Roger Waters The Wall Live - Official Release
- Thread starter rontoon
- Start date
Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:
Me too!!!
Yeah, I got there too late. The price is now $39
Got it in the mail today AWEEEESOME - Thanks Vegas \o/ :banana:
- - - Updated - - -
Got it in the mail today AWEEEESOME - Thanks Vegas \o/ :banana:
It is back on Sale LUvMyQuad get it noooooooooooooooooow :banana:
Got mine today it is a great deal :music
https://www.amazon.com/Roger-Waters.../ref=tmm_mfc_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
I also got it for $13 and change.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
salsdali
1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
It's funny, every review I read of this on Amazon, no one, not once, even mentioned this is 7.1 (as opposed to 5.1). Hello, it's The Wall in surround, but not just any old 5.1 surround but 7.1. What's not to like about that? Sounds like Rog may know a thing or two about surround
I watched this last night on my 7.1 system (Dolby TrueHD, not atmos) and was completely blown away. Both the video and audio are reference quality (played through my oppo 93), although, I admit, I may be down to a 6.1 or 5.1 system now since I think one (or more lol) of the bombs or explosion effects may have blown out a speaker or 2. lol, just kidding
I liked how Roger interspersed the concert with the quieter journey and I think virtually all the reviews have completely missed the entire point of this film and of The Wall in general.
Everyone needs to give good ole Rog a break. He's 70 something for God's sake. Can't he just do what he pleases instead of what everyone would like from him. H'mm that sounds vaguely familiar, perhaps from, Oh, I don't know, The Wall itself
The bonus disc videos were a very nice addition as well.
so (apparently almost 2 years later according to the date of my original post) I finally upgraded to a proper atmos system and my original review of a 9 not only stands but is now even better with the added atmos height speakers. A 9 and not a 10 ONLY because Dave and crew are missing.
I get so emotional every time I view this and IMO that's exactly what real music is all about, not just how it sounds but how it makes you feel.
"music is meant to be felt, not heard" - anonymous
Also, the visuals (animation) are fantastic and the whole show production is top notch.
I mean really, how many concerts have you all been to and can say that they top this show?? I'm betting none. Sure, we've all been to concerts, whether imitate or large that the band was really "on" that night and it was the concert of our lives but this show just captures EVERYTHING that a great rock concert is about. Is it "staged" and not "live"? Duh. If you wanted "live" Pink Floyd you'd probably be 60 today and would have never seen them back in their hey day.
So ya
Thought ya
Might like to
Go to the show.
To feel that warm thrill of confusion,
That space cadet glow.
I've got some bad news for you sunshine,
Pink isn't well, he stayed back at the hotel
And they sent us along as a surrogate band
We're gonna find out where you fans really stand.
BTW, why don't we have a poll for this release?
Just viewed this tonight. Listened in ordinary Dolby TrueHD 7.1 and in Dolby Atmos.
The 7.1 sounded great. No complaints. Once we engaged Atmos, however, we were blown-away.
It is NOT a subtle difference. This film in Atmos kicks ASS.
The movie is wonderful, to me, too. I thought, as a war vet, that I was potentially going to be offended by the anti-war rhetoric strewn between the songs and in the visuals.
I wasn't. I think the film is very respectful and underscores the massive sacrifice and sense of loss suffered by those who have experienced death as a result of war, in some way. I found myself holding back tears quite a few times and this film will get repeated viewings.
Is Roger's singing always perfect? No. I'm a stickler for vocal performance. But it is reasonably good. And he hires singers to tackle tough parts.
I thoroughly love this. Glad I bought it.
The 7.1 sounded great. No complaints. Once we engaged Atmos, however, we were blown-away.
It is NOT a subtle difference. This film in Atmos kicks ASS.
The movie is wonderful, to me, too. I thought, as a war vet, that I was potentially going to be offended by the anti-war rhetoric strewn between the songs and in the visuals.
I wasn't. I think the film is very respectful and underscores the massive sacrifice and sense of loss suffered by those who have experienced death as a result of war, in some way. I found myself holding back tears quite a few times and this film will get repeated viewings.
