Greg Bright
Second Unit
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2000
- Messages
- 266
- Real Name
- Gregory Bright
Mahler
Symphony No. 8
San Francisco Symphony et al
Michael Tilson Thomas, conductor
SFS (2009)
This goes to the top of my M8 recordings.
Actually this makes my MTT cycle complete. I have them all. I think it is his best work in the cycle. The others seem too slick and smooth at times although the playing is flawless, and the sound is superb. My other 8s are the Solti/Chicago on LP, Abbado/Berlin on DG CD, and Nagano/German Symphony Orchestra Berlin on Harmonia Mundi SACD. The Abbado is OK, I enjoyed the Nagano but have been told on another forum that I shouldn't have. Ebullient is a little strong, but it's a fine performance.Originally Posted by Paul.S /forum/thread/176763/what-hirez-discs-have-you-purchased-recently/2190#post_3639313
Oh, Greg--"stop!"
I'm still working my way through my Mahler cycle, stuck on the 4 for not entirely favorable reasons. Here I'd decided that the balance of my purchases would be Zander, Bernstein and maybe a little Dudamel . . . I already have three 8s (Chailly/Concertgebouw/London on DVD-A; Shaw/Atlanta/Telarc; and Solti/Chicago in Vienna/Decca) . . . and you come and deliciously further complicate things with ebullient praise of MTT/SFSO 8! Stop it!
Do you have others in the MTT cycle? If so, how does his 8 compare to his others? (I of course remember you are quite taken with the Fleischer/Budapest Festival/Channel Classics 2 . . .)
Ya, I havesme of those. But the first disc, which contains the DTS 96/24 is a dvd as it also contains a DD 5.1 layer and only plays in dvd players. There is a second disc which is a cd (a SuperDisc, actually /img/vbsmilies/htf/rolleyes.gif ) and it only has a "High Definition Stereo tracks which are an exact duplicate of the studio master files".Also...Gene, I suspect that is a regular DTS CD.
As you allude to, it's not a traditional/"regular" DTS CD in that there are a couple of other distinguishing things going on there (mixes from different aural perspectives, pre-ripped MP3s). Ironically, I just was describing this release a page ago in post 2163.Originally Posted by gene c
Ya, I havesme of those. But the first disc, which contains the DTS 96/24 is a dvd as it also contains a DD 5.1 layer and only plays in dvd players. There is a second disc which is a cd (a SuperDisc, actually /img/vbsmilies/htf/rolleyes.gif ) and it only has a "High Definition Stereo tracks which are an exact duplicate of the studio master files".
Thanks for the info Paul.S. I just read 2163 and I'm still not sure what to call this thing. A DVD-A without video? No matter. I think it still qualifies as Hi-Res though, correct? And what would be considered H-Res? Anything over basic cd?Ironically, I just was describing this release a page ago in post 2163.
Frank, it's not much the sound quality I liked (it's O.K. but nothing special) but the old whimsicle Charlie Brown Christmas music.gene, I have that monster disc also that I bought from Fry's ($10.00). If you read and believe all the hype that is with the disc, you will enjoy it. I can not tell any difference really between that disc and other sacd's. I really like it.
I first bought DVD-A for surround sound from DD and DTS so I guess MC is what firs attracted me to hi-res. I've since up-graded my equipment to get the quality sound as well, within a reasonable budget. But to be honest with you, SACD/DVD-A didn't provide the increase in SQ that the specs would lead you to believe. As with all formats, some are better than others but over-all I've been a bit disappointed. A good MC mix like Porcupine Trees In Absentia or Donald Fagan's Nightfly (good to me, anyway /img/vbsmilies/htf/smile.gif ), has provided more enjoyment to me than h-res. But I still want everything in hi-res anyway. Every little bit helps. Maybe music on BluRay?Is what has attracted most of you to SACD the multichannel audio, rather than simply higher resolution 2 channel?
My player will be here Monday, so I'm anxious to finally listen to some discs the best I can and find out if they actually sound better than my regular CD set-up.
I had a similar experience when I got the Duke remaster: at first I thought I had gotten the discs mixed up during my A-B listening comparison because I preferred the original CD. The aggravation there is exacerbated by the fact that the remasters' more colorful liners printed on cardstock are much more attractive than the originals' liners.Originally Posted by Dan Lassiter /forum/thread/176763/what-hirez-discs-have-you-purchased-recently/2160#post_3637865
. . . And as for the Definitive remasters, they are another nightmare. I wish I had never "upgraded" my original releases. All of the definitives, except for Then There Were Three suffer from varying amounts of no-noising, which has sucked the life out of most of the albums. The worst, is probably Duke, which is so muddy, it is almost unlistenable. I'm keeping my eyes open for old versions in the used CD stores.
Not to be nit-picky, but in the interest of keepin' it accurate given recent discussion . . . My understanding of the confusing U.K. SA-CD versus U.S. CD/DVD Genesis re-release situation is that the CD/DVD boxes that were released in the U.S. feature DTS 96/24 tracks on the DVDs. Tasty surround from what I've read, but NOT true blue DVD-A discs.Originally Posted by Mike Frezon /forum/thread/176763/what-hirez-discs-have-you-purchased-recently/2160#post_3637799
FWIW (which probably ain't much), I liked the 5.1 mix of Trick of the Tail (that's MY fave Genesis album). I think the whole thing sounds very "alive"--like it could have been recorded this year.
I've got the DVD-A...not the SACD.