No prob. When I say I haven't heard any of the others, I mean any of the other Creedence SACD's. This may have to do with expectations. Any limitations in the recording seem to me like they are imposed by the source material, what with fuzz tone guitar work and such -- it seems like an unlikely candidate for audiophile treatment -- that's why I am pleasantly surprised. There is lots of air around the instruments, but not so much that it loses sense of the four piece band, the players are imaged both outside and between my speakers, the tone is rich, and the air of the studio is reproduced in my listening room, with overtones hanging in the air as if from the instruments. I can hear the air inside the snare drum, the cymbals hang in the air very naturally, but no one is going to make Doug Clifford sound like Max Roach. John Foggerty sounds great. I'm not sure what could be done to make it any better without losing the sense that this is a stripped down type rock band. I'm happy to have it in my collection. But -- hey -- to each his own.
Creedence Clearwater Revival SACDs
I am a big fan of CCR and have all the remastered CDs, recently purchased "The Concert" on SACD before buying the rest of the SACD catalog. I was very dissapointed in the sound quality and preferred the Redbook layer to SACD. This was never an audiophile recording in the first place but I am curious on the sound quality of the other CCR SACDs. Anyone have any experience with the other 7 SACDs ?
- ...
- 12 posts total
- 12 posts total