Great Isaac Hayes album, but don't waste your money on the SACD
586827
I've always wanted to believe that SACD's actually are what they say they are...Super Audio Compact Discs (catchy, that).  The truth is, I owned the CD that was originally remastered in 1987 (still available), but decided I would "upgrade" to the SACD, which was supposedly remastered in 2004.  There is so little difference between the two you have to really listen, but the original 1987 release gets the edge; it has a slightly better high end without being harsh, and the low end in both are equally weak, which is what prompted me to buy the SACD in the first place.  This is one of his best LPs (that's a tough call). but don't pay more for the SACD.  It's just a waste of money.  Buy the better remaster...the original done in 1987.
1124106
This is a very good album, especially for a debut, so I was excited to see a DualDisc, hoping for better sound quality than the original CD and also a 5.1 mix. Unfortunately, the DVD side is "enhanced" stereo, not a 5.1 mix. I REALLY wish Amazon would distinguish that in their detail pages. I have been burned twice now on discs that were SACD or DualDisc, and was expecting a surround sound version. Maybe this album just wasn't recorded or mixed that well to begin with, because even the "enhanced" stereo didn't sound that great and not much better than a standard CD. I have a decent two channel system and very good CD and pretty good DVD universal player. Not very impressed by the sound. If you love this album, probably worth the purchase...there is a good documentary included. Otherwise stick with the CD.
3392382
Referring to the sonic of this SACD only (not the way it is interpreted...)

The transfer to digital here has a sever "bleeding" to the right. This "bleeding" has the sound emanating more from the right speaker and only the last sonata (Appassionata - recorded 1963) has more or less the correct balance.

Thru-out the whole recording - the piano tone is distorted in the sense that it sounds like it was recorded from behind two curtains not one curtain only...
This is not the way a Steinway piano sounds like, not in a large studio and not in a concert hall.
For superb piano recording one is advised to turn to (any) Decca recording.
Fortunately, we have the same repertoire as on this SACD, made and recorded by Decca, with Radu Lupu (ADD recording).
1000371
Because Szell's Slavonic Dances have been reviewed so many times over the last 50 years, rather than add more heaps of praise, I'm going to focus on the sound quality of this new and supposed remastered release.

Despite the claims of the recording being newly remastered in DSD, this CD release sounds identical to the&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/1992-Essential-Classics-release/dp/B0000027UW/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">1992 Essential Classics release</a>&nbsp;(and that CD transfer was repacked for a&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/2002-budget-release/dp/B00005YD5H/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">2002 budget release</a>. I compared the new and old CDs by hooking up two CD players to my receiver, queuing them up to the same spot, and toggling back and forth.

The Essential Classics series never did that great of a job remastering the sound of the 1950s and '60s Epic/Columbia/Sony recordings, and Szell's Slavonic Dances was among the worst offenders. The sound is strident and shrill.

What doesn't make sense about this, is that an excellent digital transfer of this recording exists -- it was created for the&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/1999-SACD-release/dp/B00000K4IG/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">1999 SACD release</a>. The sound of the SACD fixes all of the problems with the CD versions. The sound is warm, more focused, has presence and impact -- it's night and day better than the CD versions. While some of the difference is no doubt the result of the higher resolution of SACD, the difference is so great that clearly much of it comes from the fact that the SACD features a (then) new high resolution digital master created from the master tapes (and remix and restoration work was done).

Bottom line: if you already own the 1992 Essential Classics or 2002 repackaging, there's no need to buy this release. If you can find the SACD version, that's the way to go (note: the SACD is a single-layer disc that will only play in SACD players).