Is Roger's singing always perfect? No. I'm a stickler for vocal performance. But it is reasonably good. And he hires singers to tackle tough parts.
I thoroughly love this. Glad I bought it.
That's because most of his vocals are canned.
Perhaps. I don't really care though. Music should sound good.
jimfisheye
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 3,030
Except for the screaming snarling parts. He hasn't ever hired anyone to cover those since he hasn't been able to deliver that anymore. The Wall is just loaded with arrangements for screaming and snarling of course and it sounds kind of gutted with no one covering those parts. That's really been the biggest weakness for me. The taped parts are kind of an extension of Floyd using fx tapes live in the past to me. It's not like Roger is some vocal diva with the focus of the shows on his vocal prowess. Roger's nuance is theater.
PS. Dolby Atmos is a system designed to take advantage of lesser speaker systems and redirect content in a way that gets results on less than ideal systems. (Less than ideal quality speakers to less than a full 5.1 or 7.1 array to those fake scammy soundbar gimmicks sold at Worst Purchase and such.) On a full 5.1 or 7.1 speaker array, there should be no audible difference between straight PCM 5.1 and the Atmos system. So... If I heard a difference I would look for what I screwed up with the settings.
PPS. Every time I talk to anyone from the armed services my respect for them goes up while my disdain for the commanders in chief drops lower. Closest I ever got was running sound for a band that volunteered for an Armed Forces Entertainment tour.
PS. Dolby Atmos is a system designed to take advantage of lesser speaker systems and redirect content in a way that gets results on less than ideal systems. (Less than ideal quality speakers to less than a full 5.1 or 7.1 array to those fake scammy soundbar gimmicks sold at Worst Purchase and such.) On a full 5.1 or 7.1 speaker array, there should be no audible difference between straight PCM 5.1 and the Atmos system. So... If I heard a difference I would look for what I screwed up with the settings.
I can't wait to read the ensuing arguments over this... I'll simply say your view does not square with my experience or everything I have ever read and heard about Atmos.
In the US, the military is run by civilians, i.e. the POTUS and the Secretary of Defense. They, in theory at least, serve the people.
Commanders are tasked to accomplish orders given from above.
In general, I have served with commanders who did their best to effectively accomplish their given mission with minimal unfortunate aspects. Some commanders are better than others. Most do not have an easy job, certainly not one I would wish to be responsible for.
Neil Palfreyman
1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
The guy is 74 and still putting on exceptional shows. What would you rather him do?
I am not an Atmos user, nor have I ever heard it. But what you are saying just doesn't make sense.
To my understanding, Atmos is a surround format with an added height dimension. Can you explain or direct me to something that does explain how the added height functionality can make up for lesser quality speakers?
And if there is no audible difference between a full non-Atmos 5.1/7.1 speaker array and an Atmos 5.1/7.1 speaker array, then what is the point of a 5.1/7.1 Atmos system? Certainly the height FX speakers have to contribute to the overall sound field in some audible way.
I assure you that my 7.1 system is set up properly. Everything I have played on it sounds as it should, comparing what I'm hearing to others' reviews.
7.1 sounds great on it. The Wall, in 7.1 Atmos sounds greater on it.
There is a remarkable difference, previous poster is wrong about no audible advantage. I've heard a fairly decent 9.1.6 Atmos system and was just astounded, sound was like walking outside and hearing birds above you and the loud car behind you etc. Fully immersed in sound, its really amazing how this replicates daily sounds you hear everywhere.
The shop had a large viewing/sound room and they were in the process of setting up a 34 speaker full on Atmos system, when the building owner didn't renew their lease.
So relocated to a smaller building and it didn't make sense to go 34 at this time even the 9.1.6 is too much for the closet size viewing/audio rooms.
Have a 5.1.2 in the back and it hands down sounds better then my 7.2, just added 2 heights on top of Polk free standing towers.
