McCartney/ Wings - Band on the Run streaming Atmos February 2nd

[Mcallister]

Adore this album can’t wait till tomorrow, but damn why couldn’t we get it on Blu-Ray

 

[Methuselah’s Grandpa]

Adore this album can’t wait till tomorrow, but damn why couldn’t we get it on Blu-Ray

Same here, ...I absolutely love this album.
Since I don't have Atmos, I doubt I will find the new mix even worth it since the old 5.1 DTS mix is about twice the bitrate that the streaming services will provide.

 

[jkoolpe]

Still have my 5.1 DTS disc that I bought shortly after it was originally released (even with the missing 1st few notes ). Only knew the 2 hits when I picked it up (Title track and Jet), but immediately fell in love with the whole album, particularly with the ending track (Nineteen Hundred and Eighty-Five).

Would definitely buy again if a Blu-Ray of this new mix was released.

 

[PurpleMoustache]

Oh it’s up on my end (Denver, US) on Apple Music. YMMV

 

[sjcorne]

I was expecting to not like this after being unimpressed with Revolver and the Red/Blue albums, but I have to say that the title track sounds awesome in Atmos. The bass guitar really stands out nicely, and unlike the aforementioned Beatles stuff there's discrete use of the center speaker for vocals and lead guitar. I do wish the heights were used more, but the guitar delay popping up from above at the end was really effective. Excited to hear the rest!

 

[Simon A]

I know everyone's excited about the Atmos mix, but don't forget this one which was also released today...

Paul McCartney & Wings - Band On The Run (Underdubbed Mixes) (1973)

 

[PurpleMoustache]

I know everyone's excited about the Atmos mix, but don't forget this one which was also released today...

Paul McCartney & Wings - Band On The Run (Underdubbed Mixes) (1973)

View attachment 101006

Not out yet in the states (will be at midnight though)

Interested in checking it out.

 

[Simon A]

Not out yet in the states (will be at midnight though)

Interested in checking it out.

It is absolutely available in the US as I bought the 96/24 from HDtracks earlier today.

 

[himey]

I doubt I will find the new mix even worth it since the old 5.1 DTS mix is about twice the bitrate

LOL

 

[Methuselah’s Grandpa]

LOL

I don't know what you find funny about that, is my math wrong? IMO a DTS 5.1 mix (+1400kbps) sounds better than a 12+channel streaming Atmos (768kbps). Eac3 is more efficient but not by that much.
For those of us who only have 5.1 systems, I don't really see a streaming Atmos version as an upgrade unless it is a vastly superior surround mix.

 

[fripppp]

Just read this post at The Other Forum™ and thought it worth sharing here. The link below goes straight to his track-by-track capsule review so you can bypass that forum.

Enjoying the release right know, but I remembered that this article also mentions an Atmos mix for "Helen Wheels" which isn't included on most versions of the main album, including the one in Atmos on Apple right now. Does anyone see this track anywhere in Atmos?

 

[sjcorne]

Does anyone see this track anywhere in Atmos?

Yeah, it’s in the “Archive Collection” version (which is marked as lossless only because all the other extra tracks are stereo).

 

[mister_eff]

I don't know what you find funny about that, is my math wrong? IMO a DTS 5.1 mix (+1400kbps) sounds better than a 12+channel streaming Atmos (768kbps). Eac3 is more efficient but not by that much.
For those of us who only have 5.1 systems, I don't really see a streaming Atmos version as an upgrade unless it is a vastly superior surround mix.

I think the "LOL" was for the situation and not directed at you. I think you're right with the math, but do you have a source on EAC3 being only a little better than DTS? DTS is far older, so I wouldn't be surprised if EAC3 was significantly better (but that's just me guessing). Also, the Atmos tracks are often just 6 channels with the height information embedded in the other channels, right? It's still a lot of compression but a bit more apples to apples compared to a 5.1 DTS encode.

I, of course, would still like to see a blu-ray release though.

Also I'd be very curious how the Atmos mix compares to the DTS mix, for people who can hear both.

 

[sjcorne]

IMO a DTS 5.1 mix (+1400kbps) sounds better than a 12+channel streaming Atmos (768kbps). Eac3 is more efficient but not by that much.

One thing you're not taking into account is the quality of the source recordings. The new Atmos version was remixed from the original multitrack masters, so you're going back a full audio generation in comparison to the DTS-CD that was sourced from a '90s-era digital transfer of the quadraphonic mix - which I doubt is even a real indicator of how good the quad master could sound.

A lot of those DTS-CD releases made from adapted '70s quad mixes sound rather poor (Santana's Abraxas and Wings' Venus & Mars being the most glaring examples). Even though Band On The Run is probably one of the better-sounding entries in the series, it still isn't great. I've seen people blame the DTS-CD format for the quality of these discs, but I've never bought into that argument as there are plenty of commercial DTS-CD releases that sound great. The first 5.1 version of Steely Dan's Gaucho and Lyle Lovett's Joshua Judges Ruth being prime examples. So I imagine that a modern reissue of the quad mix would sound considerably better than what's on the DTS-CD, as turned out to be the case with Abraxas - but it would still be a generation removed from the multitrack masters.

