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.
It's actually rather hard to sound loose and sloppy without sounding amateurish. It's not a rare quality, but it does take real talent. I imagine the Rolling Stones (in all their incarnations) worked very hard to sound the way they do. There are no accidents or luck involved.
"The play as if they are just in a drunken/drug induced haze while pissing on their listeners.. Not to my liking.."
Liz, seriously, it may not help, but I found Maggies are not the best speakers for getting the best out of most stones recordings because of macro-dynamics. At least that was the case with my 80's vintage Maggies. Maggies may be better with macro dynamics these days, from what I have heard at the dealers, which is a big part of enjoying the stones for me. You gotta be able to feel the rhythm section......
With more dynamic speakers they might sound more like they are more suitably pounding on their listeners rather than merely excreting although the drunken/drug induced part may require further tweaking on the listeners part to remedy. :-)
Also, it might help to focus the discussion on specific Rolling Stones songs or albums. There is a good bit of variability in the sound of thei recordings over the years, so being more specific might help.
I should say that the only way they can sound best is LOUD. You also have to have a system that can deliver the goods accordingly. Rolling Stones records sound largely average to poor on many systems. They can be very nice and involving on a good setup however, especially at louder volume. If most RS material sounds very good in a more "organic" sense and gets your foot tapping (they might never or rarely be considered reference type recordings)that is probably a good indicator that your system is up to snuff to bring out the best in many less than reference quality recordings as well.
I remember when I first listened to many older stones records as a kid, I too thought many that sound fantastic to me today were some of the worst recordings out there on the grand scale of things.
Just invite 20-30 people over for a party and BYOB. Move the speakers until you get that good midbass bump which helps muddy the mids. Then everything will sound good, because of all the people singing off key to the songs.
Not everything was meant to be just listened to.
BTW, If the music you are waiting for is the London Green Shoed Cowboys concert at Will Rodgers in Ft. Worth, It was a very sloppy set live. I don't think it can be real good sounding. A very raw, but great snapshot of them at time. Amazing but not pretty.
Try Sticky Fingers on Japanese single layer SACD. I know it's not vinyl but I really like the album and can't listen to my original recordings. This SACD brings back the feeling.
I did purchase a new pressing of some girls live in texas '78. It was recently remastered from the original multitrack tapes to a 2-channel mix by bob clearmountain. Hopefully this pressing will have more life. I will report back on it in a few days
I will agree with this to a certain point but, there is alot of other music I love besides the stones. I don't want to sacrifice my setup that sounds great for all my other albums. I was just hoping that someone could point me in the right direction of some stones albums that are known to sound good. After reading the responses here and other websites it appears that the majority of stones albums were recorded to intentionally sound "lo-fi". I just didn't want to waste any more money on stones albums only to be dissatisfied with them in the end. I guess that is part of the game though. I might try to track down some of the mono pressings and see how I like those. Thanks for the suggestions everyone.
I don't think my system is to be blamed for the bad sound as pretty much every other album I own sounds good. Some of them great. I don't feel the need to re-think or alter my system to get three stones albums to sound good.
I have some nice muddy waters albums. One in particular is the folk singer 45rpm album from analogue productions. I only wish my rolling stones could sound half as good as that muddy waters pressing. I also have a regular weight cbs pressing of muddy waters king bee. The stones sound is somewhat similar to muddy waters and other various blues artist like robert johnson. I'm not denying the blues influence, I am only saying that the stones albums, at the ones I own, do not sound good.
I have Tom Waits "Swordfishtrombones" in fancy Classic Records version $30 and original used $2.50 in NM condition. Guess what? The Classic Records version is for sale listened only once to realize that I like original much better.
If your system has started to dictate the music you play, then you may need to reconsider your system.
It's not as if those Muddy Waters or Chuck Berry recordings that so heavily influenced the early Rolling Stones were audiophile gems. Their sound is quite appropriate to their music.
Dodgealum, thats exactly why I got into Jazz 20 years ago. One can actually hear what each individual player is doing. Listen to a jazz guitarist like West Montgomery or Dog Raney compared to a rock guitarist. No comparison
It is disappointing to me that they recorded it this way. Surely they must have known at the time of release it sounded like ****. Why they wanted this type of sound, I'm not sure. Obviously, it worked well for them and was successful. I was just hoping that really good quality stones albums existed. The funny thing to me is that, the cheaper your system is, the better the stones sound. They sound good in my car or on my computer speakers. They don't sound as good on a nice, revealing system.
I think the only Stones album with even halfway decent sound is "Some Girls" and that one is tipped up hot on top among other issues. Another rocker I love who also records crappy is Bruce Springsteen. Love his music but sonically his collection sucks. Sadly, his magnum opus Born to Run may be the worst offender--flat, lifeless, muddy. Wild, Innocent....and Darkness are really the only two that even get a grade of sligtly above lousy. Bruce and the Stones are just two examples of many pop/rock bands who didn't pay enough attention to the sound quality of their releases. Isn't that why those of us who get deeper into audiophildum are listening to jazz and classical?
I gave up. I really like their music, after Reissues I went for Decca Originals, Stereo, Mono. It is true, they are better (in a way, a step above awful), but when I am honest, the only way to enjoy them is, when the listener - is stoned - has a defect 4-way System with shot Tweeters - uses is super simple turntable with wrong speed - all together + a MM cartridge
The best sound quality for their early recordings are the original Decca monos. When you get to "Between The Buttons", the original Decca stereos sound the best. These aren't audiophile by any means, but revelatory when compared to subsequent later pressings and re-issues. Unfortunately finding one is good condition can take some digging and will be expensive.
On RSR, I prefer the UK original pressing of "Sticky Fingers" and "Some Girls". I slightly prefer American release of "Tattoo You" over the UK counterpart. IMO, the American pressing of "Emotional Rescue" is sonically their best LP (and underrated musically).
As an aside, Keith Richards' "Main Offender" is a terrific LP with very good sonics.
The original pressings of early albums sound good in the mono version. As Onhwyl61 says , it was part of their bluesy, raw sound . You are correct about the MoFi "Sticky Fingers" album. It is not a very good recording. Probably the worst of MoFi's catalog, at least in my experience.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
