Pet Sound Cover is up...
- Thread starter Jesper
- Start date
Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:
High Fidelity Review
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2003
- Messages
- 55
Jesper,
Hopefully folks won’t see this as a plug, but our review is also up:
http://www.highfidelityreview.com/reviews/review.asp?reviewnumber=19059725
…so you can take a close look at the front and back covers (click the artwork) or download some captures.
I’m actually in agreement with everything Nick wrote and can see this disc splitting the DVD-Audio community straight down the middle with love/hate arguments all over the Internet. It’ll be interesting to read what others think.
By-the-way, HDCD encoded Dolby Digital is possible these days.
Hopefully folks won’t see this as a plug, but our review is also up:
http://www.highfidelityreview.com/reviews/review.asp?reviewnumber=19059725
…so you can take a close look at the front and back covers (click the artwork) or download some captures.
I’m actually in agreement with everything Nick wrote and can see this disc splitting the DVD-Audio community straight down the middle with love/hate arguments all over the Internet. It’ll be interesting to read what others think.
By-the-way, HDCD encoded Dolby Digital is possible these days.
High Fidelity Review said:
Well, based on the review of Pet Sounds I guess I won't be getting it.
" What I found, and what I would suggest, is that the best way to enjoy this disc is by playing the two-channel high-resolution version through a surround processor that will convert it to multi-channel via either a Logic 7 or Dolby Pro Logic II matrix. I listened to the disc through both of those modes using a Lexicon MC-12B, and the surround version offered in both cases was far preferable to what was offered up from the MLP 5.1 track.
This is not a slam at the sound engineer, since I have heard several high-resolution discs whose surround “mixes” suffer, at least in the comparison I made, to the two-channel original being processed through either Logic 7 or Dolby Pro Logic II."
*******
I've been arguing this point on an this and an HK forum. While the MC-12 kicks a bit more than my AVR7200, the point remains - poor MC "remixes" may satisfy the suround geek in all of us, but the DSP processing modes have gotten so damn good that they can, and often do, surpass the 5.1 mixes on many dvds and even dvd-a/sacd choices.
Interesting review - I've got the '96 box, still might pick up the disc. If the review stands with the final product (remember Night at the Opera?) then I'll indeed be disapointed in what clearly would be a huge missed opportunity.
This is not a slam at the sound engineer, since I have heard several high-resolution discs whose surround “mixes” suffer, at least in the comparison I made, to the two-channel original being processed through either Logic 7 or Dolby Pro Logic II."
*******
I've been arguing this point on an this and an HK forum. While the MC-12 kicks a bit more than my AVR7200, the point remains - poor MC "remixes" may satisfy the suround geek in all of us, but the DSP processing modes have gotten so damn good that they can, and often do, surpass the 5.1 mixes on many dvds and even dvd-a/sacd choices.
Interesting review - I've got the '96 box, still might pick up the disc. If the review stands with the final product (remember Night at the Opera?) then I'll indeed be disapointed in what clearly would be a huge missed opportunity.
daved64
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Well, most of you know how much I disliked Harvest for it's uneven surround mix, so I won't be getting this one......i hate having an uneven soundfield.
That sucks!
That sucks!
daved64
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
It's just me....trust me!shark42 said:hmm... I've heard many complaints about Harvest, but never myself found it uneven or unbalanced. Maybe I'm not listening hard enough... If Pet Sounds is as "bad" as Harvest, I'll buy it then...
daved64
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
i live nowhere near it, but I can see it from my window here at work...it's right across the 401, I could throw a ball and hit a plane!shark42 said:dave, I never trust anybody who lives so close to the Airport.
High Fidelity Review
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2003
- Messages
- 55
Guys,
Just to pick up on a point Shark42 made, the advance discs Nick and I received were early copies of the finished product (properly replicated discs etc.,) and identical to what will officially go on sale tomorrow. EMI were going to send burnt samples, but they had issues creating DVD-18s as advances so everyone had to wait for pressed copies.
So unlike ‘A Night at the Opera’ where we were given advance copies that turned out to be nothing like the finished article, this is as good as ‘Pet Sounds’ is going to get this time around…
Just to pick up on a point Shark42 made, the advance discs Nick and I received were early copies of the finished product (properly replicated discs etc.,) and identical to what will officially go on sale tomorrow. EMI were going to send burnt samples, but they had issues creating DVD-18s as advances so everyone had to wait for pressed copies.
So unlike ‘A Night at the Opera’ where we were given advance copies that turned out to be nothing like the finished article, this is as good as ‘Pet Sounds’ is going to get this time around…
I had a feeling it would be this way after all Brian loves mono.
BUMMER!!!!
BUMMER!!!!
quadanasaziland said:I had a feeling it would be this way after all Brian loves mono.
BUMMER!!!!
If the review is true and I am sure that it is, you have to wonder who is calling the shots on this. They should let guys that dislike surround like Brian have a say on the mono and perhaps stereo hi-rez versions on the disc and then bring in someone like Elliot Scheiner to do the MC. I have never heard of an MC release that is missing one of the front left/right signals.
I may have misread, but it sounds like the chanels not missing (ie., an error on the disc), but that it's been mixed in a way that makes it feel Left-heavy. I'm sure when we get the discs we can judge for ourselves.
