Yes, it looks not too bad, but it sounds not good.
Especially Black Hole Sun, I heard not that full sound I knew.
HiRez Poll Soundgarden - SUPERUNKNOWN [Blu-Ray]
- Thread starter JonUrban
- Start date
Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:
Yes, it looks not too bad, but it sounds not good.
Especially Black Hole Sun, I heard not that full sound I knew.
I didn't think it sounded too bad (the DTS HD MA 5.1) it was more the weird surround mix that made me reach for the eject button... 
It sounds way worse than it actually looks. Maybe I should of tried messing with the EQ before I returned it. Anyone tried bringing down the treble by a few db? Maybe that is the issue as to why it is so harsh to listen to.
I am trying to learn how to tinker with multi channel recordings via Audacity. I would love to hear a 'fan version' of this with altered treble etc.
The waveforms look like they just spread the stereo into 5 channels and called it a day. @:
@:
The waveforms look like they just spread the stereo into 5 channels and called it a day.
Yes indeed. This is what you hear.
But I mentioned in another thread, that it is much easier to mix into 5.1 when you have more elements.
This is a problem of rock mixes like the Soundgarden one.
They don't have so many different sounds.
But when they got, like Spoonman, you hear that it has discrete elements.
There are more than enough tracks on the multitrack any modern rock mix to do a good 5.1 mix. Obviously I don't have access to these multis, but I would suspect there are probably 24 tracks at the very least.
On the Nirvana multitracks that leaked a few years ago, which were recorded around the same time as Superunknown, there are 24 tracks, and I think Soundgarden are a much more 'hi-fi' sounding band than Nirvana. Here's a list of the multitrack elements for the Nirvana song called 'Sappy'
As you can see, more than enough elements for 5 speakers, and that doesn't even include things added by the mixer during the mix like echoes and reverbs and so on.
Of course you're never going to get a Soundgarden mix that sounds like Steely Dan or something, but there are more than enough elements to do a good (or great) surround mix. The Doors 'LA Woman' 5.1 mix was created from a multitrack that only had 8 tracks and it's pretty good, so doing a good one from a 24, 32 or 64 track should be easy for someone who knows what they're doing. When I see mixes that have the same information in all 5 speakers, I just have to assume they've been created by someone who either doesn't like or doesn't understand the benefits afforded by a good discrete 5.1 mix. It almost feels like a passive/aggressive thing - "I don't like 5.1 so I'm going to make a mix that sounds as much like a stereo mix as possible".
On the Nirvana multitracks that leaked a few years ago, which were recorded around the same time as Superunknown, there are 24 tracks, and I think Soundgarden are a much more 'hi-fi' sounding band than Nirvana. Here's a list of the multitrack elements for the Nirvana song called 'Sappy'
As you can see, more than enough elements for 5 speakers, and that doesn't even include things added by the mixer during the mix like echoes and reverbs and so on.
Of course you're never going to get a Soundgarden mix that sounds like Steely Dan or something, but there are more than enough elements to do a good (or great) surround mix. The Doors 'LA Woman' 5.1 mix was created from a multitrack that only had 8 tracks and it's pretty good, so doing a good one from a 24, 32 or 64 track should be easy for someone who knows what they're doing. When I see mixes that have the same information in all 5 speakers, I just have to assume they've been created by someone who either doesn't like or doesn't understand the benefits afforded by a good discrete 5.1 mix. It almost feels like a passive/aggressive thing - "I don't like 5.1 so I'm going to make a mix that sounds as much like a stereo mix as possible".
The number if tracks don't say anything about elements to mix.
You cam have the same guitar or vocals on 10 tracks.
You need different sounds to do a good discrete 5.1 mix.
Each one of those tracks is a separate 'element', so I'm not really sure what you're getting at. Even if the guitars are playing similar parts for double tracking purposes, they're all unique performances. You don't need a huge band with 10 different types of instruments to do a good discrete 5.1 mix.
Look at the Foo Fighters 'One By One' 5.1 mix - it's a very discrete modern rock mix from a guitars/bass/drums/vocals lineup.
There are more than enough elements on the Superunknown multitracks to do a decent 5.1 mix, you can hear that just from listening to the stereo mix. There are multiple rhythm guitars on every song, guitar solos/overdubs, double tracked vocals, harmony vocals, etc. etc.
Look at the Foo Fighters 'One By One' 5.1 mix - it's a very discrete modern rock mix from a guitars/bass/drums/vocals lineup.
There are more than enough elements on the Superunknown multitracks to do a decent 5.1 mix, you can hear that just from listening to the stereo mix. There are multiple rhythm guitars on every song, guitar solos/overdubs, double tracked vocals, harmony vocals, etc. etc.
I finally got round to listening to it today as WFH.
