Deep Purple "Machine Head 50 (Deluxe)" 3CD+LP+BD-A w/ Atmos, US quad and 5.1 bonus (3/29/2024 -Universal)

[Blackwood]

Weird, really weird. The poll currently has 6 votes and they are all 10s. Yet the reviews in this thread are mixed. It would be good if those who have reservations about this Atmos mix would post their thoughts in the poll thread. I have not bought this set and have my concerns after reading what has been posted here.

This is always a struggle I’ve had with participating in the polls for something I don’t like. Just because I don’t like it doesn’t mean it isn’t a good mix. In this case, it’s just one I don’t care for. But I can respect that other people look at the mix differently and don’t have the same issues I have which is really just a preference thing vs. a mix that I think was technically screwed up. (Despite my joke about it being “ruined”.)

A good example would be Dio’s Holy Diver. I swear there are actual mistakes that someone didn’t catch in QC, at least in the streaming version which I assume is the same mix on the disc.

That’s not the case with Machine Head (for me.) I just don’t like the decisions that were made and that someone higher up thought it was OK to sign-off on. But that’s not indicative of a bad mix with “mistakes.”

After listening to the disc, I will say that I think Smoke On The Water (which was the first most of us heard via streaming) is the worst offender. The rest for me weren’t as bad, although I thought there were some odd choices throughout. I’ll give it one more listen and I assume it will be the last.

However, I’m going to listen to the Quad over and over. Love it! And I like both live shows. I’m still unhappy with the Atmos for reasons earlier stated in this thread, but I don’t know if the poll needs my vote in this case. Because I love this album so much, maybe I’m more easily offended. Maybe my expectations were too high or too narrow. I prefer when I read poll reviews that they’re more objective than I think I can be in this case.

(Side note and another praise... Gnarlywood actually got this to me quickly via FedEx the whole way. I was pleasantly shocked.)

 

[edisonbaggins]

The poll is for the entire blu-ray, from what I understand.

 

[JediJoker]

The poll is for the entire blu-ray, from what I understand.

Polls are always for the entire release, with scoring broken into four categories: 1) up to 3 points for the suround/immersive mix(es), 2) up to 3 points for the fidelity of that mix (or those mixes), 3) up to 3 points for all audio/visual/print contents of the release (including non-surround/immersive), and 4) up to 1 point for the packaging (including pricing). For that reason, there are combined polls that should really be separated into different threads for different releases containing the same surround mix, although that has been rejected by the moderators. In the case of those threads, it is always best practice to specify which version you're rating in your explanation post.

For this 50th Anniversary set of Machine Head, however, it gets its own thread pertaining to all its contents and price. Although the album has had prior digital surround releases, this new one contains nearly none of the previously digitally released surround mixes, with the exception of some "bonus tracks" in their 5.1 mixes as originally done for the 2001 DVD-Audio (later rereleased on SACD in Japan).

 

[quicksrt]

Polls are always for the entire release, with scoring broken into four categories: 1) up to 3 points for the suround/immersive mix(es), 2) up to 3 points for the fidelity of that mix (or those mixes), 3) up to 3 points for all audio/visual/print contents of the release (including non-surround/immersive), and 4) up to 1 point for the packaging (including pricing). For that reason, there are combined polls that should really be separated into different threads for different releases containing the same surround mix, although that has been rejected by the moderators. In the case of those threads, it is always best practice to specify which version you're rating in your explanation post.

For this 50th Anniversary set of Machine Head, however, it gets its own thread pertaining to all its contents and price. Although the album has had prior digital surround releases, this new one contains nearly none of the previously digitally released surround mixes, with the exception of some "bonus tracks" in their 5.1 mixes as originally done for the 2001 DVD-Audio (later rereleased on SACD in Japan).

And then there are those that subtract 4 - 5 points because they didn’t think the album is very good musically. Like why the hell did they buy this thing If they didn’t like it. I’ve called them out on their shitty reviews and the answer that they just don’t like the album, or just most of it they didn’t like.

 

[JediJoker]

And then there are those that subtract 4 - 5 points because they didn’t think the album is very good musically. Like why the he’ll did they buy this thing If they dint like it. I’ve called them out on their shitty reviews and the answer that they just don’t like the album, or just most of it they didn’t like.

The most points that should be taken away for the musical content is 3. So many here don't follow the guidelines, which makes polls less useful. I do also find that 9s and 10s are handed out far too frequently, artificially inflating scores.

