Steven Wilson. He did the re-remix of Fragile. The box-set-on-a-bluray, released around 2015, IIRC.Forgive my density, SW? (Not Steve Wilson??)
Steven Wilson. He did the re-remix of Fragile. The box-set-on-a-bluray, released around 2015, IIRC.Forgive my density, SW? (Not Steve Wilson??)
Ahh! Sorry got my wires crossed, thought it was some rare DSOTM surround I had missed!Steven Wilson. He did the re-remix of Fragile. The box-set-on-a-bluray, released around 2015, IIRC.
OMG! I'd murder for a SW DSOTM!!!Ahh! Sorry got my wires crossed, thought it was some rare DSOTM surround I had missed!
OMG! I'd murder for a SW DSOTM!!!
Back to DSOTM:
This "Quad" is a Sonic masterpiece. It gets my second 10 vote (along with Abbey Road 5.1)
I loved the album when it came out and couldn't get enough of it. Then it's legendary status grew and songs like "Money" were played to death on the radio. Too much of anything can make you sick.
I purchased a legit standalone demo version nine months ago but forced myself myself to wait.
A recent QQ review whetted my hunger so it was time to see why this has remained near the top of the polls. Is it over hyped or can it really be that good?
The first thing I noticed was that I could really crank up the volume. That is a big + for me.
There is exceptional low bass. I'm surprised that there is no LFE channel.
On the run is done perfectly. I wish AP had done a quad version of Welcome to the machine in the same vein. It would have turned out much better than the one we got.
I feel that the lead guitar on Time is a little hot but perfect. Gilmour really wails. It's right in your face.
Money is a delectable feast of tasty guitar. You get rythym guitars out of both surrounds and lead guitar from the front. Then the lead guitar panning to all 4 corners. Awesome!
I like Us and them but lyrically maybe a little heavy
Any colour you like really picks me up. Sounds pinging all over the place. Richard Wright and Gilmour are everywhere. Excellent!
Brain damage hits home a little to hard for me but that's a personal issue...
Eclipse is a perfect ending. The backup vocalist's shine.
10
I prefer the quad mixes, but if the only mixes that existed were the 5.1 mixes, I would have been happy with them.I have read several times on this site that the quad mix is better on DSOTM and WYWH. Unfortunately i have problems playing the Quad version from the BD or the DVD but i have it as flac files so i can play it at least. But the thing is that i have enjoyed the 5.1 version so i have not done any comparision before as i realised that i have to listen to the whole album and not just bits to make an proper examination of the differences. You can call it that i have been lazy if you want .
But after these "attacks" on the 5.1 version i finally did an comparision and i have to agree that the quad is better.
I can actually not understand how you can make an new 5.1 mix and fail as you have such an good base by just listening to the quad version.
Myself i prefer WYWH to DSOTM so i am right now happy to have discovered an better version than the one i have been listening to since the Immersion boxes came. I also discovered that i can make my Atmos speakers work if i play the disc from an ripped dvd on an external harddrive. Strange that this would do the trick but it certainly made the records one step better just by this discovery.
I totally agree, as i said i have enjoyed the 5.1 track since i bought the Immersion box years ago. So i don´t agree with the talking about that the 5.1 track is crap. I just wished that they had listened more carefully to all the wonderful things that the quad track brings and did an similar thing with the 5.1 track. I don´t know if they felt that it would be some sort of copyright problem to do that or they just didn´t like discreet audio in surroundI prefer the quad mixes, but if the only mixes that existed were the 5.1 mixes, I would have been happy with them.
I prefer the quad mixes, but if the only mixes that existed were the 5.1 mixes, I would have been happy with them.
Yeah but the Quad existed LONG BEFORE the 5.1 so theoretically the 5.1 should've kicked the quad s ass...but yet it doesn't!
Which theory is that? The theory of more channels is more better or the theory of newer is better?
Yeah but the Quad existed LONG BEFORE the 5.1 so theoretically the 5.1 should've kicked the quad s ass...but yet it doesn't!
If you're saying the quad mix was done to be compliant with SQ, does that mean the Japanese QS version is a different mix than the SQ? As for the Alan Parsons quad mix, compared to the James Guthrie 5.1 mix, give me the quad every time. I'm still not convinced that a center channel is necessary for music.Which is 'better' is a matter of opinion, but one of reasons that quad is more 'discrete' or adventurous is because it was mixed to be compliant with the SQ matrix system. Engineers doing quad mixes for labels that issued their product on SQ vinyl (EMI, Columbia, etc) had to follow certain guidelines to ensure their mixes were SQ-compatible - one such rule was that you couldn't have the same sound coming from all four speakers at once.
Guthrie's 5.1 mix was done for SACD, so he could place sounds/instruments in any location or # of speakers he (or the band) wanted. The funny thing about modern surround formats is that even though they offer infinite separation with no limitations, they also give mixers the freedom to be 'conservative' with their surround mixes.
Guthrie had access to lower gen tracks.
The interviews included with the Immersion set. The band gush about the upcoming SACD.Where was this mentioned? This is the first time I hear of this.
If you're saying the quad mix was done to be compliant with SQ, does that mean the Japanese QS version is a different mix than the SQ?
I have the QS LP, and it sounds better than the SQ version. More defined separation in quad, and it sounds awesome without decoding, too. It is, quite clearly, NOT a re-encode of a decoded SQ tape.I've wondered about that myself - been trying to locate a copy for sensible money for some time now.
Cai Campbell hypothesized years ago that it's the same mix, but sourced from a decoded 4-channel master (like the US Q8). So the lineage would be Discrete 4-Ch Mix -> SQ Encoder -> SQ Decoder -> QS Encoder. If that's true, it must sound awful.
Which is 'better' is a matter of opinion, but one of reasons that quad is more 'discrete' or adventurous is because it was mixed to be compliant with the SQ matrix system. Engineers doing quad mixes for labels that issued their product on SQ vinyl (EMI, Columbia, etc) had to follow certain guidelines to ensure their mixes were SQ-compatible - one such rule was that you couldn't have the same sound coming from all four speakers at once.
Guthrie's 5.1 mix was done for SACD, so he could place sounds/instruments in any location or # of speakers he (or the band) wanted. The funny thing about modern surround formats is that even though they offer infinite separation with no limitations, they also give mixers the freedom to be 'conservative' with their surround mixes.
Its quite common for that to happen unfortunately - they didn't think about Quad when they wrote the Receiver software, probably never even heard of itMy Denon receiver unfortunately won’t correctly play the 4.0 mix. What’s output is just the front channels and the player indicates it’s 2.0. My old Yamaha receiver was able to play it without any troubles. I’ve tested this with other 4.0 discs I have in PCM and there is definitely an issue with the receiver correctly decoding and not with the blu ray player which correctly indicates it’s playing a 4.0 mix. Has anyone else had similar issues ? The 5.1 track plays with no issues.