Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › The 2009 Rolling Stones remasters.....some thoughts.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The 2009 Rolling Stones remasters.....some thoughts.

post #1 of 8
Thread Starter 
I'm still on the fence with these new stones remasters,i own some girls and black and blue but after hearing some of the virgin remasters from 94 i'm just not sure.
So how do the new ones sound?
Well for one they are a bit too loud,not to the point of distortion but just too much,as for overall sound,well out of the 2 i have here's my findings!
Some girls sounds a bit washed out to be honest,very treble orientated and too loud,however the drums and bass are very brought up in the mix,very punchy actually but the high frequencies are a tad too much.
Is isn't unlistenable though,far from it just very bright.
To give you an idea when i hear this on my Se310's (which have a rolled off treble) It sounds like i'm hearing it through er4's!
So that gives you an idea,but as i said it isn't bad at all.
Ok next up is black and blue.
Ok this does sound fantastic,gotta be honest it's very clear indeed and is better than the virgin release!
Hot stuff which kicks off the album (which once again is a touch too loud) does however sound fantastic.
Bass and drums have incredible definition and mick's vocals are real dirty sounding,guitars crunch and the top end is superb,cymbals and high hats just fizz away with reckless abandon.
And the whole album is like this and most definitely the best of the 2 i own.
Thing is though i'm so torn between getting anymore of these or hunting down the other virgin ones i dont have.
I find the 94 ones to be very nice and dynamic sounding and quite warm which i do enjoy but the new ones sure do sound exciting if a tad brickwalled.
I dont really want both,i just wish i could decide.
Anyway thats what i think about them anyway.
Anyone else have any thoughts on these,the 94 remasters or indeed the original cbs discs.
post #2 of 8
I am glad someone is expressing opinion on these new remasters.
Perhaps there is some mulling over going on out there.
My earlier query can be found in the Similar Threads box below.
Not being a remastering expert myself, I found the gearslutz.com link interesting.
I don't have Some Girls UM but I have since bought the Virgin Black and Blue to compare with the 09 version.

Possible Rant Alert

With just a subjective listening on my stereo the one thing I've noticed is the loudness of the latter. The Virgin recording sounds fine for me as far as 'hearing all the instruments and vocals' (for lack of a better phrase). In my reading on line about these cds (and the Journey 1996 remasters-which I've considered getting), I've often come across the comment that remastering has moved on since 1994(or 1996) -as if it's a excuse for increasing the decibel level. Has it really? Can't you get clarity or definition without turning up the loudness in the remastering stage? I noticed that as recently as 2005 Bob Ludwig and Gateway Remastering was used by UM for the Def Leppard-Rock of Ages compilation. Of course, the choice of remastering on this recent version could have come from the Glimmer Twins et al themselves, I don't know.

I recently bought Goat's Head Soup. It was the Virgin version, (and my decision had nothing to do with the Star Star dub).

For further Reading see the Loudness War Thread in these forums


Don't get me wrong, I like my Stones, Wagner, Def Leppard and Velvet Revolver loud, but inline with the advice on the liner notes of Let It Bleed, I prefer to turn it up myself.
post #3 of 8
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC2 View Post
I am glad someone is expressing opinion on these new remasters.
Perhaps there is some mulling over going on out there.
My earlier query can be found in the Similar Threads box below.
Not being a remastering expert myself, I found the gearslutz.com link interesting.
I don't have Some Girls UM but I have since bought the Virgin Black and Blue to compare with the 09 version.

Possible Rant Alert

With just a subjective listening on my stereo the one thing I've noticed is the loudness of the latter. The Virgin recording sounds fine for me as far as 'hearing all the instruments and vocals' (for lack of a better phrase). In my reading on line about these cds (and the Journey 1996 remasters-which I've considered getting), I've often come across the comment that remastering has moved on since 1994(or 1996) -as if it's a excuse for increasing the decibel level. Has it really? Can't you get clarity or definition without turning up the loudness in the remastering stage? I noticed that as recently as 2005 Bob Ludwig and Gateway Remastering was used by UM for the Def Leppard-Rock of Ages compilation. Of course, the choice of remastering on this recent version could have come from the Glimmer Twins et al themselves, I don't know.

