Classic, but needs to be equalized
342192
Classic song from the 70's. As downloaded, it has an unusually high-level of treble which was not, as I recall, an issue with the original recording, at least when heard on radio. This is probably the key, all stations equalize their music. Fortunately I have Media Center, which has a music edit function. I altered the high frequencies to my taste, and smoothed out some brassy passages, then saved the file. It is now perfect :)
4672598
Good performance. Audio is fair, but the balance between soloist and orchestra leaves a little to be desired.
2466408
This is a nice disc.  The performance is very good, and the sound is probably good for when it was recorded, 1959. But after listening to it and being frustrated by the harsh high end and weak low end, I had to get out my good old Dutoit/Montreal on London to verify how much better it is than the Decca disc.  No comparison.
2521449
This is a great album. 4-5 stars for the music. But you already knew that (or can find countless essays detailing the praise).

But this reissue gets only 3 stars. Why? Because, despite hype to the contrary, this is just a pointless decoupling of the 2-fer SACD/hybrid disc from 2004&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/1-Record-Radio-City/dp/B0001Z4OVK/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">#1 Record/Radio City</a>. That 2004 2-fer offers the same sound as this one on the CD layer, and higher resolution sound on the SACD layer. And you get both albums on one disc for considerably less than buying them separately. And if you want one, you do want both albums.

Be careful. There are many reissues of the 2-fer:

1) Import on Line label from Germany
2) Import on Big Beat label (some variants missing 2 songs)
3) 1992 2-fer on Stax/Fantasy
4) 2004 2-fer SACD&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/1-Record-Radio-City/dp/B0001Z4OVK/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">#1 Record/Radio City</a>
5) 2009 2-fer on Stax/Concord.

The one you want to get is #4, the SACD. Avoid the 1992 and 2009 reissues, which have inferior sound.

One additional comment: This music was recorded with a lot of treble and not a huge amount of bass. That's how it sounds on the original vinyl, and that's apparently how it sounds on the master tapes. None of the reissues is an audiophile delight. But of the reissues, the SACD 2-fer is the one to get.
743524
This is a nice and rich classic. Easy access to great footnotes aid book reading. It is nice to see the play in its original form but many scenes are missing. I was unable to find Act II Scene IX which i needed to study for my litrature examination. The content needs a lot of improvement but overall good
3258450
Many other reviews comment generally on the beauty of this piece.  Here are my concise views and recommendations:
-The new Reich ensemble recording on ECM (and also on vinyl)..., but slow and less organic than others available (e.g. the ECM recording).  The sense of the overall tapestry of the work is diminished by the close miking one hears throughout.  Certain little blips or phrases are artificially highlighted for too long.  Too bad, because re-recordings of other works (such as Music for Mallets, Voices, and Organ) also seem to ephasize individual instruments above an overall wash from the ensemble without picking up on little bits of phrases from one instrument too much.
Recommendations: --For a first listen, the ECM recording is essential.  It preserves the sense of this piece occurring in a performance space.  Having heard the piece live twice, the role of reverb and the concert hall is considerable.  Only the ECM recording comes close to hearing this piece live.
--If you want a dead-on reading, with maximum clarity of each line, I recommend the Ensemble Modern recording.  Their performance is closer to what seems the natural tempo.  Their mixing establishes the interplay between the parts very clearly without "artifically" highlighting certain parts too much, as seems to happen in Reich's second recording.
3425037
I really dig adam rogers' recorded legacy thus far. and the playing, tunes and the arrangements on this album are all top notch. however, that being said, the bass is mixed so low on this recording that a lot of the time i find myself struggling to hear exactly what patitucci's playing and getting distracted in the overall listening because i can't hear him. this sounds more like a duet with clarence penn and suggestions of a bass player in the background. which is a shame because the tunes are so rythmically hip that if the bass was audible i probabbly wouldn't be able to put this album down...oddly enough though if there were no bass at all it wouldn't be missed that much because of rogers' virtuosity. i guess it's the uncommitted presence that's annoying me here... and i've listened to it on 7 different sets of speakers from high to low quality including studio monitors and headphones with similar results. bah!
1454555
I agree with Michael Wydra's review below: this collection sounds like garbage, for the most part, and for the very reason he says it does: it's over-compressed. Unfortunately, this is true of most modern remasters of old music: they compress it all to heck in an effort to "compete," in terms of volume, with modern recordings. This creates a number of problems, not the least of which is the utter inability to listen to it below a certain volume (above which, paradoxically, it becomes ear-splitting) without losing a portion of the music.

