HiRez Poll Blue Oyster Cult - AGENTS OF FORTUNE [SACD]

[ar surround]

I just listened to this SACD the other day. It was after listening to some red book CD material. The contrast in quality between this "mediocre" SACD/mix and over-compressed, over-equalized, over-everything CDs is remarkable. So yes, we've had much worse.

 

[JohnA]

I've been looking for a half-decent version of 'on yer feet'
Man, one is worse than the other, like they were recorded on a cassette tape recorder and stored in a metal box

That and 'Made in Japan' were my favourite live rock albums back then
Made in Japan still sounds perfect (Blu ray audio) even redbook is perfect. So let's not blame age. If anything, our hearing has gone south..

 

[mandrix]

I have, I think, 4 BOC Blu-Ray's. They all have dismal DD 5.1 sound. That is especially a shame for the newest one, although it was from a concert about 2002 I think, but man could Buck shred! He and I are old men now, not as dynamic as we once were, but I always thought he was better than he seemed to get credit for. Singing? Please. Guitar? Hell yeah.

All this conspired to have me give a few recent listens to the SACD of AOC. It's still a familiar old friend. Kapn can hate on it, don't matter, no one likes everything! I've always loved this album and I still have that old LP I used to blast so loud. It's what I got, so it's back in rotation.

 

[kap'n krunch]

I have, I think, 4 BOC Blu-Ray's. They all have dismal DD 5.1 sound. That is especially a shame for the newest one, although it was from a concert about 2002 I think, but man could Buck shred! He and I are old men now, not as dynamic as we once were, but I always thought he was better than he seemed to get credit for. Singing? Please. Guitar? Hell yeah.

All this conspired to have me give a few recent listens to the SACD of AOC. It's still a familiar old friend. Kapn can hate on it, don't matter, no one likes everything! I've always loved this album and I still have that old LP I used to blast so loud. It's what I got, so it's back in rotation.

nahh, I don't HATE it...if anything it's because of DISAPPOINTMENT (and maybe a personal vendetta...when they played San Juan in the early 80's, my brother's band was supposed to open for them and , at the last minute, they back stabbed them)..The AOF SACD mix is dismal, but, yeah, we have had WAY worse...

 

[jaybird100]

I bought it for one track, but listened to the entire disc. I found the mix underwhelming, but not terrible.

 

[par4ken]

I think the mix is quite good for a "modern 5.1 mix". Although it could use more rear channel activity at times it actually has some nice swirling quad style pans in a few places.

As a huge Patti Smith fan I would of liked her backing vocals in "The Revenge Of Vera Gemini" to be a bit more prominent.

I would consider "(Don't Fear) The Reaper" to be their signature song, no complaints about the sound of that one from me.

"Debbie Denise" is closest to being an actual quad style mix.

DSD (via Oppo BDP103) sounds different than PCM, at times it seems much more dynamic other times perhaps a bit harsh.

 

[Ranasakawa]

Just obtained this 'so called' 5.1 mix of a classic album and was extremely disappointed with the mix. It's a 4 for the crap mixing work. The quads are far better, would love to hear a surround mix of the debut album, clearly their best.

 

[ar surround]

Just obtained this 'so called' 5.1 mix of a classic album and was extremely disappointed with the mix. It's a 4 for the crap mixing work. The quads are far better, would love to hear a surround mix of the debut album, clearly their best.

There’s a quad out there of this album?

 

[sjcorne]

There’s a quad out there of this album?

Nope, only Tyranny & Mutation and Secret Treaties were mixed to quad.

 

[doity]

I saw this thread and said “Whoa”. I had no idea that this was ever released in Surround. I don’t even have a SACD player but was willing to buy one, until I read the reviews that is. That is too bad about the mix. If digital is supposedly so much better than analog, then why can’t they come up with decent Surround mixes in this day and age? Maybe Alan Parsons needs to have some kind of school where he can teach all these young engineers and producers what’s what?

I love the Cult and this would be great to own if it was done right. I saw them on this tour, or maybe it was the tour for the live album after, when they had the full laser show. My young mind was blown by what I saw.

