HiRez Poll Chicago - CHICAGO (II) [DVD-A]

[newslane]

Thanks for posting this! One of my all-time favorite tracks.

 

[par4ken]

I haven't heard the quad mix

You should hear both the original SQ LP and the discrete version in the Quadio set. The mix of those are fantastic. I will concede that this one has great bass but mix wise nah. What I call the modern school of 5.1 mixing, not the immersive quad style that those many of us have loved since the early seventies. This disc has the lowest rating that I have ever given out because I dislike the mix so much in comparison to the original.

 

[par4ken]

If anyone wants my copy they can have it for $30 (US) plus shipping, PM me.

 

[Sashaaa]

Listened to this in 5.1 for the first time, and honestly one of the very best 5.1 mixes I've ever heard. It sounds like a ES mix in the best way possible (see post below), and fixes all of my issues with any of the stereo mixes of the album. Most notably, the BASS! There's actually subbass here. I'm by no means a bass head (I actually don't like lots of it) but it always bothered me how all of the other versions of the album seem to just have a hole in the subbass, but it's definitely present here and sounds amazing. The mix is perfectly discrete, and the music is fantastic too!

Definitely a benchmark disc mix wise, gonna give this a 10.

 

[sjcorne]

It sounds like a ES mix in the best way possible, and fixes all of my issues with any of the stereo mixes.

I'd agree that it's a massive upgrade from the old stereo & quad versions tonally, but I can't see how you'd compare this to Scheiner's work. To me, it sounds like the rhythm section and lead vocal are in the front speakers, while everything else (guitars, horns, piano, backing vocals, etc) is positioned halfway between the front & rear soundstages. The center speaker features some isolated guitar and horn solos, but I'm not hearing anything in the back that's completely detached from what's going on upfront (which is a hallmark of Scheiner's 5.1 mixes).

 

[Sashaaa]

I'd agree that it's a massive upgrade from the old stereo & quad versions tonally, but I can't see how you'd compare this to Scheiner's work. To me, it sounds like the rhythm section and lead vocal are in the front speakers, while everything else (guitars, horns, piano, backing vocals, etc) is positioned halfway between the front & rear soundstages. The center speaker features some isolated guitar and horn solos, but I'm not hearing anything in the back that's completely detached from what's going on upfront (which is a hallmark of Scheiner's 5.1 mixes).

Oh crap, for some reason thought this was a Scheiner mix. I think the main thing that made me reminded of his stuff wasn't really the placement of sounds (though it does seem kinda similar to me tbh) but was more the way the mix sounded tonally with the use of the sub. Hard to explain but there's a certain "hifi" tonal sound that reminded me of ES's work. That said, thanks for informing me. Didn't realize this wasn't a ES mix, and I would agree that it is a bit less descrete than his mixes.

Regardless, I still do believe that this is a phenomenal DVD-A!

 

[ar surround]

Oh crap, for some reason thought this was a Scheiner mix. I think the main thing that made me reminded of his stuff wasn't really the placement of sounds (though it does seem kinda similar to me tbh) but was more the way the mix sounded tonally with the use of the sub. Hard to explain but there's a certain "hifi" tonal sound that reminded me of ES's work. That said, thanks for informing me. Didn't realize this wasn't a ES mix, and I would agree that it is a bit less descrete than his mixes.

Regardless, I still do believe that this is a phenomenal DVD-A!

Poor sound quality and tonal balance ruins a great mix every time. Now if all three are excellent, then we achieve aural nirvana. I actually like both the DVD-A and the BR-A quad of Chicago II. My preference for one over the other vacillates as they both are excellent.

 

[JediJoker]

Poor sound quality and tonal balance ruins a great mix every time. Now if all three are excellent, then we achieve aural nirvana. I actually like both the DVD-A and the BR-A quad of Chicago II. My preference for one over the other vacillates as they both are excellent.

Both easily best the original stereo mix in sound quality, but I'd argue Steven Wilson's stereo mix has the overall edge in that area.

 

[ar surround]

Both easily best the original stereo mix in sound quality, but I'd argue Steven Wilson's stereo mix has the overall edge in that area.

I like Wilson's stereo remix except for 25 or 6 to 4: It is the same de-balled fare similar to the original stereo version, and that ruins the whole experience for me. When I first got the SQ quad way back in the 70s, the most obvious difference from the stereo was how 25 or 6 to 4 had much more balls. I played the grooves out of that thing!

The quad on the BR-A is that same wonderful mix. The 5.1 version on the DVD-A has even more balls than the quad, but the mix isn't as interesting.

 

[Sashaaa]

Both easily best the original stereo mix in sound quality, but I'd argue Steven Wilson's stereo mix has the overall edge in that area.

I actually would agree that Steve Wilson's mix is the best out of the stereo mixes, but I will say I do think in Steven's mix it feels like it's a bit lighter on the low end than what I'd prefer, though I would understand why someone would also prefer the current mix. I just feel like there's something missing with the subbass when i listen to the 5.1 then go back to the Steven Wilson mix.