HiRez Poll Thorns, The - THE THORNS [SACD]

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Rate the SACD of Thorns - THE THORNS


  • Total voters
    17

JonUrban

Forum Curmudgeon
Staff member
Admin
Moderator
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Mar 2, 2002
Messages
17,681
Location
Connecticut
Please post your comments, thoughts and observations.......(y) (n)
 
I love the music. But the mix and sonics suck the sweat from a monkeys butt. Keep Nick Didia away from a 5.1 console!

7 only cuz I love the music so much.
 
7 sounds about right to me, nice music, and a fair surround mix.
 
Last edited:
Revisited this, as I am a lot of discs since finishing my music room. It sucks sonically harder and longer than I remember, and the mix starts off great and goes to poo right after the first song. Bad bad bad. TOO bad cuz the music is great! (n)
 
Well, that settles it for me. I own the CD, and love the music, but I'll pass on the SACD. I didn't know it existed until I saw it a few days ago at the local Best Buy. No wonder it's still on the shelf.
 
Just revisited this tonight for the first time since buying it back in 2003. Have to agree with y'all.
Music:8
Sound:2
Mix:1
These guys are a clone of Crosby Stills & Nash and the music is nice, but the sound is shrill, what some people call "digititus". And the mix? Each song has maybe one sound pop up in the rears (maybe to "highlight" it), and the rest of the time they are silent, not even any ambiance!
Going on eBay soon.
 
I disagree with the people who say this mix sucks! Yes it is no Elliott Scheiner mix, but there is active stuff in the surrounds on every song - mostly instruments rather than backing vocals and perhaps not as pronounced as you'd like. Sonically, this is much better than the CD, a much much wider soundstage and frequency response. I don't find it harsh at all; I often listen to this at between -20 and -15 on my system (Denon AVR-2310 feeding 5 full range KEF 'Q' series speakers and a 300 watt KEF sub) and as of late it's become one of my favourite hi-rez discs.

Do I wish it had a mix like America's 'Homecoming'? Certianly. But if you like this album on CD you should definitely own the SACD.

PROTIP: Crank up your surrounds by 1-2dB and a lot of the discrete information in the rears will become more apparent because of dominant channel theory.

This one is at least a 7 for me!
 
Was this that "supergroup" with Matthew Sweet and a couple of other 90's-era guys doing the triple-harmony thing? Some decent moments on that CD.
 
I threw this on tonight just for the heck of it, fully expecting it to be underwhelming, but I have to say that I agree with steelydave's comments below. Sure, it's not a GREAT mix, but if you like the Redbook CD, this is similar but with some nice surprises jumping out of the surrounds - and something on every song. Sonically it is very pleasant on my system. I haven't voted, but I'm between a 6 and a 7. If you like the CD, I'd recommend this with the caveat that it's not, as steelydave said, a Scheiner mix, or a Wilson mix, or a Penny mix... but still worth having, in my opinion.

I disagree with the people who say this mix sucks! Yes it is no Elliott Scheiner mix, but there is active stuff in the surrounds on every song - mostly instruments rather than backing vocals and perhaps not as pronounced as you'd like. Sonically, this is much better than the CD, a much much wider soundstage and frequency response. I don't find it harsh at all; I often listen to this at between -20 and -15 on my system (Denon AVR-2310 feeding 5 full range KEF 'Q' series speakers and a 300 watt KEF sub) and as of late it's become one of my favourite hi-rez discs.

Do I wish it had a mix like America's 'Homecoming'? Certianly. But if you like this album on CD you should definitely own the SACD.

PROTIP: Crank up your surrounds by 1-2dB and a lot of the discrete information in the rears will become more apparent because of dominant channel theory.

This one is at least a 7 for me!
 
I threw this on tonight just for the heck of it, fully expecting it to be underwhelming, but I have to say that I agree with steelydave's comments below. Sure, it's not a GREAT mix, but if you like the Redbook CD, this is similar but with some nice surprises jumping out of the surrounds - and something on every song. Sonically it is very pleasant on my system. I haven't voted, but I'm between a 6 and a 7. If you like the CD, I'd recommend this with the caveat that it's not, as steelydave said, a Scheiner mix, or a Wilson mix, or a Penny mix... but still worth having, in my opinion.

Well I agree with the Doc and Steely. Great Songs . Sonics Ok . Surround left much to be desired . So As I have the SACD did'nt feel too bad about downloading it (not in the position to rip my own SACDs) and remixing it to my tastes . Using my trusted Audition I upped the Surrounds pulled some bits from the front and added to the surrounds now I have a more pleasing immersive sound. Happy me . Also just love the Jayhawks Blue !!! Voted 8
 
Never heard of these guys before Ricky Gervais used Among The Living to close season one of Afterlife on Netflix. Phenomenal. So I bought the CD, which has a bonus disc of all the songs done acoustically ("Sunshine Sessions"). Then I discovered The Thorns was released on one of the Columbia multichannel SACDs and I purchased one at great expense. As many others have found: not the greatest mix, but not as terrible as the detractors would have you believe.

But the best mix is still the bonus CD with the acoustic versions.
 
I love Matthew Sweet and I love this album. I've never heard the SACD but I've wanted it for years. After reading the comments here, I feel I shouldn't pay a lot for it even if it ever crosses my path.
 
I love Matthew Sweet and I love this album. I've never heard the SACD but I've wanted it for years. After reading the comments here, I feel I shouldn't pay a lot for it even if it ever crosses my path.
In my experience, there's a couple of ways this can go with an album you love.
Either you've already heard it so many times already that even a good surround mix won't get played a lot.

Or, you love it so much that the score of random strangers on the internet will not detract from your enjoyment of any kind of surround mix.

If you buy it and don't appreciate it, they're never gonna make any more of this one, so you can always sell it on.

PS- Matt Sweet is from my town.

https://www.discogs.com/sell/release/4537592?ev=rb
 
"If you buy it and don't appreciate it, they're never gonna make any more of this one, so you can always sell it on.
PS- Matt Sweet is from my town."

Dave, thanks for the guidance and perspective. I own about 50 surround titles and try not to pay more than $50-$75 for any title. I've made some exceptions e.g. for Toys in the Attic which is in my top-10 of all time. For that one, I believe they went back to Jack Douglas (produced all the classic Aerosmith in the 70s) for the 5.1. The Thorns was originally produced by Brendan O'Brien. I guess that excellent material and production during the recording doesn't always translate into an enjoyable surround product.
 
Back
Top