Steely Dan - Countdown to Ecstasy SHM-SACD on 7/30/2014

Ok I would say this is case where the DR numbers probably do tell the tale.

For me the two versions prior to the '98 probably deliver some differences but I hear them as shadings-that type of effect where you can hear a difference but can't quite define what it is nor can you state a preference.

The '98 could appear to give a bit more detail on the surface-at the right volume this is an enjoyable listen but as you might expect it is not as nice a listen at a higher volume but as I said earlier I probably won't go to that level anyway. I think once you do hear this though it does create the impression in you mind the sound is being a little forced at you.

If I had to favour a version I'd be happier with the older ones-they maybe just sound that bit more organic/natural without losing any detail or dynamics. This is I suppose what appear to be the more favoured opinion from what I've read on here.

So now the wait for the SHM-SACD........

 

Thanks, and how does the Citizens fit into that analysis? Do you find it is much different than the others?

 

I was A/Bing Citizen before the new "old" discs arrived-my assumption due to the exact same DR numbers is that it is exactly the same version as MCD 31156-certainly the differences were similar between that and the '98 remaster-a bit quieter but everything was there if you turned up the volume slightly.

I never went with listening to the Citizen box set consistently because the albums are split CTE starts on Disc 1 and reverses the last two tracks on Disc 2-so since I have all the '98 remasters over the years the individual albums have always been played in preference.

I will double check this but I don't think I want to hear this album again today...

 

Funny - I've been listening to it non-stop since I got the SACD.

Cheers,
Paul

P.S. I might switch to Katy Lied today. Maybe.

 

This is why some of us use EAC peak values instead of DR. EAC seems to have a more unique fingerprint for identifying mastering versions.

There's other ways to obtain the peak values if you can't run EAC. The package CUEtools can do it.

Cheers,
Paul

 

I haven't seen this disputed yet I tend to think the DR database is wrong and somebody has misidentified the album.

 

I am not sure if you checked out this post, http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threa...untdown-to-ecstasy.155130/page-2#post-6339429, and I assume you are referencing dr.loudness-war, but this site has a far better handle on all the many different pressings of this and every other SD album. For example the thread linked above is aware the MCLD-19018 is likely the same source as MCAD-31156 but not as loud. I only say this to potentially help; I might be missing your point.

 

My God, is this the how many times can I post "DR" or think about posting "DR" or review "DR" or poop "DR" thread or a thread about the SHM-SACD version of Countdown to Ecstasy?
Please, some of you, give it a damn rest already!!!
I don't need to know that it will be 18.75 hours until you are able to compare the 7 previous versions of CTE to the SACD.

 

Okay - after several listening sessions, I'm ready to share my review of the SHM-SACD.

<flameproof underpants=ON>

SACD/CD player:

• Sony 60g PS3 (1st gen - firmware 3.15).
• Audio Output Settings: AV MULTI OUT (aka Analog Outputs).
• Output Frequency: 44.1/88.2/176.4 kHz.
• Bitmapping: Type 3
• Results were spot checked on a Sony BDP-BX57 blu-ray/SACD/CD player.
• I listened to speakers only - I have not done a "deep dive" with my headphones yet.

Positives:

• Flawless disc pressing.
• Great packaging.
• The audio transfer is very clean and musical.
• No audible brickwalling or overloading.

Negatives:

• There are noticeable boosts to the treble and bass EQ.
• The disc has compression, making the low level sounds more prominent in the mix.

Summary:

• A very pleasant Countdown, but not a reference edition for me.
• The '84 is still my go-to for digital.
• I'm happy to play this one for friends - especially long time Dan fans that might appreciate a different sonic perspective on the material.
• I'm very glad I bought this, however I may not buy others in this series if they share similar sonic characteristics.

</flameproof underpants>

Cheers,
Paul

 

Yes I read over that a few times but I guess I've not referred to it directly-possibly the analysis I've done is not as detailed but if we refer to that thread and the Mastering numbers I guess I'm saying Mastering 3 appears to be the same as 2, The USA older version stated on the DR database appears to be wrong but the UK version actually has exactly the same results as they state the USA one has...which is pretty strange. The UK one isn't on the DR database unless I missed it.

I'll go back and listen to the Citizen set tomorrow and compare that to the USA version and see if they sound the same.....as stated above I haven't went and done that partly on the basis I accepted the DR database as a reference-the results on all the discs apart from the USA one matched what I found. I have assumed the discs are the same based on the DR results and what I remember Citizen sounded like yesterday....of course yesterday seems a long time ago now.....

I would say that assumption that the UK version is a quieter version of the USA seems a bit lacking in detail but hey maybe more detail is the last thing we need.

See when the SHM-SACD arrives can I just say if I like it or not rather than what it relates to....

 

What is it you do need to know then?

 

Thanks for the thoughtful post. Given your experience with CTE masterings and your good tools, do you have any thoughts on the possible tape source? In some ways it seems too clean and musical a transfer to be what the remaster was given all the tape deterioration stories; do you by chance hear or detect other possibilities say safety copy or eq'd lp master? Finally did you find the Show Biz Kids 1:02 glitch? Thanks again

 

Enjoy that '84 then. I have it, too. It sounds great. Be it boosted or not, I like the experience of the SHM-SACD. IMHO

 

Right - I think this is because there's multiple versions of the US MCAD 31156. EAC can help you pinpoint this:

So - when you get the US MCAD-31156 - I've found it easy to use EAC to determine if you have Mastering 3 or 5.

Mastering 3 is the high dynamic version, Mastering 5 is the Citizen "less dynamic" version. My guess is that the DR database doesn't distinguish between the two - but we do!

Your UK version (aka version 4) should be a quieter version of Mastering 3, which is the high dynamic version.

Cheers,
Paul

 

Honest question about those DR scores - If compression one way can reduce the score, couldn't compression the other way increase the score? Looking at DR score alone seems like kind of a red herring to me, unless I'm misunderstanding the way this stuff works.

 

You're misunderstanding the way this stuff works.

 

That makes sense however it does cause confusion when people say they prefer the earlier version I do wonder if they check the detail of the disc to know what one they are referring to.

 

Could you elaborate or point me to something that does? This wikipedia article indicates that increasing dynamic range is possible: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range_compression#Types

 

That's my problem with this new release, at least judging by the samples posted here. The EQ is all wrong to my ears - what's happened to the midrange? Does the master tape really sound like this?

 

Honestly, people! Don't go by the samples. This SHM-SACD sounds just perfect on my system. There is midrange & the EQ doesn't sound wrong at all to these ears.

 

Have you compared the SHM-SACD sample that was downconverted to CD (44/16) to your store bought SHM-SACD? If the sample "does" sound like your SACD, then I would not be happy with it. If something is wrong with the sample, I would like to know it and would reconsider the purchase. Thanks.

 

Honestly, I have not compared it to the sample and don't intend to. I have compared to all the original vinyl and ALL of the various incarnations of CDs over the decades. It's still a winner for me...

 

No, the best and most reliable way to evaluate the msstering of an SACD is to downsample it.

 

Are you saying that a 44.1/16 sample, properly created from a high rez file, isn't a valid representation to determine whether you like the mastering?

 

To be fair, you should probably listen to the sample using a DAC contected to your main listening system. I don't know why that wouldn't provide a reasonable evaluation of the mastering.