SACD MulitChannel WAVE Files & Review

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

JonUrban

Forum Curmudgeon
Staff member
Admin
Moderator
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Mar 2, 2002
Messages
17,681
Location
Connecticut
Thanks to WalMart, I got the SACD Saturday. Here is what the channels look like as wave files.....


<img src="http://pages.cthome.net/iasct/images/sacddsotm.jpg"/>


*review below*
 
Thanks Jon!

Just looking at the wave files I can tell that the mix is nowhere near the quad release, and that the mix is a helluva lot less active and discrete. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/ohwell.gif ALT=":\"> Oh well, it still probably sounds excellent.

I can't stand waiting any more! You guys are driving me nuts! Even though I have this on pre-order, I'm going straight to Wal-Mart to pick it up! I hope the one near here has it out...

 
<strong>HERE IS MY "QUICK RUN THROUGH" REVIEW</strong>

I set up both M/C mixes in SF and played them bit by bit, one at a time. I used the SACD and the Tab Conversion of the discrete Alan Parsons Mix ( from Quad 8 ) . ;)

<strong>[SPEAK TO ME/BREATH] </strong>

The Alan Parsons Mix (AP) starts out pretty much the same as the SACD, however the "voices" are much clearer and easier to understand on the SACD. They are in different places, and seem to have more of an "effect" to them. The guitars in the AP mix are firmly planted in the rears, and much easier to "hear" as individual instruments. This is consistant throughout the album. The dynamics on the SACD are incredible, with the vocals jumping out at you. I instantly liked the SACD because of the better dynamic and vocal effect here. However, most of the "directional aspects" have been moved to the front. On the AP mix at about 1:30, Gilmours vocal is in the rear, while it is in the front on the SACD.

<strong> [ON THE RUN] </strong>

The AP mix has much better panning of the "sounds" and the footsteps. The "announcement" that sounds like it is coming from a PA system is firmly in the rears on the AP mix, while on the SACD it is in the center. The running footsteps run across the rears in the AP mix, while they are mostly in the fronts on the SACD. Overall, the AP mix has superior placement of the sounds (some may call this the "gimmick"). The SACD has a broader soundfield, probably due to the increased fidelity and the center speaker. This SACD sounds GREAT!!! However, it seems that the SACD has a bit more echo or reverb to it. One place the SACD does more movement of sounds is around 6:30, there is a laughing dude who stays in the rear left on the AP mix, but on the SACD, he starts in the rear right and swirls around to the rear left. Towards the end of the track, the footsteps are in different locations in the two mixes.

<strong> [TIME] </strong>

A surround specatcular in both versions, the clocks are in different places, but it does not matter. In some respects, the SACD is clearer, with a "Big Ben" clock chiming towards the end of the clock section being brough "up front" on the SACD, while being buried in the mix on the AP version. Once the tune gets going, the Tom Toms sound like they are reverbed on the SACD, while on the AP mix they are clearer. The keyboard "dings" are bright and clear in the AP mix, and a bit subdued and less defined on the SACD. In the AP mix, they are in the rear, SACD in the front. Again, the guitars are discrete and in the rear on the AP, they are blended into the front soundfield on the SACD.

<strong> [GREAT GIG IN THE SKY] </strong>

This track is the most similar between the two mixes of them all. The piano sounds clear as a bell on the SACD, and the vocal is again stunning. Except for the discrete guitar in the rears on the AP mix, they are about the same.

<strong> [MONEY] </strong>

Another surround spectacular, the cash register starts in the front left on the AP mix, and in the center speaker on the SACD. Both versions are super discrete on the opening sound effects, with different placement of the sounds, but both effective. Again, super discrete guitars in the rear on the AP version. Towards the end, there are some differences in the placement of the effects. There is a voice that says " I Was Really Drunk at the Time"....he is in the rear left on the AP, in the fromt right on the SACD.

<strong> [US & THEM] </strong>

Up until now, I was THRILLED with the SACD. It sounds great, and the mix is super. It was on this song that I got brung down.

