Wish You Were Here SACD 5.1
179 views
Skip to first unread message
Brian Treml
Nov 9, 2011, 7:23:36 PM11/9/11
to SurroundSound
I came home from work this afternoon and there was a gift in my
mailbox. So I thought I would be the first to review.
I did not get the $125.00 box set because I make a realistic income
and that is far above my disposable budget here in the USA. $35.00 was
a bit too much also but hey, it was a long wait for this.
First impression is that it is obvious why it costs $35.00. The case
is hardbound book form with 5 post cards, 6-7 pages of lyrics and
pictures found on the internet of the WYWH sessions, and the disc
itself which is silk screened and contains the Stereo version in
redbook digital and DSD 5.1 James Guthrie mix. I personally could have
lived with a plain cardboard sleeve or a jewel box and paid the normal
$12.95 for the material. Oh well...
On to the mix. The stereo sounds the same as the other Guthrie mix,
nothing new, nothing better, don't waste your money on this for
Stereo. Get the CBS Mastersound Gold 24 bit CD. You will pay a bit for
it used but is sounds more awesome than this ever will. A close second
is the Japan Mini Sleeve. We are talking CD only. I will not go into
vinyl as that is wayyyyy off this subject.
Being one of the "3" people who had a Qaudraphonic system in the 70's
and bought the Quadraphonic mix specifically for the way it sounds, I
will be kind to Mr. Gilmour and make no comparisions only letting you
all know up front it is wayyyy better feel wise. It can never compare
to the cleanliness of Digital, but analog is better anyhow.
I was very excited to hear this, and very dissapointed after, so track
by track,
Shine On Part 1-IX- It started out good, then got very loud. I felt a
very steril feeling listening to Gilmour's guitar work. Then Roger
starts singing and there is a strange echo on his voice that eminates
from the rears. I wonder what happened to the girls singing but alas
after turning off the fronts they are buried left back. When the front
and centers are back on they get buried. James Gutherie forgot the
imaging aspect of mixing I think? Then the Sax comes in, you can hear
the keys as usual but the horn has no breath. I am not sure why?
Overall I thought to myself, ok maybe the next track will be
better.....
The Machine-It starts out as usual rattling the walls and creating a
breeze from my ported speakers, then everything went dead. Whoops, the
switch sound effect blew the circuit breakers on my speakers. Reset,
and turned it down, ohh well that great feeling is gone. Then Gilmour
starts singing solo! What happened to Nick and Roger? Gilmour must
have been there and said "Jim, Turn those two off". Then the acoutic
guitar just sounds muddy. Then the kettle drums have no impact, so I
skip ahead to the crowd at the end, I can't understand a single voice
but the cut off at the end was different. Ok, the next track might get
better....
Have A Cigar-My favorite track! It starts as expected. So far so good.
What gets nice is Roy Harper actually sounds like himself, not Roger.
Alot of action going on also but we loose the Synths on this mix so if
you were as fond of those like me you will not hear them. This will be
my only Quad Mix comparison. I was hoping for the extened Guitar solo
featured there. No such luck. I guess James Guthrie felt keeping the
mix as close to the stereo one as possible was good business. Ohh
well, maybe it gets better.....
Wish You Were Here- Why is the radio behind me to the left? Wait, Why
is Gilmour playing dead center in front of me all muddy sounding? Ok,
So you think you can tell. Good so far but sounds stereo. Then the
solo slide guitar. Let me tell you, if you want to learn the solo get
this disc, turn off all channels but the center, and play along. It is
crystal clear. Then James found the forsight to restore the violin
peice at the end. Ok, thats sort of cool? Again, Gilmour must have
been there as all the backup vocals are way soft and hard to hear. It
must get better......
Shine On part 2-Ok. Bass abounds. Good thing I turned it down. The
track agains sounds like the stereo version. The girls are buried. You
can hear the strain in Roger's voice dead center. Which a nice.
Overall it was not better.
So, despite impressive expensive packaging, I was not blown away as
most of the reviewers prepared me to be. First I would say I am
partial to the Quadraphonic mix and expect everything to be better
than that. Obviously James Guthrie and anyone else who said this was a
blow away experience was only familiar with the stereo version. I also
was hoping the loudness war was not a part of this venture, but my
speakers decided otherwise. I am excited to hear others present
comment and give an opinion on this release.
Regardless of my feeling, if you only have heard the stereo issue of
this, it will be a treat for you. If you have heard as many versions
of this album as I have, you will most likely share my opinion.
mailbox. So I thought I would be the first to review.
I did not get the $125.00 box set because I make a realistic income
and that is far above my disposable budget here in the USA. $35.00 was
a bit too much also but hey, it was a long wait for this.
First impression is that it is obvious why it costs $35.00. The case
is hardbound book form with 5 post cards, 6-7 pages of lyrics and
pictures found on the internet of the WYWH sessions, and the disc
itself which is silk screened and contains the Stereo version in
redbook digital and DSD 5.1 James Guthrie mix. I personally could have
lived with a plain cardboard sleeve or a jewel box and paid the normal
$12.95 for the material. Oh well...
On to the mix. The stereo sounds the same as the other Guthrie mix,
nothing new, nothing better, don't waste your money on this for
Stereo. Get the CBS Mastersound Gold 24 bit CD. You will pay a bit for
it used but is sounds more awesome than this ever will. A close second
is the Japan Mini Sleeve. We are talking CD only. I will not go into
vinyl as that is wayyyyy off this subject.
Being one of the "3" people who had a Qaudraphonic system in the 70's
and bought the Quadraphonic mix specifically for the way it sounds, I
will be kind to Mr. Gilmour and make no comparisions only letting you
all know up front it is wayyyy better feel wise. It can never compare
to the cleanliness of Digital, but analog is better anyhow.
I was very excited to hear this, and very dissapointed after, so track
by track,
Shine On Part 1-IX- It started out good, then got very loud. I felt a
very steril feeling listening to Gilmour's guitar work. Then Roger
starts singing and there is a strange echo on his voice that eminates
from the rears. I wonder what happened to the girls singing but alas
after turning off the fronts they are buried left back. When the front
and centers are back on they get buried. James Gutherie forgot the
imaging aspect of mixing I think? Then the Sax comes in, you can hear
the keys as usual but the horn has no breath. I am not sure why?
Overall I thought to myself, ok maybe the next track will be
better.....
The Machine-It starts out as usual rattling the walls and creating a
breeze from my ported speakers, then everything went dead. Whoops, the
switch sound effect blew the circuit breakers on my speakers. Reset,
and turned it down, ohh well that great feeling is gone. Then Gilmour
starts singing solo! What happened to Nick and Roger? Gilmour must
have been there and said "Jim, Turn those two off". Then the acoutic
guitar just sounds muddy. Then the kettle drums have no impact, so I
skip ahead to the crowd at the end, I can't understand a single voice
but the cut off at the end was different. Ok, the next track might get
better....
Have A Cigar-My favorite track! It starts as expected. So far so good.
What gets nice is Roy Harper actually sounds like himself, not Roger.
Alot of action going on also but we loose the Synths on this mix so if
you were as fond of those like me you will not hear them. This will be
my only Quad Mix comparison. I was hoping for the extened Guitar solo
featured there. No such luck. I guess James Guthrie felt keeping the
mix as close to the stereo one as possible was good business. Ohh
well, maybe it gets better.....
Wish You Were Here- Why is the radio behind me to the left? Wait, Why
is Gilmour playing dead center in front of me all muddy sounding? Ok,
So you think you can tell. Good so far but sounds stereo. Then the
solo slide guitar. Let me tell you, if you want to learn the solo get
this disc, turn off all channels but the center, and play along. It is
crystal clear. Then James found the forsight to restore the violin
peice at the end. Ok, thats sort of cool? Again, Gilmour must have
been there as all the backup vocals are way soft and hard to hear. It
must get better......
Shine On part 2-Ok. Bass abounds. Good thing I turned it down. The
track agains sounds like the stereo version. The girls are buried. You
can hear the strain in Roger's voice dead center. Which a nice.
Overall it was not better.
So, despite impressive expensive packaging, I was not blown away as
most of the reviewers prepared me to be. First I would say I am
partial to the Quadraphonic mix and expect everything to be better
than that. Obviously James Guthrie and anyone else who said this was a
blow away experience was only familiar with the stereo version. I also
was hoping the loudness war was not a part of this venture, but my
speakers decided otherwise. I am excited to hear others present
comment and give an opinion on this release.
Regardless of my feeling, if you only have heard the stereo issue of
this, it will be a treat for you. If you have heard as many versions
of this album as I have, you will most likely share my opinion.
August Bleed
Nov 9, 2011, 7:58:27 PM11/9/11
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
im wondering how it compares to that Quad rip to DSD that was pointed out on this forum a few weeks back. Whoever did it did a great job. Wondering if it is in fact better than the blu ray release. Sounds like it could be...Funny that nearly all the pirated rips from the album are all the quad mixes! Not a 5.1 mix to be found...hilarious! Funny, it would seem like whatever some of the bootlegs were based on seem to be of impeccable quality--I wonder if it is just the DSD version or if the PCM is as bad. I'd think that the mix was based off DSD as it looks like they were looking at one time to release their catalog before the format flopped. This looks like it was something that was being worked on around the time it was apparent the format was failing popularly. But of course it's possible the PCM version is closer to 'native' sounding than the DSD. Anyone have the blu ray or the bootleg to compare?
--
August
Bleed, Inc.
Selling Art Is Tying Your Ego To a Leash And Walking It Like a Dog
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to Surrou...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSoun...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound
August
Bleed, Inc.
Selling Art Is Tying Your Ego To a Leash And Walking It Like a Dog
Brian Treml
Nov 9, 2011, 9:47:59 PM11/9/11
to SurroundSound
Actually it is not a DSD or PCM issue here. Just bad mixing and lack
of knowledge of the sound and feel of this lp. I am very forgiving of
Gilmour and Waters as first of all they were quite high at the time
and most likely do not remember the mixing 35 years ago. James Guthrie
however had/has the ability to listen to all the original mixes out
there, has the luxury of the master tape in front of him, and
certainly the experience in the field to recreate the quadraphonic mix
and expand on that to create a more separated awesome 5.1 mix. He
didn't. He made a enhanced stereo mix with more bass and less detail
and loud enough to compete with the other product out there. The Dark
side was a better mix than this. For the 6+ years he had it should
have been way better. I am also pretty certain and correct me if I am
wrong most of the people who signed that petition were expectant of a
surround mix that was equal to or better than the Quad mix, not a
better stereo mix.
P.S. The rips out there are better because the people who made those
know the album, care about how it sounds, and want the best. The album
has a feel. James Guthrie dropped the ball.
> Selling Art Is Tying Your Ego To a Leash And Walking It Like a Dog- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
of knowledge of the sound and feel of this lp. I am very forgiving of
Gilmour and Waters as first of all they were quite high at the time
and most likely do not remember the mixing 35 years ago. James Guthrie
however had/has the ability to listen to all the original mixes out
there, has the luxury of the master tape in front of him, and
certainly the experience in the field to recreate the quadraphonic mix
and expand on that to create a more separated awesome 5.1 mix. He
didn't. He made a enhanced stereo mix with more bass and less detail
and loud enough to compete with the other product out there. The Dark
side was a better mix than this. For the 6+ years he had it should
have been way better. I am also pretty certain and correct me if I am
wrong most of the people who signed that petition were expectant of a
surround mix that was equal to or better than the Quad mix, not a
better stereo mix.
P.S. The rips out there are better because the people who made those
know the album, care about how it sounds, and want the best. The album
has a feel. James Guthrie dropped the ball.
>
> - Show quoted text -
Stephen Disney
Nov 10, 2011, 11:26:02 AM11/10/11
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
Brian... He never wanted to "recreate" the quad and expand it. They sold him on the idea that his surround versions would be THEE surround versions (due to whatever issues they had with the parsons mixes)... George Lucas anyone? The Quads were never supposed to see the light of modern day. WE forced them to do otherwise (this can certainly be argued). I firmly believe the WYWH was delayed partly do to the dissatisfaction with the DSOTM SACD not being the quad mix... it spurred a famous bootleg release... and we ended up with high rez quad audio that they hadn't intended to release. Also, when both were mixed, he had no idea he would be side by side with high rez quad.
August - The Quad from Blu sounds AMAZING! You loose some of the analogue feel in all the clarity... but WOW!
In regards to Quad vs 5.1. I'm with Brian ALL the way.
S
August - The Quad from Blu sounds AMAZING! You loose some of the analogue feel in all the clarity... but WOW!
In regards to Quad vs 5.1. I'm with Brian ALL the way.
S
August Bleed
Nov 10, 2011, 12:00:22 PM11/10/11
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
Stephen--Not that I doubt what you are saying but wondered if you could point to some of the information you spoke of. I think it would be an interesting read unless it's your conjecture (which is ok too...). Anyway why do you think the quad was never meant to see the light of day? Spurred the bootleg release? How? Just curious. Not doubting what you're saying I find the subject interesting and would love to hear some of the story behind these releases if you know of some.
Stephen Disney
Nov 10, 2011, 1:11:41 PM11/10/11
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
We're talking alot of sources over many years... books, articles, etc. But some starter reading follows...
http://www.pinkfloydz.com/darksidesandv.htm
http://www.stereosociety.com/FourSides.shtml
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/alan-parsons-on-dark-side-roger-knew-something-great-was-in-the-making-20110928
As for it spurring the bootleg release... lack of a reissue and fan demand. Some conjecture went around that AP himself passed the Quad Master copy to someone for the release. Those in the know just wink. Needless to say he was disappointed that he was not asked to do the remix, and a whole legion of older fans will always prefer the quad mix. Conjecture? Sure, but pretty obvious. The timing of the release alone says plenty. Likewise, EMI didn't admit that feedback forced them to include the quad audio on the bluray (it was originally to be DVD only - Star Wars theatrical prints anyone?), but it happened...
