| 7th February 2007 01:36 AM |
|
|
| masoudi |
hi all
i have seen the recent re release of the stones on vinyl from when the sacds were released. i bought all the sacds when they come out but always loved vinyl. What is any persons opinion who has bought them as to their sound quality. Are they the best the stones have sounded on vinyl or are their better versions to hunt for. i hope someone has some advice on this matter as i plan to hunt for the best sounding yet stones vinyl
cheers
brendon from new zealand |
| 7th February 2007 02:51 AM |
|
|
| pdog |
vinyl sounds better... Cd's are great, but still not as full or warm.... |
| 7th February 2007 07:44 AM |
|
|
| VoodooChileInWOnderl |
Other important thing is that vinyl lasts forever, CDs not. The life of a CD is about 25 years |
| 7th February 2007 05:18 PM |
|
|
| texile |
hard to explain to a vinyl virgin but it's just heavier more solid.
on cds, you can hear the rythym -
on wax, you can FEEL it. |
| 7th February 2007 05:27 PM |
|
|
| mojoman |
put the needle on the record not in your arm
[Edited by mojoman] |
| 7th February 2007 08:36 PM |
|
|
| GotToRollMe |
Vinyl rocks! And you know the best place to get vinyl online is here, of course. 
http://rocksoff.gemm.com/
|
| 8th February 2007 11:56 AM |
|
|
| CraigP |
I have some of the 180-gram re-issues on vinyl.
There are a few factors as to whether you are a cd or record person in modern times or, in other words, which is best for you...
For a good sounding record you need:
1. a good turntable.
2. Good needle/stylus, cartridge.
3. The setup, balance of the turntable i.e. Is the counterweight set to the cartridge's standards? Is the anti skate/tracking force set to perfection?
4. Is the platter turning at the correct speed?
If you don't know what the hell I'm talking about, go to a qualified tech.
For example, I have the vinyl re-issue of Satanic Majestie's and the SACD along with Hot Rocks.
I absolutely love the sound quality of the vinyl as well as the cd.
These records are pressed with high-quality non-recycled "virgin" vinyl. Nice thick, fresh records.
With a good sound set-up, you are looking at a better sound repro. out of the vinyl re-issue than the SACD.
IF you have a shitty turntable/needle and are not that serious about acheiving a good phono setup, I recommend the cd.
If anyone has any questions on turntables, vinyl, etc.. feel free to ask. I have about 6 turntables.
But yeah, the vinyl re-issues of the Stones are hot.
The origional pressings vary depending on wear, year, record company, album, country it was made in.
[Edited by CraigP] |
| 8th February 2007 12:11 PM |
|
|
| andrews27 |
I had a bad experience with one of the recent ABKCO vinyl reissues. A copy of "England's Newest Hitmakers" I paid $27.00 for was mastered so high, the needle would not stay in the groove on the last cuts on either side. (Note that I own a quality Thorens turntable and Grado Reference cartridge.) The vinyl store I bought it from lost my business for refusing to refund or exchange for other product.
I ended up mailing the thing to ABKCO, noting that that some nonchalantly pressed reggae records I bought in Jamaica performed better than their so-called audiophile pressing. I advised them to deliver this rip-off platter to Mr. Allen B. Klein's desk, so he could stick it up his ass. So, Buyer Beware with ABKCO.
In the 90s. ABKCO released an earlier run of decent digital mastered Stones albums, and these play better than the 2000s editions, but feature mixes that are not historically accurate - no attempt to achieve the sound balance of the 60s versions, just to offer flashy sounds: "Between the Buttons" never sounded like the version they offered in the 90s. I'm still looking for a used or sealed "Hitmakers" from the 90s run, though - the simple instrumentation seems beyond spoiling by a hotter mix. (The London 60s pressings of "Hitmakers" sound talentlessly compressed and muddy to me.)
