HiRez Poll Beach Boys - PET SOUNDS [DVD-A/BDA]

[leevitalone1]

I've been eyeing this one, I think I'll give it a go. grew up with the BB.

 

[LizardKing]

I've been eyeing this one, I think I'll give it a go. grew up with the BB.

If you are a BB fan you can't go wrong with mono, stereo and surround options all in hi-rez....

"wouldn't it be nice" if more discs from the 60s were re-issued with the mono, stereo & new surround mixes?

 

[Quad Linda]

There are several Dylan titles that are available as mono CD/LP's (not hi-res) and SACD 2.0/5.1 mixes.

QUOTE=LizardKing;140802]If you are a BB fan you can't go wrong with mono, stereo and surround options all in hi-rez....

"wouldn't it be nice" if more discs from the 60s were re-issued with the mono, stereo & new surround mixes?[/QUOTE]

 

[DaneelOlivaw]

.......it really benifits form the expanded 5.1 sound field (OK 4.1).

Maybe this is just my system and its particular set up - all channels set to "large" i.e. no crossover in use - my subwoofer barely did anything with this multichannel mix. As in, I had to lean down and place my ear near the woofer to hear what was there. I wasn't too surprised though, seeing as though the rear channels contain pretty much full range bass frequencies (I didn't use a sound level meter or analyzer software to check that - I just watched/felt the single 8" ported woofer per speaker vibrate like mad at higher volume levels much like the fronts did).

 

[neil wilkes]

I seem to remember reading somewhere that the mix was very different to what has eneded up on the record, and that the mix engineer was seriously upset.
Something allegedly went seriously wrong in production - but cannot find the references right now.
I have to confess I play the mono stream more than the 5.1 version, although the default "straight in" play mode makes it a pain to find.
Other things also mess this title up for me - to change audio streams requires resetting to main menu, accessing setup, then the stream, then the playlist again etc.
At the very least the stereo mix should be included with either the mono (my choice) or the 5.1, but no - we have a different group for each stream type.
No PGC authoring (although it is possible it was not available then) makes life awkward.

I also do not like the music on the menus - to my mind, this is always a mistake & if audio is going to be there then please do what SW does and make something just for the screen, and for gods sake lower the volume on it.

A 10 for the mono stream, a 5 for the 5.1, a 5 for the authoring and a 7 for the stereo.
All in, a generous 7.

 

[zabble]

I also do not like the music on the menus - to my mind, this is always a mistake & if audio is going to be there then please do what SW does and make something just for the screen, and for gods sake lower the volume on it.

I can't remember what music is on the menu of this particular title, but I couldn't agree more. Who the hell needs a preview of one of the songs that you are obviously going to hear soon enough if only the disk will give you the chance to navigate to the surround layer and hit play? If I want a snippet of a song, I'll go to Amazon.

 

[beached]

Interesting. I remember when I did my review for Dvdangle, I was criticized by some readers re: my observation of "clicks" throughout the 5.1 mix that many listeners apparently didn't hear. This is the first time I hear of a possible technical flaw, and it wouldn't surprise me one bit.

I have 3 copies (German + 2 x USA) of this fantastic album but all copies have drop outs ( not just clicks) in all the 5.1 streams. Mono and stereo play fine. I use a Denon 3910 and OPPO 980. Same on both and the same songs. I don't seem to remember hearing these drop outs when I first bought a copy many years ago. Anybody else have this nasty issue sneak up on them ?.

 

[Failed Muso]

Well, this version of the classic album seems to be quite polarising but I have to say, being familiar with both mono and stereo versions, I really do like the 5.1 mix.

In fact, this is a disc I will probably use when demonstrating to friends who are unfamiliar with multi-channel music what differences there are between mono, stereo and multi-channel.

Also, as an overall package (DVD-A 5.1, stereo & mono plus the DD and DTS mixes and all the bonus content) this was worth far more than the £10 I paid for it (used, ex. cond.).

What I'd dearly love now is to have the album that inspired Pet Sounds (Revolver) and the album Pet Sounds inspired (Sgt. Pepper) so I can play all three in hi-res 5.1 in that order.

It gets a 10 from me.

 

[EMB]

I rated it high, although I understand why some listeners have a problem with it. It IS unbalanced to a degree, and after listening to it yet again today, I can imagine a more sensible, balanced mix. But because it is PET SOUNDS, a legendary (and very fine, if not great as many claim) album from a special time for pop music, just having this in 5.1 is a treat, though the keeper mix is the original mono Brian supervised and approved. As I noted over at Steve Hoffman's site, it's a real pity that, instead of releasing only a mono mix, Brian would have served the album and band better if he'd also assembled a decent stereo mix too, since he must have known Capitol would do as they did, issue an appalling duophonically rechanneled edition. I understand his reasoning behind preferring mono, but even so, sometimes compromise is a better alternative to getting sonically screwed over. At least he had a measure of control over the stereo and 5.1 mixes that came later, but he could have done that in the first place.

