HiRez Poll Pink Floyd - WISH YOU WERE HERE [Blu-Ray Audio]

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

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

Rate the BDA of Pink Floyd - WISH YOU WERE HERE


  • Total voters
    163
This poll is messed up. Are people voting for the 5.1 or the quad, or both? I think to make the results correct we need to either separate, or vote for your preferred surround mix on the disc and say which one.

Polls are for the disc, not a specific mix or version. As the title says, "Rate the Blu-Ray Disc" of WYWH (or something like that) :)

Mike, You can vote the mix by going to the SQ/Q8 poll for the Quadraphionic Mix, or the SACD poll, which is the Guthrie mix. There really is no section in the forum for "mix voting" because, well, there are already enough forum sections as it is! :)

For most discs, there is only one surround mix. In the case of these 2011 Blu-Rays, we get the old and the new. So, vote the disc as an entity, and in your post you can debate the virtues of each version. This isn't rocket science, and in reality it "don't mean a thing". That's why if someone wants to vote a '1' on something that I think is perfection, or 90% of the members think is perfect, well, that's there perogative.

Cai Campbell's poll calculation formual looks for outliers and for the SACD/DVD-A polls, that formula is in use, and the number of outliers is listed on the HiRez Poll results list, along with detailed numbers on the votes for each title. If enough people vote, you will get a pretty good idea with regards to how good the disc is.

Personally, I would rate this Blu-Ray high, because not only do we finally get the long awaited 5.1 mix (like it or not), we also got the Quadraphonic Mix in a quality that we would have only hoped for a few years ago. So to me, the disc is a winner for both camps.

If you don't like the price, the package, the marbles, the format, or whatever, incorporate that all in your vote. As I said before, voting a '1' would mean this disc was equal or worse to some Silverline crap, and to me, it's much better than one of those - a LOT better.
 
Jon the Blu Ray does come with all of teh other extras as well show screens though they could have been synced up better press kit, and Hi rez stereo (I know not what we are here for), so from a content perspetive and surround perspective (Two very different mixes) this has to score high.
 
Forgive me if this has been addressed before: If the Immersion set features the 'original quad mix', why is it missing the extra synth bit at the end of side two after "Welcome To The Machine"?

"Welcome to the Machine" ends side one. If you're talking about what I think you're talking about, it was a mastering error specific to the American Columbia SQ record and not something meant to be there. You won't find it on the 8-track or the British Harvest/EMI pressings.
 
I agree that this one is a little difficult to rate. James Guthrie just doesn't get surround sound. He does a piss poor job of making the most out of the 5.1 channels and his mix is definitely a disappointment to me. I much prefer the quad mix, but don't think the fidelity is near as good as on his mix. In fact, even though his mix is a let down, I played it start to finish very loud and think it's the best it's ever sounded to me. The fidelity is amazing and I do think, while the mix is way too conservative, it does open it up and allow sounds that have been hidden to come through. I felt like I was hearing it from a new perspective and got a thrill out of a 36 year old album that overcame my disappointment in the mix itself. I also consider it to be one of the greatest albums ever, so that would skew my rating high also. I think he could have made the best surround disc ever and he didn't. But it sounds damn good and, in the end, that's what matters most.

Anyway, I'll live with it for a while longer before I vote, but even with my desire for a better surround mix, it's probably going to be and 8 or 9.

K
 
Well, like the title states "Rate the Blu-Ray Surround Release of Pink Floyd - WISH YOU WERE HERE" with regard to surround, fidelity, and content. What emarkay has just voted shows that he doesn't like the quad version of WYWH or the content of the album, not to mention the new mix in 5.1. He just doesn't like Pink Floyd's WYWH at all. Since he mentioned he's heard the album before and yet he didn't like the content, why did he buy the blu-ray? Did he think the new format would improve the content? Yes, something is messed up, but its not the poll.


