Sticky Fingers

[Barry]

I recently bought myself a supposed 'remastered' CD copy of the Rolling Stones's 'Sticky Fingers'. Issued in 2009, this version comes in a jewel case with the rounded corners and 'Press'-to-open catch.

http://i780.photobucket.com/albums/yy88/barrydhunt/002-4.jpg?t=1285708620

It also has, as you can see, a sticker on the front which explicitly states: "The Rolling Stones Remasters".

Now, in general, I'm a (very) big fan of remastered CDs. I'm of the opinion that much of the perceived dislike of CDs is due to the fact that most are simply transcriptions of master tapes used to press LPs, and as such, being 'tweaked' to allow for the limitations present in LP pressing, is what you hear via CD . A possibly contentious opinion, but not without basis. With the exception of a couple of examples, all remastered CDs have, for me, managed to recapture that 'wow' factor I experienced on first hearing, either as the 45 rpm singles or the early LPs. An example in point is, appropriately, the Rolling Stones's '40 Hot Licks'. Just listening to this recalls the 'wow' factor I experienced on hearing those singles as a spotty-faced teenager, and one that the LP collections never did for me (even though 'High Tides and Green Grass', as an LP, is an excellent compilation). The two notable exceptions for me are: Carol King's 'Tapestry', which sounds no better than the rather flat sounding LP; and Roxy Music's 'Avalon', itself sounding little different to the LP.

Before I bought the 'remastered' version I, of course, already had both the LP and CD (1971) version.

http://i780.photobucket.com/albums/yy88/barrydhunt/001-4.jpg?t=1285708801

And this is where the confusion and puzzlement begins. Looking at the small print in the sleeve notes of the original 1971 CD copy, it explicitly states:

"Digitally remastered by Bob Ludwig for Gateway Mastering Studios. Remastered using UV22 Super CD Encoding by Apogee Electronics, Santa Monica. ...."

Whereas the so-called 2009 're-mastered' version simply states:

"Mastered by Stephen Marcussen and Stewart Whitmore at Marcussen Mastering, Hollywood, CA".

No mention of 'remastering'. To further compound matters, I read somewhere that Rolling Stone's recordings were only going to be released if, and when, there was a remastering process with which the Stones were completely satisfied. Apparently such a process has been found, as exemplified by the re-release of 'Exile on Main Street'.

So what of the two 'Sticky Fingers' releases? Well, to my ears they are identical, apart from, that is, the 2009 supposed 'remastered' version being ~5dB louder (3x).

Has anyone else listened to either of these versions? Did I buy a pig in a poke with the 2009 version?

Confused yours

[Beechwoods]

I'm no fan of the Rolling Stones unfortunately, so can't comment on this release, but I have posted previously about my disappointment with Laura Nyro's remasters. These days I only listen to the original CD releases; the remasters are tiring and brash...

The pictorial comparisons between the 'original' and 'remastered' tracks are pretty damning.

http://theartofsound.net/forum/showpost.php?p=26583&postcount=200

[The Grand Wazoo]

I don't know about these Barry, I'm afraid. I'm always wary of remasters because my theory is that things are often done to simply make the recording sound different so that it creates a buzz that will hopefully sell more records.
eg the famous bass drum pedal squeak when the Beatles CD's were first released - great story to make 'em sell, but did someone make it happen to make a newsworthy story?

[Barry]

Oops! I have just noticed I wrote 'Stick Fingers' (sic) in the title. :o

Be that as it may (blame it on a bottle of 2005 'Castillo San Lorenzo' Rioja Reserva), I have just been informed that 'Sticky Fingers' as available on a Japanese SHM-CD is very good and well worth seeking out.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_u2EwiNSE81o/TDGNmQtyhbI/AAAAAAAACGU/3_Nvk8HeNQs/s1600/The+Rolling+Stones+-+Sticky+Fingers.jpg

Shame it still retains the 'neighbour damaging' zip!

[The Grand Wazoo]

Oops! I have just noticed I wrote 'Stick Fingers' (sic) in the title. :o


On cue, Barry, I have just learnt how to use another of the shiny new AoS control buttons that have been recently made available to me!

[Barry]

On cue, Barry, I have just learnt how to use another of the shiny new AoS control buttons that have been recently made available to me!

Oh - the power of the immortals! Thanks Chris; it really does annoy me when I see typos I have made in my own posts. Usually I can correct them if they occur within the body of the post, but not if they occur within the title of a thread.

Thanks again

[Macca]

Hi Barry

A lot of the Stone's albums were remastered again in about 2002 for SACD - They are on dual layer sacd/cd discs - I've got Beggars Banquet, Get yer Yah Yah's, Sticky Fingers and Let it Bleed on this format - could be the version you just bought was from this mastering session, just without the SACD layer.

