| Review by FivePointOne October 23, 2003 (1 of 1 found this review helpful)
|
Performance: Sonics (MC): |
This is the best Bowie album, from start to finish.
The multichannel effects are pretty good--a bit more than "ambient," yet not as "placed" as you hear on "DSOTM" "Avalon" or "Sea Change."
Fun stuff.
---------------
After a couple of listens, and listening to other stuff I have, I'm going to have to downgrade the Sonics rating to 3-1/2 stars.
I still think it sounds good, and I would certainly recommend getting it, but they could have done a whole lot more with the placement within the 5.1 soundfield
|
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
| Review by vonwegen November 2, 2003
|
Performance: Sonics (S/MC): / |
I have to agree with 5.1 on this album's sonics--Ken Scott & co. could've done more with the surround sound mix, especially to boost the volume levels and the low end.
This is one THIN-sounding recording. I played it against Dylan's "Bringing It All Back Home" and TRAFOZSATSFM still sounds quite tinny, but then the vinyl version suffered from that too. Root cause is the original master tapes. The bass was run through a direct box into the board, instead of thru an amp, and the drums were definitely recorded in a drum booth, leaving the sound "like a bunch of cereal boxes," as Mick Woodmansey complained.
Nice clarity, but it makes my surround speakers sound a bit like transistor radios. When I play my Aerosmith "Toys In The Attic" SACD or Deep Purple's "Machine Head", nothing sounds transitorized at all--just full, LOUD guitars, bass & drums, with the vox on top.
Overall, this one could use a Tony Visconti surround remix. The more I listen to the surround mix, the more I dislike it.
However, the stereo mix sounds quite good!
|
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
| Review by hawkfan May 22, 2004
|
Performance: Sonics: |
| When i first heard this i was not quite sure about it, the sound did,t sound right to me, so believe it or not i turned up the volume, and now it sounds very good, i don,t know if its me but it sounds better with the volume turned up louder than average, and after a few more listens i like it very much, as i do all my SACDs
|
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
| Review by CaryGrant May 30, 2005 (1 of 2 found this review helpful)
|
Performance: Sonics (S): |
I have to say I love this album. The sound is not as rich as some SACDs, but still quite good. I love the songs, so the music quality can suffer a bit and I'll still enjoy the album. Overall, though, I would still rate it as highly listenable sonically.
Note: Review based on good quality mid-fi stereo, not multichannel.
|
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
| Review by ColoradoClark June 21, 2005 (4 of 4 found this review helpful)
|
Performance: Sonics (MC): |
| Ziggy is my favorite Bowie album and the SACD is my third CD format of the album. A vinyl-loving friend of mine and I sat down and took a serious listen to the sonic quality of this SACD - comparing it to both CD releases of Ziggy - and we both gave the SACD a "thumbs down" on sonic quality. The guitar (in particular) sounds very distant and tinny, losing a lot of the power and character that carries through the album. Interesting to note that my friend and I both agreed that the first CD relaease late eighties or early 90s?) had the best sonic quality, with a warmth that is lacking in both the SACD and the later CD relase...and the first CD sounds closest to the original vinyl.
|
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
| Review by lucevans March 16, 2006 (1 of 1 found this review helpful)
|
Performance: Sonics (S/MC): / |
I hesitated after reading some of the reviews here, but eventually decided to get it and make my own mind up.
I initially listened to the 5.1 layer, and was rather disappointed - I accept that the source tapes are old and the original studio recording was made with a 2-channel master in mind, but I couldn't help feeling that the multi-channel mix didn't make the most of what was available; it sounded dull and murky with very little distinction or punch: the separation was, I'm afraid, probably the worst of all the multi-channel SACDs that I've heard to date.
However, I love the content so much that no sooner had the last strains of "Rock'n'Roll Suicide" faded, I started again from the beginning with the Stereo layer. and, oh boy, what a difference!! I was immediately transported back to the excitement and energy I felt listening to it for the first time. While not particularly Bassy, the 2-channel mix has remarkable clarity compared with the multi-channel version. The presence was so much more immediate that one could be forgiven for imagining that it was being played on completely different equipment. Just for good measure, I listened for a third time in stereo on headphones, and my initial impression of the stereo layer was borne-out: a superb job. I was left with the feeling that what I was hearing was what Bowie heard through the monitors in the studio all those years ago, and that I was hearing it exactly as it was originally envisaged by the artist. Don't get me wrong - I'm not a stereo-purist; I love multi-channel when it's done well (Beck-Sea Change) but I'm finding that engineers are still investing more time and effort in producing sublime stereo SACDs than 5.1 - maybe because they have more experience in mixing to 2 channels, maybe because it's actually much more difficult to produce a good-sounding 5.1 mix, or maybe it's simple economics...far more consumers continue to listen in stereo than 5.1, so it's not cost-effective to spend much time on the more complex 5.1 mixing process.
Would I recommend this SACD? Yes, but even those with 5.1 systems will probably enjoy the stereo mix more.
|
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
