or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Surround Music Formats › A little news on "Wish You Were Here" SACD
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A little news on "Wish You Were Here" SACD - Page 11

post #301 of 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by scolumbo View Post

Of course you realize 5.1 was created for films, and only later adapted for music...

Actually 3 channel stereo (center speaker) audio (music) was first demoed in 1940.
post #302 of 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by thehun View Post

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

Same mix, but it's been cleaned up and is a higher quality than any of the versions found on the interweb that I've heard. There are many different versions ripped from various SQ-LP sources floating around, with different sampling rates and bit depths, some higher quality than others. That's not including amateur 4.0 and 5.0 upmixes that are around. The only new mix is the Guthrie 5.1 mix.

edit: there are also Q8 sources of the quad mix out in the wild. Again, none of these have the sonic qualities of the quad mix on the BD IMO.
post #303 of 378
If you (like me) haven't gotten around to getting this yet, here's more incentive. Acoustic Sounds usually has these sales on major holidays.




post #304 of 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by scolumbo View Post

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.

Most films I watch have music too. Right?
Quote:


I wouldn't put either multichannel version of WYWH in that category, although both are very good.

Agreed

Quote:


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.

I've never heard a quad mix that equaled the corresponding 5.1.
But again as you stated you're not alone there certainly is a contingent of quad lovers.

Quote:


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.

True but over-paying is better than not being able to pay at all.
And for me the SACD is the perfect option.
post #305 of 378
As far as my own preferences are concerned, I don't care whether a mix is quad or 5.1.

But I *do* care very much how each is mixed and I have heard plenty of crummy 5.1 mixes and lots of great 4.0 mixes. And anyway, the center channel, imo anyway, has nothing to do with the *surround* aspect. It is actually just there to help "anchor" the front stereo image and in fact there is still controversy in the surround mixing community as far as using it at all, the proof of that seen in the mixes for example on the Beach Boys' Pet Sounds dvd-a and the Donald Fagen Nightfly dvd-a. Same deal with the LFE channel: the David Crosby dvd-a does not use that channel at all.
post #306 of 378
The SACD showed up for pre-order on Amazon today, but they have it listed above the MSRP. It's currently $37.90

This has been happening with a few of the AS releases lately. I'm starting to wonder if they are jacking up the list price they tell Amazon to drive more sales to their own site...
post #307 of 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by scoogs View Post

The SACD showed up for pre-order on Amazon today, but they have it listed above the MSRP. It's currently $37.90

This has been happening with a few of the AS releases lately. I'm starting to wonder if they are jacking up the list price they tell Amazon to drive more sales to their own site...

Maybe Amazon is not getting the WYWH SACD for a price low enough to sell it for under $37.50. I would think that if Acoustic Sounds wanted the sales to come from their site only why offer it to Amazon at all? If I recall AS is the label for the WYWH SACD so either way they are making money off of every copy sold.

Bill
post #308 of 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by scoogs View Post

The SACD showed up for pre-order on Amazon today, but they have it listed above the MSRP. It's currently $37.90

This has been happening with a few of the AS releases lately. I'm starting to wonder if they are jacking up the list price they tell Amazon to drive more sales to their own site...

I do not understand their pricing policy. If they offer it for reasonable amount of money, they would have much larger sales volume. With any price over $20, it will be purchased by die hard fans only. I do not see sound busyness plan behind that.

By the way, ripped version (SACD-R) is already available on several torrent trackers.
post #309 of 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by ap1 View Post

I do not understand their pricing policy. If they offer it for reasonable amount of money, they would have much larger sales volume. With any price over $20, it will be purchased by die hard fans only. I do not see sound busyness plan behind that...

There is no "larger sales volume" amount of SA-CD owners to sell to and what few there are, are mostly die hard fans.
post #310 of 378
Just wanted to chime in on the 5.1 vs quad talk......I dropped the center channel about 3 years ago.

I always felt the center sounded to harsh and called to much attention to itself. Of course my speakers and/or setup could have played a factor in that, but I don't have a dedicated room that lets me do whatever I need to in the name of sound quality.

Just using a 4.1 set up sounds better with music and movies than my 5.1 ever did.