I recently bought Goat's Head Soup. It was the Virgin version, (and my decision had nothing to do with the Star Star dub).

For further Reading see the Loudness War Thread in these forums


Don't get me wrong, I like my Stones, Wagner, Def Leppard and Velvet Revolver loud, but inline with the advice on the liner notes of Let It Bleed, I prefer to turn it up myself.
Yeah agreed that it's so much better turning it up yourself.
I myself got a copy of the virgin goats head yesterday (mine was for the uncensored star star lol)
and i completely agree that it sounds perfectly fine.
Also on saturday i wanted to further investigate so i picked up the 09 remaster of it's only rock'n'roll,and once again it is too loud,very vibrant and much better than some girls but loud.
It seems to me that these are geared to being so called ipod ready meaning they dont need your player's volume up very high,but of course the original recording suffers.
Also i wholeheartedly agree that remastering these days is an excuse to whack the decibels up,makes you sick really because most of the time,not always (take the E.L.O remasters by jeff lynne a couple of years back,they sound fantastic and dynamic) but mostly they just sound so tinny and washed out which unfortunately is the case with some girls.
I have certainly (well almost) decided to get the other virgin ones i dont have as opposed to the 09 ones,although knowing me i may just get all the new ones too,even if they are gonna be used purely for portable use and keep the virgin ones for serious home listening.
post #4 of 8
The remastering seems to be done changing in the distributing agency.
There was a description in the magazine of Japan this time when tone quality was improved since last time.
post #5 of 8
These remasters are getting to me... If mostly given up really. If it's not for new unreleased material I'm not too curious anymore. fortunatly, I've got the whole stuff on vynil up to Dirty Work and that's what I listen to. I bought a few Virgin editions, and didn't like Goats at all, too dry and loud. On the other hand Exile is pretty spot on and Love You Live not too bad.

The Stones... my teen fave band... I still got the tickets of the first time I saw them live
post #6 of 8
There seems to be no bonus track in this re-sale.
It is a part of album and the tune is a long version, and the fade out seem to be and there be a difference of length etc.

Exile On Main Street is not included in this release. The expectation rises.
post #7 of 8
Some MoFi goodness would also be welcome. Never got to see let alone hear the LPs...
post #8 of 8

Pre-1971

------

I have the original CD releases and remasters of Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed, Hot Rocks 1964-1971, Singles Collection - The London Years.  I also have the original Abkco releases of these discs.  I have to come out and say that after extensive listening, I found the 2002 remasters sounded significantly better.  Better stereo separation, the sound seems smoother.  Beggars Banquet also seems to be out of pitch on the original Abkco one. 

 

1971-Present

------------

I have Sticky Fingers (original CBS, Virgin and Universal), Exile On Main St. (Virgin and Universal) and Jump Back - '71-'93 (Virgin and Universal).  On this one, I thought the remasters by Universal stink.  They are too loud.  Sticky Fingers looked brickwalled when viewing the waveform under Audacity.  I do like my original CBS disc of Sticky Fingers a lot, but the Virgin one seems like a better transfer, the sound is more balanced, a little bit bassier.  I'd say on these, the Virgin remasters are the best ones.

 

 

Just my two cents on the ones I own.

 

Buy the 2002 remasters or the Virgin remasters if you want the CDs.  I have heard some people like the SACDs too, but I've never listened to them myself and I'm pretty sure the 1971-Present SHM-SACDs are not hybrids.


Edited by hogger129 - 3/13/14 at 7:52pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Music
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › The 2009 Rolling Stones remasters.....some thoughts.