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

[steelydave]

I have to wonder if the people assembling the box set didn't know about the 2001 DVD-A at all, given the "2012" designation for the three 5.1 tracks included.

Often at big companies the staff turnover is such that there's a kind of "institutional memory loss" because there's no one there that was working there 10 years previously, let alone 20 to untangle the complicated provenance of the mixes and say 'well actually, the three bonus 5.1 mixes on the 2012 DVD-V come from the 2003 UK SACD, and those were sourced from the 2001 US DVD-A.'

I know it seems obvious to us here who live and breathe this stuff, but for the people whose day job it is to put these things together, it's not always obvious - for all they knew these were bonus remixes done in 2012. There's also the complicating factor of two huge monolithic companies at play - it seems like outside of the 2001 DVD-A, all of these sets (2003 SACD, 2012 box set, this new set) have been assembled by Deep Purple's UK label (EMI or whatever subsidiary of UMG it is) who have the distribution rights for Deep Purple outside of North America where Warner does that job. The UK label may either not have knowledge of the full 2001 US 5.1 mix, or maybe negotiated digital rights in perpetuity to the three 5.1 bonus mixes for the 2003 SACD and don't want to open up that Pandora's box again. Or maybe they just feel like those three 5.1 mixes have unique mix-related value that the other tracks don't have, though even if that is the case it seems baffling not to include the entire 5.1 mix.

When this comes out, it'll be interesting to see what the digital provenance (via spectral analysis) of the 5.1 tracks, because I think it'll give some clue as to which of the above is correct. If they're straight 24/96 PCM (from the DVD-A or equivalent digital master) then I think the answer is "these are the only tracks we wanted to include" but if they look like they've been transcoded multiple times (ie. 24/96 PCM -> DSD (for the 2003 SACD) -> lossy Dolby Digital (for the 2012 DVD-V) -> back to lossless PCM for the new box set BluRay) then the answer is most likely "we used what we had and didn't know there was more".

 

[jimfisheye]

The stuff like recycling the 2001 tracks that were recycled as bonus tracks on a 2012 release. Or even going back to those circa 2000's DVDA 5.1 remixes with static mixes and what looks for all the world that no one was actually aware of the original surround mixes.

Stuff like the reissue of the original quad Aqualung having a channel polarity flipped. All the glaring intern-esque mistakes on the Pink Floyd Early Years box. (This from a band with a reputation for audiophile production standards!)

All just glaring mistakes that would have been caught immediately by any audio engineer or active music listener on the first safety check listen.

I think the most reasonable explanation is the business behind this stuff grew into so much of a bureaucracy that people lost connection and control. People that care even just the slightest little bit don't screw up this cartoonishly. Easy enough to set yourself up to fail. Give the tin eared accountant the task of a test listen and they'll give thumbs up if they hear any sound come out the speaker at all. "Dude! It's a 60Hz hum!!" "Oh, I thought it was that new music, sorry. ... So that wasn't right, then?"

Gathering all the mixes for this release and putting surround mix effort into at least one live set would have gone a long ways to justifying the price. The Yes bluray releases gathered all the mixes. Fragile even grabbed that awful 2001 'early 2000's DVDA style' 5.1 mix. Vinyl needle drops so you could hear the flaws of the original releases. Even the radio station DJ edited singles with the dropped beats at the sloppy botched edits are on there.

 

[Dynamic Editor]

I'd honestly be surprised if they were pulled from a lossy source, as this is a Rhino-Warner Records release, as indicated by this label listing on Qobuz: Smoke on the Water (2024 Remix), Deep Purple - Qobuz

The pictures of the set also more closely resemble a Rhino release than a Warner Music release. I'd be a bit surprised if things, with Rhino's involvement, were pulled so haphazardly from lossy sources. Then again, considering they got the basic fact that the 5.1 mixes are from 2012 and not 2001 certainly puts things into question.

 

[stoopid]

I tried my best to compare the various previous releases in an LiS video. You might have already seen it, and it might not have answered your questions. But, just in case!

I have not, thanks Mike I'll check it out.

 

[ssully]

That was exactly my issue, I found two of those threads in my search, but they weren't coming to any definitive conclusions.

Conclusions about *what*? All three mixes have their advocates.

