Rolling Stones to be remastered in Hybrid SACD!!! (2 Viewers)

[Colin Jacobson]

This news isn't just ordinary great - it reaches Tony the Tiger levels! However, I gotta admit I'm gonna wait for comments before I indulge heavily. If these get good notes, I'll likely pick up all of them, but I want to hear some remarks before I splurge. I have high hopes, though!

Cheesy ignorant comment: I CAN play these suckers in a standard CD player, can't I? The press release touts backwards compatability, but I want to make sure...

 

[KeithH]

Colin, the Rolling Stones SACDs will be hybrids, meaning that they will have CD layers. What's more, they will have remastered CD layers, which is big news to me. After all these years, the Stones CDs have not been remastered.

 

[Marc Colella]

In fact, some of the pro-SACD posters were flat out rude, and would spam DVD-A threads when a nice title (Night at the Oprea) came along which received glowing reviews and purchasers were happy with it.

You must be talking about the Hi-Rez Village Idiot named "Rich". Probably the most annoying member of any forum I've been apart of.
I agree, the Hi-Rez forum at Audio Asylum is tremendously biased towards SACD. They really aren't helping to push the format to newbies IMO, and it will only work against them.

 

[John Kotches]

Marc,

When the moderator of the forum is one of the people that behaves very poorly, it sets the tone and level of tolerance for the forum.

IOW, it comes from the top down.

Regards,

 

[KeithH]

Marc said:

You must be talking about the Hi-Rez Village Idiot named "Rich". Probably the most annoying member of any forum I've been apart of.

Rich is a pompous POS. "Village Idiot" is far too kind.


John,

I agree with you regarding the moderator on the Hi-Rez Highway. The hi-rez board seems to be treated like an underground board, so it seems that Rod M, who owns the site, so to speak, could care less what goes on there. I have only seen him post on the hi-rez board once or twice in the 18 months I have been visiting Audio Asylum. For the longest time, there was no link to the hi-rez board at the top of each message board. Like I said, the hi-rez board has been treated like an underground board. If Rod M cared about the going's on on the hi-rez board, he would have switched moderators and kicked out Rich a long time ago. Given the state of things on the hi-rez board, I look for news and rarely post.

 

[ReggieW]

Keith,

I will likely only pick up the Rolling Stones Single Collection: The London Years, as I once had this on redbook cd years ago. It will also save me some cash since I can't afford to pick up all of the early albums. As far as an SACD player goes, to play it safe, I will probably just get a 222es next week instead of the 555es, as I really feel that Sony will be releasing a new generation of audio only ES units to replace them. I will be moving in November to a one bedroom, and will simply place the 222es in the bedroom system, and purchase whatever the new flagship ES carousel unit will be early next year. I know the 555es is better, but I simply don't want to invest a few hundred extra for something that will likely be replaced in a few months. besides, I've heard stellar things about the 222es, so I'll just get that for now.


Reggie

P.S. - using this logic, I could get a 775 instead, but want better build quality and better redbook playback. I hear the difference between this and the 222 aren't major, so is the 222 worth twice the price of the 775? Decisions!

 

[Matthew Anker]

so is the 222 worth twice the price of the 775?

NO.
The 222ES still has the same inherant flaws as the CE775 and uses the exact same parts except for one extra power transformer and a coax digital output. The PC boards are the same, the 222ES just has a few more parts installed for the coax dig. out.
Might as well buy a 775 and bring it to 555ES level.
www.SACDmods.com

 

[Matthew Anker]

BTW, John K, I can't stand Chris Garret or Rich either.

No telling ;-)

 

[Danny Tse]

Kind of off the subject....Warner Bros. out of Hong Kong is issuing its "high-definition audio" titles on SACD, instead of DVD-A. This was surprising since Warner Bros.(and its associated labels) are the main backer of DVD-A. Granted, the HK music market is very small in terms of sales, but still....

 

[KeithH]

Reggie asked:

so is the 222 worth twice the price of the 775?

YES.
I know Matthew and others (Ric Schultz over on Audio Asylum, for example) have looked inside the two players and have found them to be rather similar. However, in my opinion, having heard both in CD and SACD mode, the 'C222ES is absolutely worth double the price. The 'C222ES is especially better in CD mode, and very obviously so to my ears. Furthermore, the significantly better build quality and five-year warranty make the 'C222ES a no-brainer at $380 from J&R (and probably similarly priced at Oade Bros. and OneCall).
Danny,
I had never heard that before. Do you know of a web site that is selling these SACDs? Where did you hear about this? What titles has Warner released on SACD? For example, is Fleetwood Mac Rumours or a similar blockbuster title available on SACD? This sounds huge!

 

[KeithH]

Reggie, one more thing in response to your last post. As much as I like the 'C555ES (I have two of them), at this stage of the game, it probably would not be a bad idea to get the 'C222ES for now and wait to see what Sony does with its SACD lineup this year. It is likely that Sony will phase out the 'C555ES (the retail price has dropped twice since last October) and replace it with a new "flagship" changer. So, saving money in getting the 'C222ES would not be a bad move, so long as you would have a use for it once you got a new model later on. Since you have a bedroom system, the 'C222ES looks like a good way to go for now.

 

[Alex Shk]

Back on page 1, the question was raised:

Mike, I've always wondered why the Stones and Beatles CDs have not been remastered. Remastering each band's complete works would be quite an effort, but people would certainly buy the CDs. Hopefully the CD layers on the Stones SACDs will be remastered and remastered well.

