HiRez Poll Rush - MOVING PICTURES [DVD-A/BluRay Audio]

[MJO65]

This has always been one of my favorite rush albums, I am glad that it has found its way to the 5.1 area. I am very pleased with the overal result.

I am wondering if anyone has noticed one small reinterpretation-issue that I discovered, unfortunately it has to do with a detail that I specifically was interested in how it would sound in a 5.1 mix. It is the part in 'witch hunt' after 'torchlit hill' (1:32 in the original song) after which 4 instrumental patterns are played, the last ending with a massive beat on a tom (about 1:47.50 ). (this pattern is repeated). As I was looking forward (or should I say 'listening' forward) how this would be transformed in the surround mix, I found out that is was gone! Well, not completely, after thorough examination, I found out that there was a tiny remaining in the right rear speaker, sounding like a 'plop'....

I am very interested if anyone has noticed this also, and if there are other people who liked this detail in the original mix and are a little disappointed that it has been eliminated in the 5.1 mix. Most of the differences (apart from the surround possibilities) have to do with adding stuff, whereas this is removing something that has no reason at all (imho).

 

[GabeL]

This past Saturday I had a lifelong Rush fan over and he gave this DVD-A a listen and he was absolutely blown away. While he is not an audiophile (in any sense of the word), he told me he knew every note of this album before, but now he'll have to relearn it as he heard so much more May have another convert in the works!

 

[e:leaf]

Not terribly impressed. The mix sounds flat and thin, and the use of surrounds doesn't do it for me at all. It's use seems gimmicky to me, and poorly planned out.

I was psyched to hear this, but was sorely disappointed when I did.

I'll stick to the vinyl for this album.

 

[sev]

Forgive if this has been asked already, are the 5.1 pcm mixes the same for the blu-ray v. dvd-a?

Also, can a ps3 output the 5.1 pcm via optical? Or should I just spring for the dvd-a to be safe?

 

[LizardKing]

Forgive if this has been asked already, are the 5.1 pcm mixes the same for the blu-ray v. dvd-a?

I'm pretty sure the mixes are from the same source.

Also, can a ps3 output the 5.1 pcm via optical? Or should I just spring for the dvd-a to be safe?

I believe you can only play stereo PCM via the Optical out when playing a hi-rez linear PCM track. However you can get the "core" DTS from the DTS-HD MA over the optical out.

Or should I just spring for the dvd-a to be safe?

The short answer is ........ it depends

If you don't have a HDMI capable AV receiver (or a Blu-ray player with Analog outs - like the OPPO BDP-83SE or OPPO BDP-95 ) AND want the hi-rez audio, then your best bet is the DVD-Audio version (assuming you have a true DVD-audio player).

On the other hand, if you don't have a DVD-Audio Player, then you're better off getting the Blu-ray as it can at least play it in 5.1 "core" DTS from the DTS-HD MA audio selection. The DVD-Audio version only has Dolby Digital on the video portion of the disc.


No wonder people get confused with surround sound set-up....@:

 

[sev]

Cheers. Thanks LK. Yea, I have a yamaha universal dvd-a/sacd player, with 6-channel analogs, so I guess I'll just be safe and pick up the dvd-a. I wanted to go blu-ray because at least if my dvd-a/sacd player dies I won't have to go buy a $400 Oppo and a new receiver with hdmi inputs. Not looking to spend $800 to listen to my limited collection anytime soon.

 

[LizardKing]

I'd keep an eye out for second hand OPPOs...... you might get a good deal...

 

[Robert van Diggele]

I wanted to go blu-ray because at least if my dvd-a/sacd player dies I won't have to go buy a $400 Oppo and a new receiver with hdmi inputs.

A new player would be enough, as the current Oppo models still have analog outs.

 

[wavelength]

This mix always seemed different somehow from most other mixes. Definitely not a Scheiner or Wilson. You can't underplay the rears. They have to be at least at the same level as the mains. There is a lot of high-hat and cymbal going on back there and the mix won't sound right unless you make sure that you bring that out. Once I figured that out the mix made a lot more sense. It's the type of mix where individual speakers, for the most part, don't stand out. It's more of a 3-d sound field evenly spread out around you except for the vocals which tend to be rooted slightly in front of the center speaker.

 

[DKA]

This mix always seemed different somehow from most other mixes. Definitely not a Scheiner or Wilson. You can't underplay the rears. They have to be at least at the same level as the mains. There is a lot of high-hat and cymbal going on back there and the mix won't sound right unless you make sure that you bring that out. Once I figured that out the mix made a lot more sense. It's the type of mix where individual speakers, for the most part, don't stand out. It's more of a 3-d sound field evenly spread out around you except for the vocals which tend to be rooted slightly in front of the center speaker.

As someone who tends to be underimpressed by a lot of retail releases, I agree that there's only a certain number of pros out there who actually take full advantage of what they are given to work with. While there's little flourishes here and there which impress me here, there wasn't a whole lot here that felt worlds beyond what I could do myself, which is the opposite of how I feel when I hear a Steven Wilson mix.

