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

[LuvMyQuad]

"Gotta admit, that I'm a little bit confused"...
I don't really understand the amount of negative comments this release gets. Sure, the packaging could have been better, as well as the on screen parts, but hey: isn't it really about the MUSIC and what it actually SOUNDS like?
Sonically I personally find nothing to complain about here. Probably, again contrary to what most of the other posters here seem to think, because this is my favourite album by Roger Waters. I loved the original album when it came out in 1992 and it is still one of the albums I go back to regularly. It hasn't lost its relevance, for me anyway.
The dynamics in this album are fantastic, not just the technical production, but the compositions too. Perhaps James Guthrie took a rather safe approach to the surround mix, but I guess it could have been what Roger Waters had in mind. His music on this album, which is very sound effect driven, could easily have gone overboard when it comes to bringing it to a surround environment. I think they did a great job by keeping it subtle and not just went "all effects are go!" on this one.
Just my 2 dollars and cents, pounds, shillings and pence...

I agree with Rudd. There is too much negativity surrounding this release. This album has always been a sonic treat. It still is, even more so. Sonically its reference material. The concept is striking, even by Waters lofty standards. Taken as a whole, it is IMO Waters best solo work. Yep, very unimaginative surround treatment on the music, but its still probably Guthrie's most adventurous mix based on the effects mix alone. Yep, crappy packaging and authoring, maybe some of the worst, but I don't think I've ever bought a release for those reasons. If I could vote an 8.5 I would, but I gotta go 8 on this one. If you are familiar with the album I think you might like this. If you aren't, you might want to start with the stereo version. Listen to that for a few weeks. You will appreciate the 5.1 mix a lot more when you finally unveil it to yourself. Just pray that before Guthrie finally gets his hands on "The Wall" for a 5.1 remix (if it isn't already done), he'll have listened to Gilmore's recent 5.1 stuff mixed by Andy Jackson and see the light.

 

[rontoon]

I agree with Rudd. There is too much negativity surrounding this release. This album has always been a sonic treat. It still is, even more so. Sonically its reference material. The concept is striking, even by Waters lofty standards. Taken as a whole, it is IMO Waters best solo work. Yep, very unimaginative surround treatment on the music, but its still probably Guthrie's most adventurous mix based on the effects mix alone. Yep, crappy packaging and authoring, maybe some of the worst, but I don't think I've ever bought a release for those reasons. If I could vote an 8.5 I would, but I gotta go 8 on this one.

"There is too much negativity surrounding this release."
"Very unimaginative surround treatment on the music."
"Yep, crappy packaging and authoring, maybe some of the worst."

Anyone else see the irony here?

This poll isn't supposed to reflect the original work but rather "surround, fidelity, and content." Fidelity is there but the other aspects are in the crapper but you would still give this an 8.5. :ugham:

 

[colsky]

Just realised that I've had this since release date, but not voted yet! I agree that the surround mix isn't the best, but it does make good use of the rear speakers in places. The fidelity is so good anyway, I've still given it an 8 overall.

The strange thing is the stereo version possibly sounds better than the surround version, and maybe even sounds more spatial and projected too. Whisper it, but on my system I would also say that the cd sounds perhaps better than the blu ray stereo version :couch!

Because of the Qsound the projection on the stereo version is awesome at times. One question I have though for anyone - in the booklet it says about the Qsound that the dog barking near the start should sound like its coming from next door. For me though, the dog, whilst sounding well outside the speakers, doesn't sound that distant. Some sounds on the disc sound further out than that. Where is the dog for other listeners? I believe that my speakers are in phase.

 

[rontoon]

I agree. I prefer the stereo mix to the multi-channel.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

"There is too much negativity surrounding this release."
"Very unimaginative surround treatment on the music."
"Yep, crappy packaging and authoring, maybe some of the worst."

Anyone else see the irony here?

This poll isn't supposed to reflect the original work but rather "surround, fidelity, and content." Fidelity is there but the other aspects are in the crapper but you would still give this an 8.5. :ugham:

I wouldn't say the other aspects are in the crapper. To your specific points, the packaging was never meant to be part of the poll evaluation, although many do insist on including it, I do not. The content IMO, is the best solo effort from Waters. Also content wise, I am finally glad to hear the 2001 Space Odyssey effects as intended. So I have no problem rating the performance highly. The issue with the surround mix is valid, but it is partially saved by the excellent treatment of the effects, which on this particular album, are a major part of the content. Yes the music portion is a lost surround opportunity. All of Guthrie's mixes have been like that. Maybe an 8.5 is generous, but there are obviously others who feel even more positive than I do since there are nearly as many 9's and 10's as there are 8's in the poll. And if the fidelity wasn't so many notches better than the original release, I would have dipped into the 7 range myself.

