there are no 750 mb memory sticks that I've heard of).

But but but...if you wanted to buy Shine a Light in a full uncompressed format, you should buy it on CD, The Memory Stick was sold as the album in an mp3/lossy format. Nobody sells music as raw wav files; they sell CDs that you can convert to WAV if you simply *must* have the sound files portable but not in disc format

why do something pointless like this, just make a deal with the stones and open the vaults

Want my money? How about L&G on BluRay???

A friend of mine has gotten the U2 reissues deluxe versions of the albums and he says they are fantastic.

So let's hope the Stones do go with something similar - the album proper on one disc, the extras on another, with better packaging hopefully too - include the single covers, any pictures from the tours...etc...

Unless they are going to include outtakes and unreleased songs, a total waste of plastic. Buy a good turntable, find clean copies of the original lps, and listen to them like they were meant to be heard.

Scotty

Quote
Steven
Want my money? How about L&G on BluRay???

That would be great but,it was not shot with high definition cameras/equipment so the benefit would be minimal video-wise.

I'm not sure if they could somehow remix the audio in a way that you would notice better sound on a Blu-Ray disc i.e. Dolby True HD and/or DTS-HD Master Audio but,I'm sure that it would not be as good as if this technology was available in 1972.

The real benefit of Blu-Ray ( if you're set up to take advantage ) is with new releases such as Shine A Light etc..

Quote
[email protected]
Unless they are going to include outtakes and unreleased songs, a total waste of plastic. Buy a good turntable, find clean copies of the original lps, and listen to them like they were meant to be heard.

Scotty

It's definitely not a total waste,even if they only improve the sound.I don't have a record player in my car and I don't know anybody else that does either.

Quote
Winning Ugly VXII

Quote
[email protected]
Unless they are going to include outtakes and unreleased songs, a total waste of plastic. Buy a good turntable, find clean copies of the original lps, and listen to them like they were meant to be heard.

Scotty

It's definitely not a total waste,even if they only improve the sound.I don't have a record player in my car and I don't know anybody that does either.

Does the sound need *that* much improving from the 1994 Virgin releases? If you're gonna be listening to any new material in the car, i've got a shiny sixpence i'm willing to wager that you won't hear that much of a difference...

No "Some Girls" (must be a mistake),No "Time Waits For No One",No "Sucking In The '70's",No "Rewind",No "No Security",No "A Bigger Bang" ?

Are these all of the albums not included that Universals has the rights to ?

Hey Man, how many times do we have to buy these albums? Everyone should agree that the Obsidian 13 CD set and the Place Pigalle 4 cd set basically eliminate the need for the band to issue and archive box set. I am privy to a party who has 15 CD's that NOBODY outside the band has ever heard. I mean completely unreleased and undocumented jewels..."deluxe editions" are a ruse. Wyman should get his ass in gear and get the most rockin' unreleased stuff out as a single package. Bad enough we're getting ripped to shreds on the ticket prices.
I love The Rolling Stones...

Quote
textmonkey

Quote
Winning Ugly VXII

Quote
[email protected]
Unless they are going to include outtakes and unreleased songs, a total waste of plastic. Buy a good turntable, find clean copies of the original lps, and listen to them like they were meant to be heard.

Scotty

It's definitely not a total waste,even if they only improve the sound.I don't have a record player in my car and I don't know anybody that does either.

Does the sound need *that* much improving from the 1994 Virgin releases? If you're gonna be listening to any new material in the car, i've got a shiny sixpence i'm willing to wager that you won't hear that much of a difference...

The Virgin CD's are not the best thing since sliced bread and in some ways are worse than the old Atlantic & CBS CD's.They are louder but have even less depth than the '80's CD's.

A small improvement would be better than no improvement and not a waste.I would like the material from 1971 onwards to sound as good as the 2002 Abkco discs (even the regular CD layer) of the '60's material.The 2002 release of Beggars Banquet (either layer) is one of the best examples of what can be done these days.

Quote
textmonkey

Does the sound need *that* much improving from the 1994 Virgin releases? If you're gonna be listening to any new material in the car, i've got a shiny sixpence i'm willing to wager that you won't hear that much of a difference...

I'll see that sixpence and raise it a quid. textmonkey, the answer to your question is "yes" ... the Virgin remasters, while excellent for their time, are now way out of date technology-wise, and suffer drastically when you compare to any recently-remastered recordings. Even compared to the '02 ABKCO remasters!!!

What is more, those buggers at Virgin appear not to have bothered remastering anything past Tattoo You. The sound quality of the Undercover CD, for example, is atrocious.

Drew



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-08-23 19:21 by drewmaster.