In addition to being over-compressed, this record has also been subjected to excessive "noise reduction." There's an idea in this day and age that analogue tape hiss, which shows up more on compact disc than on record (because the mechanism used to play CDs is itself silent, for one thing, and also because the digital carrier brings out more incidental detail), is somehow embarrassing. (This is also another supposed justification for over-compression: the idea is to "saturate" the speakers with music so tape hiss won't be detectable.) In my mind, this is simply untrue...and unfortunately, it's not merely an academic subject, as noise reduction also mutes a lot of the wonderful high-end sound that should be such a feature of the Everly Brothers' recordings. Listen (if you can bear it) to "Bye Bye Love," one of the great rock-and-roll records of all time: the guitars, which ought to sparkle, sound downright dull, and there's no "air" whatsoever around the instruments in which they, and the Brothers' harmonies, can expand; therefore the track lacks momentum as well as sheen. Hearing it, as it's presented here, one wonders, "What on earth was the big fuss about this?" This is a direct result of excessive noise reduction and compression.

It's wonderful to have these songs all together on one budget-priced collection...or it would be, if the sound quality was worthy of the delightful music the discs contain. But this isn't the way the Everly Brothers ought to be experienced, and it's hard to imagine a newcomer to them appreciating their achievement based solely on this collection. Five stars for the music, and none for the sound.
1564621
You probably can't get a more perfect version of this requiem, but unfortunately the sound is about 2 seconds ahead of the vision, so the whole DVD is out of sync, which is most annoying when viewing it. I got a headache as a result. Best just to turn off the picture and just listen to it. But the makers of the DVD should have realized this before releasing it!
269327
I have owned these pair of headphones in the past (as well as the 598's). Frankly--and coming from a musician/pianist who is a music appreciator for many years--these headphones beats the 598's. Why? They have good (and punchy) bass. Don't get my wrong. I enjoy the sound of the 598's. However, the sound (that is, when listening to music) is too refined. The 598's has excellent (crisp) highs. But unfortunately, there is just not enough bass--the bass in the 598's sound soupy. Unacceptable. That was the downfall of the 598's. They weren't balanced well (that is, with the mids/highs and base). The 558's is a clear winner here. And just so you know what kind of music I listen to, I very much enjoy pop, rock, some jazz, and contemporary. I hope I have helped.
341514
This will be a brief capsule review.  The pressings are superb.  The sound is clean and, at first blush, perfect given the age and source material.  However, in comparison with the original issue from 1994, differences become evident.  The 1994 version seems a tad more natural and ambient.  But this comes with sonic artifacts, such as sibilance, which have been digitally removed wherever possible in this 2013 remastering.  This renders this 2013 version crisper, but only in some respects.  In this 2013 version, at times, say in "Kansas City/Hey-Hey-Hey-Hey!", Ringo's bass drum is more "there", but his snare lacks the power and snap found in the 1994 version.  But shouldn't they be both present in the 2013 version?  There's one possible answer, but we won't go there.

Perhaps, the best way of summing up the merits of the sound of the 2013 version might be this: The more analog you are, the more you "may" gravitate toward the 1994 version, sonic warts and all.  Also, if you own the 1994 pressings, and they are in excellent shape, some thought, and further investigation, might be given before purchasing this collection, especially given the cost and the limits of the source material.

