Rush "Hemispheres" (40th Anniversary Box Set with 5.1 Blu-Ray Audio!)

[jimfisheye]

Huh. This is just an upmix. And it took a fidelity hit for that. The HD stereo master is much better sounding and more immersive in depth.
Man, what the heck? Multitracks missing? Are they claiming this is a new mix?

I've heard upmixing done right before that at the very least preserved fidelity. This is disappointing even without a SW mix to compete with.

 

[himey]

Huh. This is just an upmix. And it took a fidelity hit for that. The HD stereo master is much better sounding and more immersive in depth.
Man, what the heck? Multitracks missing? Are they claiming this is a new mix?

I've heard upmixing done right before that at the very least preserved fidelity. This is disappointing even without a SW mix to compete with.

All his other below average mixes have at least a moment or two that doesn't completely suck...

 

[rtbluray]

Huh. This is just an upmix. And it took a fidelity hit for that. The HD stereo master is much better sounding and more immersive in depth.
Man, what the heck? Multitracks missing? Are they claiming this is a new mix?

I've heard upmixing done right before that at the very least preserved fidelity. This is disappointing even without a SW mix to compete with.

I have analyzed the 5.1 mix in Audacity and it’s definitely not an upmix.
There are discrete moments in all 4 songs where elements heard in either the center or surround channels are completely detached from the front L & R channels.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Spock]

If it was SW mixing again I would have already picked it up!

I feel the same.

Those really bad surround mixes on the other Rush albums stops me.

 

[John Svensson]

Plus 1.....too much for too little. I love the album but I can live with the AF SACD.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

I guess I don't understand why anyone would go through the trouble of different masterings for Dolby vs DTS vs LCPM. Why wouldn't there only be a single mastering upstream of the encode?

As himey said, theoretically the difference has to lie in the parameters attached to the decoding schemes. If one mastering is used (and there is no reason that I can see for separate masterings), and all the encode schemes are lossless (which they are), Each method should feed the same data rendering to the common D/A converter which doesn't know the difference if the data came from a Dolby, DTS or raw PCM source.

I have never heard differences between the various formats, although to be honest, I never did concentrate my listening on that aspect. I always rip the LPCM layer if available... which (again, theoretically) would require the least amount of processing.

With Baggins hearing buried guitars and such, it makes me wonder if my presumptions about lossless formats being equivalent are wrong. I hope someone looks into it further.

 

[4-earredwonder]

I guess I don't understand why anyone would go through the trouble of different masterings for Dolby vs DTS vs LCPM. Why wouldn't there only be a single mastering upstream of the encode?

As himey said, theoretically the difference has to lie in the parameters attached to the decoding schemes. If one mastering is used (and there is no reason that I can see for separate masterings), and all the encode schemes are lossless (which they are), Each method should feed the same data rendering to the common D/A converter which doesn't know the difference if the data came from a Dolby, DTS or raw PCM source.

I have never heard differences between the various formats, although to be honest, I never did concentrate my listening on that aspect. I always rip the LPCM layer if available... which (again, theoretically) would require the least amount of processing.

With Baggins hearing buried guitars and such, it makes me wonder if my presumptions about lossless formats being equivalent are wrong. I hope someone looks into it further.

It could just be a function of the chip sets used in most Universal players or the way different receivers interpret the codecs. Very doubtful different masterings were utilized for the two lossless 5.1 codecs. It could also be a volume mismatch between DTS MA HD and Dolby True HD. When you raise the volume of any recording it usually sounds more robust provided it's not brick walled or compressed.

 

[edisonbaggins]

I knew that, upon reporting the heard difference between DTS HD MA and Dolby True HD, on my system, that some comments would focus on "check the settings," or something to that effect. If anybody knows of a setting that changes the volume or balance of the surrounds, let me know. I'll check.

I think the more important take-away, however, is that some listeners are having a better experience with one codec or the other. IIRC, it tends to be Dolby True HD. I'm thinking of Hemispheres, Sgt Pepper's and The White Album. How many BD-As come with both codecs, btw?

Another take-away is, I had a really good time cranking this mix last night. Isn't that what we're for? Having a good time with surround music?

 

[jimfisheye]

I have analyzed the 5.1 mix in Audacity and it’s definitely not an upmix.
There are discrete moments in all 4 songs where elements heard in either the center or surround channels are completely detached from the front L & R channels.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sometimes you can get complete separation on certain isolated parts with some of the upmix software. (More so if you actually roll up your sleeves and work an upmix instead of just slapping one of the upmix plugins on it. But that kind of attention isn't evident here.)