S
http://www.pinkfloydz.com/darksidesandv.htm
http://www.stereosociety.com/FourSides.shtml
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/alan-parsons-on-dark-side-roger-knew-something-great-was-in-the-making-20110928
As for it spurring the bootleg release... lack of a reissue and fan demand. Some conjecture went around that AP himself passed the Quad Master copy to someone for the release. Those in the know just wink. Needless to say he was disappointed that he was not asked to do the remix, and a whole legion of older fans will always prefer the quad mix. Conjecture? Sure, but pretty obvious. The timing of the release alone says plenty. Likewise, EMI didn't admit that feedback forced them to include the quad audio on the bluray (it was originally to be DVD only - Star Wars theatrical prints anyone?), but it happened...
S
Stephen Disney
Nov 10, 2011, 1:23:26 PM11/10/11
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
BTW... just conjecture, but note that Parsons gives an A/B/C test listen to the interviewer using his copy of the quad master...
S
S
August Bleed
Nov 10, 2011, 7:05:26 PM11/10/11
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
Ok well did a preliminary listen and was impressed by the parsons mix but man they did not put any work into it at all. I suppose there is an advantage in the technique guthrie used which was to go back to the first gen stereo masters and garner his mix from that. The 5.1 mix is obviously much clearer as a result. Plus the fact that some $ was thrown at it. I'm not sure resurrecting the parsons mix if you're not going to clean it up a bit and let alan at it is a good idea at all. That said his version does sound more analog but it was really murky and I did not get that from the guthrie mix. I should add this is not one of my favorite floyd albums so my familiarity with it is not as good as some of you. So I can say that I am sort of 'fresh' to the album. From that perspective, the guthrie mix on the blu ray is great to my ears. How faithful? Not sure. There seems to be some disagreement there. But for SQ and SQ only I really enjoyed listening to it. It did not make me like the album any better. I am still holding out for Meddle and Animals to get the treatment they DESERVE. I'm not sure if the guthrie mix in terms of 5.1 mixes is all that great. I've heard much better. What the person said about the radio in the far right speaker is dead on. What the heck was he thinking putting it there? He does a good job of bringing it together again once the band comes on but boy was that an odd choice. Im really underwhelmed. But it did sound good to my ears. It's just never been one of my favorite albums so Im not familiar enough with it other than to say it sounds good but its a very soft mix. Not very imaginative. Parsons version was so sonically challenged in comparison one wonders if they included it just to be mean to alan.
August Bleed
Nov 10, 2011, 7:11:15 PM11/10/11
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
There are girls singing on this? No really? The first gentleman was right--you gotta almost know they are there to even notice.
Brian Treml
Nov 10, 2011, 7:19:45 PM11/10/11
to SurroundSound
I am not sure where Alan Parsons comes into all this? Brian Humphries
was the original engineer in 1975 on WYWH and also did the
Quadraphonic mix we all have come to appreciate. Later, when
remastering was the thing to do James Guthrie who is the Floyd's
choice of engineer redid everything and anything Pink Floyd. Remember
that awesome remix of Money on a Collection of Great Song and Dances?
Blah....
So anyhow I am in talks with Acoustic Sounds to return my WYWH SACD.
If anyone here is interested in it you can PM me and we can make a
deal which will cut some of my losses. I let Acoustic Sounds know
exactly what I thought and my 35 years of backround on the multiple
releases on several formats of this album. I suggest we all do the
same.
> <sthunderroc...@gmail.com>wrote:
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
was the original engineer in 1975 on WYWH and also did the
Quadraphonic mix we all have come to appreciate. Later, when
remastering was the thing to do James Guthrie who is the Floyd's
choice of engineer redid everything and anything Pink Floyd. Remember
that awesome remix of Money on a Collection of Great Song and Dances?
Blah....
So anyhow I am in talks with Acoustic Sounds to return my WYWH SACD.
If anyone here is interested in it you can PM me and we can make a
deal which will cut some of my losses. I let Acoustic Sounds know
exactly what I thought and my 35 years of backround on the multiple
releases on several formats of this album. I suggest we all do the
same.
>
>
>
> > BTW... just conjecture, but note that Parsons gives an A/B/C test listen
> > to the interviewer using his copy of the quad master...
> > S
>
>
>
> > BTW... just conjecture, but note that Parsons gives an A/B/C test listen
> > to the interviewer using his copy of the quad master...
> > S
>
> > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Stephen Disney <sthunderroc...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >> We're talking alot of sources over many years... books, articles, etc.
> >> But some starter reading follows...
> >>http://www.pinkfloydz.com/darksidesandv.htm
> >>http://www.stereosociety.com/FourSides.shtml
>
> >>http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/alan-parsons-on-dark-side-roge...
>
> >> We're talking alot of sources over many years... books, articles, etc.
> >> But some starter reading follows...
> >>http://www.pinkfloydz.com/darksidesandv.htm
> >>http://www.stereosociety.com/FourSides.shtml
>
>
> >> As for it spurring the bootleg release... lack of a reissue and fan
> >> demand. Some conjecture went around that AP himself passed the Quad Master
> >> copy to someone for the release. Those in the know just wink. Needless to
> >> say he was disappointed that he was not asked to do the remix, and a whole
> >> legion of older fans will always prefer the quad mix. Conjecture? Sure,
> >> but pretty obvious. The timing of the release alone says plenty.
> >> Likewise, EMI didn't admit that feedback forced them to include the quad
> >> audio on the bluray (it was originally to be DVD only - Star Wars
> >> theatrical prints anyone?), but it happened...
> >> S
>
> >> As for it spurring the bootleg release... lack of a reissue and fan
> >> demand. Some conjecture went around that AP himself passed the Quad Master
> >> copy to someone for the release. Those in the know just wink. Needless to
> >> say he was disappointed that he was not asked to do the remix, and a whole
> >> legion of older fans will always prefer the quad mix. Conjecture? Sure,
> >> but pretty obvious. The timing of the release alone says plenty.
> >> Likewise, EMI didn't admit that feedback forced them to include the quad
> >> audio on the bluray (it was originally to be DVD only - Star Wars
> >> theatrical prints anyone?), but it happened...
> >> S
>
> >> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 12:00 PM, August Bleed <bleed...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >>> Stephen--Not that I doubt what you are saying but wondered if you could
> >>> point to some of the information you spoke of. I think it would be an
> >>> interesting read unless it's your conjecture (which is ok too...). Anyway
> >>> why do you think the quad was never meant to see the light of day? Spurred
> >>> the bootleg release? How? Just curious. Not doubting what you're saying
> >>> I find the subject interesting and would love to hear some of the story
> >>> behind these releases if you know of some.
>
> >>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 8:26 AM, Stephen Disney <
> >>> sthunderroc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> Brian... He never wanted to "recreate" the quad and expand it. They
> >>>> sold him on the idea that his surround versions would be THEE surround
> >>>> versions (due to whatever issues they had with the parsons mixes)... George
> >>>> Lucas anyone? The Quads were never supposed to see the light of modern
> >>>> day. WE forced them to do otherwise (this can certainly be argued). I
> >>>> firmly believe the WYWH was delayed partly do to the dissatisfaction with
> >>>> the DSOTM SACD not being the quad mix... it spurred a famous bootleg
> >>>> release... and we ended up with high rez quad audio that they hadn't
> >>>> intended to release. Also, when both were mixed, he had no idea he would
> >>>> be side by side with high rez quad.
>
> >>>> August - The Quad from Blu sounds AMAZING! You loose some of the
> >>>> analogue feel in all the clarity... but WOW!
>
> >>>> In regards to Quad vs 5.1. I'm with Brian ALL the way.
> >>>> S
>
>
> >>> Stephen--Not that I doubt what you are saying but wondered if you could
> >>> point to some of the information you spoke of. I think it would be an
> >>> interesting read unless it's your conjecture (which is ok too...). Anyway
> >>> why do you think the quad was never meant to see the light of day? Spurred
> >>> the bootleg release? How? Just curious. Not doubting what you're saying
> >>> I find the subject interesting and would love to hear some of the story
> >>> behind these releases if you know of some.
>
> >>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 8:26 AM, Stephen Disney <
> >>> sthunderroc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> Brian... He never wanted to "recreate" the quad and expand it. They
> >>>> sold him on the idea that his surround versions would be THEE surround
> >>>> versions (due to whatever issues they had with the parsons mixes)... George
> >>>> Lucas anyone? The Quads were never supposed to see the light of modern
> >>>> day. WE forced them to do otherwise (this can certainly be argued). I
> >>>> firmly believe the WYWH was delayed partly do to the dissatisfaction with
> >>>> the DSOTM SACD not being the quad mix... it spurred a famous bootleg
> >>>> release... and we ended up with high rez quad audio that they hadn't
> >>>> intended to release. Also, when both were mixed, he had no idea he would
> >>>> be side by side with high rez quad.
>
> >>>> August - The Quad from Blu sounds AMAZING! You loose some of the
> >>>> analogue feel in all the clarity... but WOW!
>
> >>>> In regards to Quad vs 5.1. I'm with Brian ALL the way.
> >>>> S
>
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Stephen Disney
Nov 11, 2011, 3:25:48 AM11/11/11
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
Very true... My apologies as I was focusing on the DSOTM release. That said the fact still stands that they never intended to rerelease the quad mixes. The Guthrie remixes were going to be their official surround presentation.
S
S
Brian Treml
Nov 11, 2011, 8:30:31 AM11/11/11
to SurroundSound
No need for apologies, easy mistake ;)
Yea, that is the sad part. I am sure if I never heard any other mix
this would be acceptable. It is really not limited to the 5.1, the
stereo also has the loudness effect but I revisted my 2001 James
Guthrie mix and alas it seems that is leftover from that. I have a
feeling this mix came from digitally stored copies of masters or third
generation tapes and not originals. However, if I get a opportunity to
hear the quad mixes from the box I may change that opinion. Others are
saying the Blu-Ray Quad is good but question? Is it complete or edited
for the common man like the 5.1 mix? Follow up, are the channels right
I.E. radio Guitar on Wish You Were Here right channel, Gilmour clear
on the left?
Yea, that is the sad part. I am sure if I never heard any other mix
this would be acceptable. It is really not limited to the 5.1, the
stereo also has the loudness effect but I revisted my 2001 James
Guthrie mix and alas it seems that is leftover from that. I have a
feeling this mix came from digitally stored copies of masters or third
generation tapes and not originals. However, if I get a opportunity to
hear the quad mixes from the box I may change that opinion. Others are
saying the Blu-Ray Quad is good but question? Is it complete or edited
for the common man like the 5.1 mix? Follow up, are the channels right
I.E. radio Guitar on Wish You Were Here right channel, Gilmour clear
on the left?
Brian Treml
Nov 11, 2011, 8:40:38 AM11/11/11
to SurroundSound
Venneta And Carla if you read the liner notes you will see their
names. The Blackberries. Actually I think Waters used them on later
works of his but memory might be failing me when it comes to Waters
solo.
> > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Stephen Disney <sthunderroc...@gmail.com
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
names. The Blackberries. Actually I think Waters used them on later
works of his but memory might be failing me when it comes to Waters
solo.
> > > wrote:
>
> >> BTW... just conjecture, but note that Parsons gives an A/B/C test listen
> >> to the interviewer using his copy of the quad master...
> >> S
>
> >> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Stephen Disney <sthunderroc...@gmail.com
>
> >> BTW... just conjecture, but note that Parsons gives an A/B/C test listen
> >> to the interviewer using his copy of the quad master...
> >> S
>
> >> > wrote:
>
> >>> We're talking alot of sources over many years... books, articles, etc.
> >>> But some starter reading follows...
> >>>http://www.pinkfloydz.com/darksidesandv.htm
> >>>http://www.stereosociety.com/FourSides.shtml
>
> >>>http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/alan-parsons-on-dark-side-roge...
>
> >>> We're talking alot of sources over many years... books, articles, etc.
> >>> But some starter reading follows...
> >>>http://www.pinkfloydz.com/darksidesandv.htm
> >>>http://www.stereosociety.com/FourSides.shtml
>
>
> >>> As for it spurring the bootleg release... lack of a reissue and fan
> >>> demand. Some conjecture went around that AP himself passed the Quad Master
> >>> copy to someone for the release. Those in the know just wink. Needless to
> >>> say he was disappointed that he was not asked to do the remix, and a whole
> >>> legion of older fans will always prefer the quad mix. Conjecture? Sure,
> >>> but pretty obvious. The timing of the release alone says plenty.
> >>> Likewise, EMI didn't admit that feedback forced them to include the quad
> >>> audio on the bluray (it was originally to be DVD only - Star Wars
> >>> theatrical prints anyone?), but it happened...
> >>> S
>
> >>> As for it spurring the bootleg release... lack of a reissue and fan
> >>> demand. Some conjecture went around that AP himself passed the Quad Master
> >>> copy to someone for the release. Those in the know just wink. Needless to
> >>> say he was disappointed that he was not asked to do the remix, and a whole
> >>> legion of older fans will always prefer the quad mix. Conjecture? Sure,
> >>> but pretty obvious. The timing of the release alone says plenty.
