Impressions of the Stones SACDs


I bought the Hot Rocks compilation just to dip my big toe in the remastered waters. I don't have an SACD player, so the purchase was based on good reviews of the Red Book sound.

So far, I'm far from sold on it. The recordings do sound open and detailed and crisp in ways that I haven't heard before, but overall they sound too bright and very, very hard. Songs like Honky Tonk woman have a thin and glaring vocal quality that makes me run for cover. The guitars are edgy too.

Has anyone else experienced this? I'm trying to tell if this is just weekness of my system right now (It can sound bright and hard with bad recordings, but is usually pretty good sounding with good recordings).

Paul
paulraphael
So strange that the production on Hot Rocks would be different from the others. Can you actually hear a difference between the same songs on Hot Rocks and on the individual albums? Especially curious about Beggar's Banquet.
I have the London Years and Let It Bleed-clearly the production is different on the same songs.
I think there is a clear reason why-they've went back to the original tapes and the compilations were obviously produced different at the time (YCAGWYW is noticeably inferior on the single version on the London Years)-it states clearly in the notes they've tried to stick to the original mastering as closely as possible.
I think Let It Bleed is magnificient and The London Years is clearly a marked improvement on the original CD release.
I don't however notice a marked difference between the SACD/CD layer except to say I probably prefer the CD layer!
What surprises me is that some people are saying the remastaered production is different on the individual albums than it is on the Hot Rocks compilation ... that Sympathy for the Devil, for instance, would sound different on the Beggar's Banquet CD/SACD than on the Hot Rocks CD/SACD.
Paul read my post-the compilations were released at different times from the original albums and probably the mastering or mix were different(perhaps compressed for a more mainstream market?)-these new remasters will only show the differences that already existed-as they probably regarded the compilations as releases in their own right so they haven't changed the mix or mastering.........as I stated You Can't... is miles worse on the London years.
Hi:

Exactamundo.

I am in the music business, and that is what's done, usually (and unfortunately).

I'm betting that the original masters for "Hot Rocks" were compressed like CRAZY to fit 'em onto two LPs, and I am ALSO guessing that the "Hot Rocks" compilation featured radio single versions of the songs, as opposed to original album tracks.

That being the case, radio mixes were compressed even FURTHER (to make 'em sound louder on the radio -- to "cut through", if you will), and the Hot Rocks masters are/were aso surely COPIES of the original masters, removing even ANOTHER generation (or two, or three) from the original sound.

Believe me, if you ever saw what we in the music biz do to recordings, you'd give up high end (unless you're crazy, like me -- and if you're even ON this site, then.....well, welcome!)

Thanks - Jeff