|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
4.131.5.60
In Reply to: Re: opinions on Living Stereo Bartok: Concerto For Orchestra SACD posted by bublitchki on December 25, 2004 at 20:09:37:
... separate the strands of the orchestra--the strings sound like a group of individual string players working together; the xrcd strings are more of a massed force. Is this musically meaningful? Not particularly, and not to me."
Follow Ups:
To me that is very important and SIGNIFICANT.Simply proof of more resolution!!!
Thanks. Glad you liked the review!
IMHO, all five the the Living Stereo SACD reissues I bought disappointed me in some way, and each of them in their own way. Not being much of a Bartok fan, I didn't buy that one, and don't intend to.If I were to characterize them overall, it would be to say that it appears to me as if the assignment to do these transfers was handed to the most junior of underlings who didn't bother to consider even their most basic option, that of choosing a proper tape machine.
I hope the second batch of these RCAs turns out OK. Otherwise I'll probably ignore any subsequent releases.
You have your opinion, but your second paragraph is
But since you consider my truthful opinion -- based on careful examination and comparison with alternative versions, I should add -- condescending and nonsensical, why don't you provide the proof to contradict what you ask of bublitchki?As with so many others that frequent forums, you choose simply to attack without any basis for doing so. My assumption is that, given a handle like yours anyway, that your goal in life is to thread crap and nothing more.
The truth is that you have been bad-mouthing the decision to offer a three-channel stereo layer on both the Mercury and RCA SACDs since long before they had even been transferred. I knew many months ago that you would be highly critical of the SACD releases if for no other reason than that you did not get your way. Your hatred of multi-channel has tainted all your opinions.You made the reckless charge in your post above, in case you have forgotten, that the most junior underling was assigned transfer duties and that not a thought was given to the playback machine. You're going to have to supply evidence of this. It's not for me to prove the falsity of your charge.
Sorry to break the news to you, sgb, but not everyone in professional audio is incompetent, and not everyone who disagrees with your golden ears is inexperienced and careless.
a Multi-channel segment, nor do I have ax to grind with those who prefer them. I choose to remain a two channel listener for a variety of reasons, none of which are germane to your charges.Since I have never even listened the multi-channel data on these, even though I would have the opportunity to do so, my comments were restricted to their stereo-only segments, and my opinions of the RCA releases still stand. Those opinions, BTW, are shared by a number of local audiophiles, all of whom have heard the RCA releases here in Louisiana at several different audiophiles' homes — not just mine.
My comments on the Mercury releases (as few of them as there have been here at AA) have all, quite to the contrary of what you claim, been quite positive. I've even put my 2¢ in on them over at Stephen's site (see link).
Even you cannot support your asinine charge that no thought was given to the playback machine and that junior underlings were in charge.Nice try, though, to switch the argument to whether you personally like the results. That falls into the OPINION category, and you are welcome to whatever OPINION you choose to have.
Regarding choice of a proper tape machine, I wonder how one deals with the notion that a modern machine was chosen because of its superior frequency response. Can it play back any frequencies not part of the original recording? If so, do we want to hear them? ;-)I thought it was already proven that a three-track Ampex 300 was best for the three-track tapes. They seem to be re-writing history over at SoundMirror.
You stated: "I thought it was already proven that a three-track Ampex 300 was best for the three-track tapes."
Maybe when you "speak" to me in a civil tongue I will.
Instead of offering your "proof," now you morph into Miss Manners and criticize the tone of my post. So much for your evidence.
Then stop demanding people jump through your hoops. In other words, GFY.
The Living Stereo SACDs are far from perfect.
But to my ears, on my equipment and on my room they are much better than the XRCD versions.
Two titles come particularly to my mind: The Saint-Saens Organ Symphony (Munch) (XRCD) and the Tchaikovsky 1st Piano Concerto (Cliburn) (XRCD24) are a painful and almost unbearable experience on XRCD while they are listenable and a pleasant aural experience on SACD.
.
I believe the xrcd's would sound best on a system that's on the warm, mellow side--like mine. On a more nearly neutral, or bright-leaning system, they may well have their less desirable traits emphasized: namely their leanness and cleanness.I can tell you that on all tubes (save for the player, which is an SCD-1), they sound damned marvelous.
Try the Mancini "Charade" soundtrack--an absolute KILLER disc. I can't imagine this one not being a knockout on any system.
Mine is an all tube equipment too (VAC pre and power), except for the SCD-1.
I find many XRCDs to be excellent but some are mediocre, even in the XRCD24 incarnation.
I think that we cannot assume that if it is an XRCD then it is excellent. The same can be said about SACDs.
True enough about assumptions regarding formats. Still, my experience with the xrcd24's must be incredibly lucky, because all I've heard are superb. Of course, not all the original tapes are of equal quality (nothing will ever make the Cliburn Tchaikovsky Concerto sound good). But discs like the Kondrashin Kabalevsky/Khatchaturian and the Capriccio Espanol/Italien are really tremendous (two of my favorite recordings anyway). The Stokowski Rhapsodies is excellent too. (Interested to see how that fares in its SACD incarnation.)
Yes, the Saint-Saens is one of the least good of the xrcds (and one of the first). The Cliburn is a mediocre-sounding recording to begin with, and I can't figure out why they keep picking it for these so-called "audiophile" series, other than that the performance was a huge seller--it's certainly not for its sonic qualities.In general, however, I find the xrcd24's to be superb, and the best of the lot.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: