Cream - Royal Albert Hall
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 6110 Registered: May-04 | Received this DVD-V the other day and have played it through just once. It will find a permanent place in the playlist. Sound: ***** Performance: ****1/2 Video quality: ***1/2 Whether in stereo or DTS playback the sound is very good; most especially so for a live recording. DTS multichannel is, for the most part, limited to audience sounds around and behind the listener. Instruments are focused on the stage in front of you and the left to right stage width is acceptible as what you would hear if you attended the concerts. As with most live rock recordings, there is little or no stage depth in the recording. The only drawback is the use of Shure SM-58's for vocals. This is an old style cardioid microphone (in use from about the time when these guys were young; my Farewell Concert DVD has them using the previous model Shure cardioid SM-57; http://www.shure.com/microphones/models/sm58.asp) with the familiar cardioid lump in the midbass. Bruce usues the mic as if it were still 1968 and his words get muffled on many of his performances. Clapton has learned to use a mic to his advantage and his performances are clearly more articulate than Bruce's or Baker's. While there are no Marshall tube stacks for Clapton and Bruce (a comment is made in passing about the new equipment), they rely on traditional stage monitors at the front apron. This forces a performer to get too close to a microphone and Bruce abuses the policy far too many times. The AKG's used as overall drum mic's (equally as old as the Shures; http://www.akg.com/products/powerslave,mynodeid,186,id,782,pid,782,_language,EN. html) leave nothing to be desired and though I couldn't spot what mic's were used for the kick drums, the sound of the drum set overall is terrific. Relively few spot mics on the drums are a welcome sight and sound. Bruce has switched to a fretless bass and his chording techniques along with the blazing speed all three performers still possess once again asks the question; how do three guys make this much music? The performances are top notch. The disc is worth the price for Ginger Baker's solo alone. These are rehearsed and set performances; there are no thirty minute imporvisations like there were in 1968. Still, you have to ask; which is the better group, Cream old and straight or Cream young and stoned? The video quality is alternately sharp, grainy and soft. I suspect Jack Bruce insisted on the latter two qualities for any shot he is in. Though only five years younger than Bruce or Baker, Clapton's appearance against the other two band members is a testimony to get straight and keep on playing. If you still like old guys playing early rock/blues, get this disc. This is far less distracting and embarrassing than watching the Stones pretend to be twenty years old. |
|
Silver Member Username: Arnold_layneMadridSpain Post Number: 424 Registered: Jun-04 | Great review Jan Thanks AL |
|
Rantz Unregistered guest | Right up until the "Stones" comment! |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 6117 Registered: May-04 | Bruce has a stool to rest on. Richards should. |
|
Rantz Unregistered guest | Ah, when Keith has to do it sitting down then I think maybe it will be time for them to retire. Jack should think about that. B.B. does it sitting down also but then he has some tonnage to consider let alone another twenty years. I would have liked to have seen the Cream reunion concert - if it was half as good as the last Stones show I saw here then that would be really saying something. |
|
Silver Member Username: SemNew York USA Post Number: 517 Registered: Mar-04 | Nice review Jan. I was initially skeptical when I first heard of a Cream reunion but it has gotten some nice press. And yes, Jack Bruce is better seen in less than ideal light, if I may be so bold to say. I actually had the opportunity to meet him a couple years ago and remember thinking much the same thing back then. But he's still out there doing what he enjoys, I give him credit for that. |
|
