HiRez Poll Pink Floyd - DARK SIDE OF THE MOON (50TH ANNIVERSARY EDITION) [Blu-Ray Audio (Dolby Atmos)]

[ar surround]

I don't get it. I really don't. This Atmos mix is absolutely outstanding. When the discussion turns to which instrument comes out of which speaker at what volume now you're talking about another issue which is musical preference, not the actual mix quality.

I remember when The Beatles would put out two albums, one mono and one stereo. The mixes were quite often completely different and sometimes actually mixes of different takes. It's what the producer and artist prefer. I can sit here and say I like The Beatles "Rain" but hate the song mix because the drums aren't more prevalent. Obviously The Beatles and George Martin disagreed with me, at least at that time.

Atmos has been a great opportunity to increase the awareness and enjoyment of what is going on in the song and occasionally the footprint of the song changes due to over or under emphasizing certain aspects. Granted it is a little unnerving but who's to say the way we hear it now is what was originally intended? I look at it as it's just different. Not good different or bad different, just different.

More channels equals more opportunities for people to like, dislike or be neutral on a mix.

 

[madscot]

I’m halfway through my first Atmos listen and this is an easy 10, mind-blowing are the words that spring to mind, I used to think Alan Parsons quad mix was the dogs bollocks but this destroys it. Where has this James Guthrie been, I guess he had help with the mix?

 

[mandrix]

I’m halfway through my first Atmos listen and this is an easy 10, mind-blowing are the words that spring to mind, I used to think Alan Parsons quad mix was the dogs bollocks but this destroys it. Where has this James Guthrie been, I guess he had help with the mix?

Well Guthrie did the SACD 5.1 mix, which some people love and some people hate.

 

[VisionMan]

I was able to import a stand alone copy of the recent Atmos release of DSotM as remixed by Guthrie. Ads you all know, he also did the 2003 5.1 remix of DSotM that was released on SACD. So now I have a copy of each these mixes. My system has a 9.3.4 configuration, and I am a fan of the DTS Neural-X upmixer. So last night I compared the 5.1 SACD mix via The DTS Neural X upmixer to the Atmos version using my Marantz 8805 processor.

One major difference is that Guthrie's Atmos mix unfortunately does not use the front wides, they are silent, whereas the DTS Neural X includes them in the up mix algorithm. So if you have front wides wides and Neural X, the 5.1 has the edge in spaciousness and impact of the front sound stage, compared to the Atmos. And it is amazing how Neural X creates the rear surround channels from the 5.1 information; circular pans around the back are just as palpable from the unmixed 5.1 as via the Atmos. Of course, certain elements in the Atmos mix that are placed directly in the rear surrounds do not have the same specificity in the 5.1 mix. And the up mix generates considerable activity in the tops as well, which I have at 45/135 locations. Now in the Atmos, Guthrie places specific elements in the mix in various top locations that the up mix does not, but the overall sense of immersion produced by the 5.1 upmix, especially with the activity in the front wides included, is fully competitive with the Atmos mix. Both are very satisfying.

From a sheer sound quality standpoint, the 5.1 is easily as good as the Amos. My Oppo player converts the DSD of the SACD to 88.2 khz PCM, while the Atmos runs at 48. The difference are very subtle at best.

Bottom line, if you have the SACD but no front wides, with the Neural-X upmixer the results are very competitive with the Atmos. No need to feel you must get a copy of the Atmos mix.

 

[jefe1]

Not having the 5.1 sacd this was an easy decision to pick up for both Guthrie mixes. I don't have an atmos setup so it's 5.0 for me
I will try the atmos downmixed to 5 next time.

 

[himey]

I was able to import a stand alone copy of the recent Atmos release of DSotM as remixed by Guthrie. Ads you all know, he also did the 2003 5.1 remix of DSotM that was released on SACD. So now I have a copy of each these mixes. My system has a 9.3.4 configuration, and I am a fan of the DTS Neural-X upmixer. So last night I compared the 5.1 SACD mix via The DTS Neural X upmixer to the Atmos version using my Marantz 8805 processor.

