Deep Purple "Machine Head 50 (Deluxe)" 3CD+LP+BD-A w/ Atmos, US quad and 5.1 bonus (3/29/2024 -Universal)

[DuncanS]

Out of curiosity has anybody who ordered from Jpc.de had their copy yet? I had an email on 27th March saying its being shipped (to the UK) but nothing has arrived yet, and it didn't have a tracking no.

I'm in the same exact boat Duncan , shipment notice on March 27th and nothing beyond that...Patiently waiting !

From past experiences with them they do show up out of the blue, being delivered from a third party.. no tracking is possible..and here's the notice from their website..

"Unfortunately, tracking is not available for this delivery. Deliveries that are not shipped with DHL due to size, weight or other reasons cannot be tracked online."

Mine has arrived so almost 3 weeks from Germany to the UK - mind you I didn't get stung for tax & gathering fee so I'm doubly happy!

 

[ar surround]

Mine has arrived so almost 3 weeks from Germany to the UK - mind you I didn't get stung for tax & gathering fee so I'm doubly happy!

Mine came weeks ago. Out of solidarity with you and the others Ducan, I haven't even taken it out of the ImportCD box. Just too backed up.

 

[steelydave]

"Compression" seems to have become this catch-all boogeyman that people online turn to every time they don't like the sound of a release these days. Compression, especially in the mixing stage is an essential part of adding clarity and punch to a mix - if you want an example of a multichannel mix that has too much compression in the mixing stage, listen to the Genesis 5.1 remixes. No one would accuse them of being muddy or muffled, because compression results effectively in the opposite - individual instruments stand out too much, and the tonality changes as a result of all the frequencies being levelled out and clipped.

I can't speak for the mastering on the Atmos mix, but the US quad mix has zero mastering compression applied. There's nearly 3dB of headroom and not a single clipped peak on all of the tracks except for Space Truckin', which peaks closer to zero just as a result of the percussion solo near the end of the track. The DR rating for the US quad mix (which I have my issues with, as detailed) is a robust DR13, a full 2dB better than the UK quad mix on SACD, but for me the UK quad mix sounds considerably better, despite (or maybe because of) the compression, simply because of the attention to detail that was put in to EQ-ing the UK quad mix.

 

[Dynamic Editor]

"Compression" seems to have become this catch-all boogeyman that people online turn to every time they don't like the sound of a release these days. Compression, especially in the mixing stage is an essential part of adding clarity and punch to a mix - if you want an example of a multichannel mix that has too much compression in the mixing stage, listen to the Genesis 5.1 remixes. No one would accuse them of being muddy or muffled, because compression results effectively in the opposite - individual instruments stand out too much, and the tonality changes as a result of all the frequencies being levelled out and clipped.

I can't speak for the mastering on the Atmos mix,

Again, I am talking about compression in the mixing stage here. The timbre of the guitars and organ sound notably different than other mixes of Machine Head. If compression isn't what it is, it is at least something that makes those instruments sound muddier than pre-2024 mixes of the album, and I don't think it's the mastering.

 

[steelydave]

Again, I am talking about compression in the mixing stage here. The timbre of the guitars and organ sound notably different than other mixes of Machine Head. If compression isn't what it is, it is at least something that makes those instruments sound muddier than pre-2024 mixes of the album, and I don't think it's the mastering.

I don't know why you're tying yourself in knots trying to attribute that to compression, when to me the Occam's Razor explanation is that a guitarist that spent the vast majority of his adult life in front of high-decibel amplification (and who most likely has the attendant hearing loss to match) created an Atmos mix that mirrors what he hears in the original stereo mix.

All the original issues of the various mixes of this album (stereo, UK/US quad) have a rolled-off top end, which I think is at least partially a function of how the album was recorded, basically in the corridors and rooms of a hotel, hardly ideal conditions for optimal sound quality. Although it can be exacerbated by things like too much reverb or echo, muddiness or murkiness is almost entirely a symptom of EQ - if guitars or keyboards or vocals sound muddy they probably need more presence (5kHz range) or sparkle/air (10-12kHz range). If the guy doing the mixing can't hear well in those ranges to start with he's much less likely to perceive anything as being 'wrong'. The average upper range hearing of someone at age 40 is 15kHz, and by age 50 it declines to 12kHz - what do you think Dweezil's is at age 54 with the extra mileage he's put on his ears standing in front of guitar amps for 30 years?

