HiRez Poll Doors - LA WOMAN [DVD-A/SACD]

[filper]

It also makes one want to go grab the disc and dust if off for another spin!

Give'r Jon !

Please report back.

If every surround disc I have sounded like the LP's I'd be disappointed.

 

[EMB]

While "The End" does have an excess of sounds not heard on either the original mono or stereo mixes, it IS closer to the mono mix in intent, and therefore close enough to enjoy in 5.1. Similarly, the 'little things' on the L.A. mix--"Love Her Madly" running longer, "Cars" with the extra verse, the longer intro of the title track, to name the most obvious differences--make this one a lot of fun.

I'm not sure I dig the revisionism of using these for a stereo mix, however (not that I've checked to find out if such was the case). 5.1 is one thing, stereo something else again. When you have good original stereo mixes, rarely makes sense to go back, unless it's being presented as an 'alternate' kind of thing. Too often, remixes replace the originals, which really isn't cool--or wise.

ED

 

[Q-Eight]

Hard to imagine L.A. Woman was recorded on 8-track equipment. It lends itself to Quad so nicely! The few 8-track multis I've worked with sometimes leave a black hole in the mix unless I really do some audio trickery. L.A. Woman just works. Other than the title track however, I prefer the antique Quad mixes.

Just for the record:
Debut Album - 4-tracks, Sunset Sound.
Strange Days - 8-tracks, Sunset Sound.
Waiting for the Sun - 8-tracks, TTG Studios
The Soft Parade - 8-tracks, Elektra Studios
Morrison Hotel - 8-tracks, Elektra Studios
L.A. Woman - 8-tracks, Sunset Sound

 

[filper]

The votes for this one are all over the place. It's interesting to go back and read the comments after a disc has been out for a while and compare them to how we feel now. It also makes one want to go grab the disc and dust if off for another spin!

Well ?

 

[Snood]

Thread Necro again - 5 years later :banana:

Re listened to this last night -Sounding much better on my upgraded music making machines. I am one of those guys that mixes a nice drink and turns the lights off. A very nice experience it was. The vocals pretty much stay in the center channel which was fine for this. Sounded at times like Ole Jim was right there in the room. Loved the take on "The Wasp". Not my fave album by them, but it does have some very good songs on it. The separation of the keyboards and guitar were great being able to hear the subtle things I had never heard before on the album.

Had to turn it up a lil more than usual - but only a lil.

Definitely worth the pick up and will get played again and again. Give it an 8 :51banana:

 

[Quad Linda]

Let me tell you about Texas Radio & the Big Beat...
I gave this a 9. Sure, there are a few songs that are turkeys. Most of them are classics. Although there were a limited number of tracks to work from, I love the 5.1 mix and I love the God Save the Queen extended intro on L.A. Woman. I bought the 5.1 twice. First, as an early DVD-A in a CD size case, and again in Perception with the wheel. YOU NEED THIS!! Come and live with us in forests of azure...

 

[Snood]

With a backbeat narrow and hard to master :51banana:

but, not here at QQ Jim

You could always count on Jim for some great lyrics. Thank you JM

 

[bananas]

This F*ng album.


I love this album, but I love many albums. But this F*ng album describes its self on the back cover as:
"5.1 surround remix produced and mixed by bruce botnick from the original 8-track analogue 1" masters."

It has a stereo mix. That mix is 88kHz/24bit. Is this mix a remix. Judging by the lack of description I have to assume, it is literally just up sampled 44.1/16-bit. If it was remixed they would have stated this.

So this dvd-audio is JUNK for stereo listening. It only holds any value as a surround disk. What the HECK!

 

[Quadzilla]

This F*ng album.


I love this album, but I love many albums. But this F*ng album describes its self on the back cover as:
"5.1 surround remix produced and mixed by bruce botnick from the original 8-track analogue 1" masters."

It has a stereo mix. That mix is 88kHz/24bit. Is this mix a remix. Judging by the lack of description I have to assume, it is literally just up sampled 44.1/16-bit. If it was remixed they would have stated this.

So this dvd-audio is JUNK for stereo listening. It only holds any value as a surround disk. What the HECK!

A lot of DVD-Audio disks are "JUNK for stereo listening" because they were never authored to be stereo, just to be folded down to two channels to be compatible with all DVD players. The format itself was intended for surround sound. If you want stereo, buy the Redbook CD.

 

[ubertrout]

A lot of DVD-Audio disks are "JUNK for stereo listening" because they were never authored to be stereo, just to be folded down to two channels to be compatible with all DVD players. The format itself was intended for surround sound. If you want stereo, buy the Redbook CD.

I thought the format dictates that the multichannel mix include mixdown instructions so the proper stereo mix could be generated without a separate track?

 

[Quadzilla]

I thought the format dictates that the multichannel mix include mixdown instructions so the proper stereo mix could be generated without a separate track?

