HiRez Poll Harrison, George - ALL THINGS MUST PASS [Blu-Ray Audio (Dolby Atmos)]

[jimfisheye]

FWIW, the bass sounds perfect on my Atmos system. Maybe the way the mix has been mastered caused problems for some set ups, but not others? Like, particulars about bass management and such?

It still sounds reasonable at a glance. As in it doesn't immediately sound like an obvious obvious error. As in, many recordings have bumpin' bass like this. At 2nd glance... Where's the 1970's style midrange content? It's in there, it's just pulled way back vs the bass. If you balance that range that appears boosted (by being in front of the entire rest of the mix) and then turn your volume up to put the bass where it was before, now you hear what sounds like a very 1970's asthetic recording and mix with a very well balanced immersive surround stage.

That this can come back in focus... Things don't just "come back in focus" unless there was a lot of that thing there to begin with! That leads me to think this was a mastering alteration.

Now this poor album sounded so trashy with the Phil Spector treatment to begin with that even the bass bumpin' master is a huge improvement! Just sayin' that it sounds even better than that and in the period and has a good surround stage if you investigate a little.

I still don't have the unreleased Atmos decoder codec yet so I can't pull the Atmos mix into a DAW or media player. I'd guess it suffers from the same treatment as the 5.1 but I can only speculate. Perhaps it's perfect and only the 5.1 version got the club master treatment?

 

[edisonbaggins]

It still sounds reasonable at a glance. As in it doesn't immediately sound like an obvious obvious error. As in, many recordings have bumpin' bass like this. At 2nd glance... Where's the 1970's style midrange content? It's in there, it's just pulled way back vs the bass. If you balance that range that appears boosted (by being in front of the entire rest of the mix) and then turn your volume up to put the bass where it was before, now you hear what sounds like a very 1970's asthetic recording and mix with a very well balanced immersive surround stage.

That this can come back in focus... Things don't just "come back in focus" unless there was a lot of that thing there to begin with! That leads me to think this was a mastering alteration.

Now this poor album sounded so trashy with the Phil Spector treatment to begin with that even the bass bumpin' master is a huge improvement! Just sayin' that it sounds even better than that and in the period and has a good surround stage if you investigate a little.

I still don't have the unreleased Atmos decoder codec yet so I can't pull the Atmos mix into a DAW or media player. I'd guess it suffers from the same treatment as the 5.1 but I can only speculate. Perhaps it's perfect and only the 5.1 version got the club master treatment?

That Atmos mix is far more dynamic than the 5.1. They were obviously treated quite differently.

 

[ar surround]

I haven't had a chance to listen yet, but it is refreshing to see someone give a new release something other than a 10. I think that people here often review these things from a place of excitement at a new issue rather than looking at it subjectively.

So very true. I haven't voted yet, but what we had before this release was so bad that had I stopped playing it. Also, this new Atmos (7.1 TrueHD in my case) brings out so much detail that I had not known was in the original recording.

 

[jimfisheye]

That Atmos mix is far more dynamic than the 5.1. They were obviously treated quite differently.

That's positive!

Pull the bass back in the fronts (up to 170Hz) and you'll hear the 5.1 mix is plenty dynamic and fully realized. Pull the center channel down that 2db and you'll hear the whole surround stage lock back into place. The mix is in there!

 

[Strilo]

I honestly haven't noticed an issue with the bass when listening in Atmos, either on my full AV system or to "Atmos" in my Airpods Pro. However, I've noticed that when I use the same tracks in my library to listen in my car or elsewhere that is probably using a lossless stereo mix, the bass is INSANELY too loud and I want to dial it back...

 

[edisonbaggins]

I show rips of the stereo, 5.1 and 7.1 mix/masters in the above video, FWIW...

 

[H.A.L.]

Just what in the hell was going on in the scene back then where this Spector guy could turn in a mix so amateur and bluntly terrible and no one bumped it back or said a word?! "Potato All Things Must Pass" out of the box is still a stunning upgrade over the original mix, mind you! Maybe the mastering here is a nod of the head to Spector?

I read Spector's biography and it mentioned on this how much he HATED being in London! He brought over his usual equipment, and apparently produced his signature sound . . . that it might not have fit the material didn't seem to be a consideration. Everyone was drinking heavily (of course). For the final flourish, Spector threw up his hands early and left George some notes on how to finish. A usual practice at the time, but George was miffed, and probably screwed up some things himself.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

I listened to the 7.1 last night (converted to 5.1 via my pre/pro). I cant see where all the 10's this release has gathered are warranted. IMO this is 8 territory.

