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

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Rate the SACD of Pink Floyd - WISH YOU WERE HERE


  • Total voters
    133
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

I think a whole lot of things about this..

- I do not consider the presence of overlapping information in other channels to be a weakness in a mix. I think holding back from providing complete discreteness can fulfill many functions, the most important being creating a more "full" mix or allowing for holes in the soundfield to be better filled. I think there are better ways to do this, though, than what Guthrie did. Guthrie was too conservative with this mix, though, with the presence of as much lead vocal audible behind the listener on "Have a Cigar" than there is in the center an example of that.

- The idea of "presenting the stereo's mix in a 5.1 format" is one I don't understand when coming from professional mixers and producers. This is not what I want when I'm buying something put out from a record company. Very few mixers understand this. Steve Wilson does. That's for sure. To use this as an excuse as to why this, or the "Moving Pictures" mix, pulls too many punches, is not something I can be easily sold on.

- The quad, as presented in this package, has its share of flaws itself, and almost goes too far in the other direction, plus sounded rather unbalanced to me.

- That being said, I do firmly believe the mix is derived from multitracks, and that this simply was an artistic choice done by Mr. Guthrie. For what it is, I enjoyed the clean sound of it and feel it more than has its moments. In the end, though, he didn't do what I wish he would have. That's fine. Others are going to feel differently, and more power to them. I don't think anything is being misrepresented.

- I'll never understand why people choose to isolate channels on a mix when listening. The idea of a surround mix is for the channels to psychoacoustically interact with each other and produce a "surround" experience when sitting in the sweet spot. Isolating channels and looking for imperfections is just looking for something not to like in a mix. I'm more of a "glass half full" kind of guy than that.

- I have never believed this to be a "quad" forum. The name on the marquee says "Multichannel music past, present, and future." I've said this before and I'll say it again: I personally do not care about older quad recordings for the most part. I was in diapers when most of them came out, and very rarely do I encounter a transfer that I honestly enjoy. This, however, is the largest surround community that I know of, and the overlap between "modern surround enthusiast" and "grew up on quad as a kid" is rather large. There's room for everyone here.

- People who are going to point fingers and say "fake" need to do a lot of listening as to what "fake" sounds like in 2011. It's not the crap you heard ten years ago, or what Silverline was putting out. People make baseless opinions all the time as to what "derived from stereo" sounds like, and a whole lot of them need to do their research before opening their mouths. From a crispness standpoint, though, hey, I wish some of what I do from stereo sounded as good as Guthrie's mix. :)
 
Honestly, a '1' vote?

Rating it as "Poor Surround, Poor Fidelity, Poor Content", I find that hard to believe. To each his own, but a '1' vote would mean that the surround was poor, the audio fidelity really sucked, and the material was horrible. Even if you hate the Guthrie mix, rating this a '1' says it sounds like shit and the musical content is worthless.

Really?
 
Just a clarification.. When us older generation refer to a mix as "fake" it means that you are taking stereo and making a quasi-surround sound from it to gain effect or extract extra information to the rear, sides, center, what have you. When we are/were sold a quadraphonic, Dolby Surround, 5.1 surround that is exactly what it should be. Lets get down to what this issue is really about (the fake idea I mean).

For six years we were baited with a WYWH surround mix coming, coming, coming and finally it is here. In an interview Dave Gilmour advertised this as the ultimate experience and better than the quad version (which he contends only three people had at the time). For years we ran WYWH through our SQ, QS, Matrix, Surround decoders to try to get a little surround out of it if you did not have the Quadraphonic version. For the sake of argument the Quadraphonic version has no relevance to the 5.1 mix as it is a different master and mix and does not even closely resemble the Stereo mix. As I mentioned before this album has come out in many Audiophile stereo versions but never in a surround mix.

So us Audiophiles expecting an surround experience to blow our minds plunk down either $45 w/S&H for the SACD or more if you are overseas, or $129.00 retail for the full experience of Quadraphonic and 5.1. What do we get? A mix we have had for years at home. A person might feel cheated at that point. Now granted I have not heard the $40.00 180 gram vinyl however I do have the EMI one made 10 years ago (it was also 180 gram vinyl of the Guthrie stereo mix) and it was loud, clear and identical to the one on the SACD and the Red Book CD. So, one might get really angry that Acoustic Sounds and EMI advertised this as the ultimate experience, took our money and gave us something we already have and have had. Which brings me full circle to the 5.1 mix.