> >>> Likewise, EMI didn't admit that feedback forced them to include the quad
> >>> audio on the bluray (it was originally to be DVD only - Star Wars
> >>> theatrical prints anyone?), but it happened...
> >>> S
>
> >>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 12:00 PM, August Bleed <bleed...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >>>> Stephen--Not that I doubt what you are saying but wondered if you could
> >>>> point to some of the information you spoke of. I think it would be an
> >>>> interesting read unless it's your conjecture (which is ok too...). Anyway
> >>>> why do you think the quad was never meant to see the light of day? Spurred
> >>>> the bootleg release? How? Just curious. Not doubting what you're saying
> >>>> I find the subject interesting and would love to hear some of the story
> >>>> behind these releases if you know of some.
>
> >>>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 8:26 AM, Stephen Disney <
> >>>> sthunderroc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Brian... He never wanted to "recreate" the quad and expand it. They
> >>>>> sold him on the idea that his surround versions would be THEE surround
> >>>>> versions (due to whatever issues they had with the parsons mixes)... George
> >>>>> Lucas anyone? The Quads were never supposed to see the light of modern
> >>>>> day. WE forced them to do otherwise (this can certainly be argued). I
> >>>>> firmly believe the WYWH was delayed partly do to the dissatisfaction with
> >>>>> the DSOTM SACD not being the quad mix... it spurred a famous bootleg
> >>>>> release... and we ended up with high rez quad audio that they hadn't
> >>>>> intended to release. Also, when both were mixed, he had no idea he would
> >>>>> be side by side with high rez quad.
>
> >>>>> August - The Quad from Blu sounds AMAZING! You loose some of the
> >>>>> analogue feel in all the clarity... but WOW!
>
> >>>>> In regards to Quad vs 5.1. I'm with Brian ALL the way.
> >>>>> S
>
>
> >>>> Stephen--Not that I doubt what you are saying but wondered if you could
> >>>> point to some of the information you spoke of. I think it would be an
> >>>> interesting read unless it's your conjecture (which is ok too...). Anyway
> >>>> why do you think the quad was never meant to see the light of day? Spurred
> >>>> the bootleg release? How? Just curious. Not doubting what you're saying
> >>>> I find the subject interesting and would love to hear some of the story
> >>>> behind these releases if you know of some.
>
> >>>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 8:26 AM, Stephen Disney <
> >>>> sthunderroc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Brian... He never wanted to "recreate" the quad and expand it. They
> >>>>> sold him on the idea that his surround versions would be THEE surround
> >>>>> versions (due to whatever issues they had with the parsons mixes)... George
> >>>>> Lucas anyone? The Quads were never supposed to see the light of modern
> >>>>> day. WE forced them to do otherwise (this can certainly be argued). I
> >>>>> firmly believe the WYWH was delayed partly do to the dissatisfaction with
> >>>>> the DSOTM SACD not being the quad mix... it spurred a famous bootleg
> >>>>> release... and we ended up with high rez quad audio that they hadn't
> >>>>> intended to release. Also, when both were mixed, he had no idea he would
> >>>>> be side by side with high rez quad.
>
> >>>>> August - The Quad from Blu sounds AMAZING! You loose some of the
> >>>>> analogue feel in all the clarity... but WOW!
>
> >>>>> In regards to Quad vs 5.1. I'm with Brian ALL the way.
> >>>>> S
>
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Stephen Disney
Nov 11, 2011, 12:54:50 PM11/11/11
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
That's one of my favorite things about the quad mix. Harmonies and BGVs much more up front... or should I say in rear. The girl singers, and the vocs in Welcome to the machine.
S
S
Stephen Disney
Nov 11, 2011, 12:57:42 PM11/11/11
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
Absolutely... and it sounds fabulous to me. Channels correct, extras in place (haven't noticed anything missing yet).
S
S
Stephen Disney
Nov 11, 2011, 1:05:06 PM11/11/11
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
In fact I'm hearing detail that I have never heard before... and I almost exclusively listen to the quad mix of this album. I'm not sure what August's source is, but there is no mud here... and it still sounds more analogue by far than the 5.1 which is good in my eyes. Unlike DSOTM where the DVD-A boot may still be the fav play of some, this blu is now the definitive discrete presentation of the quad mix... no doubt.
S
S
August Bleed
Nov 11, 2011, 1:09:45 PM11/11/11
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
Oh yeah sorry for the parsons confusion. Someone said it was him and I just assumed they knew more than I did! Anyway I found the quad nice but I just couldn't hear it as well as the 5.1 with its obvious loudness inflation. I dunno if it's because Im getting in my 40s or what but I really had a hard time hearing the quad in its real glory. I think if they'd have cleaned it up a bit it might have bettered the 5.1 (remember my perspective is that of one not too overly familiar with the album). It seems like a waste to include something if you're not going to give it the same 'treatment' you give to the 5.1. I will listen to the quad mix a bit more today. I switched in the middle of my listening session to the 5.1 as the quad sounded too much like the bootlegs I already have.
August Bleed
Nov 11, 2011, 1:19:04 PM11/11/11
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
hmm I may have to give it another listen. Perhaps I am just underwhelmed by the album in general (id have preferred animals or meddle). To be fair my system does a pretty good job with analog sources if they are good--Paul McC sounds fab as do much of my vinyl rips done by folks with the proper equip. I did find a bit of weirdness in the guthrie. While some details as I indicated seemed much clearer, there is a LOT of ambient stuff that seems to have gotten buried in his mix. There are some swirling pieces where the sound pans around the listener and its hardly audible while the parts that are audible seem to be much too loud. I wonder about their source as well. Its like the SHM stuff coming out of Japan. Some of those discs sound like they put absolutely no budget into the projects. straight dump to dsd and if it sounds like crap oh well. Paranoid by Sabbath comes to mind. I have a cd where I can actually hear someone talking in the studio! I have a feeling if more of these PF albums get the treatment we are likely to see worse and worse transfers as I don' t think the budget that went into Dark Side in 03 is available these days. That was my first impression with this. It sounds like it was part of something that was thought out on the release of the SACD and when it tanked they had some work already done on some of these. I dunno I was just disappointed all the way around. And I gotta say the most annoying part of the mix is that darn radio in the far right...what was he thinking?!!?!!?
Brian Treml
Nov 12, 2011, 1:03:21 PM11/12/11
to SurroundSound
Gentlemen and Lady Pink Floyd fans,
Thorugh careful research and some sources I can not name due to the
fact I would need to become a criminal...
The James Guthrie WYWH Surround mix is a fake!
Upon carefull breakdown of the individual channels we find;
Left has stereo left information,
Right-Has right Stereo information except at the end of Have a Cigar,
the Radio has been removed and silenced,
Center-Has Vocals derrived from Stereo and isolated except for guitar
on Wish You were Here Intro...
Sub-Derrived bass info. This may be why it seems bassy on good systems
and great on cheap ones.
Left Rear-Derrived out of phase front channel info with vocal bleeding
Right Rear-Ditto except for the radio where all channels were muted
except right rear:
There you have it. This would answer as to why it sounds so poor to
the trained ear. My sources are also giving me an opportunity to
listed to the 640kbs Quad mix. I will keep you all posted as to if I
am going to rob a bank to obtain the very expensive overpriced
Immersion box.
Thorugh careful research and some sources I can not name due to the
fact I would need to become a criminal...
The James Guthrie WYWH Surround mix is a fake!
Upon carefull breakdown of the individual channels we find;
Left has stereo left information,
Right-Has right Stereo information except at the end of Have a Cigar,
the Radio has been removed and silenced,
Center-Has Vocals derrived from Stereo and isolated except for guitar
on Wish You were Here Intro...
Sub-Derrived bass info. This may be why it seems bassy on good systems
and great on cheap ones.
Left Rear-Derrived out of phase front channel info with vocal bleeding
Right Rear-Ditto except for the radio where all channels were muted
except right rear:
There you have it. This would answer as to why it sounds so poor to
the trained ear. My sources are also giving me an opportunity to
listed to the 640kbs Quad mix. I will keep you all posted as to if I
am going to rob a bank to obtain the very expensive overpriced
Immersion box.
ArnoldLayne
Nov 12, 2011, 1:24:46 PM11/12/11
to SurroundSound
My Gawd, that's quite a statement. Could you please explain a little
further, do you mean it's an upmix?
further, do you mean it's an upmix?
August Bleed
Nov 12, 2011, 1:40:56 PM11/12/11
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
That is quite a statement to make without a little more information...I guess I got a bit lost in what you are saying here. There are a few of us who are interested in what you are saying but don't have the technical background to process exactly what you are saying. Exactly how does one determine what is out of phase and what is in phase? Also I believe that guthrie states that he derived the mix from the stereo source--Are you perhaps saying the original tapes were not used? I know that they used a lot of recording techniques that had to bridge the technological gaps that equipment around that time had. From what I understand from my reading often multitracks were combined to a single track to achieve the effect they wanted. So unless those ORIGINAL tracks that were combined to create a multichannel track were found it's likely that he was dealing with masters that were generations from the original. Not that I know what I am talking about...but it'd be nice if you qualified some of those statements.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to Surrou...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSoun...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound
August Bleed
Nov 12, 2011, 1:44:32 PM11/12/11
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
"Exactly how does one determine what is out of phase and what is in phase? "---sorry by this I meant how do you determine its origins? I mean out of phase often is a result of a bad set up rather than the material itself. Not saying you are wrong I am just trying to get an understanding of your statements.
grill
Nov 12, 2011, 1:47:03 PM11/12/11
to SurroundSound
Oh, these are serious words from a man who knows every milliseconds of
this album. It may be worth sharing your thoughts here too:
http://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/showthread.php?15180-Pink-Floyd-WISH-YOU-WERE-HERE-SACD
this album. It may be worth sharing your thoughts here too:
http://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/showthread.php?15180-Pink-Floyd-WISH-YOU-WERE-HERE-SACD
August Bleed
Nov 12, 2011, 1:47:18 PM11/12/11
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
BTW not to hijack this but I joined this group just for these types of discussions...would love to see more of this!
August Bleed
Nov 12, 2011, 5:58:14 PM11/12/11
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
Well I hope I didn't offend anyone for asking questions...
Brian Treml
Nov 12, 2011, 7:14:18 PM11/12/11
to SurroundSound
ok, since the question was posed,
By taking each channel individually and listening without the use of
any futuristic methods of anylisis one can plainly hear that the Left
is the left, Right is right(except for that wonderful radio part), the
Center has vocals that seem to contain faint backround of the rest of
the channels it is not discrete, the sub channel is constant whenever
there is bass, and the rears contain the same info as the fronts but
it is strangly dull and airy sounding with no image definition.
Reverse the phase of the speakers and volia, you have imaging. Hmmm,
is this too scientific for the common man? Maybe I need a computer and
Soundforge to have absolute proof of a fake surround recording?
On Nov 12, 4:58 pm, August Bleed <bleed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well I hope I didn't offend anyone for asking questions...
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 10:47 AM, August Bleed <bleed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > BTW not to hijack this but I joined this group just for these types of
> > discussions...would love to see more of this!
>
> Selling Art Is Tying Your Ego To a Leash And Walking It Like a Dog- Hide quoted text -
By taking each channel individually and listening without the use of
any futuristic methods of anylisis one can plainly hear that the Left
is the left, Right is right(except for that wonderful radio part), the
Center has vocals that seem to contain faint backround of the rest of
the channels it is not discrete, the sub channel is constant whenever
there is bass, and the rears contain the same info as the fronts but
it is strangly dull and airy sounding with no image definition.
Reverse the phase of the speakers and volia, you have imaging. Hmmm,
is this too scientific for the common man? Maybe I need a computer and
Soundforge to have absolute proof of a fake surround recording?
On Nov 12, 4:58 pm, August Bleed <bleed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well I hope I didn't offend anyone for asking questions...
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 10:47 AM, August Bleed <bleed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > BTW not to hijack this but I joined this group just for these types of
> > discussions...would love to see more of this!
>
> > On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 10:44 AM, August Bleed <bleed...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> "Exactly how does one determine what is out of phase and what is in
> >> phase? "---sorry by this I meant how do you determine its origins? I mean
> >> out of phase often is a result of a bad set up rather than the material
> >> itself. Not saying you are wrong I am just trying to get an understanding
> >> of your statements.
>
>
> >> "Exactly how does one determine what is out of phase and what is in
> >> phase? "---sorry by this I meant how do you determine its origins? I mean
> >> out of phase often is a result of a bad set up rather than the material
> >> itself. Not saying you are wrong I am just trying to get an understanding
> >> of your statements.
>
> >> On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 10:40 AM, August Bleed <bleed...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >>> That is quite a statement to make without a little more information...I
> >>> guess I got a bit lost in what you are saying here. There are a few of us
> >>> who are interested in what you are saying but don't have the technical
> >>> background to process exactly what you are saying. Exactly how does one
> >>> determine what is out of phase and what is in phase? Also I believe that
> >>> guthrie states that he derived the mix from the stereo source--Are you
> >>> perhaps saying the original tapes were not used? I know that they used a
> >>> lot of recording techniques that had to bridge the technological gaps that
> >>> equipment around that time had. From what I understand from my reading
> >>> often multitracks were combined to a single track to achieve the effect
> >>> they wanted. So unless those ORIGINAL tracks that were combined to create
> >>> a multichannel track were found it's likely that he was dealing with
> >>> masters that were generations from the original. Not that I know what I am
> >>> talking about...but it'd be nice if you qualified some of those statements.
