Elton John "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road" HFPA Blu-Ray Release

[keenly]

Dude, this is a classic troll move. Post something inflammatory, make a half-hearted attempt to back it up, and then when people call you on it "geeze, relax guys, wow you're uptight".

I'm pretty sure in about six weeks we'll get another inflammatory post, a lame attempt to justify it, and when that B.S. gets debunked it'll be "wow you guys need to get out more" followed by silence.

Rinse, repeat. It'll get you a lot of attention and allow you to giggle that maybe someone was sore about something you wrote.

Nothing bad has been said. Move on.

 

[Elad]

I have both the SACD and DVD A of GYBR liked them both so was really undecided if I wanted to purchase the BR of this but after reading about it on here decided to give it a try. My thoughts are it is much smoother, very nice surround field and even heard somethings that I did not hear on either SACD or the DVD-A I really felt the sound was much more balance between the fronts and backs. I like it and glad I purchased it

 

[blue.monk]

Apologies if this particular Greg Penny interview has already been posted. Some good bits on GYBR.

http://www.resolutionmag.com/pdfs/INTERV~1/GREGPE~1.PDF

 

[Gmat25]

Also, a great article on the last page of the current (June 2014) edition of Stereophile magazine regarding Bob Ludwig's recent stereo mastering.

 

[quattroatl]

Apologies if this particular Greg Penny interview has already been posted. Some good bits on GYBR.

http://www.resolutionmag.com/pdfs/INTERV~1/GREGPE~1.PDF

This was a new read for me...thank you!!!

The last paragraph is interesting and explains a lot about some of our complaints about all 5.1 versions of GBYBR...Penny says, "And I
approached YBR like making a record. I didn’t approach it like an audiophile thing, or the way a guy in an authoring house would, I approached it like the way I want to hear it coming out of my sound system at home as a pop record. That’s why it’s loud, it’s got some rough edges on it, I wanted it to be fairly aggressive."

 

[Jeffrey Michael]

The last paragraph is interesting and explains a lot about some of our complaints about all 5.1 versions of GBYBR...Penny says, "And I
approached YBR like making a record. I didn’t approach it like an audiophile thing, or the way a guy in an authoring house would, I approached it like the way I want to hear it coming out of my sound system at home as a pop record. That’s why it’s loud, it’s got some rough edges on it, I wanted it to be fairly aggressive."

Thanks! I haven't found the time to read that article but it sounds like that statement pretty much sums it up.

 

[DocCasualty]

When I purchased this disc last week and went to redeem my download, it linked to a download for George Michael's Symphonica. I put in a ticket but never heard back from them, however, on a whim I decided to check the HFPA site today and lo and behold, the GYBR download is there.

This is my first 5.1 BD Audio disc and I'm really impressed. Looking forward to more multi-channel music!

 

[keenly]

Saturday is completely brickwalled!

 

[keenly]

When I purchased this disc last week and went to redeem my download, it linked to a download for George Michael's Symphonica. I put in a ticket but never heard back from them, however, on a whim I decided to check the HFPA site today and lo and behold, the GYBR download is there.

This is my first 5.1 BD Audio disc and I'm really impressed. Looking forward to more multi-channel music!

You will become hooked. Music is considerably more enjoyable in surround IMO.

 

[cupboy]

Saturday is completely brickwalled!

I would have been happy with cinder blocks.

 

[fredblue]

Saturday is completely brickwalled!

just the fronts or all the way around? either way I hope its Yellow Brickwalled :ugham:

 

[fredblue]

You will become hooked. Music is considerably more enjoyable in surround IMO.

You're hooked, you're cooked, you're caught in the Quadro trap..

 

[keenly]

just the fronts or all the way around? either way I hope its Yellow Brickwalled :ugham:

Fronts look like blocks on their sides. Literally no dynamics until fade out; crazy!

 

[fredblue]

Fronts look like blocks on their sides. Literally no dynamics until fade out; crazy!

its a sad, sad situation.. and it's getting more and more absurd..!

