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

[GOS]

Oh, and it just occurred to me. My wife is gone. I said I need to crank Deep Purple up to see what up...and I'm going to do just that. I'll report back in a bit.

 

[4-earredwonder]

I have mainly given folks some suggestions for how they might approach voting, eg you can vote on the US Quad, since it’s included and many of us would pay $60 for a good quad mix of a great album. I haven’t told anybody what to like or not.
Now… as for Jim. He has a long history of being super negative and it bugs. I simply challenged him on some assertions. Turns out there was some unclear language. Cool.
If my efforts to point out that there are other ways to vote, other than fixating on an Atmos mix that doesn’t play back well for you, such as docking a point for value and voting on the quad come across as judging, that is unfortunate.
On the flip side, people in my position: enjoying a mix, wishing others could, and trying to give some helpful advice get a bunch of pushback, it’s sort of just the other side of the same coin. Feeling judged for giving my $0.02.

Most unfortunately Mike NOT everyone has 'golden ears,' PROPER system set ups nor believe in properly preparing a listening space with any type of acoustical 'additives.'

I, for one, thoroughly enjoyed the ATMOS and QUAD remix/remasters of Machine Head and felt the price was more than fair for vinyl, 3 RBCDs and 1 BD~A and of course the booklet and classy packaging! But I also invested megabucks in my new system which I had professionally EQed and except for a slight hearing loss in my right ear .....from all those LOUD concerts .....I could still hear things I never heard before in the original Stereo mix which to me, is WORTH EVERY PENNY! And played at 84 DB ....WOW! Plenty of Bass!!!!!!!

As far as ALL the negatives .... the world wide net is FULL of them ...so just accept it with a grain of salt.

In the final analysis, anyone approaching this remaster with fresh ears, a properly calibrated system should likewise celebrate Warner's Machine Head remix/remaster with open arms!

 

[GOS]

So, I'm more sampling this disc, although, I find myself stopping and listening to the whole songs of....

Song 4 - Never Before
What a total funk beat. It slams, listening at 82db. What a badass tune. Fidelity is top shelf. Some little pieces floating about the space.
My God....In my long shot comment, in some parts of vocal reminds me of Boston. No, really.

Song 6 - Lazy
Wow, what a start, sounds like it's in a huge catholic church. It just rumbles my subs. Some parts remind me of Ten Years After. Rocks out. Hits hard, at least at 82db it does.

Song 7 - Space Truckin
Holy crap, that drum roll. Nice job Dweez....
This rocks.

Song 8 - When A Blind Man Cries
Only that I've never heard this song. Talk about some nasty heart felt shit. This is it. Ian shows some super vocals here.
Super

So, these 4 tunes make this Atmos mix tops IMO. Incredible. Finally, compared the Quad vs the Atmos. For me, the Quad is more crystal clear, distinct, discreet. The Atmos has more balls overall. More heft. I like them both, but will likely go to the Atmos for future listens at higher db.

 

[cornwall198]

I have mainly given folks some suggestions for how they might approach voting, eg you can vote on the US Quad, since it’s included and many of us would pay $60 for a good quad mix of a great album. I haven’t told anybody what to like or not.
Now… as for Jim. He has a long history of being super negative and it bugs. I simply challenged him on some assertions. Turns out there was some unclear language. Cool.
If my efforts to point out that there are other ways to vote, other than fixating on an Atmos mix that doesn’t play back well for you, such as docking a point for value and voting on the quad come across as judging, that is unfortunate.
On the flip side, people in my position: enjoying a mix, wishing others could, and trying to give some helpful advice get a bunch of pushback, it’s sort of just the other side of the same coin. Feeling judged for giving my $0.02.

Right. Understood and sorry if I come over as one of those who seem to be judging. But i still don’t get the point of your specific challenge, quote:
“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”.”
To my “ears” that feels like more than $0.02. But that might entirely be my mis-reading.
l

 

[edisonbaggins]

Right. Understood and sorry if I come over as one of those who seem to be judging. But i still don’t get the point of your specific challenge, quote:
“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”.”
To my “ears” that feels like more than $0.02. But that might entirely be my mis-reading.
l

It’s in response to his statement that there are mistakes in the mix. That goes well beyond saying it doesn’t sound satisfying on one’s system. And it’s a pattern of really shredding mixes. While I value some discourse in the technical aspects of mixing, in poll threads, beyond a certain point, it just comes across to me as pissing in people’s cheerios. It’s true that I shouldn’t let it affect me, so much.
I’m sure you’ll run across the sorts of posts I’m alluding to.
My point about his sitting with Dweezil is A) he might find it sounds amazing on Dweezil’s system, and B) he would, at least be able to receive instant feedback as to what Dweezil actually did or didn’t do. I have a hard time accepting Jim’s assertions, as detailed and convincing as they might sound, because they’re often offered concerning mixes that sound fine, to me.