>
>
> >>> That is quite a statement to make without a little more information...I
> >>> guess I got a bit lost in what you are saying here. There are a few of us
> >>> who are interested in what you are saying but don't have the technical
> >>> background to process exactly what you are saying. Exactly how does one
> >>> determine what is out of phase and what is in phase? Also I believe that
> >>> guthrie states that he derived the mix from the stereo source--Are you
> >>> perhaps saying the original tapes were not used? I know that they used a
> >>> lot of recording techniques that had to bridge the technological gaps that
> >>> equipment around that time had. From what I understand from my reading
> >>> often multitracks were combined to a single track to achieve the effect
> >>> they wanted. So unless those ORIGINAL tracks that were combined to create
> >>> a multichannel track were found it's likely that he was dealing with
> >>> masters that were generations from the original. Not that I know what I am
> >>> talking about...but it'd be nice if you qualified some of those statements.
>
Brian Treml
Nov 12, 2011, 7:32:12 PM11/12/11
to SurroundSound
Great! because having returned from my audition of the Immersion DVD
disc 3 and the rest of it I can safely report the Quadraphonic version
provided is indeed real and very well done with exceptions.
Overall you can't beat vinyl for natural warm analog sound which this
comes close to. It was even nice the tape hiss is still in tact. There
was very little messing done with the Quadraphonic tracks provided.
Here is track by track.....
Shine On Part 1-This was very good sounding and highly accurate. A
comparison to the Hub discrete version shows all things in their
proper places, those lovely girls over your left shoulder and to the
back singing harmonously, and Daves guitar work crisp and clean. The
vinyl is a shade better warmth wise on both the guitar and that famous
sax solo, but can not compete with the separation found on the DVD. I
really enjoyed this and kept me plodding on,
The Machine-Everything was fantastic and perfect until the rear
acoustic guitars kicked in. I checked twice to see if I blew my
tweeters, but no the rears are indeed flat and muddy. I am guessing
that the master tape has degraded to the point it was offered as is.
At the end where the crowd comes in it almost sounds like a worn vinyl
record. On the plus side, all three voices there singing, and all
insturmentation correct and present.
Have A Cigar-I really enjoyed this. It actually is a shade different
from any other one I heard. The keyboards and effects were all in the
rear, everything else in the front and as we get sucked out Radio on
the solid right channel. This is an EMI master for sure.
Wish You Were Here-Then Dave starts on your far left very warmly
playing. This track actually was far superior to any other version I
have heard. Very detailed, very warm and enveloping. A+
Shine On Again-Again this was amazing and a bit different from other
versions. It was cleaner with better separation then I ever heard.
Again A+
Final Verdict- I have an Immersion box on hold with my local dealer
until I can get the bank to mortgage a bit of my home for the purchase
of my favorite album which indded, I do know every microsecond of. We
all need to be a little condesending at some point or another.
BTW I did relisten afterwards to Mr. Guthries fake mix on the DVD and
lo and behold, same crappy sound. It is not the format, it is the mix.
On Nov 12, 12:47 pm, August Bleed <bleed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> BTW not to hijack this but I joined this group just for these types of
> discussions...would love to see more of this!
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 10:44 AM, August Bleed <bleed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "Exactly how does one determine what is out of phase and what is in
> > phase? "---sorry by this I meant how do you determine its origins? I mean
> > out of phase often is a result of a bad set up rather than the material
> > itself. Not saying you are wrong I am just trying to get an understanding
> > of your statements.
>
> Selling Art Is Tying Your Ego To a Leash And Walking It Like a Dog- Hide quoted text -
disc 3 and the rest of it I can safely report the Quadraphonic version
provided is indeed real and very well done with exceptions.
Overall you can't beat vinyl for natural warm analog sound which this
comes close to. It was even nice the tape hiss is still in tact. There
was very little messing done with the Quadraphonic tracks provided.
Here is track by track.....
Shine On Part 1-This was very good sounding and highly accurate. A
comparison to the Hub discrete version shows all things in their
proper places, those lovely girls over your left shoulder and to the
back singing harmonously, and Daves guitar work crisp and clean. The
vinyl is a shade better warmth wise on both the guitar and that famous
sax solo, but can not compete with the separation found on the DVD. I
really enjoyed this and kept me plodding on,
The Machine-Everything was fantastic and perfect until the rear
acoustic guitars kicked in. I checked twice to see if I blew my
tweeters, but no the rears are indeed flat and muddy. I am guessing
that the master tape has degraded to the point it was offered as is.
At the end where the crowd comes in it almost sounds like a worn vinyl
record. On the plus side, all three voices there singing, and all
insturmentation correct and present.
Have A Cigar-I really enjoyed this. It actually is a shade different
from any other one I heard. The keyboards and effects were all in the
rear, everything else in the front and as we get sucked out Radio on
the solid right channel. This is an EMI master for sure.
Wish You Were Here-Then Dave starts on your far left very warmly
playing. This track actually was far superior to any other version I
have heard. Very detailed, very warm and enveloping. A+
Shine On Again-Again this was amazing and a bit different from other
versions. It was cleaner with better separation then I ever heard.
Again A+
Final Verdict- I have an Immersion box on hold with my local dealer
until I can get the bank to mortgage a bit of my home for the purchase
of my favorite album which indded, I do know every microsecond of. We
all need to be a little condesending at some point or another.
BTW I did relisten afterwards to Mr. Guthries fake mix on the DVD and
lo and behold, same crappy sound. It is not the format, it is the mix.
On Nov 12, 12:47 pm, August Bleed <bleed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> BTW not to hijack this but I joined this group just for these types of
> discussions...would love to see more of this!
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 10:44 AM, August Bleed <bleed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "Exactly how does one determine what is out of phase and what is in
> > phase? "---sorry by this I meant how do you determine its origins? I mean
> > out of phase often is a result of a bad set up rather than the material
> > itself. Not saying you are wrong I am just trying to get an understanding
> > of your statements.
>
> > On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 10:40 AM, August Bleed <bleed...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> That is quite a statement to make without a little more information...I
> >> guess I got a bit lost in what you are saying here. There are a few of us
> >> who are interested in what you are saying but don't have the technical
> >> background to process exactly what you are saying. Exactly how does one
> >> determine what is out of phase and what is in phase? Also I believe that
> >> guthrie states that he derived the mix from the stereo source--Are you
> >> perhaps saying the original tapes were not used? I know that they used a
> >> lot of recording techniques that had to bridge the technological gaps that
> >> equipment around that time had. From what I understand from my reading
> >> often multitracks were combined to a single track to achieve the effect
> >> they wanted. So unless those ORIGINAL tracks that were combined to create
> >> a multichannel track were found it's likely that he was dealing with
> >> masters that were generations from the original. Not that I know what I am
> >> talking about...but it'd be nice if you qualified some of those statements.
>
>
> >> That is quite a statement to make without a little more information...I
> >> guess I got a bit lost in what you are saying here. There are a few of us
> >> who are interested in what you are saying but don't have the technical
> >> background to process exactly what you are saying. Exactly how does one
> >> determine what is out of phase and what is in phase? Also I believe that
> >> guthrie states that he derived the mix from the stereo source--Are you
> >> perhaps saying the original tapes were not used? I know that they used a
> >> lot of recording techniques that had to bridge the technological gaps that
> >> equipment around that time had. From what I understand from my reading
> >> often multitracks were combined to a single track to achieve the effect
> >> they wanted. So unless those ORIGINAL tracks that were combined to create
> >> a multichannel track were found it's likely that he was dealing with
> >> masters that were generations from the original. Not that I know what I am
> >> talking about...but it'd be nice if you qualified some of those statements.
>
Brian Treml
Nov 12, 2011, 7:47:43 PM11/12/11
to SurroundSound
I would but in reading their review it seems they like fake surround.
Weird considering it is a Quadraphonic forum and they should be able
to tell fake Dynaco quad from CD-4 discreet quad. Remember the poor
mans quad system? Wire the rear speaker out of phase in a series
circuit and voila, you have a quadraphonic system albiet the two rears
have the same info as the front except out of phase. Does this ring a
bell in reference to a current recording?
On Nov 12, 12:47 pm, grill <gr...@index.hu> wrote:
> Oh, these are serious words from a man who knows every milliseconds of
> this album. It may be worth sharing your thoughts here too:http://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/showthread.php?15180-Pink-Floy...
Weird considering it is a Quadraphonic forum and they should be able
to tell fake Dynaco quad from CD-4 discreet quad. Remember the poor
mans quad system? Wire the rear speaker out of phase in a series
circuit and voila, you have a quadraphonic system albiet the two rears
have the same info as the front except out of phase. Does this ring a
bell in reference to a current recording?
On Nov 12, 12:47 pm, grill <gr...@index.hu> wrote:
> Oh, these are serious words from a man who knows every milliseconds of
>
> On Nov 12, 7:03 pm, Brian Treml <britre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Gentlemen and Lady Pink Floyd fans,
>
> > Thorugh careful research and some sources I can not name due to the
> > fact I would need to become a criminal...
>
> > The James Guthrie WYWH Surround mix is a fake!
>
> > Upon carefull breakdown of the individual channels we find;
>
> > Left has stereo left information,
>
> > Right-Has right Stereo information except at the end of Have a Cigar,
> > the Radio has been removed and silenced,
>
> > Center-Has Vocals derrived from Stereo and isolated except for guitar
> > on Wish You were Here Intro...
>
> > Sub-Derrived bass info. This may be why it seems bassy on good systems
> > and great on cheap ones.
>
> > Left Rear-Derrived out of phase front channel info with vocal bleeding
>
> > Right Rear-Ditto except for the radio where all channels were muted
> > except right rear:
>
> > There you have it. This would answer as to why it sounds so poor to
> > the trained ear. My sources are also giving me an opportunity to
> > listed to the 640kbs Quad mix. I will keep you all posted as to if I
> > am going to rob a bank to obtain the very expensive overpriced
> > Immersion box.- Hide quoted text -
> On Nov 12, 7:03 pm, Brian Treml <britre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Gentlemen and Lady Pink Floyd fans,
>
> > Thorugh careful research and some sources I can not name due to the
> > fact I would need to become a criminal...
>
> > The James Guthrie WYWH Surround mix is a fake!
>
> > Upon carefull breakdown of the individual channels we find;
>
> > Left has stereo left information,
>
> > Right-Has right Stereo information except at the end of Have a Cigar,
> > the Radio has been removed and silenced,
>
> > Center-Has Vocals derrived from Stereo and isolated except for guitar
> > on Wish You were Here Intro...
>
> > Sub-Derrived bass info. This may be why it seems bassy on good systems
> > and great on cheap ones.
>
> > Left Rear-Derrived out of phase front channel info with vocal bleeding
>
> > Right Rear-Ditto except for the radio where all channels were muted
> > except right rear:
>
> > There you have it. This would answer as to why it sounds so poor to
> > the trained ear. My sources are also giving me an opportunity to
> > listed to the 640kbs Quad mix. I will keep you all posted as to if I
> > am going to rob a bank to obtain the very expensive overpriced
August Bleed
Nov 12, 2011, 8:11:33 PM11/12/11
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
Hmmm,
is this too scientific for the common man?
is this too scientific for the common man?
Sort of. I'm a huge but recent convert to the surround phenomenon. So yeah some of that explanation did go over my head. The second explanation seemed to be clearer. What I think you are saying and I may need to be beaten with an explanation but again what I think yr saying is that if one reverses the fronts and the rears you essentially have the same recording? And it is only through this incorrect phasing that we have something like surround? I am getting my education precisely through discussions like this...
August Bleed
Nov 12, 2011, 8:19:46 PM11/12/11
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
Also wondering as there are a couple parts in the mix in which the instrumentation does pan around all the speakers (it's really subtle) how he would do that if in fact it's not discrete. Is it just a matter of tacking on the swirling sounds atop the quasi stereo mix? Wasn't attacking your viewpoint--you may be correct for all I know--just curious at how you arrived there. Appreciate the responses. Glad I wasn't the only one hearing what I was hearing in the Quad mix. It may have sounded like I was dissing every track rather than a couple parts where clearly their master wasn't in good shape. Hence my criticism of not throwing some cash at it and clean it up a bit more and make it really great. Not that it isn't, but there is certainly enough wizardry out there to make it more pristine.
Stephen Disney
Nov 12, 2011, 11:00:17 PM11/12/11
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
Very interesting discussion. I still concur with Brian on the Quad review. In further listening Brian's notes on Machine are certainly noticeable, but its still the absolute best sounding WYWH surround anyways... and I certainly wouldn't rate the overall sound as flat and muddy based on the one tracks rear channels. Its so awesomely clean... from the hiss to the picking of the acoustics to the occasional tape imperfections (noticeable) and what sounds like studio noise in one of the rear channels of, IIRC, the title track... LOVE IT!
I won't go as far as to suggest that the 5.1 is faked (as in upmixed). I think its a lot simpler. Its just a really shitty mix that's way too faithful to the original stereo... and full of out of place reverb that makes it all wash together in a way that sounds... frankly... fake (and stupid). I would have liked something much nicer considering the supposed remix from original stems. I think he was even less adventurous than he was on DSOTM here... quite sad.
S
I won't go as far as to suggest that the 5.1 is faked (as in upmixed). I think its a lot simpler. Its just a really shitty mix that's way too faithful to the original stereo... and full of out of place reverb that makes it all wash together in a way that sounds... frankly... fake (and stupid). I would have liked something much nicer considering the supposed remix from original stems. I think he was even less adventurous than he was on DSOTM here... quite sad.
