Deep Purple Machine Head SACD

Hi everyone,

I have been reading about a lot of praise for this album as well as Roxy Music's Avalon.

Today I received both and I'm definitely not impressed the way I am with the Audio Fidelity's or the MFSL's. In all honesty, I still prefer the regular Warner Bros. CD to the SACD of Machine Head.

The first thing I noticed (and I'm speaking of the SACD layer as it is better than the redbook layer) is that the tape hiss has almost been eliminated as compared to the WB. The mastering also shows me that they have added Eq. to the mix to make it louder, which might seem like a good idea, but to me it changes the whole feel of the album, and not in a good way (having visions of what MFSL did to The Wall as compared to the first N. American CD pressing). The warmth of the midrange has been lost, as has the "Breath of life".

Avalon I'm finding suffers in much the same way, although I don't believe I have a redbook for comparison right now and plus just having the redbook is no guarantee that it will be better.

Just one man's opinion and yours is allowed to be different.

Peace all

 

Thanks for saving me 30 or so bucks. I'd rather get something I don't already have on CD or in this case SACD.

 

Thanks for giving me permission Dave; mine is different.

"Avalon" is beautiful, and reminds me so much of the record. A superb transfer and worth every penny.

"Machine Head" does not thrill me though, so you could have something there. It's not a favourite of mine anyway, and I'd rather listen to Made in Japan for the outstanding performances. So I've only played it once, whereas I've played "Avalon" quite a few times.

Regards,
Geoff

 

Re: Re: Deep Purple Machine Head SACD

Geoff, I wasn't trying to imply that there is anything wrong with your opinion. My only thought was that I do not want this to turn into a possible thread closure due to conflicting opinions and the arguement of such.

Yours is yours, and mine is mine. Both are all right by me.

 

I had the original WB CD and didn't buy any of the "upgraded/remastered" CDs. When I splurged on the SACD, it was fairly cheap--under 13 Euros from Amazon France. The airy presentation, deail and separation of the instruments, the heft of Gilian's vocals and taughtness of the bass were very real improvements over the CD. The album won't win any recording achievement awards, but it was very analog in presentation and a significant step up from the CD.

 

Re: Re: Re: Deep Purple Machine Head SACD

Of course not Dave. I was just having a little dig over your use of the word "allowed".

Why would a thread be closed due to a disagreement? That does not sound reasonable. Our disagreement could easily be viable.

For example, at my place, the Avalon SACD sounds much better than the recent Avalon CD remaster (which I thought was terrific). Given your observations, could that not mean that the CD player I am using (the Sony SCD-C333ES) is much better on SACD than CDs?

I'd certainly believe that, given that my modified XA777ES just spanks its little bottom on CD.

I haven't quite got it together to put the XA in the big system yet. It is working on CDs and non-hybrid SACDs, but it's not completely happy reading hybrids (at least the one Jacintha I've tried). I'm sort of running it in on the bedroom system - a new main board has been added. Cost of this board is a staggering US$500.

Regards,
Geoff

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Deep Purple Machine Head SACD

That's cool Geoff.

It's happened before as we both know, not necessarily with us, but still it has happened.

I do see your point Geoff. However, I did compare the SACD layer and the CD layers on the DV 563-A and both redbooks again on the XA20-ES, and then on both (SACD/563-A and WB redbook/XA20-ES). This final comparison is the one that convinced me and even on just the redbooks, played on the XA20-ES, I still prefer the WB. Oh yeah, the CCR's, Ritchie Valens, Lightnin' Hopkins, John Lee Hooker, Peter Greene, and all the Patricia Barber MFSL's, leave these 2 in the dust by a million miles IMHO. I do agree that my Sony CDP is miles ahead of my Pioneer in regards to redbook.

Having Steve's work when doing comparisons on SACD's is great, as I'm sure we can, at least I hope we can , agree that he is da man to which all others are measured when it comes to mastering.

Boy, I'd sure like to try one those players like yours one day as I'm pretty sure that they are the SACD reference, or is there better?

 

re:re:re:re:re:re:re: Machine Head SACD

Okay, I tried to resist the impulse, but apparently the dark side of the Force has gotten the better of me! FTR, I'm talking about Ritchie Blackmore rather than Darth Vader.

I'm politely chiming in here because we're apparently hearing different levels of quality on Deep Purple's Machine Head SACD (i.e., stereo; hi-rez layer). Personally, and no offense to anyone who may have differing impressions, I find this to be one of the best rock SACDs mastered this side of Steve's efforts! I've heard other versions including WB standard issue CD, the 25th Anniversary CD, and the original vinyl back in the 70's and none of them can touch this release for mid-range warmth, depth and detail, IMHO.

As far as tape hiss, I'm hearing it on the stereo SACD layer, albeit not as forthright as on some reissues I've heard. Nevertheless, based on my personal recollections tape hiss wasn't as prevalent on the original Machine Head album (WB, olive green label) as it was on many other LPs I owned back then. That's why I wasn't expecting much in the way of tape his on the SACD. What I was hoping for was inner detail, soundstage depth and midrange warmth that's missing from more sterile CD & DVD-A releases of this title, and it has all of that in spades!

Quite honestly, I've recommended this title to many folks who've owned other versions and no one has faulted my evaluation yet. Seriously, these are the first negative responses I've read about the European release, and I'm a bit surprised, not to mention a little confused by the opinions. In no way is this meant to imply that I'm questioning your judgments, systems or hearing ability, but I'm at a loss to understand thie contradictions about what we're perceiving.



BTW, I hope that my contrasting views aren't interpreted as an overly argumentative post, because while we obviously disagree here, I have the utmost respect for your opinions, regardless of which of us is right, wrong or somewhere in-between.


Cat

 

Dave,

Are you sure the WB Machine Head is from the master tape and not some LP EQ'd/compressed one? Maybe what you are hearing on the SACD is more of the master tape. I was also surprised by the EQ but I hear this on the DCC Made In Japan as well when compared to the original UK vinyl. The DCC has more highs and lows as well as a leaner midrange. The hi-hat is particularly noticeable. Did Steve introduce this via EQ or is it the sound of the master tape? Compare the remastered Fireball and Who Do You Think We Are to the original vinyl and they manifest the same characteristics.

If you compare Burn, Stormbringer or Come Taste The Band (the ones that have not received the remastering treatment yet) to the original UK vinyl I think you'll find that they match pretty good. I have a feeling these CDs were not mastered from the original master tapes but rather the LP EQ'd ones. Maybe Steve can shed some light on this as he has at least heard the master tape of Live in Japan. I would definitely like to know which version is closer to the master tape here.

However, what this SACD gives me is much more of a studio atmosphere compared to the old CD. You feel that you are a lot closer to the source.

Thom

 

Thom,

I do not know what the WB redbook was sourced from although I'm thinking most likely a standard LP production master. Could be 3rd generation for all I know. Here's the deal with what I'm hearing. The midrange sounds defined yes, but somehow they are forcing the sound too much by raising the overall volume. This in turn has distorted the cohesiveness by making it sound louder, while at the same time raising the noise floor, as it just doesn't seem to breathe properly the way that the WB does.

 

I have just listened to the SACD (SACD two-channel tracks only), and I remember the sound of both the EMI Anniversary 2CD and the Purple Records UK LP (TPSA 7504) quite well. Here is a few conclusions (IMHO, YMMV etc., of course)

1. So far, the SACD appears to be as close to analog as digital can get

2. A very nice extension fot both the top and the bottom end, lots of detail and separation. Instrumental lines sound extremely vivid even compared to the LP (check out the bass solo bit on Pictures of Home and the brief drum solo on Space Truckin' that would turn into a much lengthier solo live)

3. To my ears, the LP sounds both more spacious and coherent, and some of the top end on the SACD could be annoying.

4. How could EMI not include When the Blind Man Cries on the stereo SACD (and CD) versions? I could live without the alternative mixes, but Blind Man should have been there.

Overall, an impressive release, and not the worst $17 that I ever spent

 

I have the Machine Head SACD and lots of other copies. IMO the SACD is good but limited by the original mix. There is some weight and fullness there "aka" anologue esque- but really nothing new. Well- new for a digital source. Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I like the 25th Anniv remix quite a lot- even though it has PCM spotlighting. But that makes it exciting to listen to for me. Bottom line- save your $$$ and pass on this one.

