Rolling Stones - Grrr! Studio Masters

[DavieCee]

Well, as all savvy listeners know, the quality of the masters and recordings are more important that the bitrate so are the studio master versions worth the download?

Perspective - I already have most of the tracks as lossless rips from the London Years CD boxset.

 

[MajorFubar]

Good question. I've only heard Forty Licks and I was surprised by just how poor quality some of the early songs are, especially considering the band were signed to a label which was highly-regarded for the quality of its classical releases. "Mastered for AM" is an understatement. It's difficult to say exactly what benefits another remastering would wring from certainly those.

 

[DavieCee]

I got the Let It Bleed HD version which had a lot of (good) work put into it and was hoping for more of the same.

For some reason I have my doubts about Grrr! Receiving the same effort.

Hopefully someone will be able to enlighten us. One way or the other.

 

[Shanka]

Hi,

I think I will be passing on Grrr unless I hear someone say the sq is hugely impressive.

I was listening to Satanic Majestys last week ,early 2000 remaster, and was very impressed with the sq, around the same time bought a few of these and was pleased with beggars but not so with let it bleed.

The one am looking at is a new version of Exile, one of my all time favourites, I have a 90's version and was interested if any of the remasters offer any improvement.

Looking forward to last night's crossfire hurricane but expect will be most of the usual stuff,

Thanks.

 

[amcluesent]

It's been mastered 'hot' some 7dB over reference from the ReplayGain tags I've seen, plus the dynamic range on the 2012 tracks is actually less than the older material. :doh:

Likely slammed against the limiters.

 

[DavieCee]

Well I decided to go to the source for the answer and sent an e-mail question to Linn.

The response - A resounding silence.

My conclusion - If they won't commit to the SQ, then I won't commit to buy.

 

[DavieCee]

Update:-

Linn got back to me. They don't know. Suggested I try contacting Universal.

An e-mail was pinged this afternoon. We will see...........

 

[Anonymous]

Surprising as it may be, I didn't own a single Rolling Stones track so I downloaded the 24 bit FLAC album.

I was surprised at how thin and weedy some of the early tracks sound, but having heard them on the radio, I probably shouldn't have been. Hi-Fi they are not.

It all sounds fine, but I can't say that the 16 bit FLAC version would sound any different. To answer the original question, I am happy with the purchase as I'd always wanted the Stones in my collection. Were I to make the purchase again, I wouldn't bother with the 24 bit version. The source material just doesn't warrant it.

If you already have these tracks, I can't see any benefit in buying them again.

 

[DavieCee]

....... Plus Universal haven't got back to me.

This tells me that either they don't care about customers service, or no work has went into the "HD" files.

As far as I can tell, they are the same tracks upscaled to a higher bitrate.