Brubeck: Take Five - Analogue Productions Remaster CD vs K2 HD 2011 Sony Remaster?

[LL21]

Has anyone compared this with the K2 HD that Sony produced in 2011? I own this one, but was just curious if anyone has compared the two? Thanks!

 

[Drikus]

Just to let you know that Sony also released a Blu-spec CD2 version of this album in 2013. I haven't heard it so I can't comment on the SQ. I do own the 1997 Sony Single-layer SACD, great SQ on this one.

 

[LL21]

Just to let you know that Sony also released a Blu-spec CD2 version of this album in 2013. I haven't heard it so I can't comment on the SQ. I do own the 1997 Sony Single-layer SACD, great SQ on this one.

Thank you. I have compared with the 50th Ann edition (which I think was merely a re-packaging and marketing job) with the K2HD and there was quite a substantial difference/improvement with the K2 version. Same for the K2 version of Kind of Blue.

But I am curious about APO Remaster as they tend to do a very good job...Bernie Grundman may have done this one. The only ones I have preferred to APO are the FIM K2 Remasters which are truly sensational. The K2 Take Five was done by Sony.

 

[Drikus]

But I am curious about APO Remaster as they tend to do a very good job...Bernie Grundman may have done this one.

He did remaster the SACD. From the APO site: Remastered by Bernie Grundman; authored for SACD by Gus Skinas on the SONOMA system

 

[LL21]

He did remaster the SACD. From the APO site: Remastered by Bernie Grundman; authored for SACD by Gus Skinas on the SONOMA system

http://www.theaudiobeat.com/music/dave_brubeck_time_out_lp.htm

Thanks...yes, I just saw this review and figured I would try it...should arrive soon. I have not found anyone who has compared K2 HD to the recent APO Hybrid. it is one of my fav jazz albums. will post findings.

 

[Sauerball]

Haven't made the comparison, but the APO SACD is superb. Have only listened to the DSD layer. Outstanding.

 

[LenWhite]

I also have the AP SACD of this album and it is indeed a superb sounding album.

 

[rbbert]

So there are 3 SACD's and an HDtracks download. Has anyone actualy compared all 4 (5 if you count the two sample rates at HDtracks)??

 

[dmnc02]

I believe there are two SACDs. The AP SACD sounds considerably better than the older Columbia/Sony SACD (but neither compares to the AP vinyl). I have not heard any of the PCM versions.

 

[rbbert]

There's also a Japanese SACD from a number of years ago; it may be the same as the Sony/Columbia SACD although some listeners suggest it is different.

 

[LL21]

There's also a Japanese SACD from a number of years ago; it may be the same as the Sony/Columbia SACD although some listeners suggest it is different.

That may be the one I have?...K2 HD Sony Remaster from 2011.

 

[LL21]

Thanks all! I will post my findings when the APO version arrives.

 

[Joe Whip]

TAS has a review comparing the HDtracks version of this album with the SACD and DSD download from Acoustic Sounds in this month's issue. The clear winner was the HDTracks version, the second the SACD layer and then the DSD download.

 

[LL21]

TAS has a review comparing the HDtracks version of this album with the SACD and DSD download from Acoustic Sounds in this month's issue. The clear winner was the HDTracks version, the second the SACD layer and then the DSD download.

Thanks...could not find on their website. Which version is the HDTracks version? Which is the SACD version...the APO? I am just curious since there have been so many versions!

 

[Joe Whip]

The HDTracks is a new circa 2012 24/176.4 master also available as 24/88.2. I have not heard it on my system but have heard it on a friend's and it sounds superb. I have not head the Superhighrex at all on the SACD. All I know is that the TAS reviewer preferred the SACD layer to the DSD download and liked the 24/176.4 better than the SACD. Just one man's opinion though.

 

[LL21]

The HDTracks is a new circa 2012 24/176.4 master also available as 24/88.2. I have not heard it on my system but have heard it on a friend's and it sounds superb. I have not head the Superhighrex at all on the SACD. All I know is that the TAS reviewer preferred the SACD layer to the DSD download and liked the 24/176.4 better than the SACD. Just one man's opinion though.

Thank you! Since I am a redbook guy, seems like the APO (or my current K2 HD) are as good as I am gonna get...which is already great with the K2...will look forward comparing it to the APO hopefully next week when it should arrive.

 

[ddk]

Thank you! Since I am a redbook guy, seems like the APO (or my current K2 HD) are as good as I am gonna get...which is already great with the K2...will look forward comparing it to the APO hopefully next week when it should arrive.

Hah! Get a non-remastered first generation digital transfer of Take 5 and then compare to all these audiophile re-mastersings, the new ones are a joke! You won't believe how much body and naturalness is lost to remastering, even the scale of the instruments are completely different. Do it with anything including all Miles remasters from Sony & you'll see that it gets worse with every remastered CD.

david

 

[rbbert]

Hah! Get a non-remastered first generation digital transfer of Take 5 and then compare to all these audiophile re-mastersings, the new ones are a joke! You won't believe how much body and naturalness is lost to remastering, even the scale of the instruments are completely different. Do it with anything including all Miles remasters from Sony & you'll see that it gets worse with every remastered CD.

david

Huh...
I have some pretty carefully made 24/96 transfers of original mono, original stereo and Classics Records (33rpm) 2008 LP's (of Take 5). Aside from the fact that the pitch is off on some of the mono tracks (apparently a mastering error present on all copies and reflected in the song timings on the LP cover) I certainly don't hear what you claim, in fact I'd say the Classic Records sounds better than either of the originals. Unsurprisingly, I will probably end up preferring the 24/176.4 HDtracks which I got today because of earlier comments in this thread, but I'm reluctant to say that after only one listen.

 

[ddk]

Huh...
I have some pretty carefully made 24/96 transfers of original mono, original stereo and Classics Records (33rpm) 2008 LP's (of Take 5). Aside from the fact that the pitch is off on some of the mono tracks (apparently a mastering error present on all copies and reflected in the song timings on the LP cover) I certainly don't hear what you claim, in fact I'd say the Classic Records sounds better than either of the originals. Unsurprisingly, I will probably end up preferring the 24/176.4 HDtracks which I got today because of earlier comments in this thread, but I'm reluctant to say that after only one listen.

Whenever you get your hands on an early CD and compare it to these two pressings through a non-molesting DAC, ie not up sampling or reclocking alla DCS, you'll know what I'm talking about.

david

PS. Sorry to say that Oppo's not up to scratch to judge anything like this on.

 

[LL21]

Whenever you get your hands on an early CD and compare it to these two pressings through a non-molesting DAC, ie not up sampling or reclocking alla DCS, you'll know what I'm talking about.

david

PS. Sorry to say that Oppo's not up to scratch to judge anything like this on.

I have only found the CD which was mastered AFTER that pitch-mistake was supposedly fixed...is there any earlier one?