Thanks Thanks:  14
Likes Likes:  22

View Poll Results: Rate the SACD of Pink Floyd - WISH YOU WERE HERE

Voters
84. You may not vote on this poll
  • 10: Great Surround, Great Fidelity, Great Content

    48 57.14%
  • 9:

    19 22.62%
  • 8:

    11 13.10%
  • 7:

    4 4.76%
  • 6:

    0 0%
  • 5:

    1 1.19%
  • 4:

    1 1.19%
  • 3:

    0 0%
  • 2:

    0 0%
  • 1: Poor Surround, Poor Fidelity, Poor Content

    0 0%
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 109

Thread: Pink Floyd - WISH YOU WERE HERE [SACD]

  1. #1
    Board Operator JonUrban's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    13,550
    Points
    1,226,669
    Level
    100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 33.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteranOverdriveCreated Album picturesCreated Blog entry
    Post Thanks / Like

    5.1 icon Pink Floyd - WISH YOU WERE HERE [SACD]

    Please post your thoughts and comments on the SACD release of "Wish You Were Here" by Pink Floyd. Comments on the Blu-Ray release of this title should be made in the Blu-Ray thread.

    Thanks

    WYWH SACD 700 Front.jpg
    WYWH SACD 700 Back.jpg
    :-jon

  2. Likes Simon A liked this post
  3. #2
    400 Club - QQ All Star spenceo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    432
    Points
    18,763
    Level
    86
    Level completed: 83%, Points required for next Level: 87
    Overall activity: 2.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience PointsSocial
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Pink Floyd - WISH YOU WERE HERE [SACD]

    As I said in the Blu-ray section, I can't believe how clean and crisp this is. By far, the most "crankable" of all the WYWH's

    Spence
    Powered by:

  4. #3
    Board Operator JonUrban's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    13,550
    Points
    1,226,669
    Level
    100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 33.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteranOverdriveCreated Album picturesCreated Blog entry
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Pink Floyd - WISH YOU WERE HERE [SACD]

    NOTE: Added scans of the front and back of the package. Very cool case!
    :-jon

  5. Likes Simon A liked this post
  6. #4
    1K Club - QQ Shooting Star dr. simple's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,031
    Points
    17,579
    Level
    84
    Level completed: 46%, Points required for next Level: 271
    Overall activity: 9.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran10000 Experience Points
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Pink Floyd - WISH YOU WERE HERE [SACD]

    I listened to this today, top to bottom, and I must say it's quite remarkable. Wonderful. No complaints. Must have.
    "You gotta always remember, the name of the game is 'What does it sound like?' That's always the end result - I don't care if you got 90 tracks. What does it sound like, baby?" - Ray Charles

  7. #5
    500 Club - QQ All Star ar surround's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Toyland
    Posts
    520
    Points
    7,358
    Level
    57
    Level completed: 4%, Points required for next Level: 192
    Overall activity: 6.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Pink Floyd - WISH YOU WERE HERE [SACD]

    After spending a good bit of time listening to this mix, DSOTM 5.1 and an assortment of Steven Wilson mixes, I'd have to say that I prefer Wilson's work somewhat more. With the James Guthrie mixes, I find myself enhancing them with a matrix overlay of Logic 7 especially DSOTM . (My receiver can do this.) I prefer Wilson's mixes with no such enhancement; and applying the Logic 7 overlay is actually detrimental. But I look at this all as two artists with different styles, each excellent in their own way. So I rate this version of WYWH as a solid 10/10 on a whole taking into sound quality, the overall mix and aural experience. It was well worth the wait.

  8. #6
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    28
    Points
    5,414
    Level
    47
    Level completed: 32%, Points required for next Level: 136
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Pink Floyd - WISH YOU WERE HERE [SACD]

    Sir,

    You need to listen to each channel individually. What you will hear will shock you and explain why you need to throw logic effect at a supposed surround mix.