Come come now, you must know me better than that, being on QQ also... The first pressing, the English Import, the half speed LP , the gold CD, the Toshiba import CD, all, as good as it got, but only 2 channel.

Being only 48, the first Quad I heard a few years ago was impressive. The restored Hub version - now I understand that it is from the English mix - fantastic.

Jimmy G. needs to get the boot, for while he he may be a masterworker, he does not get what it was to hold a co-ordinator in one's hands while wearing 2 sets of cans....

No, sadly, those, and others, like Rick Wakeman and Mr. Parsons have all given it up. We are loosing a rare part of audio history if we keep "reinventing history" for the cheap and easily amused, and are carelessly sending BRA to the same dustbin as DVDA/SACD, VHS/Beta, Elasette and SQ/Matrix...

However, the Disc 2 DVD, the one with the non-tape-traded Raving and Drooling, the rare and embarrassing original vocals on Have a Cigar, and the Holy Grail of the violin solo on WWYH; this alone does justify the price of the silly clear balls...

Fuggedaboudit, I have what I treasure and only can add things to compare to what I feel is the reference; as flawed as it is; I am fortunate for what I have.

Thanks you to all who have preserved the past, and well, whatever, nevermind...
 
I agree that this one is a little difficult to rate. James Guthrie just doesn't get surround sound. He does a piss poor job of making the most out of the 5.1 channels and his mix is definitely a disappointment to me. I much prefer the quad mix, but don't think the fidelity is near as good as on his mix. In fact, even though his mix is a let down, I played it start to finish very loud and think it's the best it's ever sounded to me. The fidelity is amazing and I do think, while the mix is way too conservative, it does open it up and allow sounds that have been hidden to come through. I felt like I was hearing it from a new perspective and got a thrill out of a 36 year old album that overcame my disappointment in the mix itself. I also consider it to be one of the greatest albums ever, so that would skew my rating high also. I think he could have made the best surround disc ever and he didn't. But it sounds damn good and, in the end, that's what matters most.

Anyway, I'll live with it for a while longer before I vote, but even with my desire for a better surround mix, it's probably going to be and 8 or 9.

K

Wow! Excellent post. I could not have said it better myself! :)
 
Come come now, you must know me better than that, being on QQ also... The first pressing, the English Import, the half speed LP , the gold CD, the Toshiba import CD, all, as good as it got, but only 2 channel...

I was just pointing out what a 2 vote would represent in the context of the poll's definition. You're certainly free to vote however you like. If the 5.1 mix was so bad as to act like a black hole and suck all the goodness from the 4.0 mix then a 2 vote is reasonable. From what I've read, some folks dislike the 5.1 mix so much I'm surprised we haven't seen some negative numbers cast as votes. :D
 
Yes, the 5.1 is no better than the 4.0 in terms of ?"awesomeness" - and as I have been listening to both - BRA only.

Now, more importantly, I note some annoying "phasing" or "channel hopping" points of F to R "holes" in the both versions, especially if I am out of the "sweet spot". I am aware of the "tricks" used to make LP's sound "Quad" when they were pressed as "Quad" (to allow the matrix to not cancel out and other issues), and similar, strangely, issues in early DVD-type surround systems. but someone, please, tell me:

These are 4 or 6 discrete channels on the Blu-ray, mastered for Blu-ray, not an "LP master" on the quad and a downconverted DD/DTS mix on the 5.1 and slapped on a glass master?

Thank you.
 
I am awaiting the arrival of the SACD and I've listened to the Blu-Ray...pardon my naivete, but should the Blu-Ray sound better/fuller (simply based on data storage availability on the disc)?

has anyone bought both the BluRay and the SACD? How do they stack up?
 
I am awaiting the arrival of the SACD and I've listened to the Blu-Ray...pardon my naivete, but should the Blu-Ray sound better/fuller (simply based on data storage availability on the disc)?