As for the  music, these lads could play from the get-go and knew their influences, all of which is evident from the first second of this collection.  If you've never heard this music, you'll be able to obtain a hint of the thrill and joy that captivated the world over 50 years ago.
1629209
I want to like this more. And there are many bits of it I really like. But over all it misses the mark for me. Standouts to me include 2112 Overture, Subdivisions and Limelight. Disappointments are lead by Red Barchetta. Many of the arrangements sound like soundtracks to a 70's TV Western Movie of the Week Soundtrack/Hooked on Classics. I think it might have been better to have gone more "classical", even operatic in some cases. Rush is currently touring with a string section for the Clockwork Angels tour aptly showing how their music can be complimented, if not arranged, in classical style. Perhaps most of the disappointment with this collection is the potential it showed, but yet missed.
2133180
[...]
Comparison of the 1987 CD Remaster, the 2009 Stereo Box Set Remaster, the 2009 Mono Box Set Remaster, and the 2009 Stereo Version on the Mono Set (which is different from the mix on the Stereo Box set). Why this song? Lots of harmonies, and we've all already heard it a million times. If anyone has a good version off of vinyl, or rock band, lemme know. I may put up another song comparison, any requests?

In my opinion, the Mono is usually best, especially when NOT listening to headphones.  Some songs, like Norwegian Wood, and the MMT stuff sound a bit better in stereo.  Also, I actually think that the original CDs aren't THAT bad.  Not as good as the new ones, but certainly not the crap that most folks make them out to be.
1128838
It's a magnum opus to be sure, but it begs for a version that doesn't sound like a worn-out cassette tape that's about to snap at any second. I suppose there's something to be said for the "patina" that all the scratchy, grainy static lends to this classic, but I think the haunting vocal quality could be retained while cleaning up the fuzzy distortion.
4800938
It has a lot of features and is easy to use.  It would be nice if it had an equalizer.
1300601
I like the Takacs Quartet a lot in the middle quartets, but they are just too heavy and slow-footed in Op. 18 for my taste. Certainly this is the case compared to the wonderful set by the Quatour Turner, which may be the best ever in this music. But I also prefer older sets by the Budapest and Vegh quartets too. Listen to them back to back, and appreciate the difference.
1215244
I have purchased five different versions of this classic masterpiece, in audio or Audible formats, trying to find a version I really like.

The version narrated by Sean Runnette (translated by William Benham) seems average to me, neither great nor irritating, as far as the actual listening experience.

The version narrated by Joe McClane is my least favorite of the five, because of the speaker's distracting accent. But maybe another listener who loves thick Irish accents will enjoy it.

The other version I don't like is narrated by David Cochran Heath, with a U.S. Southern accent, and a very light-hearted & cheerful tone like "everything's fine and I'm super-positive, outgoing, & cheerful." To me, this tone does not match the deep, introspective subject matter (and probably not the mindset of the 13th century monks who were the source of these meditations & prayers.)

My favorite version (Logos Educational Edition, Bill Creasy) is narrated by Don Ranson, who sounds like an old gentleman with wisdom and maturity, with a deeper voice, and no distracting accent. It also feels like he is personally familiar with the text and is probably himself a strong believer in God and Christ. (I did not get that feeling with all narrators.)
The Don Ranson version also contains fewer archaic English words & phrases (For example something like, 'Whatever thou willest, giveth that thy will be mine and me for thine, for thou art....'  I mean that type of KJV Shakesperian language, which is in the David Cochran Heath version. I couldn't listen to the Joe McClane version long enough to know.)

My second-favorite version is with narrator Bob Souer, who also sounds older than the other three, and has a deeper, more impactful voice.

I am still keeping an eye out for a completely modern version, with zero archaic language, but still with a respectful, deep, contemplative, sincere reading, as if it were being read by a monk who had devoted many decades of his life to reaching this wisdom.