 

[doity]

I saw this thread and said “Whoa”. I had no idea that this was ever released in Surround. I don’t even have a SACD player but was willing to buy one, until I read the reviews that is. That is too bad about the mix. If digital is supposedly so much better than analog, then why can’t they come up with decent Surround mixes in this day and age? Maybe Alan Parsons needs to have some kind of school where he can teach all these young engineers and producers what’s what?

I love the Cult and this would be great to own if it was done right. I saw them on this tour, or maybe it was the tour for the live album after, when they had the full laser show. My young mind was blown by what I saw.

Oh I forgot about Spectres. No wonder, I think everyone else did also. Besides Godzilla and Nosferatu the album is pretty forgettable. That must had been the tour that I saw.

 

[ar surround]

I saw this thread and said “Whoa”. I had no idea that this was ever released in Surround. I don’t even have a SACD player but was willing to buy one, until I read the reviews that is. That is too bad about the mix. If digital is supposedly so much better than analog, then why can’t they come up with decent Surround mixes in this day and age? Maybe Alan Parsons needs to have some kind of school where he can teach all these young engineers and producers what’s what?

I love the Cult and this would be great to own if it was done right. I saw them on this tour, or maybe it was the tour for the live album after, when they had the full laser show. My young mind was blown by what I saw.

You might want to buy it anyway if you can get it at a reasonable price. The surrounds on this thing need a 3db boost to hear what’s going on in the surrounds. Also, the audio quality is better than the redbook CD that is out there.

 

[scottm18]

8.
Let's face it, this is never going to sound like a Elton John SACD...and at first I was very overwhelmed but if you just make a couple small adjustment to your surround system it can sound rather good. Firstly, due to the muddy original 70s recording, raise the treble a tad... then more importantly, raise your surround speakers a notch. Now play E.T.I or Tenderloin... and tell me you're not an audio surround bliss

As with Elton's best works, this is another classic release you can find that's been meticulously converted from 5.1 SACD to DVD-Audio MLP and it definitely sounds great in my car!

 

[doity]

You might want to buy it anyway if you can get it at a reasonable price. The surrounds on this thing need a 3db boost to hear what’s going on in the surrounds. Also, the audio quality is better than the redbook CD that is out there.

Are these SACD reissues also playable in 4 channel mode or is the center an important part of the mix? I know that some of the reissued quad mixes are out there but didn’t know about the new mixes of albums that were never produced in quad format. Sorry if that is a stupid question but I have never bought any kind of CD/DVD that was strictly in a surround format. Now back to my Edison cylinders........

 

[sjcorne]

Are these SACD reissues also playable in 4 channel mode or is the center an important part of the mix? I know that some of the reissued quad mixes are out there but didn’t know about the new mixes of albums that were never produced in quad format. Sorry if that is a stupid question but I have never bought any kind of CD/DVD that was strictly in a surround format. Now back to my Edison cylinders........

The simple answer is that it varies, depending on the mixer's preference. Some 5.1 mixes have isolated vocals and instruments in the center speaker, while others use it as a reinforcement of the 'phantom' front center or ignore it entirely.

If you're running a '70s quad system with vintage gear and decide to add disc playback capability, you can tell your disc player to fold the center speaker content into the mains.

 

[doity]

The simple answer is that it varies, depending on the mixer's preference. Some 5.1 mixes have isolated vocals and instruments in the center speaker, while others use it as a reinforcement of the 'phantom' front center or ignore it entirely.

If you're running a '70s quad system with vintage gear and decide to add disc playback capability, you can tell your disc player to fold the center speaker content into the mains.

Thanks. That’s kinda what I thought but wasn’t sure.

 

[scottm18]

Are these SACD reissues also playable in 4 channel mode or is the center an important part of the mix?

Using Elton vs BOC example I used earlier, the EJ discs make dramatic use of the center channel for his voice, but this particular BOC album I believe the center is only used during the "paperboy spoken word" segment so it should not be missed in the slightest. Four-channel probably won't include the subwoofer either...but again this album's recording is not exactly Sea Change quality.

 

[doity]

Are these SACD reissues also playable in 4 channel mode or is the center an important part of the mix?

Using Elton vs BOC example I used earlier, the EJ discs make dramatic use of the center channel for his voice, but this particular BOC album I believe the center is only used during the "paperboy spoken word" segment so it should not be missed in the slightest. Four-channel probably won't include the subwoofer either...but again this album's recording is not exactly Sea Change quality.

Thanks. Don’t know if I could get by without that part though . Just joking.....great song but that bit is so un-BOC like.

 

[steelydave]

It's funny, I can see I've rated this a '6' at some point in the past, but I think now I'd probably rate the mix itself as a '7' and my overall enjoyment as an '8'.

I think when you hear a 5.1 mix (or quad mix) of something you're even somewhat familiar with in stereo, it's hard to be entirely objective the first few times you listen to it, because you're battling your own preconceived notions about how you expected the surround mix to sound, and whatever disappointment might be attached to those expectations not being fulfilled.

Despite not being as aggressively mixed as most of us would like, the attention to detail in the mix is excellent in my opinion - little nuances like reverbs are handled superbly, and by Shelly Yakus (who engineered the original album) no less.

I think it also has to be mentioned that sonically, the 5.1 mix is a colossal upgrade on the stereo mix, and worth buying for that reason alone if you like the music at all. In my (humble) opinion, pretty much every BOC stereo mix sounds like hot garbage from a frequency response and dynamics perspective. It's weird, the engineering during recording is obviously good (as evidenced by how this 5.1 mix scrubbed up) but they all sound like they took a really well recorded rock album, played it through an AM radio, and recorded the output on to the master tape - no bass, no treble, all midrange and flat as a pancake dynamically. I guess it must be something to do with some of the gear that those studios were using in the mid-'70s, because the Aerosmith albums from the same period, and Rick Derringer's Spring Fever have that same kind of sound. I was going to suggest the poor sound quality of their albums being one of the reasons they never attained superstar status (I know it's certainly put me off devoting more time to their back catalog) but Aerosmith obviously did fine in spite of a similar sound, so I dunno!

 

[doity]

It's funny, I can see I've rated this a '6' at some point in the past, but I think now I'd probably rate the mix itself as a '7' and my overall enjoyment as an '8'.

I think when you hear a 5.1 mix (or quad mix) of something you're even somewhat familiar with in stereo, it's hard to be entirely objective the first few times you listen to it, because you're battling your own preconceived notions about how you expected the surround mix to sound, and whatever disappointment might be attached to those expectations not being fulfilled.

Despite not being as aggressively mixed as most of us would like, the attention to detail in the mix is excellent in my opinion - little nuances like reverbs are handled superbly, and by Shelly Yakus (who engineered the original album) no less.

I think it also has to be mentioned that sonically, the 5.1 mix is a colossal upgrade on the stereo mix, and worth buying for that reason alone if you like the music at all. In my (humble) opinion, pretty much every BOC stereo mix sounds like hot garbage from a frequency response and dynamics perspective. It's weird, the engineering during recording is obviously good (as evidenced by how this 5.1 mix scrubbed up) but they all sound like they took a really well recorded rock album, played it through an AM radio, and recorded the output on to the master tape - no bass, no treble, all midrange and flat as a pancake dynamically. I guess it must be something to do with some of the gear that those studios were using in the mid-'70s, because the Aerosmith albums from the same period, and Rick Derringer's Spring Fever have that same kind of sound. I was going to suggest the poor sound quality of their albums being one of the reasons they never attained superstar status (I know it's certainly put me off devoting more time to their back catalog) but Aerosmith obviously did fine in spite of a similar sound, so I dunno!

Yeah, but Aerosmith had a secret weapon up their sleeve. Jack Douglas. I am convinced that he as much as any other member of that band made them what they are. But yes, I know what you mean by getting used to surround mixes as sometimes they are radically different. I noticed that Aerosmith used what seemed like almost completely different versions of their stuff in the quad version(s).