 |
|
а на сей раз в роли начальника отдела снабжения - kokiku! :punk:
thanks to kokiku and other friends :)
| QUOTE |
| Review by Alex Henderson The San Francisco Bay Area rock scene of the late '60s was one that encouraged radical experimentation and discouraged the type of mindless conformity that's often plagued corporate rock. When one considers just how different Santana, Jefferson Airplane, Moby Grape, and the Grateful Dead sounded, it becomes obvious just how much it was encouraged. In the mid-'90s, an album as eclectic as Abraxas would be considered a marketing exec's worst nightmare. But at the dawn of the 1970s, this unorthodox mix of rock, jazz, salsa, and blues proved quite successful. Whether adding rock elements to salsa king Tito Puente's "Oye Como Va," embracing instrumental jazz-rock on "Incident at Neshabur" and "Samba Pa Ti," or tackling moody blues-rock on Fleetwood Mac's "Black Magic Woman," the band keeps things unpredictable yet cohesive. Many of the Santana albums that came out in the '70s are worth acquiring, but for novices, Abraxas is an excellent place to start. |
| QUOTE |
| Only For Stereo But Excellent Music And Recording For Its Time, July 25, 2005 Reviewer: Joel G. Alabastro "Joel Alabastro" (Sugar Land, Texas) It is too bad if you expect 5.1 or 7.1 surround from this SACD. The remastering engineer is too honest to reprocess this to 5.1 or multichannel that during the time or recording was not available. SACD Stereo is meant for stereophiles or audiophiles with equipment carefully chosen to bring out the best in recorded stereo music for two channels only...and never for 5.1 channels unless you have a DSP which will remove the essence of the recording anyway. And I have to emphasize the quality of the playback system since SACD has higher frequency data not possible to be included in the CD. If your system can only playnack the audible frequencies then you are missing a lot of information particulary imaging (depth and width) and ambience. In short, the SACD version blows away the CD version only if you have the right equipment. I could hear the increased in depth of the soundstage and clarity of the instruments...My comparison is based on a remastered CD played on a very good CD player, versus this SACD played on a midrange SACD/DVD-A player. The CD player costs 3 times as much as the SACD player but still the SACD wins hands down. So before you write reviews for or against this SACD make sure that you have the listened to it using the right equipment... |
| QUOTE |
| More resolution than the standard cd, in pristine 2 channel, February 14, 2005 Reviewer: S. Ragland Ok, ok... Let some things straight. This is a standard Stereo SACD. If you were expecting multichannel then it's your fault for not reading the info about it. There are many of us who prefer 2 speakers over 5.1 or even 7.1 surround. We were born with 2 ears right... not 7.1 (lol) This matter does not suprise me because its still the case that most people think cds are more valuable than vinyl for sound. Most of us cant spend the money on expensive vinyl equipment but thats another case and still the vinyl itself will always carry more information than a little cd format could ever. It's not anyones fault that people buy cheap stereo equipment and expect nothing less than an inprovement with the sacds. A salute to two channel audio lovers out there. sorry... but 2 channel will always exist... nor will it ever depart these lands. |