The Year of the Box

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

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

Favourite 2011 Boxset:


  • Total voters
    58

LizardKing

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
4,022
Location
NZ
As this has been a great year for Uber-Super-Deluxe Limited edition boxsets. I thought it would be fun to vote for your favourite boxset of 2011 (with surround of course!)

The options are (I hope I've got the main players!):

Derek & The Dominos - Laya....
Pink Floyd - Dark Side of the Moon
Pink Floyd - Wish You Were Here
Steven Wilson - Grace For Drowning
Jethro Tull - Aqualung
The Who - Quadrophenia
Rush - Sector 1
Rush - Sector 2
Rush - Sector 3
 
i have not bought Aqualung despite the Steven wilson mix, the cost was just too high for the ammount of redundacy in the box, i.e. vinyl

Did grace for drowning really qualify on the box front I know there was the deluxe book, but if you extrapolated that then discs like Histoire de Melody Nelson shoudl be included 2CD DVD and LP same as the derek and the Dominoes box?

Anyway for me it was DSOTM which had just about everything including outtakes two surround mixes in hi rez and live stuff too much non music related stuff though !!!
 
Looking at this list makes me realize how much money I've spent this year...I own all of these sets except Layla, and I love them all...not sure what my vote is yet, probably either Aqualung or Wish You Were Here
 
None of the above. This one:

22655_large.jpg
 
So, does anyone have a guess - or even better, inside information - as to what boxes we might hope to see in 2012? I need to save up, since November 2011 is KILLING me!!! (And I've only bought a FEW of the boxes...)
 
The Beatles (now on Universal) SHM-SACD boxset may be a bit pricey.

Hasn't been announced yet though.

I voted for the Tull box. I should be receiving it sometime in the next 3 days. Lacking Chinese marbles and polyester scarfs made it score a bit higher.
 
How is the mix on that set, Kal? I see that you only gave it 3.5 stars for audio (here).
One reviewer said: "some who have purchased the original disc have said that (like Sym. #2) the audio is not a true discrete 5.1 DTS Master-Audio mix but a repurposed stereo mix."

I have no doubt he is correct as most classical 5.1 is the ambient variety. Get any tacet release, AIX or 2L for true discrete 5.1 classical.
 
One reviewer said: "some who have purchased the original disc have said that (like Sym. #2) the audio is not a true discrete 5.1 DTS Master-Audio mix but a repurposed stereo mix."
Yup. Not perfect but the performances are extraordinary.

I have no doubt he is correct as most classical 5.1 is the ambient variety. Get any tacet release, AIX or 2L for true discrete 5.1 classical.
Poor terminology. "True discrete 5.1" can have only ambient information in the surrounds or it can be an immersive mix. IMHO, the latter is generally unrealistic and unsatisfying, with a few exceptions. There isn't a recording on 2L or AIX that I would trade for this set although Tact has a few winners.
 
Yup. Not perfect but the performances are extraordinary.

Poor terminology. "True discrete 5.1" can have only ambient information in the surrounds or it can be an immersive mix. IMHO, the latter is generally unrealistic and unsatisfying, with a few exceptions. There isn't a recording on 2L or AIX that I would trade for this set although Tact has a few winners.
You're good for a laugh. You define reality by your own definitions, hence you define your own limitations. I enjoy your commentary though.
 
Nope. I define reality by reference to real events. Live classical music events are performed (with a few exceptions) in front of an audience with the acoustics of the performance site providing an enveloping ambiance. Recordings of such music which offer a different perspective, such as with the performers surrounding the listener, are divorced from that reality, pure and simple.

Now, it does not mean that such recordings cannot be enjoyable (I love some of the Tacet recordings but regard them as guilty pleasures) or, indeed, preferable to some listeners but they are not relatable to real performance events. Of course, for studio productions or music for which the composer/performer actually specifies some other perspective, that constraint no longer applies. As for my comment on preferring this to any of the 2L or AIX recordings (many of which I own and enjoy), it is based more on the performers and repertoire than on recording techniques.

BTW, "true discrete 5.1" has a technical meaning, to me, which distinguishes it from synthesized 5.1 or matrix-encoded formats. It has nothing to do with the listener/performer perspective.

Kal
 
Poor terminology. "True discrete 5.1" can have only ambient information in the surrounds or it can be an immersive mix. IMHO, the latter is generally unrealistic and unsatisfying, with a few exceptions. There isn't a recording on 2L or AIX that I would trade for this set although Tact has a few winners.

