HiRez Poll Pink Floyd - ANIMALS [Blu-Ray Audio/SACD]

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

Rate the BDA/SACD of Pink Floyd - ANIMALS


  • Total voters
    89

mrcond

800 Club - QQ All-Star
QQ Supporter
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
801
Location
Vernon, CT
When it was originally recorded, a "normal voice" was used to trigger the vocoder. On the original mix the "normal voice " was mixed out and only the vocoder was heard.
In the new mix, the "normal voice " is now blended into the vocoder voice so you hear both.
Guthrie / Waters et al obviously decided that the vocoder voice by itself was a bit passé...hence the new mix.
The " normal voice " doesn't sound like anyone from PF ( to my ears anyway...I may be wrong ) so it could have been voice talent/ engineer/ roadie or whoever !
To me, it sounded like Roger Waters's speaking voice, but I could be wrong.
 

ssully

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Jul 2, 2003
Messages
3,417
Location
in your face
To me, it sounded like Roger Waters's speaking voice, but I could be wrong.

Supposedly the psalm was spoken by 'an anonymous roadie'. In concert Nick spoke it.

 

cornwall198

Well-known Member
QQ Supporter
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
126
At long last indeed! The SACD arrived today...
Weird though - I thought this release would fix everything and ensure my eternal happiness? BUT my mortgage remains unpaid, life's issues unresolved, global problems continue unabated, inflation still eats away at everything, and today's weather is wet and miserable. Having said all that - this release is still rather wonderful. 10 from me. Always loved the album - suited the punk era (and beyond!) perfectly. Even if, back in the day, I thought the 'exploitation' of Orwell was a wee bit naff. However, this surround version works brilliantly to my ears - plenty going on everywhere, and the sense of overall immersion, separation, and inclusion is just so appealing. 'Stereo' bookends also work for me too - before diving into, and then withdrawing from, the enveloping, engrossing 'valley of steel'!
 

par4ken

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
QQ Supporter
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
2,303
Location
NW Ontario
I'm surprised at all the comments about this being such a great surround mix. On first listen I would give the surround factor (alone) maybe a 2. Very sparse use of the rear channels. My final vote will of course be much higher than that, it's after all my favourite "Floyd" album and the overall sound quality is excellent.

I bought both the Blu-ray and the SACD. I want to see if can hear any differences between the two. I've only listed to the SACD so far. The packaging of the SACD is much, much nicer than that of the Blu-ray. Purchased from Elusive Disc they came inside a box big enough to hold an amplifier!

I'll cast my vote after doing some more listening.
 

jaypfunk

Senior Member
Joined
May 16, 2013
Messages
249
I'm surprised at all the comments about this being such a great surround mix. On first listen I would give the surround factor (alone) maybe a 2. Very sparse use of the rear channels. My final vote will of course be much higher than that, it's after all my favourite "Floyd" album and the overall sound quality is excellent.

I bought both the Blu-ray and the SACD. I want to see if can hear any differences between the two. I've only listed to the SACD so far. The packaging of the SACD is much, much nicer than that of the Blu-ray. Purchased from Elusive Disc they came inside a box big enough to hold an amplifier!

I'll cast my vote after doing some more listening.

Check your speaker settings if you think there's nothing in the rears. The BD actually has a channel test.
 

tarkusnj

400 Club - QQ All-Star
Joined
Nov 7, 2004
Messages
406
Location
Manahawkin, NJ
I listened to the new animals Blu-ray 5.1 mix and I'm impressed with the clarity of the sound but that's it. I am hearing more than I've ever heard before but the mix doesn't compare to the great upmix that I have had for years which is disappointing. The live recording I made at Madison square garden July 4th 1977 has more surround effects albeit in stereo. I may have to check my settings because the bass is really weak which surprised me. I turned my subs all the way up and they're not doing much. Everyone is giving it a 10 or close but if someone doesn't like it they often sit on their hands feeling they must be wrong because everyone else raves about it.
 

cornwall198

Well-known Member
QQ Supporter
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
126
i’m
I listened to the new animals Blu-ray 5.1 mix and I'm impressed with the clarity of the sound but that's it. I am hearing more than I've ever heard before but the mix doesn't compare to the great upmix that I have had for years which is disappointing. The live recording I made at Madison square garden July 4th 1977 has more surround effects albeit in stereo. I may have to check my settings because the bass is really weak which surprised me. I turned my subs all the way up and they're not doing much. Everyone is giving it a 10 or close but if someone doesn't like it they often sit on their hands feeling they must be wrong because everyone else raves about it.
So weird that so many of us are having such difference experiences - I had to trim back the bass as it was a bit too heavy for my liking!
 