 

[0tto]

i see you guys didn't have considered condition under which this mix was done.
there were supervising from members of the band and as Alex had mentioned in
several interviews, goal was to retain as much as possible the originality and
sound from 80-th. what we hear now is what artists wanna us to hear.
it's like listening to LP album back in 80th but in the way of more advanced sound
resolution, dynamic range, expanded panorama with more clear details of the mix
and without rumbling, hum, clicks and pops.

 

[kap'n krunch]

i see you guys didn't have considered condition under which this mix was done.
there were supervising from members of the band and as Alex had mentioned in
several interviews, goal was to retain as much as possible the originality and
sound from 80-th. what we hear now is what artists wanna us to hear.
it's like listening to LP album back in 80th but in the way of more advanced sound
resolution, dynamic range, expanded panorama with more clear details of the mix
and without rumbling, hum, clicks and pops.

That's precisely my point of view (see my previous post).
I also agrree with the fact that it's an EXTENSION of the stereo mix, and it is one of the only Surround mixes that , to my ears , has "height" as opposed to width.
Yes, a more adventurous mix weould have been welcome, but I REALLY enjoy this...especially since it's from the analog tapes and the LP mix was digital (although, it could have fooled me UNTIL I needle droppped recently "Permanent Waves"....MAN, Geddy's voice just CUTS THROUGH!!!, check it out and A/B them if you have them!)

 

[DKA]

That's precisely my point of view (see my previous post).
I also agrree with the fact that it's an EXTENSION of the stereo mix, and it is one of the only Surround mixes that , to my ears , has "height" as opposed to width.
Yes, a more adventurous mix weould have been welcome, but I REALLY enjoy this...especially since it's from the analog tapes and the LP mix was digital (although, it could have fooled me UNTIL I needle droppped recently "Permanent Waves"....MAN, Geddy's voice just CUTS THROUGH!!!, check it out and A/B them if you have them!)

See, I don't buy this at all. If you're going to create a surround mix, go all out. Give me something I can't do myself. There aren't many moments on this (there are a few, as Tim could certainly correctly point out for us) you can say that about.

I'm not saying this is a terrible mix. I just think they stopped WAY short of what is possible with this album, whether that's what the band wanted me to hear or not. It's right in the middle, which is how I graded it.

Then again, we're all entitled to our opinion and taste.

 

[0tto]

See, I don't buy this at all. If you're going to create a surround mix, go all out. Give me something I can't do myself. There aren't many moments on this (there are a few, as Tim could certainly correctly point out for us) you can say that about.
Then again, we're all entitled to our opinion and taste.

this is a blessing and curse of of surround music.
unlike with plain stereo, in this case everyone who's listen has an entitlement to opinion in regards of
instruments/voices placement and everyone, even when their opinions contradict to each other, still be
very much right, becouse that is what and how they wanna hear it. so i say, if authors/artists have been
involved in creation of surround mix, leave it for them to decide and accept it as is.

 

[wavelength]

this is a blessing and curse of of surround music.
unlike with plain stereo, in this case everyone who's listen has an entitlement to opinion in regards of
instruments/voices placement and everyone, even when their opinions contradict to each other, still be
very much right, becouse that is what and how they wanna hear it. so i say, if authors/artists have been
involved in creation of surround mix, leave it for them to decide and accept it as is.

I'm afraid there wouldn't be much of a reason for this forum (or any other) if we just accepted whatever the artists decided. Besides, they need something to think about. That's part of the game when you put yourself out there. I'm sure they'd hate it more if nobody said anything.

 

[0tto]

I'm afraid there wouldn't be much of a reason for this forum (or any other) if we just accepted whatever the artists decided. Besides, they need something to think about. That's part of the game when you put yourself out there. I'm sure they'd hate it more if nobody said anything.

absolutely agree on this but i wish at least some of them, involved in producing surround sound, would
showed up in here and ensure me that my and your throught really matter to them.

 

[w.a.reid]

i think thats a fantastic cover - and i always wanted that painting the blokes on the left are holding - saw rush - hold your fire tour - guy next to me puked - but after that he was fine.

william

 

[Time Lord]

I can see there is a divergence of opinions here. This mix I find disappointing. The purpose of a multichannel remix should be to significantly enhance the stereo sound and listening side by side I am not sure it has added much to my experience. Rears are not a big feature, centre is disappointing and what happened to the drums, they are very muddy. It wasn't helped I was listening to this at the same time as KC's Discipline, similar era but exceptional multichannel mix. Gave it a 7.

 

[ssully]

As it happens I did the same -- put on the Rush disc after one of the new Crimsons -- and after those dry mixes it sounded clearly to me like there's *added* reverb, even on the bass (e.g. in the middle instrumental section of Tom Sawyer), on the Rush disc -- moreso than on the original 2ch mix. Not a good thing, IMO.

 

[wanners]

absolutely agree on this but i wish at least some of them, involved in producing surround sound, would
showed up in here and ensure me that my and your throught really matter to them.

i agree too. why else would the producer position exist?