I feel I need to annotate my review with this note. Recently I listened to this recording in a different way on on a different (and much better than my own) system. I learned something valuable. I learned to listen better. And to be able to better discern between over-processed or digitised recordings and more analog-sounding ones. I heard the clear difference between Ray Charles' recorded voice and for example Harry Belafonte's. No contest, the voice on HB's SA-CD is much more natural with less of the sh/s/ch sounds that are very apparent on the Ray Charles disc. I also listened to the brass again and was indeed able to establish how a really good recording would have sounded. And that sounded not like anything on the Ray Charles SA-CD.
The vinyl sounds better than the SA-CD but frankly, 50 bucks I would regard as money wasted. It has the same sonic signature as the SA-CD, just a little better.
That leaves me with one question. Did I hear it wrong? In order to save some of my audophile credentials :-), I must point out that in my review I did call out the PCM character and hinted at some of the deficiencies. But I did not have the conviction and/or the knowledge at the time to call them out for what they were. OTOH I did instantly pick-up that the RB-CD was basically unlistenable to me.
Three things still stand. 1) The Ray Charles SA-CD is musically fantastic and you should buy it. 2) The idea to put this together was inspired. 3) The recording is still enjoyable to me and I still like listening to the details of his phrasing and vocal delivery. But I don't think the words 'glorious sound' should have been in my review.
It goes back to this; it's about the recording and mastering chain. The latter two determine sound quality. Not a format. But it's a sad thing that recording and mastering so often mess-up and deliver discs to us that could have sounded so much better.
Jw
|