Suppose we could talk into 5.1 for WILD HONEY? That would be interesting....

ED

 

[cupboy]

Suppose we could talk into 5.1 for WILD HONEY? That would be interesting....

Well, the two (or was it 3) Wild Honey stereo mix songs I heard weren't very good stereo.

 

[Bill Houston]

Foibles and all I still liked this release. I would agree that this is perhaps more of a ancillary version.

Mix/Sonics.: 7.5
Music: 8

 

[Plan9]

Okay, I'm probably a little late (10 years or so!) but I have found out what is wrong with this DVD-A:

The front channels and the back channels are reversed. Meaning the FL goes to RL and the FR goes to RR.
Then the Center channel and Sub are also reversed. Meaning the Center goes to the Sub and vice-versa.


It probably comes to the fact that the individual channels weren't clearly labelled when they went to the pressing plant (each channel is sent as an individual file) or simply the pressing plant messed up.
The mix is still slightly left-heavy but the placement makes sense now. If you can try it you'll see.


EDIT: Aargh, I talked too fast. That only works for the first track "Wouldn't It Be Nice". I tried it on "Sloop John B." and the track layout was different. On this one the Rear channels are reversed compared to the Front but it seems that also the phase is inverted... How could they do this so wrong?

 

[inquadwetrust]

Okay, I'm probably a little late (10 years or so!) but I have found out what is wrong with this DVD-A:

The front channels and the back channels are reversed. Meaning the FL goes to RL and the FR goes to RR.
Then the Center channel and Sub are also reversed. Meaning the Center goes to the Sub and vice-versa.


It probably comes to the fact that the individual channels weren't clearly labelled when they went to the pressing plant (each channel is sent as an individual file) or simply the pressing plant messed up.
The mix is still slightly left-heavy but the placement makes sense now. If you can try it you'll see.


EDIT: Aargh, I talked too fast. That only works for the first track "Wouldn't It Be Nice". I tried it on "Sloop John B." and the track layout was different. On this one the Rear channels are reversed compared to the Front but it seems that also the phase is inverted... How could they do this so wrong?

Great detective work - do you think you'll persevere to crack the channel code for this one?

 

[Plan9]

Great detective work - do you think you'll persevere to crack the channel code for this one?

Thank you. I might continue if I find the time. I have sampled "God Only Knows" and it appears correct as is. Woohoo!

 

[ifthenwhy]

That would certainly go a long way in explaining stuff, if it's indeed the case. That's my big problem with the disc - there's very little discrete placement. Everything just sort of... hangs there in a big empty wash of echo. Phasing problems and/or switched channels would make sense.

Yeah. I was rather "stunned" at the choices made for the 5.1. I really DO hope this version was a screw up in authoring, because I just can't imagine this, considering how perfect the source material is for a 5.1 mix, is the best that can be done?

Until then, it's the BEAUTIFUL Mono version for me!

 

[cupboy]

Yeah. I was rather "stunned" at the choices made for the 5.1. I really DO hope this version was a screw up in authoring, because I just can't imagine this, considering how perfect the source material is for a 5.1 mix, is the best that can be done?

Until then, it's the BEAUTIFUL Mono version for me!

Well, that's one ear, but use them both and get the MFSL stereo SACD.

 

[topsyandpip56]

I'm extremely late to this 'party' and to 5.1/Quad in general. This was the first surround album I ever heard and it gave me a pounding headache the mix was so poor. As is so well documented I'm sure the authoring was screwed up but jeez... The vocal is drowned out in reverb and all the instruments just sound like they're lost in the giant hall the 5.1 mix creates. I actually play the 1996 Stereo Mix on my 5.1 setup more often than the 5.1 mix.

 

[leevitalone1]

I'm extremely late to this 'party' and to 5.1/Quad in general. This was the first surround album I ever heard and it gave me a pounding headache the mix was so poor. As is so well documented I'm sure the authoring was screwed up but jeez... The vocal is drowned out in reverb and all the instruments just sound like they're lost in the giant hall the 5.1 mix creates. I actually play the 1996 Stereo Mix on my 5.1 setup more often than the 5.1 mix.

by the polls you can see the results of the production values. If you really want good 5.1 try anything by Steely Dan/ or Donald Fagan/ or any Clapton 5.1 that was done correctly.

 

[dr. simple]

I'm extremely late to this 'party' and to 5.1/Quad in general. This was the first surround album I ever heard and it gave me a pounding headache the mix was so poor. As is so well documented I'm sure the authoring was screwed up but jeez... The vocal is drowned out in reverb and all the instruments just sound like they're lost in the giant hall the 5.1 mix creates. I actually play the 1996 Stereo Mix on my 5.1 setup more often than the 5.1 mix.

I agree with leevitalone1 - don't let this be an example of what "this party" has to offer. I had a friend over the other night, and he'd never listened to 5.1 music, so I started with "Tiny Dancer". Case closed!

 

[Franklin]

Has anyone compared the USA DVD-A to the UK DVD-V? Are there still the same issues?