    Quote Originally Posted by ar surround View Post
    After spending a good bit of time listening to this mix, DSOTM 5.1 and an assortment of Steven Wilson mixes, I'd have to say that I prefer Wilson's work somewhat more. With the James Guthrie mixes, I find myself enhancing them with a matrix overlay of Logic 7 especially DSOTM . (My receiver can do this.) I prefer Wilson's mixes with no such enhancement; and applying the Logic 7 overlay is actually detrimental. But I look at this all as two artists with different styles, each excellent in their own way. So I rate this version of WYWH as a solid 10/10 on a whole taking into sound quality, the overall mix and aural experience. It was well worth the wait.

  9. #7
    1K Club - QQ Shooting Star wavelength's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Lacombe, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    2,616
    Points
    23,722
    Level
    94
    Level completed: 38%, Points required for next Level: 628
    Overall activity: 4.0%
    Achievements:
    VeteranOverdrive10000 Experience Points
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Pink Floyd - WISH YOU WERE HERE [SACD]

    Quote Originally Posted by britre View Post
    Sir,

    You need to listen to each channel individually. What you will hear will shock you and explain why you need to throw logic effect at a supposed surround mix.
    This sounds like a reference to a thread (Wish You Were Here SACD 5.1) over at the SurroundSound Google Group: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/surroundsound They are discussing the idea that the mix is fake.

  10. #8
    1K Club - QQ Shooting Star dr. simple's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,031
    Points
    17,579
    Level
    84
    Level completed: 46%, Points required for next Level: 271
    Overall activity: 9.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran10000 Experience Points
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Pink Floyd - WISH YOU WERE HERE [SACD]

    Quote Originally Posted by wavelength View Post
    This sounds like a reference to a thread (Wish You Were Here SACD 5.1) over at the SurroundSound Google Group: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/surroundsound They are discussing the idea that the mix is fake.
    I don't care how it was made; the fact is, there are very discrete elements that can't be disputed. More importantly, it sounds great. I differ to the Ray Charles quote I have used as my signature...
    "You gotta always remember, the name of the game is 'What does it sound like?' That's always the end result - I don't care if you got 90 tracks. What does it sound like, baby?" - Ray Charles

  11. #9
    1K Club - QQ Shooting Star dr. simple's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,031
    Points
    17,579
    Level
    84
    Level completed: 46%, Points required for next Level: 271
    Overall activity: 9.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran10000 Experience Points
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Pink Floyd - WISH YOU WERE HERE [SACD]

    I'll be the first to agree that everybody has a right to their opinion, but I am baffled as to why anyone would rate this at 1.
    "You gotta always remember, the name of the game is 'What does it sound like?' That's always the end result - I don't care if you got 90 tracks. What does it sound like, baby?" - Ray Charles

  12. #10
    1K Club - QQ Shooting Star wavelength's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Lacombe, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    2,616
    Points
    23,722
    Level
    94
    Level completed: 38%, Points required for next Level: 628
    Overall activity: 4.0%
    Achievements:
    VeteranOverdrive10000 Experience Points
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Pink Floyd - WISH YOU WERE HERE [SACD]

    Quote Originally Posted by dr. simple View Post
    I'll be the first to agree that everybody has a right to their opinion, but I am baffled as to why anyone would rate this at 1.
    I'm guessing but if you thought it was a fake mix then you'd probably be ticked off enough to give it a 1.

  13. #11
    600 Club - QQ All Star georgeshannon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM
    Posts
    656
    Points
    11,309
    Level
    70
    Level completed: 15%, Points required for next Level: 341
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesVeteran10000 Experience Points
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Pink Floyd - WISH YOU WERE HERE [SACD]

    I rated the SACD Wish You Were Here as a 9 overall.