Silver Member Username: DiabloFylde Coast, England Post Number: 256 Registered: Dec-04 | Recordings of both the 2005 and 1968 Albert Hall appearances were shown on one of the BBC channels in the last few hours. I don't know if the DVD version is from the same recordings as the one broadcast by the BBC, but in the credits there are around 50 sound and video engineers! Must have been crowded back stage if there were two lots of them. Maybe it isn't the same one, as Jack Bruce is shown without any soft focus.  ). And yes it does look like a Shure SM58. Not too sure about the Shure in Both concerts were very good. Think I prefer the 1968 version, maybe because it is more like the 'supergroup' I remember, and they didn't seem stoned. Ginger's drum solo in that was astonishing, much better than the merely excellent newer offering. The only really disappointing item in the 2005 re-union was 'Badge'. One of my favourites. Totally ruined by Clapton's current interpretation. The sound on the TV version was good, but will have to play it a bit louder to get the real effect - it was after midnight when I first played the broadcast of the concert, so didn't want to disturb the neighbours! If the DVD version sound quality is even better then it could well go onto my buy list. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 6127 Registered: May-04 | I listened again to the first disc of the set and I have decided the stereo soundtrack is a bit better than the DTS version. While the DTS tracks are fuller on the bottom, they seem to lack some bite through the rest of the frequency range. The performance is kept in front of the listener in both versions; you are not on stage with the band in the DTS version. Some cymbals are heard as ambience in the multichannel tracks (which I find distracting). So the main element of the multichannel is the hall sound and the audience surrounding you as a listener. The stereo tracks are very well recorded as played back on my HT system. I've changed the speakers around in that system and there are now some quasi-dipoles in the front L/R position. (Monopole bass and dipole from the Xo up.) I am not interested in unhooking everything to see what exactly that is doing to the playback quality but the sound is very spacious on the stereo tracks with hall and audience sounds at all locations except directly behind me with two channel playback alone. It's almost good enough that you want to tell the guy in front of you to calm down. The sense of the hall is quite good for any stereo recording and doesn't require anything more for my tastes. A few of the songs are not up to what you would might like if you have the originals; but Clapton states at the begining of the concert they will play every song they know together during this concert. So there is no time for much beyond the scripted lay out of the performance. Each disc has two alternate tracks which I would guess respresent the amount of flexibility they allowed themself over the four nights. I don't know what music is out there today, but this DVD gives the feeling these guys are still a super group and there aren't many performers who could do better. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3790 Registered: Dec-03 | Really interesting. Thanks. Jan, is the stereo track PCM? If so, is it at 96 kHz, 24-bit? This format is one of the factors that made me think there is a resolution ceiling of audibility inherent in CD. From the sublime to the ridiculous, the 2005 Cream concert will surely soon be on countless video iPods. |
|
Silver Member Username: HawkHighlands Ranch, CO USA Post Number: 706 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan: Great review. Also, I loved the comment on the Stones. For anyone who disagreed with it, just remember their performance at this year's Super Bowl. My wife and I were howling! ! |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 2859 Registered: Feb-05 | My wife and I were howling! ! Unfortunately so were the Stones! My wife and I were cringing. It was painful. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 7933 Registered: May-04 | Gentlemen! Please, have some sympathy for those older and more decrepit than you. There are plenty of rock stars Mick's age who have been dead for the last thirty years. Last night I watched a "Biography" of Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin and felt glad to not be famous. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 2862 Registered: Feb-05 | I just bought that Jimi Hendrix Live at Woodstock DVD and haven't found the opportunity to watch it yet. Looking forward to it. |
|
Silver Member Username: My_rantzAustralia Post Number: 386 Registered: Nov-05 | Well, the latest Stone's album sounds much better than Clapton's last effort imho - that one made me cring. The only thing I'll say about the Stone's is they should not let Keith sing. |
Main Forums
Today's Posts- Home Audio Forum
- A/V Receivers Forum
- Amps Forum
- Cassette Forum
- CD Players Forum
- CD Recorders Forum
- DAC & Transports Forum
- DVD-Audio & SACD Forum
- Equalizers Forum
- Integrated Amps Forum
- iPod Docks Forum
- MiniDisc Forum
- Mini Systems Forum
- Digital Music Systems Forum
- Phono Forum
- Preamps Forum
- Speakers Forum
- Subwoofers Forum
- Tuners Forum
- Home Video Forum
- Home Theater Forum
- Car Audio Forum
- Accessories Forum
- All Forum Topics