So dynamic and real it’s scary. An extraordinary recording. This copy is a bit long in the tooth and worn, but the sound is overwhelming.
Phil
Phil,
That copy won a shootout, that’s why it was so good. They don’t all sound like that.
In fact, only that one sounded like that in our last shootout, if memory serves.
Here is more on Sheffield’s first direct to disc.
Doug Sax Is The Man
The Mastering Lab was one of the greatest cutting houses to ever master records.
Doug Sax knew how to keep his lathes and amplifiers working at state-of-the-art levels. The sound quality is unsurpassed.
And he did it all with tubes.
He was very proud of his custom-made tube-driven cutting amps, designed by none other than his brother, Sherwood. His amps cut many of my favorite records of all time, including this one, an album that I have been using to test and improve the playback quality of my system for more than forty years.
To this day we get taken to task by some regrettably misguided individuals for criticizing his work on the awful audiophile records he made in the 90s, many of them for Analogue Productions. We stand firmly behind the criticism we made of those albums decades ago. Their sound has not improved with age, nor is it likely to.
Those records from the 90s sound nothing like the records Doug and his crew were making in the 70s.
According to the logic of our critics, if you made great records in the 70s, then you must have been making great records in the 90s, whether your name is Doug Sax, Bernie Grundman, George Marino, Robert Ludwig or any other.
This is a very crude way of understanding the work of these exceptionally talented men.
The fact that this kind of sophistry is taken seriously by supposedly grownup adults in the audiophile community is embarrassing. To those of us who have been in the hobby for decades, it comes as no surprise.
Audiophiles have always embraced bad ideas (Half-Speed mastering!) and bad records (like those found here.) Our hobby attracts large numbers of True Believers, and many of them — too many of them — latch onto conventional ideas about records and audio which are attractively convenient and comforting.
Self-evident, convenient and comforting ideas — so beautiful and beguiling — rarely get put to the test. They are a ball some audiophiles have unknowingly chained to themselves.
These superficially attractive ideas do not hold up well to scrutiny. They are mostly assumptions, and we take issue with assumptions when it comes to finding better sounding records.
For those who would like a more thorough explanation of our approach and the heterodox views it produces, we wrote about it here.
Uniquely among audiophile reviewers, empirical evidence, using large pools of data, all of it acquired scientifically, is at the heart of everything we think we know. And, as we freely admit, we sometimes still get it wrong.
(more…)