Not sure what the bit rate is on the SACD I have both the BD and SACD of DSOTM and the 96/24 BD in 5.1 is dramatically better (IMHO). Was curious if this was the case with WYWH as well as I will not be getting the SACD on this one.
 
Not sure what the bit rate is on the SACD I have both the BD and SACD of DSOTM and the 96/24 BD in 5.1 is dramatically better (IMHO). Was curious if this was the case with WYWH as well as I will not be getting the SACD on this one.

Well, I'll let you know if I hear any difference when the SACD arrives. Cheers and Go Steelers!!!
 
Even though there are issues with the BD here (clicking at the end of WYWH 5.1) I cannot find it in me to rate this anything other than a big 10.
This is how you do it - Everyone else take note.
My main gripe is that you have to spring the bucks for stuff you do not want - basically the BD cost me £100, as near as damn it, and that is a nasty tactic.
Also the DVD should have better quality audio on it, given not everyone has a Blu-Ray player using 640kbps DD over DTS 9624 is just plain dumb.

That's it for the criticism though, and the music here is simply superb.
We could argue about the merits of the quad mix over the 5.1 mix all day long - I must admit I prefer the quad for many, many reasons (the main one being the 5.1 is done in a style I just do not really like - it's what I think of as "Big Stereo") but it is fascinating being able to skip between the 2 and compare immediately what is going on - this was one of the big flaws in DVD-A, as whenever you switch streams it restarts the track again. Here, you can swap and it is to the same place. Excellent.
This also reveals that the running times are different on the 5.1, as it is noticeably shorter in WTTM, and the reprise present on the vinyl SQ is also missing here in both versions.

What's great here is the quality - although I am not totally convinced by the mastering as it is - it could be better, although that said it could be a whole lot worse too.
There is almost no headroom at all in the 5.1 mix, and this is particularly noticeable on "Have A Cigar" where the Quad is simply more dynamic, despite (or maybe "in spite of"?) the modern "remastering" carried out on it (lots of extra thump in the bass, reduced dynamics - although this is much, much more noticeable on DSOTM).
Both mixes have their good points though, as well as their minuses, and all in all I definitely do not regret buying this even though I would much rather have been given the option to have just the BD disc.
 
There is almost no headroom at all in the 5.1 mix, and this is particularly noticeable on "Have A Cigar" where the Quad is simply more dynamic, despite (or maybe "in spite of"?) the modern "remastering" carried out on it (lots of extra thump in the bass, reduced dynamics - although this is much, much more noticeable on DSOTM).

I was just going to ask whether the visible compression on the 5.1 tracks in the graphs also was audible. Is that James Guthries doing?
 
Just added, and I really had a good time last nite!
What a difference. Had this one new years ago. It was one
of my favorites then and now it's one of the best, right next to DSOTM.
 
We could argue about the merits of the quad mix over the 5.1 mix all day long - I must admit I prefer the quad for many, many reasons (the main one being the 5.1 is done in a style I just do not really like - it's what I think of as "Big Stereo") but it is fascinating being able to skip between the 2 and compare immediately what is going on - this was one of the big flaws in DVD-A, as whenever you switch streams it restarts the track again. Here, you can swap and it is to the same place. Excellent.

This also reveals that the running times are different on the 5.1, as it is noticeably shorter in WTTM, and the reprise present on the vinyl SQ is also missing here in both versions.

What's great here is the quality - although I am not totally convinced by the mastering as it is - it could be better, although that said it could be a whole lot worse too.
There is almost no headroom at all in the 5.1 mix, and this is particularly noticeable on "Have A Cigar" where the Quad is simply more dynamic, despite (or maybe "in spite of"?) the modern "remastering" carried out on it (lots of extra thump in the bass, reduced dynamics - although this is much, much more noticeable on DSOTM). Both mixes have their good points though, as well as their minuses, and all in all I definitely do not regret buying this even though I would much rather have been given the option to have just the BD disc.
Neil, Thank you for summarizing something that is pretty close to how I feel as well.