If this is truly an attempt at a mix from multitasks... it fails in every way and someone should be ashamed. I'd give benefit of the doubt there and assume this can only be an upmix.

Cue the sad trombone for something like this following Kings. In an expensive edition no less!

 

[rtbluray]

Sometimes you can get complete separation on certain isolated parts with some of the upmix software. (More so if you actually roll up your sleeves and work an upmix instead of just slapping one of the upmix plugins on it. But that kind of attention isn't evident here.)

If this is truly an attempt at a mix from multitasks... it fails in every way and someone should be ashamed. I'd give benefit of the doubt there and assume this can only be an upmix.

Cue the sad trombone for something like this following Kings. In an expensive edition no less!

It's definitely not an upmix, so as far as you are concerned, it's just a bad 5.1 mix.
I'm ok with the mix the way it is. Could it be better? Yes, but this is better than what we had before, which was nothing...

 

[Juggsnelson]

The stereo remaster on the Blu-Ray is the same as the 2015 Hi-Res download remaster by Sean Magee: excellent, possibly the best the original mix has ever sounded.
The AF SACD is very similar: no compression, good tonality.
For what it's worth, when I compared the two a few years back, I noted the SACD as "best", but by a very narrow margin. It's probably just a matter of preference, they're both excellent.

Thanks! I'm really hoping I dig the surround mix but if not, I can tell myself it was still worth it for the vinyl and stereo mix on BR.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

It could just be a function of the chip sets used in most Universal players or the way different receivers interpret the codecs. Very doubtful different masterings were utilized for the two lossless 5.1 codecs. It could also be a volume mismatch between DTS MA HD and Dolby True HD. When you raise the volume of any recording it usually sounds more robust provided it's not brick walled or compressed.

I guess that's the point. Regardless of the chip sets in either the players/receivers, if the inputs are the same (same mastering) and the codecs are truly lossless, what comes out of either decoder should be identical to what the signal looked like prior to encoding. It then goes to a digital to analog converter. The only way I can see the formats sounding different is if each format uses a different chip with different D-A converters. That also seems unnecessary. If anyone has a real understanding on this id like to hear it.

 

[jimfisheye]

It's definitely not an upmix, so as far as you are concerned, it's just a bad 5.1 mix.
I'm ok with the mix the way it is. Could it be better? Yes, but this is better than what we had before, which was nothing...

We'll have to agree to disagree on that last part then. IMHO the original stereo mix is excellent and betters this "remix" (if it is an actual mix) in every way. Better fidelity. More immersive depth in stereo than whatever this is in 5.1.

To the record labels releasing stuff like this:
Sorry, but there needs to be an actual mix going on for surround sound to work. Just having sound pass out of extra speakers with an upmix or crude mix doesn't cut it!

 

[edisonbaggins]

Sometimes you can get complete separation on certain isolated parts with some of the upmix software. (More so if you actually roll up your sleeves and work an upmix instead of just slapping one of the upmix plugins on it. But that kind of attention isn't evident here.)

If this is truly an attempt at a mix from multitasks... it fails in every way and someone should be ashamed. I'd give benefit of the doubt there and assume this can only be an upmix.

Cue the sad trombone for something like this following Kings. In an expensive edition no less!

Chycki states in the liner notes that this is a new mix from the multitrack tapes.
He states in interviews that he uses some upmixing plugins to expand certain sounds out in to the room.
Jim, fact is that some people are enjoying this mix, imperfect though it may be...

 

[jimfisheye]

It doesn't sound appalling or anything. If I had never heard the original I'd probably say this is great even though it isn't a full discrete surround mix. But the original sounds better and has more depth. In stereo. That Moody Blues upmix sounds genuinely bad. This at least sounds professional grade. Moot point though.

Ya know, this would have been a great opportunity to try to show off one of the new 3D formats (Atmos, etc with the height channels and dozens of object channels). The breakdown section in Cygnus could come in from above. Coming down from the mountain. For one example. Do something that might lure someone into buying dozens of new speakers and hanging some of them from the ceiling! And it goes without saying that a true discrete 5.1 mix should have been done at the very least but... this is where I came in.

 

[Clint Eastwood]

Chycki states in the liner notes that this is a new mix from the multitrack tapes.
He states in interviews that he uses some upmixing plugins to expand certain sounds out in to the room.
Jim, fact is that some people are enjoying this mix, imperfect though it may be...

I operate under the principle that if a version is the "best available" of that specific album...I would want it... if it's an important piece of music to ME...and since I'm not intimately familiar with this album... it appears to those that are...it's a big improvement...so I can understand the excitement from some for this disc...and they should be....regardless of "what" makes this an improvement...whether it's the mix or something else...the bottom line is it's better than the previous attempts...and despite my feelings about the mix...this clearly isn't one of those regrettable versions of Rush from the past...it sounds fine...