YMMV
post #311 of 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by dirk1843 View Post

Just wanted to chime in on the 5.1 vs quad talk......I dropped the center channel about 3 years ago.

I always felt the center sounded to harsh and called to much attention to itself. Of course my speakers and/or setup could have played a factor in that, but I don't have a dedicated room that lets me do whatever I need to in the name of sound quality.

Just using a 4.1 set up sounds better with music and movies than my 5.1 ever did.

YMMV

You're in good company. Roger Waters still performs in quad for The Wall Live tour, and Pink Floyd pioneered performing live in quad in the 60's. With PF's history of performing and recording in quad, it makes the quad versions of DSOTM and WYWH more authentic to me.

The center channel can be over-used by some sound mixers IMO, lazily placing all vocals in the center, and instruments in the front and rear channels. Fortunately, there are mixers like Guthrie, and Steven Wilson especially, that tend to de-emphasize the center channel and spread vocals across the center and fronts, and even the surrounds.

I still love a good 5.1 mix (Sea Change, Avalon, Discipline, any of the Donald Fagen and Porcupine Tree 5.1 releases, for example), but lack of a center channel doesn't have to detract from a great surround experience.
post #312 of 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by scolumbo View Post

Same mix, but it's been cleaned up and is a higher quality than any of the versions found on the interweb that I've heard. There are many different versions ripped from various SQ-LP sources floating around, with different sampling rates and bit depths, some higher quality than others. That's not including amateur 4.0 and 5.0 upmixes that are around. The only new mix is the Guthrie 5.1 mix.

edit: there are also Q8 sources of the quad mix out in the wild. Again, none of these have the sonic qualities of the quad mix on the BD IMO.

Yeah I figured this much. the version I have was said to be ripped from the quad LP[not directly of course], and was encoded at 96khz sampling but not sure about the bit depth.However listening to it quickly remind you of a low quality analog copy I used to make when I was a kid with cassettes, lots of tape hiss, and "pumping: especially at the beginning, and generally hollow mid range and weak bass. Yes I would fully expect that the version you have on the BD is vastly superior, and listening to that might sway my opinion of what is the best MCH version of this album.
post #313 of 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by William View Post

There is no "larger sales volume" amount of SA-CD owners to sell to and what few there are, are mostly die hard fans.

That remains to be seen. The SACD of Dark Side of the Moon sold over 800,000 in the US alone and well over a million worldwide -- at a more favorable price, of course.
post #314 of 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by T7T View Post

The SACD of Dark Side of the Moon sold over 800,000 in the US alone and well over a million worldwide

But we don't know if that disc was bought for its multichannel mix or because that version of DSOTM just happened to be in the bin at the time, since the original black cover version is still sold too.

My bet is that 99% of the blue-cover anniversary versions (the sacd) were bought simply because it was DSOTM, and the buyer had no clue what sacd was.
post #315 of 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by T7T View Post

That remains to be seen. The SACD of Dark Side of the Moon sold over 800,000 in the US alone and well over a million worldwide -- at a more favorable price, of course.

I bought it twice, the early batch I bought at the time of release developed cracks around the center hole within weeks after purchase. I know I wasn't alone. In any case other then the price, I would also wager that "Dark side" is a the more "iconic" album based on the it's chart spent time for instance, which could also explain why it sold so well. But that's just a theory.
post #316 of 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by donutfan View Post

But we don't know if that disc was bought for its multichannel mix or because that version of DSOTM just happened to be in the bin at the time, since the original black cover version is still sold too.

My bet is that 99% of the blue-cover anniversary versions (the sacd) were bought simply because it was DSOTM, and the buyer had no clue what sacd was.

BINGO, I even found my copy in the CD bin at BB. Also this was at the HIGHT of the SA-CD promotion/hype. Now SA-CD considered legacy/failed format by the masses.
post #317 of 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by William View Post

Now SA-CD considered legacy/failed format by the masses.

By the masses? The masses do not even know that SACD ever existed.
post #318 of 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by donutfan View Post

But we don't know if that disc was bought for its multichannel mix or because that version of DSOTM just happened to be in the bin at the time, since the original black cover version is still sold too.

