HiRez Poll Bowie, David - ZIGGY STARDUST [SACD]

[IMachine]

I really enjoy the SACD, so I gave an 8.
Yes it is a bit thin sounding, but for me it's ok.

 

[neil wilkes]

I really enjoy the SACD, so I gave an 8.
Yes it is a bit thin sounding, but for me it's ok.

And that - along with the very conservative mix from Ken Scott - is my problem with it. The album just should not sound so thin, and it makes me think Ken's top end has gone.
Come to think about it, most of Bowie's catalogue has been done badly - I wonder why?

 

[IMachine]

And that - along with the very conservative mix from Ken Scott - is my problem with it. The album just should not sound so thin, and it makes me think Ken's top end has gone.
Come to think about it, most of Bowie's catalogue has been done badly - I wonder why?

For the old ones, Young Americans is the best one.
Heathen is also very good.

I think they had problems with the source material for the classics.

 

[neil wilkes]

I think they had problems with the source material for the classics.

I have heard this tired old line so often now I was starting to believe it - until I heard proper mix master tapes of the first 14 studio albums, and they blew me away.
By comparison with the tape transfers, every digital version yet released sounds like a bad joke - it really does. I truly with that the labels would not mess with things as much, as even on the much touted 40th Ziggy release (which at first, if played on it's own sounds okay) it is only when you equalize volume and play alongside what I have that the true horror begins to make itself heard - the stereo image widens, the vocals lose the nasal quality & the bass end tightens up gloriously underneath Ronno's guitars. Ziggy has still never been heard how it was mixed in an released version.
To summarize - there is absolutely nothing wrong with the source material & I think this all came about because for the RCA CD, one of them at least was taken from a cassette master as it was all that could allegedly be found at the time. Yeah.

 

[blue.monk]

Hmm, a rather uninspired 5.1 mix. There are some nice moments but the rears are rarely used for discrete placement of instruments. And when they are, like the guitar licks at the end of "Five Years", the level is often too low to be impactful. A "6" for me.

 

[cupboy]

The best way to play Ziggy Stardust is this:

 

[keenly]

How is the EQ on this compared to the DTS 24/96 DVD? The DVD is very bright.

 

[fredblue]

Can't tell you off the top of my head but my recollection was the DVD wasn't that impressive in 5.1 and didn't seem any different to the 5.1 on the SACD (the Stereo on the DVD was better than the SACD Stereo but wasn't outstanding) though it was nice to have the bonus in surround which wasn't on the SACD. I need to give the 40th DVD and the SACD a compare, I don't think I ever have.

 

[fredblue]

The best way to play Ziggy Stardust is this:

YUM! :worthy

 

[keenly]

Can't tell you off the top of my head but my recollection was the DVD wasn't that impressive in 5.1 and didn't seem any different to the 5.1 on the SACD (the Stereo on the DVD was better than the SACD Stereo but wasn't outstanding) though it was nice to have the bonus in surround which wasn't on the SACD. I need to give the 40th DVD and the SACD a compare, I don't think I ever have.

The DVD has horrible bright vocals, makes your eyes water :} If you turn rears up +3db there's music and vocals throughout, they are not used sparingly which some have said. Only issue i have with this release is the EQ.

 

[fredblue]

The DVD has horrible bright vocals, makes your eyes water :} If you turn rears up +3db there's music and vocals throughout, they are not used sparingly which some have said. Only issue i have with this release is the EQ.

I am intrigued, have you got bat-like hearing or an ultra revealing system?

I'm not being horrible or taking the piss but you do pick up on a lot of this stuff, so maybe you've got the coveted "golden ears" (if so I'm "well jel..!" ) ..I'm curious as to a.) if you've had your hearing measured, maybe you can hear upto 20khz or something, in which case stuff mastered by old geezers or engineers with f¥[>d up hearing where they boost the top end would be a painful listening experience for you, or b.) your kit is clinical/inherently bright.

Meantime I'm going to try Ziggy with rears +3 dB as you advise and see if that livens up the 5.1 mix that I've been "meh" about since the day I got it! Thanks for the tips, keep it up!

 

[fredblue]

Speaking of the vocals on the Ziggy DVD.. there's no daft Dialogue Normalization going on with that disc is there?
(I've never checked).. I'm having a little chit chat over @sa-cd.net about that and why Universal would use Dial.Norm on Stereo music Blu-ray's.. or indeed why anybody would use it on a properly mixed surround music disc (my p.o.v.'s falling on deaf ears there I fear.. but wot-evaaa..! @: )

 

[keenly]

I am intrigued, have you got bat-like hearing or an ultra revealing system?