This, to me, is the masterpiece of this work, and for those of you that read the "Four Sides of the Moon" article, you will know how much work mixing this track in surround was back in the '70s. The AP mix has the echoing voice move from speaker to speaker, discrete as hell. Us-Us-Us-Us-Us-Us-Us swirl around the room with pinpoint percision in the AP mix. In the SACD version, they do not. Sure, they move a bit, but there is more echo and loose placement of the repeated words. This is a MAXIMUM BUMMER to me. Of course, if you never heard the AP mix (and I am not talking about the US Quad 8 track or the UK SQ LP) you will think this sounds great. You will just have to take my word for it and be happy with this, as it does sound great. Those who know the AP mix will know to keep it!

<strong> [ANY COLOR YOU LIKE/BRAIN DAMAMGE/ECLIPSE] </strong>

These tracks pretty much follow suit. The AP mix keeps the guitars discrete and in the rears, the SACD mixes them in. The laughing and voices move around and are in different places on both mixes. At the end of the album, a voice says "There is No Dark Side of the Moon, Really". On the AP mix, this is clear and in the front. It is sort of muffled on the SACD.

The SACD sounds incredible. The mix is great, and should boost the surround sound market tremendously. The only bummer is the mix on US and THEM. Aside from that, it is a wonderful, super-sounding presentation.

One thing, the SACD is mastered LOUD. Many a speaker may blow at the begining.

Please follow with your comments!
 
Ugh, just got back from Wal-Mart in Renton (closest one to Seattle) and they did not have the DSOTM SACD. I even had them go in the back and look to make sure they just hadn't put it out yet, but no go. Maybe the early stock is just an east coast thang... <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/ohwell.gif ALT=":\">
 
Hey Jon, thanks for the lowdown. Between the interviews and reviews I've read thus far, including your wave snapshots and what you've said, I'm beginning to think the DSOTM surround SACD can be summed up thusly:

Tastes great! Less filling!

 
Jon:

I take your comments to be praise for the disc, but to indicate that its new mix doesn't measure up in certain respects to the Alan Parsons quad mix. While it might be a bit too trivializing to describe it as "tastes great, less filling" (I recognize someone else said that in jest), I think the significance of the new disc has to be assessed in a light separate from the prior quadrophonic mix, for the simple reason that if multichannel music gets a shot in the arm, and eventually succeeds, it will have to be because of the current technology which permits listeners to enjoy it.

I certainly don't doubt the interest factor in comparing it to the quad version, as we certainly tried (and still intend on following through) to get hold of the equipment that would permit the comparison (the timing of the advance disc was the factor that most heavily influenced things). However, what I'm noticing a little bit of from some of the comments on this board is that the quad mix has already attained something of icon status--so that there is a reaction to the HFR review in its statement that the SACD surround mix is "new" (no, some insist, there is a prior, different surround version and it is wrong to call the SACD "new").

While that may be true in the strictest sense, I would encourage a balanced response in light of the world, 2003. Quadrophonic is a distant technology, surely ahead of its time and, in retrospect, every surround aficionado proves right those who went to bat for it professionally or as a consumer, way back when. That said, the thing which is new and alive is the SACD of DSOTM, and it is new, if only because of the format, and the different surround mix. For that matter, if we're fortunate enough that someone would later take a crack at a DVD-Audio version, we would yet have a third surround version to form a basis of comparison. And that too would be new.

I fell in love with both multichannel SACD and DVD-Audio so long ago that the notion of a format war was long ago made irrelevant--to me-- since I decided that I was going to enjoy both, now, in whatever ways the manufacturers would permit me. I've been surprised to read (not on this thread) of how many people are still reacting negatively to the fact that DSOTM is on SACD, when, hopefully, our response would be that the smarter thing to do would be to buy it and enjoy it and recognize the great case it makes for Surround Music in 2003, regardless of the format it's on.

Surround enthusiasts have a tough nut to crack if their preferred formats are ever going to have a chance at succeeding; the bias and vehement disregard that comes from the two channel crowd is some of the staunchest "made-up-my-mind-so-don't-even-bother-making-sense" attitude I've ever seen. I would simply brace everyone to prepare for the next wave of argument from that group, i.e., that even the surround crowd admits the currently produced surround music is not as good as the quad stuff that "failed" two decades ago. Forget about how unfair that statement really "is"--no one ever said that such discussions get conducted fairly.

The DSTOM disc can certainly be compared to the quad version or anything else that one chooses. However, its merits, in my opinion, should not be qualified by reference to a technology which is a thing of the past, and which is obscure to all but a few. Please, no one take offense, since none is intended.