If you want to hear what mixing stage over-compression sounds like, listen to the guitars in the rear speakers on the Foo Fighters' Low from the One by One 5.1 mix. Granted we're using qualitative and not quantitative words here (and 'writing about music is like dancing about architecture' as Dweezil's dad once said) but to me the result of that is that the guitars have a razor-sharp hyper-realistic texture where you feel like you can hear everything, sort of like the musical equivalent of adding MSG to food.

That isn't to say that Dweezil didn't use compression in the mixing stage - it's been an essential part of rock and popular music mixing since the 1950's - but it's not the universal evil that only makes things sound worse, despite what some mastering engineers and their acolytes might tell you. Is it possible that there's some compression somewhere in the chain that hasn't helped the situation? Sure, but it's not a nuclear football that would drastically alter the tonality of a recording and turn a good mix into a bad one, or vice versa.

 

[Dynamic Editor]

I don't know why you're tying yourself in knots trying to attribute that to compression, when to me the Occam's Razor explanation is that a guitarist that spent the vast majority of his adult life in front of high-decibel amplification (and who most likely has the attendant hearing loss to match) created an Atmos mix that mirrors what he hears in the original stereo mix.

All the original issues of the various mixes of this album (stereo, UK/US quad) have a rolled-off top end, which I think is at least partially a function of how the album was recorded, basically in the corridors and rooms of a hotel, hardly ideal conditions for optimal sound quality. Although it can be exacerbated by things like too much reverb or echo, muddiness or murkiness is almost entirely a symptom of EQ - if guitars or keyboards or vocals sound muddy they probably need more presence (5kHz range) or sparkle/air (10-12kHz range). If the guy doing the mixing can't hear well in those ranges to start with he's much less likely to perceive anything as being 'wrong'. The average upper range hearing of someone at age 40 is 15kHz, and by age 50 it declines to 12kHz - what do you think Dweezil's is at age 54 with the extra mileage he's put on his ears standing in front of guitar amps for 30 years?

If you want to hear what mixing stage over-compression sounds like, listen to the guitars in the rear speakers on the Foo Fighters' Low from the One by One 5.1 mix. Granted we're using qualitative and not quantitative words here (and 'writing about music is like dancing about architecture' as Dweezil's dad once said) but to me the result of that is that the guitars have a razor-sharp hyper-realistic texture where you feel like you can hear everything, sort of like the musical equivalent of adding MSG to food.

That isn't to say that Dweezil didn't use compression in the mixing stage - it's been an essential part of rock and popular music mixing since the 1950's - but it's not the universal evil that only makes things sound worse, despite what some mastering engineers and their acolytes might tell you. Is it possible that there's some compression somewhere in the chain that hasn't helped the situation? Sure, but it's not a nuclear football that would drastically alter the tonality of a recording and turn a good mix into a bad one, or vice versa.

If I'm wrong about it being due to compression, then alright, that's my bad. I wasn't trying to make great statements regarding compression. If I came across that way, then again, my bad.

 

[ar surround]

In the small amount of time that I've played with the US quad (one song Space Truckin'), I've noticed that the bass is relegated to the rear channels and the drums including cymbals are in both the fronts and the rears. That kind of distribution seems to make the cymbals relatively stronger and the bass relatively weaker. (No subwoofer in my setup.)

Here are the waveforms of the bass and the drums after tearing the fronts and rears apart using DeMix Pro:

It may be that those listeners who have subwoofers are hearing a more balanced presentation than those of us with just full range speakers all around. Thoughts?

 

[jimfisheye]

A calibrated 'high top + sub' bass managed system should sound identical to a 1:1 full range system. Bass in only the rears is asking for trouble though isn't it!

Listening to the previous two albums sure gives a perspective! If only In Rock and Fireball could sound as good as our least favorite surround mix of Machine Head! I still think all these mixes have problems. Still love cranking up this album! I still like the original mastering on the US quad the best. Have to tweak on this new copy one day.