Didn't want to spend big bucks on a band I didn't care for release in Atmos (rem) and happy to have the Inxs kick Atmos pre-ordered.
I'm running 7.1.2. Front heights matched to my other speakers.
jimfisheye
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 3,030
You can feed an ambisonic mix into the Atmos system and it will support the height dimension yes. That means the mix has to be made with an ambisonic system or an Atmos version of that to begin with. I'm not at all dismissing that either! The other big factor though is the ability of the system to use odd speaker arrays. Including specifically some of the cheapness products and gimmicky cheap speakers. That's not nothing either. Crafty actually.
The point is though, if the original mix was 5.1 or 7.1, the most the Atmos system would or should do is deliver that 1:1 to a 5.1 or 7.1 speaker array and they should sound bit for bit identical. Now maybe they DID mix this album in ambisonic with height dimensions! Do they say so?
Now if the Atmos system can do some crafty phase manipulations to get some height perception to come across on a standard 5.1 or 7.1 array for program that was mixed in ambisonic, that's fair enough. It possibly has the ability to come across better on said 5.1 array than a ambisonic fold down to 5.1 would. Your listening experience seems to suggest this.
Sorry if the comment about operator came across the wrong way. I was thinking purely of my own behind the scenes moronic operator errors where I have to tell myself "This shouldn't sound this way... What the heck did I set wrong this time?!"
The main point is if the mix is standard 5.1 or 7.1, the most an Atmos system could do is deliver that 1:1 to a 5.1 or 7.1 speaker array. That's all.
Obviously an ambisonic mix made for and directed to a 34 speaker surround array is brute force surround sound and an excellent thing to do! No argument there. Content needs to be mixed for that though. Otherwise there'd be nothing to hear any more than playing a 4.0 mix on a 5.1 array vs. a 4.0 array.
I'm still living in 5.1 land here and planning on upgrading 5.1 arrays and listening spaces for a while before getting more channels. But I'll always agree that more speakers is always better! The only thing better than that would be more speakers. Or maybe catching the rest of the world up to 5.1 surround at least and steering them away from Worst Purchase stores.
The point is though, if the original mix was 5.1 or 7.1, the most the Atmos system would or should do is deliver that 1:1 to a 5.1 or 7.1 speaker array and they should sound bit for bit identical. Now maybe they DID mix this album in ambisonic with height dimensions! Do they say so?
Now if the Atmos system can do some crafty phase manipulations to get some height perception to come across on a standard 5.1 or 7.1 array for program that was mixed in ambisonic, that's fair enough. It possibly has the ability to come across better on said 5.1 array than a ambisonic fold down to 5.1 would. Your listening experience seems to suggest this.
Sorry if the comment about operator came across the wrong way. I was thinking purely of my own behind the scenes moronic operator errors where I have to tell myself "This shouldn't sound this way... What the heck did I set wrong this time?!"
The main point is if the mix is standard 5.1 or 7.1, the most an Atmos system could do is deliver that 1:1 to a 5.1 or 7.1 speaker array. That's all.
Obviously an ambisonic mix made for and directed to a 34 speaker surround array is brute force surround sound and an excellent thing to do! No argument there. Content needs to be mixed for that though. Otherwise there'd be nothing to hear any more than playing a 4.0 mix on a 5.1 array vs. a 4.0 array.
I'm still living in 5.1 land here and planning on upgrading 5.1 arrays and listening spaces for a while before getting more channels. But I'll always agree that more speakers is always better!
The only thing better than that would be more speakers. Or maybe catching the rest of the world up to 5.1 surround at least and steering them away from Worst Purchase stores.
Ok we agree so far, and I learned something. I just assumed the height channels were discrete, when apparently they are actually matrix.
This is where you start to loose me a bit. Doesn't any system have the ability to use poor speakers and/or odd speaker arrays? It sounds to me like you are inferring that an Atmos setup (ie: the added height dimension) improves the sound of a low quality speaker array. Is that what you are saying? Or do you simply mean the one can hear the Atmos effect, even with poor speakers/arrays? And if you mean the latter, one can also hear the intended 7.1, 5.1, 4.0 and 2.0 effect with poor speakers/arrays. And if you are referring to the packaging of low quality Atmos systems at big box stores and the like, its really no different or "craftier" that was done with similar 5.1 surround packages. What is "crafty" about it?