    The sound quality is better than any other version I’ve heard but it sounds like it came from 40 year old analog tapes and for that reason I rate the sound as a 9.5. At the beginning of track 4 - Wish You Were Here when the chair creaks and you can hear the steel guitar strings bend you’re convinced this sound quality is better than the rest. On the Q8 version of this recording, those details are lost in the wow, flutter, and hiss.

    The mix, however, is a bit conservative given the amount of art the musicians gave Mr. Guthrie to work with. Elliot Scheiner or Steven Wilson would have mixed this as a 10. Still, each channel contains different information than each of the other 5 channels. That does make it a real 5.1 mix. Its not intended as a quad mix. I rate the mix as a 9.
    Best regards,
    George


  14. #12
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    28
    Points
    5,414
    Level
    47
    Level completed: 32%, Points required for next Level: 136
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Pink Floyd - WISH YOU WERE HERE [SACD]

    Don't take my word for it, listen to each channel individually. Fake is an incorrect term, if you took the $11.99 red book reissue and ran it through a surround decoder you would have the exact same mix this one is and not be $35-$125 dollars lighter. The proof is indeed in how it sounds. And if you believe derrived stereo mixes are 5.1 surround more power to you. It just does not put a good feeling in your stomach to pay lots of hard earned cash to have something you could create on your own with existing equipment....

  15. #13
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    28
    Points
    5,414
    Level
    47
    Level completed: 32%, Points required for next Level: 136
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Pink Floyd - WISH YOU WERE HERE [SACD]

    Not to blow your point but the master is 36 years old tops, not 40. And you may be right, Steve Wilson would have possibly made a discreet 5.1 mix not a Dolby surround mix. The Quad version on the DVD has more detail and feeling then the 5.1 could ever have due to the surround method used. If you want a good stereo version on a digital format the Columbia 24 bit SBM cd is the way to go. It will make you throw this garbage away, seriously. It will cost you just as much too considering there are few to be had.

    Quote Originally Posted by georgeshannon View Post
    I rated the SACD Wish You Were Here as a 9 overall.

    The sound quality is better than any other version I’ve heard but it sounds like it came from 40 year old analog tapes and for that reason I rate the sound as a 9.5. At the beginning of track 4 - Wish You Were Here when the chair creaks and you can hear the steel guitar strings bend you’re convinced this sound quality is better than the rest. On the Q8 version of this recording, those details are lost in the wow, flutter, and hiss.

    The mix, however, is a bit conservative given the amount of art the musicians gave Mr. Guthrie to work with. Elliot Scheiner or Steven Wilson would have mixed this as a 10. Still, each channel contains different information than each of the other 5 channels. That does make it a real 5.1 mix. Its not intended as a quad mix. I rate the mix as a 9.

  16. #14
    Senior Member patrick1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Hinsdale, Illinois
    Posts
    263
    Points
    6,168
    Level
    51
    Level completed: 9%, Points required for next Level: 182
    Overall activity: 4.0%
    Achievements:
    Created Blog entryVeteran5000 Experience Points
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Pink Floyd - WISH YOU WERE HERE [SACD]

    Hello. Played this over and over this past week. Whilst it sounds great, I, personally would've wanted something more out of the 5.1 mix. Maybe because my ears have been Wilson-ized with all of his mixes being released. IMO. Thanks.

  17. #15
    300 Club - QQ All Star Felix E. Martinez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    335
    Points
    10,677
    Level
    68
    Level completed: 57%, Points required for next Level: 173
    Overall activity: 4.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Pink Floyd - WISH YOU WERE HERE [SACD]

    Wonderful, with none of the vocal EQ harshness that plagued the Guthrie DSOTM 5.1 mix. Really surprised by the mastering too. What a treat!