 

[cornwall198]

It’s in response to his statement that there are mistakes in the mix. That goes well beyond saying it doesn’t sound satisfying on one’s system. And it’s a pattern of really shredding mixes. While I value some discourse in the technical aspects of mixing, in poll threads, beyond a certain point, it just comes across to me as pissing in people’s cheerios. It’s true that I shouldn’t let it affect me, so much.
I’m sure you’ll run across the sorts of posts I’m alluding to.
My point about his sitting with Dweezil is A) he might find it sounds amazing on Dweezil’s system, and B) he would, at least be able to receive instant feedback as to what Dweezil actually did or didn’t do. I have a hard time accepting Jim’s assertions, as detailed and convincing as they might sound, because they’re often offered concerning mixes that sound fine, to me.

Gotcha. Thanks for the explanation and wider context. I always enjoy your review videos and commentary - appreciate the clarification on the comments. I understand better now.

 

[edisonbaggins]

Gotcha. Thanks for the explanation and wider context. I always enjoy your review videos and commentary - appreciate the clarification on the comments. I understand better now.

FWIW, I like Jim. Just forum post style clashes, sometimes. My way certainly isn’t above reproach. At the end of the day, I consider everyone here part of my musical family.

 

[quicksrt]

Well, despite my reservations about this set, I caved because ImportCDs has it for $59. However, it is backordered and won't be here until sometime in May.

My Deep Discount order (same company) arrived today with two items I ordered but not the Purple box. And it said in stock when i placed the order. So I am slightly irked. But then I recall getting the AF SACDs for $19.29 each back when, and always getting them a week or two after everyone else got theirs's by ordering from the more expensive houses. So I think I'd rather save $10 and get it delivered slower, it's ok. I'm only bothered by not being told it's not in stock. It said shipped tomorrow if ordered by 9:00, and it was already 10:15 on that Thursday. So I did not even get a shipping confim on the following Monday. Finally on Tues I get a shipping notification but tracking was not active. When I finally am about to see tracking, it's for just the two LPs I bought and not the Purple box set. So I got jacked around a bit. Maybe should have ordered a few days sooner, but I was waiting for more reviews to come in on it.

Anyway, got a Little Feat live 70s release said to be absolutely killer. That will hold me over for a few days.

 

[AudiophileStyle]

I wrote about the new Machine Head Atmos mix in an article yesterday. I love the mix. It got me to listen to this music, purchase the box, and want more Deep Purple.


https://audiophilestyle.com/ca/bits-and-bytes/system-install-prep-and-deep-purple-pep-r1264/

 

[mandrix]

I have to admit...I had a chance to crank on Machine Head yesterday really good (AVR readout -11dB) and I could feel more punch to the low end.
Maybe some of you always listen at higher volume levels than me: IDK.
I usually don't listen at really high volume levels a lot because I've had tinnitus for over 50 years, nonstop. A hold over from military service.
However at lower (normal for me but not exactly quiet) the low end in the Atmos mix does not come out as strong as most music I listen to.
So anyway, just an observation. Still love what Dweezil has done for the most part.

 

[GOS]

I have to admit...I had a chance to crank on Machine Head yesterday really good (AVR readout -11dB) and I could feel more punch to the low end.
Maybe some of you always listen at higher volume levels than me: IDK.
I usually don't listen at really high volume levels a lot because I've had tinnitus for over 50 years, nonstop. A hold over from military service.
However at lower (normal for me but not exactly quiet) the low end in the Atmos mix does not come out as strong as most music I listen to.
So anyway, just an observation. Still love what Dweezil has done for the most part.

I suspect that's my observation as well. Certainly at higher volumes, I could feel the impact. I normally don't listen that loud either.

