Pink Floyd - WISH YOU WERE HERE [SACD]

[britre]

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.

[britre]

I would not say the material sucked, I heard all the material 10 years ago when it was first out so the 1 rating is because it is rehash of old material and the surround was poor in light of other versions (including SBU upmixes) that are out there.

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?

[DKA]

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.

I accept donations, though.

[DKA]

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?

Sounds like a protest vote to me. I have my issues with the mix, but it's not a "1." That should be reserved for the worst of the Silverline stuff.

[Sthunderrocker]

Unfortunately, at this stage of the game, they are just as likely to assume the surround market has shrunk than assume that some aren't happy with the mix. That said, the Quad wasn't originally going to be on the Blu, so maybe we have some power yet...

Of course, there seem to also be a number of people who like ambient mixes...
S

[britre]

As well you should recieve some, upmixing done right IS work and art. Done wrong it is horrible.

I accept donations, though.

[DKA]

As well you should recieve some, upmixing done right IS work and art. Done wrong it is horrible.

Don't know about "art," but thank you.

[bangsezmax]

I would not say the material sucked, I heard all the material 10 years ago when it was first out so the 1 rating is because it is rehash of old material and the surround was poor in light of other versions (including SBU upmixes) that are out there.

Then it should be a 5. You obviously like the material but dislike the mix. The rating system here is a combination of both elements.

[britre]

Would you like me to move it to a two, it still is no where near the top end..

[JonUrban]

Would you like me to move it to a two, it still is no where near the top end..

No. Every vote is a personal thing, and we don't tamper with votes here. If you look through the HiRez polls, you'll see some strange '1' votes for titles that probably don't deserve them, but they're still there.

[joelee]

Who's got the best price on the SACD of WYWH?

[The Bright Side]

Just gave it its first spin, also the first time I heard the Guthrie mix. Sound of the SACD is amazing on my system, but I'm on out-of-the-box 500-dollar consumer hardware, so I don't think it really does justice to what that SACD has to offer. The mix: well, I do have to admit that the first impression was stereo, opened up to breathe. Not bad by any means, but more could have been done with it. Surround is used where surround is due, e.g. (as many have pointed out) for the "Welcome to the Machine" sound effects, the "swoosh" effect or the sounds at the beginning of Shine On. These are no-brainers for surround mixing.

I remember the quad mix being a bit more adventurous, but I haven't listened to it very much, or lately for that matter, so I'll need to do some more comparing soon. Still debating whether I should get the Immersion box in addition. How is all the other stuff in the Immersion box? The live recordings, the demos, household objects etc.? Worth repeated listens?

[ChickenVenus]

Hi,
I think it's an Ok surround mix. I voted it as an 8. I think I expected it to be, or actually just wanted it to be a bit more radical. Nothing wrong with it, fidelity is very high etc, it's just the mix is not 'exciting' to me. I am glad I bought the SACD (and the immersion box set). I can't see myself buying WYWH again this lifetime, how many times have I bought it so far I wonder?

[wappinghigh]

OMG. This is my all time favourite album. Like the chicken I have owned several formats of this over the years, and I am finally playing the surround SACD. It arrived here yesterday from Kansas (half way around the world). Cost me nearly as much in postage as the album to get it here! And I am NOT disappointed. It is worth every single cent. 10/10. Don't hesitate. Get this SACD.

[The Bright Side]

I just listened to the quad mix from the BluRay. Don't get me wrong, I like the SACD, but the added music and instrumentation alone elevate the 4.0 mix above the 5.1 mix IMHO. Great stuff. Glad to finally have both available, and in such amazing fidelity to boot.

[cupboy]

Has the quad mix being on the Blu-ray knocked down the value of the Q8? I can't imagine anyone buying the Q8 now.

[arnold_layne]

Has the quad mix being on the Blu-ray knocked down the value of the Q8? I can't imagine anyone buying the Q8 now.

Well technically the Q8 is the complete quad mix, since the BD version is missing a section during SOYCD part 8. A Q8 recently sold on Ebay for $73 and it's in poor shape.

A_L

[Sthunderrocker]

Also, the UK quad mix used for the Blu is gently different (BGV levels, etc) from the US quad mix.
S

[wanners]

Also, the UK quad mix used for the Blu is gently different (BGV levels, etc) from the US quad mix.
S

Didn't we conclude there was no different UK quad mix. the mix used on the US Q8 is the only one.

[britre]

Incorrect. There is the Q8-US Vinyl Quad mix (vinyl run through SQ encoder, Q8 straight to tape) and an EMI UK master which was used to make the UK vinyl which is the one on the BDA and DVD. It will not decrease the value as the DVD and BDA do not replicate the vinyl or Q8. They have a different sound that is very valuable and can not be had any other way.

[wanners]

Incorrect. There is the Q8-US Vinyl Quad mix (vinyl run through SQ encoder, Q8 straight to tape) and an EMI UK master which was used to make the UK vinyl which is the one on the BDA and DVD. It will not decrease the value as the DVD and BDA do not replicate the vinyl or Q8. They have a different sound that is very valuable and can not be had any other way.

I know what you mean now; I thought you meant a US q8 vs. UK q8.

How do you know the BD is based off of the UK master used to make the UK vinyl? Why do think they did that--was the uk master better?

[britre]

No, it was the one in the EMI vault availiable. I and others believe the Columbia tape no longer exists. It most likely was a 4 or 8 track master as what was mentioned earilier is true, the US is 8 seconds longer, runs slower in speed and has the extra shine on sniglet to make it fit the tape format

[Sthunderrocker]

I know what you mean now; I thought you meant a US q8 vs. UK q8.

How do you know the BD is based off of the UK master used to make the UK vinyl? Why do think they did that--was the uk master better?

The engineer of the bluray specified in an interview that the Quad came from a master held at Abbey Road. I'm guessing it was assumed the quality was better, or the Columbia master was in worse shape. However it should be noted that, aside from being the less aggressive mix (compare the backing vocals for an example), the rears on WTTM are very noticible sub par to the rest of the recording... sounding flat and dull. I wonder if its all they had or if they messed up on their final EQ pass...
S

[Sthunderrocker]

BTW... the "Hub Remaster" comes from the US Q8 with corrected channel locations.
S

[britre]

You can also get the BDA with all the homebrewed copies on it and there you will find the original USA SQ un-corrected with channels in the wrong place.