[mcallister]

Mojo recently interviewed David Gilmour http://www.neptunepinkfloyd.co.uk/in...mojo-interview at the bottom of the interview they ask Gilmour if the 5.1 mix will ever be released he says yes but still working out some things.

 

[sharkshark]

oh, he taunts me so...


As per the other Townshend threads, I'm equally depressed that we've yet to get Quadrophenia... Or, hell, Graceland (that's also mixed, aparently)...


Excellent. Off topic on post #2.

Good news about WYWY, hopefully it'll be SACD/CD and DVD hybrid, so that it'll sell lots and maybe have video content as well (vintage concert?)

 

[mcallister]

I hear you double shark. Hopefully it will be released on both formats. Hell maybe even blu-ray audio if they keep waiting.

 

[Jack Gilvey]

I suspect they'd opt for some form of BD audio at this point, but I'd even take it in DD.

 

[sharkshark]

hell, I'd take the Quad mix I've already got from the master tapes!!!

 

[sivadselim]



Quote:
Originally Posted by sharkshark /forum/post/15451591


hell, I'd take the Quad mix I've already got from the master tapes!!!

As far as I know, the quad mix that is available is a transfer from vinyl, not the master tapes.

 

[fmdesign]

I've been waiting for news about this. Given the Floyd has always been a 'surround' band by nature (live shows, and the spirit of the records) it only made sense the WYWH would be next. I hope they release on SACD in keeping with the "Audio Quality First" concept. I know it's basically a dead format, but I still enjoy it (Denon 2900) and I think DSD is the best format with DVD-A a close second.


I'm not totally up on the surround options for BD, but I know it will most likely be an encoded format which I would be less excited about, but given that they actually have to 'sell' these discs, I would understand that decision.


FM

 

[krabapple]

Bluray PCM audio is basically DVD-Audio repackaged. There's no reason to believe it would be any worse or better quality-wise. And neither would be better or worse than SACD. And SACD doesn't really sound any better than CD, in blind listening tests. For that matter, I really wish the whole 'hi rez' myth would die, and they'd just release the damn surround mixes.

 

[fmdesign]

KA.. I've read all about the blind tests, but I'm in the pro recording business and I'm sorry DSD sounds better than LPCM... no question in my mind. I like SACD because there are no issues of decoding (assuming your player has a DSD decoder) and LFE levels, etc... It's just unity gain to six outputs, period.


But.. I here you on the DVD-A vs. BD.. probably no difference IF they elect to using LCPM at a high bit depth and sample rate (24/96 or better). I know this is a can of worms and I'm not necessarily trying to open it??? LOL

 

[TS45]

Here's hoping SACD and DVD Audio succeed as 5.1 formats as Blu Ray has taken off even slower than either SACD or DVD Audio.


Hi Rez audio has and continues to provide wonderful sound quality in our system and really opened up my music taste's, both 2 channel and 5.1.


Please continue to provide these formats so most of the mainstream audio equipment reviewers will have the best software to base their reviews on.

 

[krabapple]



Quote:
Originally Posted by fmdesign /forum/post/15458814


KA.. I've read all about the blind tests, but I'm in the pro recording business and I'm sorry DSD sounds better than LPCM... no question in my mind. I like SACD because there are no issues of decoding (assuming your player has a DSD decoder) and LFE levels, etc... It's just unity gain to six outputs, period.

Regarding 'DSD sounds better than LPCM'....I've encountered few pro recording folks who've actually done double-blind trials to support such claims. I'm going to assume you haven't either. And if that's the case, all I can say is (to quote what someone who's run a fair amount of blind listening tests said on another thread earlier today), 'Faith-based audio is a hard habit to kick'.


Regarding not having to fuss with LFE bugs, etc., I hear you on that. Too bad none of the formats, SACD included, don't guarantee great mastering (Oasis' What's the Story Morning Glory on SACD is still a wall of dynamically compressed sound). I can show you waveforms ripped from DVD-Audio discs that would curl your hair. The take home message is that it's not these delivery formats, it's not being able to buy 'high rez' discs, it's RECORDING, MIXING and MASTERING that are key; and when those are good, they will sound just as good on Redbook as they will on SACD or DVD-A.

