HiRez Poll Hiatt, John - MASTER OF DISASTER [SACD]

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

Rate the SACD of John Hiatt - MASTER OF DISASTER


  • Total voters
    32

JonUrban

Forum Curmudgeon
Staff member
Admin
Moderator
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Mar 2, 2002
Messages
16,854
Location
Connecticut
Please post your thoughts and comments on this title - (y) :phones (n)
 

daved64

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Joined
Mar 24, 2003
Messages
2,647
Location
Milton, Canada
After reading all the Sonoma this that and the other and DSD blah blah about this disc, I finally took the plunge.

Am I deaf? This thing sounds like crap! I was expecting a full bodied sound like the David Elias disc. It's thin, his voice sounds harsh, and the instruments have no balls. It does improve after the first song, which sounds worse the ones on The Thorns disc, if that's possible. But all the tongue wagging about the Sonoma stuff......i don't get it.

And it's not my player or system. I have PLENTY of discs that sound amazing! Not this one!

Musically it is good though. Too bad the sound ruins it. 7
 

JonUrban

Forum Curmudgeon
Staff member
Admin
Moderator
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Mar 2, 2002
Messages
16,854
Location
Connecticut
I was not impressed either. How this could win a poll is amazing to me, especially when you compare it to BIA, the Brick, and even ROE.
 

daved64

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Joined
Mar 24, 2003
Messages
2,647
Location
Milton, Canada
JonUrban said:
I was not impressed either. How this could win a poll is amazing to me, especially when you compare it to BIA, the Brick, and even ROE.
ok, not to kiss yer butt, but I feel better now! I thought it was just me.:mad:@:
 

MIDIQ

600 Club - QQ All-Star
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Nov 2, 2003
Messages
615
Location
US
I agree that this is not a very good disc sonically. I don't know how they can feel that the new fangled recording setup helped anything at all. This disc sounds far worse sonically that any other SACD i have heard. And the surround mix, i think that the "who cares" surround mix sounds about right. The vocals are definately very harsh, as they usually are with this artist, but even more so on this disc. But i will say that i do like the songs. But i haven't voted yet because i plan to listen to it again before i do, i just can't get around to it.
 

daved64

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Joined
Mar 24, 2003
Messages
2,647
Location
Milton, Canada
MIDIQ said:
I agree that this is not a very good disc sonically. I don't know how they can feel that the new fangled recording setup helped anything at all. This disc sounds far worse sonically that any other SACD i have heard. And the surround mix, i think that the "who cares" surround mix sounds about right. The vocals are definately very harsh, as they usually are with this artist, but even more so on this disc. But i will say that i do like the songs. But i haven't voted yet because i plan to listen to it again before i do, i just can't get around to it.
Booya! Vindicated! I don't know what other people are hearing. I will try again, but I'm sure I'll still feel the same.
 

jeffty

Active Member
Joined
May 27, 2005
Messages
61
Location
Austin TX
A real disappointment to me. Lackluster sound and surround mix, totally unimpressive. A talent like JH deserves better than this. I did however appreciate the lower than usual price point for an SACD but even with that factored in - still a disappointment.
 

daved64

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Joined
Mar 24, 2003
Messages
2,647
Location
Milton, Canada
Can someone please explain to me why we, for the most part, think this sounds poor, and other forums laud it like it's Sea Change part 2????? I don't get it! I keep hearing the "it's your player" remark.....OTHER DISCS SOUND GREAT!!:mad:@:
 

jeffty

Active Member
Joined
May 27, 2005
Messages
61
Location
Austin TX
Beauty in in the ear of the beholder I suppose. For example I am listening to this disc once again as I write this and on reflection I think I've pinpointed what put me off in the first place. Compared to a lot of current rock/pop mixes this disc lacks some "air" (that last octave between 10k-20k) that the digital revolution made so accessable and popular so in comparison it can come off sounding somewhat muted. This can be deceiving because the rest of the timbres sound just fine and very true.

I cannot speak for the producers of this disc but this could have been the results of a creative decision - to make a record that sounded a little old-fashioned or at least simply natural without a lot of EQ manipulation. Hi-Rez reproduction has rasied the bar on clean and extended frequency response and I suspect the main reasons we cherish these discs is for the increased fidelity they usually bring. Perhaps our expectations are partially to blame for those (like myself) who felt disappointment with this disc. And perhaps this is exactly how they wanted it to sound...

As I listen to this again I'm trying to minimize my usual expectations of what an SACD should sound like and within those parameters I am enjoying it more. The definition of the high-hats and cymbals show that there's no overall lack of high frequency content, in fact the instruments and vocals sound very true to themselves in a natural and un-hyped way. This doesn't mean I'm going to use this as a "show off" SACD anytime soon but taken in the context of a "roots rock" album it's definitely growing on me. Of course your mileage may vary...
 

bmoura

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Mar 2, 2003
Messages
9,519
Location
Redwood City, CA
jeffty said:
Beauty in in the ear of the beholder I suppose.
Agreed.

