The Making of Rolling Stones SACDs

<a href="http://mixonline.com/ar/audio_satisfaction/" target="top">Mix magazine article on remastering Rolling Stones catalog</a>

... this article gives me the firm impression that these will be the last releases of these albums (unless a different physical format becomes prevalent in the future, eg "sound cubes" 0] ).

Actually ABKCO is planning vinyl editions of some of the Stones Remastered Series discs.

They will be using the DSD master tapes from the SACD Remastered Series to make these vinyl albums.

Thanks for the article post. I haven't read this before. I have 5 of these Stones discs. I bought them just before I had a SACD player. They join the Metallica DVD-A as the 6 discs in my hi-rez collection that I now regret buying.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>They join the Metallica DVD-A as the 6 discs in my hi-rez collection that I now regret buying.[/quote]

That's a little harsh. Granted, they're not spectacular, but anyone expecting amazing fidelity from the Stones in the first place (at least during that period) is setting themselves up for disappointment. I will say, the remastering completely blows away the previous ABKCO discs that were released way back in 1986 (some of the first CD's I ever owned, in fact). You'll find a few people who argue that, in some cases, the London discs from Europe and Japan still sound better, but that's still up for debate. The fact is, for the most, they sound about as good as they're GOING to sound. (Sure, I would have loved M/C mixes, especially for the later albums... and sure they could have released only the UK albums, with everything else as bonus tracks and whittled the entire catalog down from 22 discs to 10 or so... but what're you gonna do??)

Well, I would say, don't buy them.

Also, I gave the Metallica disc a play on my newest player and it is not quite as bad as I thought. So the 5 Stones discs now stand alone as the ones that I regret buying. I just got the "Kind Of Blue" Miles Davis SACD a few days ago and this 1959 recording is much better than the Stones discs. I feel that with time should come progress.

I think it depends on the disc. One of the Stones live SACDs is worth a pass while some of the others are very good indeed.

As for the "live" Stones disc Brian, is it "Got Live If You Want It" that you're thinking of?

I have to agree w/ the poster who mentioned the "limitations" of the Stones' studio recordings from this period, especially the early years. I've picked up "Aftermath", "Between The Buttons"(both UK), "Their Satanic Majesties' Request", "Beggars' Banquet", and "Let It Bleed" on the hybrid discs. They're nothing to rave over like the Analogue Productions' CCR hybrids, but they're alright to quite good.

Yes, that's the one.

Until the Stones got a real producer, their production was pretty bad.....I think the later stuff like Sticky Fingers would be a lot better on hi rez than the earlier stuff.

beljah,
Those are the same 5 discs that I have and I agree with the comment about not raving about them. If I had the SACD player when I bought them I think I would have stopped with the first disc I bought (Let It Bleed). I was "collecting" my favourites for when I did get SACD capability. I have to admit though that there are a few songs that sound pretty good on the SACD layer like, "No Expectations" and "Country HonK".

Yeah, I guess we're in agreement Guy. I wouldn't use them as reference discs for someone auditioning SACD.

Re. "Sticky Fingers" Dave, I LOVE the 20-bit re-mastered version on the Virgin label! I don't know if I'd feel that I'd have to buy an SACD version of this title, unless a lot of juicy extras are added.

Brian, I thought that was the title you had in mind because I've seen some people rave about "Get Your Ya-Yas Out" on SACD. I'm perfectly happy w/ the Criterion collection DVD of "Gimmie Shelter" so I took a pass on that title.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I just got the "Kind Of Blue" Miles Davis SACD a few days ago and this 1959 recording is much better than the Stones discs. I feel that with time should come progress.[/quote]
You'd think so, except that the early Stones material, recorded just a few years later, was usually done at bottom-of-the-barrel studios in London - and in a lot of cases, recorded direct to mono (since their producer didn't want to be bothered with having to actually MIX the stuff). It wasn't until they became popular that they started working in better studios (mostly in America). Some of their mid-Sixties stuff, particularly the material recorded at Chess Studios in Chicago, sounds phenominal - and even more so with the new remasters.

The other problem is that while "Kind of Blue" (and for that matter, the bulk of jazz recordings from that era) was recorded live with no overdubs, the Stones (like most pop/rock groups of the time) did a lot of overdubbing, on tape and equipment that really wasn't designed for good-sounding overdubbing (i.e., requiring lots of bounces between tapes, resulting in significant signal loss and added noise). PLUS, the "Kind of Blue" CD was remixed from the original multitracks (in surround, no less). The Stones stuff was simply remastered from the existing mono and stereo mixes.

Overall, I still say they did a pretty remarkable job, from having to deal with some really crappy-sounding masters in the first place. But, after all, that rawness was (and is) part of their appeal in the first place. I don't think "Get Off Of My Cloud" would have the same "bite" if Mick's voice was right in your face, and you could understand what the heck he was singing!