HiRez Poll Doors - PERCEPTION (DVD-A Box Set)

[GabeL]

I just received this yesterday (bought used, turned out it was sealed, on Amazon for a mere $49.00US) and I'm very pleased with the sound quality, packaging, bonus features, in general very pleased. Now for a couple questions. I'm no Doors expert and I do not have the quad records, so I'm curious to know where these mixes came from. Also, I'm hearing a significant addition of random vocals from Jim Morrison...were these on the original releases or have they been added in...I never noticed them on the cds I had. Perhaps this is simply due to the increased fidelity of the dvdas? By the way, I didn't purchase the big box, but rather the smaller cheaper version...why bother with bulk. Oh yeah, I gave it a 7 because the surround aspect of things is only semi-present on some albums/songs...rather inconsistent mixes.

 

[daved64]

I just received this yesterday (bought used, turned out it was sealed, on Amazon for a mere $49.00US) and I'm very pleased with the sound quality, packaging, bonus features, in general very pleased. Now for a couple questions. I'm no Doors expert and I do not have the quad records, so I'm curious to know where these mixes came from. Also, I'm hearing a significant addition of random vocals from Jim Morrison...were these on the original releases or have they been added in...I never noticed them on the cds I had. Perhaps this is simply due to the increased fidelity of the dvdas? By the way, I didn't purchase the big box, but rather the smaller cheaper version...why bother with bulk.

They're all new mixes by Bruce Botnick, except LA WOman which is the same mix as the original DVD-A.

 

[GabeL]

Thanks for the information.

They're all new mixes by Bruce Botnick, except LA WOman which is the same mix as the original DVD-A.

 

[cupboy]

Kind of sucks when you go to play it and find out it's gone. Maybe I sold it when the SACDs came out. So that means I've lost all those bonus tracks and stereo re-mixes. Weird. Screw buying a used one though.

update: Searched my old e-mail and found I sold it for $129 (minus fees) in June of 2012. Well at least I got some decent money for it.

 

[quattroatl]

Kind of sucks when you go to play it and find out it's gone. Maybe I sold it when the SACDs came out. So that means I've lost all those bonus tracks and stereo re-mixes. Weird. Screw buying a used one though.

update: Searched my old e-mail and found I sold it for $129 (minus fees) in June of 2012. Well at least I got some decent money for it.

I have an extra unopened non peephole Perception box set. I've been searching for Alison Krauss and Union Station Live sacd. Have one for trade maybe?

 

[cupboy]

Neither one.

I've ordered this CD since it has the track I'm looking for:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Weird-Scenes-Inside-Goldmine-Doors/dp/B0009S87YE

Maybe it will come out on SACD later.

 

[Quad Linda]

Borders! I bought my peep hole version at Borders the first day it was out. I used them for most of my new releases, including box sets. $75 with my Borders Bucks. My Dylan mono CD box was $65 with Borders Bucks, and I got the complete Miles on Columbia and the ultra deluxe Bitches Brew at $199 for both. They also gave me a Preferred Customer card free with this purchase. Usually, it was $25. There were three within five miles of my house. I miss Borders.

I share most of the opinions expressed here. The bass isn't an issue for me, with four Mission towers and my B&K preamp set to large.

I've been debating whether to go 9 or 10. Still, warts and all, IMHO, it is the best surround box set. So, 10 it is.

I picked up a copy of the magazine "Uncut" (from the UK) this week at a Borders, the January 2007 issue . There is a write up of this box set on page 116.

Not only do they not even mention the surround sound tracks AT ALL, they actually point out that the box sets "cornerstone is the six CDs, not the short DVDs that accompany them."

 

[EMB]

What some listeners don't realize is that not all speakers are full range--that is, not every set, however expensive, can play back bass response accurately enough to allow you not to need a subwoofer to compensate (not that having a sub is ever unnecessary, it's just the easiest piece of equipment to misuse--like equalizers, one becomes used to tweaking as needed, and of course tweaking can become a habit).

Needless to say, some remasters--and some recordings--simply lack bass, sometimes due to how the recording was remastered, and often, because there simply wasn't a lot on the master tape to start with. The Doors' remasters--both stereo and surround--seem to have the bass frequencies they should have, I don't hear anything amiss in that regard, and I've been listening to the band since 1967. In terms of frequency range, the first album's stereo redo and 3-track (essentially) surround blows away any vinyl edition I've ever heard, and the lack of compression really opens up the sound.

In other words, an essential box set even discounting the bonus tracks, vids, etc.

ED

 

[Quad Linda]

My apologies, in advance, for many/most of you who already know this stuff, and could perhaps teach me a few things.

After reading Ed's comments, it appears that the Perception box itself may not be the problem in some instances. I'll be the first to admit that the bass level and/or low bass response can vary widely by recording. My collection of 78's, and transfers of those to LP's and CD's are often lacking in low bass, which is to be expected. If track(s) are missing bass altogether or are full range with little or no information on the .1 channel, it is probable that you'll get little or no bass without changing your settings. Also, realize that a non-remastered '60's LP or CD may have a great deal of mid-bass, but little or no low bass or subsonics. Subsonics are, of course, frequencies that can be felt, though not heard.