>> No "Some Girls" (must be a mistake) <<

i agree - some of the announcements of the contract listed Angie as an album, remember?
so until further notice i reckon the omission of Some Girls is merely another case
of rushed PR writers who don't know the catalogue.

Quote
Winning Ugly VXII
The Virgin CD's are not the best thing since sliced bread and in some ways are worse than the old Atlantic & CBS CD's.They are louder but have even less depth than the '80's CD's.

A small improvement would be better than no improvement and not a waste.I would like the material from 1971 onwards to sound as good as the 2002 Abkco discs (even the regular CD layer) of the '60's material.The 2002 release of Beggars Banquet (either layer) is one of the best examples of what can be done these days.

yeah, but the 2002 Abkco remasters were done to albums which had been very poorly mastered to disc previously, which many had gotten used to hearing and which buttressed the assumption that the 60s recordings must be more primitive and therefore "worse" than the 70s-80s recordings.

but do we think this is true? I think the 60s records, at least after the band got out of the IBC & Regent level of studio, may well simply have been superior recordings to begin with, but that was obscured by poor reproductions over the years.

recordingwise, the 70s albums have notable problems until Black and Blue. Maybe they just won't sound as good as Beggars Banquet, no matter the mastering process.

well,for me the Virgin Steel Wheels was like the difference between AM and FM radio! Of course I like the Monitor Mixes boot better than the official release so what do I know. Who had the catalog when Sticky Fingers was first released in CD format? I just know the bar I used to go to in the early 9Os had it on the "new fangled" juke and it SUCKED (soundwise,not material!)

Quote
Gazza
>How about Live Licks? What would be a special disc for that one?
one that doesnt play at all?

It's 2 discs already. Will it include those versions of Hand Of Fate and that stuff that was on singles???

Possible. The original track listing had 33 songs listed (which presumably had substantial edits to enable it to fit onto two discs). the released version (presumably) kept the same edits, but chopped off ten songs and had a running time of 109 minutes - with the edits kept in, even though there was still 50 minutes of space on the discs...

Really? I didn't know it. Does anybody knows which songs were on that list ???

About the Deluxe versions, I will wait and see what kind of "deluxe" it is. The problem with the RS is that "deluxe version" could mean a simple reedition with "better" sound or just putting one more song like Sticky Fingers with "Brown Sugar" take 1 and stop there. If they really do great job like adding B-sides, live versions, and some outtake (I don't believe about a second disc) that could be great (if the CD price isn't higher than it is now!)

---

Sorry for my english ; I'm a french little boy (but I like it)

Quote
Winning Ugly VXII

The Virgin CD's are not the best thing since sliced bread and in some ways are worse than the old Atlantic & CBS CD's.They are louder but have even less depth than the '80's CD's.

A small improvement would be better than no improvement and not a waste.I would like the material from 1971 onwards to sound as good as the 2002 Abkco discs (even the regular CD layer) of the '60's material.The 2002 release of Beggars Banquet (either layer) is one of the best examples of what can be done these days.

As usual, Mr (Ms?) Winning Ugly VXII, we are in complete agreement ... let's hope the nice people at Universal deliver the goods!!

Drew

>> Really? I didn't know it. Does anybody knows which songs were on that list ??? <<

if memory serves (which it definitely may not in this case!) every number that's on Four Flicks
was listed on that early Live Licks track list. something close to that, anyway

Quote
[email protected]
Unless they are going to include outtakes and unreleased songs, a total waste of plastic. Buy a good turntable, find clean copies of the original lps, and listen to them like they were meant to be heard.

Scotty

Bingo. How much "better" does the sound need to get? My old vinyl Stones albums sounded great when I first bought them and they still do.

I guess if the current CDs aren't up to snuff soundwise then one more round of remastering is necessary, but I hope this will be the last one. The notion that you can keep tweaking this stuff every few years, ad infinitum, and that the sound will keep getting better and better doesn't seem very likely to me.

Quote
ohnonotyouagain

I guess if the current CDs aren't up to snuff soundwise then one more round of remastering is necessary, but I hope this will be the last one.

Agreed. I don't enjoy shelling out my hard-earned money any more than the next guy does. Hopefully Universal will put this matter to bed for a long time. I can't imagine their 60's stuff sounding any better, ever, than the ABKCO '02 remasters.

This raises the interesting philosophical question of whether there is an upper limit to sound quality. How will music sound in 500 years?

Drew

X



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2018-09-09 19:25 by UrbanSteel.

