2. analog
  3. 1348893470

Why do my rolling stones albums sound bad?

When I first got into vinyl a few years ago, I purchased a few stones albums. I thought they sounded good at the time but now that I have collected quite a few more records the stones albums sound bad in comparison. A few that stand out to me are the sticky fingers re-issue by mobile fidelity and let it bleed by abkco circa 2003.I am really disappointed with both of those.
The MoFi pressing sounds like the vocals are in the background and it sounds overall muddy. This surprised me because of all the MoFi pressing I own of various artist, this stones album is the only one I was not satisfied with. Really sub par compared to the rest of their work I have. I don't own the original so I can't compare the two. I would hope the original sounds much better.
The abkco pressing is a DSD. I didn't know this at the time of purchase or I might have avoided it. I do own a few other DSD pressings of other artist and they sound pretty good. Let it bleed from abkco (2003) sounds like mick is singing underwater. The instruments sound really flat in this one as well.
I also own hot rocks from abkco (2003) which is also a DSD. It sounds a bit better than the let it bleed album but still nothing to be impressed with.
I thought the MoFi pressing would sound better because it is mastered from the original tapes and done AAA. In my opinion it has the worst sound quality of the pressings mentioned here.
I would love to have some stones albums that sound great but, I have been reluctant to purchase any more of them for fear of getting the same sound quality of the other pressings. Are there stones albums out there that sound really good? I want something I can be impressed with. What would you guys and gals suggest. What stones albums do I need to be on the lookout for. Thanks in advance.

Andy
andyprice44
socoaste
52 posts
 
All my Stones LP's suck. sucking in the 70's!
I also have the mo fi sticky fingers, atrocious at best.
& let it bleed makes my ears bleed.
mrmitch
359 posts
 
I don't think the Stones were ever interested in audiophile-quality recording, and besides which that wouldnt fit the raw, rough and ready nature of their music. Yes, I know, some will mention the ballad type s tuff like Wild Horses, but the Stones had an image to uphold, and pristine audiophile quality recordings werent part of it. And yes, early Deccas and even some Londons (have an early London pressing of Beggar's Banquet, its very good) were very good quality recordings.
zar
160 posts
 
I must say that my Stones remasters of the Beggars banquet, Let It Bleed, and Sticky Fingers CD's) sound really nice. So they did have some recordings, sucks about he vinyl quality being sub par.
kennyman's avatar
kennyman
15 posts
 
My copy of Black and Blue sounds pretty good, but it is an imported Dutch blue colored version. I remember Emotional rescue sounding decent too ?
sdrsdrsdr
44 posts
 
So is it not recommended to buy the 1964-1969 box set. I'm a big fan and want all there albums at the best sound offered. My original Decca of Let it bleed is ok. The later stuff I think is all pretty decent. My Canadian Tattoo You, Emotional Rescue, and Under Cover I am very happy with. It's the early stuff that I want better. I'll add this though, my warn out original London mono Decembers Children sounds awful. Except hearing Micks voice on 'As tears go by'. From my research I can't decide whether I should take a chance on the box set, which has doubled in price since it sold out or chance e-bay originals. It sounds like the original Decca and Londons sound a little better.
More to discover