HiRez Poll Waters, Roger - AMUSED TO DEATH [BluRay/SACD]

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

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

Rate the BDA/SACD of Roger Waters - AMUSED TO DEATH


  • Total voters
    93
Jim, can you send the codes in the bluray disc? I mean the numbers on the disc itself.
Mine sounds apparently right (I have an ear infection for the last couple of weeks, so don't trust me completely).
I also have the sacd (listened only once) and felt like it sounded better than the bluray but, as I said, heard with a watery feeling on the right ear and pain with sharper sounds at medium volume.

The UPC code on the back lower left (also repeated at the end of the copyright text on the lower right): 88843090552
On the bluray disc inner sleeve: 88843090552SV1

On the BD itself:
(1st layer) BVDL 1207320A1 1
2nd layer BVDL 1207320B1 1
 
Different copy, apparently. On the front of the bluray: 88843090552-2. On the inner sleeve: 88843090552.
On the reflective surface of the bluray (inner ring): A0102494020-B911. Same thing on the outer ring but ending in A911.
Mine came from the UK (made in the EU).
Pity is that i can't rip the bluray as I don't have any reader in my laptop
 
This for me is a mixed bag, a disappointing 5.1 mix highlighting James Guthries lack of ambition with a 5.1 mix, typical stretched stereo.

Sound quality is fine, though there are times when there could be more Umph in the mix.

The Authoring is functional but when compared to what else is out in the market very disappointing, the only nice touch having alternative versions of songs on the 5.1 and stereo menu.

lastly why not include more extras such as cotemporary video and the original stereo mix ?

So overall a disc which had so much potential but given the time its taken to get released seems just a bit rushed and unfinished, and lacks ambition.
 
I'll have to give it a 7. I very strongly disagree with Roger that this is in the same league with any of the great Pink Floyd works. The 5.1 mix of The Division Bell blows this away in my opinion.
 
This is a favorite Waters work for me. Pros and Cons and Kaos never grabbed me, but this album did. I ordered the BD set instantly upon hearing of it.
5.1 mix is the greatest around, but is sufficient for these ears. One thing I'm curious about is the Q-sound mix. Is it available on this set? For instance, will the stereo mix on the CD produce Q-sound if one's stereo is configured properly? I've heard you have to have your speakers phased or something?
Any Q-sound experts out there able to shed some light?
I believe I gave this set an 8 or 9. More features would have been nice. It does seem a bit rushed. I am, however, glad they released it at all. That surround is limping along! When the release of a favorite is announced it's very exciting.
 
Hi Edison, see the review from Jim a few posts above you.

And about "your speakers phased or something" Qsound uses out of phase elements to get the results, therefore Qsound discs mention that your speakers should be in phase to hear it ( results vary per listener and set up though). But regardless of Qsound, it is always recommended to have your speakers in phase (+ connected to + and - connected to -) otherwise the rest of your music will sound not as good as it could be.
 
Last edited:
I wasn't expecting much after seeing some poor comments regarding the 5.1 mix. But, I actually enjoyed it quite a lot! I have many poorer mixes in my collection. The rears are mostly used for effects, with the music up front, but I thought that worked pretty well. There are so many effects on this album that the rears are rarely silent. The clarity of the recording is very good with lots of dynamic range.

I didn't find the vocals (or center channel) to be too loud in the mix. They are quite prominent, that is for sure, but I didn't feel tempted to lower the level of the center to compensate.

The packaging and authoring is mediocre at best. I with the lyrics were available on the screen. That would help the listener follow the story. At least they are easy to read in the booklet.

I don't love the music, but I expect it will get more listens in the future. I decided to give it an 8.
 
Hi Edison, see the review from Jim a few posts above you.

And about "your speakers phased or something" Qsound uses out of phase elements to get the results, therefore Qsound discs mention that your soeakers should be in phase to hear it ( results vary per listener and set up though). But regardless of Qsound, it is always recommended to have your speakers in phase (+ connected to + and - connected to -) otherwise the rest of your music will sound not as good as it could be.