One major difference is that Guthrie's Atmos mix unfortunately does not use the front wides, they are silent, whereas the DTS Neural X includes them in the up mix algorithm. So if you have front wides wides and Neural X, the 5.1 has the edge in spaciousness and impact of the front sound stage, compared to the Atmos. And it is amazing how Neural X creates the rear surround channels from the 5.1 information; circular pans around the back are just as palpable from the unmixed 5.1 as via the Atmos. Of course, certain elements in the Atmos mix that are placed directly in the rear surrounds do not have the same specificity in the 5.1 mix. And the up mix generates considerable activity in the tops as well, which I have at 45/135 locations. Now in the Atmos, Guthrie places specific elements in the mix in various top locations that the up mix does not, but the overall sense of immersion produced by the 5.1 upmix, especially with the activity in the front wides included, is fully competitive with the Atmos mix. Both are very satisfying.

From a sheer sound quality standpoint, the 5.1 is easily as good as the Amos. My Oppo player converts the DSD of the SACD to 88.2 khz PCM, while the Atmos runs at 48. The difference are very subtle at best.

Bottom line, if you have the SACD but no front wides, with the Neural-X upmixer the results are very competitive with the Atmos. No need to feel you must get a copy of the Atmos mix.

Why did you use the SACD 5.1, rather than the Blu-ray 5.1?

 

[Sal1950]

Bottom line, if you have the SACD but no front wides, with the Neural-X upmixer the results are very competitive with the Atmos. No need to feel you must get a copy of the Atmos mix.

A bit of an unfair comparison.
The DTS upmix just is what it is, you either like it or not.
Give a listen to a Dolby upmix and you'll get another whole different thing.
Same with a Auro 3D upmix, different again.
All the above completely subjective impressions.
But the Atmos mix is the way Guthrie intended it to sound.
Two completely different things.

 

[VisionMan]

A bit of an unfair comparison.
The DTS upmix just is what it is, you either like it or not.
Give a listen to a Dolby upmix and you'll get another whole different thing.
Same with a Auro 3D upmix, different again.
All the above completely subjective impressions.
But the Atmos mix is the way Guthrie intended it to sound.
Two completely different things.

You are certainly correct that even without front wides, the DTS upmix is clearly different than the Atmos, particularly with respect to specific elements placed in the tops in the Atmos mix, which DTS Neural-X cannot duplicate. And I have not yet had a chance to try Auro 3D, which was recently added to my Marantz 8805 via a firmware upgrade. Now I am a fan of the Dolby Surround upmixer for 2 channel material, but for comparing the DSotM Atmos to the 5.1, I decided to try DTS Neural-X first since it generally creates more specific action in the tops than DS does. And yes, of course the Atmos Mix is what Guthrie intended, within the constraints of the 7.1.4 format that he used to create the mix. I'd be interested in your opinion of of the effect of the different up mixers when compared to the Atmos. There is clearly no right or wrong here; these are subjective issues. At least with the upmixers we have the option of going beyond the 7.1.4 format if we have the equipment.

 

[relaxing]

The track with the most obvious Atmos height action is Us and Them, which has the vocal echoes panning in a circle. Would be interesting to compare that to the upmix.

 

[AYanguas]

You are certainly correct that even without front wides, the DTS upmix is clearly different than the Atmos, particularly with respect to specific elements placed in the tops in the Atmos mix, which DTS Neural-X cannot duplicate. And I have not yet had a chance to try Auro 3D, which was recently added to my Marantz 8805 via a firmware upgrade. Now I am a fan of the Dolby Surround upmixer for 2 channel material, but for comparing the DSotM Atmos to the 5.1, I decided to try DTS Neural-X first since it generally creates more specific action in the tops than DS does. And yes, of course the Atmos Mix is what Guthrie intended, within the constraints of the 7.1.4 format that he used to create the mix. I'd be interested in your opinion of of the effect of the different up mixers when compared to the Atmos. There is clearly no right or wrong here; these are subjective issues. At least with the upmixers we have the option of going beyond the 7.1.4 format if we have the equipment.

DSU upmixer also generates content for the wides, as Neural-X does it.

My general perception is that Neural-X just extend more the sound to the Tops but does not discretely separate sounds as much as DSU. Sometimes Neural-X is similar to "all channels stereo". Auromatic do not consider the Wides but makes a more nice reverb bubble sound than Neural-X. This is general from stereo sources. I have yet to listen the DSOTM 5.1 upmixed.


With respect to the Guthrie Atmos mix limited to 7.1.4, as well as many other mixes, IMO it's just a lack of mixer's will to create Atmos objects at the corresponding azimuth angles, to be enjoyed by some of us that have 9.1.4 speakers or more. Even in 7.1.4 systems, using objects for the wides should result in a wider image (fronts + sides) than the more boring front centric sound.