 

[Bish]

Mine arrived today from Burning Shed and I've not had a chance to listen to it yet. Sadly the replica 1978 Hemispheres patch is missing.

It's a nice looking set but the items fit in the slip case a little too tight for my liking and I much prefer the Metallica super deluxe boxes. On the plus side at least this one has some writing down the spine unlike 2112 & AFTK.

 

[Clint Eastwood]

Mine arrived today from Burning Shed and I've not had a chance to listen to it yet. Sadly the replica 1978 Hemispheres patch is missing.

It's a nice looking set but the items fit in the slip case a little too tight for my liking and I much prefer the Metallica super deluxe boxes. On the plus side at least this one has some writing down the spine unlike 2112 & AFTK.

Welcome to the forum...I think part of the reason for the "snug" fit is the enclosed vinyl....I don't like the sleeves for the discs...these weren't as tightly packed as others...but I've scratched discs before removing them from these box sets..

 

[Frogmort]

This has great dynamic range, better than anything I've ever heard from Richard Chycki, but it still has a harsh 4k~7k EQ boost on pretty much everything, that he seems to favor, but that I find to be particularly un-hi-fi and fatiguing. As a drummer, I also noticed that the accent cymbals (splash, crash, china, etc) all have huge prominence (especially in the 4k~7k range), but the closed hi-hat and ride cymbal (except when he's hammering the ride bell) seem very subdued. The vocals also have a huge upper midrange character, yet still somehow seem distant, almost muted and boxy. There's very little upper treble transients on anything at all and the bottom end is also almost non-existent. Oh, and the guitars and keyboard patches sound freaking amazing, but much too prominent compared to everything else. Geddy's bass also seems 'fine', if a bit too pedestrian most of the time. And the actual surround activity is fairly slim and sporadic too.

After the upper midrange assault of this quite dynamic mix, Steven Wilson's Farewell to Kings almost seems mellow and rolled off on the top, but it's really not. Everything is just so much more balanced and clear.

I know it sounds like I hate the new surround mix, but when I go back to listen to this album, it will definitely be this version. I just feel like it could've been so much more. Holla for SW Permanent Waves!!!

P.S. - Pretty high right about now, the funk soul brotha

 

[Nova]

I'm glad that some on here that really love this album are pleased...but I'm feeling the same as you on the overall feeling of this title...it just lacks something that Farewell had...an intangible quality...and to be candid...I wasn't in love with Farewell as an album either...so both of these titles hold the same place for me...and thinking about how I feel about Hemispheres...leads me back to the Sgt. Peppers release....I was so enamored with the content that the flaws didn't really matter to me...to me content is EVERYTHING...there is nothing more important...even after the White Album...as good as it sounds...which is better than Pepper...I still prefer Pepper...again...content is everything to me...I've got enough "demo" discs in my collection and I no longer need to bring friends around to impress them....

When you "love" an album you look for the positives and downplay the negatives...in this release there aren't any obvious negatives...no real "blunders" that I could detect...it checks off most of the wish list...but although there are the so called "discrete" moments..IMO... even though they exist...they don't serve the listener...at least it didn't work for me..they seemed at times awkward...instead of a "wow" moment..I got a WTF moment.....I agree with Ryan about this being Rich's best effort..and IMO the fidelity elevates this title...not the mix...I think a previous statement about serviceable is a great description of the mix...

Although there are differences in systems and listening environments...in this case I don't think that is going to be an issue...because the fidelity is good enough to satisfy the $500 or $500,000 home setup...so in searching for wisdom in a situation like this...I look for a higher source...a fountain of wisdom to formulate my conclusions...so I thought instead of Confucius or Einstein...I thought a member's philosophy might work here...I'm paraphrasing skherbeck.....if someone heard Hemispheres in surround....would it be good enough to convince them to upgrade their home system from stereo to surround capability....since this is his mantra...I'll let him answer that question when he hears Hemispheres

That something that you feel is missing in my opinion is the space in the Material itself . AFTK the material is much more dynamic , Hemispheres is very layered and thick at times . I loved this album very much in Stereo in the past , Ive only listened to it (5.1) at medium volume level I'm sure when cranked up it will open up a bit . I did noticed that the drums are kind of "Condensed" and don't breath as much as they do in AFTK and that the Synth Leads are too loud in many parts. There was a Guitar lead that was so loud that it almost drowned out the rest of the music almost like a compressor kicked in . Well tonight I will listen to it at My fav volume LOUD and stop listening for what I have stated and enjoy this gift in SURROUND !