HiRez Poll John, Elton - DIAMONDS [Blu-Ray Audio (Dolby Atmos)]

[fetchmybeer]

Others have touched upon many of the same things already about song selection, but this album was already released and presumably sequenced in the order it is in and the Atmos experience is just a bonus for us.

I'm one of those people who looks at Elton as pre and post 1980 Elton. Basically, I love so much of the stuff before then and don't even like much of the stuff after that. And that doesn't change listening to this collection.

But it's one helluva collection for the price, and the Atmos on the old tracks (through my 5.1 system) sounds pretty great to me for the most part, and I have most of the old SACDs in 5.1. I probably prefer the 5.1 mixes, if only because they seem a bit more consistent and of course the sequencing from song to song makes more sense on those albums than it does on a hits collection.

Yes, there is variance between the Atmos tracks here, as you would expect of songs recorded over a span of about 50 years. There are some 5s in there and some 10s. But ultimately I think I have to rate this one highly in spite of its flaws. I would still recommend seeking out the SACDs in 5.1 though if you don't have them. They are-- or were at least until I bought my last one a few years ago-- readily available and at good prices.

Oh, one more minor complaint-- I wish there was something on the insert that said which albums (and years) the songs were from, especially since the order of the songs gets a bit out of whack.

 

[kfbkfb]

Music Content: 9

Surround Mix: 8 (DD 5.1 downmix of Atmos on my 4.1 basement system [see "About"])

Fidelity: 9

(average 8.67, rounds to 9)


I bought my 1st EJ album, Caribou, at the JC Penney store in the Blue Ridge Mall in the summer of 1974, checking Wikipedia, I see I have most of his albums and videos/concert videos on LP, CC, CD, SACD, VHS, CED, LD, DVD, Blu-ray.


Kirk Bayne

 

[Guy Robinson]

While I am waiting for my physical copy to get posted I borrowed it from someone else in the meantime. This is outstanding. The mixes are incredible. Love the volume of the backing vocals in the back channels like on " Someone Save My Life Tonight". This is a 10.

 

[jaybird100]

When my copy arrived, I started by listening to my favorite tracks. This was especially eye-opening on the tracks that weren't on the SACD's. In fact, I still have a bruise on my chin from where it hit the floor! This may have been in Atmos, which I'm not set up for, but the 5.1 fold-down was more than enough to satisfy, True, some were better than others, but overall, I have to give this disc a 10.

 

[sjcorne]

My review of the Blu-Ray was just published over at IAA: https://immersiveaudioalbum.com/elton-john-diamonds-dolby-atmos/

I'm surprised to see some people aren't as enamored with the Atmos mixes of the post-1976 material. For me, "Song For Guy," "Nikita," and "Sacrifice" are among the best-sounding cuts on the disc. The handful of songs from those four '70s albums that didn't get the MC SACD treatment are also awesome. Surprisingly "Island Girl" might be the most surround-y track on the set (there are completely different elements playing simultaneously in the side, rear, and height speakers). "Daniel" is a highlight too, with the acoustics discretely panned to the side speakers and synth up top.

On the other hand, a few of the '70s tracks that were previously released in surround on SACD don't really gain that much in the jump to Atmos - for instance "Candle In The Wind" basically sounds like the old 5.1 mix, but with the back channel content (acoustic guitars and backing vocals) mixed across the side & rear speakers and the backing vocals lifted a bit into the rear heights. Fortunately, some of the other ones are more creative in utilizing the extra space: I particularly liked the side/rear seperation with the acoustics in "Your Song" and the horns in the height speakers throughout "Honky Cat".

 

[fredblue]

My review of the Blu-Ray was just published over at IAA: https://immersiveaudioalbum.com/elton-john-diamonds-dolby-atmos/

I'm surprised to see some people aren't as enamored with the Atmos mixes of the post-1976 material. For me, "Song For Guy," "Nikita," and "Sacrifice" are among the best-sounding cuts on the disc. The handful of songs from those four '70s albums that didn't get the MC SACD treatment are also awesome. Surprisingly "Island Girl" might be the most surround-y track on the set (there are completely different elements playing simultaneously in the side, rear, and height speakers). "Daniel" is a highlight too, with the acoustics discretely panned to the side speakers and synth up top.

On the other hand, a few of the '70s tracks that were previously released in surround on SACD don't really gain that much in the jump to Atmos - for instance "Candle In The Wind" basically sounds like the old 5.1 mix, but with the back channel content (acoustic guitars and backing vocals) mixed across the side & rear speakers and the backing vocals lifted a bit into the rear heights. Fortunately, some of the other ones are more creative in utilizing the extra space: I particularly liked the side/rear seperation with the acoustics in "Your Song" and the horns in the height speakers throughout "Honky Cat".

thank you for (yet another! ) fabulous article!!

totally agree with you, there's some real highlights among the post-70's tracks and in the 70's tracks that were never in Surround before.