I don't think its as bad as some of the comments. The guitars are compressed, fuzzed, sustained etc. but it was recorded that way, so I don't think it could be made to sound like the Yes album (which is tremendous and the multi had plenty of range to work with). There is clarity, but its a grunge rock album, so I think its supposed to sound the way it does. So the wall of sound is what you get, but I can hear the dynamics of the drums coming over it all, the vocals are clear, and you can hear lots of stuff buried in the mix in the 5.1, and I could (and did) crank it up (sorry neighbours). The mix could have been more adventurous or discrete in places, but I heard things I'd never heard in the mix before. It felt like a new version of the album. So its a 7-8 for the music (I've always disliked some tracks), a 6-7 for the mix and sound. So I'm going to give it a 7 overall.
I don't think its as bad as some of the comments. The guitars are compressed, fuzzed, sustained etc. but it was recorded that way, so I don't think it could be made to sound like the Yes album (which is tremendous and the multi had plenty of range to work with). There is clarity, but its a grunge rock album, so I think its supposed to sound the way it does. So the wall of sound is what you get, but I can hear the dynamics of the drums coming over it all, the vocals are clear, and you can hear lots of stuff buried in the mix in the 5.1, and I could (and did) crank it up (sorry neighbours). The mix could have been more adventurous or discrete in places, but I heard things I'd never heard in the mix before. It felt like a new version of the album. So its a 7-8 for the music (I've always disliked some tracks), a 6-7 for the mix and sound. So I'm going to give it a 7 overall.
It could have been much better.
Would it have been a standalone release then I would not be so dissapointed.
But for that result the price is too high.
Would it have been a standalone release then I would not be so dissapointed.
But for that result the price is too high.
I have listened to the individual tracks on Audacity. The vocals on their own in center sound horribly processed and harsh even though they are not compressed to death. They are certainly not natural, I know this is part of the production but this version(5.1) makes it much worse.
I do not dislike the 5.1 mix as far as placement of instruments go, I think it's OK. It is the EQ and compression that sound horrible. I wish we could download a version without the mastering, although the mixes on their own are probably loud?
I do not dislike the 5.1 mix as far as placement of instruments go, I think it's OK. It is the EQ and compression that sound horrible. I wish we could download a version without the mastering, although the mixes on their own are probably loud?
INDEED. I think this 5.1 mix is OK though. It's the sound quality I detest on this one.
Well I have listened to this for a while now and while there is no doubt with better hands/ears this could have been a much better experence. I don't hate it, I like listening to the Blu version over the cd version as I have always liked the music. I like the onscreen visuals for the songs, they are really well done and the book is nice. The mix while not spectacular like many of the others we have gotten of late (Yes, Marley, XTC) I still kinda like it, better than the cd thru PLII. Yeah the loudness and sonics are a little harsh but then they always were, it is after all Soundgarden . Compared to what we have been getting from Mr. Wilson, it is crap....having said that, on its own I still like it, I just don't love it...done right this could o' been, should o' been great...sigh. For what is, and not for what it isnt I give it an 8.
Had a chance to listen to this yesterday. For 20-30 bucks, I'd buy the Blu Ray. Not so bad. The mix is okay, the sound isn't horrible but certainly not stellar. Shame it's stuck in an expensive box. From the one impression I got, I'd give it somewhere around 5-7, but haven't heard enough to actually leave a vote.
quattroatl
300 Club - QQ All-Star
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2010
- Messages
- 302
Talk about listening fatigue! I rate this disc a 4. I listened to Van Morrison's "moondance" right after "superunknown" and the difference is night and day. Granted the two discs are different types of music, but it is still clear how one is exponentially better mastered and mixed.
What a wasted effort....
What a wasted effort....
d0zer
Senior Member
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2011
- Messages
- 272
I found out that the trick with this one is, you mustn’t listen to this disc for a time period longer than 20 minutes. After this time your ears get weak because it’s always the same volume (too loud) and you can’t recognize one track from the other. I have the same problem with Metallica’s “Death Magnetic”. But if you listen in twenty minute portions you’ll see that there is some action surroundwise. Of course one would expect more from such an expansive release than a way to listen to it without a headache. By the way, I really enjoy the visuals. So this is a 6 from me.
Baker
Well-known Member
Either this, or like me he's been listening to the original vinyl for 20 years. So you have 80 minutes spread over 4 sides... which means 20 minutes 'pitstops' ^^
d0zer
Senior Member
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2011
- Messages
- 272
Come on! I'm just trying to justify (to myself) the money I spent for this. Of course you cannot compare it with stuff like Moondance or Power & Glory...Thats right, but we talk here about listening to the new 5.1 mix, don't we?
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
- Sticky
- Poll
- Sticky
- Poll
- Sticky
- Poll