S
Stephen Disney
Nov 12, 2011, 11:08:00 PM11/12/11
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
Seriously... it takes me back to the first time I listened to a Q8 to QR rip that someone made for me back in the day... once I heard all the backing vocals and what not in place in the quad mix, I was never again satisfied with the Stereo mix... and can never be satisfied with Guthrie's 5.1. I just read the QQ page. Anyone who prefers the 5.1 to the quad should seriously consider giving up their quad credentials...
S
S
Brian Treml
Nov 13, 2011, 11:54:03 AM11/13/11
to SurroundSound
Amen. I agree 100% You don't deserve Quadraphonic sound if you can't
recognize a fake when you hear it.
On Nov 12, 10:08 pm, Stephen Disney <sthunderroc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Seriously... it takes me back to the first time I listened to a Q8 to QR
> rip that someone made for me back in the day... once I heard all the
> backing vocals and what not in place in the quad mix, I was never again
> satisfied with the Stereo mix... and can never be satisfied with Guthrie's
> 5.1. I just read the QQ page. Anyone who prefers the 5.1 to the quad
> should seriously consider giving up their quad credentials...
> S
>
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Stephen Disney
> <sthunderroc...@gmail.com>wrote:
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
recognize a fake when you hear it.
On Nov 12, 10:08 pm, Stephen Disney <sthunderroc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Seriously... it takes me back to the first time I listened to a Q8 to QR
> rip that someone made for me back in the day... once I heard all the
> backing vocals and what not in place in the quad mix, I was never again
> satisfied with the Stereo mix... and can never be satisfied with Guthrie's
> 5.1. I just read the QQ page. Anyone who prefers the 5.1 to the quad
> should seriously consider giving up their quad credentials...
> S
>
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Stephen Disney
>
>
>
> > Very interesting discussion. I still concur with Brian on the Quad
> > review. In further listening Brian's notes on Machine are certainly
> > noticeable, but its still the absolute best sounding WYWH surround
> > anyways... and I certainly wouldn't rate the overall sound as flat and
> > muddy based on the one tracks rear channels. Its so awesomely clean...
> > from the hiss to the picking of the acoustics to the occasional tape
> > imperfections (noticeable) and what sounds like studio noise in one of the
> > rear channels of, IIRC, the title track... LOVE IT!
>
> > I won't go as far as to suggest that the 5.1 is faked (as in upmixed). I
> > think its a lot simpler. Its just a really shitty mix that's way too
> > faithful to the original stereo... and full of out of place reverb that
> > makes it all wash together in a way that sounds... frankly... fake (and
> > stupid). I would have liked something much nicer considering the supposed
> > remix from original stems. I think he was even less adventurous than he
> > was on DSOTM here... quite sad.
> > S
>
>
>
> > Very interesting discussion. I still concur with Brian on the Quad
> > review. In further listening Brian's notes on Machine are certainly
> > noticeable, but its still the absolute best sounding WYWH surround
> > anyways... and I certainly wouldn't rate the overall sound as flat and
> > muddy based on the one tracks rear channels. Its so awesomely clean...
> > from the hiss to the picking of the acoustics to the occasional tape
> > imperfections (noticeable) and what sounds like studio noise in one of the
> > rear channels of, IIRC, the title track... LOVE IT!
>
> > I won't go as far as to suggest that the 5.1 is faked (as in upmixed). I
> > think its a lot simpler. Its just a really shitty mix that's way too
> > faithful to the original stereo... and full of out of place reverb that
> > makes it all wash together in a way that sounds... frankly... fake (and
> > stupid). I would have liked something much nicer considering the supposed
> > remix from original stems. I think he was even less adventurous than he
> > was on DSOTM here... quite sad.
> > S
>
> > On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 8:19 PM, August Bleed <bleed...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Also wondering as there are a couple parts in the mix in which the
> >> instrumentation does pan around all the speakers (it's really subtle) how
> >> he would do that if in fact it's not discrete. Is it just a matter of
> >> tacking on the swirling sounds atop the quasi stereo mix? Wasn't attacking
> >> your viewpoint--you may be correct for all I know--just curious at how you
> >> arrived there. Appreciate the responses. Glad I wasn't the only one
> >> hearing what I was hearing in the Quad mix. It may have sounded like I was
> >> dissing every track rather than a couple parts where clearly their master
> >> wasn't in good shape. Hence my criticism of not throwing some cash at it
> >> and clean it up a bit more and make it really great. Not that it isn't,
> >> but there is certainly enough wizardry out there to make it more pristine.
>
>
> >> Also wondering as there are a couple parts in the mix in which the
> >> instrumentation does pan around all the speakers (it's really subtle) how
> >> he would do that if in fact it's not discrete. Is it just a matter of
> >> tacking on the swirling sounds atop the quasi stereo mix? Wasn't attacking
> >> your viewpoint--you may be correct for all I know--just curious at how you
> >> arrived there. Appreciate the responses. Glad I wasn't the only one
> >> hearing what I was hearing in the Quad mix. It may have sounded like I was
> >> dissing every track rather than a couple parts where clearly their master
> >> wasn't in good shape. Hence my criticism of not throwing some cash at it
> >> and clean it up a bit more and make it really great. Not that it isn't,
> >> but there is certainly enough wizardry out there to make it more pristine.
>
> >> On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 5:11 PM, August Bleed <bleed...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Hmmm,
> >>> is this too scientific for the common man?
>
> >>> Sort of. I'm a huge but recent convert to the surround phenomenon. So
> >>> yeah some of that explanation did go over my head. The second explanation
> >>> seemed to be clearer. What I think you are saying and I may need to be
> >>> beaten with an explanation but again what I think yr saying is that if one
> >>> reverses the fronts and the rears you essentially have the same recording?
> >>> And it is only through this incorrect phasing that we have something like
> >>> surround? I am getting my education precisely through discussions like
> >>> this...
>
>
> >>> Hmmm,
> >>> is this too scientific for the common man?
>
> >>> Sort of. I'm a huge but recent convert to the surround phenomenon. So
> >>> yeah some of that explanation did go over my head. The second explanation
> >>> seemed to be clearer. What I think you are saying and I may need to be
> >>> beaten with an explanation but again what I think yr saying is that if one
> >>> reverses the fronts and the rears you essentially have the same recording?
> >>> And it is only through this incorrect phasing that we have something like
> >>> surround? I am getting my education precisely through discussions like
> >>> this...
>
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
August Bleed
Nov 13, 2011, 12:07:48 PM11/13/11
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
In all fairness not all of us are born into the world with an innate knowledge of Quadraphonic sound. But some of us aren't afraid to ask questions and do want to understand if others might deign to explain their positions.
Brian Treml
Nov 13, 2011, 12:20:19 PM11/13/11
to SurroundSound
I will concur this is the cleanest sounding quad to date and is going
to have to be a final nail in this coffin as there is no better way to
reproduce it.
I am going to suggest if I may that the master tape is damaged during
The Machine and it was reassembled with what was available 35 years
later, Seems to be only the rear channels but.... for me I can always
refer back to my SQ vinyl for this track at least.
To be clear it is only The Machine that is muddy, not the rest of the
album. The remainder is as clear as 35 year old analog tape gets. I
also think that the material was obtained from several copies as Side
2 (vinyl terms) is much cleaner and crisper than side 1. But then
again the vinyl was like that to at least the EMI versions. Be happy
we did not get stuck with the shoddy Columbia/Sony USA Quad.
As far as Guthrie's mix goes lets call a spade a spade here. It is
fake surround no matter how you slice it. Listen to just the center
channel alone and your heart will sink. Then, take your rear speakers,
reverse the leads and listen to the great stereo/mono Wish You Were
Here. A rip off at $35.00 plus shipping. Acoustic Sounds should be
ashamed as they are considered a high end outfit. I won't criticize
the Immersion box only because you do get some real material for your
money however high priced that is. Sometimes if you really need your
fix, no price is too high. Look at what we are paying for vinyl now
days VS the same material on Compact Disc>
BTW take a peek on eBay and search for the WYWH SACD. Amazing how many
thieves are out there and what lengths they will go to to fool people.
One even says "Out Of Print"! $124.00 plus shipping. I would like to
meet the guy who falls for that...
August: A clear break down. Reversing leads means physically taking
the positive and negative wires and hooking them up backwards. Studios
use out of phase recording to create a wider field of sound but the
negative is it has no clear direction or placement. This works great
for enhancement of vocals or a particular insturment and will also
create a sound effect from behind as the out of phase parts will seem
to be louder in the rear causing you to percieve they came from the
rear of swirled about you. You can do this with any stereo recording
such as Billy Thorpe, Children Of The Sun where the effects will swirl
the room on a fako surround system which in the old days was called
"Analog Dolby Surround". With that system the rears contained out of
phase info from the front. You could calibrate a delay and a peak
where the rears would trigger and give a surround sound effect. Both
rear channels were the same material. You could also add a center
which would derive equal info from the two front channels and play it
front and center. It worked great for movies and depending on your
music had interesting effects. Dolby Digital Surround took that a step
further and used digital steering to place material so sometimes you
could get rear separation. Then we have DTS Surround ect.. ect...
Basically Guthries mix is the first, Dolby Surround in a digital
format. It is not true separate surround (Like King Crimson Dicipline
is, or The Who Tommy is, those are two awesome 5.1 discs that come to
mind and made me dispose of the vinyl as it can't compete) I am
willing to go as far as to say the Guthrie mix was created back in the
early 1990's when dolby Surround was hot and got shelved until now and
no one wanted to do the time amd work to make a new version so we get
robbed with old technology. It is quite sad indeed. Again, let
Acoustic Sounds know what you think of their product.
> >http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound- Hide quoted text -
to have to be a final nail in this coffin as there is no better way to
reproduce it.
I am going to suggest if I may that the master tape is damaged during
The Machine and it was reassembled with what was available 35 years
later, Seems to be only the rear channels but.... for me I can always
refer back to my SQ vinyl for this track at least.
To be clear it is only The Machine that is muddy, not the rest of the
album. The remainder is as clear as 35 year old analog tape gets. I
also think that the material was obtained from several copies as Side
2 (vinyl terms) is much cleaner and crisper than side 1. But then
again the vinyl was like that to at least the EMI versions. Be happy
we did not get stuck with the shoddy Columbia/Sony USA Quad.
As far as Guthrie's mix goes lets call a spade a spade here. It is
fake surround no matter how you slice it. Listen to just the center
channel alone and your heart will sink. Then, take your rear speakers,
reverse the leads and listen to the great stereo/mono Wish You Were
Here. A rip off at $35.00 plus shipping. Acoustic Sounds should be
ashamed as they are considered a high end outfit. I won't criticize
the Immersion box only because you do get some real material for your
money however high priced that is. Sometimes if you really need your
fix, no price is too high. Look at what we are paying for vinyl now
days VS the same material on Compact Disc>
BTW take a peek on eBay and search for the WYWH SACD. Amazing how many
thieves are out there and what lengths they will go to to fool people.
One even says "Out Of Print"! $124.00 plus shipping. I would like to
meet the guy who falls for that...
August: A clear break down. Reversing leads means physically taking
the positive and negative wires and hooking them up backwards. Studios
use out of phase recording to create a wider field of sound but the
negative is it has no clear direction or placement. This works great
for enhancement of vocals or a particular insturment and will also
create a sound effect from behind as the out of phase parts will seem
to be louder in the rear causing you to percieve they came from the
rear of swirled about you. You can do this with any stereo recording
such as Billy Thorpe, Children Of The Sun where the effects will swirl
the room on a fako surround system which in the old days was called
"Analog Dolby Surround". With that system the rears contained out of
phase info from the front. You could calibrate a delay and a peak
where the rears would trigger and give a surround sound effect. Both
rear channels were the same material. You could also add a center
which would derive equal info from the two front channels and play it
front and center. It worked great for movies and depending on your
music had interesting effects. Dolby Digital Surround took that a step
further and used digital steering to place material so sometimes you
could get rear separation. Then we have DTS Surround ect.. ect...
Basically Guthries mix is the first, Dolby Surround in a digital
format. It is not true separate surround (Like King Crimson Dicipline
is, or The Who Tommy is, those are two awesome 5.1 discs that come to
mind and made me dispose of the vinyl as it can't compete) I am
willing to go as far as to say the Guthrie mix was created back in the
early 1990's when dolby Surround was hot and got shelved until now and
no one wanted to do the time amd work to make a new version so we get
robbed with old technology. It is quite sad indeed. Again, let
Acoustic Sounds know what you think of their product.
> > On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 5:11 PM, August Bleed <bleed...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Hmmm,
> >> is this too scientific for the common man?
>
> >> Sort of. I'm a huge but recent convert to the surround phenomenon. So
> >> yeah some of that explanation did go over my head. The second explanation
> >> seemed to be clearer. What I think you are saying and I may need to be
> >> beaten with an explanation but again what I think yr saying is that if one
> >> reverses the fronts and the rears you essentially have the same recording?
> >> And it is only through this incorrect phasing that we have something like
> >> surround? I am getting my education precisely through discussions like
> >> this...
>
>
> >> Hmmm,
> >> is this too scientific for the common man?
>
> >> Sort of. I'm a huge but recent convert to the surround phenomenon. So
> >> yeah some of that explanation did go over my head. The second explanation
> >> seemed to be clearer. What I think you are saying and I may need to be
> >> beaten with an explanation but again what I think yr saying is that if one
> >> reverses the fronts and the rears you essentially have the same recording?
> >> And it is only through this incorrect phasing that we have something like
> >> surround? I am getting my education precisely through discussions like
> >> this...
