HiRez Poll Chicago - CHICAGO IX: CHICAGO'S GREATEST HITS 1969-1974 [Blu-ray Audio (Dolby Atmos)]

[rtbluray]

Please post your thoughts and comments on this brand new reissue of Chicago's Greatest Hits 1969-1974.
This new reissue on Blu-ray Audio disc from Rhino records contains the original stereo mix, the original 1970s Quadraphonic mix last reissued on Blu-ray Audio as part of the Chicago Quadio box set, and a new Dolby Atmos mix.

 

[Dynamic Editor]

Just wanna pop in to say the Atmos is a winner. I haven't heard the quad yet, but I can say halfway through the Atmos mix that it's a worthwhile purchase!

Listening in 7.1, for reference.

 

[dquad]

Any comments on the Quad mix? I've heard the Atmos mix on Apple Music and I'm curious how the quad is.

 

[mrcond]

Any comments on the Quad mix? I've heard the Atmos mix on Apple Music and I'm curious how the quad is.

Lots of discussion of the entire quadio box set here - this quad should be the same mix as contained there:

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/threads/chicago-quadio-bluray-audio.22250/

 

[zdjh22]

I have the Quadio box set, so will just concentrate on the Atmos version. I’m listening in 10.1.6.

The older songs (from CTA and Chicago) tend to have very little to nothing in the rears. Clearer than the quad mix, but a bit disappointing. “Beginnings” is the exception to that rule.

But, the newer songs, particularly “Just You ‘N’ Me”, “Call on Me”, and “(I’ve Been) Searchin’ so Long”, have lots going on. “Call on Me” has some isolated conga drums (bongos?) in rear center - nice! “Searchin’” has isolated synth towards the end in rear center, and nicely separated strings in the rears also towards the end. So many instruments in most of these songs, and they’ve used Atmos to steer them well into different parts of the room. Very fun to listen to isolated speakers. I loved the piano coming in, only in the center channel, in “Just You ‘N’ Me”.

Definitely an upgrade from the quad, and a great disc to own particularly if you don’t have the box set. Because it’s a bit uneven - 25 or 6 to 4 seems to be a bit of a missed opportunity - I’m giving it an 8 overall.

 

[beerking]

I have the Quadio box set, so will just concentrate on the Atmos version. I’m listening in 10.1.6.

The older songs (from CTA and Chicago) tend to have very little to nothing in the rears. Clearer than the quad mix, but a bit disappointing. “Beginnings” is the exception to that rule.

But, the newer songs, particularly “Just You ‘N’ Me”, “Call on Me”, and “(I’ve Been) Searchin’ so Long”, have lots going on. “Call on Me” has some isolated conga drums (bongos?) in rear center - nice! “Searchin’” has isolated synth towards the end in rear center, and nicely separated strings in the rears also towards the end. So many instruments in most of these songs, and they’ve used Atmos to steer them well into different parts of the room. Very fun to listen to isolated speakers. I loved the piano coming in, only in the center channel, in “Just You ‘N’ Me”.

Definitely an upgrade from the quad, and a great disc to own particularly if you don’t have the box set. Because it’s a bit uneven - 25 or 6 to 4 seems to be a bit of a missed opportunity - I’m giving it an 8 overall.

This is exactly how I found the Atmos mix to be.
A mixed bag indeed.
But overall pleased that I bought it.
An 8

 

[ar surround]

Definitely an upgrade from the quad, and a great disc to own particularly if you don’t have the box set. Because it’s a bit uneven - 25 or 6 to 4 seems to be a bit of a missed opportunity - I’m giving it an 8 overall.

Thanks for your comments. That's what I was afraid of...not enough effort put into certain songs like 25 or 6 to 4 to come up with killer Atmos mixes.

I'm particularly peeved that they didn't put the time into the Atmos of 25 or 6 to 4. The quad mix has always been the best version of that song and seems to remain so given your comment. The stereo version sounds washed out; the 5.1 is very good but the kick drum is overemphasized. Steven Wilson's remix of Chicago II sounds really good played through the Surround Master until you get to 25 or 6 to 4. Then it's got that washed out, no balls, sound again that ruins the day.