Many people fail to realize that there are many types of subwoofers. When subs were introduced in the late '70's, everyone had "full range speakers." Subwoofers were introduced to provide audiophiles with low bass and subsonics to augment the performance of full range speakers. Later, sub/sat systems offered a much smaller footprint via 5 speakers with midranges and tweeters only, and a bass module. The third type is Bose Acoustimass, with 5 speakers that are essentially tweeters, handling the upper midrange and high frequencies. The bass module offers only upper bass and lower midrange. Except for Bose, there are still wide variations in frequency response and/or range of crossover frequencies available for different subwoofers.

For those who are having bass issues on these or any other recordings, I respectfully suggest first checking the frequency range of both your sub and your 5 (or 4, 6, or 7) speakers. If they're not a good match, you will have a "hole" in your frequency response, i.e. a gap between your mains and sub(s.) If they are compatible, you may want to "dial in" the level and crossover frequency of your sub(s) again.

Bass management on your receiver or preamp is another crucial aspect. If that is set to "large," you could potentially damage your satellite speakers by overwhelming them with bass they weren't designed to handle. More likely, if you have full range speakers and you set the bass management to "small," you'll get minimal bass, especially with no sub. Also, is the sub function on your receiver or preamp turned on, and what kind of sub is it set for? For example, my B&K preamp has several sub settings, including THX Ultra, which is proper for my REL sub.

Careful attention to settings and "dialing in" the subs can make all the difference in the world. "Hey, I just want to listen to music, I don't want to be a recording engineer!" @:

 

[wavelength]

Setting the phase is very important too. Proper Phase adjustment minimizes "cancellation" when bass frequencies output by the Sub mingle with bass frequencies output by the main speakers.
more here if you are interested:
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1439524/official-oppo-bdp-105-owners-thread/10200#post_24634126

 

[Quad Linda]

+10 db comingled with -10 db = zip

 

[keenly]

Do anybody else HATE the way the drums are in one channel on right side? Really annoying. The debut album has them in left speaker. L.A Woman is fine but the rest of the titles often featured the drums in front right channel only. This is a stupid mixing choice IMO.

 

[EMB]

Do anybody else HATE the way the drums are in one channel on right side? Really annoying. The debut album has them in left speaker. L.A Woman is fine but the rest of the titles often featured the drums in front right channel only. This is a stupid mixing choice IMO.

I can't really argue with you, insofar as the logic of instrument placement in a 5.1 musical setting goes...although I'm not sure, at times, exactly WHERE percussion should be. Some Santana quad's suggest, well, HERE, THERE, EVERYWHERE, SPIRALING AROUND THE ROOM, moving around, you know...which I know aggravates some listeners, but I think that kind of distraction has actually made me play them more over the years than, say, a more conventional quad mix of an album I personally consider more highly.

But since we're discussing the Doors, up front we have to remember that these mixes were approved by the surviving band members and supervised by in all ways by trusted people from mix to release, so therefore we must assume this is, ultimately, what they wanted. For the debut, the 4-channel mixes from BEST OF THE DOORS obviously didn't pass muster, since they are not in any way replicated here (bonus tracks of those mixes, however, would have been nice to have for posterity). Here, for instance, "Light My Fire" without Jim's vocals is essentially a stereo remix with back ambience, nothing more. Yet the clarity and definition are such that whatever qualms I have are always eased whenever I put it on. The album is very special to me anyway, but beyond that, there are aspects of it that are so revealed here that no vinyl or CD remaster (including such examples as the MFSL vinyl, or the later remixed CD's) have offered. On that alone this is an essential box, IMO.

As for bass response, see wavelength and Linda's posts above. It may be that some serious system tweaks are in order...or your system simply can't offer enough for what has been mastered. Only the listener can make that assessment. But what I hear seems to be 'right,' and if it doesn't work for you, a little Eq or sub action should fix that problem. If not (as a late friend used to say)...JUST TURN IT UP AND PASS OUT THE BREWS!

ED

 

[jimfisheye]

I was really looking forward to finally hearing all the surround mixes of these albums. I have only been able to get my hands on the "Best of the Doors" Q4 RTR release (all of these have been out of print for a long time now) and I thought the quad surround mixes were really on point.

So... The original surround mixes are not included for ANY of the albums! And the new 5.1 surround mixes they have been replaced with... honestly, these sound like more of the thing that was going on in the early 2000's where 'you can't release a DVDA without a surround mix' - so call in the intern to knock it out real quick! (Because we're not involving the band for some reason.) Super awkward "expanded stereo" intern mix with reverb that doesn't match heavy in the rear and an isolated lead vox in the center (not supported by reflections anywhere else whatsoever). No attention to detail or following any cues from the original mixes.

Pretty damn insulting to the original mixes IMHO!

Anyone know the story behind this? I don't see any liner notes about 'original mixes were lost' or 'so and so hated the original quad mixes'.
Was there drama over the originals or was this just a cheap bait & switch quasi-bootleg (ie. not sanctioned by the artists) record company release?