[Edward 1]

I've seen those new remasters, and I was really surprised - just a few years ago we had Stones catalogue up to Let it Bleed on ABKCO DSD (Direct Stream Digital) remasters, and from Sticky Fingers on Bob Ludwig remasters for Gateway Mastering Studios, using UV22... etc. Those remasters were advertised as 'the way they ment to be heard'. I can't say if that's true, but I think that the sound is quite good, and I cannot imagine why would I buy 2009 remasters except for the jewel case. Now, you say you find them indentical, except the new remaster is louder. That saved me some money, for I'm worse than a child and willing to try anything in a new shiny box... :eek:

I did make such a mistake with the Doors remasters - I've bought terrible 2007 remasters though I have 1999 remasters which are perfect already. But since the Doors catalogue consists of only 6 cds, the damage wasn't very bad...

[DSJR]

Basically, if the original CD transfer was carried out to a very high standard, apart from optimising levels*, there isn't much more that can be done, except GENTLY minimising tape his further, removing missed clicks etc...

Twenty to twenty five years ago, it was far more difficult to manage dynamic range and peaks etc on the digital transfer, as digital editors back then could intrude on the final quality of sound. Decca got round this by designing and making their own until Sony and others got its act together years later (this was years before full computer mastering a la SaDie) as I understand it. As a result, levels were set cautiously, the up side being that dynamic peaks in the signal were maintained.

It would be interesting to see if the freshly remastered disc still has a similar dynamic range to the original. It's often possible to lift levels without disturbing anything else at all, but sometimes a touch of limiting doesn't hurt and would be representative of the original 1971 vinyl cut in any case. I understand that George Peckham (of "Porky Prime Cut" fame) has or had a 1950's compresser/limiter which, rather than brick-walling the sound as modern releases do, just seems to "funk up" the original just enough to improve the sense of "punch" in the sound without removing the dynamics in the process.

I like much of the late 60's Decca era Stones, but when they fled the UK, I started to find their work very patchy and it wasn't until "Black & Blue" that I bought another LP of theirs.

[Barry]

I've seen those new remasters, and I was really surprised - just a few years ago we had Stones catalogue up to Let it Bleed on ABKCO DSD (Direct Stream Digital) remasters, and from Sticky Fingers on Bob Ludwig remasters for Gateway Mastering Studios, using UV22... etc. Those remasters were advertised as 'the way they ment to be heard'. I can't say if that's true, but I think that the sound is quite good, and I cannot imagine why would I buy 2009 remasters except for the jewel case. Now, you say you find them indentical, except the new remaster is louder. That saved me some money, for I'm worse than a child and willing to try anything in a new shiny box... :eek:

I did make such a mistake with the Doors remasters - I've bought terrible 2007 remasters though I have 1999 remasters which are perfect already. But since the Doors catalogue consists of only 6 cds, the damage wasn't very bad...

I have the 1999 remastered Doors' CDs, and they are, as you say, prefect. They have that 'wow' factor I referred to in my OP.

I'm going to put my Sticky Fingers (mis-)purchase down to experience.

Regards

[Barry]

Basically, if the original CD transfer was carried out to a very high standard, apart from optimising levels*, there isn't much more that can be done, except GENTLY minimising tape his further, removing missed clicks etc...

Twenty to twenty five years ago, it was far more difficult to manage dynamic range and peaks etc on the digital transfer, as digital editors back then could intrude on the final quality of sound. Decca got round this by designing and making their own until Sony and others got its act together years later (this was years before full computer mastering a la SaDie) as I understand it. As a result, levels were set cautiously, the up side being that dynamic peaks in the signal were maintained.

It would be interesting to see if the freshly remastered disc still has a similar dynamic range to the original. It's often possible to lift levels without disturbing anything else at all, but sometimes a touch of limiting doesn't hurt and would be representative of the original 1971 vinyl cut in any case. I understand that George Peckham (of "Porky Prime Cut" fame) has or had a 1950's compresser/limiter which, rather than brick-walling the sound as modern releases do, just seems to "funk up" the original just enough to improve the sense of "punch" in the sound without removing the dynamics in the process.

I like much of the late 60's Decca era Stones, but when they fled the UK, I started to find their work very patchy and it wasn't until "Black & Blue" that I bought another LP of theirs.

I'll have to listen again to the two versions to see if there is any difference in dynamic range. Can't say I noticed any on first comparison, so if there is any, it must be small.

Thanks for your contribution Dave. This is the sort of thing that I think AoS members might like to read about in the Library. (hint, hint, hint!)

Regards

[The Grand Wazoo]

This is the sort of thing that I think AoS members might like to read about in the Library. (hint, hint, hint!)

Regards

I wonder who could write such a thing, though Barry?

[Welder]

Library! You mean books and reading an that :eek:
Nah mate, out of the question; it requires more than my attention span can manage.
I blame the fps games myself :scratch: