- Mar 2, 2002
After spending a good bit of time listening to this mix, DSOTM 5.1 and an assortment of Steven Wilson mixes, I'd have to say that I prefer Wilson's work somewhat more. With the James Guthrie mixes, I find myself enhancing them with a matrix overlay of Logic 7 especially DSOTM . (My receiver can do this.) I prefer Wilson's mixes with no such enhancement; and applying the Logic 7 overlay is actually detrimental. But I look at this all as two artists with different styles, each excellent in their own way. So I rate this version of WYWH as a solid 10/10 on a whole taking into sound quality, the overall mix and aural experience. It was well worth the wait.
This sounds like a reference to a thread (Wish You Were Here SACD 5.1) over at the SurroundSound Google Group: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/surroundsound They are discussing the idea that the mix is fake.Sir,
You need to listen to each channel individually. What you will hear will shock you and explain why you need to throw logic effect at a supposed surround mix.
I don't care how it was made; the fact is, there are very discrete elements that can't be disputed. More importantly, it sounds great. I differ to the Ray Charles quote I have used as my signature...This sounds like a reference to a thread (Wish You Were Here SACD 5.1) over at the SurroundSound Google Group: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/surroundsound They are discussing the idea that the mix is fake.
I rated the SACD Wish You Were Here as a 9 overall.
The sound quality is better than any other version I’ve heard but it sounds like it came from 40 year old analog tapes and for that reason I rate the sound as a 9.5. At the beginning of track 4 - Wish You Were Here when the chair creaks and you can hear the steel guitar strings bend you’re convinced this sound quality is better than the rest. On the Q8 version of this recording, those details are lost in the wow, flutter, and hiss.
The mix, however, is a bit conservative given the amount of art the musicians gave Mr. Guthrie to work with. Elliot Scheiner or Steven Wilson would have mixed this as a 10. Still, each channel contains different information than each of the other 5 channels. That does make it a real 5.1 mix. Its not intended as a quad mix. I rate the mix as a 9.
Samey , but not the same. There are clearly part differences and level differences between corresponding front and surround channels -- compare those channels on track WYWH_5.1split-002 (Welcome to the Machine, I presume) for example.The first scenario gives me pause. The second one does to a lesser extent. I looked at the waveforms posted from the other thread and the fronts and rears on the 5.1 really do look pretty same-y. That may have been Guthrie's preference. But I'd really like to know what's going on there.