"Blue Eyes" has had the proverbial veil lifted. the original Stereo was always kinda grungy and foggy and midrangeily nebulous, there's definition to the strings at last and Porcaro's perfectly judged playing is given the space and fidelity it deserves but never had until now and yet the Atmos feels authentic.

"Believe" is exquisite, Atmos showcasing Buckmaster's brilliant arrangement and so makes me hope the "Made In England" album gets a long overdue reissue, expanded to include outtakes since there are surprisingly quite a few, including "Red", "Leaves", "Hell", "Building A Bird" and an earlier rendition of "Live Like Horses", preferably all in Atmos!

the Thom Bell Productions are divine disco and sound spectacular with pizzicato plucking away among the lush MFSB strings in "Are You Ready For Love" & horns blasting in the Rears on "Mama Can't Buy You Love".

back to the 70's, "Sorry Seems To Be.." hints at how good some of those "Blue Moves" tracks must sound in Surround, "Sorry Seems To Be.." sounds so good on the Blu-ray, it's beautiful and as you say "Island Girl" is surprisingly intricate in Atmos and also gives an idea at how a remix might bring some kind of reappraisal and reveal hidden layers of the "Rock Of The Westies" album.

 

[califcab]

Mix - 10, content - 10, Value - 10. Really sounds awesome - demonstrates what Atmos can do to bring music back alive and make it new again. Best Atmos release since Who's Next/Lifehouse.

 

[JFHiggins]

thank you for (yet another! ) fabulous article!!

totally agree with you, there's some real highlights among the post-70's tracks and in the 70's tracks that were never in Surround before.

"Blue Eyes" has had the proverbial veil lifted. the original Stereo was always kinda grungy and foggy and midrangeily nebulous, there's definition to the strings at last and Porcaro's perfectly judged playing is given the space and fidelity it deserves but never had until now and yet the Atmos feels authentic.

"Believe" is exquisite, Atmos showcasing Buckmaster's brilliant arrangement and so makes me hope the "Made In England" album gets a long overdue reissue, expanded to include outtakes since there are surprisingly quite a few, including "Red", "Leaves", "Hell", "Building A Bird" and an earlier rendition of "Live Like Horses", preferably all in Atmos!

the Thom Bell Productions are divine disco and sound spectacular with pizzicato plucking away among the lush MFSB strings in "Are You Ready For Love" & horns blasting in the Rears on "Mama Can't Buy You Love".

back to the 70's, "Sorry Seems To Be.." hints at how good some of those "Blue Moves" tracks must sound in Surround, "Sorry Seems To Be.." sounds so good on the Blu-ray, it's beautiful and as you say "Island Girl" is surprisingly intricate in Atmos and also gives an idea at how a remix might bring some kind of reappraisal and reveal hidden layers of the "Rock Of The Westies" album.

It's like you read my mind...er, ears!

 

[quadrifonico]

Stereo layer good as expected.
Large selection of songs.
CERTAIN songs sound good in Atmos (ROCKET man is the best, a fun mix with lots of movement but never confused).
Lots of bass! I don't need to turn up my subwoofer
Easy menu (I open track list with a single click on remote).
Beautiful case with cardboard sleeve.


I would have included some songs (and excluded others).
I still prefer the 5.1 mixes on the older Elton SACDs.
The Atmos mixing approach varies too much from track to track, is inconsistent.
Animations are just two or three drawings repeated over and over.

In the end I'm happy of my purchase BUT why not including brand new 5.1 remixes? Not those on SACD but new ones!

 

[CINERAMAX]

I am spoiled by Rodríguez Junior Tape 2 and lithium, plus Booka Shade's plexus 2 am and Gentle Giant Design separation, It needed more acrobatic object pirouette's by my score.

 

[fredblue]

Stereo layer good as expected.
Large selection of songs.
CERTAIN songs sound good in Atmos (ROCKET man is the best, a fun mix with lots of movement but never confused).
Lots of bass! I don't need to turn up subwoofer
Easy menu (I open track list with a single click on remote).
Beautiful case with cardboard sleeve.


I would have included some songs (and excluded others).
The majority of songs still sound better on the previous generation of 5.1 SACDs.
The Atmos mixing approach varies too much from track to track, is inconsistent.
Animations are just two or three drawings repeated over and over.

In the end I'm happy of my purchase BUT why not including brand new 5.1 remixes? Not those on SACD but new ones!

factually, while i respect your opinion and do not wish to come across as contentious, the majority of these songs cannot physically have sounded "better on the previous generation of 5.1 SACDs" as you suggest because 37 of the 48 Atmos tracks on "Diamonds" were never previously released in 5.1 Surround.