OK, sure. I thought I had read that there is a version of this title in Dolby Atmos. Someone who knows please confirm.
Now if the Atmos system can do some crafty phase manipulations to get some height perception to come across on a standard 5.1 or 7.1 array for program that was mixed in ambisonic, that's fair enough. It possibly has the ability to come across better on said 5.1 array than a ambisonic fold down to 5.1 would. Your listening experience seems to suggest this.?
The main point is if the mix is standard 5.1 or 7.1, the most an Atmos system could do is deliver that 1:1 to a 5.1 or 7.1 speaker array. That's all.
Obviously an ambisonic mix made for and directed to a 34 speaker surround array is brute force surround sound and an excellent thing to do! No argument there. Content needs to be mixed for that though. Otherwise there'd be nothing to hear any more than playing a 4.0 mix on a 5.1 array vs. a 4.0 array.
I'm still living in 5.1 land here and planning on upgrading 5.1 arrays and listening spaces for a while before getting more channels. But I'll always agree that more speakers is always better!
I do partially disagree with the bolded comment. I certainly agree that more discreet channels can be better. And encoded/decoded matrixed signals can often produce excellent results (look no further than the best SQ encodes for proof of this). But random processing to derive synthesized channels similar to something like the Dolby PLII effect are very hit and miss for me. For every time I have felt there was an improvement in using this kind of enhancement, there are 50 other times where I felt it just detracted from the original unprocessed signal. It just blurs the existing image too much for my tastes. More speakers for the sake of more speakers, just doesn't work.
jimfisheye
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 3,030
They CAN be discrete. If the mix was made on a system with that kind of panning/joysticking control and if it is played back on a big enough speaker array with the same discrete channels, you will have 1:1 discrete playback of exactly what the mix engineer heard. With smaller arrays, the system is intelligent and matrix's the surround appropriately.
The "reference" system would be a big surround array with intentional placement of course. If you read the notes on the system, one of the premises was it would have the ability to learn someone's home speaker array. For a wild example, it would be able to use the radio on the shelf in the back of the room and the TV speaker in the corner if the right content was played through it with sounds located in those spots. Genuinely crafty in that it's trying to intelligently use whatever the heck people have laying around. Like those gimmicky soundbar things sold at Worst Purchase.
A more sane example would be matrixing a 9.1 mix into a 5.1 array. The best results still come from intentionally setting up speakers properly and calibrating a system. The idea here is for the consumer that flat out refuses to help, this system delivers a better experience with processing.
Indeed.
I was being a little silly with my speaker comment there. Read that part while making the rock and roll finger sign or something...
Yeah, the closer you get to 1:1 with the mix as delivered is always the best. Er... always the most accurate as delivered by the mix engineer whatever you might think of it that is. The least processing and fewest preamp stages a signal goes through the better in ideal conditions.
I don't mean to disparage any of this even though my original comment had a 'rolling my eyes' element to it. I was thinking now hold on, let's get the average consumer into 5.1 first. And right now that average consumer has their 2 stereo speakers next to each other (yes mono!) in the corner of the room! Small steps. And then the part where most mixes out there are 5.1 at most. For those mixes with a 5.1 array, you're already there and the Atmos system should deliver the exact same mix 1:1. On the other hand, making an intelligent system that can make use of those poorly placed speakers is pretty crafty even if not ideal.
Alright, so if Roger mixed this monster in Atmos/ambisonic that's pretty cutting edge and cool! Not sure how that adds up to the reviews of the mix being volume war crushed. I haven't heard it so that could be bs or operator error. But it leads me to this question: If Roger is being cutting edge with this why the heck was his new studio album only released with a rough stereo mix with the squashed 'portable device' mastering treatment?!
Similar threads
