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

Showing 4 responses by tostadosunidos

The sound of most 60's British band recordings sucks IMO.  It improved as the years went by.  The Beatles had the best of everything, even a producer who had experience recording classical ensembles.  I tend to think it was more the ear of the producers than the equipment but I think the latter mattered to some degree. 
I appreciate Ian's (who was an original member of the Stones) contributions as well as Nicky's (who was so good in the first Jeff Beck group)--but they don't start to compare to the difference in sound that George Martin made.  The Stones' longevity is inconsequential to me since they peaked somewhere around Sticky Fingers, not long after the Beatles' demise.  And if you compare the sound of that recording to Abbey Road--no contest.
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.
Geoffkait, I no longer own a vinyl copy of Sticky Fingers (I think mine was stolen in '75) so I compared standard issue CD's --I felt it wouldn't be fair to used the remastered Abbey Road or to compare CD to LP.