Kindest regards,

Nick


 
Nick,

I think my closing statement reflects how much I liked the surround presentation:

<em>The SACD sounds incredible. The mix is great, and should boost the surround sound market tremendously. The only bummer is the mix on US and THEM. Aside from that, it is a wonderful, super-sounding presentation.</em>

I compared it to the AP version for us "old timers" who may be interested in the comparison. As for its "format" or whatever, I am just glad that the general public will now have access to a surround mix of an album that should have been available that way in the first place.

As you state, I am not taking offense, I just think that if you derived that I did not like the new mix, you were wrong. BRING IT ON!!


 
I couldn't agree more. And that's the best thing about this forum compared to the other message boards around the net, the members of QQ, as a whole, have the most balanced outlook and the least negativity (and there's a real underlying motif of refusing to fight a format war, that's extremely refreshing). I've read EVERY post that this board has published, even all the old Yahoo ones - and everybody learns who has what prejudices and who is truly open-minded pretty quickly so it's easy to know where to take your pinch of salt. Even in the rare post that seems to contain a bit of trolling or unwarranted bias, there's usually some good info contained in it. To quote David Fricke, "respect the elders, embrace the new, and encourage the impractical and improbable without bias".
 
I checked out 3 Walmarts close by and no dice/no disc. I guess I am going to have to wait until Tuesday. Hopefully the local BestBuy (or Walmarts) will receive enough product. Thanks for the speaker warning. I will start it out low and go from there. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of subwoofer output though so it looks like most of the bass is in the other speakers (where it really belongs other than the extremely low bass of course).
 
Hi Nick,

Thank you for your thoughtful post and I'm glad you noticed that QQ has managed to remain largely unbiased and open-minded. I have a feeling that is what most of our members appreciate about this place.

It is hard for me to say anything about the new DSOTM surround mix since I haven't heard it yet (it's driving me crazy waiting, I tell ya!) However, I find your comment about quad being a distant technology to be a bit off the mark in the context for which you state it. It seems you are using this as justification for the new surround remix. What if I were to apply this same logic to the stereo mix? If quad is a distant technology then stereo must be considered positively ancient. Therefore, a new stereo mix should be welcomed even more than a new surround mix, right? Oh boy, I cannot imagine the uproar if this were to occur.

I can imagine that the next piece of justification for the surround remix is in degree: relatively few people have heard the original surround mix, therefore it is okay to step on their toes with a new surround mix. By this statement you might think that I'm a hardcore purist who doesn't want the heritage of the original surround mix tainted. This is not the case. I actually welcome the new surround mix. It's just that I'm seeing this double standard being perpetuated by the stereo purist crowd that it is somehow okay to mess with the heritage of surround-sound while it is considered blasphemy to do the same with stereo.

Switching gears a bit here, I do understand the importance of the new surround mix. This is pure speculation here, but I'm guessing a new, less aggressive, more "stereo" surround mix is being employed in hopes of warming up stereo diehards to surround sound. While I agree that this may be useful in coaxing some of these folks over to the "dark side" (no pun intended) of surround sound, it also has the potential downside of moving towards a future of "watered down" surround-sound titles. The clarion call of the stereo crowd seems to be "surround is fine if the rears are used for ambience only".

Now, I know the new DSOTM surround mix is very active, if not as aggressive as the original, but I think most surround aficionados here would agree that the more discrete and aggressive mixes are the most enjoyable. If I had to choose a future of more, less aggressive surround titles versus fewer, more aggressive surround titles, I would choose the latter in a heartbeat. I don't want my surround-sound dumbed-down for the stereo crowd. Unfortunately, this may be what it takes for surround sound to really succeed.

Finally, although I am looking forward to the new DSOTM surround mix, and although I do feel there is a place for it, I still want the heritage of the original mix to be retained in some fashion. Hopefully this mix will get the proper hi-rez treatment it most certainly does deserve. In the meantime, we’ll just have to be satisfied with our lossy, compressed DTS bootlegs “mastered” from the 8-track tape cartridge (now THERE’S distant technology for ya!)

