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

Maybe we should get in this guys car for a sound quality test, before we give any more opinions?

 

Well, nobody can post an "actual" disc... So the closest thing will have to do.

 

I don't believe I ever said "post" a disc . I meant "play" a disc with an actual disc player. You are familiar with disc players, right ?

Bill

 

I bet you are. Enough of this off-topic silliness, however...

 

So far izgoblin has posted a review that most closely follows my impressions after 2 play throughs of the SHM-SACD.
The first time was last night when I received it but I had just come home from a Beck concert(outstanding BTW) and just wanted to do a run through at subdued volume.
Kind of underwhelming at -8.0 but not bad.
I was thinking that I should have stuck to my decision of last year and not venture any more $$$ on SHM-anything.
Tonight I decided to crank it up, this disc is extremely crankable, almost too much.
Listened at -1.5 and still not "loud".
If I had to describe this recording in one word I would say subdued.
There is some pretty good air on the cymbals but then again the snare and other drums are a bit closed in.
There's no discernible lack of detail but this a definitely a recording from 40+ years ago.
I heard absolutely no "smiley EQ" or any odd EQ of any kind.
No boosted or recessed anything.
The more I listen the more I feel that this is exactly the sound that Roger Nichols and Donald Fagen wanted or at least aimed for.
I don't have any other other digital sources to compare to and while I have the original vinyl that is not going to be spun.
I remember that when this album originally came out it was considered an "audiophile" recording.
Reminds me just how far we've come.

Overall I am satisfied with this purchase, it's not a revelation but that's ok.
My advice would be that the SHM-CD is likely just as good as the SACD and if you already have a CD version that you like and aren't an obsessed completist, save your coin.
The packaging is really nice. A box with teeny lyric sheet, mini-sleeve and the disc in the usual pamper-like slip and other stuff I won't bother to unfold.
Unsure what my profile says so for the record:
Oppo-105 XLR analog out to
Anthem D2
Emotiva XPA-1L Class-A mono amps
Revel Studio2 speakers.
HTH

 

I did download the 24/88 clip of "Show Biz Kids" that was posted, and compared it to my '98 remaster. The SACD really sounds even more like an analog dub to me on the high-res clip. The sibilance of the vocals on "Show Biz Kids" on the SACD sounds fuzzy and indistinct compared to the '98, just what you'd expect to happen to energetic high-frequency signals on an analog tape dub. I suppose this could just be the way the original master has degraded, but that seems unlikely.

Does anyone know if an LP version of the album was mastered and released sometime after the '84 digital masters were made, but before the '98 masters? Since the SACD shares some of the same glitches as the '98, that were not present on the '84, if the SACD is taken from an analog dub it would had to have been made after '84.

There's also noticeably more hiss compared to the '98 remaster. It's been said noise reduction might have been employed on those, although some say only on the fade ins and fade outs. The '98 remasters certainly don't have the dull, fuzzy high end I've come to associate with most noise reduction schemes though - in fact their high end is too hot in my opinion (although not really shrill - more like excessively crisp). However, even though it's probably too crisp, I far prefer the EQ of the '98 remaster - it's clean and transparent - to that of the SACD. The SACD just sounds fuzzy and muddy and even slightly tubby to me - the exact opposite of what I'd expect from a high-res issue.

$50? I don't think so.

As far as I know the 3M digital 2-track they made in '84 is still around. But some of those old decks were rare and finicky - a tape you recorded on a deck could only be properly played back on that deck, since the A/D converters had linearity issues and each channel had to be carefully mated to a matching D/A converter with complementary issues. You'd have to carefully calibrate the deck, play back the '84 digital master, convert it back to analog and re-digitize the result. I guess you could also try to analyze the linearity issues of the deck in each channel, copy the digital data off of the tape (possible - Roger Nichols indicated he'd devised a way to do that back in the late '90s), and then correct for the linearity issues in custom software. That would be a ton of work. Again, assuming they used one of those early 3M decks for the '84 masters.

