HiRez Poll Gaye, Marvin - THE MARVIN GAYE COLLECTION [SACD/DVD-A]

[JonUrban]

Please post your comments, thoughts and observations.......

 

[Cai Campbell]

One of my very favorite discs. 'nuf said.

 

[neil wilkes]

I have a great Quad DVD-A of Marvin & Diana (thanks, Cai) and this one has just shot straight to the top of my "Must Buy" list.

 

[bmoura]

One of my very favorite discs. 'nuf said.

The Surround Sound SACD version features the same mix as the one from the 5.1 DTS Music Disc edition of this album.

That said, the SACD sounds much better than the DTS issue - surprising that both editions came from the same mix. I'd recommend the SACD Surround edition to Marvin Gaye fans.

 

[Kazaam]

I really like this disc. Plenty of surround action. The version of "What's Going On" found here works great in surround sound due to the party noise and cheering of people in the background. (I think it was on that song... Or perhaps it was another? I digress... Just trust us, it's good.) I gave it an 8.

 

[dprokopy]

I have the DTS version, personally. Okay mixes overall, but not one of my favorite discs to listen to, and I'm a VERY big Marvin fan - especially "What's Going On," which has consistantly been my favorite album as long as I can remember. In terms of surround listening, I actually tend to listen to "Midnight Love" a lot more than this one.

 

[neil wilkes]

The Surround Sound SACD version features the same mix as the one from the 5.1 DTS Music Disc edition of this album.

That said, the SACD sounds much better than the DTS issue - surprising that both editions came from the same mix. I'd recommend the SACD Surround edition to Marvin Gaye fans.

Why surprising?
DTS is lossy compression and has thrown away 3/4 of the Audio.
SACD, whatever it's other faults, is lossless so should naturally sound better IMHO.

EDIT.
My copy just arrived today, and it sure does sound good! (DVD-A).
I have not yet voted as I'm still listening, so will vote later.
First impressions are very favourable.
One oddity though.
The MLP Surround mix is at 24/44.1 yet the Stereo mix is at 24/96 - I wonder why this might be?
I am going to check the Surround & stereo mixes carefully & see if there is any audible difference in sonics.
There does not seem to be a DTS mix included but there is a DD one.
Very unfussy interface, sounds great.
The mixes are very good indeed, and absolutely sparkle.

I am looking forward to hearing this one through my new Tannoys as soon as I get them up in the air & bloted to the ceiling.

 

[neil wilkes]

Final Vote was an 8 from me.

The surround versions are superb - no doubt about it.
What let it down for me were the Stereo versions. I simply did not like the remastered versions. They jumped by 6dB over the Surround ones - nearly double the relative levels, and sounded a lot harsher to me in the upper mids and top end.
I do not believe this is due to the 96KHz being used for the stereo over the 44.1KHz for the surround, but simply because I suspect the remasters have been brickwall limited or maximized in some way, as it has the characteristic sound of a damned maximizer stamped all over it.
Why?
It did not need to be louder - I have a volume control on my amplifier!
MAKING THINGS ARTIFICIALLY LOUD FATIGUES THE EARS and simply is un necessary.

I hope this little example serves to illustrate the point.

That, for me, spoilt the stereo versions as despite going down to only 2 channels, I had to leap for the volume control when I played the stereo versions.

Apart from that - well worth buying.

 

[daved64]

Final Vote was an 8 from me.

The surround versions are superb - no doubt about it.
What let it down for me were the Stereo versions. I simply did not like the remastered versions. They jumped by 6dB over the Surround ones - nearly double the relative levels, and sounded a lot harsher to me in the upper mids and top end.
I do not believe this is due to the 96KHz being used for the stereo over the 44.1KHz for the surround, but simply because I suspect the remasters have been brickwall limited or maximized in some way, as it has the characteristic sound of a damned maximizer stamped all over it.
Why?
It did not need to be louder - I have a volume control on my amplifier!
MAKING THINGS ARTIFICIALLY LOUD FATIGUES THE EARS and simply is un necessary.

I hope this little example serves to illustrate the point.

That, for me, spoilt the stereo versions as despite going down to only 2 channels, I had to leap for the volume control when I played the stereo versions.