 

[jimfisheye]

I found a way to rescue this...

I thought the mix as delivered was kind of tubby sounding. Especially when the rock band parts kicked in or the vocal was strong. There were very discreet elements in the rears but with the meat of the mix squeezed into the front stereo pair and just the slightest bit of ambient reflection in the center, it just sounded mushed together in the front half of the room. Then with elements in the rear that didn't match and making them sound too loud. This made the lead vocal have more weight to it than the rock band kick drum! And the rock band parts didn't rock anymore like the original stereo mix. They just sounded boomy.

All of that along with the very obviously increased fidelity of elements of the 5.1 mix (as delivered) was what made me speculate in the thread that it may be a mastering mistake somehow.



I separated the mono content - minus the high range (cymbals) and the lows (bass, kick, etc) - from the front L,R pair and added it to the center channel. I did leave about 15% of said mono content in the L,R. I used the Voxengo MSED mid-side encoder/decoder plugin (which passes the null test) to isolate the pure mono content from the front L, R pair and restricted the frequency range with the crossover eq function of a Waves linear phase multiband plugin. I then used a reverse polarity copy of the above to remove the same mono content from the front L, R pair (backed off to retain about 15%).

As a large amount of the front L, R content turned out to be mono, the headroom opened up in the front L, R pair let me boost the remaining stereo program there almost 4db. This sounds like a more correct balance with the mono content as well as the rear content and also matches the stereo mix balance more closely.

The rear channels are untouched as is the Lfe. The original center ch content is unaltered as well - just added to.

I honestly think this is one of the better surround mixes I've heard now. It makes the stereo mix (that I was raving about in the thread) sound like puny garbage to me now in comparison. The original 5.1 mix as presented sounds strikingly wrong when I A/B to this. I realized I stumbled onto something when I started getting sucked into the mix repeatedly when A/B'ing to critique with the original. I'm hearing a stunning level of fidelity and a mix with lots of depth and layers. This was a 'one size fits all' mastering - as in the exact same treatment for the entire program. The mix tells its story and the transitions sound more intentional throughout the album. Further evidence to suggest I might be correcting a mastering mistake as opposed to being a 2nd pair of ears for JG to master his work. I can only speculate on that.

I highly suggest doing the alterations I mentioned and giving this another listen. There is a very well done surround mix with just stunning fidelity hiding on this disc!

 

[rontoon]

I wouldn't say the other aspects are in the crapper. To your specific points, the packaging was never meant to be part of the poll evaluation, although many do insist on including it, I do not. The content IMO, is the best solo effort from Waters. Also content wise, I am finally glad to hear the 2001 Space Odyssey effects as intended. So I have no problem rating the performance highly.

Fair enough on the packaging point but the "content" is referring to extra material aside from the album mixes, not a review of the album itself. And for content you would expect the stereo and 5.1 mix, that's a given. We'd get a blank disc without that! So in that regard content would score a 0 out of 10. Maybe I'm wrong about this, just my interpretation.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

Fair enough on the packaging point but the "content" is referring to extra material aside from the album mixes, not a review of the album itself. And for content you would expect the stereo and 5.1 mix, that's a given. We'd get a blank disc without that! So in that regard content would score a 0 out of 10. Maybe I'm wrong about this, just my interpretation.

I guess I generally do not include extra content in my vote just because its there. Now if the extra content is worthy like the main part of the album is, its a different story and a release might gain some points with me there. The last Tull release is a good example. The live Jakko mixes are excellent and deserve to be included in the vote, but the simple inclusion of a demo track or two really does nothing for me. Right or wrong, I have always taken "content" to mean only the performance, and perhaps I should change that idea. Still, we don't seem to have problems giving out 10's for SACD's or old quad AF releases, and they generally have no extra content at all. If I purchased a new release that has a great surround mix but hated the music, I certainly would not be awarding it highly in a vote. If it were an old release that I knew, I guess I wouldn't purchase it at all.

 

[paligap]

I found a way to rescue this...

I highly suggest doing the alterations I mentioned and giving this another listen. There is a very well done surround mix with just stunning fidelity hiding on this disc!

Congratulations on your accomplishment. I'm not sure how many others have the wherewithal to accomplish the same thing.

