HiRez Poll Cobham, Billy - SPECTRUM [Blu-Ray Audio]

[quadrifonico]

Finally this on blu-ray . I hoped the 4.0 mix to be thicker compared to the SACD, it is but not impressively better; the tapes must be bright. I don't like how the first track ends while I still hear instruments fading (though can be also on SACD I don't remember now). I vote 9 and I mention just defects? No c'mon; I like it and I'm happy they included the 5.1 as well. By the way the quadraphonic mix is still better than the 5.1 that has just more bass but is less focused.
I like all these Rhino discs where music starts as soon as I push play without boring logos and intros that you can't skip

 

[BillSamm1]

The Quad is a revelation. The 5.1 sounds weak in comparison. But it's nice to have it and not worry about the previous DVD-A release. To hear one of my all-time favorite albums in surround AT LAST is pretty freakin' great!

 

[lovecraft]

The Quad is a revelation. The 5.1 sounds weak in comparison. But it's nice to have it and not worry about the previous DVD-A release. To hear one of my all-time favorite albums in surround AT LAST is pretty freakin' great!
View attachment 114118

God, I'm glad it's not just me, I was almost afraid to say anything. The 5.1 is a non-event to these ears. Started to worry there was something wrong with my system till I played something else just to be sure...

 

[BillTubes]

This recording is superb and the quad mix is well executed. Hard to believe it did not get released back in the day.
An easy 10

 

[ctoelle]

I've owned both the DVD-Audio and SACD of Spectrum since they were new releases. The album is a longtime favorite of mine, had the LP and CD for decades as well

This Blu-ray goes to 11. Best Quadio released so far

 

[millertek]

Had no idea about the 5.1 mix until I wanted to rip the 4.0 quad mix to my music library for my system - saw the 5.1 (6 channel) layer. Based on the comments, the QUAD is the one to listen to though...

 

[Malhomme]

I cast a 9 just because of this weirdness with 5.1 mix being almost twice quieter than the quad mix.
But I did not really care for the 5.1 mix here and wanting before all the quad mix. And really that shines. I had high expectations and wasn't disappointed. This was a pretty wonderful quad mix. I wish now my other favorit Cobham album : Funky Thide Of Sings. But I don't think it ever existed in quad....

 

[gbaby183]

I have only listened to this in Quad, but it is absolutely the best, most balanced surround mix I own. The content too Is excellent. This is a superb release that I had no interest in stereo when I was younger

 

[gbaby183]

I cast a 9 just because of this weirdness with 5.1 mix being almost twice quieter than the quad mix.
But I did not really care for the 5.1 mix here and wanting before all the quad mix. And really that shines. I had high expectations and wasn't disappointed. This was a pretty wonderful quad mix. I wish now my other favorit Cobham album : Funky Thide Of Sings. But I don't think it ever existed in quad....

You should have given this a 10. The Quad mix is superb and a point of reference for music surround. The inferior 5.1 surround does not diminish this production as the 5.1 is irrelevant. You bought a quad mix and penalize the disc for giving extra.

 

[Marplot]

Poor form to browbeat a member's vote when you do not like it.
Dissatisfaction with the 5.1 is a very reasonable cause to deduct one point.

30% SURROUND MIX - How good is this mix?
30% AUDIO FIDELITY - How does it sound?
30% CONTENT - Do you like it. Is it good music. Will you go back to it again?
10% OVERALL PACKAGE - Format, packaging, added value (extra discs), marbles, format, encoding, ease of play, menu layout, bonus content (videos, making of), documentation, and other things you like or don't like about it.

I have no idea who Billy Cobham is but picked it up based on the very strong announcement when the release was announced.
I really dig the first track but have only had a chance to listen to the quad twice so will not rate it yet.

 

[gbaby183]

Poor form to browbeat a member's vote when you do not like it.
Dissatisfaction with the 5.1 is a very reasonable cause to deduct one point.

30% SURROUND MIX - How good is this mix?
30% AUDIO FIDELITY - How does it sound?
30% CONTENT - Do you like it. Is it good music. Will you go back to it again?
10% OVERALL PACKAGE - Format, packaging, added value (extra discs), marbles, format, encoding, ease of play, menu layout, bonus content (videos, making of), documentation, and other things you like or don't like about it.

I have no idea who Billy Cobham is but picked it up based on the very strong announcement when the release was announced.
I really dig the first track but have only had a chance to listen to the quad twice so will not rate it yet.