I did see his post. I just wished for somebody to elaborate, if possible.
I threw on the cd this morning. While the dog did seem to be coming from somewhere distant (which neighbor's yard is the correct yard? what if you have no neighbors??? does Waters assume his fans are all urban or suburban?????) and the sound, overall, felt slightly more immersive than ordinary stereo (maybe, I think...) it doesn't come even close to true surround.
Other questions remain in my mind: is every stereo mix of AtD always QSound (assuming proper phasing)? Is the stereo mix on the BD QSound? If I rip the cd to mp3, is it still QSound? Regardless of the ripping method? I.e. is QSound a result of the mix only or does mastering affect it and it is media independent? Should it work on headphones or does it require a certain room size or distance to the ears to work optimally? I see the internet says the vinyl is also QSound. I guess that would be attractive, as people I know who love vinyl (myself included) tend to sit centrally between nice speakers and just listen.
Is QSound defeated and/or problematic in a double stereo environment, like a car or a surround system set to multi-channel stereo?
Since the packaging mentions "new technology" (as of the '90's) I guess QSound mixing requires some special software or hardware process?
 
I didn't find the vocals (or center channel) to be too loud in the mix. They are quite prominent, that is for sure, but I didn't feel tempted to lower the level of the center to compensate.

Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding

OK folks, I think we have some flawed versions of the release here. And my copy is one of them! :(

The vocals on my copy are mixed into the front L,R. They are not mixed to the center channel at all! The center channel on my copy is just ambient reflections.
This must be a mastering mistake where the center channel was directed into the L,R and doubled! (Directed to both the L & R and thus 2x the volume.)

The lead vox at 1x in the center channel would change everything and make this a pretty excellent mix like those with the (alleged) correct copy are talking about.

Can someone with a proper copy post a 25 second clip (in a 5.1 flac file) that includes part of What God Wants #1 with the lead vox present so we can verify this once and for all?

I might just start a return right away with Amazon and see what they say and do too.
 
I might just start a return right away with Amazon and see what they say and do too.

Amazon is very good about refunding and I'm pretty sure you will get your money back. But..will they know anything about the specifics of this error? No. I've been down that road with the Aqualung and Simple Minds: Sparkle in the Rain blu-rays. Amazon knows very little about the products they sell - especially when there is a potential recall.
 
I don't know how there can be some flawed versions of the release. Either they are all flawed, or none of them are. It's not like they did two different mixing jobs. My guess would be a problem on the user end, either defective equipment or incorrectly set up.
 
Jim, I cannot rip the bluray but I did the ear-over-the-speaker test. Neither on the SACD nor on the bluray there's any vocal on WGW part 1 on the center speaker. Strangely, it's mainly drums at lower volume than FL and FR with one occasional guitar (not the lead) and some synths echoes.
 
I don't know how there can be some flawed versions of the release. Either they are all flawed, or none of them are. It's not like they did two different mixing jobs. My guess would be a problem on the user end, either defective equipment or incorrectly set up.

Not operator error. Fair question of course but absolutely not the case here.
My disc has the matrix number BVDL 1207320A1 1/BVDL 1207320B1 1

And I did double check for operator error too. Listened to it on the studio system. There are no mysteries or channels patched incorrectly.

There have been good reviews (great mix, vox are good and not too loud) from the edition with the matrix number A0102494020-A911/A0102494020-B911

Neither on the SACD nor on the bluray there's any vocal on WGW part 1 on the center speaker. Strangely, it's mainly drums at lower volume than FL and FR with one occasional guitar (not the lead) and some synths echoes.
That's what I hear on this copy. Just ambient reflections in the C channel. And then the vocal literally double loud in the Lf, Lr.

Amazon is very good about refunding and I'm pretty sure you will get your money back. But..will they know anything about the specifics of this error? No. I've been down that road with the Aqualung and Simple Minds: Sparkle in the Rain blu-rays. Amazon knows very little about the products they sell - especially when there is a potential recall.

Agree that their customer support is good. :)
You know what though, they may not be up on technical details but they DO pay attention to returns for defect. When they get enough returns on something they absolutely give the supplier a hard time and will even pull the product until they hear it's been fixed. I'm going to give them one chance to replace it. If the new one ends up being the same thing, then it's refund time.
 