It takes an hour of reading just to piece together all the various opinions. Even the hires poll thread is tepid on whether a particular release is 'best'. And still, really, there's too many differing opinions on what's best among listeners who have all the previously released versions. I'd be all for a sticky if it actually answered that age old question -- which one to buy. But I feel like the publisher is to blame with too may releases and options, leaving someone like me gun shy to commit to purchasing just one of them.

Unless there is something drastically wrong with one or more versions of a release, you won't get a unanimous answer to that. Read about each one and decide for yourself. Or take a chance and try all of them.

It would seem this new Bluray, if it lives up to expectations (and especially if it gets a dedicated bluray only release), and maybe the SACD would be the most cost effective way to have the greatest range of listening options.

It has two surround versions of the album on it, one of which no one has heard yet. That's out of four that will exist once it's released.

The 2011 SACD is out there new for $30-60 right now. I don't recall seeing any dvd-a or older british quad versions for sale. I'd go for the SACD anyway.

There are 9 copies of the 2001 DVD-A for sale on Discogs right now, two at ~$42,and 19 copies of the Japanese SACD version of the same 5.1 mix. There are dozens of copies for sale of the UK SACD with the UK quad mix, there.

 

[jimfisheye]

I mean, there's only one possible choice when faced with multiple surround mixes for an album you like. Listen to all of them! Pick your "best mix" if you can. It really is subjective. There doesn't seem to be a consensus around here. You're just going to have to listen to this album a few times!

 

[ForagingRhino]

This is probably why we did not get a Quadio of Machine Head back at the start.

Exactly why.

 

[quicksrt]

Of the three 2001 5.1 tracks that keep getting included as 'bonuses', one is a non-album track, and the other two have different guitar leads and are thus 'alternate' compared to the UK quad, which until now was the only other 'surround' version digitally available besides the 2001 5.1

Well "Blind Man Cries" is an outstanding b-side imo, makes perfect sense to include it. They must have felt the 5.1 mix was pretty much perfect, or good enough.

 

[Bill B]

Well "Blind Man Cries" is an outstanding b-side imo, makes perfect sense to include it. They must have felt the 5.1 mix was pretty much perfect, or good enough.

More likely they had the rights to it and could include it without any additional effort.

 

[quicksrt]

This is probably why we did not get a Quadio of Machine Head back at the start.

Not trying to be pessimistic, but since this set could tap out the market for a standalone release, we may never get a Quadio of Machine Head.

 

[MIDIQ]

I am going to order on rhino site, this is one of my top wish list quads. woohoo!!!

 

[quicksrt]

It will be interesting to see if Amazon lists it over $100. Since they are going to sell it, that means importCD will as well.

We'll have to see if Deep Discount discounts it deeply.

Last year I was able to get both Rolling Stones big boxes El Macambo & GHS, and Beatles Get Back/Let it Be, a couple of Black Sabbath "vinyl" SDEs deeply discounted by waiting a bit.

 

[fizzywiggs41]

Not trying to be pessimistic, but since this set could tap out the market for a standalone release, we may never get a Quadio of Machine Head.

I'd give it some time . There are 4 quarters per year and many quads left at RHINO/WEA yet to be released .

 

[fizzywiggs41]

The original version of Tubular Bells has only 3 surround mixes: quad, 5.1, and Atmos. There’s talk of an “early” quad mix before the released quad, but iirc discussion here was split on if it ever actually saw wide release, or release at all.

Two quad mixes for Bells , actually. The original 1973 , and the much improved 1975 ..which was first released in Boxed.

So Machine Head has two quad's as well , the UK and the U.S. both somewhat different.

 

[quicksrt]

I have to wonder if the people assembling the box set didn't know about the 2001 DVD-A at all, given the "2012" designation for the three 5.1 tracks included.

Often at big companies the staff turnover is such that there's a kind of "institutional memory loss" because there's no one there that was working there 10 years previously, let alone 20 to untangle the complicated provenance of the mixes and say 'well actually, the three bonus 5.1 mixes on the 2012 DVD-V come from the 2003 UK SACD, and those were sourced from the 2001 US DVD-A.'

