HiRez Poll Soft Cell - NON-STOP EROTIC CABARET [Blu-Ray Audio (Dolby Atmos)]

[rtbluray]

Please post your thoughts and comments on this new Blu-Ray audio edition of the classic album "Non-Stop Erotic Cabaret" by Soft Cell.
This Blu-Ray Audio edition is exclusive to the SDE shop (thanks @PaulatSDE) and features a Dolby Atmos Mix of the original album, plus an instrumental Dolby Atmos Mix too!

 

[IanProudfoot]

Well, this is a huge disappointment it seems to be just stereo. I have to admit that my system is still only 5.1 but it's always done a good job with other Atmos mixes.
I've always liked the album, but this release does it no justice. 4 from me, my lowest ever score.

 

[MrSmithers]

I thought the Atmos mix was pretty good... It does quite a bit with what is sometimes quite a sparse foundation, with a lot of the sound produced from a basic sounding sequencer and drum machine. The first song starts off in the rear channels and moves into the room. Quite clever. I really like it.

However, I didn't connect that much with the music or Marc Almond's singing - but it's certainly interesting! Maybe that'll change with more listens. I'll go with an 8.

 

[IanProudfoot]

I thought the Atmos mix was pretty good... It does quite a bit with what is sometimes quite a sparse foundation, with a lot of the sound produced from a basic sounding sequencer and drum machine. The first song starts off in the rear channels and moves into the room. Quite clever. I really like it.

However, I didn't connect that much with the music or Marc Almond's singing - but it's certainly interesting! Maybe that'll change with more listens. I'll go with an 8.

From your description I guess there's something wrong with my system or with some aspect of the Atmos data that allows it to work on legacy systems?

 

[MrSmithers]

From your description I guess there's something wrong with my system or with some aspect of the Atmos data that allows it to work on legacy systems?

Yeah I can't say how it folds down to 5.1 but even with the bed layer you should get some nice surround effects? The intro to 'Chips On My Shoulder' has that clanging percussion sound moving around and also whistles and whoos coming from the rear channels? They are nicely mixed in with the height channels on the Atmos mix...

 

[Jeffrey Michael]

From your description I guess there's something wrong with my system or with some aspect of the Atmos data that allows it to work on legacy systems?

Have you tried using the Audio button (assuming there is one) and cycling through the audio tracks on your remote for your source player to see if you get surround? Also, the color coded buttons may work too.

 

[IanProudfoot]

Have you tried using the Audio button (assuming there is one) and cycling through the audio tracks on your remote for your source player to see if you get surround? Also, the color coded buttons may work too.

Yes, I tried everything, but nothing made any difference. Perhaps it's a subtle plot to get me to upgrade to a full Atmos system .

 

[Veganfloyd]

Well, this is a huge disappointment it seems to be just stereo. I have to admit that my system is still only 5.1 but it's always done a good job with other Atmos mixes.
I've always liked the album, but this release does it no justice. 4 from me, my lowest ever score.

Is your AV receiver actually showing [][]Atmos and you're getting sound only from your two front speakers?

 

[admsh]

Yes, I tried everything, but nothing made any difference. Perhaps it's a subtle plot to get me to upgrade to a full Atmos system .

Sounds marvelous on my 5.1 setup, lots of action in the rears and a full sound stage. Haven't tried full Atmos yet, so not ready to rate, but very enjoyable in 5.1 too.

 

[beerking]

My view is that this release has just the right mix to being this terrific release alive.

It's never going to reach the heights (pun intended ) of a S.Wilson Atmos mix but I like it.

Marc's voice is just hitting the right notes as it always did and still does. Saw him as a guest singer with The Jools Holland Band, he stole the show.

Very happy to have this release.
A not so soft 9

 

[IanProudfoot]

Progress has been made! The problem is with my Blu-Ray player's ability to extract useful 5.1 signals from the Atmos track. For several years I've been connecting my Blu-Ray player to my Sony STR555 ES receiver via the analog outputs. Yesterday I reconnected via the coaxial link and got full 5.1 playback - result!
I was using the analog connections because they sound better on non-Atmos 5.1 discs. Who would have thought that a 21 year old amplifier would do a better job of decoding than a 9 year old Blu-Ray player?

Yes, I'm changing my score to 7.

 

[Francis Drake]

Listening in 4.0, connected via HDMI, and the 'effect' was somewhat under whelming. There's some movement rear left and right, but i feel the company not releasing a proper 5.1 mix along with the Atmos is doing the album an injustice, and has the possibility of damaging the slowly growing surround market by forcing purchasers to listen to a watered down mix via their standard 5.1 equipment.
I give it a 5, and that's mainly for the singles and the card cover.

 

[Veganfloyd]

Progress has been made! The problem is with my Blu-Ray player's ability to extract useful 5.1 signals from the Atmos track. For several years I've been connecting my Blu-Ray player to my Sony STR555 ES receiver via the analog outputs. Yesterday I reconnected via the coaxial link and got full 5.1 playback - result!
I was using the analog connections because they sound better on non-Atmos 5.1 discs. Who would have thought that a 21 year old amplifier would do a better job of decoding than a 9 year old Blu-Ray player?