While it matches the Stereo in being clear, it is not a creative work and does not sound like 10 years of mixing was involved. It simply sounds like one I could make at home using my Dolby Surround decoder, and DVD audio burning software to create a 5.1 disc. I personally (and many others also) expected a new and fantastic mix with separation, imaging, and the clarity of other 5.1 discs out there. Remember these discs cost $24-$250 a pop. Shouldn't we expect more for our money than a Dolby Cinema surround type mix (also reffered to as fake surround)? If we do not make these guys produce quality products the next mix you hear will be stereo upmixes the same you can download off the internet. Do not get me wrong, some of the upmixers do a really awesome job, but they do not charge you $24-$250 for their work. Neither should the record companies. And there you have it, the definition of fake.
 
I would not say the material sucked, I heard all the material 10 years ago when it was first out so the 1 rating is because it is rehash of old material and the surround was poor in light of other versions (including SBU upmixes) that are out there.

Honestly, a '1' vote?

Rating it as "Poor Surround, Poor Fidelity, Poor Content", I find that hard to believe. To each his own, but a '1' vote would mean that the surround was poor, the audio fidelity really sucked, and the material was horrible. Even if you hate the Guthrie mix, rating this a '1' says it sounds like shit and the musical content is worthless.

Really?
 
Do not get me wrong, some of the upmixers do a really awesome job, but they do not charge you $24-$250 for their work. Neither should the record companies. And there you have it, the definition of fake.

I accept donations, though. ;)
 
Honestly, a '1' vote?

Rating it as "Poor Surround, Poor Fidelity, Poor Content", I find that hard to believe. To each his own, but a '1' vote would mean that the surround was poor, the audio fidelity really sucked, and the material was horrible. Even if you hate the Guthrie mix, rating this a '1' says it sounds like shit and the musical content is worthless.

Really?

Sounds like a protest vote to me. I have my issues with the mix, but it's not a "1." That should be reserved for the worst of the Silverline stuff. :)
 
Unfortunately, at this stage of the game, they are just as likely to assume the surround market has shrunk than assume that some aren't happy with the mix. That said, the Quad wasn't originally going to be on the Blu, so maybe we have some power yet...

Of course, there seem to also be a number of people who like ambient mixes...
S
 
I would not say the material sucked, I heard all the material 10 years ago when it was first out so the 1 rating is because it is rehash of old material and the surround was poor in light of other versions (including SBU upmixes) that are out there.
Then it should be a 5. You obviously like the material but dislike the mix. The rating system here is a combination of both elements.
 
Would you like me to move it to a two, it still is no where near the top end..
 
Would you like me to move it to a two, it still is no where near the top end..

No. Every vote is a personal thing, and we don't tamper with votes here. If you look through the HiRez polls, you'll see some strange '1' votes for titles that probably don't deserve them, but they're still there.
 
Just gave it its first spin, also the first time I heard the Guthrie mix. Sound of the SACD is amazing on my system, but I'm on out-of-the-box 500-dollar consumer hardware, so I don't think it really does justice to what that SACD has to offer. The mix: well, I do have to admit that the first impression was stereo, opened up to breathe. Not bad by any means, but more could have been done with it. Surround is used where surround is due, e.g. (as many have pointed out) for the "Welcome to the Machine" sound effects, the "swoosh" effect or the sounds at the beginning of Shine On. These are no-brainers for surround mixing.

I remember the quad mix being a bit more adventurous, but I haven't listened to it very much, or lately for that matter, so I'll need to do some more comparing soon. Still debating whether I should get the Immersion box in addition. How is all the other stuff in the Immersion box? The live recordings, the demos, household objects etc.? Worth repeated listens?
 
Hi,
I think it's an Ok surround mix. I voted it as an 8. I think I expected it to be, or actually just wanted it to be a bit more radical. Nothing wrong with it, fidelity is very high etc, it's just the mix is not 'exciting' to me. I am glad I bought the SACD (and the immersion box set). I can't see myself buying WYWH again this lifetime, how many times have I bought it so far I wonder?
 
OMG. This is my all time favourite album. Like the chicken I have owned several formats of this over the years, and I am finally playing the surround SACD. It arrived here yesterday from Kansas (half way around the world). Cost me nearly as much in postage as the album to get it here! And I am NOT disappointed. It is worth every single cent. 10/10. Don't hesitate. Get this SACD.
 
I just listened to the quad mix from the BluRay. Don't get me wrong, I like the SACD, but the added music and instrumentation alone elevate the 4.0 mix above the 5.1 mix IMHO. Great stuff. Glad to finally have both available, and in such amazing fidelity to boot.
 
Has the quad mix being on the Blu-ray knocked down the value of the Q8? I can't imagine anyone buying the Q8 now.
 
Back
Top