My bet is that 99% of the blue-cover anniversary versions (the sacd) were bought simply because it was DSOTM, and the buyer had no clue what sacd was.

Ok...while DSoTM was on the album charts forever, I wonder if it was on track to sell 792,000 units in the years since the SACD was released.
post #319 of 378
I remain surprised how much I like the original quad mixes (4.0). I know that original elements were used for the 5.1 mixes, but something about the originals still appeals to me. Maybe it was the deliberate aggressive use of multi-channels that makes these fun to listen to.
post #320 of 378
I just got my SACD yesterday and had time to sample it this morning. Listened to the title track and decided I needed to listen to the whole thing (pushed off a few chores to later). I was reminded of why this is my favourite Floyd album. Love the MCH mix. This will be in heavy rotation for a while.
post #321 of 378
Also...anybody here compare the LPCM blu-ray to the SACD? I wonder if the original mix was DSD or LPCM; which would presumably influence the preferred medium for this release.
post #322 of 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by originalsnuffy View Post

Also...anybody here compare the LPCM blu-ray to the SACD? I wonder if the original mix was DSD or LPCM; which would presumably influence the preferred medium for this release.

I would bet it was LPCM. Pretty much all mixing consoles are PCM, but there are consoles that do use DSD. However that would make much more sense if the recording was captured via DSD recorders to begin with. Clearly this was not the case here, not to mention this wasn't a single project, but part of a larger one, so to use DSD for only to convert it again for BD, not to mention all the new stereo mixes for the albums that was part of the Discovery box set, PCM is just the obvious choice here.
post #323 of 378
I just received this disc. Absolutely phenomenal. This is only my third sacd, but I am a believer in the format.
post #324 of 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by warp2600 View Post

By the masses? The masses do not even know that SACD ever existed.

Maybe he meant the masses of now-unemployed former record company executives.
post #325 of 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by William View Post

Actually 3 channel stereo (center speaker) audio (music) was first demoed in 1940.

Hee, hee, great point. I have a whole bunch of Living Stereo releases that were recorded in 3-channel back in the 1950s. Is also interesting to note that the term stereo actually has nothing to do with two perse, it is actually derived from the greek word 'stereos', meaning solid.
post #326 of 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by ca1ore View Post

Is also interesting to note that the term stereo actually has nothing to do with two perse, it is actually derived from the greek word 'stereos', meaning solid.

My uncle (we are Greek) used to tell a joke in Greek when I was a kid. The translation goes,"why did the guy nail his radio to the floor? Because he wanted to make it 'stereo'". I hadn't of thought of that in years. Thanks for the memory
post #327 of 378
Below is link to a great interview with Chad Kassem from Acoustic Sounds and James Guthrie who mastered the WYWH SACD. They discuss varying topics about the WYWH SACD and other Floyd releases. In the Interview Guthrie does say "I will be doing a 5.1 mix of The Wall for release on SACD, but we don't have a planned release date for that yet.". This is great news for the many Floyd fans here.

http://www.brain-damage.co.uk/albums...-james-gu.html

Bill
post #328 of 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Mac View Post

Below is link to a great interview with Chad Kassem from Acoustic Sounds and James Guthrie who mastered the WYWH SACD. They discuss varying topics about the WYWH SACD and other Floyd releases. In the Interview Guthrie does say "I will be doing a 5.1 mix of The Wall for release on SACD, but we don't have a planned release date for that yet.". This is great news for the many Floyd fans here.

http://www.brain-damage.co.uk/albums...-james-gu.html

Bill

Great news indeed , Bill
post #329 of 378
For those that have not yet bought the WYWH SACD it is available as a preorder on Amazon at a great price shipped.

http://www.amazon.com/Wish-Were-Here...4649300&sr=1-1

Bill
post #330 of 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Mac View Post

For those that have not yet bought the WYWH SACD it is available as a preorder on Amazon at a great price shipped.

http://www.amazon.com/Wish-Were-Here...4649300&sr=1-1

Bill

Note to self - wait for The Wall SACD to come to Amazon and save a bundle...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Surround Music Formats
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Surround Music Formats › A little news on "Wish You Were Here" SACD