===================================

UPDATE

I wrote to B-Sharp, the company that did the remastering, and expressed my concerns with this release. They said that Sony did not give them access to the master analog tapes nor to the high resolution digital transfer created for the SACD. That would seem to confirm that they did in fact use the digital transfer created for the 1992 Essential Classics release.
1739878
I have listened to both the stereo CD and stereo SACD mix.  The mix is slightly improved on the SACD layer, but it still pegs the meters at -0.1 dBFS.  Why go through all of the trouble to create an SACD version of this album that is just as slammed as the CD version?  I love the music on this album, but unfortunately both layers sound like compressed garbage.  Do not buy.
3713434
I've had the vinyl and regular CD versions of Thriller for years and looked forward to hearing it on a multichannel SACD.  Imagine my disapointment to discover it was remastered only into stereo.  My wife didn't know that before she bought it for me for Christmas.  The SACD version sounds great, but I don't think significantly better than the regular CD version.  Get this if you don't already have a CD copy of version, but don't get it if you have multichannel audio capability and are looking for a new listening experience.
1977588
This is in reference to the 2014 remastering of All Things Must Pass, which I found to be a disappointment.  The 30th anniversary set from 2001 is a  solid remaster, it sounds very much like vinyl, similar for example to the Doors catalog on CDs that came out around the same time (not that ATMP sounds like a Doors album, rather that it's faithful to the original vinyl).  The new set sounds boomy by comparison, the soundstage sounds artificially enhanced, which works well enough on the smaller scale songs like I'd Have You Anytime and If Not For You, but turns the bigger, Spector numbers like Wah-Wah and What Is Life into mush.  YMMV, but if you're happy with 2001, 2014 isn't an upgrade.  Remastering in the past couple of years has become hit or miss: the Clash reissues from last year are stunning, while Oasis's Definitely Maybe and Nirvana's Nevermind sound better on the original CDs, to name a few random examples.  I'm hoping the success of the recent Beatle mono LPs will lead to further AAA reissues from the analog era.

Marc
4461624
Abbey Road (one of my desert island CDs) finally gets some decent treatment from Capitol. When the 87 mastered CDs came out for some reason Abbey Road got the shaft. Tape hiss was so notable and sound quality so muddy it was a huge disappointment when I bought this CD is 1987. But this IS Abbey Road and I still played the heck out of the CD. So now we have a 2009 remaster -- is all well with the world again?---almost. Do NOT pay attention to any review that just says this album is louder and not better - this is not true with Abbey Road - it does have some validity with other Beatle albums (most notably the White Album) but that is NOT the case with this album and some pre-1965 ones. The low end is clearer and lower (as in "Come Together" and "Oh Darling" the bass almost startles because of it's lower Hz clarity). Louder sections of certain songs do not grate your ears as in the 1987 version - they are actually more in line with original Beatle intentions I would believe as the LP does not do that (the middle 8 section in both "Something" and "Here Comes the Sun" and the vocal on "Golden Slumbers" for example). Bass notes on "Something" and "Because" are clear. The white noise on "I Want You" no longer overwhelms the music as in the 87 master. In a rare case of "fixing" errors - Lennon's final scream on "I Want You" is no longer distorted and the voice that follows that (a source of much speculation on what is said) is buried deep in the mix. The acoustic guitar work of John on "Polythene Pam / Bathroom Window" has never been clearer - in fact it is so clear that you can hear a likely unintentional late chord strum on "Bathroom Window" after the first chorus. The two separate drum tracks stand out more on "Carry that Weight." The mix just sounds so much clearer that the "out of college" section of "You Never Give Me Your Money" spotlights both the high strung piano and the very nimble bass line note for note. The moog and keyboard work on "Here Comes the Sun" shines (no pun intended). The final guitar lick after "The love you make" line on "The End" finally spotlights every note on a very quickly played run (something also notable on the quick guitar licks before the "one sweet dream" section of "You Never Give Me Your Money"). And you may finally notice the tambourine work on "Mean Mr Mustard". So------------is Abbey Road finally perfect -- nah. If ever an album needed a good remix (aka Yellow Submarine or '1' or Let It Be Naked or even Love) it is this one. The fact that an album can isolate Ringo's great drumming (as good as he ever did with the Beatles) to a left or right channel and even put the bass guitar on a far right or left channel (even more annoying) but still be such a masterpiece is a testament to how strong the songs are on this album. I almost docked this a star due to the lousy packaging - but it does contain photos from some great late period photo sessions and the mini documentary is not bad - some of the remasters have far worse. If you are looking for a starting point for a Beatle CD collection this is as good as any - my own personal Beatle favorite CD. Buy it now and enjoy and hope for a remix in the near future.
1464361
The collected music of the Doors deserves five stars; the pointless release antics of the band and Elektra records does not.
Looks like they slapped a different cover on this and knocked down the list price; this box set appeared several years ago at a hefty price and still offers little to no incentive to buy it.
The Doors' individual discs have been lower priced for years, and they were remastered before.  Most fans out there own all of the albums, or at the very least they own one of the countless collections the band has put out over the years (Best of, Legacy, Greatest Hits, etc.)
And let's get something straight: this is NOT the complete studio recordings.  The Doors did not cease to exist when Jim Morrison died in 1971; the band recorded two studio albums and continued to tour for a while after.  So where are those albums?  Well, they've never been released on CD, for reasons I can only guess (as in, they're not up to the quality of the Morrison Doors and it's more of the Doors' revisionist history at work).
And how do they entice us to pick up material we already own?  By including a Rare Essentials disc that culls materials from the OTHER disappointing boxset (known simply as the Doors Box Set).  So again, if you're a big fan, you own that box as well.
It's obvious that they couldn't move as many copies of this set at the previous jacked up price.  And it's well known that the Doors have no equal when it comes to re-releasing the same material over and over (with the exception of The Who, or maybe Hendrix, who at least had an excuse).
Recommended...for who?  If you only have a greatest hits and want to splurge, I would say get it so you have all of the albums (well, most of them) in better remastered quality, plus the bonus disc.  Otherwise, most fans will be staying away from this.  Besides, you can buy the individual albums cheaper and with a few more bucks just buy the other box set.
4430692
The reviewer who insists that the version of this album to have is the white cover with the vampire on it does a serious disservice to anyone looking for this classic.