Apart from that - well worth buying.

Someone has been reading Rip Rowan articles!

 

[neil wilkes]

And very true they are too.
I have had this particular bee in my bonnet for several years now - we even make an issue over not using any form of -izers on our website too.
http://www.mindspring.com/~mrichter/dynamics/dynamics.htm
for those who are not familiar with the article in question.
There used to be another one at www.loudnessrace.net, but that has since disappeared.

 

[Bob Romano]

A fun listen even with the older tracks. Top notch mixes great sound and Marving Gaye. What else do you need? 10

 

[ChristopherLees]

One of my very favorite discs. 'nuf said.

I completely agree with you!!

This disc is great.
cheers.

 

[ChristopherLees]

Final Vote was an 8 from me.

The surround versions are superb - no doubt about it.
What let it down for me were the Stereo versions. I simply did not like the remastered versions. They jumped by 6dB over the Surround ones - nearly double the relative levels, and sounded a lot harsher to me in the upper mids and top end.

Well I haven't played the stereo section yet, but a few years ago I played the dts cd in downmix mode through a millenium decoder (I wanted a stereo cd mix for the car...and some of the tracks at the time were not available in stereo..) and there was alot of phasing with the combined result.
assuming both mixes are the same,perhaps there is something about the 5.1 mix that doesn't like a stereo mixdown. just a thought/guess.

anyway I have alot of marvin gaye lp's and the main reason for this disc is the surround stuff....My surround collection is fast approaching the size of my normal cd collection...500 plus discs. ...I mainly play surround at home these days...and in surround mode this disc just shines....and so does the midnight love sacd as well...

 

[ClarkNovak]

I got the DVD-A version and was immediately surprised by how muffled Marvin's center-channel vocals were - like they'd been rolled off above 10 kHz. Haven't heard the SACD yet, but now I'm inclined to go get it!

Regarding artificial loudness in mastering, my employer has written an excellent paper decrying the practice from a broadcast standpoint. Here's a link: http://www.omniaaudio.com/tech/mastering.htm .

Clark

 

[neil wilkes]

Not muffled here.
However, the stereo version sounds far too harsh and overcompressed by comparison.

 

[bmoura]

I got the DVD-A version and was immediately surprised by how muffled Marvin's center-channel vocals were - like they'd been rolled off above 10 kHz. Haven't heard the SACD yet, but now I'm inclined to go get it!

Clark

Can't speak to the DVD-A edition but I do have the SACD version and I was surprised how much better it sounded vs. the earlier DTS 5.1 Music Disc edition. Same Surround Mix but the sound had been definitely cleaned up.

 

[neil wilkes]

As the DVD-A has both Stereo and Surround versions included, it is quite possible that thre no downmix flags set on the 5.1 version, which would tend to explain things somewhat.
I must admit that whenever I author a title with both Stereo & Surround versions I always disable downmixing.
As for the DTS 5.1 versions, downmixing from 5.1 DTS is at best problematic - you do not have much in the way of options.
Always better by far to include dedicated stereo versions rather than rely on any downmixing coefficients. MLP downmixing is better than DD or DTS, as you can adjust far more in the way of detail. Whereas in DD you get the options of 0.707 or 0.5 or off.

 

[neil wilkes]

Having just got a copy of the DTS CD called "Forever Yours", I could not but help notice that it is identical to this disc in everything except track order.

Apart from this, it is the same disc.

Another example of record company gouging, perhaps. At least they could have had the decency to call it by the same name!

 

[dprokopy]

Another example of record company gouging, perhaps. At least they could have had the decency to call it by the same name!

I disagree - it's a completely different format (DVD-A and SACD, versus the original SACD). "Gouging" would have been releasing the same album, in the same format, with say one new track on it or somesuch. As it is, all they've really done is taken a title and make sure it's available in all the current surround formats.

 

[Cai Campbell]

I disagree - it's a completely different format (DVD-A and SACD, versus the original SACD). "Gouging" would have been releasing the same album, in the same format, with say one new track on it or somesuch. As it is, all they've really done is taken a title and make sure it's available in all the current surround formats.

Be that as it may, it is still misleading to have the same collection with the same mix but with different titles. If I recall correctly, the cover art is different as well.