I'd still really like to hear all the original quad surround mixes. The "(Far from the) Best of the Doors" is a nice tease and the mixes are great!

 

[JonUrban]

I was really looking forward to finally hearing all the surround mixes of these albums. I have only been able to get my hands on the "Best of the Doors" Q4 RTR release (all of these have been out of print for a long time now) and I thought the quad surround mixes were really on point.

So... The original surround mixes are not included for ANY of the albums! And the new 5.1 surround mixes they have been replaced with... honestly, these sound like more of the thing that was going on in the early 2000's where 'you can't release a DVDA without a surround mix' - so call in the intern to knock it out real quick! (Because we're not involving the band for some reason.) Super awkward "expanded stereo" intern mix with reverb that doesn't match heavy in the rear and an isolated lead vox in the center (not supported by reflections anywhere else whatsoever). No attention to detail or following any cues from the original mixes.

Pretty damn insulting to the original mixes IMHO!

Anyone know the story behind this? I don't see any liner notes about 'original mixes were lost' or 'so and so hated the original quad mixes'.
Was there drama over the originals or was this just a cheap bait & switch quasi-bootleg (ie. not sanctioned by the artists) record company release?

I'd still really like to hear all the original quad surround mixes. The "(Far from the) Best of the Doors" is a nice tease and the mixes are great!

Well, get the latest (July-August 2015) Sound and Vision magazine and there is an entire piece in there about these mixes. They did not want
"things in the back", they wanted an expanded stereo with lots of ambiance in these mixes. It's 5.1, but it's not an "on stage" type of 5.1.

Thankfully, the original 1973 quad mix is now available on SACD from Audio Fidelity. There is much written in the forum about this one. It just came out so you can find it everywhere SACDs are currently sold. Unfortunately, the BEST OF DOORS LP was the only quad album released by the group back in the '70s, so there are no other vintage quadraphonic mixes of the core albums, so Perception is it.

 

[jimfisheye]

Well, get the latest (July-August 2015) Sound and Vision magazine and there is an entire piece in there about these mixes. They did not want
"things in the back", they wanted an expanded stereo with lots of ambiance in these mixes. It's 5.1, but it's not an "on stage" type of 5.1.

So... they just didn't like surround sound at all in other words. Well, for good or bad that's an answer then.

Unfortunately, the BEST OF DOORS LP was the only quad album released by the group back in the '70s, so there are no other vintage quadraphonic mixes of the core albums, so Perception is it.

I missed that info! So they had planned on the whole catalog (and advertised it with pictures of the RTR tapes and everything) but only ever released the Best Of album? Well... that sure explains why I don't see them anywhere! Oh well... stereo it is then. (The original stereo mixes sound much bigger and fuller than the crude 5.1 remixes.)

 

[Jeffrey Michael]

Although, I haven't read the article yet, I received my issue of S&V yesterday. It's not that I hate the Perception Box, it's the way the surround is presented in that there seems to be low levels on some instruments in songs and missing parts on others. Mostly, I listen to the stereo mixes because they sound better to me.

 

[Cibola]

Do anybody else HATE the way the drums are in one channel on right side? Really annoying. The debut album has them in left speaker. L.A Woman is fine but the rest of the titles often featured the drums in front right channel only. This is a stupid mixing choice IMO.

I'm listening to Morrison Hotel right now and also question the placement choice but on this one at least, the drums are equally prominent in the center channel. Thanks to those posting on Perception recently, it inspired me to give these a spin again. Morrison Hotel sounds fantastic.

 

[GOS]

Just in case all you guys are in doubt....the DOORS rule. This new Quad will be amazing. We can put all our complaints to bed....though I never had any.

 

[EMB]

When it comes to 'missing parts' of songs, that's not unusual in remixes from multitrack sources; or, back in the day, between mono and stereo mixes, for that matter. Apparently either parts were recorded on a separate tape and not included in the multis, or else mixed directly to the mono or stereo originals, rendering 'flying in' such tapes difficult if not impossible not so long ago (but much easier to do now). The Doors' "The End" is a definitive example, since the original mono mix was not censored, while the stereo version most came to know was, at least until recent years.

Overall, though, and leaving aside the decision to basically 3-track the debut album, I have no problems at all with the sound or (in general) the 5.1 remixes. There are going to be omissions, additions, or discrepancies, that's just the nature of the remixing process and the availability and condition of the multis. And if the mixes are not as discrete at times as one might wish, they're not 'double stereo' or anything ludicrous like that. The remaining band was not interesting in putting out the old mixes; like Talking Heads and others, they wanted to redo everything taking advantage of modern technology, and I think the result was damned good considering the scope of the project (woulda been nice if some of the live material had been given the same treatment, but, well...)

As Jon noted, we have the quad album on SACD now, and yes, most of us will prefer those mixes to the later ones, for various reasons (usually mixing choices). But given how many acts haven't remixed their catalogs and have no intention of doing so, I'm not about to quibble over what was done on the box.

ED