2. music
  3. 126605-83717

Rolling Stones Mono Box Set (lp or cd)

I wanted to get the ball rolling. I thought that including both formats here would be beneficial to the entire discussion. I personally have little experience with the Rolling Stones. However, I think I can add an opinion in the form of having heard lots of music from this era and how this box relates to the Beatles Mono Box. I'm currently using my stereo cart. I've listened to the first 5 lps in chronological order.

One thing that has stood out to me is how consistent these 5 lps are in sound quality. ( "Out Of Our Heads", US has more pronounced bass, haven't listened to the UK yet.) This is kind of unusual in my listening experience. Compared to the Beatles Mono box which wasn't as consistent, album to album. I find the detail, the ambient retrieval, and the bass overall to be very good. What bothers me is I feel it is recorded too hot as well as I feel the overall sound seems somewhat very slightly artificial. ( I never felt this way listening to the Beatles Mono box). These last two issues may have to do with the re-mastering chain. It may be the quality of the mics, the recording venue, etc...I don't know. I don't have the originals to compare. There is the dimensional character of the soundstage that is very nice as was the Beatles. The vinyl itself is super quiet but I see that a few of these will need to be flattened. So far, there isn't an pressed "off-center" issue.
astro58go
astro58go OP
542 posts
 
"Between The Buttons". After just hearing "Aftermath", "BTB" is a major disappointment! Partly because of the SQ, but mostly because, IMO, it is a step backwards from their previous effort. The songs are of little importance. This was the time when they were experimenting with overdubs and drugs...The overall effort is inconsequential. This could be considered, the lost RS lp, IMO. The sound is also quite "thin".

Listening to a set such as this in chronological order is very revealing. It gives one a window into what was happening without the benefit of being there.

astro58go OP
542 posts
 
(I made the decision a long time ago to stick with vinyl.It is my only source. So far, in purchasing this set, I'm not too disappointed in knowing I haven't spent tons of money and time in trying to buy originals for a band I don't often listen to. Also, without naming the retailer I purchased from, I paid $312.00. That's under $20.00 per lp. Not too bad for all that's included plus the book and box.)


tostadosunidos's avatar
tostadosunidos
1,096 posts
 
geoffkait, I couldn't disagree more.  I just compared tracks on Abbey Road and Sticky Fingers.  I don't find Abbey Road lacking in any way, whereas the voices and acoustic guitars on Sticky Fingers sound wrongly EQ'ed and the bass guitar is sometimes a mess.  FWIW, I love the Stones (up through this album, and certain tracks beyond this) and I've gone to hear them live three times--once with each of their rhythm guitarists.  As for dynamic range--I listen to a lot of classical music and acoustic jazz with tremendous contrasts in volume and I find Abbey Road to be far closer to that than Sticky Fingers.  That's exactly what I'd expect from a classical producer-turned-pop/rock.  Don't get me wrong--the Muscle Shoals sound is great but I don't think it compares favorably in this case. YMMV.
drsteve
12 posts
 
I was a bit afraid I'd be on the end of a flame attack. I like to call it as I see it.
Aside, in the mid-1990's I met someone whose business was archiving a large volume of vintage TV shows (mostly US) from the 50 into the 70's. He was also in charge of leasing footage--he had a lot of variety shows with famous musical guests. He had a lot of vintage equipment we would all drool over.
He said he had heard some Beatles recordings they may have been master tapes, or early generations of master tapes. He told me that the commercial product out there was an incredible poor simulation* of the tapes. This was before the CD re-issues of a few years ago. 
Some of the best SQ I've heard was a garage band, drums and electric guitar, recorded onto VHS tape, and then transferred to cassette tape. I think the big benefit came from listening to a second generation with none of the following: eq-ing, mixing, limiters, expanders, reverb, harmonic recovery, loudness, Dolbly--nuthin. Directly from my heart, um microphone, to you. Even though we all know that VHS and cassette are low end.
Sorry for the long rant; If I had more time I'd write a shorter post.
* If anyone misses the references, ask.
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
14,147 posts
 
"As for dynamic range--I listen to a lot of classical music and acoustic jazz with tremendous contrasts in volume and I find Abbey Road to be far closer to that than Sticky Fingers. That’s exactly what I’d expect from a classical producer-turned-pop/rock. Don’t get me wrong--the Muscle Shoals sound is great but I don’t think it compares favorably in this case."

if you consult the Dynamic Range Database you will find that the vinyl versions of Sticky Fingers and Abbey Road have almost exactly the same dynamic range. If you were comparing CD versions the dynamic ranges vary all over the place depending on which release you listened to.

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=Beatles&album=Abbey+road

Cheers

More to discover