Big O on all music guide

[peterC]

All Music Guide Roy review:

"The DCC series has been discontinued, as even the most ardent audiophile couldn't distinguish between the sound of its 24-karat gold CD and the standard run-of-the-mill store copy."

I wonder how many ardent audiophiles they asked.

(sorry if this is an old one)

[Matt]

My god, what kind of half-assed writing is that?

First, they imply that it was discontinued because it wasn't that different from the crappy standard CD (never mind licensing running out and so forth).

Second, it just goes to show you, there is a desperate need for an album buyer's guide that addresses audiophile concerns as well as quality, historical importance, etc.

[jligon]

AMG is ok for content reviews but they have led me astray numerous times regarding the sound quality of compact discs.
They seem to embrace virtually everything that has been remastered in the last five years. No concept of the destructive capabilities of no-noising, eq boosting, etc...
Therefore, I am very skeptical of any of the suggestions they make regarding the sound quality of the CDs.

[Evan]

And they only gave two and a half stars to Elvis Presly's 24 Karat Hits that Steve did :eek: :mad:

They must do all of their listening on a boombox or maybe a clock radio :rolleyes:

[lukpac]

Originally posted by Evan
And they only gave two and a half stars to Elvis Presly's 24 Karat Hits that Steve did :eek: :mad:

Actually, I don't think they even reviewed it. It probably just got that rating to "have a rating"...

[Patrick M]

Originally posted by Matt
Second, it just goes to show you, there is a desperate need for an album buyer's guide that addresses audiophile concerns as well as quality, historical importance, etc.
An interesting idea, but who would you trust?

I'm not ragging these guys in particular, but I'll use this as a convenient example:

http://www.8-arms.com/history.htm

In many cases, the DCC versions are not recommended. It's all opinion, but their suggestions would go against the opinions of many on this forum.

[peterC]

Originally posted by lukpac


Actually, I don't think they even reviewed it. It probably just got that rating to "have a rating"...

I assume they just looked at the track listing and thought how can you possibly sum up such a career on one CD and gave it a low rating on that basis. I guess that's a fair point.

Maybe the best thing for AMG to do is avoid subjective (aren't they all) reviews of sound quality and just review the contents.

Then again unless you're from the moon you don't really need someone to give you a star rating of the musical contents of an Elvis compilation and in that case a comparison of sound quality of various compilations would be useful. It's just that we can't trust AMG to get that right.

[MagicAlex]

AMG doesn't always get things right, do they? I have seen many discography mistakes...espsecially with recording dates and personnel.

But in my opinion I believe what the reviewer was trying to pinpoint is not the sound quality of the DCC releases as much as the gold format of the disc as opposed to regular aluminum. Of course I am basing this only upon the original post quote in this thread. I have not read the original full review.

Maybe it would have been better stated as "ONLY the most ardent audiophile COULD distinguish between the sound of its 24-karat gold CD and the standard run-of-the-mill store copy"

Just my thought...

[Michael]

There has never been any DCC Gold "Duds"and YES there is always a difference.
Take a listen to "Serenade" by Steve Miller on the Gold DCC Greatest Hits. Then compare it to the regular CD issue. WOW! Same with Hotel Californa another amazing track...True Hoffman quality..."Clarity with Balls"

[Dave]

Originally posted by Patrick M
In many cases, the DCC versions are not recommended. It's all opinion, but their suggestions would go against the opinions of many on this forum.
And planet Earth as well. ;) :D

[MagicAlex]

Originally posted by MagicAlex
But in my opinion I believe what the reviewer was trying to pinpoint is not the sound quality of the DCC releases as much as the gold format of the disc as opposed to regular aluminum

Quoted myself...I was wrong...I misunderstood the quote. My point, however mistaken as hindsight reveals, was that only the most ardent audiophile would be able to tell the difference between the same remaster produced in both the aluminum & gold formats. Again it is still my thoughts....

[jligon]

For me, the DCCs don't jump out and slap you in the face like the remastered CDs from the last few years do (this is a good thing, as far as the DCCs are concerned). Especially if it's on a system that is somewhat dark (like mine).

Many reviewers seem to rave over stuff like the Elvis Presley 50s box because it sounds "better" than it ever has before. Louder, crisper, boosted, etc...

I think that's what the reviewers are talking about when they give kudos to many of the recent remasters. Not tonality, soundstage or any of the other critical variables.

Still, one of my favorite Websites on the Internet. I just have to be cautious on how I "use" it.

[MagicAlex]

Originally posted by jligon
Still, one of my favorite Websites on the Internet. I just have to be cautious on how I "use" it.

jligon...just curious as to what site you refer to....

