himey
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2013
- Messages
- 3,564
Are you listening on a quadraphonic setup with four large speakers or a 5.1 setup with bass management?
HiRez Poll Flack, Roberta - KILLING ME SOFTLY [Blu-ray Audio]
- Thread starter rtbluray
- Start date
Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:
It's actually a 9.2.4 setup, but the subwoofers aren't really needed for these quad discs as I get good response down to 25hz on all relevant speakers, so I guess you can say they are "large". System sounds just fine with most quad disc I own.
Can you clarify why you are asking the question?
I'm glad it's not just me. I promise a full review but I must also concur with this excessive bass drum in the LF speaker. I backed up and started it again. I checked my tone controls are set to Flat; I do have loudness contour turned on. (going from ballsy bass in 5.1 system to quad setup is anemic w/o this IMHO)
Oppo BDP-93 > Marantz 4140 > 4 Advent Legacy III full range speakers
PS - I believe the question about which type of system you have is about multi-channel system bass management which introduces more variables into the picture rather than a straight-forward quad system such as mine. If I can hear it in native quad it probably exonerates multisystem bass settings.
If your system is correctly set up that should be irrelevant.
I have a 5.2.4 rig but with or without bass management, etc, the tonal
balance remains basically the same. The kickdrum level is a bit overbearing
on the original 2ch release.
Yeah, I should have been more clear in my response. I do have a 9.2.4, but it's hybrid system. When I'm playing quad or 5.1 or 3.0 (basically anything that's not Atmos) I switch to an external DAC and that system uses Audiolense for DSP. It's JRiver (with AL) -> DAC -> amps.
Victor Bisio
Member
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2024
- Messages
- 20
I haven't heard it yet, but I wasn't feeling warm and fuzzy about it. I know the album well and just couldn't picture it in quad.
If I had been the engineer on the remaster, I would have turned the kick drum level down 3-6db.
But then many would have complained that it varied too much from the original. LOL
Ya just can't win
No bass management here. No subwoofer - it's there but it's turned off and there's no cable to it. Straight 5.0 and no dsp or other processing. I've played the album several times now. The kickdrum on track one doesn't bother me. Quite the reverse. I'm glad that it's there. Would people be raising eyebrows so much if the kickdrum were front centre? Thankfully it is not and it is where it is. Oi'll give it 10.
I also notice a good beefy kick drum that does not bother me. I don't use DSP or bass management. So it just strikes me as a dynamic sounding mix, and a very good mix. I could possibly give this a 9 because a couple of tracks are not as interesting to me as the others. Like if her other big hit "Feel Like Makin' Love" were on this album, it would push it to a 10. So musical and vocal performances are 10, mix is 10, material an 8 overall, puts it at a high 9 for vintage quad. I can go back to this one no matter what mood I am in and just let it work my room.
Last edited:
We are always curious when a top selling album with an artist's major hit, and an audiophile favorite title gets quite a low score in the polls. Most often these very low ratings come from members where who have very few post counts, and sometimes are are brand new to the forums.
No idea why, but I am seeing this repeatedly. But it will be interesting to see how you rate the other titles in the series in comparison.
Ok. When I asked the question, I thought this was solely from technical aspect and not one of trust.
I don't have a vandetta against this major artist or her major hits, nor does being brand new to the forums have anything to do with my rating. It's my opinion. Nothing more and nothing less.
You posted why you disagreed with my review and rating and I appreciate reading the opposing view. To each their own.
Discussing the merits of an album in the poll section is fine, but insinuating that other users whose votes don't match yours (especially when others have noted the pronounced low end on this release) are part of some kind of conspiracy to discredit specific releases is bordering on both both bullying and libel, so enough of that thanks.
I appreciate you want the Quadio series to succeed - and I think it's doing just fine - but this isn't the way to go about it. For every new user you think there is with an agenda, I bet there are several more established users who also vote with agendas, including being lenient on certain releases because they like the label, album, remix engineer, reissue coordinator or just generally want surround music reissues to continue and feel like they're supporting that with high votes. Every vote and approach is equally valid, so between all that when you average the scores out you get a better representation of the album's acclaim. Homogeneity of thought is the death of insightful discussion - I want to hear (respectful, well explained) criticism, even of the albums I love, because that's what provokes the best and most interesting discussions. If we're all sitting here high-fiving each other about an album, you're not going to get much deep thought about it.
Also, just because an album sounded good in the past (or on previous releases) doesn't mean it is automatically going to sound good on a new one, as we've seen on countless modern remasters. I'm not saying this one is (or isn't) good or bad, just that the act of issuing music on a 192/24 disc format doesn't automatically mean it's going to sound good because there are many other variables that affect "sound quality" more than resolution including the condition of tapes, the quality and reproduction EQ calibration of the playback deck, and most of all, mastering.
As stated I look forward to your views on other releases. We have had quite a few recently to rate.
I just stated the facts as they do appear, not an opinion. Very low ratings, and few post and new members, this is not an insinuation or opinion is it. That is all true - you know already from seeing the polls for many years.
I personally have and do welcome new members because they are a sign that surround can and is a growing market finally. I'm aware that Joni Mitchell, say Court and Spark could get a 4 poll rating just because they don't like Joni. And that is that. That has been said before: "I gave it a 4 or 5 because I don't like this artist or the album" indeed.
I may be wrong, but I always have been under the impression that a rater's vote is based on 50% for surround mix and fidelity and 50% for content (how much you like it). I wish it was just the former as we all have different tastes and this kind of skews the ratings when someone dislikes the music. This may be one reason there are low ratings by a minority. Any thoughts?
It's also worth noting that Homer's voting tabulation software discards outliers, that is votes that deviate beyond a certain percentage away from the 'average' score, so protest votes, nihilists, mistake-makers and other lone gunmen can't adversely affect the rating of an album. So if an album has five 10's, five 9's and an 8, and then someone votes 1, the 1 vote is discarded from the poll tabulation.
Hard to tell because many times when a rather low rating comes in (out of the dark), there is no comment made on the given title by the respective poster. They hit it with a 4 and disappear from any further comments (for an obvious reason).