Or it can have both - full surround for antiphonal effects plus ambiance for capturing the size or sound of the recording venue or simply as a special effect. Sadly, I've noticed that modern ambience-type surround recordings still get it wrong most of the time - they capture the ambience from the back of the venue - behind the listener - instead of from the sides, when its the side reflections that determine our reactions to the venue and how it 'sounds' due to our being many times more sensitive to sounds coming from the sides of us VS from behind us. Also, artificial ambience generators are often used to further enhance the ambience, which ruins any attempt to accurately capture the recording venue's sound or realistic stereo soundfield. And the center channel is still rarely used right (or at all) either, when it can really enhance the listening experience - correctly recorded, 3 front channels are simply better at creating stable, realistic stereo soundfields.
 
I have to vote on Wish You Were Here, being my all-time favorite album and all that, although I'm not totally convinced about the mix and sound quality yet. I'm waiting for December to arrive which will mean major system overhaul, before opining on anything at all.
 
I hope the discussion about "ambient surround" vs. "on stage surround" can be continued in a thread of it's own if desired.
About these boxes, the Pink Floyd's and Steven Wilson's surround mixes can be had on single discs (SACD/BD) so a lot more of us were able to hear those. Not everyone will buy box sets that expensive, just to hear the surround mix.
But 2011 was definitely a year for boxes with, let's say, a return of the surround release :) Now where's that box with unreleased Elton Johns etc.
 
I haven't voted yet, as I want to hear the Rush discs, and i'm also waiting to hear Aqualung - arghhh....
 
Pink Floyd's and Steven Wilson's surround mixes can be had on single discs (SACD/BD) so a lot more of us were able to hear those. Not everyone will buy box sets that expensive, just to hear the surround mix.

couldn't agree more. i don't got this marketing move, when album already done in different formats,
labels prefer to pack it in one overpriced set thus doing narrowing sales. isn't possible to sell collectors
box-set and separate, already existent prints at the same time?
 
Nope. I define reality by reference to real events. Live classical music events are performed (with a few exceptions) in front of an audience with the acoustics of the performance site providing an enveloping ambiance. Recordings of such music which offer a different perspective, such as with the performers surrounding the listener, are divorced from that reality, pure and simple.

Now, it does not mean that such recordings cannot be enjoyable (I love some of the Tacet recordings but regard them as guilty pleasures) or, indeed, preferable to some listeners but they are not relatable to real performance events. Of course, for studio productions or music for which the composer/performer actually specifies some other perspective, that constraint no longer applies. As for my comment on preferring this to any of the 2L or AIX recordings (many of which I own and enjoy), it is based more on the performers and repertoire than on recording techniques.

BTW, "true discrete 5.1" has a technical meaning, to me, which distinguishes it from synthesized 5.1 or matrix-encoded formats. It has nothing to do with the listener/performer perspective.

Kal

Thanks for the explanation. The producers of TACET and 2L recordings have addressed your points as i'm sure you are aware, so I won't go into that, except to say that the "reality" of the position of the listener in most live events is simple economics only. Creativity in mixing for home entertainment is a separate artistic endeavor and should not be confused with anything other than that. By reality I meant the limits of your perspecitve. We simply don't know what any classical composer thought about the positioning of a listener in their own home listening to a recording. I don't expect to convince you to like real surround sound. And how is it you have dibs on the defintion of "true" discrete 5.1??
 
Thanks for the explanation. The producers of TACET and 2L recordings have addressed your points as i'm sure you are aware, so I won't go into that, except to say that the "reality" of the position of the listener in most live events is simple economics only.
True but the composers created for that expected arrangement. There are instances where they specified different relationships between the performers and audience.

Creativity in mixing for home entertainment is a separate artistic endeavor and should not be confused with anything other than that.
Agreed but then the issue of "reality" is moot. BTW, John Culshaw was an advocate of that creativity in stereo times and, although they were controversial, he produced some amazing recordings. They were based on his studies of the composer's text.

By reality I meant the limits of your perspecitve. We simply don't know what any classical composer thought about the positioning of a listener in their own home listening to a recording.
Red herring. We do not know what any composer who died before surround/multichannel thought about it. OTOH, have you come across Immersion (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000059TOM/starkland Fascinating.

I don't expect to convince you to like real surround sound. And how is it you have dibs on the defintion of "true" discrete 5.1??
I have no more right than anyone else but I parse the term as follows:
5.1? I think that's obvious.
Discrete? The channels are not matrixed nor synthesized ad hoc.
"True?" To what? I have given you my reference. What's yours? For example, how do you define real as in "real surround sound?"
 
Back
Top