Sonically I would rate David Elias' "The Crossing" Surround Sound SACD and the Sonoma Records "Music for Organ, Brass and Timpani" Surround Sound SACD ahead of the John Hiatt SACD in this voting category.
 

daved64

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Joined
Mar 24, 2003
Messages
2,647
Location
Milton, Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Beauty in in the ear of the beholder I suppose. For example I am listening to this disc once again as I write this and on reflection I think I've pinpointed what put me off in the first place. Compared to a lot of current rock/pop mixes this disc lacks some "air" (that last octave between 10k-20k) that the digital revolution made so accessable and popular so in comparison it can come off sounding somewhat muted. This can be deceiving because the rest of the timbres sound just fine and very true.
'Muted" is a good description. I used "claustrophobic" in another post somewhere. I'll try to listen to it with virgin ears, not playing anything before it, maybe that's the problem.
 

aquadad

400 Club - QQ All-Star
Joined
Feb 6, 2005
Messages
448
Location
Hillsboro, OR
Hello,
I wish I would have bought a stereo copy of this. I don't much care for the double stereo that this disc has to offer and when I feed the stereo cd version on this disc to the variomatrix strange things happen with all kinds of pumping and pushing of the sound. Maybe this is a side effect of the Sonoma on the matrix decoders. Usually stereo hi-rez sounds really nice decoded into quad but not so with this disc.
 

stereoptic

Active Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2004
Messages
78
Location
New York
I don't know, this is one of the best sounding discs IMO that I own. Very warm and the surround mix is very natural.
 

stereoptic

Active Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2004
Messages
78
Location
New York
This one is still a mystery to me. Even on my new system it sounds like poo. Maybe I got a bad copy!:mad:@: :confused:
We've discussed this, I don't get it either. I can sympathisize with the "muted" comments to some extent on the vocals, but the highs are present elsewhere. And IMO, the guitars have a natural (that word again) vibe and bounce. Weird. Maybe I'll send you my copy just to see if you have a bad pressing?
 
Last edited:

sacd user

Active Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Messages
86
Location
Odense, Denmark
This is one of the only SACD's I have been able to pick up in a physical store. But the sound has not impressed me even though it should be a fine DSD recording according to immediate available information.

Looking at the reviews at this site, maybee something is wrong with the recording. Looking at the recording process, see http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_john_hiatt_memphis/ the recording process went into some problems. As I read it, the process ended up as DSD recording, analogue mixing, and DSD mastering.

If you look at expressions from BP, Head Engineer at Philips, see http://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=179930, the used process is very problematic.
"When you convert the signal twice, however (such as when using a DSD recorder as the tracking medium), the second conversion is no longer transparent, due to the HF noise present in the source signal hitting a second analogue deltasigma modulator". The result can be "If you're a bit of a sensitive person you'll run away screaming".

Maybee a wrong recording process were used?
 

bmoura

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Mar 2, 2003
Messages
9,519
Location
Redwood City, CA
This is one of the only SACD's I have been able to pick up in a physical store. But the sound has not impressed me even though it should be a fine DSD recording according to immediate available information.
There seem to be mixed reviews on this one.

It did win the Readers Choice Award last year for Favorite Surround Sound release at the Surround 2005 Awards from the readers of High Fidelity Review - beating out well known Hi Rez recordings including Brothers In Arms by the Dire Straits and Brick by the Talking Heads.

And the album's producer raved about the sound. His comments included this one "The exciting thing about it was this digital process that he brought in, this Sonoma thing (The Sonoma-24 Direct Stream Digital Recording and Editing System). I mean, I've been working pro-tools like everybody else and after you work pro-tools all day long, you feel like you have your head in a bucket and somebody's hitting it with a hammer. This Sonoma System, it's not like sound reproduction, it's like being in the room with first generation audio. It is the best sound I ever heard. Not only for digital media, it makes analog sound silly."
(See http://www.highfidelityreview.com/news/news.asp?newsnumber=16240030)

On my system, the vocals sound good and there are some cuts that are notable due to the detail on the instruments. But I will say that I'd give it a middle of the road rating overall. (I gave it a "7" in this poll).

There are other Surround Sound SACDs that are more of a showcase for the format than this one in my opinion.
 

timbre4

Administrator
Staff member
Admin
Moderator
QQ Supporter
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Oct 18, 2002
Messages
7,413
Location
College Grove, TN
There is something stilted about this recording; it's not wide open as the producer's comments would indicate. Good songs but not his best; he moved onto different turf and it's unfamiliar.

BTW - get Comes Alive At Budokan as it's one of the best live albums ever. His band is crackling on that one...good surround candidate...
 

bmoura

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Mar 2, 2003
Messages
9,519
Location
Redwood City, CA
There is something stilted about this recording; it's not wide open as the producer's comments would indicate. Good songs but not his best; he moved onto different turf and it's unfamiliar.

BTW - get Comes Alive At Budokan as it's one of the best live albums ever. His band is crackling on that one...good surround candidate...
It has its moments.

But I would rate the other two DSD recorded SACDs that competed vs. the Hiatt SACD in last years' Listener's Awards Competition - David Elias' SACD "Crossing" and the Sonoma Records SACD - ahead of this one.
 
Top