| Review by emilsjr June 1, 2003 (1 of 1 found this review helpful)
|
Performance: Sonics: |
Toto made it big with their best album IV. Sony has released this disc twice, with the second being this multi-channel/stereo release.
The original stereo only release was marked by lackluster sonics and annoying pop sounds that were sprinkled throughout the disc. This was one of my very first SACD purchases. It was so bad that I avoided SACD for almost 1 year after. This new version has an improved stereo mix w/o the pops. Compared to other digital versions I have heard, IV in stereo is the best you can get.
Now, the multi-channel mix. The word that pops into my head is "uneven". The sonics are acceptable for an 80's release. However, there are moments in the mix where the rear channels become too dominant. "Africa" is the best example of this. The rears so over power the mix that the lyrics are lost. "Lovers in the night" also shows this. However, on other tracks, like "Rosanna" and "I won't hold you back", the mix is effective. Although there is some interesting ideas in this mix, I stay stick with stereo.
As for the album, I do not think there is much more to stay. You will either have found memories, have never heard of it or have hated it. There rarely seems to be apathy when it comes to Toto. If you fit into either of the first 2 categories, pick this disc up.
|
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
| Review by Noonions April 1, 2004 (1 of 1 found this review helpful)
|
Performance: Sonics: |
| The multichannel SACD of Toto's 1982 mega-seller is pretty good;though the surround aspect is overdone on "Africa"(sadly),the rest are very well done,most notably on "Rosanna","I Won't Hold You Back" and "Afraid Of Love".The 2-channel SACD,however,is probably the best way to hear this 80's pop gem,possibly the best 2-channel SACD I've heard yet!
|
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
| Review by Goodwood December 9, 2006
|
Performance: Sonics (S): |
Stereo set up only for me so all comments for 2 channel. I don't know if the 2 channel mix is similar or not to the originally released SACD. Some say yes others say no.
Listening in isolation this disc sounds OK. If I were to pinpoint one aspect which I am a little uncomfortable with its the prominent upper mids (on my system anyway). If anyone has played with a graphic eq they will know that even a minor hump in the mids can change everything. Thats the impression I get with most of this disc. Maybe its the classic double edged sword of tighter bass.
So what about resolution? I did some comparisons with my original CD (I sold my 20 bit mastered 24 carat diamond encrusted (OK I made the last bit up) version a while ago. The SACD does seem to have more clarity and dynamics (especially with the occasional tom toms that are put in for drama). I thought the treble on the SACD sounded fuzzy and fizzy but in truth the CD has the same characteristics. In fact it seems to me that the source probably isn't that great. I wonder if this album was recorded using early digital technology? For whatever reason this album, while musically a classic, doesn't seem to have taken advantage of my system upgades as well as other discs have.
Conclusion? Not a showpiece for SACD. The Boston album for example is in a different league but for what is its OK. I think rather than ruin the material SACD has simply revealed the sources limitations. Your mileage may vary. What do I know - I just listened to it several times on my system.
|
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
| Review by sportbigred October 6, 2007 (0 of 1 found this review helpful)
|
Performance: Sonics (S/MC): / |
| I was disappointed after listening to the SACD surround mix. The stereo mix is by far more solid and has more depth than the SACD mix. Some of the panning of instruments is kind of strange and didn't seemed to fit properly in the surround mix.
|
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
