add to wish list | library


20 of 26 recommend this,
would you recommend it?

yes | no

 
Label:
  Universal (Japan) - http://www.universal-music.co.jp/
Serial:
  UIGY-9578
Title:
  Rolling Stones: Let It Bleed
Description:
  "Let It Bleed"

Rolling Stones
Track listing:
 
Genre:
  Pop/Rock
Content:
  Stereo
Media:
  Single Layer
Recording type:
 
Recording info:
 
Note:
  Formerly UIGY-9021

read discussion | delete from library | delete recommendation | report errors
 
Related titles: 5


 
Reviews: 6 show all

Review by touwell November 26, 2010 (9 of 14 found this review helpful)
Performance:   Sonics:
Believe me , this SHM-SACD version is a mistake. I do have the original SACD, I bought that one when it was released in 2002. I ordered my copy in the US. Initial US copies were either manufactured in Germany or Japan. They both had the US catalogue number. I compared my original Japan made copy to the 2010 SHM-SACD copy , which was only manufactured in Japan. This new edition sounds noisy, blurry and seems to have a lot of compresssion. The original 2002 US version has clarity, and is sounding very quiet and honest.
The new edition seems to have too much information on the disc which cannot find its way to the speakers.
Don't forget that Let It Bleed which was released in 1969 had a very dark sounding mix with a good but not spectacular channel separation.Playing the vinyl album in stereo or mono [ I own both version] shows that Jagger's voice is sometimes almost drowning in the mix. The Japan pressed US edition comes close to that analog sound and is therefore preferred.
Beggars Banquet was also to be released as a SHM-SACD by Universal Japan in October 2010, but has been post-phoned to December 2010. I believe this is a sign that there is something wrong with the recording process.
Let It Bleed was released as an SACD in Europe, the US and Japan. European copies were mostly pressed in Germany, US copies were pressed in Japan or Germany, and Japanese copies were made in Japan. I have never seen US pressed copies of this particular SACD and don't know if they exist.
Catalogue numbers: US version 18771-9904-2; look out for this edition , pressed in Japan 2002.
Universal Japan Edition: 04228823032-8,UIGY-7017 [ 2002]good version, but not as good as the one mentioned above.

2010 SHM-SACD : UIGY-9021 ; I had high hopes, but I never play it because it sounds awful.Packaging and documentation is wonderful.Avoid!

I use a Marantz SA7S1 to play my SACD's.

Was this review helpful to you?  yes | no

Review by Tingman July 29, 2010 (4 of 9 found this review helpful)
Performance:   Sonics:
Having come to the SACD party later than I would have liked, I missed getting the domestic version of Let It Bleed, and always got outbid on ebay whenever I made an attempt to pick it up. This and Sticky Fingers are my two favorite Stones recordings, so when I had the chance to preorder the SHM SACD, I jumped at it.

Given that I do not own the domestic SACD, I can't say how it compares to it. What I can say is that I have never heard these songs with such clarity. The limitations of the disc are limitations of the recording process used in capturing these performances. The first cut is the classic "Gimme Shelter" and I swear the guitars and Jagger's voice ring clearer here than on my SACD of Hot Rocks. The demonstration cut, however, is "Love in Vain". The acoustic guitar does not sound like a recording - it sounds like Keith is in my room playing. It is just wonderful. Again, the domestic version of Let It Bleed might sound just as good; I can't speak to that, but this is one great-sounding Stones SACD.

Was this review helpful to you?  yes | no

Review by Sergey November 21, 2011 (3 of 7 found this review helpful)
Performance:   Sonics:
Universal makes no secret that the record was made ABKKO. The most important thing that this album sounds just delightful. Excellent writing, the advantage of SHM and a special coating ...... all drive there. Legibility, drive, bass and guitar parts that are simply breathtaking!

Was this review helpful to you?  yes | no