edisonbaggins

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
QQ Supporter
Joined
Aug 13, 2015
Messages
9,512
Location
Wherever I May Roam
I listened to the new animals Blu-ray 5.1 mix and I'm impressed with the clarity of the sound but that's it. I am hearing more than I've ever heard before but the mix doesn't compare to the great upmix that I have had for years which is disappointing. The live recording I made at Madison square garden July 4th 1977 has more surround effects albeit in stereo. I may have to check my settings because the bass is really weak which surprised me. I turned my subs all the way up and they're not doing much. Everyone is giving it a 10 or close but if someone doesn't like it they often sit on their hands feeling they must be wrong because everyone else raves about it.
Note that we're not raving and saying the bass is weak. That would surely diminish most raves. Many of us are getting sweet bass. So, the content is there. Just gotta figure out how to get your system to deliver it for ya!
 

par4ken

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
QQ Supporter
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
2,303
Location
NW Ontario
Check your speaker settings if you think there's nothing in the rears. The BD actually has a channel test.
My speaker levels are set up just fine! I listened again, this time to the Blu-ray and I did check the speaker levels. The SACD doesn't have that level check feature. While I have a bit better of an impression of it now on second listening I will note a few things.

First "Pigs on the Wing 1 & 2" appear to have no surround content at all, I think that someone here described those tracks as stereo bookends. I would agree with that statement. The next two tracks do have some good surround activity but it comes and goes. By and large the mix is very front oriented. The track "Sheep" has the best surround effect of the whole bunch but still is rather front oriented. I do think that the surround even though not overblown does serve to make the mix sound larger and more open than pure stereo would. I'm not sure if that larger sound justifies a ten ranking though.

I would have liked it more if the "animal" sounds; dog, pig and sheep would have been mixed to the rear.
 

The56Kid

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
1,861
Location
Erie, PA - USA
I'm surprised at all the comments about this being such a great surround mix. On first listen I would give the surround factor (alone) maybe a 2. Very sparse use of the rear channels. My final vote will of course be much higher than that, it's after all my favourite "Floyd" album and the overall sound quality is excellent.

I bought both the Blu-ray and the SACD. I want to see if can hear any differences between the two. I've only listed to the SACD so far. The packaging of the SACD is much, much nicer than that of the Blu-ray. Purchased from Elusive Disc they came inside a box big enough to hold an amplifier!

I'll cast my vote after doing some more listening.
‘Very sparse use of the surrounds…’. Are we talking about the same release?
 

The56Kid

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
1,861
Location
Erie, PA - USA
I listened to the new animals Blu-ray 5.1 mix and I'm impressed with the clarity of the sound but that's it. I am hearing more than I've ever heard before but the mix doesn't compare to the great upmix that I have had for years which is disappointing. The live recording I made at Madison square garden July 4th 1977 has more surround effects albeit in stereo. I may have to check my settings because the bass is really weak which surprised me. I turned my subs all the way up and they're not doing much. Everyone is giving it a 10 or close but if someone doesn't like it they often sit on their hands feeling they must be wrong because everyone else raves about it.
The low end heft was massive and fantastic on my single sub system without a single adjustment. Not sure how this release can be labeled weak in the bass department.
 

mrcond

800 Club - QQ All-Star
QQ Supporter
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
801
Location
Vernon, CT
The fact that several people have commented on getting weak bass while others (myself included) are saying it is very strong makes me wonder if there is something about this disc that certain bass management settings don't handle properly. For example, is the bass all in the LFE channel with none mixed to the front left and right, and people have their LFE set to off? I don't know, just thinking out loud since it is very strange to be getting polar opposite reactions. I don't doubt people hear what they hear.
 

JimHansonDC

Well-known Member
QQ Supporter
Joined
Jun 8, 2019
Messages
103
Location
DC
Brilliant and worthy of the epic content. I will write about what I like after a few more listens. But I have a question/complaint. Is Guthrie unaware he can actually use the center channel? It sounds like it's just a muted L+R with the bass boosted to center it, and no vocals or anything else. WTH?

I realize everyone can't be Steven Wilson and understand how the center should be used for vocals etc. But Guthrie panned the vocals to the center anyhow. why use up that sonic territory on the L&R to just put the vocals where the center is already sitting. One of the beautiful things about immersive sound is the air each musical element gets from having 1-3 more speakers to bring it to life.

The sound on this mix is phenomenal and there is absolutely a more spatial feel and clean luscious sound. But I'm stuck wondering how much better it could have been if all the available drivers have been fully utilized.
I love this album, always have. I do love this mix too. It gave it tons of new space for all the instruments to have their own turf.
BUUUUUUUUUT!
I'm angry.
It's probably unfair and it's even possible that I'm wrong but I don't think so. I A/Bed it against the '77 stereo mix and the difference is massive.

My absolute unchallenged favorite part of this whole record is the machine gun guitar riffs after the lines in Sheep. such as
"Only dimly aware of a certain unease in the air" then the super cool morph of the voice into a synth.
THEN
Gilmour shredding the darkness and smoke with a jagged, ripping riff that busts out of they soundstage and splatters blood all over you. Happens multiple times in different styles, but each time it leaps to the front of the mix and freakin' attacks.

This is Sheep, they are about to run amok and kill the Dogs & Pigs. Gilmour is foreshadowing that with a powerfully menacing growl that no Sheep has even made before.
AND
It's just a savagely wicked riff, a great guitar line, a brilliant part of a great song.
AND
They killed it.