For me, this album has always been a Lo-Fi, blurry, undefined mess that just didn't do justice to the material. To a large extent, it still is. It is an improvement over the stereo. For the sparser arrangements like Let it Roll and Run of the Mill there is a good amount of improvement. For the heavier arrangements, less so. The first track I played was Wah Wah. And in comparison to my 80s vintage stereo CD, yeah its improved, but not by a lot. Same with What is Life. Same with Awaiting on You All. Its hard to describe. Something is missing when it comes to definition in the vocals. Sometimes horns sound decent, sometimes not, like they aren't fleshed out. Same with the strings. I kept playing tracks and came to the conclusion the more layered the track is the worse the overall experience. Its not a fatiguing album, so that's not the issue.

Apart from the sonics, the mix is OK. Nothing revolutionary. I was hoping for better based on all the excellent comments. Again it seemed, the sparser the arrangement, the better the mix. The Spector wall is still there, maybe just not as high.

I previously read what @jimfisheye had written about the mid-bass levels. He may well be on to something. There is no question the bass has been boosted considerably compared to the stereo. But the stereo was pretty anemic to begin with. To be honest I originally thought, the bass sounded pretty good. Now I wonder if that bass boost isn't the cause of what I'm hearing. Like he said, its not a boost to the LFE track. In fact the LFE pumps along at a relatively low level. Its a mid bass issue. I may have to take his recipe and play with mid bass levels to see if it improves things.

At one point I reverted to albums I know have better sonics to be sure there was no system problem or if I was having an off day. Nope. Dire Straits still sounds like Dire Straits (Brothers in Arms). Fagen still sounds great (Nightfly). Freddy is still in his groove (A Night at the Opera). These are a few of the titles in my 10's collection.

My lady happened in during my playing (I Dig Love, I think). After listening for a few minutes, her exact comment was "it sounds flat". That can mean a lot of things coming from her, none of them good.

I haven't tried the 5.1 tracks yet. Still, I doubt it will fix any of the issues outlined above. Nor do I think any Atmos gimmickry can save it.

I like the packaging. I'm amused with some of the outtakes.

I think this is the most expensive album I've ever bought at $130. Top 5 anyway. I guess I don't feel like I got my money's worth. Yes, it's significantly better than my stereo version. But it doesn't WOW me. If that's where the bar is now, maybe its time to stop buying this stuff.

An 8 it is.

 

[skherbeck]

In terms of material, a lot of good stuff on this album, but also, for me, a lot of so-so material (it probably should have been a single album). I think I've always preferred Paul and John's solo material (in that order) to George's solo stuff. The songs I love tend to be the one's that aren't the hits... "Wah-Wah", "Let It Down", "Beware of Darkness", "All Things Must Pass", & "What Is Life". "Isn't it a Pity" just seems to run on a bit too long for my taste (although I love the version on George's "Live in Tokyo"). "My Sweet Lord" is a bit played out for me, but could have been given new life with a great surround mix. Unfortunately, the 5.1 mixes here, while having some good discrete activity in the rears, tend to leave me wanting more. Each song tends to have a couple of musical elements prominently parked in the rears, but there's absolutely no movement/ activity in the mixes and very little of the harmony vocals were used in the rears. This is the biggest shame for me as one of my favorite things about surround music is when the lead vocals are centered in front with harmonies coming from behind me in stereo. "My Sweet Lord" is very front-heavy for the most part but could have been elevated to a whole new level with those background vocals in the rears. So while these mixes (just) satisfy me in terms of basic surround activity, I think there was probably enough available on the multitracks to make them even better. I think the prominent guitars in the rears on "Wah-Wah" and "What Is Life" make these my two favorite mixes on the album. Sonically, this just does not sound great. I've had to mess around cutting some of the bass and making some adjustments to George's vocals (which are nicely isolated in the center channel) and the rear channels. Ultimately this mix sounds less congested than the original stereo mix, but it still lacks the degree of detail and space that I find so appealing about surround mixes. I give the 5.1 mix 3/3 for content, 2/3 for mix, and 2/3 for sonics. Also 1 bonus point for being a Beatles solo album in surround, so an 8 total.

