| Review by Tom March 4, 2003 (1 of 3 found this review helpful)
|
Performance:  Sonics:  |
| This has all their hits plus more, and is well recorded for rock. The only question is whether you like this all girl rock group. I like it.
|
Was this review helpful to you?
yes |
no
|
|
|
| Review by audiopro September 22, 2008 (2 of 2 found this review helpful)
|
Performance: Sonics:  |
What a shame!
I feel a bit down to give a bad review for an SACD when what we want is to have more and more titles available, but this one deserves it.
I owned in the past the CD of this SACD version and as far as I can remember the CD sounded better than this.
Of course the songs are worth it but the sound quality is really unbearable.
Do yourself a favor and don't spend your money on this one.
|
Was this review helpful to you?
yes |
no
|
|
|
| Review by ScienceGuy December 1, 2012 (1 of 1 found this review helpful)
|
Performance: Sonics: |
I have to concur with AUDIOPRO's review regarding this, in that the audio quality of this particular SACD is absolutely abysmal.
First of all, please note that this SACD is only STEREO as opposed to 5.1-Channel SURROUND SOUND; which, by itself would not necessarily be that big a deal if not for the other issues.
The audio mix is quite frankly awful and whoever is responsible should be fired immediately; specficially, the BASS is disproportionately low and the MID-RANGE too high. It is as if the audio has been passed through an stereo graphic equalizer wherein a monkey has been allowed to play around with the knobs and buttons.
Further to this, the DYNAMIC RANGE is pitiful and there is COMPRESSION in abundance, which leads me to question what source material was used for pressing this SA-CD.
My advice is most certainly to not waste your money on buying this.
It really is that bad!
|
Was this review helpful to you?
yes |
no
|
|
|
| Review by Espen R December 3, 2012
|
Performance: Sonics:  |
For me, the past two reviews of this album is very strange. And I will explain why.
I have the original CD edition of "Different Light". And my reference for Different Light is also the original LP that I have listened to several times.
I can say that the original CD from 1986 sounds very much like the original Lp does, except that the Lp sounds better in the way Lp does, when we compare it to a CD from the 80's. There is no compression on the CD.
The SACD sounds absolute terriffic. One of the best from the early Sony SACDs, Imo. I have compared the tracks from the Different Light CD to those found on this greatest hits SACD. The SACD sound better in every way like SACD sounds better than CD, everything else equal. And the differences should be pretty obvious for everyone listening and comparing.
If you listen to tracks like "In my room" and "Etarnal flame" from the SACD, the sound is crystal clear, smooth, big and open. I don`t know how this can sound any better. Those who says that it is added compression in the mastering session of this SACD, are simply wrong.
When I give this a 4 and a half star for sound, it is not based on how the music was recorded or mixed, it is only based how the mastering job was done and how good the transfer from analoge to DSD is. And the job was excellent done and very faithful to the original stereo masters.
|
Was this review helpful to you?
yes |
no
|
|
|
| Review by pvcmusiclover January 16, 2013
|
Performance: Sonics:  |
Pros: Spectrum analyzer confirms this is a DSD transfer and thus sounds a bit more "transparent" than The standard CD.
Cons: I'm pretty sure the album was taken from the LP cutting tape, not the original session master. The mix is really bright - it's headache inducing.
Every song, without fail, clips. A waveform view shows the drum hits are really limited. The original CD has a lot more dynamic range.
As with a lot of early SACDs, this one exhibits a bit of grain and muddiness.
|
Was this review helpful to you?
yes |
no
|
|
|
| Review by tdunster April 22, 2014
|
Performance: Sonics: |
The soundstage is absolutely huge and the sound is crystal clear. Compared to the red book version the SACD is a massive improvement.
Sure it's a little compressed and perhaps louder than the very best recordings, and the top and bottom appear more prominent than the mids do. So what ? Unless we are actually familiar with the original master, which most of us probably aren't it's hardly an issue.
Non audiophiles will be very happy with this recording. The audiophiles probably won't be which is understandable considering most of them have never sat behind a drum kit, been in a recording studio, or indeed played music professionally.
|
Was this review helpful to you?
yes |
no
|
|
|