 

[fetchmybeer]

I have been reluctant to provide a rating since I'd like to know whether the additional parts I'm hearing in the Atmos were on the original tape and just excluded from the original mixes or whether or not Dweezil has taken some liberties. The former I don't have a problem with. The latter I do.

I will probably be rating in the 7-8 territory. The issues I have with the Atmos I don't really have with the quad or the 3 5.1 tracks.

When I don't care for the music overall and don't think I can provide a subjective rating, I refrain, but do provide my input on the quality of the mix at least. I also provide ratings pretty much entirely based on the surround mixes of things, since that's why I'm buying the product. But I'll mention the rest of the stuff if it makes the product a better or worse deal. But whether something is a good deal or not is different from whether the mix is a worthwhile listen.

 

[paligap]

Weird, really weird. The poll currently has 6 votes and they are all 10s. Yet the reviews in this thread are mixed. It would be good if those who have reservations about this Atmos mix would post their thoughts in the poll thread. I have not bought this set and have my concerns after reading what has been posted here.

Along with the mixed reactions to the Atmos mix overall in this thread, I find the divergent impressions of the mix's "bottom end" and "top end" interesting.

 

[Bill B]

The most points that should be taken away for the musical content is 3. So many here don't follow the guidelines, which makes polls less useful. I do also find that 9s and 10s are handed out far too frequently, artificially inflating scores.

I usually won’t vote on releases if I don’t like the content. That’s one of the determinants that I understand why it’s there, but I don’t feel it should be. In most cases, the releases we are reviewing are reissues that have been around for decades. We already know how we feel about the music before we buy it. To me, content only makes sense when you are reviewing a new release.

 

[Dynamic Editor]

And then there are those that subtract 4 - 5 points because they didn’t think the album is very good musically. Like why the hell did they buy this thing If they didn’t like it. I’ve called them out on their shitty reviews and the answer that they just don’t like the album, or just most of it they didn’t like.

Yeah, I think it's a bit silly to intentionally give a rating based on whether you like the music or not. That being said, it's hard not to be biased by it when giving a score.

 

[ar surround]

The most points that should be taken away for the musical content is 3. So many here don't follow the guidelines, which makes polls less useful. I do also find that 9s and 10s are handed out far too frequently, artificially inflating scores.

I usually won’t vote on releases if I don’t like the content. That’s one of the determinants that I understand why it’s there, but I don’t feel it should be. In most cases, the releases we are reviewing are reissues that have been around for decades. We already know how we feel about the music before we buy it. To me, content only makes sense when you are reviewing a new release.

Many of these higher priced box sets are of classic / iconic albums, thus they generally get a solid 3 of 3 for content. And the fidelity is usually good along with at least acceptable mixes thus driving up the scores.

Then there are those who are simply thrilled to see run-of-the-mill titles, such as many of the DV quads, finally being reissued; and they vote according to their excitement at the time. Then some people vote value for the money...a DV quad twofer has very high value for the money...which generates higher scores.

Lastly, some seem to give out 10's to promote the entire multi-channel reissue program.

So yes, there are many reasons for "grade inflation."

Along with the mixed reactions to the Atmos mix overall in this thread, I find the divergent impressions of the mix's "bottom end" and "top end" interesting.

I have to wonder if the low end in Atmos is very much dependent on system configuration; specifically, those who have subwoofers vs. those who don't? I'm wishy washy about the DSOTM Atmos mix all that much because it comes across as lacking low end on my subwooferless system vs the 5.1 SACD. And the Atmos does not respond all that well to the bass control (gets mid bass bloat.)

 

[jimfisheye]

Subwoofer setup is not trivial! And there's a stunning misconception more than a few people are under with the surround formats. The big one is thinking that surround works differently from stereo in that all the bass in a mix is delivered in the Lfe channel. Which is bluntly false. Then they think the "speaker management" or "bass management" controls are an alteration like adding eq. "I turn that off because I want it flat!" And then they literally omit reproducing any of the bass from any of the mains channels on their 'small top' system and listen to mixes significantly altered.

If you have "small top" speakers with Atmos, that's 11 channels of bass end to manage. Omitting that from your speakers would change the low end of a mix from day to night!

I think it's that. Setup is genuinely challenging! Then add in the combo AV receivers some people end up with with built in decoding for the Dolby and dts formats and with all the copy protection gone wild and format war shenanigans. Good luck dialing everything in even if you try! Think of how altering just having a skewed stereo balance can be for stereo. Now multiply that by 12! (Factorial or however that permutation math works.) Actual Atmos surround systems correctly dialed in with height channels and everything will be the most elusive niche system ever invented in practice.