I'm not being horrible or taking the piss but you do pick up on a lot of this stuff, so maybe you've got the coveted "golden ears" (if so I'm "well jel..!" ) ..I'm curious as to a.) if you've had your hearing measured, maybe you can hear upto 20khz or something, in which case stuff mastered by old geezers or engineers with f¥[>d up hearing where they boost the top end would be a painful listening experience for you, or b.) your kit is clinical/inherently bright.

Meantime I'm going to try Ziggy with rears +3 dB as you advise and see if that livens up the 5.1 mix that I've been "meh" about since the day I got it! Thanks for the tips, keep it up!

Yes indeed I have phenomenal hearing, it's a gift and a curse :} I do not know a significant amount of technical details recording music recording and engineering, i just know i can pick up on any difference in any recording. Apart from boxing and MMA, music is my addiction. I collect and listen to music every single day, i do not know how to articulate the finer points of a recording, and as to why it sounds bad, i just know what sounds good. I rip my DVD Audios as well, put them on my laptop and look at the channels in Audacity. Takes 40 seconds to check how compressed a recording is. There is no issue with compression on the Bowie 5.1 DVD. It is fairly loud, but not bad at all, perfectly acceptable.

My kit is not bright at all. PMC speakers, Marantz receiver.

 

[fredblue]

Yes indeed I have phenomenal hearing, it's a gift and a curse :} I do not know a significant amount of technical details recording music recording and engineering, i just know i can pick up on any difference in any recording. Apart from boxing and MMA, music is my addiction. I collect and listen to music every single day, i do not know how to articulate the finer points of a recording, and as to why it sounds bad, i just know what sounds good. I rip my DVD Audios as well, put them on my laptop and look at the channels in Audacity. Takes 40 seconds to check how compressed a recording is. There is no issue with compression on the Bowie 5.1 DVD. It is fairly loud, but not bad at all, perfectly acceptable.

My kit is not bright at all. PMC speakers, Marantz receiver.

Its a gift! Embrace it!

 

[keenly]

Its a gift! Embrace it!

Not when Peter Mew gets his hands on master tapes!

 

[keenly]

OK i have this now, the mix is OK once you turn the rears up, with the exception of the rather annoying 'double stereo' lead vocals in rears and front channels. Why o why Mr Scott? If the lead vocal was in front only i would enjoy this title immensely. The mastering on this SACD is much smoother than the bright DVD(although not perfect).

 

[fredblue]

I've heard mention it's sometimes a stipulation (by just whom I don't know.. label? artist?) to have lead vocals in all other channels on these surround mixes (and quite why I'm not entirely clear).. in this case it may have been a decision made by Ken Scott.. I guess we'll never know for sure? a lot of great 5.1's have ambient lead vox in front L&R and rear L&R but normally more muted so as to not be too obtrusive.. are they as loud as each other on this mix (I don't recall and it's been a while since I played it.. I must do something about that!).

 

[keenly]

I've heard mention it's sometimes a stipulation (by just whom I don't know.. label? artist?) to have lead vocals in all other channels on these surround mixes (and quite why I'm not entirely clear).. in this case it may have been a decision made by Ken Scott.. I guess we'll never know for sure? a lot of great 5.1's have ambient lead vox in front L&R and rear L&R but normally more muted so as to not be too obtrusive.. are they as loud as each other on this mix (I don't recall and it's been a while since I played it.. I must do something about that!).

It is rather obtrusive, i find it immensely annoying. Paranoid has same issue, but even worse as the timing is out on the rear lead vocal(war pigs, paranoid). Terrible! Pure stupidity.

 

[neil wilkes]

Also, the DVD is the same mixes (different master & half bitrate DTS to boot)
The 24/96 LPCM on it is the vinyl cutting master, with a narrowed stereo image & a godawful EQ on it that makes the vocals sound extremely nasal.
A piece of crap, although not as bad as the dreadful, godsawful mess they made of Station to Station it must be said & I can see why it is OOP already.

As you all know I am no real fan of SACD, but the SACD is a much better listen on all counts here than this DVD. Okay the mix is unimaginative, almost as if Ken Scott either does not understand surround or is scared of the rear channels (how I would love to get my paws on the multitracks) but the sound quality is far superior in every respect.

 

[keenly]

Also, the DVD is the same mixes (different master & half bitrate DTS to boot)
The 24/96 LPCM on it is the vinyl cutting master, with a narrowed stereo image & a godawful EQ on it that makes the vocals sound extremely nasal.
A piece of crap, although not as bad as the dreadful, godsawful mess they made of Station to Station it must be said & I can see why it is OOP already.

As you all know I am no real fan of SACD, but the SACD is a much better listen on all counts here than this DVD. Okay the mix is unimaginative, almost as if Ken Scott either does not understand surround or is scared of the rear channels (how I would love to get my paws on the multitracks) but the sound quality is far superior in every respect.

Absolutely! I could not agree more.