Thanks for clearing up that it's a final disc... could always hope, huh?
What the reviewer doesn't indicate is whether or not the mono comes only out of the CC, or if it's split/stereo mono (L/R with the same signal)
Normally, this wouldn't matter so much, but with dvd-a requiring analogue connection, it'd be interesting wheter they were smart enough to make it CC only for the mono mix.
Of course, I say that now that I have a monster beast of a deftech CC...
DD 1.0 is CC only.
Thanks for clearing up that it's a final disc... could always hope, huh?
What the reviewer doesn't indicate is whether or not the mono comes only out of the CC, or if it's split/stereo mono (L/R with the same signal)
Normally, this wouldn't matter so much, but with dvd-a requiring analogue connection, it'd be interesting wheter they were smart enough to make it CC only for the mono mix.
Of course, I say that now that I have a monster beast of a deftech CC...
DD 1.0 is CC only.
Well, after reading Nick's review of Pet Sounds all I can say is that I'll reserve judgement until I hear it myself. It all comes down to perception and preference.
Obviously, Nick loves a center channel. While I think the center channel can bring a lot to the game, for the most part, I can quite happily live without it. A complaint about lack of center channel usage, for me, is a non-issue. At worst, it simply means there is no chance that the center channel has been badly implemented.
The other complaint I picked up on was that the surround mix is overly aggressive. When I read this in an a review, I have to smile. This usually means that it is a very discrete mix. Ah, this is what I like! This is what I was hoping for! Right on!
The complaint about it being "left-heavy" might just mean that they didn't compromise the discreteness of the tracks by trying to do some kind of front blend. Hey, that's cool by me!
The advice that you might be better off listening to the stereo tracks through a processor, such as DPLII, also reinforces my thinking that Nick prefers a "watered-down" ambient type mix. It's like the Guthrie vs. Parsons DSOTM argument. Is the emphasis on a front-weighted stereo image or a fully discrete, distributed surround image? I prefer the former. Those that prefer the latter probably are better off with a processed version of the stereo tracks. That's a great option and hopefully will keep those folks happy. The rest of us that prefer real, discrete surround sound will (hopefully) be happy with the surround tracks included on the disc.
Finally, I have to ask questions about the so-called low-fidelity, thin-sounding mono mix. I'm assuming that the mono mix comes solely from the center channel. If you've got a compromised center channel, then no doubt the mix is going to sound thin. Even with a full range center channel, it's going to sound markedly different than if it were "dual-mono" coming from the front left/right speakers (my prefered method for listening to mono). Nick doesn't supply us with enough info here. Again, I'll reserve judgement until I've heard it myself.
In any event, reading between the lines and putting Nick's comments in the proper context/perspective, I can say that I am even more excited about this release than I was before! To me, it sounds like they've made all the right choices. I hope we will see/hear more discs like this in the future!
Obviously, Nick loves a center channel. While I think the center channel can bring a lot to the game, for the most part, I can quite happily live without it. A complaint about lack of center channel usage, for me, is a non-issue. At worst, it simply means there is no chance that the center channel has been badly implemented.
The other complaint I picked up on was that the surround mix is overly aggressive. When I read this in an a review, I have to smile. This usually means that it is a very discrete mix. Ah, this is what I like! This is what I was hoping for! Right on!
The complaint about it being "left-heavy" might just mean that they didn't compromise the discreteness of the tracks by trying to do some kind of front blend. Hey, that's cool by me!
The advice that you might be better off listening to the stereo tracks through a processor, such as DPLII, also reinforces my thinking that Nick prefers a "watered-down" ambient type mix. It's like the Guthrie vs. Parsons DSOTM argument. Is the emphasis on a front-weighted stereo image or a fully discrete, distributed surround image? I prefer the former. Those that prefer the latter probably are better off with a processed version of the stereo tracks. That's a great option and hopefully will keep those folks happy. The rest of us that prefer real, discrete surround sound will (hopefully) be happy with the surround tracks included on the disc.
Finally, I have to ask questions about the so-called low-fidelity, thin-sounding mono mix. I'm assuming that the mono mix comes solely from the center channel. If you've got a compromised center channel, then no doubt the mix is going to sound thin. Even with a full range center channel, it's going to sound markedly different than if it were "dual-mono" coming from the front left/right speakers (my prefered method for listening to mono). Nick doesn't supply us with enough info here. Again, I'll reserve judgement until I've heard it myself.
In any event, reading between the lines and putting Nick's comments in the proper context/perspective, I can say that I am even more excited about this release than I was before! To me, it sounds like they've made all the right choices. I hope we will see/hear more discs like this in the future!
daved64
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Cai, I couldn't have said it better myself!!!!
Very positive Cai. I just hope you are correct. Not using the centre in the MC mix doesn't bother me either. I will await your take on it before I make a move. Knowing how supplies go here in Canada we probably won't see it for a month anyway.
A reason for the inferior sound of the mono mix could be that it is from the actual master mix from the 60's, simply copied to digital. The surround and stereo mixes are presumably from the multitracks, which are a whole generation before the mono master being mixed down, right? This should sound better.
I have the original mono LP, and it certainly does not sound thin. It sounds pretty darn good, actually. If they used the original mono master tape for the DVD-A then there should not be a problem.
Similar threads