 

I also have the "Machine Head" SACD, and in my opinion, think that it sounds better than it ever has; although I've not heard the DVD-A version. On the SACD, I think that the detail and clarity of Ian Gillan's vocals show the biggest improvement over previous CD issues.





Ed Hurdle
HeavyDistortion

 

Since I had not heard the 25th anniversary CD in a while I decided to give it a spin and was immediately struck by the roughness of it compared to the oh-so smooth SACD for which I have a preferance for. It has a much more intimate/close-up and drier sound than on the 25th anniversary CD and you just feel closer to the music making and the band.

I am curious to know what has been done EQ-wise on the two versions and which sounds more like the master tape. My guess is the SACD.

Thom

 

I only have the SACD of Machine Head -- no other copy to compare to. So, my observation is of questionable value.

That said, when played on my system, my Machine Head SACD sounds fabulous.

 

Re: re:re:re:re:re:re:re: Machine Head SACD

Agreed...it's one of the best SACDs I've heard.

 

I would agree. The Surround SACD track on Machine Head is excellent. But the first 7 tracks are from the '70s Quad Master Tapes, so it may be it bit too discrete for some folks taste I suspect.

 

FWIW, I'm very pleased by the SACD of Machine Head, and ecstatic over the SACD of Avalon. On the former, I can hear some mastering "restrictedness" (NR?), but I agree that clarity and detail are fine, and the midrange is very smooth, much the advantage of Ian Gillan's voice. On the latter, the presence and three-dimensionality of Bryan Ferry's voice are positively spooky--and the layers of intricate instrumentation are revealed in all their glory. Both the stereo and mch SACD layers are far ahead of the remaster, to my ears. (The remaster always sounded a bit bloated and hyped to me.)

YMMV, obviously!

 

My thoughts exactly!! The MUSIC sounds great to me. I haven't really been listening for the tape hiss, though. This album has a crunching, heavy sound and the highs seem to be evident (to my ears at least).

Cliff

 

reb

The SACD is definitely more like tape. Upon further listening- I am more impressed with this SACD. I did notice the clarity in the vocals. Still not worth the price I paid. And the remix brings things out previously unheard.

 

Wasn't planning on buying the SACD version of Machine Head since I have the dvd-a version which I am very happy with, but as I was buying Avalon from Amazon fr. and they had them grouped together at a pretty reasonable price I decided what the heck. The SACD version of Machine Head is pretty nice but upon repeated listenings I've decided I greatly prefer the dvd-a version. First I prefer the newer mix by John Kellog over the original quad mix on the SACD. The Kellog mix, IMHO, is simulateously more natural sounding as well as being more "fun". I can't give specific examples, but my brain/ears are more comfortable with the dvd-a mix. The sound is warmer on the SACD but for this music I prefer the extra crispness of the dvd-a. Anyway, just my opinion...

 

I like my green label WB vinyl and have heard the WB CD and I think that it sounds just like the WB vinyl.

 

Sorry to dig this up again, but I just spent a couple of hours with the new SACD of Avalon and the last HDCD encoded remaster. Gary is right, the SACD is better- definitely more detail and air - but it was a pretty close comparison. I also compared the Redbook layer of the SACD (which is NOT HDCD) with the last HDCD encoded remaster. The HDCD remaster smokes the redbook layer of the SACD - It was not even close. You would think they would have more quality control to let a vastly inferior CD layer get released (and incorrectly lable it as HDCD). or - perhaps that was their intention to make the SACD layer sound that much better than the redbook layer (like DSOTM).

 

Hi Dave- Seems your one of the few people who has had a similar SACD experience. Ive compared my CDs played back on my TEAC/ Meitner transport/ DAC combo, to a freinds SACDs played back on his Sony 777, in the same system, and consistently heard the following, the SACDs sound bigger, airier, more detailed, with better bass articulation, but have a significant loss of life (dead sounding) and midrange warmth. Machine head is one of the ones we compared. The rest were mostly Sony mastered stuff. We get together a few times a year to repeat the A/B comparison to see if things change, but so far so sign. Thanks for posting this, I thought I was the only one who heard it this way.