WHO'S NEXT Japanese SHM-SACD

IMO it does not beat the Classic Records Who's Next. The SACD is very good but the one thing I noticed immediately is that it compared to the vinyl it sounds flat and dull and not enough bass to me while the vinyl sounds more alive and rich in bass.

 

Slightly OT, but Universal Japan is also putting out My Generation on JSHM-SACD. Very timely, as the original SACD is fetching handsome prices at the moment on the second-hand market...

 

I found the opposite and posted it earlier in this thread.


I have listened to this new one many times since that posting and compared again to my W1/W1 and Classic vinyl, and find the bass and drums sound on this SACD to be more defined with higher clarity. The over all "sound" is much improved. Solar Plexus vibrating bass lines.

I still like the vinyl, but this is the go to edition for me.

of course, this IMHO with my set-up, in my environment.


Get it Soonerfan, and you tell us what you think.

 

I can't play either in my car, so I'm sticking with the SH CD

 

CHECKMATE

 

The Classic Records LP sounds pretty jacked up with EQ compared to the SACD, IMO.

I think the SACD beats the pants off of it. I guess what you hear as "flat and dull" I hear as smooth and warm.

No worries about bass on my system with the SACD, either.

 

I find the SQ fantastic on the Who's Next SHM sacd. So far I've been somewhat shocked at the (IMHO) unexpectedly high level of reproduction of the SHM sacd's that I have received so far.

 

Anyone heard the NAD M2 true digital amplifier?
This is an advanced high-tech pulse width modulation (DSD is also pulse-width-modulation) amplifier, beautiful buildt. Think it as an D/A converter with gain, that's what it is. Costs US $6-7000.
I've heard it. It is very, very clean, distortion free and wide open sounding. Together with new high tech speakers with advanced high tech materials (even the stiffest MDF wood material sucks a bit life out of music), you will hear EVERYTHING on your records! A pure DSD signal into an D/A converter with gain, and into a very high quality speakers...ohhh, Mamma Mia!!

My point is: the purest signal, the most un-processed signal is what you in the future want. Because you will hear every processing done on your records, clear as the day because of the very high resolution, transparent and distortion free sound. So these SHM-SACDs are for the future.
The opposite: in the 70's most HiFi system was so dull and closed in sounding with bad sounding Lp players, no wonder that MoFi could give the Beatles records a major EQ boost and people thought...."Yes, finally Beatles comes to life on my stereo system!"

 

I recently did get it and love the heck out of the thing. It sounds amazing. I have never heard any vinyl versions of this but can't imagine it topping this SACD. One could go broke pretty quick buying $55-$60 CD's though.

 

Review are very mixed, possibly slight skewed to positive side on some of those 3 titles. At $55-$60 a pop, a heavy dose of Caveat emptor applies.

Only Who's Next and to bit lesser degree [so far] Wheels Of Fire are nearly universally hailed by those with and without agenda.

 

With or without for you my friend?

 

There is No future for any physical music media!

Any physical format currently being sold are merely relics, in not already anachronisms, of the 20th century. Whether we like or not "thems the facts"

 

What's interesting about them to me is not the SHM or even the SACD, but that some of them (including apparently Who's Next) are not so much mastered as unmastered - a straight copy of the master tape. Not necessarily a good thing, but should give a very pure result.

Tim

 

I ment that type of signal. If you download DSD and put it into a D/A with gain, the result would be the same.

 

1) Not your friend or foe.
2) No agenda, except the search for what I think is good sound regardless of the digital format.
3) I always state when a SHM-SACD disc is worth the money and why, like I've done for Who's Next or Wheels of Fire. Conversely I state when it is not worth the high coin for the many SHM-SACD's that are no better than redbook. Allowing those who like natural dynamic sound to hopefully save some hard earned currency.

 

I wish you were wrong about these statements but sadly, your'e right on the money. Call it paranoia on my part, but I have been buying up physical media (CD's, SACD's, Hybrids) like crazy the past several years for fear that they will become more and more hard to come by and subsequently more expensive.

 

Your cartridge maybe? I agree the Classic vinyl sounds a little more jacked in the midrange but to me it gives the guitars and vocals a little more "bite". The classic overall to me sounds pretty close to the SACD on my system but for the little more midrange.

I like both the SACD and the Classic vinyl.

 

I just received the SACD a couple of days ago. I have a CD with SH mastering and the Classic Records 140 gram version. I listened to the SACD last night. After the first few minutes of intense listening, I just relaxed and enjoyed the songs.

Not a very helpful review, but a good sign that there's certainly nothing "wrong" with the SACD. I'll attempt to make some comparisons in the near future.

I should point out, as others have, that the packaging on these (I also got Wheels of Fire and Aja) is first class.

 

I was underwhelmed by the SHM-SACD. Compared the my 200g Classic Records, the SACD seems "Veiled". Classic Records has a wider sound stage that appeals to my ears.

 

I'm not sure I follow you. I hear roughly the same thing, so are both of our "cartridges" causing this difference?

After all, the Classic was not mastered "flat" by any story I've ever seen, while info we have strongly suggests that the SACD was. Preference will likely come down to taste in how this album is mastered far more than equipment, methinks.

 

I don't know about all that ...

The Classic just sounds boosted in the upper mids to me. Whatever they did ... the cymbals are too crispy for me and the SACD is more to my taste. The added "bite" on the Classic vinyl comes at the expense of smoothness. I prefer the latter.

 

It seemed your "pretty jacked up" comment was to say it was goosed with a lot of EQ. With my system, it does not seem that radically different but I admit it is not flat like the SACD. I was just commenting that to me, it is not a huge difference. Maybe I am splitting hairs over your description of the Classic vinyl.

 

I agree to some extent. As I compare the SACD over time to the Classic and SH versions, I find myself listening to SH version more. I like the crunchier midrange that Steve's version offers.

 

I recently got this album from CDJapan and I must say that it, like all the other SHM CD's I have bought, really seems to benefit by being played several times before having a critical review done. Why this is, I dont know. All I can say is that the SHM's all sounded better to me (on my system of course) after being played 3 or 4 times first. In fact, when I now get a SHM CD, I put it in my CD player, hit repeat all, and press play, then come back to it in a couple of hours and listen to it for the first time. I dont what's going on or if it's just my ears of something unique to my setup, but every SHM I have ever listened to sounds overly harsh and/or veiled on the first play. At any rate, I love every SHM I own and some have become the definitive album versions for me (listen to the SHM SACD of "Aja" sometime for example). Has anyone else had this experience with SHM CD's, or am I just losing my marbles??

 

Except when you don't.

Some tapes sound terrible without EQ - that is, processing.