 

[fearandloath]

I finally got around to giving the Blu-Ray a full listen. What a disappointment with the Atmos mix. My first listen and it seemed thin. No punch, no real bottom end, yes all speakers are engaged but it doesn't seem very much like it filled the room. I have the old 2001 DVD-A, that I still have in regular rotation. After the Atmos mix I did an A/B test. What a huge difference. The DVD-A has punch, a great bottom end and much more filling and in your face. No comparison. DVD-A wins hands down. The Quad mix is great also. I even liked that better than the Atmos. The 5.1 tracks on the Blu-Ray appear to be the same as the 2001 mix so it makes no sense why only 3 tracks appear. It seems like we're getting short changed in that aspect as the mix was already there, just do a transfer. But for anybody listening, just do an A/B comparison on the Blu-Ray disc between the available 5.1 tracks and the Atmos tracks. You will see exactly what I'm talking about.

 

[paligap]

This is not the first Atmos mix that benefits from being cranked. Whenever I play Atmos mixes, I usually play them at a higher volume level than stereo or other mutichannel mixes. YMMV.

 

[fetchmybeer]

I know there's a lot of talk about properly calibrated systems, etc, but I'd like to think that people know what their own setup sounds like and can compensate for that accordingly. Maybe they prefer to have more volume in the rears, or maybe it's necessitated by smaller speakers. Maybe their setup is a bit trebly on the high end, or maybe they have their crossover set in a different spot for their sub so that it doesn't shake the house needlessly. But generally, people will tweak until they find where their setup sounds best and will then have an idea of how anything is supposed to sound on their setup. I know that mine isn't professionally calibrated, but I also know what it sounds like to me and that it sounds pretty good (it's also a 5.1 setup, which I state repeatedly whenever reviewing at Atmos mix). So if there is an element that hits me wrong, or is too much or too little by my tastes, I try to think of possible explanations for it, but the setup is about the last thing I consider because I'm well aware of how other mixes sound on my system and therefore have a baseline understanding of how something should sound coming out of it. So when some of you fellas are talking about your properly calibrated systems, you should probably know that while I am somewhat envious, it can come off as a bit hoity-toity. I didn't pay out the nose for my setup, but it's not total shit either, and it sounds pretty good.

 

[fetchmybeer]

This is not the first Atmos mix that benefits from being cranked. Whenever I play Atmos mixes, I usually play them at a higher volume level than stereo or other mutichannel mixes. YMMV.

The weird thing is that usually Atmos mixes fold-down for me at a higher volume than the 5.1. The opposite happened here for some reason.

 

[cornwall198]

I almost always have to turn the volume up a bit for Atmos discs. But I REALLY have to crank the Machine Head Atmos to 'feel' it. Much higher than even other Atmos discs (Floyd, Yes, Van, etc.) Then I have to be REALLY careful to turn it WAY down before trying anything else - including the 5.1 tracks on the same disc. Yikes!! (BTW - when I do crank the Deep Purple, it sure improves the impact...)

 

[paligap]

I know there's a lot of talk about properly calibrated systems, etc, but I'd like to think that people know what their own setup sounds like and can compensate for that accordingly. Maybe they prefer to have more volume in the rears, or maybe it's necessitated by smaller speakers. Maybe their setup is a bit trebly on the high end, or maybe they have their crossover set in a different spot for their sub so that it doesn't shake the house needlessly. But generally, people will tweak until they find where their setup sounds best and will then have an idea of how anything is supposed to sound on their setup. I know that mine isn't professionally calibrated, but I also know what it sounds like to me and that it sounds pretty good (it's also a 5.1 setup, which I state repeatedly whenever reviewing at Atmos mix). So if there is an element that hits me wrong, or is too much or too little by my tastes, I try to think of possible explanations for it, but the setup is about the last thing I consider because I'm well aware of how other mixes sound on my system and therefore have a baseline understanding of how something should sound coming out of it. So when some of you fellas are talking about your properly calibrated systems, you should probably know that while I am somewhat envious, it can come off as a bit hoity-toity. I didn't pay out the nose for my setup, but it's not total shit either, and it sounds pretty good.

Speaking only for myself, I don't think I've questioned anyone else's setup. I have two modest but capable systems that I use for movies, TV, and music. I would simply point out, though, that if I were to do an A/B comparison of different mixes, I wouldn't assume that just because the AVR volume levels were the same, that the actual SPLs were the same or that the perceived volume levels should be the same.