  18. #16
    Member Time Lord's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Perth Australia
    Posts
    169
    Points
    6,840
    Level
    54
    Level completed: 45%, Points required for next Level: 110
    Overall activity: 3.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Pink Floyd - WISH YOU WERE HERE [SACD]

    Britre are you a troll. Sorry to hijack the thread, I don't even have the SACD of WYWH I have the blu-ray from the box set, a 5.1 mix that I enjoy greatly. Firstly you rate this a 1 then you have insulted James Guthrie and Steven Wilson, are you going to have a go at Elliot Scheiner next. Find something constructive to say or find a forum for surround haters to rant to.
    He who laughs last.......thinks slowest

  19. #17
    New Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1
    Points
    166
    Level
    3
    Level completed: 32%, Points required for next Level: 34
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    31 days registered100 Experience Points
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Pink Floyd - WISH YOU WERE HERE [SACD]

    Can people explain which surround version is best?
    I love the dark side of the moon sacd in 5.1. Is the wish you were here sacd similar in quality to that? Is the quad still the best mix?

    Please don't tell me the sacd sounds just like the stereo version, I will cry.

    The reviews here say its amazing:
    http://sa-cd.net/showtitle/7523

    But reviews here say it's hard to distinguish from a stereo mix:
    http://groups.google.com/group/surro...99fbacb7&pli=1

  20. #18
    Board Operator JonUrban's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    13,550
    Points
    1,226,669
    Level
    100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 33.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteranOverdriveCreated Album picturesCreated Blog entry
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Pink Floyd - WISH YOU WERE HERE [SACD]

    Guys. You are making this thread a joke. I am going to have to move all of these non-topic threads outta here. Once I figure out what I'm going to do with them, they're gone. Please stay on topic.

    You are totally free to start new threads in the appropriate forum sections to discuss any of the above issues in their own place. 2 years from now, someone looking for info on this SACD is not going to give a shit about Aqualung distortion, Steve Wilson, or who bought what in the '70s.
    :-jon

  21. Thanks Simon A thanked for this post
    Likes Simon A liked this post
  22. #19
    1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    in your face
    Posts
    2,056
    Points
    22,319
    Level
    92
    Level completed: 97%, Points required for next Level: 31
    Overall activity: 35.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Pink Floyd - WISH YOU WERE HERE [SACD]

    Quote Originally Posted by bangsezmax View Post
    The first scenario gives me pause. The second one does to a lesser extent. I looked at the waveforms posted from the other thread and the fronts and rears on the 5.1 really do look pretty same-y. That may have been Guthrie's preference. But I'd really like to know what's going on there.
    Samey , but not the same. There are clearly part differences and level differences between corresponding front and surround channels -- compare those channels on track WYWH_5.1split-002 (Welcome to the Machine, I presume) for example.

    it's obvious too that Guthrie has chosen to populate the Center and SUB channels minimally; this is a not-unheard of 5.1 mixing choice (and one I applaud for the SUB channel). I like an active Center, but some artists are averse to having their lead vocal isolated in the center ....and we know PF had some input into this mix.

    Agreed that Guthrie's commentary on this mix will be interesting, if we ever get to see any.

  23. #20
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    6
    Points
    1,237
    Level
    19
    Level completed: 37%, Points required for next Level: 63
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Pink Floyd - WISH YOU WERE HERE [SACD]

    Ok... I'm not new here...lurked for years. Brian is not trying to be a troll. I don't go so far as Brian, but I understand what he means. The mix is great sounding (crystal clear, amazing detail, etc), but its not very bounce around the roomy. Media interviews have suggested that Guthrie was trying to replicate the stereo mix's overall sound in 5.1 format. I think he achieved that, but in the process there are very few instances where what is in one speaker isn't at least partly (if not greatly) in other speakers as well. This means that the majority of the discrete effects that are present come off with the level of discreteness that a Prologic decoder might be able to provide. Brian thinks this is a sign of a fake job. I think it was mixed that way on purpose. When this was mixed back in 2003-5(?) there were no plans to release the Quad side by side. Unfortunately releasing it thus here shows how indiscrete the 5.1 mix is (overall). This is a quad forum. (I believe) We like our surround to be more engaging. For Brian, the Guthrie mix does not fit the bill. For me... I love the quad mix.
    S

