HiRez Poll Pink Floyd - DARK SIDE OF THE MOON [Blu-Ray Audio]

Mike the Fish said:

I'm finding the quad mix a tad bass light - has anybody else felt that? Also some of the vocals on the Guthrie mix sounded like they had that strange wash on the vocals like that on some data compressed files. Out of the two mixes I prefer the Parsons quad by some distance.

Click to expand...

The fact that the quad mix is bass light might be because of the mix of full range bass and LFE on the 5.1 mix, getting it a little more 'oomph' in the low end. That's one of the reasons I prefer to listen to the 5.1 over the Quad mix, but I know I'm one of the few people here who actually feel that way… :violin

Mike the Fish said:

I'm finding the quad mix a tad bass light - has anybody else felt that?

Click to expand...

Not that I recall, but I'd be happy to give it another spin soon to confirm! In the meantime, maybe turn the volume knob on your sub up a little?

rtbluray said:

The fact that the quad mix is bass light might be because of the mix of full range bass and LFE on the 5.1 mix, getting it a little more 'oomph' in the low end. That's one of the reasons I prefer to listen to the 5.1 over the Quad mix, but I know I'm one of the few people here who actually feel that way… :violin

Click to expand...

There's one more :couch

It's pretty much a given that the 5.1 mix is a higher quality audio version just because of the source material being remixed in the 2000's and not the 1970's. Even those that prefer and love the AP 4.0 mix will admit that fact.

As for the lack of bass, remember that the 4.0 mix does not use the sub where the 5.1 does. There's another feather in the 5.1's cap. If you don't have full range FL FR RL RR then the bass will be lacking without some sort of bass management that funnels the lows to the sub.

JonUrban said:

As for the lack of bass, remember that the 4.0 mix does not use the sub... ...without some sort of bass management that funnels the lows to the sub.

Click to expand...

I'm fortunate that bass-management exists on my system. 4 giant speakers would lead to divorce in my household. lol

JonUrban said:

It's pretty much a given that the 5.1 mix is a higher quality audio version just because of the source material being remixed in the 2000's and not the 1970's. Even those that prefer and love the AP 4.0 mix will admit that fact.

As for the lack of bass, remember that the 4.0 mix does not use the sub where the 5.1 does. There's another feather in the 5.1's cap. If you don't have full range FL FR RL RR then the bass will be lacking without some sort of bass management that funnels the lows to the sub.

Click to expand...

I agree with the assessment of the overall fidelity. But my version of the AP mix came as 4.1. I checked to be sure.

LuvMyQuad said:

I agree with the assessment of the overall fidelity. But my version of the AP mix came as 4.1. I checked to be sure.

Click to expand...

That's interesting, I'll have to check that too. I finally had a chance to listen to the 4.0 mix straight through last weekend and was satisfied overall no issues with the low end. After fiddling with settings for the recent AF 4.0 SACD's over several months, I think I've got it and indeed it involved AVR bass management. Before, I only tried the 5.1 version but now I'd like to get to know both better.

LuvMyQuad said:

I agree with the assessment of the overall fidelity. But my version of the AP mix came as 4.1. I checked to be sure.

Click to expand...

Yes I have the 4.1 version also. It is the Parson's mix with a LFE channel added. That would be the mix that was available as a torrent download for so many years; maybe it still is.

edisonbaggins said:

In the meantime, maybe turn the volume knob on your sub up a little?

Click to expand...

JonUrban said:

If you don't have full range FL FR RL RR then the bass will be lacking without some sort of bass management that funnels the lows to the sub.

Click to expand...

This is a sub free zone - I don't like them (mind you, I don't have the space either). Fronts are full range, rears are recently improved, but still not full range, current amp bass manages.

Mike the Fish said:

This is a sub free zone - I don't like them (mind you, I don't have the space either). Fronts are full range, rears are recently improved, but still not full range, current amp bass manages.

Click to expand...

Bass manages how? If there is no sub what is there to manage? In any case, we may know now why the mix is sounding a little bass shy, if you're saying the rears don't have quite the bass output your fronts do.

edisonbaggins said:

Bass manages how? If there is no sub what is there to manage? In any case, we may know now why the mix is sounding a little bass shy, if you're saying the rears don't have quite the bass output your fronts do.

Click to expand...

I think some receivers and processors, if you setup Rears as "Small" and Front L&R as "Large" and set to No Sub will divert the low bass from the Rear channels to the Front L&R and those Front speakers will then handle as much low bass as they can?

personally I have a love/hate relationships with Subs.. but since I've moved to a place with a stone floor (I'm getting really good at not dropping those Jewel cases! ) everything's less lively in the low end without the Sub on, whereas before in a room with suspended wooden floors I hardly ever put the Sub on for Music..
ah, all this tech talk, I'm off for a beer :beer2

What is considered true full range, btw? My fronts can go down to 47hz, which should do it for most bass sounds. Still, it is recommended to use a sub with them, crossover set to around 100hz. That tells me they don't have the "oomph" down there. And I can confirm. My puppy unplugged my sub a few weeks ago and I felt that everything I was listening to was a little wimpy. There was still bass, but it wasn't quite doin it for me.
I think full range goes down to 30hz, right? But there also has to be some kind of performance standard too, maybe? Response? Oomph?

edisonbaggins said:

What is considered true full range, btw? My fronts can go down to 47hz, which should do it for most bass sounds. Still, it is recommended to use a sub with them, crossover set to around 100hz. That tells me they don't have the "oomph" down there. And I can confirm. My puppy unplugged my sub a few weeks ago and I felt that everything I was listening to was a little wimpy. There was still bass, but it wasn't quite doin it for me.
I think full range goes down to 30hz, right? But there also has to be some kind of performance standard too, maybe? Response? Oomph?

Click to expand...

Yup, you're right...about 30 Hz (+/- 3dB) would be real bass....
Also remember the fact of the "bass trap" (if you place a speaker in a corner, it will boost the bass)...
My JBLs go down to 36 dB and the right Front is in a corner , so I get a bit more bass...

As for Subwoofer, I would LOVE to get one, but I'm afraid I'd have the cops visiting me the next day (I live in an apt.)

edisonbaggins said:

Bass manages how? If there is no sub what is there to manage?

Click to expand...

Adam picked up on it a bit, bass at rear and centre can get sent to front pair, sub info can get sent to front pair. I thought that was fairly common.

kap'n krunch said:

As for Subwoofer, I would LOVE to get one, but I'm afraid I'd have the cops visiting me the next day (I live in an apt.)

Click to expand...

Just mount that sucker to the back of the couch! You can turn it down and get a massage!

Yes, like my subcouchwoofer!

Spock said:

Yes, like my subcouchwoofer!

Click to expand...

OMG. NEED.

Spock said:

Yes, like my subcouchwoofer!

Click to expand...

I have to admit...I didn't see that one coming:couch

It worked great for movies - but am now using Butt-kickers on the couch - more effective. Watching San Andreas in that couch is frightening!

edisonbaggins said:

OMG. NEED.

Click to expand...

After a time, you may find that having is not so pleasing a thing after all as wanting. It is not logical, but is often true.