Hmmm, I just noticed my David Gilmour - Live at Pompeii iTunes copy has been upgraded to 4K video at some point (doesn't do me any good with my current 2K projector, but perhaps a bit sharper in the future when I get my next projector?) I was hoping to be pleasantly surprised with an Atmos upgrade, but no such luck. I've got David's Remember that Night BluRay on the way as well (sad to say I haven't kept up with his solo live stuff in recent years). Hopefully, it'll upmix well.
Pink Floyd - "Animals" 5.1 Surround Sound Mix (Blu-Ray & SACD editions out in September 2022!)
- Thread starter César
- Start date
Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:
knifeman
400 Club - QQ All-Star
Even if an Atmos recording is backward compatible, you're not going to hear it as the mixer intended. When I buy my next system, I will get Atmos. Why buy new stuff if you don't get the latest tech (providing you have the disposable cash)? But I always considered Atmos more for movies than music. And I think the movie industry drives the equipment market rather than the music industry, hence the push towards Atmos. Although a record such as DSOTM would probably be interesting in Atmos, I think it would only be because of that recordings liberal use of sound effects. To me, a straight up recording of music would sound unrealistic with musicians sounding like they're glued to the ceiling. While 5.1 is also unrealistic, it is still physically possible to spread the players around the room (but on the same plane), although that is usually not the way they were arranged in the studio. I've passed on Automatic for the People and GHS because they didn't include a dedicated 5.1 mix, even though they probably would still sound decent in 5.1. I know I'm off topic here, but I just wanted to add my two cents. Feel free to straighten my tie MagnumX if I'm off base here.
As I said before, knowing what the mixing guy heard exactly is impossible without matching the room, speakers etc. as well. Intent is harder yet, as, for example, I intended my album to sound good on many different systems from headphones to Dolby PLIIx surround. Would you ever guess that hearing it in 2-channel if I didn't tell you? So much for guessing artist "intent", which always sounds like a lofty goal, but isn't the heart and soul of a song. It comes down to preference in my opinion more than intent as you have to listen to it and if you don't like flying violins are you likely to keep listening to it that way?
As for overhead speakers, they don't have to have flying violins in them to be useful. Auro-3D recordings use dual-quad microphones to record the timing differences of room reflections, etc. That reproduces the room reverb etc. to recreate the room a live recording was made in. Anyone that's heard such a recording played back with overhead speakers knows a 4 or 5-channel recording isn't even close to sounding like a real reproduction of the venue while Auro-3D recordings transport you there almost like binaural recordings. The overheads reproduce the room reflections in that case not necessarily any direct sounds. In other words, they can still be useful.
As for overhead speakers, they don't have to have flying violins in them to be useful. Auro-3D recordings use dual-quad microphones to record the timing differences of room reflections, etc. That reproduces the room reverb etc. to recreate the room a live recording was made in. Anyone that's heard such a recording played back with overhead speakers knows a 4 or 5-channel recording isn't even close to sounding like a real reproduction of the venue while Auro-3D recordings transport you there almost like binaural recordings. The overheads reproduce the room reflections in that case not necessarily any direct sounds. In other words, they can still be useful.
jimfisheye
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 3,026
Hearing the mix 1:1 as intended is a big deal IMHO too!
I really truly don't mean to rain on anyone's parade with upmixing, downmixing, and other end user tinkering. And of course I have respect for anyone who forms an opinion and prefers to alter a recording or remaster it to their standards (as much as could be possible from an already delivered recording). I see this as a different subject altogether. The original mix/master as delivered has to be at least heard that way once for good or bad.
I want to suggest it isn't that all or nothing. We absolutely try to mix for a perfect room with perfect speakers. Sometimes referencing on multiple pairs of speakers and checking in different rooms/systems. The idea being that the impossible perfect system will reproduce the mix perfectly as intended. In non-perfect systems, the mix will get skewed the same way any other mix done with intention will. To try to say that the other way: We don't mix on a system that is non standard or weird and would thus require the same unique system to play back. We try to get the signal into the wires with no bias.
Anyway, I would certainly like to hear James' or Andy's 5.1 mix of Animals as they intended it to be heard!
Preferably at some point in the next couple decades while I still have full hearing!I'd still like to hear the channels from some interesting Atmos mix though. Something that would generate enough hunger to actually hang speakers from the ceiling to hear it fully! Not releasing the codec and hiding it away in hardware AVR products is a bad move I think. I see this fully devolving into a movie centric format too.
Floyd fanatics will already know (and/or dispute) some of what's in this, but I thought it was pretty interesting:
hey that was good!
had never read the newspaper clipping about the pig before
check this out, he even made a drink dedicated to the album, haha!
had never read the newspaper clipping about the pig before
check this out, he even made a drink dedicated to the album, haha!
and an album review
although "dragged down by the stone" to me is also a nod to the way people used to drown animals, by tying a rock around them & tossing them into a lake
although "dragged down by the stone" to me is also a nod to the way people used to drown animals, by tying a rock around them & tossing them into a lake
although, to be really authentic, you would need to spit in that cocktail
himey
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2013
- Messages
- 3,484
If the mixing engineer cares enough, he understands that not everyone is going to have full 3D systems. Proper care also involves making sure the mix will sound great in 2D. Once you do multiple mixes, there are things that can be done to ensure the mix sounds great on multiple systems. Mixer intention doesn't have to be as limited as you make it out to be according to at least one engineer I went back and forth on the subject with.