 

[JulesRules]

Listening to the previous two albums sure gives a perspective! If only In Rock and Fireball could sound as good as our least favorite surround mix of Machine Head!

The remixes added to the remasters were pretty good, it's odd how those albums never got a full remix but Machine Head got several.

Even the Andy Pearce remasters of In Rock tracks on the 3CD compilation A Fire in the Sky are quite nice and I know there are some who think his remaster on LP is better than the original vinyl. I wish that remaster was released on CD in full...

 

[himey]

In the small amount of time that I've played with the US quad (one song Space Truckin'), I've noticed that the bass is relegated to the rear channels and the drums including cymbals are in both the fronts and the rears. That kind of distribution seems to make the cymbals relatively stronger and the bass relatively weaker. (No subwoofer in my setup.)

Here are the waveforms of the bass and the drums after tearing the fronts and rears apart using DeMix Pro:

View attachment 104633

View attachment 104634

It may be that those listeners who have subwoofers are hearing a more balanced presentation than those of us with just full range speakers all around. Thoughts?

Systems with large 3-way rears will be rewarded.
edit...
Never mind, I initially missed your point. I don't think subs will compensate. Balance the system and let the chips fall where they may, (after a few channel balance tweaks).

 

[quicksrt]

A calibrated 'high top + sub' bass managed system should sound identical to a 1:1 full range system. Bass in only the rears is asking for trouble though isn't it!

Listening to the previous two albums sure gives a perspective! If only In Rock and Fireball could sound as good as our least favorite surround mix of Machine Head! I still think all these mixes have problems. Still love cranking up this album! I still like the original mastering on the US quad the best. Have to tweak on this new copy one day.

I don't see why that is asking for trouble, especially when it is just a four piece band w/ vocals, not an issue for me as my rear channel speakers sound deep and heavy when they need to.

 

[Dynamic Editor]

I don't see why that is asking for trouble, especially when it is just a four piece band w/ vocals, not an issue for me as my rear channel speakers sound deep and heavy when they need to.

It's asking for trouble insofar that it doesn't gel as well with surround sound setups with bass management, and a subwoofer in the front.

 

[jimfisheye]

I don't see why that is asking for trouble, especially when it is just a four piece band w/ vocals, not an issue for me as my rear channel speakers sound deep and heavy when they need to.

It shouldn't be of course. More a quip on how some people will have small speakers in the rear - a few with the speaker management set wrong and no bass from the rear channels getting through. And that leads to thinking about that sometimes when you mix and not taking risks that might get weird on less than perfect systems. I think that started happening more. 70s quad especially was more experimental.

 

[quicksrt]

It's asking for trouble insofar that it doesn't gel as well with surround sound setups with bass management, and a subwoofer in the front.

It shouldn't be of course. More a quip on how some people will have small speakers in the rear - a few with the speaker management set wrong and no bass from the rear channels getting through. And that leads to thinking about that sometimes when you mix and not taking risks that might get weird on less than perfect systems. I think that started happening more. 70s quad especially was more experimental.

I'm just playing it through pure quadraphonic set-up, all full-range speakers of course. With MH I have the bass turned up a good bit, and treble turned down but only one notch. I like the bass dancing around back there and I think I hear some deeper but fainter bass in certain places in the fronts with less detail there. Need another listen.

 

[ProgRules]

writing about music is like dancing about architecture

Wasn't that Laurie Anderson's line? I know I read her saying that, but maybe she was quoting FZ???

 

[Progfiend]

Mine has arrived so almost 3 weeks from Germany to the UK - mind you I didn't get stung for tax & gathering fee so I'm doubly happy!

Don't worry, it's just as bad ordered directly from Rhino. I am on the west coast of Canada, so granted it has to cross an international border. However, their lack of care still puzzles me. I "pre-ordered" Machine Head in February. I would have expected shipment on release date. Instead, they didn't ship it until April 15. WTF! I finally got it today. Insult to injury, Rhino charged both Canadian taxes, then Customs charged them AGAIN. Ugh. I'll have to figure out how to get that back. Anyway, on the bright side, I can finally give it a spin and see what all the fuss is about! LOL!