 

[edisonbaggins]

I almost always have to turn the volume up a bit for Atmos discs. But I REALLY have to crank the Machine Head Atmos to 'feel' it. Much higher than even other Atmos discs (Floyd, Yes, Van, etc.) Then I have to be REALLY careful to turn it WAY down before trying anything else - including the 5.1 tracks on the same disc. Yikes!! (BTW - when I do crank the Deep Purple, it sure improves the impact...)

I cannot overstate how important I believe this is. I also had to raise the volume of this Atmos mix considerably more than usual.
It's what I think of as listening to mixes at or near reference volume. For me, for rock records, that means the kick drum is punching me in the chest.
There is a volume low enough where the stereo mix does not do this. Same for the 5.1. Same for the Quad. Same for the Atmos. I've done my best to listen to each at the volume where the kick is doing its thing. From that point, I evaluate what's going on in the stereo, surround, or immersive sound fields.

 

[mandrix]

I know there's a lot of talk about properly calibrated systems, etc, but I'd like to think that people know what their own setup sounds like and can compensate for that accordingly. Maybe they prefer to have more volume in the rears, or maybe it's necessitated by smaller speakers. Maybe their setup is a bit trebly on the high end, or maybe they have their crossover set in a different spot for their sub so that it doesn't shake the house needlessly. But generally, people will tweak until they find where their setup sounds best and will then have an idea of how anything is supposed to sound on their setup. I know that mine isn't professionally calibrated, but I also know what it sounds like to me and that it sounds pretty good (it's also a 5.1 setup, which I state repeatedly whenever reviewing at Atmos mix). So if there is an element that hits me wrong, or is too much or too little by my tastes, I try to think of possible explanations for it, but the setup is about the last thing I consider because I'm well aware of how other mixes sound on my system and therefore have a baseline understanding of how something should sound coming out of it. So when some of you fellas are talking about your properly calibrated systems, you should probably know that while I am somewhat envious, it can come off as a bit hoity-toity. I didn't pay out the nose for my setup, but it's not total shit either, and it sounds pretty good.

I would think we all tweak our systems, whether it's been calibrated or not. But one of the reasons I bought the AVR I did because it was the most affordable for Atmos yet have Dirac Live.
Hoity-Toity. I like that.

 

[jimfisheye]

I know there's a lot of talk about properly calibrated systems, etc, but I'd like to think that people know what their own setup sounds like and can compensate for that accordingly. Maybe they prefer to have more volume in the rears, or maybe it's necessitated by smaller speakers. Maybe their setup is a bit trebly on the high end, or maybe they have their crossover set in a different spot for their sub so that it doesn't shake the house needlessly. But generally, people will tweak until they find where their setup sounds best and will then have an idea of how anything is supposed to sound on their setup. I know that mine isn't professionally calibrated, but I also know what it sounds like to me and that it sounds pretty good (it's also a 5.1 setup, which I state repeatedly whenever reviewing at Atmos mix). So if there is an element that hits me wrong, or is too much or too little by my tastes, I try to think of possible explanations for it, but the setup is about the last thing I consider because I'm well aware of how other mixes sound on my system and therefore have a baseline understanding of how something should sound coming out of it. So when some of you fellas are talking about your properly calibrated systems, you should probably know that while I am somewhat envious, it can come off as a bit hoity-toity. I didn't pay out the nose for my setup, but it's not total shit either, and it sounds pretty good.

Some of us are trying to basically say the same thing. "This isn't the first album I've ever listened to and yes, my system is dialed in!" In response to someone questioning if my system is maybe off because of my review. I don't mean to suggest "a perfect room/system or bust" with any of that! I usually try to say something like: you can put away the meters, trust your ears and just make the room make sense.

I do like playing detective with audio though. I like nerding out with a lot of audio related things! I try to preface if I'm speculating on something. I like to offer help or suggestions if I see something tech related that I've experienced. Sometimes I get a little carried away!

The only other thing I can offer is a game I like to play when reading something online. It's hard sometimes to interpret text with no human face there. Read it with the positive spin even if you think it might not be. Not everything is written perfectly. If I actually wanted to say something negative about someone else though it would be very clear and unmistakable to interpret in any other way.