But, the newer songs, particularly “Just You ‘N’ Me”, “Call on Me”, and “(I’ve Been) Searchin’ so Long”, have lots going on. “Call on Me” has some isolated conga drums (bongos?) in rear center - nice! “Searchin’” has isolated synth towards the end in rear center, and nicely separated strings in the rears also towards the end. So many instruments in most of these songs, and they’ve used Atmos to steer them well into different parts of the room. Very fun to listen to isolated speakers. I loved the piano coming in, only in the center channel, in “Just You ‘N’ Me”.

But your description of the Atmos on the other songs tells me that this would be a very worthwhile purchase.

 

[fetchmybeer]

I have a 5.1 setup so the Atmos is a fold down.

That said...

As somebody who does not have the Chicago Quadio set, I am happy to find the quad mixes of the song on this. They sound nice and warm-- consistent with much of the 70s quad. I find that the Atmos is crisp and offers plenty of separation. The vocals are clear and up front, as opposed to some of the songs in the quad where they seem buried.

I think the separation of the instruments here is very good, BUT where in the world is the bass? You can flip between the quad and the Atmos and the difference is striking. There is no bottom end on the Atmos. It's odd because there is plenty of sonic room for it. It just isn't there for the most part. The drums could also use a boost., or maybe should be spread out more. I can't tell how may channels they're coming out but they seem very thin and narrow. Regardless, if the bass gets a boost, then the drums would definitely require one.

As a value purchase with both an Atmos and the quad, this is a good deal, but not sure what is going on with the bass. An 8 from me.

 

[Dynamic Editor]

The older songs (from CTA and Chicago) tend to have very little to nothing in the rears. Clearer than the quad mix, but a bit disappointing. “Beginnings” is the exception to that rule.

25 or 6 to 4 seems to be a bit of a missed opportunity

Thanks for your comments. That's what I was afraid of...not enough effort put into certain songs like 25 or 6 to 4 to come up with killer Atmos mixes.

I'm particularly peeved that they didn't put the time into the Atmos of 25 or 6 to 4. The quad mix has always been the best version of that song and seems to remain so given your comment.

I feel like I'm going mad. There's plenty of action behind me in "25 or 6 to 4". I thought maybe our differences in perception was because I have side and rear surrounds, but it seems you have both, @zdjh22. (Again, my setup is 7.1, so I don't have Atmos speakers.)

 

[beerking]

I feel like I'm going mad. There's plenty of action behind me in "25 or 6 to 4". I thought maybe our differences in perception was because I have side and rear surrounds, but it seems you have both, @zdjh22.

I wonder where the discrepancy lies then, because the lack of action in my rears and rear heights is a missed opportunity on such a great track as "25 or 6 to 4"

Playing it right now
Ear against rears ...a very, very low muffled drum and cymbal noise from them.
Rear heights....reverb of something happening there...with the occasional chorus of 25 or 6 to 4.
I have a 7.1.4 speaker set up

 

[aoxomoxoa]

Basing my rating on the quad mix alone.
I haven't listened to the atmos yet.
I didn't get the quadio box set, so this is gold for me.
I will return to this disc often.
10

 

[Steve Bruzonsky]

Any comments on the Quad mix? I've heard the Atmos mix on Apple Music and I'm curious how the quad is.

I haven't listened ot the quad mix yet. But I ripped it and per ROON, this latest quad mix has dynamic range of 4 whereas Rhino's prior quad mix has a dynamic range of 5.

 

[ar surround]

I feel like I'm going mad. There's plenty of action behind me in "25 or 6 to 4". I thought maybe our differences in perception was because I have side and rear surrounds, but it seems you have both, @zdjh22. (Again, my setup is 7.1, so I don't have Atmos speakers.)

For someone who already has the disc and ripped the Atmos layer, perhaps they can save the 7.1 True HD layer as a WAV file using a DAW. That would delete the Atmos meta data leaving only 7.1. Then they can play that ripped 7.1 file and see how it compares to the Atmos.