Yes, I'm changing my score to 7.

Blu-ray players do not decode Atmos - they just pass the data on to the AV receiver. This can only be done via HDMI. As far as I understand, it also requires that the receiver is Atmos-enabled, and 20-year old equipment would not have that capability. I am not exactly sure what you're getting via coaxial, but it's definitely lossy and it might be just 5.1 with the information from the rears and heights lost. It does not seem that you're voting on what everyone else is listening to on 5.1 setups.

 

[IanProudfoot]

Blu-ray players do not decode Atmos - they just pass the data on to the AV receiver. This can only be done via HDMI. As far as I understand, it also requires that the receiver is Atmos-enabled, and 20-year old equipment would not have that capability. I am not exactly sure what you're getting via coaxial, but it's definitely lossy and it might be just 5.1 with the information from the rears and heights lost. It does not seem that you're voting on what everyone else is listening to on 5.1 setups.

Yes, I'm fully aware that none of my equipment supports Atmos. However the Blu-Ray player can take the embedded 5.1 signal and convert it to separate analog channels. Until this disc that method has worked well enough. In future I will use the digital co-ax link so that my amplifier can decode the 5.1.

I hope to upgrade to full Atmos next year

 

[admsh]

This thread is making me think maybe there should be two polls for each release - one for what it sounds like on legacy setups and one for what it sounds like the way it was meant to be listened to. Rating an Atmos mix played in 4.0 seems like a strange way to evaluate said mix.

 

[Veganfloyd]

Yes, I'm fully aware that none of my equipment supports Atmos. However the Blu-Ray player can take the embedded 5.1 signal and convert it to separate analog channels. Until this disc that method has worked well enough. In future I will use the digital co-ax link so that my amplifier can decode the 5.1.

I hope to upgrade to full Atmos next year

This disc has a lot going on in the height speakers. At times it's very stereo-centric in the 'ground floor' layer with surround effects directed mainly overhead. If you are aware that you might be losing all this information - all of which would be retained in surround speakers in a 5.1 fold-down on an Atmos-capable setup - I struggle to understand the reasoning for rating it at all, let alone giving it a low score. It's an Atmos mix and it does exactly what it says on the tin.

@admsh - seconded!

It's a 9+ from me on my 5.0.4 rig, rounded up to a 10. Beautiful mix, some tracks are Atmos demo material. My only complaint is that some songs are too fronts-heavy in the heights department, particularly at the beginning of the album.

 

[IanProudfoot]

This disc has a lot going on in the height speakers. At times it's very stereo-centric in the 'ground floor' layer with surround effects directed mainly overhead. If you are aware that you might be losing all this information - all of which would be retained in surround speakers in a 5.1 fold-down on an Atmos-capable setup - I struggle to understand the reasoning for rating it at all, let alone giving it a low score. It's an Atmos mix and it does exactly what it says on the tin.

@admsh - seconded!

It's a 9+ from me on my 5.0.4 rig, rounded up to a 10. Beautiful mix, some tracks are Atmos demo material. My only complaint is that some songs are too fronts-heavy in the heights department, particularly at the beginning of the album.

OK, so I may be missing height channel content, but I can still enjoy what's there now that I've got over the original difficulties. Did you notice that I have increased my score to 7? I rated it because it still provides valid entertainment, what's difficult to understand about that? I hope that when I get my Atmos system I can review my score again. Who knows It could get to 8 or 9...

 

[Mr. Afternoon]

Rating an Atmos mix played in 4.0 seems like a strange way to evaluate said mix.

I disagree. Atmos is designed to be scalable both ways. If the mix doesn't scale down properly, there's probably a problem. If a mix doesn't scale up properly, there's a problem.

 

[par4ken]

Rating an Atmos mix played in 4.0 seems like a strange way to evaluate said mix.

Why? Many of us, especially those of us who have been around a long time only want/need a 4.0 mix (5.1 is fine). I understand that when (likely often) the Atmos mix sounds bad in 5.1 that a separate 5.1 mix is usually done. Obviously not always!

Remember also that comments are far more important than any poll number ever given! I seldom pay much attention to poll results but if I was on the fence over an item (especially an Atmos mix) I would be reading through the comments, noting how well it sounds in 5.1/4.0!

Not everyone listens through a godzillion speakers or through just two! The height information is supposed to be mixed into "the bed" as well and so really it should not sound bad. Atmos is supposed to be scalable up and down, if not then what good is it?

I don't know it there is an issue with non-Atmos equipement not downmixing properly but from what I understand all the height information is also mixed into the bed, so nothing should be lost. Please correct me if my understanding is incorrect.

 

[Albert Dagger]

OK, so I may be missing height channel content, but I can still enjoy what's there now that I've got over the original difficulties. Did you notice that I have increased my score to 7? I rated it because it still provides valid entertainment, what's difficult to understand about that? I hope that when I get my Atmos system I can review my score again. Who knows It could get to 8 or 9...

The content from the height speakers is not lost, but redirected to the bed speakers. The core contains all the audio information, nothing is lost when listening on a 5.1, 5.0 or quad set up! Liking or not the downmix is another story.