They are now buried in the mix, audible but neutered and harmless like the mewling of a kitten with a ukulele. Well, in comparison to the originals. Oh, they are there and one of them is at least slightly forward in the mix.
BUT
I was waiting excitedly through the whole record, loving every second leading up to it, because they were great upgrades to the original, which was already great.
THEN
They killed the killer guitar, and I cried. Well actually I cursed loud enough to be heard over the 85 or so decibels of Floyd. My wife asked what happened and I told her. "They killed the killer sheep" and she said "That's awful dear" in that way she has to acknowledge a basically insane statement without calling it that.

I'm truly sad and am considering a commando raid to grab the multi tracks and fix this. Who's with me?
 

jaypfunk

Senior Member
Joined
May 16, 2013
Messages
249
I love this album, always have. I do love this mix too. It gave it tons of new space for all the instruments to have their own turf.
BUUUUUUUUUT!
I'm angry.
It's probably unfair and it's even possible that I'm wrong but I don't think so. I A/Bed it against the '77 stereo mix and the difference is massive.

My absolute unchallenged favorite part of this whole record is the machine gun guitar riffs after the lines in Sheep. such as
"Only dimly aware of a certain unease in the air" then the super cool morph of the voice into a synth.
THEN
Gilmour shredding the darkness and smoke with a jagged, ripping riff that busts out of they soundstage and splatters blood all over you. Happens multiple times in different styles, but each time it leaps to the front of the mix and freakin' attacks.

This is Sheep, they are about to run amok and kill the Dogs & Pigs. Gilmour is foreshadowing that with a powerfully menacing growl that no Sheep has even made before.
AND
It's just a savagely wicked riff, a great guitar line, a brilliant part of a great song.
AND
They killed it.

They are now buried in the mix, audible but neutered and harmless like the mewling of a kitten with a ukulele. Well, in comparison to the originals. Oh, they are there and one of them is at least slightly forward in the mix.
BUT
I was waiting excitedly through the whole record, loving every second leading up to it, because they were great upgrades to the original, which was already great.
THEN
They killed the killer guitar, and I cried. Well actually I cursed loud enough to be heard over the 85 or so decibels of Floyd. My wife asked what happened and I told her. "They killed the killer sheep" and she said "That's awful dear" in that way she has to acknowledge a basically insane statement without calling it that.

I'm truly sad and am considering a commando raid to grab the multi tracks and fix this. Who's with me?

I love posts like like this. For years people complained that Animals was murky and muddy and dark and the “I love Animals but it sounds like shit” or the mix sucked. A complaint I never agreed with. I always loved the dark and hard edge sound of the original LP mix. SHUT UP!

Now people are complaining that it’s too “soft” and the grit is gone. I agree. The original mix was hard, dark and dirty. The oomph from Nick tom fills on Dogs are neutered. In the original mix they kicked you in the nuts. Some of the in your face attitude of this is dampened in both the stereo and 5.1 remixes.

I think trying to make this brilliant album or any album from the 1970s to sound modern is just dumb.

This album is not supposed to sound “nice”.

I do not care at all about the new stereo mix. I’ll stick with 1977 original and just enjoy the 5.1 mix for what it is. A nice alternative and I am happy they did it.
 
Last edited:

ergalthema

Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2017
Messages
47
I listened to this last night. It's the most I've enjoyed a surround mix in a long time. Beck's Sea Change and Flaming Lips' Yoshimi got me into surround mixes back in the early 2000s, but I hadn't really loved anything since (despite listening to dozens of surround mixes including Atmos with height speakers).

I like Pink Floyd, but just casually. So, I don't know the original mix of Animals that well. I'm not surprised some purists might have issues with the newer one.

Regardless, I really like this. I prefer active mixes with plenty going on in the rears, etc., but most of them seem to be "too much" for me. I appreciate how Animals is mostly focused up front, with one or two elements popping out into the 3rd dimension. Instead of constantly being surrounded by a barrage of instruments from all directions, things just momentarily go behind (for the most part - there were also effective sections with instruments all around). To me, the instruments sound more clearly separated than stuff like Fragile, Pawn Hearts, or even the newer Tom Petty and Grateful Dead Atmos mixes. With Animals (and Sea Change and Yoshimi), it's like I knew what to focus on as opposed to feeling overwhelmed and unsure. I look forward to repeated listenings to further understand why I prefer this surround presentation over so many others. Also, I'm curious to go back and compare the original mix (after taking in the newer one a few more times...).
 

relaxing

Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2021
Messages
10
Location
Philly
The fact that several people have commented on getting weak bass while others (myself included) are saying it is very strong makes me wonder if there is something about this disc that certain bass management settings don't handle properly. For example, is the bass all in the LFE channel with none mixed to the front left and right, and people have their LFE set to off? I don't know, just thinking out loud since it is very strange to be getting polar opposite reactions. I don't doubt people hear what they hear.
The LFE channel really only kicks at the last section of Pigs. There’s plenty of bass in the L/R.
 
Top