This mix isn't just glaringly fundamentally wrong. But the sub bass in the toms really does merit a comment! It's just not in character with what the band was doing originally and both the original quad mixes are much better mixes.

 

[edisonbaggins]

Subwoofer setup is not trivial! And there's a stunning misconception more than a few people are under with the surround formats. The big one is thinking that surround works differently from stereo in that all the bass in a mix is delivered in the Lfe channel. Which is bluntly false. Then they think the "speaker management" or "bass management" controls are an alteration like adding eq. "I turn that off because I want it flat!" And then they literally omit reproducing any of the bass from any of the mains channels on their 'small top' system and listen to mixes significantly altered.

If you have "small top" speakers with Atmos, that's 11 channels of bass end to manage. Omitting that from your speakers would change the low end of a mix from day to night!

I think it's that. Setup is genuinely challenging! Then add in the combo AV receivers some people end up with with built in decoding for the Dolby and dts formats and with all the copy protection gone wild and format war shenanigans. Good luck dialing everything in even if you try! Think of how altering just having a skewed stereo balance can be for stereo. Now multiply that by 12! (Factorial or however that permutation math works.) Actual Atmos surround systems correctly dialed in with height channels and everything will be the most elusive niche system ever invented in practice.

We completely agree, up to this point.
Beyond that, we mainly disagree.

The mix is enjoyable to some people, on some systems. I’d like to see you sit with Dweezil, in his immersive mixing studio, and tell him what he’s done “wrong”.

 

[marpow]

Doing my last full listen of all the music and reading of this box set, the CD 2, Live in London.

 

[jimfisheye]

We completely agree, up to this point.
Beyond that, we mainly disagree.

The mix is enjoyable to some people, on some systems. I’d like to see you sit with Dweezil, in his immersive mixing studio, and tell him what he’s done “wrong”.

Which way do you mean? Something IS wrong with the mix that way?

The point I was trying to make was that I don't think there was any system issue with him or any "wrong" wrong mistakes like the bass being either way hot or way buried like some people commented. (Save for the sub bass in the toms being a comment.) I just think the original mixes are much better.

Holding my thoughts for the poll for now. Getting a clean digital release of the long out of print quad is very positive no matter what else. Getting a new mix that isn't just volume war hash in 2024 is still rare and welcome.

 

[edisonbaggins]

Which way do you mean? Something IS wrong with the mix that way?

“This mix isn't just glaringly fundamentally wrong”.

Unless we speak divergent forms of English, this means you think the Atmos mix is wrong.

 

[Sal1950]

Weird, really weird. The poll currently has 6 votes and they are all 10s. Yet the reviews in this thread are mixed. It would be good if those who have reservations about this Atmos mix would post their thoughts in the poll thread

Agreed, and I hadn't seen your post here till this AM.

As to the Atmos mix,
Quick and easy test, just play the very beginning of Highway Star on the Quad mix, at about 0:35, just before the vocal starts you hear the drummer hit at 3 count on the cymbals that rings like brass beautifully.
Now do the same with the Atmos mix, wheres the cymbals??? MIA ?

 

[jimfisheye]

“This mix isn't just glaringly fundamentally wrong”.

Unless we speak divergent forms of English, this means you think the Atmos mix is wrong.

No, I meant that although I didn't like it that I didn't think there were glaring technical mistakes like the skewed bass (either direction) some people were commenting on. I do think my communication skills tend to suck but I don't think I had a double negative in there.

No, I really meant I don't like the mix! No excuses. No technical blunders imagined or otherwise to blame anything on.

 

[edisonbaggins]

… although I didn't like it that I didn't think there were glaring technical mistakes…

This is a clear statement. The preceding one is not.

Btw… use of the word glaring can imply that you think there are non-glaring mistakes.

 

[Sal1950]

Btw… use of the word glaring can imply that you think there are non-glaring mistakes.

Those that no one else see's.

 

[ar surround]

The mix is enjoyable to some people, on some systems. I’d like to see you sit with Dweezil, in his immersive mixing studio, and tell him what he’s done “wrong”.

Different audio systems yield lots of variables, and that’s just when talking 5.1. Going from 5.1 to Atmos…even more variables for things not to sound exactly as they were recorded/mixed. And then there are even more variables just dealing with individual preferences in Atmos remixes.

I suspect that there would be comments disagreeing with Atmos remixes of new albums such as The Harmony Codex had the Atmos mix been created 50 years after the stereo version.