DVD/DTS Poll Oldfield, Mike - Hergest Ridge [DD DVD+2CD]

[jdmack]

Hey JD,
Your last post baffled me a bit, but sounds like you've done your own remix. Sounds great. Did you manage to edit out the strange banjo hybrid bit in Part 1 ?

That was one of the sections where I edited in the quad conversion from the standard CD. There was no other way to fix that section as the reverb of the banjo-y sound was in all the speakers.

J. D.

 

[Failed Muso]

A really nice package of a great album let down by the fact it's only in DD. A DTS version would've been nice to have, if DVD-A or SACD wasn't an option, so this drops it a point. Definitely worth getting

 

[fredblue]

A really nice package of a great album let down by the fact it's only in DD. A DTS version would've been nice to have, if DVD-A or SACD wasn't an option, so this drops it a point. Definitely worth getting

Mike's on Universal nowadays, so you never know we might get blu-ray's of all these 5.1 mixes.

Tubular Bells in 5.1 HD seems like a no-brainer for UMG's first batch of "HFPA" BD-A releases to me.

 

[Failed Muso]

Mike's on Universal nowadays, so you never know we might get blu-ray's of all these 5.1 mixes.

Tubular Bells in 5.1 HD seems like a no-brainer for UMG's first batch of "HFPA" BD-A releases to me.

I bought the 5.1 FLAC from Bowers & Wilkins "Society of Sound" club some while back and created my own DVD-A from it. It does sound very good in uncompressed 5.1, I must say

 

[Neil Palfreyman]

I always loved this Oldfield album and think the surround remix does an excellent job overall. It's discrete and tastefully done and although a little "clunky" in places this just reflects the original - I suspect it was a bit of a bitch to remix! A few reviewers have said "not aggressive enough" but I disagree; I think its use of the surround channels is well balanced - accentuates the music with distinctly positioned parts without going gimmicky. It's also widely marked down for being DD but at around 6-7 Mbps it's not actually that heavily compressed and in fact sounds better than some DTS. Overall a very enjoyable listen.

 

[LizardKing]

I always loved this Oldfield album and think the surround remix does an excellent job overall. It's discrete and tastefully done and although a little "clunky" in places this just reflects the original - I suspect it was a bit of a bitch to remix! A few reviewers have said "not aggressive enough" but I disagree; I think its use of the surround channels is well balanced - accentuates the music with distinctly positioned parts without going gimmicky. It's also widely marked down for being DD but at around 6-7 Mbps it's not actually that heavily compressed and in fact sounds better than some DTS. Overall a very enjoyable listen.

I really like the mix on this too... I think he's done a great job...

In relation to the Dolby digital stream it is the standard 448k... The rest of the stream will be for the video....

 

[Neil Palfreyman]

Ahhh - thanks for pointing that out! I stand corrected. Bloody shame they used the bandwidth for the video! Even so it still sounds heaps better than most DDs

 

[Franklin]

This could be my favourite album out of Oldfield's first three. I especially like the pastoral section on side (oops - part) one. The surround mix again is generally excellent with major separation between front and rear yet maintaining a great cohesiveness. The biggest let down for me is that much of part two seems to use the rear right channel far more dominently than the rear left, to the point that I found myself getting up to check the rear left to check that anything was coming out of it. I would also like more silence at the end of Part Two before a return to the audio menu - or no audio on the menu at all. The visuals at first are quite interesting as they are (I assume) an aerial shot of Hergest Ridge. The animated gliders don't really work for me though! I'm currently thinking 6 or 7 mainly because of the rear right lopsidedness in part 2, and to a lesser extent because it's not my favourite music.

 

[Cibola]

This one arrived today. I bought it blind on a recent QQ mention but unfortunately can't recall who it was to give thanks. I listened while getting things done this evening and thoroughly enjoyed it. The first thing I noticed after loading it was the prominence of the surrounds and the non localized bass, which at first seemed to also be coming from my modest surrounds. Turns out the really low stuff was indeed from the sub but it was nicely room filling. It is Dolby 5.1, still, looking forward to giving it a proper listen.

 

[edisonbaggins]

I went with 7 for many of the reasons already mentioned. This is definitely worth getting, but far from Oldfield's best and not exactly demo material.

 

[Franklin]

I'm currently thinking 6 or 7 mainly because of the rear right lopsidedness in part 2, and to a lesser extent because it's not my favourite music.

Well I must have been having system issues as I'm playing it now and it is not lopsided in the rears. Brilliant mix. The music is definitely not for everybody, but the mix is so enveloping: not over dry, not drenched in reverb, and not boring. Mike Oldfield really gets 5.1 mixing - or at least to my tastes he does. I don't know this album well enough to spot elements in the stereo mix that may not have made it to the surround mix(es), so I can't comment on them. It would have been nice to have the bonus tracks in 5.1 too. (Or the quad mix for that matter, as it hasn't had an unmatrixed release digitally.) I'm currently thinking an 8.

EDIT: But it appears I've already voted a 7.

 

[skherbeck]

Excellent surround mix; really discrete and immersive. Sound quality is perfect to my ears, even in dolby (although my disc seems to have a "buzz" glitch around the 17:22-17:27 mark of Part One... could be a problem with my disc alone, so I'm not considering it in my vote... also easily fixed); content is mixed for me... I love part 1; part 2 loses me when the loud synthesizers kick in. Overall 3 for mix; 3 for fidelity; 1.5 for content (I like half of it alot!). Rounds up to 8.

 

[naiveteenidol]

Bought this this last week ... I love the opening to this more than almost anything else Oldfield did. The surround mix is great – tho I just picked up the 1976 Boxed remix on Discogs bc a friend loves that mix the best for its dreamier, more ambient qualities. I’d give this one a 9.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Muppet69]

Bought this this last week ... I love the opening to this more than almost anything else Oldfield did. The surround mix is great – tho I just picked up the 1976 Boxed remix on Discogs bc a friend loves that mix the best for its dreamier, more ambient qualities. I’d give this one a 9.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I understood that the “boxed”version which was a stereo version of the quad mix is the one Oldfield had decided should be used ever since “boxed” came out as he preferred it from the original mix and is the one on this edition of HR. Or am I mistaken?

 

[naiveteenidol]

No, it’s a new stereo mix, the 1974 mix, his demo and a new 5.1 mix. Boxed mix is out of print currently.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Muppet69]

No, it’s a new stereo mix, the 1974 mix, his demo and a new 5.1 mix. Boxed mix is out of print currently.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

See I knew I was wrong! Thanks for the clarification