HiRez Poll Hancock, Herbie - HEADHUNTERS [SACD]

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

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

Rate the SACD of Herbie Hancock - HEADHUNTERS


  • Total voters
    74
Jon, thanks for the scan. The problem is I bought the last copy from this dealer, so the item is no longer listed on his website. Part of me thinks that the picture in your post is the picture that was on the site, but since the disc is no longer being sold, I can't check it for sure.

J. D.
 
Was the stereo only in the gray cardboard sleeve? If so, that's an easy way to tell the difference.

It would be, except that some Sony SACD's apparently had second press runs, which means you can find discs in the plastic or cardboard slipcases. But if the disc has 5.1 capability, it will be obvious. The back cover of Sony discs should show what it has for stereo and 5.1.




PS - The Q8 of this title just sold on eBay for over $100!!! :eek:
Hiss aside, it sounded pretty good, as I remember...not worth that, perhaps, but if you want that ol' quad sound, a good example...:)


ED :)
 
Another 9 from me too. If only 'Manchild' would get the same treatment, that would be a definite 10. 'Hang up your hangups' is screaming for a surround mix. In the meantime this will do nicely :)
 
This was my first SACD purchase back in 07' and I thankfully only paid $8 for it in the used bins of a local store. I'm sure most of you will frown upon my opinions of this disc, but to MY ears, this is a great example of a horrible surround mix. For one thing, Herbie's 1st solo in "Chameleon" is way too buried (it's supposed to be loud, funky and obnoxious!) and the channels are awash in some type of slapback echo/reverb which takes the magic out of listening to percussion over a funky groove. I'd have to listen to the center channel again, but this appears to be a quad mix falsely labeled as a 5.1, correct?

Now, to be fair, I had only ever heard this album in stereo, beginning with the 92' Columbia Masters series CD followed by the 97' remaster which utilized SBM (Super Bit Mapping) technology and sounds fantastic IMO. I wore these CD's out and even composed guitar parts for it and performed the song many times on stage so I'm VERY familiar with the music as well as Herbie's other 70's titles. As much as I hoped for the mix to be a true 5.1 and sound the way I imagined it in my head, this was a huge letdown. I now keep this SACD for it's resale potential and the stereo option. As for the poll, I give this one a 5.

Dan
 
This was my first SACD purchase back in 07' and I thankfully only paid $8 for it in the used bins of a local store. I'm sure most of you will frown upon my opinions of this disc, but to MY ears, this is a great example of a horrible surround mix. For one thing, Herbie's 1st solo in "Chameleon" is way too buried (it's supposed to be loud, funky and obnoxious!) and the channels are awash in some type of slapback echo/reverb which takes the magic out of listening to percussion over a funky groove. I'd have to listen to the center channel again, but this appears to be a quad mix falsely labeled as a 5.1, correct?

Now, to be fair, I had only ever heard this album in stereo, beginning with the 92' Columbia Masters series CD followed by the 97' remaster which utilized SBM (Super Bit Mapping) technology and sounds fantastic IMO. I wore these CD's out and even composed guitar parts for it and performed the song many times on stage so I'm VERY familiar with the music as well as Herbie's other 70's titles. As much as I hoped for the mix to be a true 5.1 and sound the way I imagined it in my head, this was a huge letdown. I now keep this SACD for it's resale potential and the stereo option. As for the poll, I give this one a 5.

Dan

That's harsh , Ty!!
It's a good thing we all have different perceptions about these mixes.
I have never listened to the Stereo Version(wait , is it in the SACD? hmm yes, it's in my copy, oh well..) so I can't opine on that.

To me it's one of the best Quad mixes from then -but on the other hand , I could be called somewhat of a fanboy... :=)

Cheers,
Al
 
This was my first SACD purchase back in 07' and I thankfully only paid $8 for it in the used bins of a local store. I'm sure most of you will frown upon my opinions of this disc, but to MY ears, this is a great example of a horrible surround mix. For one thing, Herbie's 1st solo in "Chameleon" is way too buried (it's supposed to be loud, funky and obnoxious!) and the channels are awash in some type of slapback echo/reverb which takes the magic out of listening to percussion over a funky groove. I'd have to listen to the center channel again, but this appears to be a quad mix falsely labeled as a 5.1, correct?

Now, to be fair, I had only ever heard this album in stereo, beginning with the 92' Columbia Masters series CD followed by the 97' remaster which utilized SBM (Super Bit Mapping) technology and sounds fantastic IMO. I wore these CD's out and even composed guitar parts for it and performed the song many times on stage so I'm VERY familiar with the music as well as Herbie's other 70's titles. As much as I hoped for the mix to be a true 5.1 and sound the way I imagined it in my head, this was a huge letdown. I now keep this SACD for it's resale potential and the stereo option. As for the poll, I give this one a 5.

Dan

I 'discovered' this album with the surround SACD, so I can't really comment on your observations. But, thanks for coming over here and sharing your thoughts. I'm not sure if I want to listen to it in stereo now, or if that may diminish my appreciation of the surround mix. How does the SACD's stereo layer hold up against the '97 cd remaster?
 