First, that version is issued in the UK by Hallmark Music and Entertainment, but you don't find out until later that Hallmark is a label owned and distributed by Pickwick Group, Ltd.  If you remember any Pickwick budget album you've ever bought, they are infamous for the substandard tapes they use.  This album is no exception.

Second, the mixes here are muddy and hissy.  So what if the vocals are mixed up.  You can barely hear the music behind the vocals.

Third, and most important, this is in monaural sound, where ther Polydor reissue has been mixed into clear and brilliant stereo. And so what if the vocals aren't in your face?  They are still very clear and audible.

The Polydor issue sounds like a pile of towels has been removed from the speakers, whereas the Hallmark issue sounds as if those towels (and a couple of blankets!) are still obscuring the sound.  Back in the day (1973) I went through many copies of the 45 and only found one that had truly good sound, so I think I know of what I speak.

This is just my opinion, but if you're truly a fan of this music, you want the best reissue you can get.  The Polydor from the 90s with a b/w photo of Bobby Pickett on the cover is the one to get.
120417
Shop around before you buy! Amazon seems to be the highest price on the block at $375.(plus Jerry Brown tax for California residents).

The boxed set is very well put together and includes a "coffee table" book. This time, everything was made in Germany, including the records. The recent stereo box had U.S. pressing issues, manufactured by Rainbow Records. Fortunately, under UMG leadership, they decided to have ALL records pressed in Germany, for the entire world.

Nothing is without flaws, but of particular interest to me was how the "White Album" would sound in MONO on vinyl, so I played that one first. There was a bit of surface noise, but when it got near the end of "Ob-La-Di", there was a click for several rotations. After stopping and inspecting the record, pulled freshly from it's sleeve, I found the remnant crumbs of somebody's lunch stuck to the record. A quick cleaning on my VPI solved the problem.

All but the "Mono Masters" album are in those horrible re-sealable flap plastic sleeves. You know the ones that like to stick to the album jackets and tear them if you are not careful. So the first order of business is to replace those plastic sleeves with the open-ended ones after playing each record. Another problem here is that there is no way to physically proove that the records have never been played, if purchased as an investment. The outer shipping box is sealed, but it should really be openned to make sure that you got the correct merchandise and that it is undamaged. The seller could have also been shipping vinyl bundles of Lawrence Welk albums that day.

The "Mono Masters" 3LP set is sealed in shrinkwrap.

