Creedence Clearwater Revival Stereo SACDs from Analogue Productions

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I must admit that lately the SACD grahics have been greatly improved, but there are many mismarked discs out there. Then, throw in the SACDs that are not even MARKED as SACDs! Good grief.

Absolutely true Jon!! I went into a local Fries yesterday, picked up the 3 remaining Dylan Surround SACDs that I needed, and thought I'd grab Aerosmith's Toys in the Attic too. :D

Well, they only had one copy of Toys......priced at $14.99 and upon examination NOTHING on the jacket itself to indicate multichannel SACD other than the Fries price label itself. As I remembered someone here mentioning picking it up for 9.99 at Fries I decided to check the regular CD section. One copy there too, priced at 9.99 and after comparing it to the "SACD" priced copy I could find NO difference between the two.....same barcode, labeling, etc. So, being the cheapskate that I am......I bought the 9.99 copy! :D

Soon as I'm out of the store I open it up to find its just the regular stereo "remaster"! :mad: So, immediately back into the store for an exchange/refund. The poor slaving return clerk tries to tell me "No refund" because I had opened it! Ok.......time to make a scene!!! :smack: "Get the Manager"!!!!

I explain that I ONLY want the SACD, and I only bought it based upon assuming that it WAS the SACD. I even tell them that I'll gladly pay the 14.99 for the copy marked "SACD".............IF it is in fact the SACD version! We get the other copy, he examines it.......they check the barcode and inform me that it is the regular stereo version also......just mislabeled!! :flame

I got my refund...........but I still don't have the disc!! So, back to the hunt I'll have to go........just hope the REAL SACD copy of Toys is marked!!!
 
QuadBob said:
just hope the REAL SACD copy of Toys is marked!!!

TOIA is a Sony release so it is in the gold multi-channel sleeve like all other Sony discs. So Fry's made a stickering mistake. What a shock! ;-)
 
This seems to be an ongoing issue. How many of us ran across "Multichannel/Stereo" packaging for the Aerosmith 2-SACD greatest hits set when it first came out? If I hadn't read that it was stereo-only, I would have plunked down my hard-earned $$$ for it and been a very upset man, indeed...
 
To move the question of sound quality regarding Steve Hoffman's remastering of the CCR catalog for SACD away from the post deletion thread, it occurred to me that this also brings up another question of how sensible or moral it was for Fantasy to remix Creedence to quad back in the day.

First, the SACD situation. I have them all, and can say without qualification that they are probably the most honest renderings of what's on those stereo mixdown masters as we're likely to have. Unfortunately, that also means that the limitations of those tapes become even more obvious in a hi-rez format. The problem is this: listeners often equate limitations with bad sound, even though on other formats or masterings they've been hearing those limitations all along, only not quite as obvious to the ear. Increased clarity and resolution will bring out what's best about recordings, but also what's worst about them. It might seem logical that a mastering engineer's job is to maximize the positives and minimize the negatives, but it's hard to imagine what Steve could have done to minimize the limitations of those sources. Short of remixing, he could hardly have made "Lodi" any better in stereo, or gotten any more dynamic range out of that recording than was inherently there (which ain't much). But if you go on his board and claim that these SACD's suck, not only should you expect post deletions and derisions from other members, but the history of those recordings--from the original vinyl to SACD--would indicate that you spoke in error. The masterings of these CCR albums aren't bad, they just reveal all the more how limited the sonics and mixes were in the first place.

Second, the remixing conundrum. As much as I enjoy CREEDENCE GOLD in quad, it was nonetheless remixed without the participation or permission of anyone in the group, AFAIK. That's not to say they were legally entitled to that kind of consideration, but perhaps there might have been a better result if someone had consulted John Fogerty? Or maybe he would have said no, don't do it (very likely). Regardless, as producer and bandleader, he's the main reason those masters sound as they do, for better and worse. And since the band, the man, and their best music are legend, who's to argue that anything he did was wrong?

I won't, but one listen to that album will tell you that some of those recordings could have been adapted reasonably well to multichannel...and some, probably a hopeless cause (kinda like the Tommy James Roulette tapes). Nice to own, both, but demos for Quad they're not, to be kind.


ED :)
 
I'll be nice and merely say it could be better than that...

It always depends on the condition and quality of the source material in terms of the final result (SACD disc or DSD Download).

I'd put that trio (Hoffman, Gray, Neumann) against anyone in the business when it comes to mastering and authoring SACDs. Although these days Gus Skinas is taking the spot of Lon Neumann. (Lon used to work at the Super Audio Center in Hollywood, he's now a TV Audio consultant while Gus is still running the show at the Super Audio Center in Boulder).
 
Not part of a DSD download discussion but I have 6 of the CCR SACD from APO and easily my most two played are ST debut and Green River. I like the rawness of the ST and the genuineness of Green River. They tried too hard IMO after Green River to be the next great band after they already were with Green River. Someones'
EGO got the better of them.
 
Back
Top