HiRez Poll Oldfield, Mike - TUBULAR BELLS [Blu-Ray Audio (Dolby Atmos)]

[jaybird100]

This was worth it for all the included content. It would have been nice to have included the 2003 re-recording.

I agree, but was there enough room on the disc to include it? That could be why it wasn't part of this release. The 2003 version is worth seeking out on the DVD-A.

 

[boxhead]

I agree, but was there enough room on the disc to include it? That could be why it wasn't part of this release. The 2003 version is worth seeking out on the DVD-A.

There's more than enough room on the Blu-ray. I was just looking at the ISO image today and it's only 13GB. A single layer Blu-ray can hold 25GB

 

[Matt Wilson]

a 10!

 

[baward]

I bought this a few months ago. It finally came, I listened to it, and decided that actually, I have in the intervening years, gone off it. So I promptly sold it on (and as I detest the price-gougers as much as the next person, I sold it for about the same price as I had bought it for.)

 

[Dynamic Editor]

Aha! I believe I spotted an error, and possibly two, on Part 2 of the Quad mix on the album. The front left channel appears to be 3,998 (or so) samples too early (at 96kHz; equating to about 0.04 seconds). It's long enough to make the shared elements between the front channels sound like different overdubs.

Also, I suspect the loudness after 21:48 is incorrect. The dialogue is oddly loud in the front left channel compared to the rest (the back channels have it mixed at identical loudness), and oddly quiet in the front right channel (even quieter than the back channels). If you take the audio after 24:48 in the front channels, make the front left channel 3dB quieter and the front right channel 3dB louder, the dialogue becomes present in the center of the surround sound field.

Below is a portion of that dialogue section, where you can see both the issues. And yes, I believe the entirety of the front left channel during this song is out of sync, given my tests with a correlometer.
View attachment 92290

I showed these edits of mine to @Owen Smith and they said it fixed all their issues with the mix that they noted here: HiRez Poll - Oldfield, Mike - TUBULAR BELLS [Blu-Ray Audio (Dolby Atmos)]

 

[Jedburgh]

The recording is definitely the weakest part of TB 2003, but the 5.1 is exceptional. Some might call it gimmicky, but it makes fantastic use of the medium

I have the 2003 DVD-A re-recording and never liked it at all, I believe “gimmicky” is the right word - a really bad use of surround with instruments circling around, weird pans - and worst of all John Cleese. The original recording and the new Atmos mix is much, much better…I give the new release a clear 10, outstanding…

I can also suggest reading this old review of the 2003 re- recording: Mike Oldfield - ‘Tubular Bells 2003’ A DVD-Audio review by Stuart M. Robinson - HighFidelityReview - Hi-Fi systems, DVD-Audio and SACD reviews

 

[Owen Smith]

I showed these edits of mine to @Owen Smith and they said it fixed all their issues with the mix that they noted here: HiRez Poll - Oldfield, Mike - TUBULAR BELLS [Blu-Ray Audio (Dolby Atmos)]

And listening to this correction confirmed my view that the quad is thoroughly ruined on the blu ray and I need to keep my SACD.

 

[RustyM]

View attachment 92299


My two copies of Tubular Bells have arrived. (Twobular Bells?). Yeah, that's right, two copies. Hey, I don't have a problem!

Anyway, just having listened to the new Atmos downmixed to 5.1, I gotta say it sounds wonderful. I've heard lots of Atmos mixes that don't downmix to 5.1 very well, but this one does just fine. If you had told me that it was a dedicated 5.1 mix I would have believed it. Kosten respects the original stereo mix that everyone has known and loved for fifty years but manages to present it in a fully discreet and immersive surround field. Can't wait to get over to a friend's place who has a full Atmos setup to hear what it sounds like in full blown Atmos. Having said that, this is an album that I've listened to a gazillion times since I first heard it circa 1980. And I did notice two places where the balance wasn't quite right. About 7:45 into part one, there is a melodic element that seems to be completely missing. And during part two's caveman heavy rock section, the lead guitars don't scream out as loudly as they do in the original stereo. Maybe these bits are just because I am not set up for full Atmos. Anyway, this was a thoroughly enjoyable listen. Will check out the other layers in the coming days.

Hard to believe that Mike was only nineteen years old when he recorded it. I was very fortunate to see Mike play the whole thing live in 1982. Mike did a good bit of touring in Europe, but he only ever performed nine concerts in the USA in his entire career. I've been to somewhere around eight hundred concerts in my lifetime so naturally there are plenty that I don't particularly remember. But that evening in Boston on 4/17/82 still sticks out in my mind. The performances of both halves of the album brought the house down. Plus he also played the first side of Ommadawn and almost all of Five Miles Out. One helluva show.

Bring on the SDE Hergest Ridge 50th anniversary blu-ray in 2024!

I enjoyed your review.