 

[VisionMan]

DSU upmixer also generates content for the wides, as Neural-X does it.

My general perception is that Neural-X just extend more the sound to the Tops but does not discretely separate sounds as much as DSU. Sometimes Neural-X is similar to "all channels stereo". Auromatic do not consider the Wides but makes a more nice reverb bubble sound than Neural-X. This is general from stereo sources. I have yet to listen the DSOTM 5.1 upmixed.


With respect to the Guthrie Atmos mix limited to 7.1.4, as well as many other mixes, IMO it's just a lack of mixer's will to create Atmos objects at the corresponding azimuth angles, to be enjoyed by some of us that have 9.1.4 speakers or more. Even in 7.1.4 systems, using objects for the wides should result in a wider image (fronts + sides) than the most boring front centric sound.

When you have a chance to listen to listen to DSotM 5.1 thru the various upmixers, I'd be interested in your opinion.
And I fully agree, there are too many Atmos mixes that do not utilize the front wides. This is true of many Hollywood films mixed in Atmos, as well. Often, I find the 5.1 or 7.1 mix via DTS Neural-X to be more immersive than the Atmos, due to the front wides coming into play. And surprisingly, many Atmos film mixes use the tops very sparingly. And it may not just be the mixer's will, it may be a matter of the budget made available for the sound mix. A more complex mix takes more time to execute, and the budget must support that.

 

[VisionMan]

Why did you use the SACD 5.1, rather than the Blu-ray 5.1?

Since I had the SACD already, I was interested in comparing the overall sound quality of the PCM downconversion from the DSD of the SACD to the Dolby True HD lossless encoding that is the basis for Dolby Atmos on the blu ray. As I said, Ifound them to be very similar with respect to overall sound quality.

 

[Sal1950]

I'd be interested in your opinion of of the effect of the different up mixers when compared to the Atmos.

Unfortunately I don't have the room for any "wide" speaker configurations and am limited to a more basic 5.2.4 system setup. I have played around using other upmixing codex for Atmos mixed files and always preferred the intended Atmos system for their playback.

 

[kfbkfb]

9 - the DD 5.1 downmix of the Dolby TrueHD/Atmos [Sony BDP-S6700, Pioneer VSX-514, 4 Polk T15s+PSW108]

I like gimmicks (sounds panning around and jumping from place to place), the beginning of Money is the type of thing I like.

The sound quality is excellent for a ~50 year old analog magnetic tape source.

I'll listen to the 2 stereo mixes through my Hafler/DynaQuad system soon and post my impressions in the fake surround thread.


Kirk Bayne

 

[Danlevert]

I’m listening to the atmos mix in 5.1 and the fidelity is amazing. However, I’m a bit disappointed in moments like Us and them when you expect the chorus to be powerful, it feels burried in the mix. Are there others who experience the same?

 

[ngv99]

9. Us and Them is the highlight here for me - absolutely gorgeous. Overall, I think the quad mix still appeals to my ears more, but I completely get it if anyone now prefers the Atmos mix.

 

[ar surround]

I’m listening to the atmos mix in 5.1 and the fidelity is amazing. However, I’m a bit disappointed in moments like Us and them when you expect the chorus to be powerful, it feels burried in the mix. Are there others who experience the same?

Yes. Despite any reservations I have about ‘big stereo,’ the SACD sounds more powerful throughout with more impact than the Atmos mix to me. And it upmixes beautifully to 7.1, Auro 3D, etc like a real sonofagun.

 

[JohnN]

Yes. Despite any reservations I have about ‘big stereo,’ the SACD sounds more powerful throughout with more impact than the Atmos mix to me. And it upmixes beautifully to 7.1, Auro 3D, etc like a real sonofagun.

Saw Pink Floyd live with quad sound a couple of times.
Studio, the atmos seems like the clearest I've heard. Impossibly crystal clear. (I think about the clear sound too much these days.)
https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/thre...x-sound-quality.1171030/page-24#post-33132827

 

[mrcond]

For those of you with good subwoofers, check out the bass note at 9:37 of the Atmos mix, during the intro to “Time”. Massive.

 

[soesbeout]

I only have had the LP and the 4.1 AP bootleg to compare this BR with,but I must say this is so detailed and clear I want to listen to it over and over.