  24. #21
    1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    The Nutmeg State
    Posts
    1,515
    Points
    10,484
    Level
    68
    Level completed: 9%, Points required for next Level: 366
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    VeteranRecommendation Second Class10000 Experience Points
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Pink Floyd - WISH YOU WERE HERE [SACD]

    Quote Originally Posted by Sthunderrocker View Post
    Ok... I'm not new here...lurked for years. Brian is not trying to be a troll. I don't go so far as Brian, but I understand what he means. The mix is great sounding (crystal clear, amazing detail, etc), but its not very bounce around the roomy. Media interviews have suggested that Guthrie was trying to replicate the stereo mix's overall sound in 5.1 format. I think he achieved that, but in the process there are very few instances where what is in one speaker isn't at least partly (if not greatly) in other speakers as well. This means that the majority of the discrete effects that are present come off with the level of discreteness that a Prologic decoder might be able to provide. Brian thinks this is a sign of a fake job. I think it was mixed that way on purpose. When this was mixed back in 2003-5(?) there were no plans to release the Quad side by side. Unfortunately releasing it thus here shows how indiscrete the 5.1 mix is (overall). This is a quad forum. (I believe) We like our surround to be more engaging. For Brian, the Guthrie mix does not fit the bill. For me... I love the quad mix.
    S
    I think a whole lot of things about this..

    - I do not consider the presence of overlapping information in other channels to be a weakness in a mix. I think holding back from providing complete discreteness can fulfill many functions, the most important being creating a more "full" mix or allowing for holes in the soundfield to be better filled. I think there are better ways to do this, though, than what Guthrie did. Guthrie was too conservative with this mix, though, with the presence of as much lead vocal audible behind the listener on "Have a Cigar" than there is in the center an example of that.

    - The idea of "presenting the stereo's mix in a 5.1 format" is one I don't understand when coming from professional mixers and producers. This is not what I want when I'm buying something put out from a record company. Very few mixers understand this. Steve Wilson does. That's for sure. To use this as an excuse as to why this, or the "Moving Pictures" mix, pulls too many punches, is not something I can be easily sold on.

    - The quad, as presented in this package, has its share of flaws itself, and almost goes too far in the other direction, plus sounded rather unbalanced to me.

    - That being said, I do firmly believe the mix is derived from multitracks, and that this simply was an artistic choice done by Mr. Guthrie. For what it is, I enjoyed the clean sound of it and feel it more than has its moments. In the end, though, he didn't do what I wish he would have. That's fine. Others are going to feel differently, and more power to them. I don't think anything is being misrepresented.

    - I'll never understand why people choose to isolate channels on a mix when listening. The idea of a surround mix is for the channels to psychoacoustically interact with each other and produce a "surround" experience when sitting in the sweet spot. Isolating channels and looking for imperfections is just looking for something not to like in a mix. I'm more of a "glass half full" kind of guy than that.

    - I have never believed this to be a "quad" forum. The name on the marquee says "Multichannel music past, present, and future." I've said this before and I'll say it again: I personally do not care about older quad recordings for the most part. I was in diapers when most of them came out, and very rarely do I encounter a transfer that I honestly enjoy. This, however, is the largest surround community that I know of, and the overlap between "modern surround enthusiast" and "grew up on quad as a kid" is rather large. There's room for everyone here.

    - People who are going to point fingers and say "fake" need to do a lot of listening as to what "fake" sounds like in 2011. It's not the crap you heard ten years ago, or what Silverline was putting out. People make baseless opinions all the time as to what "derived from stereo" sounds like, and a whole lot of them need to do their research before opening their mouths. From a crispness standpoint, though, hey, I wish some of what I do from stereo sounded as good as Guthrie's mix.

