HiRez Poll Pink Floyd - WISH YOU WERE HERE [SACD]

[JonUrban]

Please post your thoughts and comments on the SACD release of "Wish You Were Here" by Pink Floyd. Comments on the Blu-Ray release of this title should be made in the Blu-Ray thread.

Thanks

 

[spenceo]

As I said in the Blu-ray section, I can't believe how clean and crisp this is. By far, the most "crankable" of all the WYWH's

Spence

 

[JonUrban]

NOTE: Added scans of the front and back of the package. Very cool case!

 

[dr. simple]

I listened to this today, top to bottom, and I must say it's quite remarkable. Wonderful. No complaints. Must have.

 

[ar surround]

After spending a good bit of time listening to this mix, DSOTM 5.1 and an assortment of Steven Wilson mixes, I'd have to say that I prefer Wilson's work somewhat more. With the James Guthrie mixes, I find myself enhancing them with a matrix overlay of Logic 7 especially DSOTM . (My receiver can do this.) I prefer Wilson's mixes with no such enhancement; and applying the Logic 7 overlay is actually detrimental. But I look at this all as two artists with different styles, each excellent in their own way. So I rate this version of WYWH as a solid 10/10 on a whole taking into sound quality, the overall mix and aural experience. It was well worth the wait.

 

[britre]

Sir,

You need to listen to each channel individually. What you will hear will shock you and explain why you need to throw logic effect at a supposed surround mix.

After spending a good bit of time listening to this mix, DSOTM 5.1 and an assortment of Steven Wilson mixes, I'd have to say that I prefer Wilson's work somewhat more. With the James Guthrie mixes, I find myself enhancing them with a matrix overlay of Logic 7 especially DSOTM . (My receiver can do this.) I prefer Wilson's mixes with no such enhancement; and applying the Logic 7 overlay is actually detrimental. But I look at this all as two artists with different styles, each excellent in their own way. So I rate this version of WYWH as a solid 10/10 on a whole taking into sound quality, the overall mix and aural experience. It was well worth the wait.

 

[wavelength]

Sir,

You need to listen to each channel individually. What you will hear will shock you and explain why you need to throw logic effect at a supposed surround mix.

This sounds like a reference to a thread (Wish You Were Here SACD 5.1) over at the SurroundSound Google Group: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/surroundsound They are discussing the idea that the mix is fake.

 

[dr. simple]

This sounds like a reference to a thread (Wish You Were Here SACD 5.1) over at the SurroundSound Google Group: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/surroundsound They are discussing the idea that the mix is fake.

I don't care how it was made; the fact is, there are very discrete elements that can't be disputed. More importantly, it sounds great. I differ to the Ray Charles quote I have used as my signature...

 

[dr. simple]

I'll be the first to agree that everybody has a right to their opinion, but I am baffled as to why anyone would rate this at 1.

 

[wavelength]

I'll be the first to agree that everybody has a right to their opinion, but I am baffled as to why anyone would rate this at 1.

I'm guessing but if you thought it was a fake mix then you'd probably be ticked off enough to give it a 1.

 

[georgeshannon]

I rated the SACD Wish You Were Here as a 9 overall.

The sound quality is better than any other version I’ve heard but it sounds like it came from 40 year old analog tapes and for that reason I rate the sound as a 9.5. At the beginning of track 4 - Wish You Were Here when the chair creaks and you can hear the steel guitar strings bend you’re convinced this sound quality is better than the rest. On the Q8 version of this recording, those details are lost in the wow, flutter, and hiss.

The mix, however, is a bit conservative given the amount of art the musicians gave Mr. Guthrie to work with. Elliot Scheiner or Steven Wilson would have mixed this as a 10. Still, each channel contains different information than each of the other 5 channels. That does make it a real 5.1 mix. Its not intended as a quad mix. I rate the mix as a 9.

 

[britre]

Don't take my word for it, listen to each channel individually. Fake is an incorrect term, if you took the $11.99 red book reissue and ran it through a surround decoder you would have the exact same mix this one is and not be $35-$125 dollars lighter. The proof is indeed in how it sounds. And if you believe derrived stereo mixes are 5.1 surround more power to you. It just does not put a good feeling in your stomach to pay lots of hard earned cash to have something you could create on your own with existing equipment....

 

[britre]

Not to blow your point but the master is 36 years old tops, not 40. And you may be right, Steve Wilson would have possibly made a discreet 5.1 mix not a Dolby surround mix. The Quad version on the DVD has more detail and feeling then the 5.1 could ever have due to the surround method used. If you want a good stereo version on a digital format the Columbia 24 bit SBM cd is the way to go. It will make you throw this garbage away, seriously. It will cost you just as much too considering there are few to be had.

I rated the SACD Wish You Were Here as a 9 overall.

The sound quality is better than any other version I’ve heard but it sounds like it came from 40 year old analog tapes and for that reason I rate the sound as a 9.5. At the beginning of track 4 - Wish You Were Here when the chair creaks and you can hear the steel guitar strings bend you’re convinced this sound quality is better than the rest. On the Q8 version of this recording, those details are lost in the wow, flutter, and hiss.

The mix, however, is a bit conservative given the amount of art the musicians gave Mr. Guthrie to work with. Elliot Scheiner or Steven Wilson would have mixed this as a 10. Still, each channel contains different information than each of the other 5 channels. That does make it a real 5.1 mix. Its not intended as a quad mix. I rate the mix as a 9.

 

[patrick1]

Hello. Played this over and over this past week. Whilst it sounds great, I, personally would've wanted something more out of the 5.1 mix. Maybe because my ears have been Wilson-ized with all of his mixes being released. IMO. Thanks.

 

[Felix E. Martinez]

Wonderful, with none of the vocal EQ harshness that plagued the Guthrie DSOTM 5.1 mix. Really surprised by the mastering too. What a treat!

 

[Time Lord]

Britre are you a troll. Sorry to hijack the thread, I don't even have the SACD of WYWH I have the blu-ray from the box set, a 5.1 mix that I enjoy greatly. Firstly you rate this a 1 then you have insulted James Guthrie and Steven Wilson, are you going to have a go at Elliot Scheiner next. Find something constructive to say or find a forum for surround haters to rant to.

 

[eejit]

Can people explain which surround version is best?
I love the dark side of the moon sacd in 5.1. Is the wish you were here sacd similar in quality to that? Is the quad still the best mix?

Please don't tell me the sacd sounds just like the stereo version, I will cry.

The reviews here say its amazing:
http://sa-cd.net/showtitle/7523

But reviews here say it's hard to distinguish from a stereo mix:
http://groups.google.com/group/surr...89599fbacb7?show_docid=8a92f89599fbacb7&pli=1

 

[JonUrban]

Guys. You are making this thread a joke. I am going to have to move all of these non-topic threads outta here. Once I figure out what I'm going to do with them, they're gone. Please stay on topic.

You are totally free to start new threads in the appropriate forum sections to discuss any of the above issues in their own place. 2 years from now, someone looking for info on this SACD is not going to give a shit about Aqualung distortion, Steve Wilson, or who bought what in the '70s.

 

[ssully]

The first scenario gives me pause. The second one does to a lesser extent. I looked at the waveforms posted from the other thread and the fronts and rears on the 5.1 really do look pretty same-y. That may have been Guthrie's preference. But I'd really like to know what's going on there.

Samey , but not the same. There are clearly part differences and level differences between corresponding front and surround channels -- compare those channels on track WYWH_5.1split-002 (Welcome to the Machine, I presume) for example.

it's obvious too that Guthrie has chosen to populate the Center and SUB channels minimally; this is a not-unheard of 5.1 mixing choice (and one I applaud for the SUB channel). I like an active Center, but some artists are averse to having their lead vocal isolated in the center ....and we know PF had some input into this mix.

Agreed that Guthrie's commentary on this mix will be interesting, if we ever get to see any.

 

[Sthunderrocker]

Ok... I'm not new here...lurked for years. Brian is not trying to be a troll. I don't go so far as Brian, but I understand what he means. The mix is great sounding (crystal clear, amazing detail, etc), but its not very bounce around the roomy. Media interviews have suggested that Guthrie was trying to replicate the stereo mix's overall sound in 5.1 format. I think he achieved that, but in the process there are very few instances where what is in one speaker isn't at least partly (if not greatly) in other speakers as well. This means that the majority of the discrete effects that are present come off with the level of discreteness that a Prologic decoder might be able to provide. Brian thinks this is a sign of a fake job. I think it was mixed that way on purpose. When this was mixed back in 2003-5(?) there were no plans to release the Quad side by side. Unfortunately releasing it thus here shows how indiscrete the 5.1 mix is (overall). This is a quad forum. (I believe) We like our surround to be more engaging. For Brian, the Guthrie mix does not fit the bill. For me... I love the quad mix.
S