Thread: What is the worst sounding SACD you own?

Posts: 55
Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 next

Post by The Seventh Taylor April 26, 2012 (31 of 55)
FWIW, more discussion about bad-sounding SACDs here: /showthread/71381 (and here /showthread/28695 )

Post by seth April 26, 2012 (32 of 55)
Windsurfer said:

+1 !

I know I listened to that thing once! Not so sure I ever will again though. There are too many wonderful recordings to spend my time listening to. Some are of the Mahler #5, in fact.

I actually sold it for a profit on the Amazon marketplace -- there are plenty of people out there who want it.

Post by jazz1 April 27, 2012 (33 of 55)
I do not have any bad SACD's just a few disapointing ones and one of them is the Channel Classics "Joseph Legend" altough rated 5 * on this board does nothing for me.

Post by nucaleena April 27, 2012 (34 of 55)
jazz1 said:

I do not have any bad SACD's just a few disapointing ones and one of them is the Channel Classics "Joseph Legend" altough rated 5 * on this board does nothing for me.

jazz, are you sure this is a channel classics release. Several searches on this site failed to turn it up and I've never heard of it.

Post by Windsurfer April 27, 2012 (35 of 55)
nucaleena said:

jazz, are you sure this is a channel classics release. Several searches on this site failed to turn it up and I've never heard of it.

Richard Strauss: Josephs Legende - Fischer

Josephs Legende

Post by wehecht April 27, 2012 (36 of 55)
seth said:

Mahler: Symphony No. 5 - Temirkanov - I know some people love it, but I think it's a case of the emperor having no clothes because everyone wants to love the minimal mic'ing technique.

How true. All of the St. Petersburg Water Lillies are huge disappointments, and probably would top my short list of the worst, and yes, I did want to like them because of the "purist" approach, which just goes to show that no single technique, or mic, or converter, or whatever, guarantees a good result.

As I've read through the thread I note that posters have singled out a number of discs that I think are perfectly acceptable, and others that I think are actually quite good (the Mozart multi-piano concertos for example). Everyone of us hears something different when we play a given recording. Our playback gear is different and our listening environments are nothing like each other. Some of us listen in stereo, others in mc, some on headphones and others on speakers, and even if we could equalize all of these factors we wouldn't agree on what sounds good. Some of us like a conductor's perspective and others would prefer to hear the piece as if we were seated in the first balcony. The conversation could go on and on and never reach consensus.

I guess what I'm saying is that a thread like this is sort of like an eclair or cream puff: very tasty and alot of fun, but not to be taken seriously because there's no real nutritional value.

Post by pgmdir April 27, 2012 (37 of 55)
Windsurfer said:

Richard Strauss: Josephs Legende - Fischer

Josephs Legende

I've got it.... I found the sound to be fine, but I discovered that outside of Death and Transfiguration and Don Juan, I don't need Strauss all that much.

My most irritaing SACD sound-wise is the Nott M2, which seems to be mostly liked around the Forum. Mahler: Symphony No. 2 - Nott. It's like fingernails on a blackboard to me. The performance is fine, but...

Post by Hitters April 27, 2012 (38 of 55)
Definitely one of them is Miles Davis' Kind of Blue

Miles Davis: Kind of Blue

Where is the bass?

Another one sure is Weather Report Heavy Weather

Weather Report: Heavy Weather

Sounds like an old recording on a cassette!

Unsurprisingly, both are from a batch of SACDs released by Sony in 1997. They should have remastered the original tapes, not leave them just like they found them.

Post by seth April 27, 2012 (39 of 55)
wehecht said:

As I've read through the thread I note that posters have singled out a number of discs that I think are perfectly acceptable, and others that I think are actually quite good (the Mozart multi-piano concertos for example). Everyone of us hears something different when we play a given recording. Our playback gear is different and our listening environments are nothing like each other. Some of us listen in stereo, others in mc, some on headphones and others on speakers, and even if we could equalize all of these factors we wouldn't agree on what sounds good. Some of us like a conductor's perspective and others would prefer to hear the piece as if we were seated in the first balcony. The conversation could go on and on and never reach consensus.

I guess what I'm saying is that a thread like this is sort of like an eclair or cream puff: very tasty and alot of fun, but not to be taken seriously because there's no real nutritional value.

This raises an interesting issue.

When the Water Lillies came out I was the lone voice of dissent on a few forums. Some audiophiles scoffed at me, explaining that I needed equipment of a certain high caliber to properly playback these recordings. In other words, my system wasn't expensive enough.

I thought this was a pretty bogus argument. Labels like Channel Classics routinely win praise from listeners with a wide spectrum of playback equipment. A good recordings should sound good relatively to other recordings played on the same system. Same is true with bad recordings. After all, we evaluate recording quality by making comparisons to other recordings.

I would argue that what really changes from listening environment to environment is not the equipment, but the listener. Listeners have different aesthetic tastes when it comes to recorded sound. Some people like bright sounding recordings, some wants tons of bass, some are stereo purists, etc.

But in the case of the Water Lilly disc I cited, I strongly believe it's just garbage :p

Post by SteelyTom April 27, 2012 (40 of 55)
Evil is much more fascinating than good, as this thread again demonstrates.

Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 next

new post