1. Sign-up to become a member, and most of the ads you see will disappear. It only takes 30 seconds to sign up, so join the discussion today!
    Dismiss Notice

Derek and the Dominos....Reviews? Thoughts?

Discussion in 'Music' started by John Wes, Nov 25, 2004.

  1. John Wes

    John Wes Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2002
    Messages:
    202
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I just got mine in. After a couple of listens...I've been trying to compare the stereo version with a couple of others I have that I've never cared for. I've the 20th anniversary edition and the Polydor P2 31820 version...I'm not a critical reviewer or an expert on the various versions out there on CD or vinyl.

    Vocals...I've always thought that tracking Claptons vocals on this album must have been a nightmare as you can hear him kind of drop off on various sections of his vocal tracks. My guess was that he was turning his head away from the mike. The CD verions...a lot of tracks, they seem to push the vocals back and concentrate on the guitars...or the rhythm.. This version still has some of the vocals pushed to the back but not overly so and IMHO, I can now vision Clapton turning his head. A bit clearer perhaps...Dunno.

    If one thing this version does for me is to point out that the recording itself was never very spectacular in the first place. Of course I'm talking about the technical side and not the performance. This, after all is one of my favorite recordings and should be in the vaults of any rock fan. This too is my opinion but I think it's probably the highlight of Claptons career...

    The multichannel layer..I think it brings out the total picture better. The instruments don't seem as blurred as in the stereo versions....

    Again, I'm not the expert but since I didn't seen any reviews or thoughts on this most famous album..I thought I'd start one.

    Is it worth it? Yep....I think the SA-CD version is well worth the money spent.

    More later....First turkey..then football then I'll try comparing the 3 different stereo versions against each other over the next couple of days.
     
  2. Phil A

    Phil A Producer

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2000
    Messages:
    3,187
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    1,610
    Location:
    Central FL
    Real Name:
    Phil
    http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...hreadid=216589

    Yes -I agree. I would call the multi-channel mix, on the upper end of the ambient side or the very mild aggressive side. I think this is one that shows that multi-channel can be better. Do you have the 20th anniv. CD? Pop in the 5th track (on the CD) and listen for stuff like where the rhythm guitar is and then listen to the stereo SACD and the multi-channel SACD. Interesting what they did.
     
  3. John Wes

    John Wes Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2002
    Messages:
    202
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Phil, I do have the 20th. I noticed this before. The Polydor P2 31820 version, most of the track seems shifted to the right. Allman's lead slide guitar is centered....the 20th' Allman's slide guitar is left to center and the rhythm is shifted from left to right depending....A better sounding mix mix somewhat but not like the original album I have which is closer to the P2 31820 version. The SA-CD version in 2 channel sounds identical in mix as the P2 31820 version as related to positioning of the acoustic guitar in the center and the slide guitar center but it does tend to sound dead center but slightly left. Maybe I'm missing what you were getting at. The vocal, however are huge in difference as you can hear the sssssss sounds on the ends of words a lot better as well as a certain raspy sound that Clapton has in parts of the vocals that just doesn't come out in the other two versions.

    5.1....Oh man what can I say...There's a Hammond playing in this song? LOL Of course you can hear it on all three versions listed above but in this one..it sounds like a Hammond. Soundstage...Wide..very wide..depth..YES.. definition
    ...YES..





    Track 3..the P2 31820 version...cymbals...very harsh..the guitar mix sounds like it was clipping like crazy during recording. Vocals...glaring..The 20th mix, the glaring for the vocals seems better but the high end sounds very compressed to the point that cymbals sound more like a swishing force air sound possibly make by a synth machine...The SA-CD version in 2 channel, the vocals sound like two separate people..very distinct...better in my opinion by leaps and bounds. But you know.....I think that possibly Jim Gordon over did it on the cymbals and the engineers didn't know how to get it into the mix. It seems to mix with the vocals in an indescribable way all through this song as well as most of the harder edged songs all through the album including Layla. It's confusing imho... I'm no engineer and maybe someone else can pipe in why this is.

    5.1 Night and day above the stereo versions...Although I do have one small complaint. The backing vocal should be brought out more. Cymbals...still compressed although not as bad as the others. At least imho, it doesn't cloud the vocals.

    My guess is and I've said it before, that the original recording just wasn't up to snuff and probably a bear to mix...but in saying that, most stereos then probably wern't up to revealing as much detail as a lot of them are now.

    Sorry I missed your other post, Phil or I would have added to it. I should have done a search. My bad.
     
  4. Phil A

    Phil A Producer

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2000
    Messages:
    3,187
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    1,610
    Location:
    Central FL
    Real Name:
    Phil
    John, no problem. I agree totally about the 5.1 mix. I do wish in a couple of spots they toned down even a DB or so in the rears, but it is certainly not something I find distracting as with more aggressive use of the rears. You're not missing what I was getting at. The 5.1 mix seems (at least on the one cut I noted - I've not had a chance to relisten as I have more than a dozen other things sitting there now) to be the instruments back around the same positions as the 20th anniv. mix (vs. the 2-channel SACD mix) but with much better depth and less cloudy vocals. I found it interesting the way they mixed the 5.1.
     
  5. Lee Scoggins

    Lee Scoggins Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    6,394
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Real Name:
    Lee
    My views...the SACD mastering could have been better but the original recording was crap. I think this is overall the best it has sounded on digital. It is not anywhere near my best sounding rock SACDs but I love the album enough to still be happy.
     
  6. Phil A

    Phil A Producer

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2000
    Messages:
    3,187
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    1,610
    Location:
    Central FL
    Real Name:
    Phil
    Lee, I agree that the album is classic and the mastering could be better but this is one that shows multi-channel can sound good and as John noted the soundstage really improves vs. the 2-channel. This one made me glad I have multi-channel. The majority of things I prefer the 2-channel mix.
     
  7. MichaelRS

    MichaelRS Auditioning

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2003
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I Must agree, the recording sounds more open, not just because of the added surround mix. On Layla the piano sounds fantastic. Little wing sounds compressed at times, but that is just because of the original recording, sounds like too much is going on at once. It still sounds much better than the cd version. Also I am hearing things that get lost in the cd version, mostly some of the multiple guitar notes on Layla, all in all I am very pleased with the sound. I have been waiting for this one since hi rez audio became available.
     

Share This Page