[Edited by andrews27]
[Edited by andrews27]
[Edited by andrews27] |
| 8th February 2007 12:22 PM |
|
|
| CraigP |
Good point, Andrews.
I forgot to point out that the vinyl reissues I have are from the 1986 remasters. I've never had any problems with those. I haven't bought any later re-releases.
Thorens... Nice 
[Edited by CraigP] |
| 8th February 2007 12:50 PM |
|
|
| mojoman |
i still got mobile fidelity stones box set which have barely been played due to my turntable being broken for the last five years and preference cd use for the last 20. any bidders? |
| 8th February 2007 02:01 PM |
|
|
| andrews27 |
Maybe these *are* late 1980s ABKCO digital remasters to vinyl that I'm talking about, too, not 90s releases. I just remember that I bought a couple in the early 90s. (I'm not in the same town as my vinyl right now.) In that line, I'd suggest that the more the recording features their early four-piece style (sans strings, synths, choirs, percussion, etc.), then the better the historical comparison with the mix levels of the 1960s.
I prefer remasters, in whatever format, to respect the proportion of the individual instrument levels in the original recordings, for history's sake. When those in that style give me better detail, more instrument or track separation, cleaner but not sanitized sound - that's a remaster to me. The last Virgin CD edition of Exile was quite good. Neil Young's last Hits compilation was beautiful - guitars that hang in front of the speakers, so you can almost see the notes decay.
quote:
CraigP wrote:
Good point, Andrews.
I forgot to point out that the vinyl reissues I have are from the 1986 remasters. I've never had any problems with those. I haven't bought any later re-releases.
Thorens... Nice
[Edited by CraigP]
|
| 8th February 2007 02:08 PM |
|
|
| andrews27 |
Those go high on e-bay. See below, a site that tracks rock auctions:
http://www.popsike.com/index.html
A good site for everybody, esp. if you own a used record store and price the stuff I trade.
quote:
mojoman wrote:
i still got mobile fidelity stones box set which have barely been played due to my turntable being broken for the last five years and preference cd use for the last 20. any bidders?
|
| 8th February 2007 06:16 PM |
|
|
| CraigP |
I totally dig where you are coming from regarding the "historical" factor. I think of that alot... Master tapes decay, their sound sort-of 'dries' up over time.
Sometimes the remasters are shorter or longer than the origional lp. Not by much though. This means the pitch is off also. This is due to whatever the speed of the machine that recorded it was revolving. The remaster will NEVER be better than the Master tapes because of those factors and more.
For one, the "historical" value to me is not as nostalgic on a re-master is because I can't picture Keith/mick and their origional engineers/producers tweaking the levels. You picture some idiot in a 3-peice suit at Abcko 30+ years later with computers all around him.
The untrained ear may not be able to deceipher the difference, therefore I can say that I can recomend the remasters. (to them, at least!) |
| 8th February 2007 06:20 PM |
|
|
| andrews27 |
That's why I won't buy 5.1. If I listen to music that people staked their careers on in the 50s-60s-70s, I want it to sound like it did when they they made it. (I'll make an exception for Raw Power.) Mickboy and other downloadables I'll take for free, and enjoy them. I have the original vinyl on all of those.
quote:
CraigP wrote:
I totally dig where you are coming from regarding the "historical" factor. I think of that alot... Master tapes decay, their sound sort-of 'dries' up over time.
Sometimes the remasters are shorter or longer than the origional lp. Not by much though. This means the pitch is off also. This is due to whatever the speed of the machine that recorded it was revolving. The remaster will NEVER be better than the Master tapes because of those factors and more.
For one, the "historical" value to me is not as nostalgic on a re-master is because I can't picture Keith/mick and their origional engineers/producers tweaking the levels. You picture some idiot in a 3-peice suit at Abcko 30+ years later with computers all around him.
The untrained ear may not be able to deceipher the difference, therefore I can say that I can recomend the remasters. (to them, at least!)
[Edited by andrews27]
[Edited by andrews27] |
