It's good, but I would put it as #3. 2-Track 1st, then the Harvest UK or WG CDP 7 46035 2 (same as EMI Holland Oh By the Way version). I think the 5-Track is a little dark, actually. Darker than even the 2-Track! But I do like it better than any of the more recent CDs, including the Mastersound. Some people like that UK/WG Harvest/EMI Holland more than the 2-Track, and that one is easy to find in Europe.
I listened to the Mastersound via the excerpt in the big blind test, and I was quite surprised that it was not among my favorite versions. I don't know if I feel it's quite as unimpressive as you say, but overall I agree with your assessment - I found it a boomy in the bass and surprisingly grainy sounding in the mids and highs. This is the only version I own. I have a rip of the 2-track and it's definitely a very pleasant listen - but the SACD is the winner in my book. Super-clear, and lovely frequency balance.
The standard Sax 90s remasters are fantastic. For a couple of them (Atom Heart Mother off the top of my head) they say mastered by Sax under supervision of Guthrie. I imagine the 2011 Discovery are also excellent. I wish Guthrie had mastered the Early Years box, IMHO it might have sounded more natural with his mastering.
Yes, you definitely should! Be aware, though, that IMHO the SACD is very uncolored - that's a good thing of course, but it also means that at least upon a first listen, it might seem to have less bass kick, or less treble sparkle, or be lacking some intangible "something" compared to one or more other versions you like and are accustomed to. But based on the comparison listening I've done, the SACD is just very nicely balanced and clear, and very crankable. I want to stress that one should never "try" to like something just because someone else says it's accurate or clean or whatever - you might simply find your currently-preferred '80s 5-track CD to be a more satisfying listen. But all that said, I do think the SACD is worth a try, and probably belongs in the collection of anyone who's a big fan of this album and who is willing to own more than one version/mastering of it.
I wasn't a fan of any of the masterings of WYWH. The 2 track didn't sound like the original master was used. The 5 track sounded a bit muddy to me. The Sax remaster sounded harsh. Overall I think I like the remaster on the Blu-ray the best.
Interesting comments. I plan to try to hear the SACD before buying. If I said try upthread or elsewhere, I meant "give it a reasonable chance because people whose ears I respect recommend it." It's just easier to to type "try to like" than all that. And as for the 5 track, I listened to it the other day and I can't say that I like it as much as I used to. I moved 6 months ago and now have wall to wall carpeting. I used to have just bare floor. It's surprising how much a difference on the sound something like that can have. I have the exact same stereo, same wires, etc. Many recordings sound better now (especially stuff that was too bight before), some sound worse, but none sound the same. The 5 track sounded a bit dull, flat. Which I suppose means that the SACD won't be my cup of tea.
The Blu-ray from the Immersion set is listed as 2009 James Guthrie 5.1 surround mix so I think the answer is yes.
@George P - two things. First, I hope it was clear that I was not criticizing or even specifically referring to you with the "try to like" comment - to the contrary, I was more cautioning folks in general that my preference for the SACD was not meant to be a "this version totally slays everything else" endorsement. Second, my guess is that you will not find the SACD flat or dull-sounding at all. I wouldn't quite call it holographic, but it's quite clear and dimensional, with zero muddiness. So compared to a flat or dull mastering, I think the SACD would be pretty lively. It's definitely not nearly as "round" and "mellow" sounding as the vaunted 2-track. It is, however, tamer than the Mastersound, but as I noted above, IMHO that's because the Mastersound is overcooked. I don't know if anyone's ever definitively shown that the SACD and the Blu-Ray are the same (in part because it's impossible to do a proper null test with a DSD vs PCM signal). But yes, all indications we have are that, at the least, the two sound very similar and might be from the same mastering.
Sure, I didn't feel criticized, in fact, I welcome friendly suggestions and you have always been friendly towards me. I am glad you said what you said and felt comfortable to say it. Good to know! I just wish they had released the mastering that is on the SACD/5.1 as a redbook, as that is the only layer I would be listening to and I trust the redbook would be $15 or so new.
A flavor for everyone pretty much. Now the inquires have to figure out who's ears they have more in common with, taste wise etc... For punch I enjoy my Japan Mastersound. For a nice lade back, warm presentation, the UK Harvest. I may keep my SACD just in case I decide to put the 5.1 back in
Which master tape? Given these are different masterings they would have come from different dubs. Being digital they are all likely to be transparent to the dub. If you mean the higher master, who would know other than someone who was there during the transfer and even so, would the master sound the best anyway - that is one reason why we have mastering engineers. More relevant questions are what generation tape was used for the dub copy, what was the tape condition and how much care was taken through the process.
I've only heard the pre 2011 US retail version and the Shine On version, and in that case, Shine On wins. I'd like to hear the Mastersound, though.
Found a Japan for US MS at a thrift last year for dirt cheap. It's aggressive. Dropbox - Cig Sample.wav Depending on my mood, it's either the Mastersound or the old UK Harvest I prefer these two over the 2011 and AP SACD two channel.