 

[rusinurbe]

Listening to the 5.1 mix as I don't have an Atmos set up.
I like the mix think it's quite tasteful and respectful to the music. Enough going on all round to make this a high vote.
The best part is that they have removed some of the mush that Spector added to the original album.
Never been a fan of the wall of sound it had its place in the early 60's for a few singles, but he traded on that forever afterwards rather than growing up.

 

[ar surround]

I haven't voted yet. I want to tweek the 7.1 TrueHD to get it to my liking before I vote. I have no use for the 5.1 DTS HDMaster. The 5.1 isn't brutal, it's just too compressed and gnarly sounding compared to the 7.1 TrueHD. The 5.1 gives me a hint of PTSD brought on from trying to listen to the redbook CDs over the years.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

I haven't voted yet. I want to tweek the 7.1 TrueHD to get it to my liking before I vote. I have no use for the 5.1 DTS HDMaster. The 5.1 isn't brutal, it's just too compressed and gnarly sounding compared to the 7.1 TrueHD. The 5.1 gives me a hint of PTSD brought on from trying to listen to the redbook CDs over the years.

I ripped the 5.1 to MKV but havent converted to FLAC yet. Maybe I'll forget it if its that bad. Not a fast operation or a small file for a triple album at 194kHz sample rate.

Post what you settle on for the 7.1.

 

[sjcorne]

have no use for the 5.1 DTS HDMaster. The 5.1 isn't brutal, it's just too compressed and gnarly sounding compared to the 7.1 TrueHD.

I ripped the 5.1 to MKV but havent converted to FLAC yet. Maybe I'll forget it if its that bad. Not a fast operation or a small file for a triple album at 194kHz sample rate.

I ripped the 5.1 at 96/24 using DVD-Audio Extractor. No reason to use up extra HDD space for the full 192k.

Seems like I'm in the minority, but I don't really hear a night-and-day difference in sound quality between the 7.1 & 5.1 mixes. They both have the same annoying low-end EQ boost. The big difference is that the core drums/bass/lead vocal is dispersed into all the speakers on the 7.1, whereas those elements are restricted to the front channels on the 5.1 DTS-HD. The fronts may appear dominant visually on the 5.1 mix, but in some ways it's actually more 'discrete' than the folded-down Atmos.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

I ripped the 5.1 at 96/24 using DVD-Audio Extractor. No reason to use up extra HDD space for the full 192k.

Seems like I'm in the minority, but I don't really hear a night-and-day difference in sound quality between the 7.1 & 5.1 mixes. They both have the same annoying low-end EQ boost. The big difference is that the core drums/bass/lead vocal is dispersed into all the speakers on the 7.1, whereas those elements are restricted to the front channels on the 5.1 DTS-HD. The fronts may appear dominant visually on the 5.1 mix, but in some ways it's actually more 'discrete' than the folded-down Atmos.

I trust your ears. I guess I will make the rip after all.

Maybe its the vocal being dispersed everywhere in the 7.1 that bugs me about the vocals.

 

[tezzalavell]

Well, First let me say sympathy to Paul Hicks because you cannot make champagne from Cider !
As most of us Beatley fans have lived with the 50 year old original a New mix was always going to be pulling at the Heart strings and the Head at the same time.
I have ripped both DTS HD and Dolby HD 7.1 from the disc.
I have made 3 FLAC versions , DTS , Dolby 7.1 remixed by me to 5.1 and a Dolby 7.1 to 5.1 straight fold down. This is because wife only likes 5 speaker + sub
( you may pass on your condolences or send me an UZI).

I have yet to decide which song of which version I like but in general :
1. Yes it’s fairly frontally focussed
2. Maybe a Tad too Bass heavy ( I quite like it)
3. Not so discrete
4. Far less Muddiness

Overall Paul Hicks removed a lot of the Spector Wall on the big songs, maybe he could have pulled out a bit more discreteness on the more laid back songs but the boy did well !

It’s so much better to listen to than the original but as a surround disc it loses a couple of points for me. Maybe be a higher score if I could find a Wall of Sound loud enough to disperse the Wife and add more speakers (All things come to Pass) .

So an 8 for me

 

[atrocity]

Its hard to describe. Something is missing when it comes to definition in the vocals. Sometimes horns sound decent, sometimes not, like they aren't fleshed out. Same with the strings. I kept playing tracks and came to the conclusion the more layered the track is the worse the overall experience. Its not a fatiguing album, so that's not the issue.