>
Brian Treml
Nov 13, 2011, 12:31:47 PM11/13/11
to SurroundSound
I would suggest you join the QQ forum. While they are not capable of
recognizing fake surround when it is in front of them, there is a
wealth of great information about Quadraphonics as well as
Ambiesonics, Surround sound, DTS Surround and 7 channel sound. I am
sure most of the questions you have will be answered there and you
will find out all kinds of things that will help you be a better music
listener. Sorry to come off brash in the other posts, it was un-
intended.
recognizing fake surround when it is in front of them, there is a
wealth of great information about Quadraphonics as well as
Ambiesonics, Surround sound, DTS Surround and 7 channel sound. I am
sure most of the questions you have will be answered there and you
will find out all kinds of things that will help you be a better music
listener. Sorry to come off brash in the other posts, it was un-
intended.
August Bleed
Nov 13, 2011, 12:48:48 PM11/13/11
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
Thanks Brian that made a LOT more sense to my neophyte brain! I hope I didn't come across as rude. I just came to this forum as a place to gain more of an education as many so called audiophile sites completely ignore the fact that some listeners are more taken with the extended information that surround provides. That said this group was recommended and I have learned quite a bit just hanging out, asking questions, ect. I've only been listening to surround for about a year when I finally got enough decent gear to make it worthwhile. I appreciate the advice to check out the qq forum. I'll do that. Interesting perspective on the date of the mix as that would have been just about the time they started doing DTS CDs and the like trying to make a push into surround material. I have materials from around that time and it doesn't sound discrete to my ears. That would certainly make sense as PF have never been ones to let a new format pass them by (nor are the stones or the who! they have no problem selling the same materials over and over ad nauseum). Like I had inferred earlier I don't think the development $ is there anymore even for a group like PF. There seems to be a behind the scenes rush by the music industry to quickly transfer their materials to a high def format but at the same time there doesn't seem to be the $ going around to do it right. I've looked forward many times to some of the newer shm-sacd's of previously unavailable material but have really been saddened by the mastering going into these materials (they are also in stereo which saves cash as well). It's really similar to what they did with the quad mix here. Straight from master to digital and no clean up involved. Yeah there is something to be said for those little tape hisses and such (after all they are part of the masters) but again in this day and age it's a fairly simple process to clean the sound up without losing detail...I mean it's no longer 1979 and digital recording is no longer in it's infancy and in some cases can come very close to being indistinguishable from the mic feed in the studio. I won't debate about the analog quality--Im an analog fan too. Im also a digital fan when done right...and it can sound very very good when done right. Oops...sorta rambled there....Brian thanks again for taking your explanation down a few notches so I could understand. I really appreciate. I will check the other forum out as well, though you are right other sites seem to be quite rabid about how great this is. I didn't get that. I didn't think it was bad but I think most of us have been underwhelmed except by the quad.
Stephen Disney
Nov 13, 2011, 5:15:58 PM11/13/11
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
The sad thing is I really believe he purposely made it non-discrete in nature.
S
S
August Bleed
Nov 13, 2011, 5:22:04 PM11/13/11
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
Well I would add that he is the guy who did The Wall so he would be very versed in Dolby technology. And the tech you are describing I think emerged right around that time if I am not mistaken. So you may indeed be correct! It wouldn't surprise me as a way to do it on the cheap.
Stephen Disney
Nov 13, 2011, 5:58:37 PM11/13/11
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
He also did Final Cut which was in Q sound.
S
S
Lokkerman
Nov 13, 2011, 6:13:30 PM11/13/11
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
Brian/Steve et al...
Yes I've now listened too - agreed the quad is definitely the Vinyl version of the UK EMI, although I feel that this is second generation master and perhaps not the orginal. To me some of what I would have expected to be the analogue tape sound, sounds a little flat but this should be restorable. The bass doesn't always sound like the tubby Roger Waters sound as far as I can tell. As for WTTM this has always been distorted and I even suggest this goes back to the multi-masters, try listening to some of the stereo CD's - we did note this in our Hub version notes.
One thing - I can't hear the audible artefacts I listed in my Hub notes and the female vocals are not as consistently "nice" (SOYCD PT 2, 6' 14" left rear great then what happens a minute before?) and for the matter as pronounced as the version used for the Q8 - which now clarifies for me that this was a different mix to this one.
What is good is that it is uncoloured and true and to me draws somewhat of a line over the definitive version. Strangely this version did bring about a flashback - and it was of the matrix H BBC version that a few of us all shared back in the '70's. (now sadly lost).
As for the new version - cinema sound - and I feel alright at that but nothing that challenges, stretches or adds to the art of surround. Also where's the echo from? Also I don't use a sub, so found the bass a little pushed - guess what - sounds better on little speakers too - good in the study. Also who sacked the girls?
Yes I've now listened too - agreed the quad is definitely the Vinyl version of the UK EMI, although I feel that this is second generation master and perhaps not the orginal. To me some of what I would have expected to be the analogue tape sound, sounds a little flat but this should be restorable. The bass doesn't always sound like the tubby Roger Waters sound as far as I can tell. As for WTTM this has always been distorted and I even suggest this goes back to the multi-masters, try listening to some of the stereo CD's - we did note this in our Hub version notes.
One thing - I can't hear the audible artefacts I listed in my Hub notes and the female vocals are not as consistently "nice" (SOYCD PT 2, 6' 14" left rear great then what happens a minute before?) and for the matter as pronounced as the version used for the Q8 - which now clarifies for me that this was a different mix to this one.
What is good is that it is uncoloured and true and to me draws somewhat of a line over the definitive version. Strangely this version did bring about a flashback - and it was of the matrix H BBC version that a few of us all shared back in the '70's. (now sadly lost).
As for the new version - cinema sound - and I feel alright at that but nothing that challenges, stretches or adds to the art of surround. Also where's the echo from? Also I don't use a sub, so found the bass a little pushed - guess what - sounds better on little speakers too - good in the study. Also who sacked the girls?
grill
Nov 13, 2011, 6:44:54 PM11/13/11
to SurroundSound
FYI
Here are some screenshots of the wavs, the spectrograms and the DR
statistics:
http://hotfile.com/dl/134939167/bd5192b/WYWH_BD_audio_info.pdf.html
> ...
>
> tovább »- Idézett szöveg elrejtése -
>
> - Idézett szöveg megjelenítése -
Here are some screenshots of the wavs, the spectrograms and the DR
statistics:
http://hotfile.com/dl/134939167/bd5192b/WYWH_BD_audio_info.pdf.html
> > On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Stephen Disney <sthunderroc...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >> The sad thing is I really believe he purposely made it non-discrete in
> >> nature.
> >> S
>
>
> >> The sad thing is I really believe he purposely made it non-discrete in
> >> nature.
> >> S
>
>
> tovább »- Idézett szöveg elrejtése -
>
> - Idézett szöveg megjelenítése -
Brian Treml
Nov 13, 2011, 7:15:06 PM11/13/11
to SurroundSound
I would agree with all of this. Considering we know the source of the
HUB version and the S-Loads of work that the peole involved did, it
remains the only true discreet version in a digital format. It is sad
it had to come from 1/4" tape at 3-3/4 IPS and not a higher fidelity
format.
This interests me about the second generation thoery? Are you saying
the Quad on the DVD may have come from a safety copy rather than an
original EMI tape?
I also did notice the girls dissapearing in the Shine on Pt. 2. I
think it may be a dropout on the tape but I will need to revisit that
to be sure. As I said Side 1 is not as clean as Side two. The girls
were strong and vibrant on the HUB master to say the least.
In the coming week I hope to do some isolated channel listening just
for my own knowledge. It is sort of crazy to break the album down that
far but now I am curious about some of the details you mention that
are present on the Quad 8 and missing on the DVD.
Another note to remember. That Q-8 was made from a Columbia master
that I believe created the USA SQ copy with the backwards channels.
The HUB master does have proper placement which I will attribute to
the knowlegeable people who created it.
As a tribute to the unknowledged "Cinema Sound" is a term very
infrequently used as it implies low theater grade quality sound. James
Guthrie in his old age anyone?
As a Side Note. We must remember that James Guthrie has a great body
of work from Alvin Stardust, to Judas Priests Killing Machine (Hell
Bent For Leather), to The Wall (although this was more of a Bob Erzin
project), and the Pointer Sisters He's So Shy. So we must ask why he
would even allow his name to be on such shoddy work?
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
HUB version and the S-Loads of work that the peole involved did, it
remains the only true discreet version in a digital format. It is sad
it had to come from 1/4" tape at 3-3/4 IPS and not a higher fidelity
format.
This interests me about the second generation thoery? Are you saying
the Quad on the DVD may have come from a safety copy rather than an
original EMI tape?
I also did notice the girls dissapearing in the Shine on Pt. 2. I
think it may be a dropout on the tape but I will need to revisit that
to be sure. As I said Side 1 is not as clean as Side two. The girls
were strong and vibrant on the HUB master to say the least.
In the coming week I hope to do some isolated channel listening just
for my own knowledge. It is sort of crazy to break the album down that
far but now I am curious about some of the details you mention that
are present on the Quad 8 and missing on the DVD.
Another note to remember. That Q-8 was made from a Columbia master
that I believe created the USA SQ copy with the backwards channels.
The HUB master does have proper placement which I will attribute to
the knowlegeable people who created it.
As a tribute to the unknowledged "Cinema Sound" is a term very
infrequently used as it implies low theater grade quality sound. James
Guthrie in his old age anyone?
As a Side Note. We must remember that James Guthrie has a great body
of work from Alvin Stardust, to Judas Priests Killing Machine (Hell
Bent For Leather), to The Wall (although this was more of a Bob Erzin
project), and the Pointer Sisters He's So Shy. So we must ask why he
would even allow his name to be on such shoddy work?
> > On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Stephen Disney <sthunderroc...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >> The sad thing is I really believe he purposely made it non-discrete in
> >> nature.
> >> S
>
>
> >> The sad thing is I really believe he purposely made it non-discrete in
> >> nature.
> >> S
>
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Brian Treml
Nov 13, 2011, 7:25:05 PM11/13/11
to SurroundSound
Interesting in looking at these that all the WAVs pictured look
identical in nature, just the volume and amplitiude differs from
channel to channel. Even the Center channel looks identical to the
other six. I think a side by side with the Quad version will
absolutely and scientifically prove we have a fake surround recording.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
identical in nature, just the volume and amplitiude differs from
channel to channel. Even the Center channel looks identical to the
other six. I think a side by side with the Quad version will
absolutely and scientifically prove we have a fake surround recording.
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Stephen Disney
Nov 13, 2011, 7:34:17 PM11/13/11
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
I thought the backing vocals were softer than the Q8 but assumed it was less saturation or something... glad to know I wasn't crazy. That said, for me, its clarity and detail and closeness to my ideal copy will still win me over to make it my new go to listening copy.
As for the cinema surround... pretty much nails it. Never should have applied the effects and the omission of the backing vocals to replicate the stereo mix in surround form is a terrible idea...
S
p.s. The most important aspect of the wall for me is Michael Kamen's orchestrations...
...and I just got my Wall concert tickets... ;)
As for the cinema surround... pretty much nails it. Never should have applied the effects and the omission of the backing vocals to replicate the stereo mix in surround form is a terrible idea...
S
p.s. The most important aspect of the wall for me is Michael Kamen's orchestrations...
...and I just got my Wall concert tickets... ;)
August Bleed
Nov 13, 2011, 8:00:24 PM11/13/11
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
ill be interested in seeing what your wav comparisons show. BTW all thanks for the great reading. I think I've gotten as much of an education from the dissection of this album than my frequent wiki escapades. Im still a pretty big fan of whatever source that SACD that proceeded this release shortly after they cracked the SACD thing is extraordinarily good--It sounds like it would take quite a bit of research to track down all these different masters. Didn't know there were different ones for different markets (US, UK, ect.). My reading kept suggesting that quad suffered from an extraordinary lack of separation between the fronts and the rears, but thus far every quad recording I've been fortunate enough to find that was lovingly restored usually sound great! I remember my father's reel to reel in the 70's producing some crazy good music. I don't remember if it was quad though. Amazing how some of that technology has managed to survive for more than 40 years and still sound so awesome.
ROBERT COOGAN
Nov 12, 2011, 7:31:57 PM11/12/11
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
I don't believe it.
Surely they have multitrack tapes from the production of this album they can
use to make a surround recording.
I don't believe they would have bounced the tracks down, to the detriment of
the original tracks, this was recorded at Abbey Road after all, and as a
follow-up to DSOTM to boot.
flytomars
Nov 14, 2011, 2:23:10 PM11/14/11
to SurroundSound
Just got my uber-deluxe-highly-expensive box,
I am now spining WYWH 5.1 version and am quite dissapointed.
I do not know if this is indeed the stereo version expanded, but the
fact that I cannot tell in an instant already means this is a very not-
discreet recording.
I do not have a sub but instead it goes to the large fronts - and
indeed it sounds like the bass is doubled, way higher than it should
be
(which makes sense if what they did was just create a fake LFE from
the stereo info and add it to a new channel)
All in all I am pretty disapointed with this - at least darkside had
some of the inevitable surround effects (cash register, chorus on us
and them etc(
This one doesnt even have this...
I sure hope the quad version will compensate for this...
> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound-הסתר טקסט מצוטט-
>
> -הראה טקסט מצוטט-
I am now spining WYWH 5.1 version and am quite dissapointed.