I think that for a project like this, it would have been interesting to hear some more separation and definition on the 5.1, and although it is very much an aesthetic judgment call I cannot say that I am a fan of the aforementioned 'big stereo' (that so many modern producers seem to automatically fall for nowadays, but just as well popular with the A&R departments) either. Rather, with regards to soundstage the sort of discrete Van-Gelder-ish placement philosophy while obviously less beefy and muscular usually leaves me with a better after-taste. There is undoubtedly more power and judicious usage of the extended frequencies here as many have mentioned, but overall I really wonder if this project wouldn't have benefited from a bit more radical input contributed by someone not afraid to take chances and possibly with the perspective of an outsider, rather than one who has been so intimately tied with the band?

If anything, and going back to concepts of those early days, I still tremendously enjoy grooving to something like what Eddie Kramer did on "Axis Bold As Love" with far more limited technical means, but somehow there was a confluence of the technology available and the creativity it helped foster, all of it sounding effortless and natural rather than contrived. When they did things with panning, tape manipulation, flanging the whole kit, it didn't sound entirely gratuitous, it actually helped highlight a feeling.

It's of course easy for us armchair pundits to start dissecting the new offerings, but for some reason I was hoping for something with less of that big 'in your face' kind of sound, and more subtle weaving usage of the acoustic guitars and other elements in the new mix. After living with Fripp &Co's deliberate use of the center channel for vocals, as well as the same on Genesis, I must say that for me - even though there's really nothing to fault and it is a fine offering indeed - I was somehow expecting a little bit more 'ear candy', not the cheap razzle-dazzle motion effects, but the kind of things that only become endearing with repeated listens and that in my mind were the very essence of what Pink Floyd was notorious for.

So to me, this 5.1 is like the 'corporate consensus mix'. Safe, works seven days a week, nothing that Joe Surround will hate on his system, but no wow moments except (as others have pointed out) for the great treatment on WTTM.

Just as with Steely Dan needing several attempts at nailing it with their multiple 5.1 remixed versions of "Gaucho", this may mean that hopefully there is still room to deliver a more emotional, impressionistic and psychedelic interpretation of this landmark recording at some point in the future. If you are going to remix something, is there a law stating that creatively speaking nothing beyond what was originally done is allowed almost 40 years later?

Point being, at least to my ears the jaw-dropping 'vision' mix hasn't been created yet. The kind of thing Salvador Dali would have done if he was into sound...

If anyone associated with the projects read this, it is not as if we are ungrateful for the many long sessions that must have undoubtedly happened to make this colossal undertaking possible; I would like to clarify that this sort of commentary is exactly the same as what I have heard often times being debated in many a control room (especially those about the need for perspective and conceptual direction, not so much the technical aspect), and it bears repeating that I did rate the BD a '9', so nothing is really at fault for me here, more that as a listener I felt it was just a tad conservative and as a personal preference I tend to favor it when someone serves me the adventurous, the bold and daring. Merely my one-person opinion here.

Not to appear ungrateful: we're so lucky to have this... and only a few of days before "The Wall". :banana:

TL;DR Version: Great job guys, but don't be afraid to take a few more chances!
 
Found an Amazon enveloppe in the mailbox today. Assumee that woud be the Rush replacement disc, but to me surprise a WYWH replacement BD was inside with a short note from customer service. Just listened to the JG 5.1 and can confirm the clicks are gone. At least I am not hearing any. Will do some closer listening during the weekend, as it appears this BD seems a bit more fresh than the original from the box.

So thank you EMI and Amazon for sending a replacement.
 
More fresh?
I have to confess I thought it sounded muffled to me. Going to recheck against the other disc, but definitely muffled to me.
I thought I was hearing more detail here and there, but that was probably due listening a bit to carefull, to check if there were clicks or not. After listening to both discs I cannot tell any major difference, apart from the clicks of course.
 
Back
Top