HiRez Poll Pink Floyd - WISH YOU WERE HERE [SACD]

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

Rate the SACD of Pink Floyd - WISH YOU WERE HERE


  • Total voters
    114

JonUrban

Forum Curmudgeon
Staff member
Admin
Moderator
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Mar 2, 2002
Messages
16,847
Location
Connecticut
Please post your thoughts and comments on the SACD release of "Wish You Were Here" by Pink Floyd. Comments on the Blu-Ray release of this title should be made in the Blu-Ray thread.

Thanks

WYWH SACD 700 Front.jpg
WYWH SACD 700 Back.jpg
 

spenceo

400 Club - QQ All-Star
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Dec 6, 2003
Messages
413
Location
Ohio
As I said in the Blu-ray section, I can't believe how clean and crisp this is. By far, the most "crankable" of all the WYWH's

Spence
 

JonUrban

Forum Curmudgeon
Staff member
Admin
Moderator
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Mar 2, 2002
Messages
16,847
Location
Connecticut
NOTE: Added scans of the front and back of the package. Very cool case! :)
 

dr. simple

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Joined
Oct 6, 2005
Messages
1,453
Location
Ohio
I listened to this today, top to bottom, and I must say it's quite remarkable. Wonderful. No complaints. Must have.
 

ar surround

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
QQ Supporter
Joined
Apr 3, 2010
Messages
2,558
Location
New Joisey
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.
 

britre

Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
28
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.


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.
 

wavelength

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Joined
Sep 7, 2006
Messages
2,861
Location
Lacombe, Alberta, Canada
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.
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.
 

dr. simple

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Joined
Oct 6, 2005
Messages
1,453
Location
Ohio
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 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...
 

dr. simple

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Joined
Oct 6, 2005
Messages
1,453
Location
Ohio
I'll be the first to agree that everybody has a right to their opinion, but I am baffled as to why anyone would rate this at 1.
 

georgeshannon

701 Club - QQ All-Star
Joined
Nov 29, 2005
Messages
762
Location
Albuquerque, NM
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.
 

britre

Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
28
Don't take my word for it, listen to each channel individually. Fake is an incorrect term, if you took the $11.99 red book reissue and ran it through a surround decoder you would have the exact same mix this one is and not be $35-$125 dollars lighter. The proof is indeed in how it sounds. And if you believe derrived stereo mixes are 5.1 surround more power to you. It just does not put a good feeling in your stomach to pay lots of hard earned cash to have something you could create on your own with existing equipment....
 

britre

Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
28
Not to blow your point but the master is 36 years old tops, not 40. And you may be right, Steve Wilson would have possibly made a discreet 5.1 mix not a Dolby surround mix. The Quad version on the DVD has more detail and feeling then the 5.1 could ever have due to the surround method used. If you want a good stereo version on a digital format the Columbia 24 bit SBM cd is the way to go. It will make you throw this garbage away, seriously. It will cost you just as much too considering there are few to be had.

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.
 

patrick1

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
263
Location
Hinsdale, Illinois
Hello. Played this over and over this past week. Whilst it sounds great, I, personally would've wanted something more out of the 5.1 mix. Maybe because my ears have been Wilson-ized with all of his mixes being released. IMO. Thanks.
 

Felix E. Martinez

300 Club - QQ All-Star
Joined
Mar 20, 2006
Messages
335
Wonderful, with none of the vocal EQ harshness that plagued the Guthrie DSOTM 5.1 mix. Really surprised by the mastering too. What a treat!
 

Time Lord

Well-known Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
169
Location
Perth Australia
Britre are you a troll. Sorry to hijack the thread, I don't even have the SACD of WYWH I have the blu-ray from the box set, a 5.1 mix that I enjoy greatly. Firstly you rate this a 1 then you have insulted James Guthrie and Steven Wilson, are you going to have a go at Elliot Scheiner next. Find something constructive to say or find a forum for surround haters to rant to.
 

eejit

New member
Joined
Nov 15, 2011
Messages
1
Can people explain which surround version is best?
I love the dark side of the moon sacd in 5.1. Is the wish you were here sacd similar in quality to that? Is the quad still the best mix?

Please don't tell me the sacd sounds just like the stereo version, I will cry.

The reviews here say its amazing:
http://sa-cd.net/showtitle/7523

But reviews here say it's hard to distinguish from a stereo mix:
http://groups.google.com/group/surroundsound/browse_thread/thread/ee4eee283fd930a8/8a92f89599fbacb7?show_docid=8a92f89599fbacb7&pli=1
 

JonUrban

Forum Curmudgeon
Staff member
Admin
Moderator
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Mar 2, 2002
Messages
16,847
Location
Connecticut
Guys. You are making this thread a joke. I am going to have to move all of these non-topic threads outta here. Once I figure out what I'm going to do with them, they're gone. Please stay on topic.

You are totally free to start new threads in the appropriate forum sections to discuss any of the above issues in their own place. 2 years from now, someone looking for info on this SACD is not going to give a shit about Aqualung distortion, Steve Wilson, or who bought what in the '70s.
 

ssully

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Jul 2, 2003
Messages
3,018
Location
in your face
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.
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.

it's obvious too that Guthrie has chosen to populate the Center and SUB channels minimally; this is a not-unheard of 5.1 mixing choice (and one I applaud for the SUB channel). I like an active Center, but some artists are averse to having their lead vocal isolated in the center ....and we know PF had some input into this mix.

Agreed that Guthrie's commentary on this mix will be interesting, if we ever get to see any.
 

Sthunderrocker

New member
Joined
Jul 1, 2010
Messages
9
Ok... I'm not new here...lurked for years. Brian is not trying to be a troll. I don't go so far as Brian, but I understand what he means. The mix is great sounding (crystal clear, amazing detail, etc), but its not very bounce around the roomy. Media interviews have suggested that Guthrie was trying to replicate the stereo mix's overall sound in 5.1 format. I think he achieved that, but in the process there are very few instances where what is in one speaker isn't at least partly (if not greatly) in other speakers as well. This means that the majority of the discrete effects that are present come off with the level of discreteness that a Prologic decoder might be able to provide. Brian thinks this is a sign of a fake job. I think it was mixed that way on purpose. When this was mixed back in 2003-5(?) there were no plans to release the Quad side by side. Unfortunately releasing it thus here shows how indiscrete the 5.1 mix is (overall). This is a quad forum. (I believe) We like our surround to be more engaging. For Brian, the Guthrie mix does not fit the bill. For me... I love the quad mix.
S
 
Top