For the multichannel of Fagen's The Nightfly, which was recorded on one of those early 3M multitracks, Nichols had to spin up the original deck, verify the A/D and D/A converters matched one another and the original tape, then play it back analog and re-digitize all 24 tracks at 24/96.

For the Gaucho DVD-A and SACD the multichannel mixes were done from the original analog multitracks after they'd been digitized - fortunately they were in exceptional condition. Multichannel Gaucho might be the finest recording I've ever heard in terms of fidelity and enjoyability - I just love the sound of it, wish it could go on forever. I know Aja is supposed to be Dan's greatest record, but I think Gaucho is their masterpiece (and in my defense, so does Joni Mitchell - so there!).

The stereo tracks are I believe the same as they are on the '98 CD remasters, only at 24/96 (for the DVD-A) and (I think) converted to DSD from the 24/98 PCM for the SACD.

 

I appreciate your comments on both the clips sunspot42 and that should help clarify for people who have been using them. You did not mention the '85 cd so I will only say you will really like that if you do not have it already because a lot of the tape/eq mess that sometimes shows up on the two you cited is just not there on the '85. Also great info on the digital decks.

 

Perhaps this clip is f*cked up.
I'm hearing none of what you describe from the SACD itself.

 

Me neither, on the SHM CD. This does not sound anything like a dub.

 

I don't have the '85 CDs. I'm pretty happy with the '98s to be honest, but I'll start haunting the used bins for Steely Dan and if I see the '85's I'll start slowly picking them up (especially the earlier discs - it seems to me there isn't nearly as pronounced a difference between the '84 and '98 masters with Aja and Gaucho, and anyhow I'm pretty darn happy with the multichannel Gaucho as it is).

Here's a great article written by Roger Nichols that touches on those early 3M decks, the multichannel mix of The Nightfly, and why increasing the bit depth from 16 to 24-bit in your playback format seems to make a much bigger difference in audio quality than increasing the sample rate does:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/may06/articles/rogernichols_0506.htm

 

I'll be happy to autograph your CDs…. but at a very high price. Almost as much as an SHM-SACD, I'm afraid.

 

It seems that no one that is using the samples, files or clips (whatever the proper term is) seems to think this is possible. I'm still amazed that some are listening to computer generated versions of Countdown to Ecstasy for comparison purposes but aren't sure how they were created. Maybe I'm way to "old school" but I think using the actual discs is the most accurate way to do proper comparisons. I know I'm beating a long dead horse but seeing some of those with the actual CtE SHM-SACD saying they aren't hearing what those listening to samples, clips or files are hearing indicates something is off IMO.

Bill

 

Bill, we have been using sample files in this forum for years. Can they be frigged up - absolutely - are they?.....I doubt it.

It's a matter of taste and perhaps plunking down the cashola is biasing some opinions. Dunno.

 

Am I so cheap to let $50 sway my opinions? I doubt it.

Can the samples be frigged up? Dunno.

 

You'll just have to take my word for it when I say that I know what I'm doing.
I always rip SACD's for playback on my PC, so I have considerable experience in the subject.

 

Its my favorite ST album and one of my favorite albums ever. I Enjoy playing it in high Volume due to its great and long guitar and keyboard solos...
I have the remaster from 98 or 99, the problem with it is that you cant turn the volume up too much. its a bit loud, but to my ears its not flat or compress.

 

They stab it with their Steely knives, but they just can't kill the thread.....

They stab it with their Steely knives, but they just can't kill the beast…

 

I'm the one that said "perhaps" the sample was whacked in some way.
I have no facts to substantiate that lucidae's sample is somehow off and although I suggested that I honestly did not mean to impugn your ability etc.
I guess I'd rather posit a sample is off rather than another member.
It's just that I'm not hearing what some others are hearing but then again I'm not listening to the sample file.
As far as being invested in this SACD because of the price or any recording because of anything is pure rubbish.
If anything it is just the opposite and I believe my review confirms that POV.
IMO, this thread has gone off onto the weeds big time.
So good luck guys with making your decision.

