HiRez Poll Oasis - WHAT'S THE STORY MORNING GLORY? [SACD]

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Rate the SACD of Oasis - WHAT'S THE STORY MORNING GLORY?


  • Total voters
    51
Wouldn’t you lose the lead vocals at the beginning of “Wonderwall” by doing that?

Nay, Jonathan. My main system is set up for 4.2 and I 'tell' the OPPO and Meridian pre/pro there's no center and it's then combined into front right/left channels. No fiddlin' with those knobs!
 
I'd always been disappointed with this disc and out of interest I thought I'd check it out in Audacity (I converted from dsd to flac). Not sure if this has been discussed before but I think there are some technical reasons why this sounds so odd? I don't think it's down to the actual mixing philosophy...

Nice work on this! I'm definitely tempted to pull the files out and give it a shot when I get a chance. I wish the vocal stayed in the center for the whole track, but moving it to the mains would definitely add some consistency.

One of the most fun aspects of this hobby IMO is the speculation about why engineers make the often baffling choices they do on these multichannel remixes. Usually we don't get the answers, but in this case we have that very in-depth interview with Neil Dorfsman where he admits he was going for a conservative style, to the point where he even upmixed elements from the stereo CD! He even states that he feels Oasis' dense "wall of sound" recording style isn't well suited for surround sound, so I suppose you could say there was an anti-surround bias going against this one.

While there may be some technical problems on top of it all (such as the vocals awkwardly switching speakers in "Wonderwall"), I think most of the weirdness/disappointment associated with this one can be chalked up to the mix philosophy. I'm not intimately familiar with this recording, but I think it's got enough elements to make a more discrete and logical surround mix than what we ended up getting.

Honestly, more than a few of these early 5.1's from Sony sound like rushed afterthoughts. A lot of the stuff in that article just sounds like a repeat of what they were doing in the days of quad- surround rushed to the market, mixes completed in just a few days, the band not being informed, etc. The big difference being that the crappy matrixed vinyl system forced them to do crazy discrete four-corner quad, whereas the fully discrete SACD format allowed them to get away with submitting these boring conservative surround mixes.
 
Last edited:
Nice work on this! I'm definitely tempted to pull the files out and give it a shot when I get a chance. I wish the vocal stayed in the center for the whole track, but moving it to the mains would definitely add some consistency.

One of the most fun aspects of this hobby IMO is the speculation about why engineers make the often baffling choices they do on these multichannel remixes. Usually we don't get the answers, but in this case we have that very in-depth interview with Neil Dorfsman where he admits he was going for a conservative style, to the point where he even upmixed elements from the stereo CD! He even states that he feels Oasis' dense "wall of sound" recording style isn't well suited for surround sound, so I suppose you could say there was an anti-surround bias going against this one.

While there may be some technical problems on top of it all (such as the vocals awkwardly switching speakers in "Wonderwall"), I think most of the weirdness/disappointment associated with this one can be chalked up to the mix philosophy. I'm not intimately familiar with this recording, but I think it's got enough elements to make a more discrete and logical surround mix than what we ended up getting.

Honestly, more than a few of these early 5.1's from Sony sound like rushed afterthoughts. A lot of the stuff in that article just sounds like a repeat of what they were doing in the days of quad- surround rushed to the market, mixes completed in just a few days, the band not being informed, etc. The big difference being that the crappy matrixed vinyl system forced them to do crazy discrete four-corner quad, whereas the fully discrete SACD format allowed them to get away with submitting these boring conservative surround mixes.

I have NO idea why yourself and others keep negating the fact that a slew of engineers have NO idea what to do with the center channel and how to properly utilize it. None other than Elliot Scheiner and Steve Wilson have expressed similar views.

The phantom center has been a mainstay since Stereo was invented. If properly imaged, your left/right front speakers should INSERT a perfectly balanced CENTER. If that center, in
5.1 remixing, is NOT properly oriented, the entire balance will be thrown out of whack.

It's so frustrating hearing time and time again ..... oh, the vocals are TOO LOUD from the center or too Low or barely audible .... so you know what .... Program your player and/or pre/pro to eliminate the center and see then how it sounds instead of fiddlin' with those knobs or digitally trying to correct it.

And yes, sometimes the engineers do get it spot on right and everything is then in perfect balance but if you keep having to raise the rears or lower the fronts ..... there just may be something wrong with your system's balances....a reason they invented 'physical' room correction devices*...rather than depending solely on audyssey or similar 'digital' room corrective devices.

Why no one seems to grasp that the center was 'invented' as a dialogue channel for motion pictures is beyond me....and was added as an 'afterthought' for music.

*https://www.stereophile.com/category/room-treatment-reviews/
 
Last edited:


I took the Sjcorne challenge and played WONDERWALL in 4:2 bypassing the center channel on the disc. The vocal was dead center in 4.0. I then played the disc on my Marantz SA 11S3 Stereo SACD player to ascertain that nothing was lost in the opening WONDERWALL vocals. A Mirror to the 4.0.

