A little news on "Wish You Were Here" SACD - Page 10

Bob,

I would have to agree with you assessment of the WYWH SACD. I listened to WYWH today after listening to Diana Krall's Girl In The Other Room SACD. The GITOR SACD just seemed so much more open and the space between each instrument is so much better than WYWH. Again not a fair comparison as GITOR is a much more recent recording than WYWH. But I feel that James Guthrie could have done a better job of mixing WYWH to give a more immersive experience with better balance. Then again this is just my opinion and I have absolutely zero knowledge on how to mix a 5.1 SACD. I know many are very happy with the SQ of the WYWH SACD and thats all that counts.

Bill

Bill Mac, rebop, I agree with you. I metioned my disappointment already. The soundstage is smaller than I got used to.

Although I agree with some of the criticism, I feel it's still a very enjoyable listen and a must-have for PF fans. I wouldn't rate it as highly as some of my "reference" discs, but it will get more spins than a lot of those discs in my house.

Steve,

I agree with you totally that WYWH is a very enjoyable listen and a definite must have for PF fans (which I'm one).

Bill

Now give us Animals, dammit

Now you're talking! I can hear the pig coming out my surrounds as I type.

Bill

Animals? meh.

Ok Bill I respect your opinion so tomorrow I'm going to listen to WYWH again and FWIW which I don't think is of much validity, compare\\contrast to Avalon.
I'm sure everyone is on tenterhooks

One thing I totally disagree with is that WYWH is mixed "hot" if by hot it is meant loud.
I've found WYWH to be very crankable. On the second listen I turned it up 3db without any stress or distortion on my system or ears.

Have been back and forth on the SACD and the Immersion Edition of WYWH.

What is the opinion of the posters in this thread??

[quote=Milt99;21231400]

I'm not sure what a tenterhook is. Would it a device to hang ones tent on? I would definitely like to hear your thoughts on WYWH as I respect your opinion as well.


I don't think WYWH is mixed hot, just that the surrounds seem at tad loud at times. I cranked it as well and did not feel the music was distorted or did I notice any listening fatigue.

Bill

Definition of TENTERHOOK

: a sharp hooked nail used especially for fastening cloth on a tenter
on tenterhooks
: in a state of uneasiness, strain, or suspense

Wow all this talk of the perceived SQ the steep price [IMO] not to mention the even more ridiculous shipping speed and price, makes me wonder just how wise of a choice this was for me. I already had the 4ch mix that was floating around the net a few years back, and of course I'm expecting much better then that, but that should be given. It should be here on Tuesday.........

I think the perceived SQ of the WYWH SACD is mixed with more seeming to like it very much than to those that have issues with the SQ. As far as shipping speed my copy arrived in 3 days from KS to ME. The shipping cost of course was a bit steep though. That is the cost of wanting the WYWH SACD right away and not waiting for it to be available from Amazon or other resellers. I would think the 5.1 mix of the SACD would sound much better than the quad mix grabbed of the net.

Bill

My main 2 reasons (that you chastised me) for asking for conformation that the SA-CD uses the same 2011 master as the Immersion set which costs over 2x more.

Was interested in the Stéphane Grapelli version and wondered why it wasn't used. Wish You Were Here just sounds like the type of song that would be enhanced by a violin (or cello). Decided to download from iTunes (plus alt version of *Have a Cigar) since I bought the SA-CD instead of the Immersion set.

After listening I know see why it was left in the can. Didn't blend well at all and sounded "forced" and unnatural.

*Did like the alt version of Have a Cigar.

I guess this is why we all have different musical tastes. I very much enjoyed the different interpretation of the WYWH track from the Grappelli version, while I doubt I'll want to listen again to the alt version of Have a Cigar.

For those that only bought the SACD, it is worth checking out some of the CD material from Disc 2 of the Immersion box if you can obtain it via download. You can also buy the CD's separately, but I think you have to buy both CD's. By the time you buy the SACD and both CD's, you've spent half the cost of the Immersion box.

The biggest reason to obtain the Immersion box though is the superior quad mix of WYWH on the BD. The quad mix will be the version I listen to, not the 5.1 version.

So... should I open this SACD that has been sitting on my desk for almost a week, or send it back? Any 2 channel impressions? I ask here because I haven't come across a Hi Rez forum at AVS.

The SteveHoffman.tv forum members have been praising the two channel Red Book and SACD layers. Those folks can be tough customers comparing the SACD to rare and expensive two track first CD issues. I have bought some early CD issues of the album and from what I have read it sounds like the SACD will be the go to edition for any future listening. Anybody want a lightly used early fourth edition DADC or sixth edition Japan for US issue?

Although according to my diehard vinyl friends, the UK 1st pressing LP is still the gold standard by which all others are judged (and fall short).

Thank you! I'll give it a whirl this week.

Don't be put off, WYWH is fantastic.
David Gilmour personally approved the SACD release.
No release EVER has unanimity of opinion anywhere.

Just ordered this. Looking forward to hearing it in MCH glory.

I didn't chastise you, I was simply wondered why would you think they would be different. People who had certain negative opinion of the SACD would still apply to the BD, if they had heard that version I'm sure.

Yes the overall reaction was positive, however there were some concerns over design choices[mixing], and pure SQ as well. I had received my copy, [which took more then 3 days in my case] and I had the same reaction as some of you took. The recessed vocals of "Have a Cigar", due to low level implementation of the center channel for instance, but the main issue for me is, that it was inconsistent.The first track had overly loud surround presentation, with some unnatural top end coming from the L surround which could be just how early synthesizers have sounded, and the this new mix, just brought it up to the surface. It didn't sounded like distortion, in strictest sense of the word. I also considered the top end on this track rather dry, which for the most part how I would characterize this recording's top end with some exceptions, like Welcome to the Machine, or the title song, which both had more fluid treble. Bass was exemplary however, and other then great weight it did feature excellent detail too. All in all I'm happy with this effort, if it wasn't for the price, which probably will only increase in the future as this will be oop at one point, and the Immersion box set cost far more now. All in all DSOTM on SACD is superior IMO for strict SQ and mix choices it provides, and I paid like 1/3of the price of this.However I do realize that title was released in different times, and with a major label and distributorship behind it. I still recommend this for die hard fans, of for those looking for the best MCH presentation of this title. The ones on the net is in a different[lower] league no questions.

Edit:
As far as the overall level it is spot on, it isn't hot, and there was no digital clipping which would be audible at most listening levels BTW.

Maybe I missed it and realize the title of this discussion is concerning the sacd version but anyone have an opinion of the quadraphonic mix vs. the new 5.1 mix? I have listened to Gutherie's 5.1 version of DSOTM and found it to be pleasant but too "gentle" for my tastes and like the Parsons quad version much better.

I gave my opinion a few posts above. While mixes tend to be a personal choice, especially comparing quad versus 5.1, I prefer the greater separation and clarity of the quad. But then, I prefer the Parsons quad mix versus the Guthrie 5.1 mix on DSOTM also.

The Guthrie mix seems to be a more "modern" surround mix with more overlap between channels. However, the center channel is more suppressed on WYWH versus many other 5.1 mixes. I'm just not as fond of his mixes as say, Steven Wilson, who is a master of 5.1 mixing.

The quad mix has been around for decades but it's never sounded better as on the Immersion BD. The quality is noticeably better than the half-dozen other quad versions I've heard from various sources. Those comparing the Guthrie 5.1 mix to the quad versions floating around the net should at least give the quad mix on the BD a listen before proclaiming the 5.1 to be the best surround version around.

Your question is definitely a valid one for this thread IMO. I would be very interested to what people think of the 5.1 SACD to the Quad mix as well. I ask as I'm very curious as to how close the 5.1 mix is to the Quad mix.

Bill

There are many differences, big and small. I say this with the understanding that the 5.1 mix on the SACD is the same as the 5.1 mix on the BD. One example, the radio at the beginning of the WYWH track is at the right rear on the 5.1 mix and at the right front on the quad mix. There are other instances where the vocals or instruments are in different channels. The female vocals are more subdued on the 5.1 mix. However, the greatest overall difference IMO is the quad provides greater separation between channels while the 5.1 mix is more blended. Personal preference probably dictates which mix someone might like better. Anyone that values WYWH should try to give themselves a chance to hear both versions.

What's nice about playing the BD with my Oppo is changing audio streams between 2.0, 4.0, and 5.1 while it's playing to hear how each mix differs.

Personally, I don't want "channel separation".
I want a seamless coherent, immersive soundstage.
I think there's a very good reason that Dolby etal., came up with the 5.1 configuration and before that Paul Klipsch and 3 channel.
Too each his own as always.

Of course you realize 5.1 was created for films, and only later adapted for music. Many people may prefer 5.1 mixes in general over quad, especially since they have sound systems designed for 5.1. I own far more 5.1 than quad, but each has its place in my collection.

Some 5.1 mixes are too heavily centered, with little but reverb in the surrounds, although that isn't the case with WYWH. Quad mixes can be gimmicky if not done well, the same as 5.1 mixes. Both quad and 5.1 mixes can also be exquisite. I wouldn't put either multichannel version of WYWH in that category, although both are very good.

If you've heard the quad and 5.1 mixes of DSOTM and strongly prefer the 5.1 mix, I suspect you may also prefer the 5.1 mix of WYWH. However, from what I've read across many different forums, I'm certainly not alone, as there is a large contingent of people that prefer the quad versions of both DSOTM and WYWH.

As you say, to each his own. I still contend that a fan of WYWH deserves to hear both versions. It's unfortunate the only way to hear the hi-rez quad mix is from the over-priced box set.

Is that quad mix a different one on the Immersion set then what's floating around the internet?