I do not know if this is indeed the stereo version expanded, but the
fact that I cannot tell in an instant already means this is a very not-
discreet recording.
I do not have a sub but instead it goes to the large fronts - and
indeed it sounds like the bass is doubled, way higher than it should
be
(which makes sense if what they did was just create a fake LFE from
the stereo info and add it to a new channel)
All in all I am pretty disapointed with this - at least darkside had
some of the inevitable surround effects (cash register, chorus on us
and them etc(
This one doesnt even have this...
I sure hope the quad version will compensate for this...
>
> -הראה טקסט מצוטט-
Brian Treml
Nov 14, 2011, 10:38:38 PM11/14/11
to SurroundSound
Anther person who can tell the real deal from the not so real deal, I
do not feel so alone now....
> > -הראה טקסט מצוטט-- Hide quoted text -
do not feel so alone now....
August Bleed
Nov 15, 2011, 1:13:41 PM11/15/11
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
No time to check this out yet but it was recently posted on computer audiophile and I believe it is talking about the new remasters for blu ray and such for PF. Dunno if this will add anything to the discussion but I will certainly be reading it with the comments made here in mind.
Stephen Disney
Nov 15, 2011, 4:00:19 PM11/15/11
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
Well right up front...
I'm glad it sounded miles better, and I'm not saying it wasn't the best way to go depending on the situation, but analogue sample rate conversion is going to add another analogue generation. If Guthrie is "firmly analogue" then why not Guthrie master > 48khz digital master instead of Guthrie master > 96khz digital master > 48khz digital 2nd master. Still very interesting read.
S
I'm glad it sounded miles better, and I'm not saying it wasn't the best way to go depending on the situation, but analogue sample rate conversion is going to add another analogue generation. If Guthrie is "firmly analogue" then why not Guthrie master > 48khz digital master instead of Guthrie master > 96khz digital master > 48khz digital 2nd master. Still very interesting read.
S
Lokkerman
Nov 15, 2011, 6:01:28 PM11/15/11
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
It adds more mysteries than it does clarify. As for DSOTM live the recordings sound nothing like my old cassette tapes spill or no spill ... and they always used the heartbeat - we clapped along to it.
Funny that over time folks think they can re-write history; only when folks like me are dead, m'afraid.
Funny that over time folks think they can re-write history; only when folks like me are dead, m'afraid.
Stephen Disney
Nov 15, 2011, 6:19:49 PM11/15/11
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
Considering that I sympathize with Brian's position... on a positive, I would go so far as to say that aside from the conservative use of full discreteness and lack of elements present in the quad mix I like this 5.1 mix a lot better than his DSOTM one. Its amazingly crisp and clear and has many positive moments. If nothing else, its not drowned in reverb. He seems to have learned from that mistake at any rate.
S
S
Brian Treml
Nov 15, 2011, 9:41:13 PM11/15/11
to SurroundSound
I agree, and the outtakes also sound awesome! Why is the Stereo and
5.1 mix so loud and sterile? I think to make it sound good on cheap
systems. Most audiophiles want the honey, most consumers want it on an
Ipod. I am afraid if us oldtimers don't complain about poor quality no
no one will ever get to hear these great recordings as intended when
making a album that sounded perfect was the name of the game, not
stealing money which is now the name of the game. I am pretty sure
Acoustic Sounds could have sold that for $14.99 and still made an
awesome profit. And to be really honest, at $14.99 (and a realistic
S&H price not the $10.00 I was charged) I would not be B&^%chin so
much about the quality of this mix. You are supposed to get what you
pay for right?.
On Nov 15, 5:01 pm, Lokkerman <phil.steep...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It adds more mysteries than it does clarify. As for DSOTM live the
> recordings sound nothing like my old cassette tapes spill or no spill ...
> and they always used the heartbeat - we clapped along to it.
> Funny that over time folks think they can re-write history; only when folks
> like me are dead, m'afraid.
>
> >>> groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound-הסתר<http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound-%D7%94%D7%A1%D7%AA%D7%A8>טקסט מצוטט-
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
5.1 mix so loud and sterile? I think to make it sound good on cheap
systems. Most audiophiles want the honey, most consumers want it on an
Ipod. I am afraid if us oldtimers don't complain about poor quality no
no one will ever get to hear these great recordings as intended when
making a album that sounded perfect was the name of the game, not
stealing money which is now the name of the game. I am pretty sure
Acoustic Sounds could have sold that for $14.99 and still made an
awesome profit. And to be really honest, at $14.99 (and a realistic
S&H price not the $10.00 I was charged) I would not be B&^%chin so
much about the quality of this mix. You are supposed to get what you
pay for right?.
On Nov 15, 5:01 pm, Lokkerman <phil.steep...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It adds more mysteries than it does clarify. As for DSOTM live the
> recordings sound nothing like my old cassette tapes spill or no spill ...
> and they always used the heartbeat - we clapped along to it.
> Funny that over time folks think they can re-write history; only when folks
> like me are dead, m'afraid.
>
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 9:00 PM, Stephen Disney <sthunderroc...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
> > Well right up front...
> > I'm glad it sounded miles better, and I'm not saying it wasn't the best
> > way to go depending on the situation, but analogue sample rate conversion
> > is going to add another analogue generation. If Guthrie is "firmly
> > analogue" then why not Guthrie master > 48khz digital master instead of
> > Guthrie master > 96khz digital master > 48khz digital 2nd master. Still
> > very interesting read.
> > S
>
>
>
>
> > Well right up front...
> > I'm glad it sounded miles better, and I'm not saying it wasn't the best
> > way to go depending on the situation, but analogue sample rate conversion
> > is going to add another analogue generation. If Guthrie is "firmly
> > analogue" then why not Guthrie master > 48khz digital master instead of
> > Guthrie master > 96khz digital master > 48khz digital 2nd master. Still
> > very interesting read.
> > S
>
> > On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 1:13 PM, August Bleed <bleed...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> No time to check this out yet but it was recently posted on computer
> >> audiophile and I believe it is talking about the new remasters for blu ray
> >> and such for PF. Dunno if this will add anything to the discussion but I
> >> will certainly be reading it with the comments made here in mind.
>
> >>http://www.superdeluxeedition.com/interview/interview-pink-floyd-engi...
>
> >> No time to check this out yet but it was recently posted on computer
> >> audiophile and I believe it is talking about the new remasters for blu ray
> >> and such for PF. Dunno if this will add anything to the discussion but I
> >> will certainly be reading it with the comments made here in mind.
>
>
> >>> > > -הראה טקסט מצוטט-- Hide quoted text -
>
> ...
> >>> > > -הראה טקסט מצוטט-- Hide quoted text -
>
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Brian Treml
Nov 15, 2011, 9:54:31 PM11/15/11
to SurroundSound
I agree that the DSOTM had that goofy echo on the heartbeat and such,
the mix was new and fresh and is now 12 years old. In 12 years Guthrie
went from creative to easy Dolby Surrround matrix. I was very
satisfied with the DSOTM. It cost me $9.99 new at my local store and
had both versions on one disc. While I could bust a nut on that mix it
still was discreet in most places and sounded like it came from a 16
track master tape. It was also clearly advertised as the 20th
anniversary new 5.1 mix, not a remaster. I do believe and correct me
if I am wrong, this was supposed to be a remaster and a new 5.1 mix
specially created by James Guthrie under the supervision of Pink
Floyd. Do any of you really believe Roger Waters the perfectionist
would say just matrix the stereo one, that will be fine for a surround
mix.
On the other hand, the WYWH was close to $50 and sounded like it came
from the same stereo copy I had 10 years ago. That is the issue with
all this. I and many other plunked down an S*load of hard earned cash,
and recieved a poor product for the money. I might still critique the
WYWH at $9.99 but I would not feel gyped by the distributor and the
record company. It was $10 and it is a matrix surround mix ohh well :
(
instead of IT WAS $129.00 and IT IS A MATRIX MIX :((((( intense
frustration
On Nov 15, 5:19 pm, Stephen Disney <sthunderroc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Considering that I sympathize with Brian's position... on a positive, I
> would go so far as to say that aside from the conservative use of full
> discreteness and lack of elements present in the quad mix I like this 5.1
> mix a lot better than his DSOTM one. Its amazingly crisp and clear and has
> many positive moments. If nothing else, its not drowned in reverb. He
> seems to have learned from that mistake at any rate.
> S
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 6:01 PM, Lokkerman <phil.steep...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It adds more mysteries than it does clarify. As for DSOTM live the
> > recordings sound nothing like my old cassette tapes spill or no spill ...
> > and they always used the heartbeat - we clapped along to it.
> > Funny that over time folks think they can re-write history; only when
> > folks like me are dead, m'afraid.
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
the mix was new and fresh and is now 12 years old. In 12 years Guthrie
went from creative to easy Dolby Surrround matrix. I was very
satisfied with the DSOTM. It cost me $9.99 new at my local store and
had both versions on one disc. While I could bust a nut on that mix it
still was discreet in most places and sounded like it came from a 16
track master tape. It was also clearly advertised as the 20th
anniversary new 5.1 mix, not a remaster. I do believe and correct me
if I am wrong, this was supposed to be a remaster and a new 5.1 mix
specially created by James Guthrie under the supervision of Pink
Floyd. Do any of you really believe Roger Waters the perfectionist
would say just matrix the stereo one, that will be fine for a surround
mix.
On the other hand, the WYWH was close to $50 and sounded like it came
from the same stereo copy I had 10 years ago. That is the issue with
all this. I and many other plunked down an S*load of hard earned cash,
and recieved a poor product for the money. I might still critique the
WYWH at $9.99 but I would not feel gyped by the distributor and the
record company. It was $10 and it is a matrix surround mix ohh well :
(
instead of IT WAS $129.00 and IT IS A MATRIX MIX :((((( intense
frustration
On Nov 15, 5:19 pm, Stephen Disney <sthunderroc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Considering that I sympathize with Brian's position... on a positive, I
> would go so far as to say that aside from the conservative use of full
> discreteness and lack of elements present in the quad mix I like this 5.1
> mix a lot better than his DSOTM one. Its amazingly crisp and clear and has
> many positive moments. If nothing else, its not drowned in reverb. He
> seems to have learned from that mistake at any rate.
> S
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 6:01 PM, Lokkerman <phil.steep...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It adds more mysteries than it does clarify. As for DSOTM live the
> > recordings sound nothing like my old cassette tapes spill or no spill ...
> > and they always used the heartbeat - we clapped along to it.
> > Funny that over time folks think they can re-write history; only when
> > folks like me are dead, m'afraid.
>
> > On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 9:00 PM, Stephen Disney <sthunderroc...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >> Well right up front...
> >> I'm glad it sounded miles better, and I'm not saying it wasn't the best
> >> way to go depending on the situation, but analogue sample rate conversion
> >> is going to add another analogue generation. If Guthrie is "firmly
> >> analogue" then why not Guthrie master > 48khz digital master instead of
> >> Guthrie master > 96khz digital master > 48khz digital 2nd master. Still
> >> very interesting read.
> >> S
>
>
> >> Well right up front...
> >> I'm glad it sounded miles better, and I'm not saying it wasn't the best
> >> way to go depending on the situation, but analogue sample rate conversion
> >> is going to add another analogue generation. If Guthrie is "firmly
> >> analogue" then why not Guthrie master > 48khz digital master instead of
> >> Guthrie master > 96khz digital master > 48khz digital 2nd master. Still
> >> very interesting read.
> >> S
>
> >> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 1:13 PM, August Bleed <bleed...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> No time to check this out yet but it was recently posted on computer
> >>> audiophile and I believe it is talking about the new remasters for blu ray
> >>> and such for PF. Dunno if this will add anything to the discussion but I
> >>> will certainly be reading it with the comments made here in mind.
>
> >>>http://www.superdeluxeedition.com/interview/interview-pink-floyd-engi...
>
> >>> No time to check this out yet but it was recently posted on computer
> >>> audiophile and I believe it is talking about the new remasters for blu ray
> >>> and such for PF. Dunno if this will add anything to the discussion but I
> >>> will certainly be reading it with the comments made here in mind.
>
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
flytomars
Nov 16, 2011, 4:01:26 PM11/16/11
to SurroundSound
Woha, hold your horses :)
I did not say this is in fact enhanced stereo, just not as discreet as
I hoped...
Definately not as discreet as the reel2reel quad version which was
lovingly collected by some of the members of this forum...
On a second listen, I do believe the 5.1 was done from the
multitracks, only very subtle-
In soycd1 it might be the odd synth here and there, on welcome to the
machine it is much more noticable (guitars and effects swirling from
front to back etc)
On a side note, how come the official quad version is different from
the one made by lokkerman -
The female backing vocals, for example, are very quiet in the official
quad - on the r2r quad they were quite a revelation!
Also vocals in general sound more seperated on the unofficial quad- is
it a different mix? LP vs R2R?
> > - Show quoted text --הסתר טקסט מצוטט-
>
> -הראה טקסט מצוטט-
I did not say this is in fact enhanced stereo, just not as discreet as
I hoped...
Definately not as discreet as the reel2reel quad version which was
lovingly collected by some of the members of this forum...
On a second listen, I do believe the 5.1 was done from the
multitracks, only very subtle-
In soycd1 it might be the odd synth here and there, on welcome to the
machine it is much more noticable (guitars and effects swirling from
front to back etc)
On a side note, how come the official quad version is different from
the one made by lokkerman -
The female backing vocals, for example, are very quiet in the official
quad - on the r2r quad they were quite a revelation!
Also vocals in general sound more seperated on the unofficial quad- is
it a different mix? LP vs R2R?