 

[fredblue]

on a more subjective note rather than on a matter of fact, personally i'm absolutely delighted Greg Penny didn't choose to simply "set and forget" the controls with his "Diamonds" Atmos mixes.

if he had just doggedly (some might say 'lazily'?) re-used the same cookie cutter template for each and every track with the exact same mixing approach to Atmos wouldn't that have felt samey and got old fairly quickly?

that he opted to mix each track in Surround with such thought, care, variety and artistic licence as he felt befitting for each song resulted in what i feel is a much more interesting experience.

especially so with 3+ hours of music in Atmos, if every song was mixed the exact same way might it all start to sound a bit lacklustre, not sure..!?

 

[quadrifonico]

factually, while i respect your opinion and do not wish to come across as contentious, the majority of these songs cannot physically have sounded "better on the previous generation of 5.1 SACDs" as you suggest because 37 of the 48 Atmos tracks on "Diamonds" were never previously released in 5.1 Surround.

yes, you are right; i instinctively compared those tracks that already exist on multichannel SACD

 

[quadrifonico]

on a more subjective note rather than on a matter of fact, personally i'm absolutely delighted Greg Penny didn't choose to simply "set and forget" the controls with his "Diamonds" Atmos mixes.

if he had just doggedly (some might say 'lazily'?) re-used the same cookie cutter template for each and every track with the exact same mixing approach to Atmos wouldn't that have felt samey and got old fairly quickly?

that he opted to mix each track in Surround with such thought, care, variety and artistic licence as he felt befitting for each song resulted in what i feel is a much more interesting experience.

especially so with 3+ hours of music in Atmos, if every song was mixed the exact same way might it all start to sound a bit lacklustre, not sure..!?

and i partially agree again, sure; and is also why i voted 8: i know that others might like that different approach for each track, but again if i hear lots of objects moving in one song my brain expects something similar in the next and so on....Atmos is capable of basically endless interpretations...you can use a different perspective for each album you remix....but i prefer to spot differences of approach from album to album, not between tracks of the same let's say

 

[fredblue]

yes, you are right; i instinctively compared those tracks that already exist on multichannel SACD

i know i often come across as a silly billy or a pedantic prat, or just an annoying git, or all 3 at the same time! but i do like to be fair and absolutely agree that instant and instinctive comparisons between the old 5.1 and the Atmos on the 11 tracks previously released in Surround are fair game and perfectly natural.

i did the exact same thing myself when i first heard the new Atmos mixes streaming on Apple Music and tried to weigh up the pro's and con's of the (to me still superb) old 5.1's up against the Atmos and to me the new mixes show that while Greg Penny's refined his style somewhat he's still got the knack. i still love what he does, even if at times it feels dialled back a tad by comparison, most of what he does still to me feels as polished, accomplished and satisfyingly immersive as it ever was

 

[quadrifonico]

yes, you are right; i instinctively compared those tracks that already exist on multichannel SACD

i edited my post (my comparison with older SACD mixes was not clear enough, yes)

 

[fredblue]

and i partially agree again, sure; and is also why i voted 8: i know that others might like that different approach for each track, but again if i hear lots of objects moving in one song my brain expects something similar in the next and so on....Atmos is capable of basically endless interpretations...you can use a different perspective for each album you remix....but i prefer to spot differences of approach from album to album, not between tracks of the same let's say

i understand and respect where you are coming from even if i do not share the sentiment

 

[fredblue]

i edited my post (my comparison with older SACD mixes was not clear enough, yes)

nice one! thank you

 

[stoopid]

The other consideration is that not all source material spanning a career this vast will be similar. Especially older tracks, instruments and vocal parts were often mixed down (aka "bounced") to make room for other things, it's not an endless supply of individual tracks like in modern digital production. Even if someone wanted to replicate a concept of a plan so every track was 'identical', there would inevitably be a gulf they wouldn't be able to bridge and differences/compromises result. It's generally easier with well produced studio albums to have track to track mix consistency, but across albums (and technological eras in studio production) is an unreasonable expectation IMHO.

 

[quadrifonico]

The other consideration is that not all source material spanning a career this vast will be similar. Especially older tracks, instruments and vocal parts were often mixed down to make room for other things, it's not an endless supply of individual tracks like in modern digital production. Even if someone wanted to replicate a concept of a plan so every track was 'identical', there would inevitably be a gulf they wouldn't be able to bridge and differences/compromises result. It's generally easier with well produced studio albums to have track to track mix consistency, but across albums (and technological eras in studio production) is an unreasonable expectation IMHO.

yes, yes though as you read in my comment, i find ROCKET man the best Atmos track here, not one of the more recent