The first time I played it, the voices in my head were suggesting that there are artifacts from however they de-Spectorized some of the tracks. It may just be that I'm confused by the reduced reverb, but I can't help but feel that something odd is going on. Like maybe what would be normal attack-decay is missing some of the decay, if that makes any sense.

I'm not convinced that I'm right and I don't find it actively annoying, but I do feel like I hear...something.

I'm vaguely reminded of the Eurythmics' Sweet Dreams: The Video Album on DVD: I've got it on stereo CED and analog stereo Laserdisc and it sounds normal on both. I never had the digital Laserdisc reissue, so I can't speak to that, but the DVD, though it has a lossless PCM track, sounds absolutely horrible. It's been noise gated or something. Every time the sound should naturally get quieter or decay or whatever you want to call it, it doesn't gradually fade away, it suddenly falls off a cliff and then just as rapidly comes back up again. It's as if someone is "augmenting" the natural rise and fall by twiddling a volume control. It's hopelessly unlistenable, and I'm someone who'll often put up with a lot if I like the music.

 

[Guy Robinson]

DVD-Audio Extractor rips blu-rays?

Yup

 

[srbjab]

In terms of material, a lot of good stuff on this album, but also, for me, a lot of so-so material (it probably should have been a single album). I think I've always preferred Paul and John's solo material (in that order) to George's solo stuff. The songs I love tend to be the one's that aren't the hits... "Wah-Wah", "Let It Down", "Beware of Darkness", "All Things Must Pass", & "What Is Life". "Isn't it a Pity" just seems to run on a bit too long for my taste (although I love the version on George's "Live in Tokyo"). "My Sweet Lord" is a bit played out for me, but could have been given new life with a great surround mix. Unfortunately, the 5.1 mixes here, while having some good discrete activity in the rears, tend to leave me wanting more. Each song tends to have a couple of musical elements prominently parked in the rears, but there's absolutely no movement/ activity in the mixes and very little of the harmony vocals were used in the rears. This is the biggest shame for me as one of my favorite things about surround music is when the lead vocals are centered in front with harmonies coming from behind me in stereo. "My Sweet Lord" is very front-heavy for the most part but could have been elevated to a whole new level with those background vocals in the rears. So while these mixes (just) satisfy me in terms of basic surround activity, I think there was probably enough available on the multitracks to make them even better. I think the prominent guitars in the rears on "Wah-Wah" and "What Is Life" make these my two favorite mixes on the album. Sonically, this just does not sound great. I've had to mess around cutting some of the bass and making some adjustments to George's vocals (which are nicely isolated in the center channel) and the rear channels. Ultimately this mix sounds less congested than the original stereo mix, but it still lacks the degree of detail and space that I find so appealing about surround mixes. I give the 5.1 mix 3/3 for content, 2/3 for mix, and 2/3 for sonics. Also 1 bonus point for being a Beatles solo album in surround, so an 8 total.

I probably have the minority opinion here, but this seems like another unfortunate situation where you have to buy a ridiculously expensive boxset just to get a surround mix you are interested in. While I absolutely love the Beatles and think they create musical magic when together, I've never really fallen in love with any of their solo material. I bought ATMP on vinyl back in the day, but aside from a handful of "hits" I just don't find the material that engaging - certainly not enough to invest in a box set with a huge amount of demo and outtake material for songs I'm just not that interested in. From the reviews, it seems that the Atmos mix is quite good while the 5.1 is just so-so. If this were available as a standalone blu-ray, I might be tempted just to get the Atmos mix, but if only in this boxset, I'm comfortable passing on it.

 

[James Jay]

I find that the Atmos surround mix (7.2.4) is quite good but as others have noted the bass needs to be dropped around -5 db. I find some songs, particularly the first couple tracks have too much bass and the Atmos mix not that great but starting with Wah Wah the Atmos mix was pretty solid for the rest of the double album minus the jam tracks. The demo tracks / alternate tracks are pretty nice IMO. So I deduct 1 point for the excess bass and box set price and give this box set a 9 for great material and nice Atmos mix. JMHO

 

[GOS]

I'm listening again, and I just do not find any of the bass offensive in any way. In fact, I would much prefer the bass be more pronounced...than anemic. I still totally dig how this sounds...considering home my CD sounds in comparison. Is my 10 a little high? Maybe......and I do admit to letting my emotions get in the way a bit. To have such title sound this great is a win win for me. Love it loud!