Post by Claude April 21, 2005 (61 of 100)
|
|
Top thread ;-)
|
|
|
Post by Dan Popp April 21, 2005 (62 of 100)
|
|
I envy the guy's disc collection.
|
|
|
Post by dabl April 22, 2005 (63 of 100)
|
|
I hope the people who find this guy's reviews to be completely worthless (like myself) are voting by clicking the 'No' button in answer to the question of whether they were helpful or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
dabl said:
I hope the people who find this guy's reviews to be completely worthless (like myself) are voting by clicking the 'No' button in answer to the question of whether they were helpful or not.
But then I'd have to do that 120 times to get all his reviews. LOL!
|
|
|
Post by Dan Popp April 24, 2005 (65 of 100)
|
|
peteyspambucket said:
But then I'd have to do that 120 times to get all his reviews. LOL!
Then you would have to sue him for your carpal tunnel injury.
8-)
|
|
|
Post by akiralx April 27, 2005 (66 of 100)
|
|
Just been through his most recent batch and given my usefulness assessment.
Not sure what the difference is between 'Top sound' and 'Great sound' - and what the heck is 'Chesky sound'? I realise he must mean typical of that label, but he never explains it....
|
|
|
Post by Claude April 27, 2005 (67 of 100)
|
|
akiralx said:
what the heck is 'Chesky sound'? I realise he must mean typical of that label, but he never explains it....
That's the problem with his reviews. They are in fact right most of the time, but would require some explanation. His reviews are basically only ratings.
About the "Chesky sound": I have a couple of CDs and SACDs from the label and the sound is very particular. It is too "hifi-ish", extremely detailed and dynamic, but not natural. On the Phil Woods disc the alto sax sounds huge, it fills the complete stereo basis. Sometimes the drums are too distant, as if the band was recorded with just one stereo microphone (this rarily works with jazz recordings).
|
|
|
Post by tream April 27, 2005 (68 of 100)
|
|
Claude said:
That's the problem with his reviews. They are in fact right most of the time, but would require some explanation. His reviews are basically only ratings.
About the "Chesky sound": I have a couple of CDs and SACDs from the label and the sound is very particular. It is too "hifi-ish", extremely detailed and dynamic, but not natural. On the Phil Woods disc the alto sax sounds huge, it fills the complete stereo basis. Sometimes the drums are too distant, as if the band was recorded with just one stereo microphone (this rarily works with jazz recordings).
I too an unsure about what De Selby means "Good old sound. Chesky sound., etc." Perhaps if he spent a few minutes defining in this forum what he means his reviews might be helpful.
Claude, I don't agree with your assessment of Chesky sound, by the way. I have about 6 or 7 of their SACD's and find them to be very natural, and the opposite of "hifiish"-as you suggest, they don't typically multimike in order to create as natural perspective as possible, which will mean that the drums (for example) sound more distant than on a multimiked recording. This is not to dis multimiking completely-there are some extremely good sounding multimiked recordings (I find the sound of the MTT Mahlers to be about as good as we get for orchestral recordings, and believe me, there are lots of mikes in attendance-but nothing that looks like spotlighting)-but again, I wish there were more SACD's out there that sound as natural as Chesky recordings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
If reading his reviews requires us to make assumptions about what he really means, then we are wasting our time. We can't read his mind. It really adds no value to me.
|
|
|
Post by LC April 27, 2005 (70 of 100)
|
|
akiralx said:
Not sure what the difference is between 'Top sound' and 'Great sound'
When you think about it, if a review is a review of the sound of the sonics on a stereo disc, a text consisting of "stereo sonics: top sound" is actually a one-word review: "top". Concise, anyway.
|
|
