HiRez Poll Oldfield, Mike - TUBULAR BELLS [Blu-Ray Audio (Dolby Atmos)]

[Owen Smith]

Mike's talking about the 2003 re-recording. Check out his video to hear his reasoning.

That's not a remix though so personally I don't think it counts. It's more Tubular Bells 1.5

 

[Pibroch]

If listening to this on AirPods with spatial audio is any indication, this is a pretty cool mix. I actually love the 2009 5.1 mix quite a bit - this mix sticks to the stereo mix quite closely, and there were some changes to the 2009 5.1 that I like quite a bit, but I love having many ways to listen to the same music.

Confusingly, the tracks that double as Atmos tracks on iTunes are labeled "David Kosten Stereo Mix".

 

[edisonbaggins]

That's not a remix though so personally I don't think it counts. It's more Tubular Bells 1.5

You're totally allowed to think it doesn't count. That doesn't make sense to me, though, as it's the same composition. From my point of view, they are the same piece. TB 1973 recording is like a sophisticated demo (out of tune bits, note flubs, occasionally dodgy sonics), to my ears, compared to the ultimate realization, the 2003 re-recording.

 

[ar surround]

That's not a remix though so personally I don't think it counts. It's more Tubular Bells 1.5

You're totally allowed to think it doesn't count. That doesn't make sense to me, though, as it's the same composition. From my point of view, they are the same piece. TB 1973 recording is like a sophisticated demo (out of tune bits, note flubs, occasionally dodgy sonics), to my ears, compared to the ultimate realization, the 2003 re-recording.

I'd love to hear the 2003 re-recording at least once, but the last time I looked, the cost for entry was $55 on Ebay for the DVD-A.

 

[jaybird100]

The only one I'm aware of that isn't on this disc is the early upmix from stereo that was on CD-4. What version are you referring to?

Are we sure that version on the CD-4 LP was an upmix? Since it was the first version released in quad, wouldn't it still count? The 1975 mix, the same as is on the "Boxed" collection, was stated in the liner notes as a remix.

 

[Owen Smith]

Are we sure that version on the CD-4 LP was an upmix? Since it was the first version released in quad, wouldn't it still count? The 1975 mix, the same as is on the "Boxed" collection, was stated in the liner notes as a remix.

The 1975 quad mix (on Boxed, SACD and Blu Ray) is a remix from the 16 track masters. The CD-4 is an upmix from stereo, very different. I've heard a bad CD-4 rip of it but the rip was so noisy I couldn't pass comment on the upmix.

 

[GOS]

I stand corrected. I initially voted a 10, for the SDE Atmos version. After reading a couple comments about the 2003 DVD-Audio being a better mix, I went back to listen. I 100% agree. The 2003 DVD-Audio still remains the most exciting listen. I'll reduce my vote here from a 10, down to an 8. The 2003 DVD-Audio, is much more vibrant and exciting. In comparison, the Atmos just feels a bit flat. Had I never heard the 2003, I'd stick with a higher vote here. I just cannot.

 

[ar surround]

I stand corrected. I initially voted a 10, for the SDE Atmos version. After reading a couple comments about the 2003 DVD-Audio being a better mix, I went back to listen. I 100% agree. The 2003 DVD-Audio still remains the most exciting listen. I'll reduce my vote here from a 10, down to an 8. The 2003 DVD-Audio, is much more vibrant and exciting. In comparison, the Atmos just feels a bit flat. Had I never heard the 2003, I'd stick with a higher vote here. I just cannot.

I guess we listened to the 2003 DVD-A at the same time, Gene. I played it with Auro 3D enhancement. It is truly magnificent...vibrant and exciting as you have noted. However, I'm still giving this SDE set a 10 because it has a high resolution version of Oldfield's 2009 5.1 mix. I also listened to some of that mix with Auro 3D enhancement and Dolby Surround enhancement. It is also excellent.

 

[ar surround]

Adding to my previous post: I would have bought this set had it simply been a high resolution version of Oldfield's 2009 5.1 mix. From what I recall, we only got a Dolby Digital version of that mix back then. Correct me if I am wrong.