 

[sharkshark]



Quote:
Originally Posted by sivadselim /forum/post/15458312


As far as I know, the quad mix that is available is a transfer from vinyl, not the master tapes.

Yes, of course...poorly worded - I'll take a "master tape" version of what I've already got from vinyl SQ.

 

[ca1ore]

Boy, would I love a hirez, 5.1 re-do of the Floyd catalog along the lines of the recent Genesis reissues!! I'm hopeful for WYWH, but the cynic in me still sees it as a long shot.

 

[sivadselim]



Quote:
Originally Posted by sharkshark /forum/post/15460528


Yes, of course...poorly worded - I'll take a "master tape" version of what I've already got from vinyl SQ.

Ah. Roger, that.

 

[Ovation]



Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple /forum/post/15460298


Regarding 'DSD sounds better than LPCM'....I've encountered few pro recording folks who've actually done double-blind trials to support such claims. I'm going to assume you haven't either. And if that's the case, all I can say is (to quote what someone who's run a fair amount of blind listening tests said on another thread earlier today), 'Faith-based audio is a hard habit to kick'.


Regarding not having to fuss with LFE bugs, etc., I hear you on that. Too bad none of the formats, SACD included, don't guarantee great mastering (Oasis' What's the Story Morning Glory on SACD is still a wall of dynamically compressed sound). I can show you waveforms ripped from DVD-Audio discs that would curl your hair. The take home message is that it's not these delivery formats, it's not being able to buy 'high rez' discs, it's RECORDING, MIXING and MASTERING that are key; and when those are good, they will sound just as good on Redbook as they will on SACD or DVD-A.

I don't usually buy 2 channel "hi-res" releases at a premium because I agree that, all things being equal, redbook can be excellent (excellent enough that "hi-res" is unnecessary). However, two things continue to motivate my "hi-res" purchases: 1) On average (though there are exceptions, as you've noted), more care is taken with those three stages (recording, mixing, mastering) for hi-res releases and 2) I want MCH mixes--not available on redbook. Issue one can be addressed via redbook with more care at each stage. Issue two requires non-redbook formats.

 

[filecat13]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Ovation /forum/post/15463342


I don't usually buy 2 channel "hi-res" releases at a premium because I agree that, all things being equal, redbook can be excellent (excellent enough that "hi-res" is unnecessary). However, two things continue to motivate my "hi-res" purchases: 1) On average (though there are exceptions, as you've noted), more care is taken with those three stages (recording, mixing, mastering) for hi-res releases and 2) I want MCH mixes--not available on redbook. Issue one can be addressed via redbook with more care at each stage. Issue two requires non-redbook formats.

Agreed. Well stated.

 

[Jim Hef]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Ovation /forum/post/15463342


...and 2) I want MCH mixes--not available on redbook....

I've been enjoying my limited library of multi-channel, and have recently purchased a Gilmour concert on BluRay, anxiously awaiting the Oppo player. Would love to get more content of his work in this format.

 

[krabapple]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Ovation /forum/post/15463342


I don't usually buy 2 channel "hi-res" releases at a premium because I agree that, all things being equal, redbook can be excellent (excellent enough that "hi-res" is unnecessary). However, two things continue to motivate my "hi-res" purchases: 1) On average (though there are exceptions, as you've noted), more care is taken with those three stages (recording, mixing, mastering) for hi-res releases

I'd like to believe that, and apart from the surround mixes, that hope it is why I too still take the plunge on 'hi rez' discs; but I really don't know that on average it's true. My sample is admittedly limited to a few dozen discs but a shocking number of rock/pop DVD-As and SACDs turned out to be no more 'high resolution' (in terms of actual bits gainfully employed) than their modern CD counterparts....which is to say, they wouldn't even need 16 bits to capture their puny dynamic ranges, much less 24 (or SACD's 1bit + MHz SR).


If one confines oneself mainly to classical and jazz discs, I'd guess the ratio of 'well mastered' to 'modern mastered' is higher, though. The jazz/classical SACDs and DVD-As I have don't show the dynamic range compression I see in other genres.

 

[sharkshark]

as I've said before, happy to buy your Oasis disc...

 

[krabapple]



Quote:
Originally Posted by sharkshark /forum/post/15467350


as I've said before, happy to buy your Oasis disc...

When did you say that?