Regards,
Cai

 
Having posted my opinion of the new version versus the old version elswhere and reading some of the post here , My opinion is base on the mix not the format it was on , so let's just get that part clear the dsd-sacd/mc version sound wise is kick butt over the tape quad version hands down. That said The Mix is the BIG let down ! The Parson mix is more effective in most respects and use of the channels , and that was what was lacking in the "NEW" mix in 5.1 Thou Excellent in respects to sound quality, The hair up on the back of the neck effect is just not there ! I'll keep my Quad and 5.1 dts versions to show that to anyone Who thinks other wise! Alan -Where are you!
Rob:rolleyes: <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/ohwell.gif ALT=":\"> :(
 
Well, I've never heard the Parsons mix, and from what everybody here's been saying, I'm not sure I want to (yet - ha) because I'm blown away by the SACD 5.1 mix. Hair was raised on the back of my neck, my heart was actually racing at times and throughout the listening experience, I was "lost" in the music. I didn't find myself thinking about technology, the mix, or anything but the music and I think that speaks volumes about the new mix. I'm not discrediting ANY of you guy's reviews, not in the least nor am I necessarily disagreeing with the points brought up about the new mix. I am, however, pretty certain that people like me who are not familiar with the AP mix will be duly blown away, and also like me, not really care about the AP mix (for now, that is). I do want to hear the AP mix one day (hopefully soon), the way all you guys have described it makes me sure I'll dig it, but as far as the SACD goes, I don't have a lick of disappointment and I see it as the most important step in promoting surround-sound to the masses.

Last night I invited a few friends over under the ruse of just hanging out and having a few drinks. Then I slipped DSOTM on. They were all silent and wide-eyed throughout the listening. Afterwards, my friend Mike said "how much $ will it take me to have that in my house?". SOLD!! My friends are not exactly what you would call audiophiles, but they certainly heard the difference and they also definitely got educated last night and I expect that today they're doing the famous "word of mouth" thing ("oh man, last night I heard the most outrageous thing.....") and that's what primarily makes this SACD a big big deal. So, it's in THIS respect alone that I say the AP mix is neither here nor there. I also played the Brain Salad Surgery DVD-A and bits and pieces from other SACD's and DVD-A's and the bottom line was, DSOTM was the one that made the biggest impression.

Personally, I find the mix to be very involving, immersive, aggressive, whatever the proper term is for "completely kick-ass". I suppose what some would call subtle use of rears at times, I would call "life-like" - if the rears were any more aggressive, I think it might have come off as sounding a bit surreal, as in "not real". Maybe I'm wrong here and when I eventually hear the AP mix I'll realize my error in judgment (I swear, I'm open-minded and have no prejudices and if the AP mix turns out to be that much better mix-wise, I will certainly say so). But even on some of the classical MC-mixes I've played, where the rears are strictly ambient, I think it's perfect (the Boulez Bartok Concerto for Orchestra and the Vinicour performance of the Goldberg Variations in particular). I hate to keep using the same phrase over and over, but it's the "life-like" quality of the mixes and the sense of space it was recorded in that blows me away. Gimmicky mixes are cool too, I'm not ragging on them at all, but I think it's most important that the trend lean toward realistic sound rather than studio trickery. Having said that, the "gimmicks" and "trickery" on the new DSOTM are amazingly entertaining, and in abundance - but still the whole work has a true feeling of being REAL. Thousands of people can now say they've had Pink Floyd in their living rooms, that's the way I look at it.

Please, everyone - especially JonUrban and Rob, don't take this as an attack on your reviews or as any means of disrespect, that's so NOT what I mean at all. It's because of your reviews that I do yearn to hear the AP mix (sound-quality warts and all). I don't get a feeling that either of you trashed the SACD like some may intrepet it, you both laid down objective and informative cases in my opinion, bravo and thanks, you guys are what makes this forum so awesome! It's obviously not a case of old vs. new, it's about the future of surround. Or should I say the "present-day" of surround! OK, I'm ready for Meddle and Atom Heart Mother please....and oh yeah, Wish You Were Here, Animals and The Wall are more than welcome as well! And Piper At The Gates too (somebody stop me!)
 
This is a WIDESCREEN post.

It has NOT been modified to fit your screen! :cool:
 
So, I think the question is. How do you get the AP Version to the "unwashed masses"? I certainly don't have any quad equipment. And a I probably don't live near anyone who has Quad 8 setup with DSOTM. Has anyone digitized this? As I do have access/ability to create a 4-channel environment on my PC.

Just a thought,

HutcH
 
Back
Top