[peterC]

One of the problems with AMG is that their several reviewers don't seem to read each others reviews.

For example:

1. If you read through the Buddy Holly (I think) reviews you'll find several which claim the CD being reviewed is the best sounding Buddy Holly CD available!

2. There is a Toots and the Maytals CD which has been released twice under 2 different titles. Identical content and sound quality. One reviewer gives it 4 or 5 stars as I recall and another reviewer gives it 2 stars. OK everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I think there is some onus on AMG to show some internal consistency within the reviews of an artist, especially when I emailed them to point out the discrepancy (email ignored of course).

[jligon]

Originally posted by peter castanos
One of the problems with AMG is that their several reviewers don't seem to read each others reviews.

For example:

1. If you read through the Buddy Holly (I think) reviews you'll find several which claim the CD being reviewed is the best sounding Buddy Holly CD available!

2. There is a Toots and the Maytals CD which has been released twice under 2 different titles. Identical content and sound quality. One reviewer gives it 4 or 5 stars as I recall and another reviewer gives it 2 stars. OK everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I think there is some onus on AMG to show some internal consistency within the reviews of an artist, especially when I emailed them to point out the discrepancy (email ignored of course).

Now Peter, you're starting to scare me we think so alike. I can't believe you mentioned those two artists. Both examples that I was thinking of when I wrote my previous post.

I couldn't wait to get the BGO release of Buddy Holly & The Chirping Crickets after reading their preliminary review of it. They commented on hearing the guitar or bass strings resonating like never before etc...After getting it however, I was disappointed with the sound. Had a "Rhinoness" to it I didn't like.

Additionally, their Toots section is a mess. I was looking for another version of Sweet & Dandy because I have the Jet Set version that mistakenly has a song repeated (terrific otherwise) and there are a couple of other similarly listed discs (Bla, Bla, Bla & one other, at least) with reviews all over the board.

Again, often frustrating, but invaluable in many ways.

[peterC]

jligon, That IS spooky!

Yep, Bla Bla Bla is the one. Gets a good rating doesn't it? It was rereleased as That's My Number. Sound quality on both is not good.

The absolute best of Toots is the material he did for Leslie Kong and the best of that is found on Pressure Drop The Best of Toots and the Maytals on trojan. Sound is good for trojan.
Also the trojan twofer of Monkey Man and From the Roots is great.

....but I guess you already knew all this!

As for Buddy I nearly bought the BGO after reading the review, but I'm now glad I stuck with my Steve version plus the 2 disc Collection.

[jligon]

I owned Bla Bla Bla for about 5 hours before it was on Ebay. Terrible sound.

I love the early Ska stuff that Toots recorded for Clement Dodd at Studio One. Never Grow Old is an amazing album with, obviously, poor sound. By the way, Ska Bonanza on Heartbeat/Rounder is an incredible two disc set that you should seek out if you haven't already and like that early/mid 60's Jamaican Ska (Toots, Skatalites, etc...).

I've been looking into both of those Trojan releases you mentioned (I have a Desmond Dekker disc on Trojan that is decent) and am glad to hear the sound is acceptable. Thats' about all you can ask for most of that Jamaican music from the 60's and early 70's.

[peterC]

Originally posted by jligon
I owned Bla Bla Bla for about 5 hours before it was on Ebay. Terrible sound.

I love the early Ska stuff that Toots recorded for Clement Dodd at Studio One. Never Grow Old is an amazing album with, obviously, poor sound. By the way, Ska Bonanza on Heartbeat/Rounder is an incredible two disc set that you should seek out if you haven't already and like that early/mid 60's Jamaican Ska (Toots, Skatalites, etc...).

I've been looking into both of those Trojan releases you mentioned (I have a Desmond Dekker disc on Trojan that is decent) and am glad to hear the sound is acceptable. Thats' about all you can ask for most of that Jamaican music from the 60's and early 70's.


The Heartbeat CDs have the best sound. Apart from Ska Bonanza there are 2 other two disc Heartbeat sets you MUST get. One is "Respect to Studio One" and the other is The Treasure Island compilation (can't remember the exact name). I have them both and they're great.

The trojan Toots CDs can be purchased directly from the trojan website.

Bla Bla Bla and several others with the bad sound all seem to be french/european releases.

[njwiv]

AMG has the information on Levon Helm's 1978 and 1982 self-titled albums reversed, among other errors in those listing. I have e-mailed them the appropriate corrections (even pointing them to The Band website for corroboration) at least 10 times over the last 6 months, with nary a response or any revisions to their entries. I use the site a great deal, but it's definitely caveat emptor there.

Jay