  25. Likes Simon A liked this post
  26. #22
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    6
    Points
    1,237
    Level
    19
    Level completed: 37%, Points required for next Level: 63
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Pink Floyd - WISH YOU WERE HERE [SACD]

    Nicely put.
    S

  27. #23
    Board Operator JonUrban's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    13,550
    Points
    1,226,669
    Level
    100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 33.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteranOverdriveCreated Album picturesCreated Blog entry
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Pink Floyd - WISH YOU WERE HERE [SACD]

    Honestly, a '1' vote?

    Rating it as "Poor Surround, Poor Fidelity, Poor Content", I find that hard to believe. To each his own, but a '1' vote would mean that the surround was poor, the audio fidelity really sucked, and the material was horrible. Even if you hate the Guthrie mix, rating this a '1' says it sounds like shit and the musical content is worthless.

    Really?
    :-jon

  28. Thanks JediJoker thanked for this post
  29. #24
    Board Operator JonUrban's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    13,550
    Points
    1,226,669
    Level
    100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 33.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteranOverdriveCreated Album picturesCreated Blog entry
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Pink Floyd - WISH YOU WERE HERE [SACD]

    NOTE: The "lively" discussion on mixing for 5.1 (or not mixing) has been moved here:

    http://www.quadraphonicquad.com/foru...read.php?15203

    This post will self-destruct in a few days.

    HEY NOW!
    :-jon

  30. Likes Simon A liked this post
  31. #25
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    28
    Points
    5,414
    Level
    47
    Level completed: 32%, Points required for next Level: 136
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Pink Floyd - WISH YOU WERE HERE [SACD]

    Just a clarification.. When us older generation refer to a mix as "fake" it means that you are taking stereo and making a quasi-surround sound from it to gain effect or extract extra information to the rear, sides, center, what have you. When we are/were sold a quadraphonic, Dolby Surround, 5.1 surround that is exactly what it should be. Lets get down to what this issue is really about (the fake idea I mean).

    For six years we were baited with a WYWH surround mix coming, coming, coming and finally it is here. In an interview Dave Gilmour advertised this as the ultimate experience and better than the quad version (which he contends only three people had at the time). For years we ran WYWH through our SQ, QS, Matrix, Surround decoders to try to get a little surround out of it if you did not have the Quadraphonic version. For the sake of argument the Quadraphonic version has no relevance to the 5.1 mix as it is a different master and mix and does not even closely resemble the Stereo mix. As I mentioned before this album has come out in many Audiophile stereo versions but never in a surround mix.

    So us Audiophiles expecting an surround experience to blow our minds plunk down either $45 w/S&H for the SACD or more if you are overseas, or $129.00 retail for the full experience of Quadraphonic and 5.1. What do we get? A mix we have had for years at home. A person might feel cheated at that point. Now granted I have not heard the $40.00 180 gram vinyl however I do have the EMI one made 10 years ago (it was also 180 gram vinyl of the Guthrie stereo mix) and it was loud, clear and identical to the one on the SACD and the Red Book CD. So, one might get really angry that Acoustic Sounds and EMI advertised this as the ultimate experience, took our money and gave us something we already have and have had. Which brings me full circle to the 5.1 mix.

    While it matches the Stereo in being clear, it is not a creative work and does not sound like 10 years of mixing was involved. It simply sounds like one I could make at home using my Dolby Surround decoder, and DVD audio burning software to create a 5.1 disc. I personally (and many others also) expected a new and fantastic mix with separation, imaging, and the clarity of other 5.1 discs out there. Remember these discs cost $24-$250 a pop. Shouldn't we expect more for our money than a Dolby Cinema surround type mix (also reffered to as fake surround)? If we do not make these guys produce quality products the next mix you hear will be stereo upmixes the same you can download off the internet. Do not get me wrong, some of the upmixers do a really awesome job, but they do not charge you $24-$250 for their work. Neither should the record companies. And there you have it, the definition of fake.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •