We could argue about the merits of the quad mix over the 5.1 mix all day long - I must admit I prefer the quad for many, many reasons (the main one being the 5.1 is done in a style I just do not really like - it's what I think of as "Big Stereo") but it is fascinating being able to skip between the 2 and compare immediately what is going on - this was one of the big flaws in DVD-A, as whenever you switch streams it restarts the track again. Here, you can swap and it is to the same place. Excellent.
This also reveals that the running times are different on the 5.1, as it is noticeably shorter in WTTM, and the reprise present on the vinyl SQ is also missing here in both versions.
What's great here is the quality - although I am not totally convinced by the mastering as it is - it could be better, although that said it could be a whole lot worse too.
There is almost no headroom at all in the 5.1 mix, and this is particularly noticeable on "Have A Cigar" where the Quad is simply more dynamic, despite (or maybe "in spite of"?) the modern "remastering" carried out on it (lots of extra thump in the bass, reduced dynamics - although this is much, much more noticeable on DSOTM). Both mixes have their good points though, as well as their minuses, and all in all I definitely do not regret buying this even though I would much rather have been given the option to have just the BD disc.
Neil, Thank you for summarizing something that is pretty close to how I feel as well.
I think that for a project like this, it would have been interesting to hear some more separation and definition on the 5.1, and although it is very much an aesthetic judgment call I cannot say that I am a fan of the aforementioned 'big stereo' (that so many modern producers seem to automatically fall for nowadays, but just as well popular with the A&R departments) either. Rather, with regards to soundstage the sort of discrete Van-Gelder-ish placement philosophy
while obviously less beefy and muscular usually leaves me with a better after-taste. There is undoubtedly more power and judicious usage of the extended frequencies here as many have mentioned, but overall I really wonder if this project wouldn't have benefited from a bit more radical input contributed by someone not afraid to take chances and possibly with the perspective of an outsider, rather than one who has been so intimately tied with the band?
If anything, and going back to concepts of those early days, I still tremendously enjoy grooving to something like what Eddie Kramer did on "Axis Bold As Love" with far more limited technical means, but somehow there was a confluence of the technology available and the creativity it helped foster, all of it sounding effortless and natural rather than contrived. When they did things with panning, tape manipulation, flanging the whole kit, it didn't sound entirely gratuitous, it actually helped highlight a feeling.
It's of course easy for us armchair pundits to start dissecting the new offerings, but for some reason I was hoping for something with less of that big 'in your face' kind of sound, and more subtle weaving usage of the acoustic guitars and other elements in the new mix. After living with Fripp &Co's deliberate use of the center channel for vocals, as well as the same on Genesis, I must say that for me
- even though there's really nothing to fault and it is a fine offering indeed - I was somehow expecting a little bit more 'ear candy', not the cheap razzle-dazzle motion effects, but the kind of things that only become endearing with repeated listens and that in my mind were the very essence of what Pink Floyd was notorious for.
So to me, this 5.1 is like the 'corporate consensus mix'. Safe, works seven days a week, nothing that Joe Surround will hate on his system, but no wow moments except (as others have pointed out) for the great treatment on WTTM.
Just as with Steely Dan needing several attempts at nailing it with their multiple 5.1 remixed versions of "Gaucho", this may mean that hopefully there is still room to deliver a more emotional, impressionistic and psychedelic interpretation of this landmark recording at some point in the future. If you are going to remix something, is there a law stating that creatively speaking nothing beyond what was originally done is allowed almost 40 years later?
Point being,
at least to my ears the jaw-dropping 'vision' mix hasn't been created yet. The kind of thing Salvador Dali would have done if he was into sound...
If anyone associated with the projects read this, it is not as if we are ungrateful for the many long sessions that must have undoubtedly happened to make this colossal undertaking possible; I would like to clarify that this sort of commentary is exactly the same as what I have heard often times being debated in many a control room (especially those about the need for perspective and conceptual direction, not so much the technical aspect), and it bears repeating that I did rate the BD a '9', so nothing is really at fault for me here, more that as a listener I felt it was just a tad conservative and as a personal preference I tend to favor it when someone serves me the adventurous, the bold and daring. Merely my one-person opinion here.
Not to appear ungrateful: we're so lucky to have this... and only a few of days before "The Wall". :banana:
TL;DR Version: Great job guys, but don't be afraid to take a few more chances!