I know it seems obvious to us here who live and breathe this stuff, but for the people whose day job it is to put these things together, it's not always obvious - for all they knew these were bonus remixes done in 2012. There's also the complicating factor of two huge monolithic companies at play - it seems like outside of the 2001 DVD-A, all of these sets (2003 SACD, 2012 box set, this new set) have been assembled by Deep Purple's UK label (EMI or whatever subsidiary of UMG it is) who have the distribution rights for Deep Purple outside of North America where Warner does that job. The UK label may either not have knowledge of the full 2001 US 5.1 mix, or maybe negotiated digital rights in perpetuity to the three 5.1 bonus mixes for the 2003 SACD and don't want to open up that Pandora's box again. Or maybe they just feel like those three 5.1 mixes have unique mix-related value that the other tracks don't have, though even if that is the case it seems baffling not to include the entire 5.1 mix.

When this comes out, it'll be interesting to see what the digital provenance (via spectral analysis) of the 5.1 tracks, because I think it'll give some clue as to which of the above is correct. If they're straight 24/96 PCM (from the DVD-A or equivalent digital master) then I think the answer is "these are the only tracks we wanted to include" but if they look like they've been transcoded multiple times (ie. 24/96 PCM -> DSD (for the 2003 SACD) -> lossy Dolby Digital (for the 2012 DVD-V) -> back to lossless PCM for the new box set BluRay) then the answer is most likely "we used what we had and didn't know there was more".

Deep Purple have had Purple "fanatical" specialists on board at times for previous releases. Some of them provided very rare picture sleeves and news clippings, some wrote liner notes for a given release of a live set, and others consultants to the tape archivists for dates and set lists.

Odd that the BBC recording from 1972 is not credited with being from the BBC or the Paris Theatre, and just "In Concert" released program. This shows to me that a Purple specialist was not in charge of writing those credits/notes.

But yeah, I always wonder if they go back to the PCM mixed masters for a given reissue, or just use Any DVD, DVD Audio Extractor, or an Oppo with SACD ripping capabilities to get their source files.

 

[jimfisheye]

We're all focused on the surround content...
Looking at the description and track lists I don't see any inclusion of the 2024 mastered original stereo mix in 24 bit. Looks like CD only. I don't see any inclusion of the original mix of the single b-side When A Blind Man Cries in any format.

The new vinyl is not an all analog master of the original mix, FYI. It's the new stereo mix and slightly re-sequenced vs the original with the b-side included.

This is the 1st digital reissue of the US quad mix and then this new Atmos mix and all. Can't be unhappy about that. The omissions are head scratching though and sure seem to be lazy errors. A complete set would have been an instant sale at this price. I'm pausing now because my copy of this mix is not terrible.

And we need more deep dives into the live sets. Not just dusted off copies of the original stereo mixes. (Still include em tho!) Full new surround mixes! Yes Atmos too! I'm serious.

 

[Bill B]

Not trying to be pessimistic, but since this set could tap out the market for a standalone release, we may never get a Quadio of Machine Head.

There is also a chance that they could release a stand-alone of the blu-ray. Maybe more likely than putting out a normal Quadio release. The BR is already produced and has a ton more on it.

 

[quicksrt]

So nobody in charge suggested that since this box set is featuring surround content, we really should remix the live In Concert '72 recording in at least 5.1? It was a 8-track recording from what I gather. You know refresh that old reissued and reissued recording into something new.

If they really wanted to go the distance here, then they should have gone the distance, included the complete 5.1 album mix too.
(edited)

 

[fizzywiggs41]

So nobody in charge suggested that since this box set is featuring surround content, we really should remix the live In Concert '72 recording in at least 5.1? It was a 8-track recording from what I gather. You know refresh that old reissued and reissued recording into something new.

If they really wanted to go the distance here, then they should have gone the distance, complete 5.1 album mix too.

Wasn't it already mixed in 5.1 , by Eagle Vision ?

 

[Dynamic Editor]

Exactly why.

Hey, since you're here, do you know if the blu ray has a stereo stream, and if so, what mix it is? I find it rather odd that one isn't listed, and I'm guessing someone just forgot to note it.

Also, do you know why the 5.1 mixes are listed as being from 2012, when they were actually made for the 2001 5.1 release?