No, it's stereo only, as you would expect from the date. A lovely transfer though and a clear step up from previous digital incarnations. Do a saved search on e-Bay and with a ...
A very risky venture to have remastered all of these recordings in the SACD format. The cost is prohibitive, will anybody buy them or indeed have the time to listen to every ...
Yeah, excellent sounding.
The phonographic copyright year is consistently given as "1995" on the release, so if correct there must have been some sort of a transfer ...
This release was foreshadowed for quite a while before finally hitting the racks last month. That the Copyright/phonographic copyright year is '2003' suggests it was in the ...
How right you were, Breydon Music. It’s not a minor difference. Everything is now (in the Tower remaster) so much more open, transparent, delicate, and defined, and the ...
I received the box last, but I have to return it due to a mstering problem. Instead of Symphony 8, which was labeled correctly, it contains the whole 9th symphony in Track 1 ...
5 of 5 recommend this, would you recommend it? yes | no
All
Recording
Analogue recording
Comments (3)
Comment by satoshi - April 29, 2019 (1 of 3)
This series is direct DSD conversion from the original analog master. It is the world's first. It is a great sound quality. I highly recommend this
Comment by Athenaeus - November 26, 2019 (2 of 3)
I bought this release and compared it with the RBCD version. I was a tad disappointed. There is an improvement but it's minimal. The drums are a bit crisper and that's about it (to my ears at least). So it seems the RBCD version was about as good as it's going to get.
I found two other reviews for this release (including the one above) and they were both very positive. I don't know, however, if they're based on a comparison with the RBCD version. The SACD is indeed excellent but, if it hardly differs from the RBCD, then one wonders whether it was worth releasing this album again on a silver disc, especially at such a high price. Has anybody else had a chance to compare the SACD and RBCD? (I made my comparison through a pair of Beyerdynamic T1 2nd Generation headphones.)
Comment by Athenaeus - February 17, 2020 (3 of 3)
I recently replaced my bookshelf speakers by a pair of ATC floorstanders. I have since been revisiting a lot of my discs with "fresh ears". Back in November I compared this SACD release with the Verve RBCD version and I wasn't overly impressed by the improvement. I had done the comparison with my headphones. This weekend I compared the two releases again but with my new speakers. I was more impressed this time. A problem with the RBCD version is that Ray Brown's bass tends to get buried under the piano's sound. This is no longer as much of an issue with the SACD version. As I had already mentioned in my last review Ed Thigpen's percussion is crisper on the SACD and my audition through the speakers confirmed this. (Some might say the cymbal is too prominent but that would be a problem with the way the album was recorded not with the SACD transfer.) Overall, I found there is more "air" around each instrument with the SACD version.
So, I would now recommend the Tower Records album. It's not an enormous improvement over the RBCD version but it is enough of an improvement to justify its release and, if you are an audiophile and a fan of Oscar Peterson, its purchase.
Click here to report errors or omissions in the music details.
Comment by satoshi - April 29, 2019 (1 of 3)
This series is direct DSD conversion from the original analog master. It is the world's first. It is a great sound quality. I highly recommend this
Comment by Athenaeus - November 26, 2019 (2 of 3)
I bought this release and compared it with the RBCD version. I was a tad disappointed. There is an improvement but it's minimal. The drums are a bit crisper and that's about it (to my ears at least). So it seems the RBCD version was about as good as it's going to get.
I found two other reviews for this release (including the one above) and they were both very positive. I don't know, however, if they're based on a comparison with the RBCD version. The SACD is indeed excellent but, if it hardly differs from the RBCD, then one wonders whether it was worth releasing this album again on a silver disc, especially at such a high price. Has anybody else had a chance to compare the SACD and RBCD? (I made my comparison through a pair of Beyerdynamic T1 2nd Generation headphones.)
Comment by Athenaeus - February 17, 2020 (3 of 3)
I recently replaced my bookshelf speakers by a pair of ATC floorstanders. I have since been revisiting a lot of my discs with "fresh ears". Back in November I compared this SACD release with the Verve RBCD version and I wasn't overly impressed by the improvement. I had done the comparison with my headphones. This weekend I compared the two releases again but with my new speakers. I was more impressed this time. A problem with the RBCD version is that Ray Brown's bass tends to get buried under the piano's sound. This is no longer as much of an issue with the SACD version. As I had already mentioned in my last review Ed Thigpen's percussion is crisper on the SACD and my audition through the speakers confirmed this. (Some might say the cymbal is too prominent but that would be a problem with the way the album was recorded not with the SACD transfer.) Overall, I found there is more "air" around each instrument with the SACD version.
So, I would now recommend the Tower Records album. It's not an enormous improvement over the RBCD version but it is enough of an improvement to justify its release and, if you are an audiophile and a fan of Oscar Peterson, its purchase.