>
> -הראה טקסט מצוטט-
Stephen Disney
Nov 16, 2011, 4:09:08 PM11/16/11
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
Lokks determined that the Hub used the Columbia (American) Q8 mix with the channels corrected, whereas Abby Road provided the EMI Q8 mix for this.
S
S
Stephen Disney
Nov 16, 2011, 4:10:16 PM11/16/11
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
And yes... that US Q8 mix is what I fell in love with... If only Guthrie had included those vocals and whatnot...
S
S
Stephen Disney
Nov 16, 2011, 4:11:38 PM11/16/11
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
Of course that means the Hub remaster is still the definitive source for the American quad mix.
S
S
flytomars
Nov 16, 2011, 4:21:01 PM11/16/11
to SurroundSound
Yes, I just now got to that part (am a slow reader)
Thanks for the clarification!
Then there are in fact 2 original quad mixes... too bad they didnt use
the american one,
Listening to it after knowing the stereo one for all these years was
mind-blowing - many details I didnt notice before (forgot to add the
cough in soycd- didnt notice that too in the "new" quad....)
> > groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound-הסתר<http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound-%D7%94%D7%A1%D7%AA%D7%A8>טקסט מצוטט-
>
> קרא עוד »-הסתר טקסט מצוטט-
>
> -הראה טקסט מצוטט-
Thanks for the clarification!
Then there are in fact 2 original quad mixes... too bad they didnt use
the american one,
Listening to it after knowing the stereo one for all these years was
mind-blowing - many details I didnt notice before (forgot to add the
cough in soycd- didnt notice that too in the "new" quad....)
>
> > > > > -הראה טקסט מצוטט-- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text --הסתר טקסט מצוטט-
>
> > > -הראה טקסט מצוטט-
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "SurroundSound" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to Surrou...@googlegroups.com
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > SurroundSoun...@googlegroups.com
> > For more options, visit this group at
>
> ...
> > > > > -הראה טקסט מצוטט-- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text --הסתר טקסט מצוטט-
>
> > > -הראה טקסט מצוטט-
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "SurroundSound" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to Surrou...@googlegroups.com
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > SurroundSoun...@googlegroups.com
> > For more options, visit this group at
>
>
> קרא עוד »-הסתר טקסט מצוטט-
>
> -הראה טקסט מצוטט-
Stephen Disney
Nov 16, 2011, 4:28:54 PM11/16/11
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
Nope, but its sounds crystal clear in the 5.1. Again definitely some interesting moments.
S
S
scolumbo
Nov 16, 2011, 4:30:59 PM11/16/11
to SurroundSound
Maybe it's been mentioned and I missed it, but has anyone compared the
5.1 mix on the SACD with the 5.1 mix in the blu-ray and are they the
same? I don't have the SACD, but I'm not impressed with the 5.1 on the
blu-ray.
The quad version on the blu-ray is superior to the 5.1 in a lot of
ways, not the least of which is that the mix is better IMO. For
instance, the radio at the beginning of the WYWH track is in the right
front where it should be instead of the right rear. I also think the
sonics on the quad are superior, more air and clarity. Vocals seem
more distinct.
On Nov 15, 1:13 pm, August Bleed <bleed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No time to check this out yet but it was recently posted on computer
> audiophile and I believe it is talking about the new remasters for blu ray
> and such for PF. Dunno if this will add anything to the discussion but I
> will certainly be reading it with the comments made here in mind.http://www.superdeluxeedition.com/interview/interview-pink-floyd-engi...
> > groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound-הסתר<http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound-%D7%94%D7%A1%D7%AA%D7%A8>טקסט מצוטט-
5.1 mix on the SACD with the 5.1 mix in the blu-ray and are they the
same? I don't have the SACD, but I'm not impressed with the 5.1 on the
blu-ray.
The quad version on the blu-ray is superior to the 5.1 in a lot of
ways, not the least of which is that the mix is better IMO. For
instance, the radio at the beginning of the WYWH track is in the right
front where it should be instead of the right rear. I also think the
sonics on the quad are superior, more air and clarity. Vocals seem
more distinct.
On Nov 15, 1:13 pm, August Bleed <bleed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No time to check this out yet but it was recently posted on computer
> audiophile and I believe it is talking about the new remasters for blu ray
> and such for PF. Dunno if this will add anything to the discussion but I
Stephen Disney
Nov 16, 2011, 4:35:13 PM11/16/11
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
The 5.1 from the SACD and Blu came from the same master... per the interview. I don't have the SACD yet to A/B. And frankly don't care to waste the money. I'll stick with the Blu.
S
S
August Bleed
Nov 17, 2011, 6:20:00 PM11/17/11
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
Did a better listen to the quad. Absolutely better than the 5.1. I first listened to some flacs of the tracks so that may have had something to do with the sound. Listening to the disc proper borrowed from a friend with an income seems to indicate this. Oh well, the flacs were just to give it a whirl. Alas I love the quad. I kept thinking I had accidentally selected the wrong one as the feeling of a center channel is really strong. I don't know if that says more about my system or the mix. I expected my AVR to not do so well with this as they recommend the ole 5 same speaker thing. My speakers are balanced but not the same size. Anyway I expected perhaps the quad might suffer a little bit because of this but not at all. I guess I have done at least an ok job with bass management. The bass is really nice and analog sounding without being artificial. I am not sure the reason for moving all the drums to the LFE channel as aren't they not going that low typically in rock? Subs are a recent phenomena...I don't even use one nor have I ever felt the need for one with proper speakers. But the mix is just great. Not so the 5.1. Loud, no separation, ect. I love the girls singing. Totally missed them on the new mix. No idea they were there as I said not real familiar with it until recently. Couldn't hear em at all on the new mix. Does the SACD contain just the new mix or perchance did they compress the MC and put both on there?
Brian Treml
Nov 17, 2011, 7:55:08 PM11/17/11
to SurroundSound
The SACD only has the 5.1 and the Stereo. You need to give your money
to the man to get the honey pot of Quad or downlad one of the various
homemade ones out there. While not as clean as the DVD they do offer
the same material and in some cases much better resolution.
On Nov 17, 5:20 pm, August Bleed <bleed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Did a better listen to the quad. Absolutely better than the 5.1. I first
> listened to some flacs of the tracks so that may have had something to do
> with the sound. Listening to the disc proper borrowed from a friend with
> an income seems to indicate this. Oh well, the flacs were just to give it a
> whirl. Alas I love the quad. I kept thinking I had accidentally selected
> the wrong one as the feeling of a center channel is really strong. I don't
> know if that says more about my system or the mix. I expected my AVR to not
> do so well with this as they recommend the ole 5 same speaker thing. My
> speakers are balanced but not the same size. Anyway I expected perhaps the
> quad might suffer a little bit because of this but not at all. I guess I
> have done at least an ok job with bass management. The bass is really nice
> and analog sounding without being artificial. I am not sure the reason for
> moving all the drums to the LFE channel as aren't they not going that low
> typically in rock? Subs are a recent phenomena...I don't even use one nor
> have I ever felt the need for one with proper speakers. But the mix is
> just great. Not so the 5.1. Loud, no separation, ect. I love the girls
> singing. Totally missed them on the new mix. No idea they were there as I
> said not real familiar with it until recently. Couldn't hear em at all on
> the new mix. Does the SACD contain just the new mix or perchance did they
> compress the MC and put both on there?
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
to the man to get the honey pot of Quad or downlad one of the various
homemade ones out there. While not as clean as the DVD they do offer
the same material and in some cases much better resolution.
On Nov 17, 5:20 pm, August Bleed <bleed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Did a better listen to the quad. Absolutely better than the 5.1. I first
> listened to some flacs of the tracks so that may have had something to do
> with the sound. Listening to the disc proper borrowed from a friend with
> an income seems to indicate this. Oh well, the flacs were just to give it a
> whirl. Alas I love the quad. I kept thinking I had accidentally selected
> the wrong one as the feeling of a center channel is really strong. I don't
> know if that says more about my system or the mix. I expected my AVR to not
> do so well with this as they recommend the ole 5 same speaker thing. My
> speakers are balanced but not the same size. Anyway I expected perhaps the
> quad might suffer a little bit because of this but not at all. I guess I
> have done at least an ok job with bass management. The bass is really nice
> and analog sounding without being artificial. I am not sure the reason for
> moving all the drums to the LFE channel as aren't they not going that low
> typically in rock? Subs are a recent phenomena...I don't even use one nor
> have I ever felt the need for one with proper speakers. But the mix is
> just great. Not so the 5.1. Loud, no separation, ect. I love the girls
> singing. Totally missed them on the new mix. No idea they were there as I
> said not real familiar with it until recently. Couldn't hear em at all on
> the new mix. Does the SACD contain just the new mix or perchance did they
> compress the MC and put both on there?
>
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Stephen Disney <sthunderroc...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
> > The 5.1 from the SACD and Blu came from the same master... per the
> > interview. I don't have the SACD yet to A/B. And frankly don't care to
> > waste the money. I'll stick with the Blu.
> > S
>
>
>
>
> > The 5.1 from the SACD and Blu came from the same master... per the
> > interview. I don't have the SACD yet to A/B. And frankly don't care to
> > waste the money. I'll stick with the Blu.
> > S
>
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Dynaquad
Nov 18, 2011, 8:39:16 PM11/18/11
to SurroundSound
"Ave we got it yet?"
No, see separate post.
Only the Hub had it.
Weak and Pathetic...
No, see separate post.
Only the Hub had it.
Weak and Pathetic...
Highlander
Dec 6, 2011, 2:30:04 PM12/6/11
to SurroundSound
Hello all...been gone for a while...married now. :-) Anyway, I've
been catching up on a couple months worth or reading here and found
this URL to add to this particular thread (sorry if it has been posted
already)
http://www.pinkfloydz.com/wywhsacd.htm
been catching up on a couple months worth or reading here and found
this URL to add to this particular thread (sorry if it has been posted
already)
http://www.pinkfloydz.com/wywhsacd.htm
October 14-16th, the Rocky Mountain AudioFest was held in Colorado and
as part of that event, Wish You Were Here received it's debut in the
5.1 SACD format. Presenters included Host-Chad Kassem of Acoustic
Sounds; James Guthrie and Joel Plante of das boot recording and Gus
Skinas of Super Audio Center among others...
This part really caught my eye though, "....in regards to scheduling
for future 5.1 projects, Guthrie remarked that The Wall would likely
be the next project and the one he most desires, but because the
process moves very slowly there is no actual timetable as of now in
regards to its completion.
Though there is reason enough to savor this professional victory,
Guthrie’s schedule – even after the debut of the Why Pink Floyd…?
campaign – is still absolutely packed, including of late: mastering of
the new Kate Bush album 50 Words For Snow, and work on the audio mix
of the upcoming Roger Waters DVD/Blu-ray release of The Wall Live:
30th Anniversary (as six performances were filmed and recorded at
Athens’ OAKA Arena for the project with Guthrie and Plante assuming
recording engineering duties). With additional Experience and
Immersion sets being discussed for next year and beyond, Guthrie’s
role in the organization remains sonically essential as Pink Floyd
officially reveals the depth and breadth of their legacy for the
enjoyment of all fans."
From reading this excerpt, I hope Meddle and Animals are in the
pipeline for surround next year...now that would be really incredible
news next year!
Cheers, Highlander
> ...
>
> read more »
Stephen Disney
Dec 7, 2011, 1:29:23 AM12/7/11
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
Congrats Highlander!
Now to the point. That's all well and good that the Wall will (hopefully) eventually be surround... but the Immersion set has a set date. Will the surround version be free to those who purchased? Not likely. So will we eventually get a Deeper Immersion set? Ludicrous.
S
Now to the point. That's all well and good that the Wall will (hopefully) eventually be surround... but the Immersion set has a set date. Will the surround version be free to those who purchased? Not likely. So will we eventually get a Deeper Immersion set? Ludicrous.
S
grill
Dec 7, 2011, 4:25:24 AM12/7/11
to SurroundSound
I hope it will be a separate SACD release and not to wait several
years for it.
years for it.
> ...
>
> tovább »- Idézett szöveg elrejtése -
>
> - Idézett szöveg megjelenítése -
Highlander
Dec 7, 2011, 1:51:21 PM12/7/11
to SurroundSound
Thanks Stephen! These $100 plus box sets are getting out of hand.
People are buying them though, so record companies will keep mining
the anniversary dates of some of their best selling back titles.
Hopefully, Thick As A Brick will be coming up soon, we'll see.
As with Grill, I hope Floyd's The Wall will be a separate SACD
surround release too. However, the statement above, "With additional
Experience and Immersion sets being discussed for next year and
beyond..." really sounds exciting. It's been a dream for me, and many
others, to hear Meddle in surround from the multi-track tapes...not to
mention the underrated Animals. Especially, since rumors have been
floating around for years that these were mixed in Quad back in the
day...
People are buying them though, so record companies will keep mining
the anniversary dates of some of their best selling back titles.
Hopefully, Thick As A Brick will be coming up soon, we'll see.
As with Grill, I hope Floyd's The Wall will be a separate SACD
surround release too. However, the statement above, "With additional
Experience and Immersion sets being discussed for next year and
others, to hear Meddle in surround from the multi-track tapes...not to
mention the underrated Animals. Especially, since rumors have been
floating around for years that these were mixed in Quad back in the
day...
Glad to be back...this group continues to soldier on in the face of
the stereo MP3 majority. Onward and upward with hi-res surround!
> ...
>
> read more »
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages