Toys in the Attic - MC SACD - Killer disc!

Discussion in 'Music' started by Brian L, Dec 5, 2003.

  1. Brian L

    Brian L Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 1998
    Messages:
    2,918
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    610
    Short story - BUY THIS DISC!

    What a great release. This is what the best hard rock band that ever was is supposed to sound like. Wonderful stuff.

    Highs are certainly a bit recessed, but still very, very smooth, and the bass/drums sound perfect. Just the way I like Aerosmith to sound.

    The surrounds are prominent, but I would not say they are aggressive at all. That are certainly lots of things going on in the rears, but there are no (or very, very few) "hey look over here" moments. Just a nice, deep, wide, soundstage that extends well into the room.

    I just got this today, and was able to listen to it twice before the family got home. And at the appropriate volume! I sat on my couch and you would have thought I was Beavis or Butthead the way my head was bobbing, grinning like a total idiot!

    This is a GREAT mix. An absolute MUST HAVE for a fan of the band.

    Another case with a hi-rez MC mix where I am hearing things I didn't know where there, in music that I know VERY, VERY well (I am 43, and grew up in Massachusetts. In high school, Aerosmith was the coolest band on the planet in my peer group).

    What I really found amazing is that songs like Walk this Way that have been played to death sound fresh. Cripes, I even enjoyed You See Me Crying, and I HATE that song.

    Side note: I briefly played a few cuts of the 2 CH mix. Yuck. Who ever EQ'd the MC mix was not the same person that did the 2 CH. No bass, and hard, brittle treble. WTF? If you are stuck in 2 CH hell (OK, maybe I should say "yet to experience the benefits of MC?), I would take a pass on this one, and stay with the redbook.

    Hearing what they did with TITA, I am absolutely, freakin' salivating for Rocks.

    BGL
     
  2. Matt Butler

    Matt Butler Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2001
    Messages:
    1,915
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have the SACD of Oh Yeah and dig it. I have heard the mc mix of Sweet Emotion on the Rolling Stone SACD smapler and loved it. Wallet is a bit tight right now but Toys is on my gimmie list alongside Who: Tommy
     
  3. Rich Malloy

    Rich Malloy Producer

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2000
    Messages:
    3,998
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  4. Brian L

    Brian L Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 1998
    Messages:
    2,918
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    610
     
  5. Brian L

    Brian L Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 1998
    Messages:
    2,918
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    610
     
  6. Darryl

    Darryl Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2002
    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  7. Brian L

    Brian L Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 1998
    Messages:
    2,918
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    610
    Thanks Daryl, I will have to check that out.

    Since I started down the hi-rez, MC highway, 2CH has become almost totally irrelevant for me (note I said ALMOST. There are still lots of titles in my collection that may never exist in hi-rez, let alone MC).

    But for the most part, I just don't get any sort of kick out of 2CH standard rez stuff anymore, other than to play in the car.

    I sure could cull the heard of all the piss-poor remasters I stupidly bought over the years. 4 to 1 would be OK with me, if I could get hi-rez titles in exchange.

    Oh well. I best shut the hell up now, as I can see this thread sliding down the hill into a MC vs. 2CH debate, and then a DVD-A vs. SACD debate, and we know those all go no where[​IMG]

    BGL
     
  8. Rich Malloy

    Rich Malloy Producer

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2000
    Messages:
    3,998
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Brian, thanks for following-up! It certainly seems clear to me that the problem is with the disc and not your setup... disappointing to hear, damned disappointing in fact, but I'm very glad to know your thoughts.

    Just a quick interjection on the 2-channel vs. surround thing, particularly since The Who's "Tommy" is being discussed. I'm knocked-out by the multichannel remix, but it is an almost completely different listening experience. The whole character of the sound is altered. It is as dry as a desert, which is certainly not inherently bad, but the original mix is practically drenched in a reverby wash that some have referred to as that "spooky Tommy sound". The multichannel remix is a fantastic new version, but it's just so utterly different that I can't see how anyone can dismiss the original mix. It would be a damn shame if they hadn't given the historic Tommy mix the same care they lavished on the multichannel remix. But they did... so buy with confidence! And compare! It's like getting two albums in one, the two are so utterly distinct.

    (I still prefer the original, but I really dig what they did with the new one!)

    And it seems we have a few folks here on the verge of "getting" Dylan... mark it down: once your ears are opened, you'll never hear anything the same way again!
     
  9. Brian L

    Brian L Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 1998
    Messages:
    2,918
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    610
    Rich,

    Just a quick follow up. I did some additional listening at lunch comparing the 2CH, MC, and also the last redbook remaster. I even compared the RS version of Sweet Emotion (2CH and MC).

    The 2CH hi-rez mix and the redbook remaster sound very much the same. There's just no low end to be found.

    I have more to say on some additional observations, but work beckons. I sure would be interested to hear other user observations.

    BGL
     
  10. Rich Malloy

    Rich Malloy Producer

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2000
    Messages:
    3,998
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thanks for taking the time to do that, Brian... much appreciated! [​IMG]

    Even though I'm a bit bummed by your findings! [​IMG]
     
  11. Jeff O.

    Jeff O. Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 1999
    Messages:
    190
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Brian and Darryl,

    You guys hit it on the head with Dylan. I was never really a Dylan fan, but that cut on the demo really made me want to get it. I also must get GBYBR, and after hearing this Aerosmith.

    Don't mean to hijack the thread, but the one mix I didn't like was Billy Joel. What happened to his piano? I haven't heard that album in years, but I seem to remember the piano being much more obvious. It just seems like something is missing.

    Jeff
     
  12. Brian L

    Brian L Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 1998
    Messages:
    2,918
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    610
    OK, a few additional thoughts on the 2CH vs. MC mixes. Bear with me, as this may be mildly confusing to some....

    The ICBM lets you attenuate the .1 channel by up to 10 dB. Understand, this means that anything coming IN to the ICBM on the .1 channel can be dropped by 10 dB prior to it being combined with any main channel redirected bass and sent to the sub.

    Since my 45a is set to All Large/Sub On, the only thing that gets sent to the ICBM on the .1 channel is what's on the .1 channel of the recording. And since 2CH recordings have no .1, there is nothing going to the ICBM on the .1 channel from the 2CH mix, only on the MC mix.

    OK so far?

    So, when I play the MC mix of TITA, what ultimately gets to the sub is the SUM of all redirected bass from the main channels (below 80 Hz in my case) AND what ever was on the .1 channel.

    I obviously wanted to know why the low end was so anemic on the 2CH mic of TITA vs. the MC mix, and I wanted to know if the MC mix had a lot of the bass already on the .1 channel.

    What I found was this. On the MC mix, even if I attenuate the .1 channel on the ICBM by the maximum amount, the low end still sounds pretty good.

    That would suggest that the main channels on the MC mix still have a fair amount of the bass mixed in there. It is not quite as pronounced as when the .1 channel is at unity gain, but its still there for the ICBM to redirect to the sub.

    But with the 2CH, the low end is way, way low in the mix. I could crank the sub output of the ICBM almost all the way up (+9dB), and the its still sounded weak. Its my view that the 2CH mix just doesn't have any sort of decent low end.

    Another couple thoughts...

    I compared the redbook layer with the 2CH mix, and they sound very much alike in terms of the tonal balance. To be honest, I could not do a proper level matched comparo, so I had to tweak levels when switching inputs, but the tonal balance sounded very much the same. Its my view that the redbook CD and the 2CH SACD mix seem very much alike. Almost as though the SACD 2CH mix was simply transposed from the remaster done for the CD a few years back.

    Obviously, I can't possibly know that, but they sure sound alike when played back. I am sure that if I could do a true level matched A/B, I would hear certain improvements with the SACD version, but from what I have done so far, I would say they would be subtle.

    But wait, there's more!

    Just to take the ICBM out of the equation, I also played the 2CH hi-rez mix out the L/R stereo pair from the 45a, straight into the 762. In two channel mode on the 762 (BM is still in the circuit at 80 Hz), it sounded pretty much like it did going through the ICBM. So, whatever I was hearing was NOT due to anything going on in the ICBM.

    Putting all that aside, as I originally said, the MC mix TITA is a joy to behold, even more so if you are a big fan of the band, and I am still very eager to hear other impressions of the 2CH mix.

    BGL
     
  13. Lee Scoggins

    Lee Scoggins Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    6,394
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Real Name:
    Lee
    Brian,

    Thanks for the review. I am definitely picking this one up.
     
  14. Lee Scoggins

    Lee Scoggins Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    6,394
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Real Name:
    Lee
  15. Brian L

    Brian L Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 1998
    Messages:
    2,918
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    610
    Thanks for that Lee.

    He sure doesn't like the MC mix. But for me, if the rest of the disc is like Pinball Wizard on the RS sampler, then I am OK with that.

    There is a very wide range of views on surround mixes. One man's "gimmicky, hey look at me" mix is another man's "joyously enveloping soundstage".

    Since most rock music is a completely artificial creation anyway, I tend to allow a wide berth in terms of what kind of surround mix I will tolerate.

    While I do find that I prefer to NOT have the surrounds draw undo attention to themselves (Am I the only one that is distracted by the repeating guitar lick in the left rear channel of Steely Dan's Godwacker????) I do like when they use the surrounds to extend the soundstage back into the room.

    TITA is a good example of that. Some of the guitar solos pull from the front channels (left or right) to the corresponding rear channel. I find that very effective.

    BGL
     

Share This Page