I have the SACD version, which is very good.
The Redbook version sounds very thin (i.e.: very "tinny" with overloads of treble and weak bass). I wasn't sure if this is due to the age of the recordings and the way they were recorded back in the late 60's, or if the Redbook CD version merely sucks!
Does the SACD, which is what HDTracks has no doubt used as the medium to convert their 24/176 file version, provide solid bass and a smoother overall sound (less "digital" sounding)?
I hate to spend $30 for an album that I already own, unless the sound quality is noticeably improved...
I agree with Rich, the SACD is very good. It comes across as fairly full to me and although I think it is not the best recorded band, I think it is as good as your going to hear the Animals.
I bought a reissue of Eric Burdon's greatest hits on vinyl and it is thin, bright, and tinny sounding. In comparison the SACD is much much better (albeit different tracks and recording).
If you do spring for it, I would be very interested in your take on the sound quality.
Excellent sound. The best you will find. I can confirm that this is the SACD mastering by Bob Ludwig - basically the PCM files rather than the DSD. The quality is on par with early stones stuff done by Bob.
Of course the drums are recorded as drums were recorded and played in the 60's but the bass is excellent on most tracks. I don't think you will find a better recording of The Animals.
Thanks Shadrone. I went ahead and downloaded it the other night. I agree that the sound is very good (for 40+ year old recordings). I believe many of the earlier songs were originally recorded in mono and they do have that characteristic "60's" sound (not as full and dynamic as modern recordings).
There are indeed some real treats at HDTracks...Just for kicks, have you downloaded the 24/96 release of Machine Head? This version really emphasizes Blackmore...