Good idea.
Also SW would do it I think.
Haha! No doubt.. Why not let the other Mr.W do some of the mixing! (The Vicar 5.1 is fabulous for anyone who hasn't heard it already.. as good a modern surround mix as you'll hear imho.)
Good idea.
Also SW would do it I think.
Hey, it's really not that bad.
Wait and judge for yourself.
I've heard many worse titles.
Just to have a reference point you said you would rate this as a 7. What would you have given Squakett?
I just looked and I rated Squakett as a 6 but I think I should have given it a 3 or 4, to me Squakett sounded like a muddy compressed mess.
If you are saying this is sounding cleaner than I might still keep my order as my ears do not do well with compressed disk's as i need to crank disk's because of some age related hearing loss that I have and then I get ear faitigue for sure.
peter
I'm listening right now about 35 minutes and I can tell you, that it is more front-heavy.
The rears are used to create an open sounding mix.
It is open sounding but a little too conservative.
If you want an immersive surround experience - you will be dissapointed.
But I like it, and I am a big fan of immersive surround.
It is a good release and the accoustic songs are really nice.
Definately worth to have it and not a Squackett-wise desaster.
If I had to vote right now I would give it a solid 7.
But have to listen to it more.
My copy arrived yesterday and I've listened to it a couple of times now. I have to agree with everything that IMachine has said about it. Not immersive or discrete really at all. I always think that its never a good sign if you continually have to step right up to the rear speakers to try and hear if there is anything really coming from them in the surround mix. This is unfortunate, as the album is excellent in terms of the quality of the songs. Much better songs than on Squackett.
Is there Hi-Res stereo on this one guys? Sound any good to you if so? (Amazon still not despatched mine..) I'm thinking if the stereo's good and the albums solid might be worth a try running it thru PLII Music, or Surround Master, etc.?
Some songs do definately use the rears more.
Especially when it comes to orchestral or accoustic elements.
The rears are not only used for ambience, but often.
Imagine there's no stereo (listening to "Imagine" right now in my car )
I found listening to the "surround" version a bit wearing, as I felt that I couldn't relax and just listen to the songs, as I was straining to try and catch any surround moments.
How ironic, given that most exclusively stereo listeners often label an active surround mix as being "distractive". I think your posts shows that the opposite is true (at least for most of us here).
Just to have a reference point you said you would rate this as a 7. What would you have given Squakett?
I just looked and I rated Squakett as a 6 but I think I should have given it a 3 or 4, to me Squakett sounded like a muddy compressed mess.
If you are saying this is sounding cleaner than I might still keep my order as my ears do not do well with compressed disk's as i need to crank disk's because of some age related hearing loss that I have and then I get ear faitigue for sure.
peter
Wow! Wooooh! With a better surround mix this could have been the best new surround album of 2015 (besides SW's HCE) in my book. I appreciate that Mr Hackett has been into surround none the less.
Indeed. The album is really good, beautiful guitar tones, great production, shame there is no real 5.1 mix.
How about SH revisited by SW? :music
Indeed. The album is really good, beautiful guitar tones, great production, shame there is no real 5.1 mix.
Totally agree, I have lots of stereo albums that have much more of a surround feel in fake surround, too bad, the album is really good though music and production wise as you said.
Enter your email address to join: