Top positive review
5 people found this helpful
SACD of a classic album
on 29 January 2014
Basically, as you would expect with a multi-channel miix, the sound really opens up with the extra channels. Instruments - and voices - that are buried (almost totally) in the stereo version are more audible. I've read reports of people not liking the vocals on the SACD but to me they sounds fine - but then again I'm not using high end Hi-Fi, just a Sony S4100 blu-ray player feading a Panasonic Blu-ray home cinema system - I just like multi-channel music.
Is it worth the massive price increase over the normal CD? OK, so SACD is a better digital system over Red Book CD, resulting in a sound closer to analogue vinyl, and 5.1 sound is a bonus, but nearly two and a half times more? I suspect that it's a personal judgement; I think I got reasonable value for money, but this is one of the reasons SACD is such a minority audio format - the cost. If priced right - and pushed better - then it could have done two things; one, killed off CD with a superior product, and two, halted the backlash against CD by people who regard CD as Just Not Good Enough and helping the vinyl revival. OK, so the 16-bit sampling of CD is not good enough, and 24/96 (like DVD Audio) is much better, but in the late 70s anything above 16-bit might well have been too expensive for the audio market to take - CD was expensive enough! Maybe if SACDs like Rumours had been released then vinyl would now be as dead as wax cylinders...
Still, what do I know? I'm just someone who - as I said - likes quad and 5.1 sound, and this album is a good example of the genre.