Last edited:
Waters vocals were mixed L+R, Jim and not in the center. One of the things that bugged me about the 5.1 mix. It's not a mistake but rather another questionable choice by Guthrie.
 
Waters vocals were mixed L+R, Jim and not in the center. One of the things that bugged me about the 5.1 mix. It's not a mistake but rather another questionable choice by Guthrie.

Hmmm...
It sounded like SMS was talking about not needing to turn down the vocal in the center channel above.
And then the different matrix number mentioned...

If one were mastering from stems, sending the center channel program to both the Lf and Rf channels would not only put the vocal there but would in fact make it twice as loud as originally mixed. And at the same time, routing a stereo FX stem (reflections, verb, etc) intended for the Lf,Lr channels to the center channel instead would explain neatly what some of us are hearing here.

It added up...
So this is just wishful thinking and I'm not going to get a corrected disc?
Well crap!

There's truly no way to fix this as is with any post mastering tricks. It's all (most of the 5.1 mix) mixed together in stereo in the Lf,Lr and at awkward levels.
I may have disagreed with JG's DSOTM remix (it was more about the not including the original in that 2002 release at the time though) but it sounds intentional. This sounds for all the world like an obvious big time mastering screw up! (Really trying to give him the benefit of the doubt here.)

The stereo q-mix in uncompressed 24/96 still sounds awesome though!
 
Hey everybody,

the last weeks were so chaotic, but here I am again. :)

I took time to listen to the 5.1 mix before voting and I gave an 8.
Yes it could have been a better mix, but also much worse.

I like the album as it is and also had never problems with J.Guthrie.
Especially the last three songs I love to death :).
So as I never vote about package or screens I try to concentrate on the music,
because for me it is the only thing that matters.

It was mentioned that the stereo mix is great, so I also listened to that
and I have to say, that it is also a really wonderful experience.
Sometimes it is like a discreete one!

Enjoy :)
 
FYI

Not sure if the following has been commented so far.

The dynamic range of the BDA 5.1 mix is DR16 (exceptionally high!).

The wave forms of the BDA 5.1 mix:

ATD_5.1_Wave.jpg

The spectograms of the FL & FR channels of the BDA 5.1 mix. Seems the album (not surprisingly) was mixed and mastered in the PCM domain:

ATD_5.1_Spectrogram_FL_FR.jpg
 
Hmmm...
It sounded like SMS was talking about not needing to turn down the vocal in the center channel above.

On my first listen I made the (incorrect) assumption that the vocals were mixed in the center channel. I never actually got out of my chair to check. Last night I checked, and you are correct... the vocals are in the front L/R.

Perhaps I was focusing on the vocals too much last night, but I can understand why you feel they are mixed too loud. With that suggestion in my brain, I did find them a bit loud from time to time. I didn't notice that the first time, however. I don't feel there is any authoring Error here. I think it was just Guthrie's mixing decision. Hopefully I can forget it on future listens and just get back to enjoying the mix/music :)
 
Well I guess so much for that theory then.

If essentially turning down Jeff Beck and the rock band in the mix was intentional I guess I just don't like it then. It's certainly dynamic and full fidelity - that's not the issue.

I still applaud the HD release of the stereo mix and the price was fair just for that.
 
This album was new to me so I wanted to take my time absorbing it before chiming in. Firstly, I know the mix has its detractors but I find it to be solid and effective. Yes, the center channel is essentially nonexistent but there’s a healthy amount of instruments and vocals focused in the rears, the fidelity is terrific and all the elements are well balanced. I find the content, however, to be a mixed bag at best. Much of the music and many of the devices seem derivatively ‘Wall-ish’ to me and although I can’t say I dislike any of the songs I don’t find any to be in the same league as his best work with the Floyd. But it’s all very well executed and I give high marks to Jeff Beck and to Michael Kamen for his orchestral arrangements. A 7 overall for me.

Are those ‘pings’ at the start of track 10 a deliberate nod to “Echoes” from Meddle? Perhaps not but they take me back there every time. :)
 
Back
Top