The Jimi Hendrix Experience SACD Axis:Bold as Love stunning

Listening to this now for the first time. Happened to notice it is $31 at Amazon right now.

https://www.amazon.com/Axis-Bold-Lo...=1546567770&sr=8-1&keywords=hendrix+axis+sacd

Out of stock until Jan 7.

 

I compared again tonight and I think I agree with you.

 

Got mine today.

I should preface this by saying that I only have the 1993 MCA and 2010 Sony CDs before this. ( I had a beat up, "rice krispies" LP and Reprise cassette back in the 80's.)

Started with the redbook layer. I immediately knew that I made the right decision. Sounds clearer than the 1993, but more dynamic (and less compressed) than the 2010.

I had not heard the mono album other than "Up From The Skies" and "Bold As Love", which I have on the Barclay Greatest Hits LP. This was a trip. Here, "Up From The Skies" sounds like it has more reverb than on the GH LP. Makes me wonder if the LP version is a fold down. "Bold As Love" sounds the same, though. The rest of it was just joy to listen to. It really is a different experience from the stereo version.

The SACD layer sounded even better, which made me wonder if I was experiencing some type of placebo effect. So, once I was done with the program, I went back and A/B'ed the stereo version of "One Rainy Wish". It wasn't my imagination. The SACD layer is quieter, smoother, and more dynamic. I don't know what a good LP of this album sounds like, but I imagine that this SACD layer is pretty close.

Forty bucks is a bit much to pay for a single album, but this is totally worth it. My takeaway from this is that I will never need to buy this album again. This is the only disc of this title that I will ever need.

 

The SACD is incredible. I've never wanted Little Wing to keep going like I did when listening to this... WOW. I find the mono of Axis a bit underwhelming, in all forms.

I have the stereo UHQR pre-ordered from Acoustic Sounds, really hoping we get to see it before 2020...

 

"Numbers", so beware; know some SHMF Members fear them and some SHMF Members dismiss them.
If your either one of those, move on to the next post, for you own wellbeing.

Surprised by the Dynamic Range Database ratings differences between the same mono & stereo tracks.

Does anyone know for certain, if it has to do w/the differences between the two mixes or additional bouncing of tracks to create the Stereo Master(s)??

Was the SA-CD Mono Master a higher generation source?

T1. mono 10 - stereo 9
T2. mono 12 - stereo 12
T3. mono 11 - stereo 10
T4. mono 12 - stereo 11
T5. mono 11 - stereo 11
T6. mono 12 - stereo 10
T7. mono 13 - stereo 9
T8. mono 11 - stereo 9
T9. mono 12 - stereo 11
T10. mono 11 - stereo 9
T11. mono 11 - stereo 10
T12. mono 11 - stereo 9
T13. mono 12 - stereo 10

There's just no consistency.
If every mono track was rated say 1 pt higher, the reason would be cut & dry. However, two tracks are rated the same [T2. 12 & T5. 11] & one track is rated 4 pts higher [T7. 13 mono - 9 stereo].

Vinyl - '67 mono 1st row w/'10 stereo 2nd row:
12 14 11 12 12 11 13 11 12 12 11 11 11
08 11 11 10 11 10 10 10 11 10 10 09 10
Obviously not done for exact direct comparisons! From different Centuries & different engineers!! Yet can it be, the Mono Master inherently is more dynamic?

SA-CD - mono 1st row w/stereo 2nd row:
10 12 11 12 11 12 13 11 12 11 11 11 12
09 12 10 11 11 10 09 09 11 09 10 09 10

 

It seems that the stereo mix is somewhat peak limited. If you want the best dynamics for this mix, get the original Reprise CD.

 

Why are you expecting two completely different mixes--one stereo and one mono--to have the same exact DR number ratings? Quit listening with your eyes. That's not what they are for.

And as far as other masterings go--again--differing EQ curves can alter how the DR meter reads the dynamics. Deep bass fills space. So once again, listen with your ears--not your eyes.

I mean honestly, why would Bernie Grundman apply a limiter to the stereo mix and then leave the mono mix alone? And if he did use a limiter how did track 2 get by with a DR of 12?

 

You actually think i "listen w/my eyes"!!
To funny!!

Instead of just giving my unsolicited opinion; i back it up w/facts. An effort completely wasted on you obviously.

The reason for asking why the difference between the two mixes, is clearly because of a clear difference in SQ between the two mixes [that the useful Dynamic Range Database ratings clarify].

That, believe it or not, i actually heard w/my ears [the very 1st time switching between the two mixes]...
cause that's what their for!


The reason i would expect the mono mix & the stereo mix to be of simular SQ is because they were performed, recorded, & mixed at simular times w/many of the same participants.

Many parts of both mixes are the exact same recorded performances.

"i mean honestly", why are you asking me what Mr. Grundman did or didn't do?
i've made no accusations, whatsoever, as to what was done in mastering the stereo tracks to rate as they subsequently did on the Dynamic Range Database.

i've only speculated, that the Mono Master has more dynamic range and/or was a higher generation tape.