I would hope a good mixing engineer would test the end results on at least headphones and more than one configuration with music sources, IMO (maybe not realistic to expect for an hourly worker?). When I made my own stereo album, I did my own mastering and I tried it on 3 home systems (including one high-end), my car system and headphones and made adjustments accordingly to sound great on all of them (Pink Floyd fans seemed to think it sounded up to snuff when I was trying to get second opinions). I've personally purchased too many music albums where it only sounds good on a cheap system with the bass cranked all the way up and so I decided to create my own CD Review site back in 1996 while still going to college after getting my Carver AL-III ribbon speakers. It was called "The Audiophile Asylum" (not affiliated with the "Audio Asylum" that oddly showed up within a couple of years of it).
One of the worst offenders in memory was Firehouse's original album that sounded GREAT on my old El Cheapo "all-in-on" system when I was a teenager and pretty good in a stock Chevy, but my god, it was horrible on my Carver AL-III ribbon speakers when I got them and those speakers generally are at least tolerable of mediocre recordings (no better/worse than on anything else, but much clearer/revealing on high quality recordings). I put that in my review of the album, which I used to give two ratings, one for music quality and one for sound quality. I focused on finding good music with great sound quality (for my own collection) and figured I'd review them as I went along with my favorites from my existing catalog, but I did include a few albums I really enjoyed like Firehouse that didn't impress me with the recording quality and I even got an email from someone I'm pretty sure was one of the band members (he was pretty offended, until I explained what sound quality meant in the reviews and it wasn't the music itself and then he seemed much better about it). Between moving to a new house and job (and different Internet service that was hosting the site) and honestly running out of new music I liked as the industry shifted into pushing more Rap/Hip-Hop rather than rock music, I just decided to end it after ten years (2006). I hadn't had many new reviews for a couple of years anyway.
But it just seems like it would be pretty simple in a proper Atmos studio environment to set the playback to use lesser configurations to see how it sounds in those modes (from Stereo to 5.1 to 7.1 to 5.1.2 to 5.1.4 to 7.1.4 or more). Even on my home Atmos system, I can set it to do anything from stereo to 3-channel stereo to 5.1.2 or 5.1.4 all the way up to 11.1.6 including true Auro-3D 9.1. It's just a matter of pressing a few speaker switchbox buttons and changing the amp assignment. It's actually interesting to compare how some movies sound in 5.1.2 or 5.1.4 versus 7.1.4, particularly Auro-3D vs. Atmos versions. Oddly, I found that the speaker layout had way more effect than the mix itself (since the Auro mixes were probably based off an Atmos master). 5.1.4 Atmos sounded virtually identical to 11.1.
Auro-3D recordings played back over the same 5.1.4 speakers and Auro-3D using expanded 11.1.6 (matrixed FW and SS#1 and "scatmos" center-extracted top middle actually work with Auro-3D and give it 9.1.6 playback) sounded pretty close to Atmos renderings over the same speakers (save rear surround which didn't go back quite as far, but from the 1st row sounded pretty similar as the matrixed sides expanded it to 2/3 the way back into the room and most movies do very little with discrete rear surrounds for some odd reason and Atmos hasn't changed that a whole lot, with some exceptions in some scenes, of course. I'm not sure why that is because rear surrounds placed further back can do some amazing things in Atmos in layering sounds behind and even through you while still being able to put sounds in the back of the room (unlike upmixed 5.1 which puts all in-phase behind you sounds in the back, with nothing right behind your head or whatever).
There's even an Atmos demo called "Silent" that has a sound of a creaking hand-crank (that sounds kind of like a squeaky cart on wheels) being panned back from that starts behind you and passes right through you if you're sitting in the middle and your system is set up right and goes to the front center of the room; it's pretty freaky. 5.1 played back through DSU or Neural X would cause it to "go around" you to the sides instead of straight down the center middle of the room at ear level). Unfortunately, most real movies don't move objects through the middle of the audience at "ear level" as most theaters would probably make it sound overhead anyway as they tend to put the side surrounds 2/3 up the wall) and so they're more likely to choose the ceiling speakers for straight middle front-to-back sounds. There are some exceptions for placement, though. Jurassic Park in DTS:X puts the raptor in the cage at the beginning pretty much right behind your head in 7.1.4 or greater if you're in the front of the room with the sides just behind you with other sounds going to the rear center instead. The original 5.1 DTS soundtrack upmixed had it in the back of the room (which for 5.1 systems would likely be in the same spot, but there was a clear difference here).
That's terrible, who would do something so cruel to a poor animal?
OTOH, back in Chicago that's the way we would permanently get rid of the opposition, with a set of cement overshoes.
I would kill for that bar. I love everything about it.
That's terrible, who would do something so cruel to a poor animal?
OTOH, back in Chicago that's the way we would permanently get rid of the opposition, with a set of cement overshoes.
well, I heard about old farm practices, feral cats etc
I thought there was a scene in a movie where they did that, too
agree, it is terrible
I have the 30th Anniversary 5.1 Multichannel SACD. I guess this one will be mixed differently?
musicmemorabiliashoppellc
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
I've got that one too. I've heard all the claims that it's a bootleg, I don't know, but it sounds pretty dang good.If ever the new products get released!!!
Try this on for size
musicmemorabiliashoppellc
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
And the visuals are EXCELLENT as well.....to say the least!!
The whole thing is MASTERFULLY done IMHO!!!
An up-mix of this can sound pretty convincing with the right source, I've done some basic work on Sheep with Penteo and it sounds nice already.And the visuals are EXCELLENT as well.....to say the least!!
The whole thing is MASTERFULLY done IMHO!!!
musicmemorabiliashoppellc
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
No. Analog Productions doesn't make surround mixes. (And there's no way PF would authorize an outfit like AP to do such a thing anyway.) Nor do they remaster surround mixes. This will be the same Guthrie mix of DSotM as before. In a new package.
