Moody Blues "To Our Children's Children's Children" (New Stephen W Tayler 5.1 Mix!)

[Perp]

And, here I thought this was a brand new mix derived from the original Master Tapes.

 

[edisonbaggins]

Maybe @Stephen W Tayler just paid close attention to the Quad mix?

 

[stoopid]

Maybe @Stephen W Tayler just paid close attention to the Quad mix?

SW (non T) intentionally tries to follow those types of details when creating surround mixes, so that's a fair guestimation that it's a thing for surround producers/mixers.

 

[ar surround]

Maybe @Stephen W Tayler just paid close attention to the Quad mix?

If he did, then I am glad. That quad mix is excellent.

 

[fredblue]

interesting, i thought aspects of the waveforms for the Quad and 5.1 maybe bore some similarities but moved on and thought no more of it

Ye Olde Quadde on the 2006 SACD;

New 2022 5.1 SWT mix on Blu-ray;

edit: these pix represent an overview of waveforms for all 13 songs at a glance.

as you can see, the Quad on the SACD is effectively 4-channel with no discernible musical content in the Centre or LFE

 

[tlake6659]

interesting, i thought aspects of the waveforms for the Quad and 5.1 maybe bore some similarities but moved on and thought no more of it

Ye Olde Quadde on the 2006 SACD;

View attachment 91558

New 2022 5.1 SWT mix on Blu-ray;

View attachment 91559

edit: these pix represent an overview of waveforms for all 13 songs at a glance.

as you can see, the Quad on the SACD is effectively 4-channel with no discernible musical content in the Centre or LFE

Thanks for the waveforms. Always helpful.

 

[ar surround]

The 5.1 of Gypsy. No brickwalling here.

 

[fredblue]

The 5.1 of Gypsy. No brickwalling here.

View attachment 91574

how do you find other aspects of the mastering, such as EQ?

 

[ar surround]

how do you find other aspects of the mastering, such as EQ?

As you noted in your earlier post (#276), it sounds more "forward," or what I stated in my review as more "in your face" than the SACD quad. I would say that these elements are simply more emphasized, but not "brighter" sounding than the SACD.

 

[fredblue]

As you noted in your earlier post (#276), it sounds more "forward," or what I stated in my review as more "in your face" than the SACD quad. I would say that these elements are simply more emphasized, but not "brighter" sounding than the SACD.

hmm.. you know, i'm not sure if it's gonna grow on me or grate on me over time.. there's nothing particularly up with the mix in terms of placement and so on, it's just the overall sound feels kinda "edgy" and yes, as you say, "forward", a bit like some of the APP 5.1's maybe?

 

[ss9001]

I don't have my copy yet (cleared customs Monday) so am commenting on ar surround's waveforms.

Some parts of the 5.1 he showed above to me do look more compressed than the quad SACD. Not brickwalled per se but more uniformly louder closer to the edge. I can understand why you all say more forward. Another loudness wars casualty?

I hope it's not really as edgy as parts of the waveform look to my eyes.

 

[Albert Dagger]

The stereo remix is much more forward than the original, which is seriously veiled in most parts. This is great in some parts and problematic in others. I personally prefer less emphasis on the treble.
My impression is only based on a brief comparison of the original stereo mix and the new stereo mix via Tidal. I haven't heard the surround mix.

 

[ar surround]

hmm.. you know, i'm not sure if it's gonna grow on me or grate on me over time.. there's nothing particularly up with the mix in terms of placement and so on, it's just the overall sound feels kinda "edgy" and yes, as you say, "forward", a bit like some of the APP 5.1's maybe?

I wouldn’t use the term “edgy.” Side one of Ammonia Avenue, is definitely edgy sounding. I never get that feeling while listening to this new 5.1.

I would further describe this new mix, at least on some tracks, like going from the stereo version to the quad version of the song Lovely To See You, although not as dramatic.

 

[channelar]

how do you find other aspects of the mastering, such as EQ?

I would have expected to see more reviews of this set by now. The comments so far are fairly underwhelming. This is my favourite Moody Blues album, but after the underwhelming ISOTLC box set of a few years ago (my other favourite), I'm unsure where to go. I reserved a copy for the moment, but the cost is high, the absence of Atmos limits its longevity and so far it appears the SACD might be better. Keen for some reassurance the set is worth it. I can still cancel the reserve.

 

[edisonbaggins]

I would have expected to see more reviews of this set by now. The comments so far are fairly underwhelming. This is my favourite Moody Blues album, but after the underwhelming ISOTLC box set of a few years ago (my other favourite), I'm unsure where to go. I reserved a copy for the moment, but the cost is high, the absence of Atmos limits its longevity and so far it appears the SACD might be better. Keen for some reassurance the set is worth it. I can still cancel the reserve.

FWIW, I (on behalf of Life in Surround), will happily digest and report on a review copy, if one can be sent. The price, as of yet, has just been too high to pull the trigger otherwise.

 

[channelar]

FWIW, I (on behalf of Life in Surround), will happily digest and report on a review copy, if one can be sent. The price, as of yet, has just been too high to pull the trigger otherwise.

Saw a first enthusiastic review on the 'SACD, DVD-A & Blu-Ray Audio Audiophiles' Group on FaceBook. Hope I'm not breaking any protocol. Screenshots follow

 

[ar surround]

I would have expected to see more reviews of this set by now. The comments so far are fairly underwhelming. This is my favourite Moody Blues album, but after the underwhelming ISOTLC box set of a few years ago (my other favourite), I'm unsure where to go. I reserved a copy for the moment, but the cost is high, the absence of Atmos limits its longevity and so far it appears the SACD might be better. Keen for some reassurance the set is worth it. I can still cancel the reserve.

In no way should this new 5.1 of TOCCC be compared to the ISOTLC of several years ago. That ISOTLC 5.1 is an upmix and a lousy one a that...a massive piece of **** of biblical proportions.

 

[jefe1]

I have just had my first listen to the 5.1 DTS mix turned up loud.
The sound is just wonderful unlike that abortion of a box mix a few years ago.
I also have the SACD. Don't have time to compare.
Now listening to the Albert Hall concert. Very clear and I can hear the bass.
Yes its priced too high and if I did not get the Burning Shed deal I would have passed.
Boy the drums on the live Gypsy can really be heard
So far no regrets buying this.

 

[svengaleekie]

Jumping in on the "Edgy" "Bright" "Forward" debate, on my first listening my thoughts were "Strident" & "Bright", certainly for the first few tracks, becoming less obvious toward the end of the album, maybe I just get used to it by then?

 

[sjcorne]

Any merit to this SHF listener's claim that the new 5.1 & stereo mixes were somehow derived from the quad master?

interesting, i thought aspects of the waveforms for the Quad and 5.1 maybe bore some similarities but moved on and thought no more of it

Here's the first 30 seconds of "Gypsy" - rear channels only - from the original quad reel, SACD, and Blu-Ray. I'm fairly certain than all three are sourced from the same four-channel master mixed by Tony Clarke & Derek Varnals.

If the multitracks no longer exist and the quad tapes are all that's available, I'm not sure why they couldn't give us an unaltered transfer of the quad mix instead of (twice now!) trying to doctor them up into a pseudo-5.1 experience.