 

You stated that you were "surprised by the Dynamic Range Database ratings differences between the same mono and stereo tracks". Why are you surprised? The fact that they were recorded and mixed around the same time is immaterial. They are DIFFERENT mixes. You could do several different stereo mixes and have differing DR ratings for each of them. You could do several different mono mixes and have differing DR ratings for each of them. And the most dynamic mix won't necessarily be the best sounding mix.

As for the sound quality of each mix on the Analogue Productions SACD, to my ears they are both excellent though I do prefer the stereo to the mono. Oh well, to each his own.

And as far as facts go, what facts have you provided to backup your argument? The DR ratings on that website are not predictors of absolute sound quality. They prove nothing other than the mono mix is a little more dynamic than the stereo. They don't prove ultimate sound quality.

Let me give an example. The Beatles mono mixes are widely regarded as being superior to their stereo counterparts. Yet, they have LESS dynamic range than the stereo mixes. Yet, according to the Dynamic Range Database--which you are using for "facts" to back up your claim--those Beatles mono mixes should be greatly outclassed by the stereo mixes. But the truth is quite the opposite.

Now, if you prefer the mono mix on the Hendrix SACD over the stereo mix, well that's fine. It is an excellent mono mix. I like it too. The parties involved obviously worked hard on it. But the dynamic range isn't what makes or breaks that mix. There are very many moving parts that make up the final result.

Compared to the stereo mix, the mono mix has a warmer balance overall. I bet that is why you prefer it. It is a pleasing sound. Just enjoy it and forget what the DR database says.

 

Your take on the DR for this SACD is a bit confusing to me? We are and should be talking about the DR specific to the mastering of this SACD and not the mastering of the original mixes....correct? I understand there might be a difference between the DR’s due to their respective mixes, but it doesn’t explain why these are relatively sub-par DR numbers overall....regardless of mono or stereo. I like what I am hearing with this SACD for the most part....but I do think it could have been perhaps bettered by another mastering engineer. IMHO

 

Off:

"And as far as facts go, what facts have you provided to backup your argument? The DR ratings on that website are not predictors of absolute sound quality. They prove nothing other than the mono mix is a little more dynamic than the stereo. They don't prove ultimate sound quality."
That's "exactly" the fact posted!
DRD ratings.
Dynamic Range does indeed play a part in SQ.
Who said anything about "ultimate sound quality"?!?!
Posted preferred the mono. Since it's only a personal preference, it goes w/o saying it certainty qualifies under the age old "To Each There Own" saying.

The Beatles analogy is "Apples & Oranges"!
Therefore completely moot in this inference.
When declaring The Fab Four mono as being preferable to the stereo mixes, people are talking about the artistic input of the mixes themselves.
Not the Dynamic Range!!!

Wrong.
Don't prefer the "A:BaL" mono because it's 'warmer'; prefer it because of it's superior [for the most part] Dynamic Range. As previously stated.
Immediately apon comparing stereo vs. mono "A:BaL", details & tonality of the mono won me over.

No.
Will not stop taking advantage of the technology readily available on the Dynamic Range Database.
Q: Name one time a DRD rating has failed me.
A: You can't.


There are way to many releases, of many of my favorite titles, because others enjoy them as well!!
Don't have the time nor funds to buy & listen to every release of every title wanted.

Unless, of course, your willing to buy me every release of every title i'm interested in?!?!
Put your $$$ where your post is!!!

 

Unfortunately, as our gracious host has stated before, the SQ of the released release is not necessarily only up to the Mastering Engineer.

Completely understand your concern. Why hire a "professional" & then allow 'suits' to adjust the mastering.

Frustrated by that as well!!

 

This is my go-to CD version now. The
DR metres from 9 to 13 = 11 for the LP average. Most tracks are 10 and up.
But keep in mind this is overall for both the stereo and the mono, twice as many tracks metred as the '87 version.

If you look you will notice all of the 9 ratings for the 2018 SACD are on the stereo tracks. The mono tracks all metre between 11 and 13, except for track 1 which is 10.

The '87 Reprise (upc 0 7599-27440-2 7)
metres from 11 to 13 =12 for the LP average.

12 is also the LP average for the 2018 SACD mono album.

 

Amazon Canada $36 bucks!

https://www.amazon.ca/Axis-Bold-Lov...ix+sacd&qid=1553378121&s=music&sr=1-1-catcorr

 

The red book layer of the sacd I have is clipped/brick walled whatever the correct terminology is.
Didn’t expect this from a £40 audiophile release.
Analogue Productions are really trying my patience.
The reissue of the AP CCR Cosmo is the same.
Not keen on the sound of either.
PS angelo73 not directing this at you, just not happy with both of the above.

