Post by Oakland September 9, 2012 (1 of 8)
|
|
*****Review today by Budesonide: I like this SACD. However, digital ripping reveals it to be a 44kHz upsample - BOTH stereo and the multichannel mixes. Therefore the improvement in sound quality of the stereo mix many hear from this disk is likely nothing different than what a CD could produce.****
That is the entire "review". Since this is one of my favorite non classical SACDs I could not let the "review" by "Budesonide" go unchallenged.
I think his conclusions border on being maddeningly irresponsible. He disses the sound on not what it sounds like but solely because he thinks (or "suspects" as stated in his other similar "reviews") the SACD is Redbook sourced. Looking at the body of work of his 12 "reviews" (all are hopelessly sparse) this line of reasoning is the theme for most of his negativity.
"Budesonide" may or may not be correct but I would like to see the evidence for support of his claim. The recording was originally made in 1973 in two-channel and in quad (the quad album was released in 1974). This was nearly a decade before CD. This release as A SACD was made as part of the second wave of releases to show cases the sound of the format. The liner notes address only the surround mix with respect to source: "..adapted from the original quadraphonic analogue tapes....... The notes do underscore the care of the two channel mix but without referencing "original analogue tapes", but that is implicit. Main thing though is that this SACD sounds great and the "mix" is to die for.
Unfortunately, the price of this disc has gone through the roof.
Robert C. Lang
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robert, without knowing the exact equipment Mr. Woo plays his SACDs on and the ancillary system, as well, it's hard to conjecture what he hears that you and I don't hear because a lot of the early non~hybrid Columbia SACDs, both stereo and mch, have been a delight to my ears.
And the mere fact that the Isley Brothers 3+3 is commanding $200+ on the internet is valid enough proof that it is a desirable commodity.
Re~reading some of his previous reviews does show that everything in his mind seems to be upsampled from 44.1/16bit and to my ears that just isn't so which leads me to believe that something is indeed rotten in the state of Denmark as far as his system is concerned.
I have also read negative reviews on this site regarding the original Columbia mch SACD of Billy Joel's 52nd Street and to my ears and on my system it sounds superb.
Unfortunately, all reviews of music and even Blu~Ray discs must be taken with a grain of salt because when a company commits to releasing an album in the SACD format, it is usually afforded more care and original sources are ultimately used to ensure its quality (and I don't want to start the PCM>DSD>SACD debate all over again).
Yes, Columbia did put out some stinkers in the early days of the format......Miles Davis' Live At The Plaza comes to mind, but all in all, I have been more than satisfied with my early collection of non~hybrid Columbia SACDs, both mch and stereo........and since I did purchase most of them at bargain prices (usually under $15 each), it sweetens the pot that much more.
In fact, am wishin' and hopin' that SONY allows Analogue Productions to raid their old QUAD vaults to begin anew releasing some of those older chesnuts to mch SACD including one of my favorites: Super Session.........really, no Al Kooper on SACD.......an absolute travesty!
Am really sorry that I missed the boat on the O'Jays Ship Ahoy...but did come relatively late to the SACD party and there are literally NO listings on the internet to purchase this long OOP title........even e~bay shows 0 listings for that particular title!
|
|
|
Post by AmonRa September 9, 2012 (3 of 8)
|
|
SACD layer can not be digitally ripped (legally). It has to be taken from pure analog outs and digitized in high-rez to be able to say if there was a telltale low-pass filtering used somewhere. Budesonide should tell what method he used to arrive at that conclusion, several possible places for mistakes.
That said, 16/44 can sound perfect also, if you unknowingly listen to it.
|
|
|
Post by Claude September 10, 2012 (4 of 8)
|
|
AmonRa said:
SACD layer can not be digitally ripped (legally).
And in the UK, a CD cannot be copied to an iPod (legally) ...
Budesonide says "digital ripping", so it's obvious that he used a PS3.
|
|
|
Post by AmonRa September 10, 2012 (5 of 8)
|
|
Should have said "easily".
|
|
|
Post by Pjotr September 10, 2012 (6 of 8)
|
|
Amazing sounding disc for sure.
I know this forum is not for selling/buying , so for sure I won't mention I may have a spare copy without slipcase ;- )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The mix, the songs, the arrangements - yes all wonderful. But I am hearing the gorgeous sonics only on a few of the tracks: 2, 7, and 8 to be specific. The rest sound as if there is a veil over the sound. There just isn't that clarity and separation that defines high-rez music. When I listen to high-rez I want to cling to every note in anticipation of the next. Besides then the tracks mentioned, the others don't do it for me. It's more like listening to Dolby.
|
|
