Best Version of Steely Dan's Aja

[humprof]

Fascinating (and extremely wonky) article by Josh Mound over at Audiophile Style. Great stuff in the comments thread, too.

 

[MrSmithers]

Wow great article - that really goes into detail! I have the SACD, which I think sounds ace!

However, I’d say the best version would be the as yet unreleased surround version, missing multi’s or not!

 

[Clint Eastwood]

I didn't read the article...much too long to keep my interest today...but this album is one of my all time favorites...because unlike others on here..I live for the hit songs....yes I'm shallow...and I'm not seeking the answer to life's many mysteries through songs....so now that a disclaimer is out of the way...I'll say a few things...this album was so well made(for it's time period)that any version of it is fine...to be able to define the ultimate version is merely nit picking...based on your own personal preferences....look at these numbers...whether it's a CD...SACD...Vinyl... or download...they are all good....dynamic range doesn't account for everything...but in this case it speaks volumes...I can remember how people thought I was wrong to spend $60 at the time for the SHM-SACD....and maybe they were right...but I've never regretted buying it...the only thing that I heard that was better was an upmix in surround...and it wasn't light years better...more along the lines of pleasingly different

I would disagree with anybody that claims that one version is so much better than the other that it could be considered the definitive version...

 

[5.1 4 Life]

Thanks to Humprof for sharing the article about Steely Dan's Aja. I have it on the Citizen Steely Dan box set from 1993 and unless they do a 5.1 remix of the album on Blu-Ray, it's the one I'm sticking with.

 

[JonUrban]

Great read. "Aja" is one of the first CD's I bought, when it came out, so there's a chance I have the Hoffman version. I seem to recall I checked it out 15 years ago but I can't remember what the indicators are. I'll have to check it out again.

 

[J. PUPSTER]

I didn't read the article...much too long to keep my interest today...but this album is one of my all time favorites...because unlike others on here..I live for the hit songs....yes I'm shallow...and I'm not seeking the answer to life's many mysteries through songs....so now that a disclaimer is out of the way...I'll say a few things...this album was so well made(for it's time period)that any version of it is fine...to be able to define the ultimate version is merely nit picking...based on your own personal preferences....look at these numbers...whether it's a CD...SACD...Vinyl... or download...they are all good....dynamic range doesn't account for everything...but in this case it speaks volumes...I can remember how people thought I was wrong to spend $60 at the time for the SHM-SACD....and maybe they were right...but I've never regretted buying it...the only thing that I heard that was better was an upmix in surround...and it wasn't light years better...more along the lines of pleasingly different

I would disagree with anybody that claims that one version is so much better than the other that it could be considered the definitive version...

I also have the SACD-SHM, however the MSFL shows slightly better numbers. Hmmm.

 

[humprof]

I would disagree with anybody that claims that one version is so much better than the other that it could be considered the definitive version...

Luckily that's not the sort of claim he's making. He's careful to say that the album is an audiophile's benchmark no matter what, and that the waveforms finally don't reveal that much difference between the different versions. It's more like "if you're concerned about x, then version y probably has a slight edge." What's fascinating to me are the behind-the-scenes stories explaining how we wound up with so many different versions in the first place. (And none of them surround...)

 

[hafquark]

I read the whole thing. I liked the interview snippets from Donald Fagen, and the analysis of various editions was thorough and well done. I prefer the Hoffman CD mastering over Takiguchi's mastering for the SACD, but they both sound quite good. Thanks for the link!

 

[Clint Eastwood]

I also have the SACD-SHM, however the MSFL shows slightly better numbers. Hmmm.

The difference is so small I doubt you could tell the difference...not many CDs now reach 13..a lot of hi rez downloads don't even reach that number...which is sad..

 

[Clint Eastwood]

Luckily that's not the sort of claim he's making. He's careful to say that the album is an audiophile's benchmark no matter what, and that the waveforms finally don't reveal that much difference between the different versions. It's more like "if you're concerned about x, then version y probably has a slight edge." What's fascinating to me are the behind-the-scenes stories explaining how we wound up with so many different versions in the first place. (And none of them surround...)

When I get a chance I will read it...love that album

 

[J. PUPSTER]

The difference is so small I doubt you could tell the difference...not many CDs now reach 13..a lot of hi rez downloads don't even reach that number...which is sad..

I checked out the numbers on some hi rez downloads and they are shockingly low!

 

[J. PUPSTER]

The difference is so small I doubt you could tell the difference...not many CDs now reach 13..a lot of hi rez downloads don't even reach that number...which is sad..

Just curious about DR; the majority of albums I looked at showed regular vinyl LPs had the highest DR; would those numbers be reduced substantially if an LP was transferred to a flac file (like Gene is doing?)

 

[Clint Eastwood]

Just curious about DR; the majority of albums I looked at showed regular vinyl LPs had the highest DR; would those numbers be reduced substantially if an LP was transferred to a flac file (like Gene is doing?)

No..

 

[dr. simple]

Great read. "Aja" is one of the first CD's I bought, when it came out, so there's a chance I have the Hoffman version. I seem to recall I checked it out 15 years ago but I can't remember what the indicators are. I'll have to check it out again.

I admit that I did not read EVERY word of the article, but did the author ever tell us what the indications were? I’ve got the original MCA version as well, but I have no idea if it’s Nichols’ or Hoffman’s.

 

[humprof]

I admit that I did not read EVERY word of the article, but did the author ever tell us what the indications were? I’ve got the original MCA version as well, but I have no idea if it’s Nichols’ or Hoffman’s.

Apparently only about 1000 copies (of 5000 pressed) made it out into the wild. For details, the author provides links to various threads in the Hoffman forums. Search on the words/phrases "MCA pressed around," "clones," and "great debate."

 

[Cibola]

I've got the DIDX 55 MCAD 37214 (1984). Sounds good even on a picnic player. I've got to get a surround system in the garage, it will be a corner ceiling placement, the old Oppo 970 will do nicely.

 

[hobie1dog]

Thanks for sharing this with us. Great article and fun to read that Walter had huge Klipsch speakers in his dorm room.

 

[markshan]

So basically all of the CDs were made from problematic tapes. One more reason to keep my original ABC AB vinyl. I have the 80s MFSL too, but prefer the AB.

 

[4-earredwonder]

Even more remarkable is the debacle Katy Lied suffered ......... as the DBX snafu unfolded. Even MORE audiophile than Aja? What a shame! And poor storage of the AJA master tapes. Unthinkable.

I have the fine sounding SHM~SACD of AJA and remain satisfied.

Makes you appreciate how some majors [Columbia Records and Warner] took better storage care of their MASTERS than MCA EVER DID!

 

[windhoek]

Apparently, the Cisco vinyl from the last decade is the one to get... if you can track one down!