SACD-Heathen David Bowie

Ben, i was thinking about buying this on SACD. As it is, i wandered into Best Buy today and found it for $10.99 on standard "redbook", so i bought it. I have yet to listen to it though, so i can't comment on either the sonics or performance. If i like it, i'll pick it up on SACD and try comparing the two. Sean
>

Ben: After listening to the redbook tonight, i would have to say that the SACD version would have to sound MILES better to even think about spending the money on it. This disc was purposely recorded "lo-fi" so as to simulate much of the sound of Bowie's early work. I can't see increased resolution helping the sound of this disc out any since the recording itself is "hurting" to begin with. Obviously, that's just my take on things having not heard the SACD version. Needless to say, i won't be spending any money to make such a comparison. Sean
>

Sean-mmm-I think perhaps this is where I and audiophiles start to diverge.
I can find nothing "lo-fi" about this records production whereas you may not like the actual production by Tony Visconti-I tend to think it's been put together with a whole lot of thought-it doesn't sound much like any of Bowie's early work to my ears-I take it you mean pre-'72?-"hurting"-well I'm sure it is to your ears.
You are right of course the SACD offers about a 10/15% improvement to my ears but it doesn't change the overall sound of the record.
I think it's a rather good production but I do listen to the music first and I am no purist when it comes to record production-I think we'll agree to disagree on this one.
My main point was actually outwith the merits of this record in itself I was merely pointing out it's probably the first current SACD release I've heard and it is unusual in that to to me that it shows an improvement I consider noticeable over redbook,in my system.

Ben, the sticker on the front of the CD stated "Classic David Bowie circa 2002". After listening to the disc, it was very apparent to me that both the sound and many of the songs were an attempt at being a "throw back" to Bowie's early aka "classic" sound.

If you've got a vinyl rig and some of Bowie's early recordings, go back and listen to them and then listen to this disc. You should be able to tell what i mean right away. If you are strictly digital based, i can understand where something is getting lost in the transaction. I grew up listening to Bowie courtesy of my Father, so i could relate to the sound of this disc right away. Sean
>

Sean,
I was reasonably aware of Bowie at the time,my older brother was a big fan in the 70's so I heard classic era Bowie growing up,on vinyl,on a record player that probably cost £5-:-)
I haven't heard anything on vinyl for a long time I admit and the only "high" end stuff I've ever heard is on digital-I don't doubt the quality of vinyl but I don't really have access to it.
I have listened to a lot of Bowie over the years so I very familar at least with the classic 70's albums.
Again I think we disagree on the music,as I said on my records of the year list,the idea of Bowie going back to record with Visconti filled me with fear because this type of move usually doesn't work.
Whilst it's impossible totally for Bowie to escape his past-I don't think this record actually recalls one specific era of Bowie-it has rockier moments,poppier moments,some atmospheric moments.
It works for me because I think the record simply stands on it's own as a collection of good/great songs.
I think the production is contemporary,you can hear that from the layers,the sampling,the keyboards,to my ears it enhances the songs without being overdone.
It might not be an "audiophile" production but then I'm not sure what that is or whether it exists in rock/popular music.
Yes,maybe because the songs are more straight forward it evokes 70's Bowie (which intself is a very very wide range of music)but imho the actual music is very good.
Sure others will disagree,it just works for me,as a new stand alone Bowie album.
Would it be fair to say give it 6 or so listens and then get back on it?