Pink Floyd - "Animals" 5.1 Surround Sound Mix (Blu-Ray & SACD editions out in September 2022!)

[ssully]

SW mentioned in interviews that when he does remixes, the first thing he does before doing the surround mix is matching the new stereo mix to the original mix.

I wish he actually succeeded more

 

[JediJoker]

I wish he actually succeeded more

I find he succeeds more often than not.

 

[madship]

This is the 2016 version
https://www.discogs.com/release/9431705-Pink-Floyd-Animals

That makes more sense.

 

[Muppet69]

I was looking at the details of the SACD on the Acoustic Sounds website and noticed that it includes as 2018 remix in: 1, hi-Rez stereo sacd, 2, 5.1 Multichannel sacd, 3, normal cd layer, 4, the original 1977 stereo mix too. Is that a miss print or am I reading it wrong?

 

[DuncanS]

I was looking at the details of the SACD on the Acoustic Sounds website and noticed that it includes as 2018 remix in: 1, hi-Rez stereo sacd, 2, 5.1 Multichannel sacd, 3, normal cd layer, 4, the original 1977 stereo mix too. Is that a miss print or am I reading it wrong?View attachment 81539

I think thats correct as we have had around 4 years of internal PF conflict over its release

 

[srbjab]

I've listened to my original CD mix and the 2018 remix of Dogs back to back (both via Apple Music) and I think the remix sounds great. It's clearer and richer, exhibiting much greater depth, separation and a wider soundstage. Most notable for me is the increased level of deep bass which helps correct the original mix's dryness and flatness. I have multiple subs in my system and do not find the bass excessive or overwhelming in any way. If the stereo sounds this good I can't wait for the 5.1 - although I'm not the biggest fan of previous PF surround mixes - fingers crossed!.

 

[Robert van Diggele]

I was looking at the details of the SACD on the Acoustic Sounds website and noticed that it includes as 2018 remix in: 1, hi-Rez stereo sacd, 2, 5.1 Multichannel sacd, 3, normal cd layer, 4, the original 1977 stereo mix too. Is that a miss print or am I reading it wrong?View attachment 81539

That would be the first 4 layer SACD?

 

[Muppet69]

That would be the first 4 layer SACD?

Indeed it would be. I’m thinking that it’s incorrect and it’s just stating who the engineer was first time around, could be wrong though.

 

[Tribby2001]

That would be the first 4 layer SACD?

No.

A Hybrid SACD's Redbook CD track is nominally limited to 74 minutes. Too small to include both the complete original and remix stereo programs.

You can have 110 minutes of stereo on the SACD DSD stereo track. Since Animals is nominally 42 minutes in length both the original and remix stereo program can both fit on the SACD DSD stereo track. So it's feasible!

We can hope and dream.

 

[JediJoker]

I’m thinking that it’s incorrect and it’s just stating who the engineer was first time around, could be wrong though.

That's my impression. Note how a layer isn't specified, as opposed to the other three options.

 

[SeeMoreDigital]

SACD layer info: Super Audio CD - Wikipedia

 

[key_wiz]

The new mix opens stuff up for sure. But it seems they gained clarity at the expense of some warmth.

I'll wait to hear it when released on the physical media before I make a final call on it.

 

[stoopid]

Burning Shed has the box the cheapest, at least I think. If I choose the cheapest shipping, it comes to ~$69

Nice.

 

[uselessoldman]

Animals was mastered in quad the reel to reel and vinyl have been available in quad for decades just like DSOTM WYWH and The Wall, I think a few others?? Anyway all the 5.1 does is add a front centre channel, wow how clever of them? The Discovery Box set had a copy of Animals in 5.1, I bet its the same one

 

[rontoon]

Animals was mastered in quad the reel to reel and vinyl have been available in quad for decades just like DSOTM WYWH and The Wall, I think a few others?? Anyway all the 5.1 does is add a front centre channel, wow how clever of them? The Discovery Box set had a copy of Animals in 5.1, I bet its the same one

Animals was never mixed in Quad. There's never been any evidence to support this. There were plans to do this at one time but for some reason they were scrapped. The Discovery Box set not only didn't contain a 5.1 mix of Animals, it doesn't even exist.

Your sarcasm betrays just how little you know about these things. Useless old man, indeed.

 

[Bill B]

Animals was never mixed in Quad. There's never been any evidence to support this. There were plans to do this at one time but for some reason they were scrapped. The Discovery Box set not only didn't contain a 5.1 mix of Animals, it doesn't even exist.

Your sarcasm betrays just how little you know about these things. Useless old man, indeed.

At least that explains why he was so unimpressed with the surround mix.... THERE WASN'T ONE.

 

[bookofsaturdays]

Animals was mastered in quad the reel to reel and vinyl have been available in quad for decades just like DSOTM WYWH and The Wall, I think a few others?? Anyway all the 5.1 does is add a front centre channel, wow how clever of them? The Discovery Box set had a copy of Animals in 5.1, I bet its the same one

When was The Wall mixed in quad? Do you own it?

 

[jimfisheye]

Animals was mastered in quad the reel to reel and vinyl have been available in quad for decades just like DSOTM WYWH and The Wall, I think a few others?? Anyway all the 5.1 does is add a front centre channel, wow how clever of them? The Discovery Box set had a copy of Animals in 5.1, I bet its the same one

Where's the punchline?
You can't just deliver dry sarcasm with false statements without a punchline!

 

[rontoon]

Where's the punchline?
You can't just deliver dry sarcasm with false statements without a punchline!

I think he's the punchline.

 

[atrocity]

But I'm sad at the lack of extras though. I was hoping for live versions, demos - hell, even the 8-track version of POTW!

I can overlook the lack of any previously-unreleased material, but the apparent omission of the 8-track POTW feels like a massive Eff Ewe to the fans.

I say "apparent omission" because I have a fantasy about it turning up as a Blu-ray Easter egg that will show itself via MakeMKV. (But, realistically, it won't, and I think that's a bit insulting.)