In playing these LPs, the first thing I noticed is a total lack of bass. My 300W sub-wolfer sat there idle making hardly a rumble. Until the supposedly silent tracks between the songs. Rumble, rumble, rumble. Initially listenning with my Accutrac belt-driven turntable(in true British style), I switched to my AT direct-drive turntable. Wow! Same rumble! Maybe there is a railroad line next to the Abbey Road studios? I momentarily plopped on my original MONO and stereo copies of the Beatles albums, and surprise!, there was plenty of bass.

Included inside each LP cover is a nice little folded paper with album information and an ad for the "Love" show in Las Vegas.

Reading through the nice book, in every description of each album, they always managed to state how long the MONO mixing sessions took and how little time was spent on the stereo mixes. Also claiming that the MONO mixes were done first and making them the Beatles wanted them to sound(probably true). Now, why SHOULD they spend alot of time on the stereo mixes? The initial track formula was laid down in the MONO mixing sessions, so why spend alot of time on the stereo mixes? All they had to do was placement, volume, phasing, the added sound effects and correcting mistakes in the MONO mixes that would stand out like a sore thumb in the more spacious stereo mixes. With the 2-tracks it was easy, but not so correctable. With the added sound effects, some didn't sound as good in stereo as in MONO, so substitutions had to be made.

Overall, it's a nice set. It's obvious that they didn't take quite the care that they thought they did, from following the old engineer's notes(admittedly modifying them) to the record pressing. Buy this but shop around before you blow your budget. You can easily find this box elsewhere for under $272. including free shipping and no CA tax.
2853729
(This is a review of the product itself, not the music..)

Great album, not the strongest of Reznor's, but one of his most outright heavy efforts since "Broken" and a welcome follow up to Year Zero. Be warned, however, that the copy I received has a distinct warp on one edge of the vinyl. Although I should have learned my lesson after getting 5 warped copies of "With Teeth" from Amazon earlier this year I still clicked "buy" and took my chances. Due to returning what feels like too many warped LPs I just gave up on returning this one and am instead dealing with the frantic jumping of my sub-woofers from the first track on each side. It certainly doesn't help that this record has such a low volume in comparison to nearly everything else I own so it must be CRANKED to a ridiculous degree to get as wonderfully loud as the CD or digital download versions. I should feel like a sucker for buying a "free" album in the first place... this is the only NIN vinyl I regret purchasing. Music is great, packaging is gorgeous, sound transfer to vinyl is just "alright" (even at 180 Grams), and the product is borderline defective. Question to Amazon: "How are you storing these?!?!" Stick with the FLAC lossless available from nin.com. It's free and sounds superior to this usually mind blowing format. There is quite a bit of surface noise on the disc as well, likely due to having to turn it up so much. A few pops on first spin as well. I have decent equipment, so this is rather annoying.
This may not be news to you, prospoective buyer, but some digital recordings just don't translate well to vinyl. Bjork's "Vespertine" has hissing on the vocal "S" sounds, fuzzy hi-hats and distorted chimes. No good. Another recent Nine Inch Nails release, "Y34rz3r0r3m1x3d" translated wonderfully, having gorgeous range and depth with rich lows and crisp highs.
"The Slip" is more or less in the middle of those two examples in the way of transfer quality. Tolerable but not great.
If you're a hardcore collector then I suppose there is no swaying you. For a casual nin/vinyl enthusiast, I wouldn't recommend this music on this format merely on the grounds it just doesn't pound the same way the other formats do. Hope that helps someone out there.
4169890
Awful Quality "Remastering" on SACD. This is the second Mobile Fidelity SACD I've purchased that is an abomination (the first was the first Ray Charles SACD). I have earlier Mobile Fidelity SACD's which sound very good (Dead Can Dance, Pixies, Marvin Gaye), but this is the last one I buy. First it is quite clear they pump up the volume of the song so loud that the tape hiss is very pronounced. They boost the sound so much that there is clipping (which sounds like vinyl surface noise) in just about every song. In one song (Say A Little Prayer) they adjust the sound volume (very quickly) lower than higher again within the song.
4947332
I just got this disc today from Amazon. This is not going to be a review of the music, as if you're looking at this SACD, you know what you're getting and you either like it or don't.