That might have been the intent, but that isn't the way it turned out. Some disks have dedicated hi-rez stereo tracks, but others are pretty mediocre. Try listening to the original Brain Salad Surgery DVD-Audio in stereo ... or try to turn off the centre channel.

 

[bktouchstone]

I think Analog Productions put out a stereo remix or remaster on SACD a couple of years ago that had a prior multi-channel mix included. Perhaps this would be a good "go to" solution if you desire a stereo mix in hi-rez.

 

[bananas]

Ok, I've had another listen and the 5.1 mix in stereo is actually really fun to listen to. Its quite different, and overall much better sounding than the original stereo mix (also included on the disk). My only gripe with it is that the level of the multichannel mix is half of the loudness of the stereo mix and many of my other disks. According to Discogs, the 2006 release on dvd-audio, and the perception boxed set, includes new stereo & 5.1 mixes. As BKTouchstone said, the sacd, released in 2013 - Analogue Productions CAPP 75011 SA - is produced by Bruce Botnick & Jeff Jampol.

It sounds like there are at least 4 different mixes available in digital:

Original stereo
2000 multichannel
2006 multichannel & stereo
2013 multichannel & stereo (SACD)

According to discogs about the sacd release:
"SACD layer contains the 5.1 multichannel program that comes from the original 96K, 24-bit files mixed and mastered by Bruce Botnick for the DVD Audio Doors/Perception release. Those mixes were made from the original, multi-track, 15 i.p.s. analog master tapes. For the SACDs, the mixes were up-sampled without filters to DSD. "

 

[beerking]

It's life Jim but not as we know it.
DVD-A version

I've always liked this album.
The surround mix gives it a new edge.
But its not the most discrete mix out there
So I'm torn between head and heart here.
Sod it, It's Jim....Its a 9

 

[sjcorne]

I've always liked this album.
The surround mix gives it a new edge.
But its not the most discrete mix out there

The tracks from this album on the Best Of The Doors quad mix are better, more discrete mixes. I'd highly recommend The Singles Blu-Ray which contains the quad mix.

 

[salsdali]

so the DTS 5.1 "bonus track" Orange County Suite (a personal favorite) is definitely a different mixing than whoever mixed the original ablum in DVD-A surround (Botnick) because the album vocals for the 5.1 DVD-A AND DTS 5.1 are clearly separated into the center channel whereas the vocals on the bonus track Orange County Suite are more spread out, not isolated.

So who mixed the "Bonus Tracks" (if not Botnick) and when? Or did Bruce just mix the bonus songs at a separate time (which is what he would have to have done) with a different style (which would seem weird). Why would he choose to place the vocals in a more diffuse than isolated location?

I think it just goes to show that mixers, as well as listeners perceive music differently at different times. I know I do as a listener so why wouldn't mixers? But wouldn't Bruce have mixed the bonus tracks at the same time as the orig album at the same time in 2000 for Perception?

BTW, all the haters need to reexamine this DVD-A.

A 9

"L'America" seems fitting for times. A Dark Perception of what America's underbelly is.

everyone is like "well this isn't my favorite Doors album". EVERY Doors album in surround is my favorite, get it?

also doesn't hurt to watch this

 

[jhw59]

8 for me as the bottom end is a little muddy. I don't mind Botnick's "tricks" so much.

 

[sjcorne]

I just pulled out my DVD-A of this to compare with the new streaming Atmos mix and was surprised how much I enjoyed it! The sound quality is outstanding, it holds up nicely at high volume unlike many of these early-00's 5.1 titles. My one gripe sound-wise is that it's evident Jim Morrison's vocals were not recorded as well as the other instruments, they sound a bit crunchy and lo-fi at times. The surround mix is kind of the 5.1 approximation of an early-70s 'four-corner' quadraphonic experience: it's fun (I don't mind the panning effects), but can sound rather disjointed due to there being minimal crosstalk between channels. The rears may appear near-silent for extended passages, then suddenly spring to life with overdubbed keyboard or percussion. Perhaps if he'd let some dry vocal and drum sound permeate the rears, the entire thing would gel together a bit better.

 

[himey]

I just pulled out my DVD-A of this to compare with the new streaming Atmos mix and was surprised how much I enjoyed it! The sound quality is outstanding, it holds up nicely at high volume unlike many of these early-00's 5.1 titles. My one gripe sound-wise is that it's evident Jim Morrison's vocals were not recorded as well as the other instruments, they sound a bit crunchy and lo-fi at times. The surround mix is kind of the 5.1 approximation of an early-70s 'four-corner' quadraphonic experience: it's fun (I don't mind the panning effects), but can sound rather disjointed due to there being minimal crosstalk between channels. The rears may appear near-silent for extended passages, then suddenly spring to life with overdubbed keyboard or percussion. Perhaps if he'd let some dry vocal and drum sound permeate the rears, the entire thing would gel together a bit better.

The Atmos mix panning, sounds closer to a single element moving around, while the 5.1 mixes can sound like the channel is moving.