The Stones have already had their post-ABCKO material remastered. The earlier material is no longer in their control, it is the property of Allen Klien. They still receive royalties, but the royalties are fixed and non-negotiable, unless the releases are changed. If Allen Klien wanted to remaster for CD - he has to negotiate with The Stones. Since appearance on a new format also opens up negotiations, Allen Klien is essentially killimg 2 birds with 1 Stone (unintentional, but kinda funny pun that).

I imagine the negotations went smoothly, because there is still uncertainty about the lasting power of SACD. Should DVD-A hang on, The Stones could negotiate again. If both formats flop - they may have a case to open negotiations again for the release of CD only remasters.

Just think, if SACD becomes popular - by 2010 we will all be screaming that the Stones haven't beeen remastered for 8 years, and the technology has improved so much since then.

 

[KeithH]

Alex, I was referring to their early work in saying that Stones CDs haven't been remastered. My comments were in the context of the material to be issued on SACD. Still, it is a good point of clarification that the Stones later works have been remastered. I've been meaning to get the remasterd version of Tattoo You for awhile. The remastered version of Emotional Rescue is excellent.

You said:

if SACD becomes popular - by 2010 we will all be screaming that the Stones haven't beeen remastered for 8 years, and the technology has improved so much since then.

Probably. I could see that happening. I have always wondered how much room for improvement there is or will be with SACD. With PCM technology as it pertains to CD, there was a lot of room for improvement. In the '80s, as a new technology, many people did not know what they were doing in authoring albums for CDs. We've come a long way since then. I'm not sure how much room for improvement there is or will be in authoring albums for SACD. I am considering the authoring of stereo tracks for SACD here. For multi-channel, I am certain that there is room for improvement. Right now, people are experimenting with multi-channel mixes, and there seems to be no rhyme or reason to the mixes they often create. We get various instruments coming from all directions. There is an infinite number of such mixes that one could create for a given album. However, in time, I am hopeful that things will settle down in the multi-channel arena such that we will see more mixes that use the rear channels for studio ambience (reverberations) or crowd noise.

 

[Mike Broadman]

. I hear the difference between this and the 222 aren't major, so is the 222 worth twice the price of the 775? Decisions!

Before getting my combo player, I was faced with the same exact decision, and mine was a "yes." The difference to me was most notable in the CD playback.

NP: California Guitar Trio w/ Tony Levin

 

[L. W. Cobb]

As a HUGE Rolling Stones fan, I applaud any effort made by the powers that be to improve the audio quality of their recordings.
I can't help but wonder why SACD? Are these recordings too primitive to be reproduced in DTS 5.1? Where's "Exile on Main Street"?, and the later albums? How did Universal wind up with the rights to the SACD release of these recordings?
P.S. Does anybody want to sell 2 tickets to the Stones show at the Wiltern Theater?

 

[Michael_T]

I can't help but wonder why SACD? Are these recordings too primitive to be reproduced in DTS 5.1? Where's "Exile on Main Street"?, and the later albums? How did Universal wind up with the rights to the SACD release of these recordings?

SACD is one of the highest quality "digital" playback medium you can find - it blows away anything that DTS can do!!! SACD can be either a stereo or MCH medium - so with SACD there is no need for DTS 5.1. DTS is a "lossy" compression scheme, while SACD or DSD is not. So it makes sense to go with something better than DTS, like SACD (or even DVD-Audio).

So even though the Stones albums could have been redone in 5.1 SACD, Universal has chosen (for reasons we may not even know at this point) to produce them only for 2-channel SACD.

The only Stones albums that are being put on SACD are those owned by ABKCO records which is a subsidary of Universal Records. All other Stones LPs are owned by Virgin Records (Exile on Main Street included) and are at the mercy of that record label, which is not affiliated with Universal - hence no "Exile on Mainstreet".

But please remember that DTS is a "lossy" compression scheme and can, in no way, provide the same high quality sonics that SACD can.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Michael,
True, but remember Virgin has tested the waters with some titles. If ABKCO titles do well, I would expect to see some action from Virgin as well.
It all builds on itself-I am reminded of the grass roots efforts that helped DVD in the 97-98 time frame.

 

[KeithH]

L. W.,

Michael is absolutely right. DTS, while offering surround sound, is lower resolution than CD. So, from the standpoint of sound quality, going the DTS route would be a step backwards. As Michael said, SACD offers 5.1 surround sound as well, but for some reason, it was decided to limit the Stones SACDs to stereo. While multi-channel SACD would be a nice addition to the Stones discs, I expect the stereo SACD tracks to be much, much better than the Stones CDs we have now.


Lee,

I hope you are right. As I said in an earlier post here, the remastered CD of Emotional Rescue is very good. I would love to hear it on SACD, along with Tattoo You and a bunch of others.

 

[Anthony Thorne]

Well, I'm especially looking forward to getting that 'Singles Collection - The London Years' box in SACD format (and I don't even have a SACD player yet). Most of those Stones albums are great ones. I have to say though, if this re-release series wasn't happening, there wouldn't be much spurring me to get a SACD player. Where's Talking Heads/The Who/Peter Gabriel/David Bowie/Paul Simon on SACD, not to mention any good dozen or so popular contemporary artists? (That's a rhetorical question...)

 

[Lee Scoggins]

So even though the Stones albums could have been redone in 5.1 SACD, Universal has chosen (for reasons we may not even know at this point) to produce them only for 2-channel SACD.

Michael,

I think we do know the reason: they wanted to preserve the original sound of the recordings as best possible including not entirely cleaning up the noise, according to Bob Ludwig. He stated they are looking at all reissues. In this environment, 2 channel is the only way to go, since the recording was always meant to 2 channel. I think a surround sound version would be too gimicky and artificial for hard core Stones fans. This is likely to be a problem for all older recordings meant for 2 channel.