Rolling Stones London / Bowie RCA

JWB · Postby **JWB** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 11:52 am

Rolling Stones: Beggars Banquet (London)
David Bowie: Hunky Dory (RCA)

Am I alone in thinking that these CD's suck ENORMOUS HORSE COCK compared subsequent versions?

There are a ton of wackos on SHtv who think these versions are the best-ever digital versions, and I just can't understand this kind of logic.

I have the London "Beggars Banquet" here and it BLOWS compared to the SACD. It's muffled, hissy, off-speed. The RCA "Hunky Dory" is also off-speed, chewed up and full of dropouts.

What am I missing? Can anybody shed light on this philosophy? Or is this what I should expect in the land of SHtv?

Postby **lukpac** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 11:57 am

Going from memory, I do find the EQ on the SACDs to *generally* be a *bit* harsh, but, yeah, the source is so much better for BB there really shouldn't even be a question.

People are still saying this?

Ess Ay Cee Dee · Postby **Ess Ay Cee Dee** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 11:57 am

JWB · Postby **JWB** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 11:59 am

Satanic and everything before it is great on the London CD's. Beggars and Bleed bite though.

J_Partyka · Postby **J_Partyka** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 12:03 pm

JWB wrote:Satanic and everything before it is great on the London CD's.

The one exception may be Between the Buttons (my personal favorite Stones album). The London I have sounds just about as mediocre to me as the CD-Rs I have of the London Banquet and Bleed. There are issues with the SACD (don't get me started on "Ruby Tuesday"), but overall I much prefer that to the London.

Postby **lukpac** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 12:04 pm

Eh? I was just going to say that BtB was one that was better than the SACD. The speed is ever so slightly off on some tracks, but the general sound is *very* close to the SACD, plus it doesn't have any noise reduction (the SACD does).

The ABKCO is crap, though.

J_Partyka · Postby **J_Partyka** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 12:07 pm

Well, all I know is I just sampled them back-to-back pretty recently (was trying to decide which to use to load the album onto the iPod), and I liked the SACD better, and felt the London didn't sound as good as I remembered.

The ABKCO was indeed awful.

Postby **lukpac** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 12:14 pm

I'd be curious about specifics. Whenever I've compared, things either sound pretty close, or the SACD loses out due to noise reduction.

J_Partyka · Postby **J_Partyka** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:24 pm

I'll be happy to listen again at home to make sure I'm remembering this right, if indeed I am. If I'm mistaken, it won't be the first time ... but I do know I ended up choosing the SACD to load onto the iPod.

JWB · Postby **JWB** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:33 pm

I'm already getting bitched at on SHtv about this thread. A THREAD ON A DIFFERENT FORUM. I guess I should expect this kind of nonsense.

MK · Postby MK » Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:39 pm

I don't have the London Beggar's Banquet, but if the overlapping tracks on the London Hot Rocks and More Hot Rocks sound similar, I would have to agree, the SACD is still the way to go. The EQ on the SACD is too sharp for my tastes, but that doesn't top the other deficiencies on the London CD.

Don't have the RCA Hunky Dory, but after hearing Station to Station on RCA, I'm not impressed. Unless you're a die-hard Bowie collector, I don't see any great incentive to get the RCA's, and even then, you should save your money for more INTERESTING Bowie collectibles.

Those old RCA CD's have a nice full bass going for it, that's for sure, but the production copies just sound cruddy in general. They sound like they're three, four generations down, maybe more. Whether they actually are I don't know but with the loss in clarity, the extra hiss and noise, the anamolies, feh. I'd rather copy a Rykodisc CD and make my own EQ changes.

If you have CoolEdit, do it yourself. Steve himself recommended -2 dB at 8k, -1 dB at 6k, -1 dB at 3k and +1 dB at 80 cycles and +1 dB at 250 cycles. Warning: Steve also said it was a LOOONG time since he heard the Rykodiscs (I doubt he even owns them anymore) and was going by memory, so you'll probably have to make some adjustments.

Just to give you an idea how memory can change, look at his review for the MFSL Blues Breakers CD. He once threw out +4 dB at 14k but now he says +5 dB at 12k. Same ballpark, but something to keep in mind when following his EQ suggestions.

Rspaight · Postby **Rspaight** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:40 pm

I'm already getting bitched at on SHtv about this thread. A THREAD ON A DIFFERENT FORUM. I guess I should expect this kind of nonsense.

Oh, yeah, that'll happen. What's really fun is when you get bitched at for mentioning this forum in an SH.tv PM.

Ryan

Ess Ay Cee Dee · Postby **Ess Ay Cee Dee** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:43 pm

JWB · Postby **JWB** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:56 pm

I love the SH forums. I'm not out to get anybody or spam them like some of the people here, or make them feel bad about themselves. We're all wacko and obsessive in our own ways. I voiced my opinion HERE because I didn't want to goat anybody into an argument on SHtv. I didn't think I would start getting complaints about it, 5 minutes later, or accused of being a chickenshit for not getting myself banned from SHtv.

I just got a PM right now from someone complaining that I called "them" a wacko on a different forum. That's two complaints in 10 minutes.

Postby **lukpac** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:59 pm

"Report this PM to a Gort"