Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

I used to have the optimistic point of view that, in the digital age, old music could be infinitely improved if it was properly remixed and remastered. Time has shown that the best of the digital "redos" can only be as good as the original source tape, whether the original stereo master or the original multitracks. It's obvious now, after at least six attempts at digital remastering (the original CD reissue, the boxed set in '90, the Mobile Fidelity release in '93, the '96 remaster and now the SACD edition), that the original tapes are not that well recorded. We've heard excuses for this, that everything was recorded live (and LOUD) and there was a lot of bleed between mics, that it was the beginning of multitrack technology and therefore noisy, that everyone, including the engineers, was stoned, etc., etc. None of the excuses, except for the drugs, really holds up. They were working in a fine studio with state of the art equipment, a place where other artists made fine sounding records at that time. Also, I don't think they were playing all that loud, as Clapton was using a Pignose (small amp) for much of the session. But even if they were playing loud, I doubt that they could top the volume level of Who's Next, for instance, and that's a fine sounding LP. Anyway, it is what it is. It's obvious now that there will be no significant improvement on the way this LP sounds. It will always sound claustrophobic, muddy and midrange heavy. You know they've gone back to the multitracks at least twice (20th Anniversery was remixed and they had to use the multitracks for the 5.1 on the SACD) with no significant improvement. So I guess we just have to appreciate the subtle improvements, and, to disagree with several other reviews, I think they are here. I own all the other remasters, and I've felt like the best were the Mobile Fidelity and the '96 remaster. Tough to declare a winner there; each has their pros and cons, and the difference is definitely subtle. Last night, I did an A-B comparision of each of those with this SACD, and the SACD is a marked improvement on the bottom end. The drums also have more detail. When the tape becomes more saturated (i.e., when all those guitar overdubs kick in) like on Anyday, it still becomes a quagmire. But on sparser songs, like Have You Ever Loved A Woman, the improvement is considerable. Our ears (and minds) are tricky animals. When looking for improvement in a recording such as this, it is not fair to compare to another recording. Layla will never sound like Who's Next or Abbey Road. Different musicians, different studio, different conditions. And Layla will never be a CD to demo speakers with. But when comparing apples to apples, I guarantee this SACD is the best sounding Layla yet.