That was not browbeat, but an attempt to bring logic back as he downgraded his rating because of the poor 5.1 mix when it fact, this is a Quad release with 5.1 thrown in as gravy. You folks are too sensitive who thought my comment was a brow beating. His 9 rating was good; just trying to get that extra point as I was enthused with the entire production.

 

[Michael Marshall]

That was not browbeat, but an attempt to bring logic back as he downgraded his rating because of the poor 5.1 mix when it fact, this is a Quad release with 5.1 thrown in as gravy. You folks are too sensitive who thought my comment was a brow beating. His 9 rating was good; just trying to get that extra point as I was enthused with the entire production.

I too looked at the older 5.1 mix included in this QUADIO separate from the Quad mix when I submitted my rating as an enthusiastic "1O". I certainly would not deduct any "points" when all Rhino was trying to do was/is deliver to their hi-rez/immersive/surround/quad audio enthusiasts the available mixes of this album to compare /contrast and ultimately enjoy.

 

[ssully]

<shrug> The thread/poll is for rating of the entire package. That means not just the good intention of the producers, it means the sound of the actual content too.

It's certainly legit to consider judgements of both the 5.1 mix as well as the 4.0 mix in one's final vote. Not just their simple presence in the package .


(standard disclaimer: not that the 10 point rating system really makes any sense anyway)

 

[gbaby183]

<shrug> The thread/poll is for rating of the entire package. That means not just the good intention of the producers, it means the sound of the actual content too.

It's certainly legit to consider judgements of both the 5.1 mix as well as the 4.0 mix in one's final vote. Not just their simple presence in the package .


(standard disclaimer: not that the 10 point rating system really makes any sense anyway)

This translates to me that no good deed goes unpunished. Wow!

 

[ssully]

Really, when has the quality of the mix(es) NOT factored into a rating?

(And It's just someone's, like, opinion, man. A 9 instead of a 10?! Don't try to claim it's about logic. )

 

[Michael Marshall]

Really, when has the quality of the mix(es) NOT factored into a rating?

(And It's just someone's, like, opinion, man. )

The quality of the mixes are absolutely relevant but one should also consider the "context" and "relevance" of the release in question. In this case, the release is the new QUADIO that has historically featured the original Quad and stereo mix(es) from the original time of release (usually in the early to mid 70's). Both are in hi-rez for comparison and enjoyment of the listener. In this case, the Rhino QUADIO team decided to include the 5.1 mix that was constructed separately in the early 2000's. As such, I would notate the differences between all three(3) mixes but my rating would only be specific to the quad mix as it is the mix that is highlighted by a QUADIO release.

 

[gbaby183]

Really, when has the quality of the mix(es) NOT factored into a rating?

(And It's just someone's, like, opinion, man. A 9 instead of a 10?! Don't try to claim it's about logic. )

I regret you don't get it, but I am finished with this frivolous issue.

 

[ssully]

The quality of the mixes are absolutely relevant but one should also consider the "context" and "relevance" of the release in question. In this case, the release is the new QUADIO that has historically featured the original Quad and stereo mix(es) from the original time of release (usually in the early to mid 70's). Both are in hi-rez for comparison and enjoyment of the listener. In this case, the Rhino QUADIO team decided to include the 5.1 mix that was constructed separately in the early 2000's. As such, I would notate the differences between all three(3) mixes but my rating would only be specific to the quad mix as it is the mix that is highlighted by a QUADIO release.

Perhaps, then , the Poll should include instructions to assess only the quad mix, when assessing mix quality as a component of the rating.

Or, nah, just give it a 9 instead of a 10!

Sheesh.

 

[Michael Marshall]

Perhaps, then , the Poll should include instructions to assess only the quad mix, when assessing mix quality as a component of the rating.

Or, nah, just give it a 9 instead of a 10!

Sheesh.

Ironically, the red "hype" sticker on the front of the QUADIO'S clearly state hi-rez 24/192 QUADIO (aka Quad) and Stereo mixes with no, zero mention of the "extra" previously released 5.1 mix. I and I am sure, many others, listened to the 5.1 mix on this QUADIO to see if there were any sonically speaking differences between this release and the DVD-AUDIO (there are not) that was released many years ago. Was this a decision by the Rhino QUADIO team to please the completeists or a way to highlight the uniqueness of the original Quad mix? I haven't a clue but a sure do appreciate this inclusion and their commitment to releasing original Quad mixes in the best fidelity possible. And in the case of the Cobham QUADIO/quad mix, and absolute CLASSIC and STELLAR release both performance AND sonically speaking.