[Wil]

Wow. i bought the SACD (Hybrid) published by Abkco records (er?)

And it sounds like utter and complete crap. Highs are crackly (Very), mids are congested and the bass is muddy.

Ok,Granted i dont have an SACD player. But, i wasnt expecting the CD-Audio side of the CD to be that BAD.And, i only bought it cos it was cheap.

Cant say the same for the SACD version of Pink Floyd's Dark side of the Moon though.heh.

 

[sacd lover]

Wow. i bought the SACD (Hybrid) published by Abkco records (er?)

And it sounds like utter and complete crap. Highs are crackly (Very), mids are congested and the bass is muddy.

Ok,Granted i dont have an SACD player. But, i wasnt expecting the CD-Audio side of the CD to be that BAD.And, i only bought it cos it was cheap.

This recording sounds just as bad on the sacd side. I dont know what master they used but the original album I had from 1970 was very good.

 

[elrod-tom]

I've posted about this before...that one is a REAL letdown. The SACD layer is just as bad...perhaps worse, as the defects are magnified.

This is not the case for some others, like Their Satanic Majesties Request, Aftermath, and Beggar's Banquet. It must be reflective of the state of the original recordings, I guess.

 

[markl]

You can't polish a t*rd. All of those early Stones albums were recorded *very badly* even for the time. Bob Ludwig (who mastered the SACDs and their Redbook layers) did the best he could with the tapes he had. Bob does great work. He's very well-respected. At least know that as bad as they sound, those SACDs are *about* as good as they can sound.

 

[elrod-tom]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl You can't polish a t*rd. All of those early Stones albums were recorded *very badly* even for the time. Bob Ludwig (who mastered the SACDs and their Redbook layers) did the best he could with the tapes he had. Bob does great work. He's very well-respected. At least know that as bad as they sound, those SACDs are *about* as good as they can sound.

Yeah, I know...it's just very disappointing to hear "Monkeyman" sound worse than it did on my old vinyl rig-recorded SA tape. I expected so much more...

 

[Wmcmanus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl You can't polish a t*rd.

Too funny, but so true! When these came out, I snapped them all up right away, but Let It Bleed and a couple of others were so bad that it took me over a year to get through them all. Every time I'd reach for one I'd ask myself, "Are you up for another round of Russian Roulete?" Finally, I resorted to listening to all of them for the first time while doing ironing. So once per week, I'd give one a spin, figuring that if I cranked it up high enough I'd at least enjoy the music, if not the recording itself. A couple of them have passed this initial test and have moved to the second phase which involves a more critical listening session with headphones. Their Satanic Majesties Request is definitely well done (B+ I'd say), but Let It Bleed is a D- at best.

 

[Old Pa]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wil And it sounds like utter and complete crap. Highs are crackly (Very), mids are congested and the bass is muddy.

The redbook remaster is pretty good stuff, but then I cut my teeth on this part of the Stones' career.

 

[hogger129]

I'm surprised.  This is one of their better-recorded albums and I thought the remaster sounded really, very good - even compared to my Japan London P33L disc.  Both beat the 80s ABKCO one though.

 

[stonesfan129]

.