One thing that isn't clear at all:
the SACD features THE ORIGINAL QUAD MIX (eventually repurposed with a derived C+LFE as O'Jays, Isley Brothers etc) or IS A DIFFERENT MIX?
 
Is there a difference between the OOP U.S. SACD version and the Japanese one? I have the latter and think it's nothing short of amazing.
 
One thing that isn't clear at all:
the SACD features THE ORIGINAL QUAD MIX (eventually repurposed with a derived C+LFE as O'Jays, Isley Brothers etc) or IS A DIFFERENT MIX?

It's the quad mix slightly modified for 5.1. Personally I prefer SEXTANT among the HH quad titles, but this one's pretty good too, but obviously, not everyone likes what was done for quad here. I still think it's very solid, and obviously Herbie got what he wanted.

ED :)
 
I 'discovered' this album with the surround SACD, so I can't really comment on your observations. But, thanks for coming over here and sharing your thoughts. I'm not sure if I want to listen to it in stereo now, or if that may diminish my appreciation of the surround mix. How does the SACD's stereo layer hold up against the '97 cd remaster?

I'd have to hear the stereo layer again, but the remastered CD is in print and available in every corner of the world for cheap. It would give you the best representation of what I think Herbie most wanted his fans to hear. I mean, I love surround best like anyone else here, but if there's no better presentation than the SACD or a possible conversion online for public consumption from the quad LP then I have no choice but to embrace the best stereo playback there is. The booklet of my SACD displays is nearly identical to the 97 remaster and it features the SBM logo so I would assume buying the 97 remastered CD is unnecessary.

Do a lengthy A/B between the surround and stereo layers and let me know what you think. Use headphones if necessary. Pay close attention to the attack of Herbie's 1st solo in "Chameleon" - the stereo layer should be much more ... in your face.

Dan
 
A "9".

My only criticism is that it's too SHORT!! More please!

Oh and maybe the extra ounce of fidelity is juuuust not quite there.. but it's a teeny niggle, I've really no right to grumble.

Fabulous. Get it! You won't regret it!
 
A "9".

My only criticism is that it's too SHORT!! More please!

Oh and maybe the extra ounce of fidelity is juuuust not quite there.. but it's a teeny niggle, I've really no right to grumble.

Fabulous. Get it! You won't regret it!

10 without a doubt. Landmark music that for this listener has the distinct flavour of a transfer by some of the benevolent and talented archivists out there in quad land. I think that is what I read the just less than stellar sound quality as at any rate. If I'm shelf browsing for a disc and I pass it then it's going on.
 
10 without a doubt. Landmark music that for this listener has the distinct flavour of a transfer by some of the benevolent and talented archivists out there in quad land. I think that is what I read the just less than stellar sound quality as at any rate. If I'm shelf browsing for a disc and I pass it then it's going on.

That's a good one in SACD Surround Sound.

I'm also a fan of Hancock's tribute to Gershwin songs featuring Steviw Wonder Joni Mitchell on Verve in SACD Surround.
By the way, that SACD is on sale right now from Music Direct for only $9.99!
See http://www.musicdirect.com/p-8381-herbie-hancock-gershwins-world-hybrid-sacd.aspx if you need a copy.
 
10. An essential Quad, made even better in SACD 5.1.
517SN91HBSL._SS500_.jpg
 
So this is a modified 70's quad mix, eh? It does sound like it. I don't care for all the added reverb. Strangely it appears mainly in the fronts while the surrounds stay dry. Some of the solos are too low in the mix for my tastes. And there's plenty of dated 'trippy' panning of them. In "Chameleon" they did something pretty cool with the bass (in the Rhodes section). It sounds like that they fed the miked track to the fronts and the DI track to the rears producing 2 distinct bass timbres.

Despite its quirks I still really enjoy this disc for the novelty of the vintage quad mix.

9
 
I just converted this one to PCM and had a look at the individual tracks in Nuendo as part of my project to check channel assignments/balances after I noticed the O'Jays and Isley Brothers discs had swapped rear channels, and I'm happy to report that everything with this disc is perfect - all the channels are as they should be, levels are correct, and phase is correct. Additionally, spectral analysis shows audio content well above 30kHz so this is truly a high-res release.

I think all the comments in this thread are pretty on-the-money too, both the positive and negative ones. This is an excellent sounding disc, with a few minor mix issues (the slapback echo and buried solos in Chameleon amongst them) but nothing that ruins the experience as a whole.
 
Now THIS is fun. I stumbled across this yesterday at a local Best Buy and I have grooving to it constantly all day today. While this is considered a classic album, I had no experience with it previously. The way the bass and synths bounce around the room and then slowly build to a crescendo in a clockwise fashion are top notch. While fusion is not normally my cup of tea, this one is a winner and I gave it a 9.

Great find! BB will have some real gems if you look hard enough through it all. I found some good stuff, obscure stuff that is not readily available. How wierd if you think about it-BB! of all stores. I bet it was a leftover of the SACD-DVD audio days.
 
Back
Top