 

[watsontr]

I still haven't listened to this 'tho' I've had it for a while. I did weaken and bought Grace Jones and Made in Japan. I will probably get Love Supreme and Stan Getz too. I hope that more surround is on the way

 

[cupboy]

Fronts look like blocks on their sides. Literally no dynamics until fade out; crazy!

So we went with the blocks after all. I'm sticking with my SHM SACD. And no, it's not surround... someone always asks.

 

[fredblue]

I still maintain the Blu-ray sounds great in both surround and stereo.

Ok, both mixes are compressed but that doesn't tell the whole story. the level of detail in the surround remix from the multi's in particular is amazing but Bob Ludwig also managed to extract as much as possible from the stereo tapes and by modern standards it's a great stab and easily the best remaster of the album in stereo.

yes there's brightness and loudness issues with the 5.1 but I find the bashing over this one based on waveforms and blocks a bit tedious. How does it sound!

also, I'm curious if that "block" from SNAFF is of the DVD-A or BD-A? previously keenly gave us fascinating pix of blox from the DVD-A and as I prefer the sound on the new BD-A to the 2003 SACD (both 5.1 and 2.0) I just want to be sure we're all on the same page, especially as this thread is about the BD-A

 

[Clint Eastwood]

I still maintain the Blu-ray sounds great in both surround and stereo.

Ok, both mixes are compressed but that doesn't tell the whole story. the level of detail in the surround remix from the multi's in particular is amazing but Bob Ludwig also managed to extract as much as possible from the stereo tapes and by modern standards it's a great stab and easily the best remaster of the album in stereo.

yes there's brightness and loudness issues with the 5.1 but I find the bashing over this one based on waveforms and blocks a bit tedious. How does it sound!

also, I'm curious if that "block" from SNAFF is of the DVD-A or BD-A? previously keenly gave us fascinating pix of blox from the DVD-A and as I prefer the sound on the new BD-A to the 2003 SACD (both 5.1 and 2.0) I just want to be sure we're all on the same page, especially as this thread is about the BD-A

I think the blu ray version is slighty different than the SACD version, but the OVERALL sound quality is about the same. Although I do value the DNR numbers they are only one part of the audio chain. I don't put a lot of emphasis in all the numbers, charts and graphs, I go by how it actually sounds. I expected the blu ray version to be vastly inferior to the SACD version and I was wrong after listening to it.

I know there are a lot of purists out there that don't approve on any changes to an existing song or album, and I can respect that. I'm more open about change, when some purists were revolting about the LOVE version of the Beatles songs all I could do was just enjoy the changes that the surround mix brought to the music. What was sacrilege to some was brilliance in my eyes. I don't get hung up on instrument placement either, right or left or center doesn't really matter to me; as long as I like the sound.

 

[fredblue]

to paraphrase Clint; "Nothin wrong with remixing so long as the right things get mixed!"

 

[steelydave]

The 5.1 mixes and masterings on the SACD and Blu-Ray are identical - the only difference is the ultrasonic noise on the SACD introduced by DSD.

Looking at waveforms zoomed way out doesn't prove anything - if you want to make your musical choices based on DR values, sell your collection of popular music and listen to classical.

Yes, the DR values on 'Saturday Night' are low, but it was a purposeful artistic decision done in the mixing stage. Here are the DR values for each channel:


FL: 6.03 dB
FR: 6.13 dB
C: 8.78 dB
LFE: 10.74 dB
RL: 9.25 dB
RR: 7.94 dB

If this track had been smashed in the mastering stage, these values would be much closer together. As it stands, there is a lot of compression in the mix, but the channels 'breathe' independently of each other. Saying 'this track is DR8 and therefore bad' totally misunderstands the use of compression in the mixing stage. 'Saturday Night' sounds totally different (and better than) a track that was mixed with a high dynamic range originally and then crushed down to a uniform DR8 on all channels in the mastering stage.

DR values and waveforms are useful tools, but having a strong grasp of how music is recorded and mixed is even more useful, in my opinion.