 

[zdjh22]

I feel like I'm going mad. There's plenty of action behind me in "25 or 6 to 4". I thought maybe our differences in perception was because I have side and rear surrounds, but it seems you have both, @zdjh22. (Again, my setup is 7.1, so I don't have Atmos speakers.)

I just took a close listen. I’ve posted a couple of photos, one showing the speaker layout, and another showing the live bar graphs of the activity across all of the speakers.

During almost all of “25 or 6 to 4”, the only thing going on in the rears (Lb, Cb, Rb in my map) is very low ambient reverb. That’s reflected in the bar graphs also (this particular photo was taken during Kath’s long solo). The only time the rears light up is when the chorus comes in (singing 25 or 6 to 4), and then those voices dominate. But, they are present (the same) in all of the rear-most speakers, namely Lb, Cb, Rb, Lss, Rss, Ltr, Rtr.

It’s a shame, really, as with all of the instruments in these various tracks more could have been done to present this song in particular in more discrete fashion. But, that may have a lot more to do with the multitracks that are available for mixing than with the choices made during the making of the Atmos.

With my setup I can listen to single speakers solo (all others muted), or any arbitrary group of speakers with the rest muted.

 

[zdjh22]

Here’s “25 or 6 to 4” during the chorus in a 12.1.10 playback configuration. Nothing at all in the rears except ambient reverb (which must tell us something about the Atmos metadata choices and how the extra channels get painted across speakers as a function of speaker count and layout).

 

[perzon57]

I wonder where the discrepancy lies then, because the lack of action in my rears and rear heights is a missed opportunity on such a great track as "25 or 6 to 4"

Playing it right now
Ear against rears ...a very, very low muffled drum and cymbal noise from them.
Rear heights....reverb of something happening there...with the occasional chorus of 25 or 6 to 4.
I have a 7.1.4 speaker set up

I don't have the disc, but on Apple Music there are strong output in my surround heights, backing vocals and guitar and occasionally horns, but it is much the same signal as in my side surrounds. Surround backs are mainly silent.
This on a 7.4.4 setup.

 

[Dynamic Editor]

I haven't listened ot the quad mix yet. But I ripped it and per ROON, this latest quad mix has dynamic range of 4 whereas Rhino's prior quad mix has a dynamic range of 5.

What scale are you using? Did you accidentally fold it down to stereo by accident? These are the numbers I got for the quad:

DR12 -0.30 dB -13.22 dB 4:59 01-25 or 6 to 4
DR13 -0.10 dB -14.11 dB 3:22 02-Does Anybody Know What Time It Is
DR13 -1.16 dB -18.42 dB 3:00 03-Colour My World
DR15 -0.10 dB -17.96 dB 3:45 04-Just You 'n' Me
DR12 -0.10 dB -13.10 dB 4:03 05-Saturday in the Park
DR13 -0.10 dB -16.22 dB 4:17 06-Feelin' Stronger Every Day
DR13 0.00 dB -14.98 dB 3:02 07-Make Me Smile
DR14 -0.10 dB -17.82 dB 4:39 08-Wishing You Were Here
DR15 -0.10 dB -16.42 dB 4:04 09-Call on Me
DR16 -0.10 dB -18.26 dB 4:29 10-(I've Been) Searchin' So Long
DR13 -0.10 dB -15.31 dB 7:57 11-Beginnings

 

[Dynamic Editor]

I wonder where the discrepancy lies then, because the lack of action in my rears and rear heights is a missed opportunity on such a great track as "25 or 6 to 4"

I think it's because I don't have heights, so that stuff gets played in the rears.

 

[zdjh22]

I think it's because I don't have heights, so that stuff gets played in the rears.

Yup, I bet that’s it. I was thinking about rendering it to 7.1 in the DRP or on my Mac and seeing if that’s the case.

 

[H.A.L.]

I voted 7. Yes, the early tunes are a bit washed out, but I suspect that lies in the multitrack tapes: perhaps recorded on an old 4-track or 8-track machine?
16-track took a while to arrive on the scene. Anyway, it does get better, but a bit inconsistent, especially on the bass range. I find it odd how some of the tunes have long pauses between them, and others don't. 7 is enjoyable, though! I'll gladly take this over a bloated box. [7.2.4 Atmos]