 

Understood, no worries

* thought .. could it be that because there are two mixes of the album, back-to-back, on the redbook layer, that all values for both mixes are factoring-in to give an overall average not representative of the mono mix on its own? Looking at the individual numbers for the mono tracks on the redbook readout,

CodecUncompressed PCM (WAV)SourceCD
LabelAnalogue ProductionsLabel
codeCatalog numberBar code190758197920 Redbook layer of Hybrid SACD
Logfoobar2000 1.3.13 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1 log date: 2018-09-28 17:57:14 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Analyzed: The Jimi Hendrix Experience / Axis: Bold As Love ---------------------------------------------------- DR Peak RMS Duration
DR10 -1.64 dB -20.16 dB 1:13
Track --14-EXP (Mono)
DR12 -0.72 dB -14.59 dB 2:59
15-Up From The Skies (Mono)
DR11 0.00 dB -12.82 dB 3:05
16-Spanish Castle Magic (Mono)
DR12 0.00 dB -13.65 dB 3:03
17-Wait Until Tomorrow (Mono)
DR11 0.00 dB -12.75 dB 1:49
18-Ain't No Telling (Mono)
DR12 0.00 dB -14.95 dB 2:27
19-Little Wing (Mono)
DR13 0.00 dB -14.81 dB 5:37
20-If 6 Was 9 (Mono)
DR11 0.00 dB -13.02 dB 2:39
21-You Got Me Floatin' (Mono)
DR12 -1.36 dB -17.53 dB 2:49
22-Castles Made Of Sand (Mono)
DR11 0.00 dB -12.45 dB 2:42
23-She's So Fine (Mono)
DR11 -0.31 dB -14.08 dB 3:43
24-One Rainy Wish (Mono)
DR11 -0.69 dB -13.47 dB 2:24
25-Little Miss Lover (Mono)
DR12 0.00 dB -13.81 dB 4:16
26-Bold As Love (Mono) -------------------------------- ========AlgorithmTT DR


As you can see, none of the mono tracks register in the red; only the first track, "EXP", reads a *DR10*. All other mono tracks
read from *DR11* to *DR13*

I don't know what is officially considered "brickwalled" ,, I just assumed that would
refer to any numbers in the red, or single-digit values,( DR9 and below) .
Of course I'd have liked to have seen redbook layer values, at least for the mono tracks, at
*DR14* to *DR17* .. clean and green, but at least the values for this portion of the redbook layer stay above single-digit range.

 

What is your preferred mastering for Axis?

Personally, I like the laid back sound of the non RE, but I also like the clarity of the SACD. However, the non RE is fully crankable, while the SACD sounds good until I get to above 75 dB or so, when things get harsh.

 

Man, I don't I've played the SACD below 75db. More like 85db and I'm in the zone.

After all of these years of listening to very good copies of Axis (give or take, it was a well recorded album, so it never sounded bad), I can't imagine there being another release that will match the SACD.

 

I was listening to the stereo layer in the car over the weekend and on Spanish Castle Magic I clearly heard Mitch's drum stick hitting the ride cymbal, which was a separate sound from the cymbal itself! First time I ever heard that in 30 years of listening. For comparison I listened to the Polydor stereo CD mix (aka Safe Stereo) to see if I could hear it and it's there, but nowhere near as prominent. It's just a really nice sounding disc.

 

I love the Axis SACD. Anyone know the status of the AYE SACD?

 

Nothing updated yet, still Coming Soon on the Acoustic Sounds site.

 

Yeah and when I said 75 dB, I meant peak, not average.

I know many people love this mastering, so I am going to chalk this up to system differences. I also know that at least two people in this thread have a similar impression of this mastering as mine.

I noticed today that the mono tracks are not mastered in that forward/bright way that the stereo tracks are mastered. Has this been addressed yet in this thread?

I would have liked to see what Mofi would do with this, particularly Rob LoVerde. Or better yet, Kevin Gray. I feel like Kevin's work on those two Rundgren SACDs were plenty detailed and open, without being harsh.

Don't get me wrong, I am a longtime fan of Bernie Grundman. It's just that these days, I don't find myself consistently enjoying his work.

 

Probably because EH is telling him what to do. When left to his own mastering decisions, it seems he can do no wrong.

 

I need to do some more comparisons, but I did find the SACD stereo mix to be slightly harsh/bright sounding. I do enjoy the mono mix mastering on the SACD, and I bought it for that mix.

 

Sure, every recording is system dependent. I don't find any bit of the stereo mix to have a bright sound save for the first note of "Ain't No Telling." It really blasts out there!

By contrast it's the non RE that sounds a little thin, and sometimes bright, like with the intro of "Castles Made of Sand."

That said, I won't rule out that my view on the SACD might have something to do with it being the newest, most shiny release to date. Still, it could have been Ronald McDonald who remastered it and I wouldn't care. It sounds great!

For something like this, though, it will take me going back to the various releases and doing another shootout. The only one I did was when the SACD was first released.