Got the 5.1 version now. Why is everyone so convinced that 'Could You be Loved" is an upmix? Certainly the booklet notes (which are rather skimpy) give no clue. They dont say whether the 2 channel versions on the CD and BD are Bob Clearmountain's either, or the same as the previous stereo-only BluRay (excepting the alternate tracks of course)
HiRez Poll Marley, Bob - LEGEND (30th Anniversary) [BluRay Audio]
- Thread starter JonUrban
- Start date
Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:
Better yet - what do you think of the disc audio??
Why would that be 'better yet' than my questions?
1) why is it said that the 2.0 Bluray was no good? Is this in comparison to the 2.0 CD and BluRay mixes found on the surround Bluray? Or to the 5.1 mixes (which of course is apples to oranges)
2) why is it said that the 5.1 'Could You Be Loved' is an upmix?
1) why is it said that the 2.0 Bluray was no good? Is this in comparison to the 2.0 CD and BluRay mixes found on the surround Bluray? Or to the 5.1 mixes (which of course is apples to oranges)
2) why is it said that the 5.1 'Could You Be Loved' is an upmix?
Good lord dude.....I was just curious what you thought about the disc...since you said you just got it. LOL.....no harm...no foul.
I'd like to have the person that gave this disc a 5 on this poll provide some reasons for that rating....I can't see who voted because I have already voted...maybe they got the first version...but when you give a rating like that when 9's and 10's are being given it just makes me wonder what the problem was...
LizardKing
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
You can click on the numbers on the right hand side (e.g. the 27) & you'll see who voted what....
10 from me BTW....
- This is probably my disc of the year....
As far as I can tell, all you have to do is click on the "number" and it will then open up who voted in the various catagories.
I have ssully on my ignore list so I can't read their posts but I saw you quoted them a couple of times here.. as I understand it, the first HFPA BDA (stereo only) release is a unique mastering (uniquely terrible!) it's loud & compressed for the most part with some odd volume level fluctuations from track to track and in a couple of instances there are weird "pumping" noises! It's truly dreadful in every way imho. The stereo on the "new" 30th Ann'vy is quite different and much nicer, though it is still loud unfortunately. The only great digital stereo I've ever heard of this set is the old Barry Diament mastered CD (BMW CD1; 846-210-2) it's common and goes for peanuts so I'd say get that, screw any BD for stereo and enjoy the wonderful new 5.1 when you're in the mood/in your sweet spot/on the baccy!
A "5"..?! :yikes ..and a "6"..!!
@:Come on.. that's gotta be the wrong disc! This is an easy QQ "10" from a surround p.o.v.
I have ssully on my ignore list so I can't read their posts but I saw you quoted them a couple of times here.. as I understand it, the first HFPA BDA (stereo only) release is a unique mastering (uniquely terrible!) it's loud & compressed for the most part with some odd volume level fluctuations from track to track and in a couple of instances there are weird "pumping" noises! It's truly dreadful in every way imho. The stereo on the "new" 30th Ann'vy is quite different and much nicer, though it is still loud unfortunately. The only great digital stereo I've ever heard of this set is the old Barry Diament mastered CD (BMW CD1; 846-210-2) it's common and goes for peanuts so I'd say get that, screw any BD for stereo and enjoy the wonderful new 5.1 when you're in the mood/in your sweet spot/on the baccy!
That ignore function is probably my next move also....first version HERE 30th anniversary edition HERE..as you said it's universally bad
A "5"..?! :yikes ..and a "6"..!!
Come on.. that's gotta be the wrong disc! This is an easy QQ "10" from a surround p.o.v.
That's what I'm thinking...the 6 voter has never posted on the forum..newbie.. so we won't get an explanation from that source...so hopefully the 5 voter stops by to provide an explanation...in any case it's a shame that the ratings have been diluted in this manner on such a fine disc...
blue.monk
1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Hey Adam! I've seen no documentation but you can bet the farm that it's an upmix:
Center is stereo track summed dry to mono
Fronts are stereo track with added reverb
Rears are simply reverb and delay trails of the stereo mix
No discrete elements in any channel save for what was on the original stereo (left, right channels). Upmix without doubt. The rest of the disc is, of course, fantastic!
That appears to be 2.0 vs 5.1 -- so, apples to oranges.
The fairer comparison might be HERE to HERE. Still different, but not quite as.
Both sound good to me, btw. I don't take the low DR numbers -- derived from crest factors -- generated by tools like TT Meter as automatically meaning 'bad' sound, the way the makers of that loudness war website appear to. For reasons why, see Ian Shepherd's videos, and the discussion here. I don't generally bang on about compression except when I'm making the point that when the industry sells you 'hi rez' product, it doesn't necessarily mean 'wide dynamic range'. That's rather underhanded of them, and I'd rather have a 'true' dynamic range that's on a master tape (if it's an analog source), but in practice, for me at least, it's the *EQ* choices that really make or break a mastering.
timothyemerson
1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Yeah, I found the initial 2.0-only BD release to sound head and shoulders above any previous CDs. Low DR numbers don't automatically make for a bad sounding release for me either. Obviously, there's no need for low DR at all on a BD though.
Having said that, Bob Clearmountain's 5.1 BD is the way to go here if someone's on the fence about which version to purchase. Some listeners might want to pick up the initial 2.0 one too though as it has the live version of track 2 on it. I'll be keeping mine.
Didn't even know about the DR database until recently, but I did buy the stereo version and rated that a 5 my ears are a good judge seeing the ratings today. But I knew the disc was too good to give up on it, so I bought the cd/blu-ray 5.1 release and that is a 9. Still have the stereo disc.....Mehhh. So to clarify the stereo 5, the 5.1, 9
Edit: Good to be able to change this, I was relatively new to the forum for this vote. Problem was I thought I was voting on the stereo version which I bought by accident. My vote caused a small uproar with at least one slHimey member at the time. Didn't feel like the stereo version needed to be explained it was poor and I thought 5 middle of the range was decent. Bought the correct surround version and baam quite a difference in Audio Nirvana and gave it a 9.
Edit: Good to be able to change this, I was relatively new to the forum for this vote. Problem was I thought I was voting on the stereo version which I bought by accident. My vote caused a small uproar with at least one slHimey member at the time. Didn't feel like the stereo version needed to be explained it was poor and I thought 5 middle of the range was decent. Bought the correct surround version and baam quite a difference in Audio Nirvana and gave it a 9.
Last edited:
Jon's explained before that its all weighted and so these rogue, or rather out of kilter, low votes don't have nearly as much impact or influence on a titles' standing as one might think.
even removing the DR question from the equation, the first HFPA release struck me as poor when I first got it and is still a disc (and I love this album) that I find lacking and that's being kind.
They can post all the charts and graphs and interpret the DR numbers any way they want...that first Legend blu ray was a piece of crap!
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
Latest posts
-
-
-
Listening to in Dolby Atmos Streaming, via Tidal/Apple/Amazon- Latest: SomethingAnything
-