I also changed my vote to a 10. A fantastic disc and although the best surround is saved for second to last [Morning Glory] with those helicopters which fly overhead from back to front minus the need for Atmos overhead speakers...and the louder you crank this disc ....... Whew!

DISCLAIMER: NO dial twiddling or digital manipulation was performed during playback of this disc. Performed as advertised [minus the center channel]!


tumblr_m802zkIFHV1r1fkbpo1_500.jpg


So That's the Story!
 
Last edited:
I have NO idea why yourself and others keep negating the fact that a slew of engineers have NO idea what to do with the center channel and how to properly utilize it. None other than Elliot Scheiner and Steve Wilson have expressed similar views.

The phantom center has been a mainstay since Stereo was invented. If properly imaged, your left/right front speakers should INSERT a perfectly balanced CENTER. If that center, in
5.1 remixing, is NOT properly oriented, the entire balance will be thrown out of whack.

It's so frustrating hearing time and time again ..... oh, the vocals are TOO LOUD from the center or too Low or barely audible .... so you know what .... Program your player and/or pre/pro to eliminate the center and see then how it sounds instead of fiddlin' with those knobs or digitally trying to correct it.

And yes, sometimes the engineers do get it spot on right and everything is then in perfect balance but if you keep having to raise the rears or lower the fronts ..... there just may be something wrong with your system's balances....a reason they invented 'physical' room correction devices*...rather than depending solely on audyssey or similar 'digital' room corrective devices.

Why no one seems to grasp that the center was 'invented' as a dialogue channel for motion pictures is beyond me....and was added as an 'afterthought' for music.

*https://www.stereophile.com/category/room-treatment-reviews/


A center channel was actually part of the original 'spec' for consumer audio, back in the first half of the last century when 'stereo' was invented. It has always been part of 'stereo' movie sound.

There are good reasons for this. (Yes, even for a single listener, though the benefit is more obvious for multiple listeners) . Look up 'HRTF' (head related transfer function), or just read this nice post explaining how a 'real' center channel differs from a 'phantom'. Note important caveats, e.g., center loudspeaker should be a timbral match with the front L/R (in my case, they're identical speakers) and at the correct height.

If you have carefully calibrated speaker output levels all around with pink noise, then any need to raise or lower overall levels of specific channels or sets of channels, is likely due to the mix. Physical room corrections are typically for treating EQ bands, not overall channel levels. The room's native effect is already 'accounted for' in the overall channel level calibration.
 


I took the Sjcorne challenge and played WONDERWALL in 4:2 bypassing the center channel on the disc. The vocal was dead center in 4.0. I then played the disc on my Marantz SA 11S3 Stereo SACD player to ascertain that nothing was lost in the opening WONDERWALL vocals. A Mirror to the 4.0.

I also changed my vote to a 10. A fantastic disc and although the best surround is saved for second to last [Morning Glory] with those helicopters which fly overhead from back to front minus the need for Atmos overhead speakers...and the louder you crank this disc ....... Whew!

DISCLAIMER: NO dial twiddling or digital manipulation was performed during playback of this disc. Performed as advertised [minus the center channel]!


tumblr_m802zkIFHV1r1fkbpo1_500.jpg


So That's the Story!


Glad you like this Ralph - wow I certainly agree the music is a 10! It's quite possible playing through 4 main speakers may address some of the issues I have with the mix? Although to be honest I don't understand how any of that stuff works?! On my modest 5.1 system it sounds wonky and jarring in places, but I'm setting out to try and find out a possible fix... In the Sunshiiiinnnnneeee.... :cool:
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't imagine it for any other release than Morning Glory. That album sold gangbusters.
 
I mean because the vast majority of people don't do physical media anymore. That's the same with most all popular albums anymore.
 
There were pre-order links for Multichannel SACDs of Standing On The Shoulders Of Giants and Heathen Chemistry back in the day, but neither was released.

And still NO comment on the Sjcorne Challenge posed in post #44, Jonathan?

And absolute bummer that those two Oasis mch SACDs never saw the light of day. Wonder if they were ever remixed?
 
NOT if you play it in 4.0! That's my point. It has NO issues.

Playing it in 4.0 won't magically make the rear channels contain anything more than ambient reflections of the fronts and the very rare discrete flourish.

Regarding "Wonderwall", @MrSmithers is right that the LFE channel oddly contains cello, while the center is mostly bass with some vocals awkwardly thrown in. The implication would be that the vocal elements in the center channel were meant to go somewhere else (likely the mains, possibly the rears?) and accidentally got routed to the center instead, which in turn may have been swapped with the LFE.

It's really not worth arguing over, and as I said I'm glad it sounds good on your system.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top