I would be surprised to hear if anyone preferred the sound of the DTS-CD to the new Atmos stream. Just compare "Jet" and the sonic upgrade is kind of night-and-day. As for the surround mixing, both versions have pluses and minuses. I think the first two tracks are way better in Atmos, but "Bluebird" is more of an 'expanded stereo' presentation with some backing vocals popping up in the sides towards the end. The quad mix had the sax solo in one of the back corners, whereas it's in center front on the Atmos. I was also kinda bummed that the big vocal delays in "Let Me Roll It" are mostly in the front on the new Atmos mix, while the quad places them in the rear speakers as you'd expect.

 

[Methuselah’s Grandpa]

One thing you're not taking into account is the quality of the source recordings. The new Atmos version was remixed from the original multitrack masters, so you're going back a full audio generation in comparison to the DTS-CD that was sourced from a '90s-era digital transfer of the quadraphonic mix - which I doubt is even a real indicator of how good the quad master could sound.

A lot of those DTS-CD releases made from adapted '70s quad mixes sound rather poor (Santana's Abraxas and Wings' Venus & Mars being the most glaring examples). Even though Band On The Run is probably one of the better-sounding entries in the series, it still isn't great. I've seen people blame the DTS-CD format for the quality of these discs, but I've never bought into that argument as there are plenty of commercial DTS-CD releases that sound great. The first 5.1 version of Steely Dan's Gaucho and Lyle Lovett's Joshua Judges Ruth being prime examples. So I imagine that a modern reissue of the quad mix would sound considerably better than what's on the DTS-CD, as turned out to be the case with Abraxas - but it would still be a generation removed from the multitrack masters.

I would be surprised to hear if anyone preferred the sound of the DTS-CD to the new Atmos stream. Just compare "Jet" and the sonic upgrade is kind of night-and-day. As for the surround mixing, both versions have pluses and minuses. I think the first two tracks are way better in Atmos, but "Bluebird" is more of an 'expanded stereo' presentation with some backing vocals popping up in the sides towards the end. The quad mix had the sax solo in one of the back corners, whereas it's in center front on the Atmos. I was also kinda bummed that the big vocal delays in "Let Me Roll It" are mostly in the front on the new Atmos mix, while the quad places them in the rear speakers as you'd expect.

You bring up a good point with the multi-track masters, ...I didn't know that.
That's funny you mention "Joshua Judges Ruth", that is one of my favorite DTS-CDs, ...I think it sounds excellent and it shows off the format's potential.

From your descriptions of the new mix, it sounds like it's a mixed bag. I really love that album and I have my fingers crossed that they will find a way to release it in a lossless format, ...it deserves it!

 

[himey]

I don't know what you find funny about that, is my math wrong? IMO a DTS 5.1 mix (+1400kbps) sounds better than a 12+channel streaming Atmos (768kbps). Eac3 is more efficient but not by that much.
For those of us who only have 5.1 systems, I don't really see a streaming Atmos version as an upgrade unless it is a vastly superior surround mix.

As others have mentioned, to only look at the bitrate, rather than the more important other variables, is just funny to me. I will add that DTS CDs just isn't a format to defend. Even standard DTS DVDs sound better. I have converted to both formats from my own lossless multichannel sources, and I never preferred DTS CDs over DVD, despite the better compatibility.

So, without even hearing if the mix and mastering is better, you are defending the DTS CD because of the bitrate? I just can't wrap my head around this, especially from someone who creates his own mixes.

 

[Methuselah’s Grandpa]

As others have mentioned, to only look at the bitrate, rather than the more important other variables, is just funny to me. I will add that DTS CDs just isn't a format to defend. Even standard DTS DVDs sound better. I have converted to both formats from my own lossless multichannel sources, and I never preferred DTS CDs over DVD, despite the better compatibility.

So, without even hearing if the mix and mastering is better, you are defending the DTS CD because of the bitrate? I just can't wrap my head around this, especially from someone who creates his own mixes.

I also prefer the DVD DTS compared to a DTS-CD, and I agree that all things being equal, a standard DTS file is superior than the DTS-CD file.

Yes, I spoke to soon and without enough information regarding the source for the new mix.

I admit that while I love that they are releasing so many new surround mixes as Atmos, ...I continue to have issues with how they are distributed and the limited options available to us. I don't need a physical bluray with 192kHz/24Bit lossless files for every release but it's just aggravating (to me at least) that I see so many fantastic releases and they're only renting them to us as the equivalent of a modern-day mp3 & not in the way (IMO) that they're meant to be heard. I should probably just be happy that they're releasing so many new surround mixes but it's usually a bittersweet feeling for me and sometimes it shows.

Don't mind me, I'll shut up now

 

[MrSmithers]

Wow, Atmos mix is really good! I always thought there were lots of limitations with the recording due to the pretty muffled dts-CD but it actually sounds great! Classic album…

We just need Band on the Blu Ray to make it sound it’s best… Add in a new transfer of the quad mix and we’d be in for a real winner…

 

[rtbluray]

haven't listened to the Quad mix (from DTSCD) in ages, but I can't imagine it sounds any better than this new mix does.
very pleased.
so many great moments to enjoy in this mix.
well done Giles and co.

 

[ar surround]

Regarding that Quad DTS-CD, I did an interesting thing with my rip in Audacity to the song Mrs. Vanderbilt. I inverted the rear channels and then mixed them in with the fronts. It's remarkable how much of the rear information is simply duplicated in the fronts. Try it. Then bring the isolated rears back into the mix. You end up with a true discrete quad. Whether the result is good or not is another story, but it is definitely more discrete than the stock quad on the DTS-CD.