 

[DuncanS]

Adding to my previous post: I would have bought this set had it simply been a high resolution version of Oldfield's 2009 5.1 mix. From what I recall, we only got a Dolby Digital version of that mix back then. Correct me if I am wrong.

So I have the

• SQ Quad mix from 1975 on LP & CD (in Boxed)
• 2001 SACD release of the 1975 Quad mix (as per SQ)
• 2009 5.1 mix by Mike Oldfield in Dolby Digital

I guess we listened to the 2003 DVD-A at the same time, Gene. I played with Auro 3D enhancement. It is truly magnificent...vibrant and exciting as you have noted. However, I'm still giving this SDE set a 10 because it has a high resolution version of Oldfield's 2009 5.1 mix. I also listened to some of that mix with Auro 3D enhancement and Dolby Surround enhancement. It is also excellent.

The 2003 DVD-A with 24-bit Hi-Res was a re-recording of Tubular Bells

 

[JulesRules]

TB 1973 recording is like a sophisticated demo (out of tune bits, note flubs, occasionally dodgy sonics), to my ears, compared to the ultimate realization, the 2003 re-recording.

I've only heard the stereo of TB 2003 but I don't really see the point of it. The computerized "flutes" in particular are garish, and don't get me started on the overdone reverb.

 

[PurpleMoustache]

I've only heard the stereo of TB 2003 but I don't really see the point of it. The computerized "flutes" in particular are garish, and don't get me started on the overdone reverb.

The recording is definitely the weakest part of TB 2003, but the 5.1 is exceptional. Some might call it gimmicky, but it makes fantastic use of the medium

 

[dobyblue]

Adding to my previous post: I would have bought this set had it simply been a high resolution version of Oldfield's 2009 5.1 mix. From what I recall, we only got a Dolby Digital version of that mix back then. Correct me if I am wrong.

Only 448 Kbps DD 5.1 on the DVD-Video, but in 2012 we got a 24/48 FLAC 5.1 download from Bowers & Wilkins. The mastering on that 2012 download is just ever-so-slightly more dynamic than the Blu-ray mastering (like, literally an inaudible 0.5dB more dynamic range)

Screencap from 2012:


Sadly no other Mike Oldfield releases were offered. I'd gladly pay for multichannel FLAC downloads of all the other 5.1 mixes Mike did from 2009 onwards in the Deluxe Edition series.

 

[inspclouseau]

Voted strong 8. There is another multichannel version that I prefer.
This is a very cool disc though, and worth owning.
Life in Surround Review

After finally going through all of it a few times, I too prefer the 2003 DVDA. Mostly. Always loved those very initial bass hits/plucks in the 2003. Just not there in the new BR. 'Cleaned' out ? Just one example. Still glad we have both.

 

[Awdeeohnut]

Anyone else notice the fade out of bass etc at the end of side one when it gets to the instrument description part? On the quad mix

 

[rusinurbe]

All 5 mixes offer something different to an album I have owned for many years. For the purist a good quality hi rez stereo mix in two forms original (definitive stereo) and 2023 stereo cleaner but lacking the magic.
Then there are the surround choices, the ever so wonky Quad mix, Mike Oldfields like I have never heard the original mix 5.1mix fun, and this full blown surround mix from Dave Kosten stunning.

 

[Awdeeohnut]

The Atmos mix has out of time bass in the bagpipes section, did they not listen before they released it? Boggles my mind

 

[dobyblue]

So for this one we can manually correct the issue on the Quad mix, no issues on the 5.1 mix but the Atmos mix is a little FUBARd for Part Two, does that about sum it up?
Kind of hard to vote on this one.

 

[Awdeeohnut]

So for this one we can manually correct the issue on the Quad mix, no issues on the 5.1 mix but the Atmos mix is a little FUBARd for Part Two, does that about sum it up?
Kind of hard to vote on this one.

Yes, I just dont understand why they would release it with this error

 

[markhess1958]

This was worth it for all the included content. It would have been nice to have included the 2003 re-recording.