 

[skherbeck]

I separated the mono content - minus the high range (cymbals) and the lows (bass, kick, etc) - from the front L,R pair and added it to the center channel. I did leave about 15% of said mono content in the L,R. I used the Voxengo MSED mid-side encoder/decoder plugin (which passes the null test) to isolate the pure mono content from the front L, R pair and restricted the frequency range with the crossover eq function of a Waves linear phase multiband plugin. I then used a reverse polarity copy of the above to remove the same mono content from the front L, R pair (backed off to retain about 15%)

Hmm... Sounds to me like you took the easy way out.@:

 

[skherbeck]

Hmm... Sounds to me like you took the easy way out.@:

OK, all joking aside, jimfisheye's alterations are a subtle, yet huge improvement over the original mix... The lead vocals now sound balanced in the mix and the volume is much more crankable! Great job, Jim... This will be my go-to way to listen to this album.

 

[edisonbaggins]

OK, all joking aside, jimfisheye's alterations are a subtle, yet huge improvement over the original mix... The lead vocals now sound balanced in the mix and the volume is much more crankable! Great job, Jim... This will be my go-to way to listen to this album.

Agreed

 

[onthewall2983]

Really enjoyed the new mix, although there are a few things about the original stereo mix I think are better (especially on "Bravery"). "Too Much Rope" and "What God Wants, Part 3" might be the highlight of the mix for me. They really highlight Michael Kamen's contribution, as I've heard nuances in the orchestra that were buried in both stereo mixes. I think given Roger's treatment of American pop culture on the album, there is the irony that a leading composer of big-budget action films is complicit in the musical fabric of this album.

 

[César]

Jim, I'd love to listen to your restored master (as I was one of the defenders of the James's). Can u PM me?

 

[César]

Jim, I must admit that your corrections make the record sound much better. Rita Coolidge's voice sounds again like her on the stereo version, for example.
Don't know, I still think the SACD is mastered as James wanted

 

[IMachine]

Hi Jim,

I also would really like to hear your remix.

 

[GOS]

I have listened to every song on the Blu-ray disc. I have to say I'm sort of stunned.

Why? Stunned at all the negative comments about the quality of this disc. Man....I have to say this one ranks right up there in terms of audio surround prowess. On my system. It sounds excellent. Amazing separation....lots of very discreet stuff going on...vocals are very in depth and pronounced. So far, I love the way it sounds. I want to turn it up as loud as I can...some of the bass explosions are intense. Reminds me of a movie soundtrack...but that's OK.

I have to come clean...I'd never heard this album...ever. First time right now. It has moments of The Wall to me...which I love. So, this sort of fills a void until we get The Wall in hi-rez.....

Personally - I recommend this with no reservations. Sounds amazing....turn it up! I rated it a 9...only not a 10 because some of the content is not up to par. (for me that is)

 

[rtbluray]

I have listened to every song on the Blu-ray disc. I have to say I'm sort of stunned.

Why? Stunned at all the negative comments about the quality of this disc. Man....I have to say this one ranks right up there in terms of audio surround prowess. On my system. It sounds excellent. Amazing separation....lots of very discreet stuff going on...vocals are very in depth and pronounced. So far, I love the way it sounds. I want to turn it up as loud as I can...some of the bass explosions are intense. Reminds me of a movie soundtrack...but that's OK.

I have to come clean...I'd never heard this album...ever. First time right now. It has moments of The Wall to me...which I love. So, this sort of fills a void until we get The Wall in hi-rez.....

Personally - I recommend this with no reservations. Sounds amazing....turn it up! I rated it a 9...only not a 10 because some of the content is not up to par. (for me that is)

I think the negativity surrounding this release comes from two different factions. There are some who dislike the album, and then there are others who love the album but dislike the surround mix.
As for me, I think both the surround mix and the album itself are good, but both could be better in spots.

 

[GOS]

I think the negativity surrounding this release comes from two different factions. There are some who dislike the album, and then there are others who love the album but dislike the surround mix.
As for me, I think both the surround mix and the album itself are good, but both could be better in spots.

Well - maybe because I'd never heard this particular set of songs...I had no preconceived idea of what it should or shouldn't sound like....

I don't know. I honestly think it sounds amazing. Songs are very good as well, IMO. Wall like. What's not to like about that? Oh well - we all have our little odd tastes. Fine by me....

The good thing is - I feel like the money I spent was worthy...and for me, in a tough money climate...that's all good.

 

[bktouchstone]

Like GOS, no preconceived notions, as I never bought this before. To me the surround is very, very good. The only demerits for me are its negativity and length. As someone once said, everyone wants to be the gadfly and no one the horse. But I thought the mix in surround was nice.