 

[RustyM]

It's funny how time can change your perspective. Working at a University radio station back in the seventies, I pulled this LP from the shelf and gave it a spin. Everyone enjoyed the part associated with The Exorcist, but the rest of the album, to me, was an odd duck. I am very happy I purchased this HFPA. It is thrilling as well as entertaining. It will put your speakers and listening room to the test. One bass frequency rattled my CD collection on the shelf! WOW!

 

[alansanchez86]

who mixed this atmos mix? (50th anniversary)

 

[sjcorne]

who mixed this atmos mix? (50th anniversary)

David Kosten.

 

[par4ken]

I bought this for the quad version, which is excellent. My only complaint would be, as someone else said that it focuses on the front and then the back alternately in an attempt to get the best out of the original SQ encoding/decoding process,

The 5.1 was great as well, even more immersive than the quad, My only complaint is it no longer sounds like the "Tubular Bells" that I remember. Interesting to read the liner notes, much of "the sound" of the original was done with the mixing process. David Kosten did his best to try to emulate but IMHO didn't quite hit it, to me it sounds like a different recording altogether.

One of my first exposures to CD was listening to "Tubular Bells". The music is iconic, at least part one, part two less so. On the downside is it becomes rather repetitive. It's not something that I would listen to very often.

 

[Alex Vlach]

And listening to this correction confirmed my view that the quad is thoroughly ruined on the blu ray and I need to keep my SACD.

I thought the Quad included on this Blu-ray was the original from 1975, just like on the SACD from 2001, is that not the case? Is this Quad different?

 

[quicksrt]

I've now listened to the quad SACD, set to convert to PCM in my Oppo 95 so it gets the speaker delays and generally has the same treatment as the Blu Ray.
Well there's definitely differences to the quad on the Blu Ray:

1) Blu Ray seems EQ'd brighter, fair enough that sort of thing happens
2) Blu Ray is front left dominant from about half way in, SACD is not
3) Blu Ray shows instruments I've never heard before and are not apparent on the SACD, particularly rear right
4) In the sailor's hornpipe at the end, on the Blu Ray Vivian Stanshall is solidly front left and the tromping around the speakers makes no sense. In the SACD Vivian Stanshall sounds rear centre but actually comes out of all speakers and the tromping around the speakers makes sense.

Frankly it sounds like a re-mix. I know it makes no sense that they'd re-mix the 1975 quad, but I don't see how it could come out sounding this different especially the sailor's hornpipe.

Which would I listen to for the quad? The SACD every time, it makes far more musical sense than the Blu Ray.

What have they done to the quad on the Blu Ray? "Buggered if I know!" to quote Vivian Stanshall.

I thought the Quad included on this Blu-ray was the original from 1975, just like on the SACD from 2001, is that not the case? Is this Quad different?

(1975 Quad on SACD) BR is said to have some level imbalances compared to the SACD from some years back.

(1975 Quad on SACD) Owen Smith makes assertion that there is some mix differences (which have not been verified by others). And I have been interested in this issue since this thread stared.

 

[Dynamic Editor]

I talked earlier about how Part 2 of the quad mix on the Blu-Ray appears to have one of its main channels out of sync with the rest of the mix, and how there seems to be level imbalances after 21:48 in Part 2.

 

[Alex Vlach]

(1975 Quad on SACD) BR is said to have some level imbalances compared to the SACD from some years back.

(1975 Quad on SACD) Owen Smith makes assertion that there is some mix differences (which have not been verified by others). And I have been interested in this issue since this thread stared.

Thanks quicksrt, i re-read this entire thread since posting earlier and obtained my answers starting with post #10 by Owen Smith. It's been a real challenge trying to sort out the many versions of this album, let alone finding out that even the Quad mixes are different!

 

[Alex Vlach]

I talked earlier about how Part 2 of the quad mix on the Blu-Ray appears to have one of its main channels out of sync with the rest of the mix, and how there seems to be level imbalances after 21:48 in Part 2.

Yup, saw that. I need to get my hands on the 2001 SACD for the 'correct' Quad version.

 

[quicksrt]

I talked earlier about how Part 2 of the quad mix on the Blu-Ray appears to have one of its main channels out of sync with the rest of the mix, and how there seems to be level imbalances after 21:48 in Part 2.

Do you own the older Virgin SACD of the '75 Quad mix?

 

[Dynamic Editor]

Do you own the older Virgin SACD of the '75 Quad mix?

I do not.

 

[Owen Smith]

I talked earlier about how Part 2 of the quad mix on the Blu-Ray appears to have one of its main channels out of sync with the rest of the mix, and how there seems to be level imbalances after 21:48 in Part 2.

And that might explain why I think I heard instruments rear right that I couldn't with the SACD. With the channels out of sync and the levels wrong, it's hard to draw proper conclusions on anything else until that is corrected.

And note this was issued on SQ LP and CD (the CD is in Mike Oldfield Boxed, individual CDs are not SQ encoded) so another comparison would be against an SQ decode.