Quote
drewmaster
This raises the interesting philosophical question of whether there is an upper limit to sound quality. How will music sound in 500 years?

heh, looks like we're on somewhat different sides of the coin again, drew. I think this question is indeed philosophical, in that is based on the counterfactual assumption that potential sound quality is always improving. I don't think that's the theoretical case, and it's certainly not the actual one. Just compare A Bigger Bang to, say, Beggars Banquet or Let It Bleed. Even a well done current album like Dylan's Modern Times is not especially better than, say, Blonde on Blonde. The reason the 2002 remasters sound so good probably has more to do with the original recordings sounding so good than the modern remastering process being so advanced. No silk purses from sows' ears.

or have you ever heard classic 50s pop and jazz records? Not my favorite styles of music (at least the pop), but I don't think those recordings were improved upon in the age of multitrack recording.

Quote
drewmaster

Quote
ohnonotyouagain

I guess if the current CDs aren't up to snuff soundwise then one more round of remastering is necessary, but I hope this will be the last one.

Agreed. I don't enjoy shelling out my hard-earned money any more than the next guy does. Hopefully Universal will put this matter to bed for a long time. I can't imagine their 60's stuff sounding any better, ever, than the ABKCO '02 remasters.

This raises the interesting philosophical question of whether there is an upper limit to sound quality. How will music sound in 500 years?

Drew

Good point. Now that they've converted music to electronic computer files, I guess the next step is to implant a receiver in our brains and beam it directly into our heads.

Quote
ohnonotyouagain

Quote
[email protected]
Unless they are going to include outtakes and unreleased songs, a total waste of plastic. Buy a good turntable, find clean copies of the original lps, and listen to them like they were meant to be heard.

Scotty

Bingo. How much "better" does the sound need to get? My old vinyl Stones albums sounded great when I first bought them and they still do.

I guess if the current CDs aren't up to snuff soundwise then one more round of remastering is necessary, but I hope this will be the last one. The notion that you can keep tweaking this stuff every few years, ad infinitum, and that the sound will keep getting better and better doesn't seem very likely to me.

I agree mostly but,this is not an instance of every few years.It's been nearly 15 years since it was last done and digital audio was still very new and not perfected when the other earlier rounds of post-1970 CD albums were released.

If the best possible options for quality are used this time,we shouldn't need anymore CD re-issues after this.

Quote
Winning Ugly VXII

Quote
ohnonotyouagain

Quote
[email protected]
Unless they are going to include outtakes and unreleased songs, a total waste of plastic. Buy a good turntable, find clean copies of the original lps, and listen to them like they were meant to be heard.

Scotty

Bingo. How much "better" does the sound need to get? My old vinyl Stones albums sounded great when I first bought them and they still do.

I guess if the current CDs aren't up to snuff soundwise then one more round of remastering is necessary, but I hope this will be the last one. The notion that you can keep tweaking this stuff every few years, ad infinitum, and that the sound will keep getting better and better doesn't seem very likely to me.

I agree mostly but,this is not an instance of every few years.It's been nearly 15 years since it was last done and digital audio was still very new and not perfected when the other earlier rounds of post-1970 CD albums were released.

If the best possible options for quality are used this time,we shouldn't need anymore CD re-issues after this.

Hopefully not, but the cynic in me thinks that in ten years someone will invent "Super-Duper High Definition Surround Headbeam 9.0 Technology" that we will all just HAVE to get.

Quote
cc

heh, looks like we're on somewhat different sides of the coin again, drew. I think this question is indeed philosophical, in that is based on the counterfactual assumption that potential sound quality is always improving. I don't think that's the theoretical case, and it's certainly not the actual one. Just compare A Bigger Bang to, say, Beggars Banquet or Let It Bleed. Even a well done current album like Dylan's Modern Times is not especially better than, say, Blonde on Blonde. The reason the 2002 remasters sound so good probably has more to do with the original recordings sounding so good than the modern remastering process being so advanced. No silk purses from sows' ears.

or have you ever heard classic 50s pop and jazz records? Not my favorite styles of music (at least the pop), but I don't think those recordings were improved upon in the age of multitrack recording.

You raise an interesting point. One assumes that technology is always making things better, but I suppose there's no law saying that has to always be true. I'd propose that outstanding sound quality requires not just great technology but blood, sweat and tears from the sound engineers -- whether in the 1950's or today. ABKCO's remasters (and perhaps the originals too) were clearly a labor of love.

Drew

Quote
drewmaster

One assumes that technology is always making things better, but I suppose there's no law saying that has to always be true. I'd propose that outstanding sound quality requires not just great technology but blood, sweat and tears from the sound engineers -- whether in the 1950's or today. ABKCO's remasters (and perhaps the originals too) were clearly a labor of love.

right! Except I don't make that assumption (and the evidence against can be seen in all spheres of life, but that's another story...). Look at guitars and amps--there are reasons why keith uses instruments from the 50s.

I loved the ABKCo remasters, and I agree with the comments that we'll get an "improved" sound, nothing more. The Stones' history points that way- they're not known for their generosity.