I already have the Japanese only remaster that came out a few months back in three formats: Platinum SHM-CD, new SHM-CD (not the original ones which were released a few years ago), and SHM-SACD. I have not yet compared the redbook (CD) layer of the Japanese to the Audio Fidelity, but I did compare the SACD layer of the AF to the SHM-SACD. I will ultimately do a bigger shootout, but I doubt many people have both SACDs so I figured I'd post my first impressions.

To be fair, PT has "good bones", meaning it was well recorded and the existing version on CD never was so horrid you cried for a remaster. I was as shocked as anyone to realize not only would I get it on SACD, but there would be two different versions released so close to one another. I listened to these using DSD out of my SACD player and used the SACD Direct mode of my receiver, so I was listening to the DSD stream.

Unlike AF's Grand Illusion which I found to be terrible, thankfully Paradise Theater fares better. It doesn't sound like garbage or take all the oomph out (not that PT would ever be mistaken for AC/DC's Back In Black on the rocking scale). But don't take that as a ringing endorsement, either. On its own if you don't ever listen to anything else, it really isn't bad. Soundstage isn't too narrow, EQ sounds OK, but I wasn't exactly blown away. There's definitely more resolution than the standard CD that you can hear.

When listening to the Japanese SHM-SACD, there are certainly differences. EQ is definitely different, and soundstage is wider. There's a less pronounced upper bass/mids than on the AF, which is more indicative of a light mastering or as what seems to be the trend with the latest SHM-SACDs, a direct copy of the stereo master tape. Depending on your taste, this is good or bad, but I think there's better overall EQ balance on the SHM-SACD. Resolution here is also very good.

Which is better? To my ears, it's the SHM-SACD. It has wider soundstage (which PT always had), and sounds more like it has to me on LP and CD than the AF. The AF has a bit of that hallmark I heard on their mastering of GI (narrower soundstage), but it's not as pronounced - at least on the SACD layer. The SHM-SACD sounds more natural overall. I'm not saying the EQ on the AF is totally off or sucks the life out of it as I felt the mastering on the GI CD was. The SHM-SACD is more expensive, so many people may find the AF "good enough". Overall, I just feel the SHM-SACD is more musical than the AF SACD layer. I don't think either would be demo discs for hi-rez audio, but are certainly welcome additions. If I wasn't a collector of Styx music, I could probably just own the SHM-SACD and be done with it.

Bottom line: if you like Styx, this may not be a bad addition to your collection, but I think there's a better version out there. Whether that version is worth the extra money to you is between your wallet and your ears. The AF gets three stars for being OK.
856347
They have done such an incredible job with this DVD-Audio edition. I can't figure out why they never did the rest of the catalog, or better yet release SACDs of their music!! But hey, I'm just one of "the buying public" so apparently our words fall on deaf and ignorant ears.

On this disc you have options of:
DTS 24bit/96kHz 5.1 surround
PCM 24/96 stereo
and
MLP (lossless) 24/96 5.1 surround
3703268
This SACD is an audiophile favorite, so is the LP and for good reasons. With gear up to the task the instruments spread in a wide semi-circle in front of you with all their subtle tone differences clearly exposed. The music is full of energy and verve and dynamic, tonal colours are superb.
The flip-side and reason for only 4 stars is that the CD layer is not capable of providing this level of information and transparency. It is actually quite a let-down with very metallicaly uniform tones and instruments massed on top of each other (maybe not quite that bad but certainly not the wide stage of the SACD of LP).

So only recommended if you have an SACD player up to the task - otherwise get the vinyl.
2537717
Listen to this record over and over and over and over again, and you'll never get tired of it.

I think everyone else pretty much described what you are to expect when you press play.

My only advice is, DO NOT buy the SACD version of this, because, while trying to "remaster" this fine recording, they actually killed alot of the high frequencies and the whole "ambiance" that the regular version or original recording had to it. You might not be able to pick up on it entirely if you listen to the recording on a regular sound system but to those who are audiophiles and own decent equipment, compare both and you will hear what I'm talking about.

Either way tho, the music is what really matters in the end, and that is worth a listen for sure SACD or no SACD.

Pour yourself a glass, and prepare to be transported to the Pawnshop and witness these amazing musicians do their thing.