 

Turn up the Eagles, the neighbors are listening.

 

Yes and be sure to check the matrix numbers posted around here to get the first releases, which for some albums have the better provenance. The back cover saying it is 1985 does not always tell you it’s the winner.

For Aja I only had the MFSL, which I always figured had to be the best; just got an ’84, not even Steve’s master, and it just trounced the MFSL. I was shocked actually.

I agree the Gaucho SACD is nice, although I only channel in 2s, so have not heard what everyone loves in the 5.1.

[Edit] Cool article, thanks.

 

For what it's worth, I listened to the SHM-SACD last night again because I love this album, and most of my impressions are as I wrote above. I would say that I didn't feel like the midrange was unnatural this time though. I cranked it up again and enjoyed it for pure pleasure instead of analysis. I'm still bugged by sibilence on the percussion, but overall I enjoyed this disc again. And that could be helpful to some who just want to know if it sounds good or not. It most certainly does. If it didn't, I would have pulled out my vinyl copy instead of returning to this version. And believe me, I've paid good money before for hi-res digital releases that I ignored after a single listen (i.e. Jethro Tull's Thick as a Brick, Hawkwind's Warrior at the Edge of Time...)

I now have access to some tracks from the old MCA CD ('84 or '85, whatever) that seems to be preferred here. I plan put the SHM-SACD up against those and my original vinyl some time early next week, for those who want the best comparison that can be made on a semi-modest system. And to satisfy my own darn curiosity now...

BTW, I don't hear glitches on "Show Biz Kids" though they must be there. Is this something you guys hear without headphones? I don't know if I want to search for 'em, but luckily I didn't hear anything that stuck out at me...

 

I'd imagine it would be tricky to hear it on speakers - I use headphones when I search for it. It's very faint, but once you can identify it, it's easy to spot.

It occurs just after 1:02 on the track. It's not a glitch so much as a kind of static "pip". Like a very faint "tic tic tic" - not like the Rikki glitch of lore.

BTW - I've re-ordered the Citizen Box. While I'm waiting for it to arrive, Amazon has provided MP3 rips of the discs. Just to let folks know - I hear the glitch on there as well - but I can't 100% confirm this until my physical discs arrive.

Cheers,
Paul

 

There is only one glitch on the whole album. It is a tape glitch and not a digital glitch. I hear it exactly as Paul P. said, three rapid tics all within a beat, very fast. On the remaster it is more a single quick schlick sound.

I never noticed it for all the many years and many listens with the remaster. Then, for the shm-sacd, I heard it on my speakers, first listen and every listen since. I love that little guy.

 

I listened to the SACD again tonight; and did some brief comparisons to the MCA CD 37041. Well, I prefer the SACD. I love how the added detail provides a more immersive experience, especially on tracks like "Razor Boy" and "Pearl of the Quarter", where there is so much going on in the mix. Love the bongos and maracas, the triangle and the vibraphone on "Razor Boy". On "Pearl of the Quarter", I like the choruses, with the ride cymbal clear in the mix, and the way you can hear the pick on the steel guitar on the left and bending of the pedal steel notes on the right. I don't hear more grain, or sibilance on the vocals than on the 84 CD.

Does anyone who actually has the SACD (as opposed to the computer files) think it sounds bad? I don't think it's a sonic masterpiece, but listening to it on my system, I don't see how anyone can come to the conclusion that it sounds "bad."

 

Yes - I have the SACD.

Bad? No - not at all. Semi-disappointing? Yes. I was hoping for something similar to the clarity of the '84 but better if that makes any sense. Not one that shares hallmarks (EQ, compression) of the later remasters.

I guess what bugs me is the attempt to make it sound like the vinyl somewhat. I've always believed that it was difficult to cut vinyl of Steely Dan records since the sonics were so superb in the studio. (Shades of Katy Lied, right?)

What I want to hear is basically what Don & Walt heard from the monitor speakers, midrange hole notwithstanding - not the versions I've heard for years from vinyl and CD masterings. I was hoping the SACD would do that.

Cheers,
Paul