DVD/DTS Poll Springsteen, Bruce - Devils And Dust [DD DualDisc]

[Bob Romano]

Please post your comments, thoughts and observations.......

 

[Bob Romano]

Well....

I haven't listened enough to really decide if I like this one or not music wise. It is much in the style of Tom Joad and Nebraska.

The mix:
5.1 mix by Nick Didia. That might say enough for you. Not a whole lot happening in the rears except an occasional string pass or keyboard. Not that there is a whole lot happening in any of these songs. Mostly Bruce on acoustic guitar with an some additional accompaniment.

The weird thing about this Dual Disc is the album is in DD5.1 and PCM48/16 stereo. The video portion with Bruce performing some of the songs is in PCM 48/24 and is almost 30 minutes long.

Also interesting to note that this release marks the first Bruce reference to anal sex in the song Reno.

I will not vote until I listen further.

 

[daved64]

Well....



The mix:
5.1 mix by Nick Didia. That might say enough for you.

Nick Didia= money in my pocket not spent!

 

[Cai Campbell]

Check out this message for my comments on the disc.

I'll give the music/mix 7 points.

 

[tcdriver]

I rated it a 4. This is the first Bruce Springsteen recording I have purchased. The music is OK, nothing special. The surround mix is all but not present. Very little going on in the surround channels. Not recommended.

 

[dprokopy]

Good album - not my favorite Springsteen, by any means. I get the feeling he's treading water here, musically and thematically.

As for the mix. Gets a good solid "eh." There's a bit more going on in the rears than I had expected, given the reviews here and elsewhere, but it's still decidedly unimpressive, from a surround standpoint. Pretty disappointing.

 

[MC Maniac]

I gave it a 3 - only because it was on sale..

My very first Springsteen album ever and I have to buy this one..

Musically he might as well be dead - because then there would be more life to it..

Best I can describe the mood is sombre..

The surround mix is non - existant - I do like things on the aggressive side, but the bare minimum for me is that the 5.1 mix should be on par with applying DPLII/Logic 7 to the 2 channel mix and it's not even close..

Gets my vote for the worst 5.1 mix in my collection - at least fake surround makes an effort..

This one only for the Bruce die hards who have to own everything by an artist..

 

[roundhousequad]

Chocked and lost it on this one I have all the old bruce stuff he needs to go back to his roots. If he picked any of his old stuff it would have been great in 5.1. I give it a 2-
will be the last time I listen to it. you guys that this was your first bruce go get The River or any of his old stuff he was good.
roundhousequad

 

[daved64]

to think some people praised this as album of the year......duh!

 

[Cai Campbell]

I think this is a great album, but then I'm not a Bruce fan. I hate most of his stuff. So I guess it comes as no surprise that most Bruce fans seem to hate the album while those who generally do not like his work have received "Devils & Dust" more warmly.

It boggles my mind that some people would rather have fake surround than the real surround mix on this disc! Sure, the surround mix could have been a lot better, but I appreciate the subtlety of this mix and it definitely suits the mood. Ah well, there is always DPL for those who prefer it...

 

[daved64]

Cai, I REALLY respect you and your opinion....but how can you even call this a surround mix?

 

[BOSSMAN]

to think some people praised this as album of the year......duh!

I'd be one, but music appreciation is subjective, right?

I agree though, the surround mix is underwhelming. However, I do still find myself playing it more than the CD.

 

[Cai Campbell]

Cai, I REALLY respect you and your opinion....but how can you even call this a surround mix?

I guess it might be quicker to ask why you don't think it is a surround mix. The only "reason" I can think of is that the volume in the rear channels is very, very low compared to the overall mix.

Just for kicks, disconnect your front speakers and listen to only the rear channels. Sounds like the makings of a surround mix to me... not a very good one, I agree, but hella better than synthesized-from-stereo tripe!

It might be fun to bump up the rears like 6 to 8 dB. It would probably sound a lot more impressive.

I dunno, lack of volume in the rears is just not a compelling enough reason for me to say that a mix is not surround...

 

[daved64]

I guess it might be quicker to ask why you don't think it is a surround mix. The only "reason" I can think of is that the volume in the rear channels is very, very low compared to the overall mix.

Just for kicks, disconnect your front speakers and listen to only the rear channels. Sounds like the makings of a surround mix to me... not a very good one, I agree, but hella better than synthesized-from-stereo tripe!

It might be fun to bump up the rears like 6 to 8 dB. It would probably sound a lot more impressive.

I dunno, lack of volume in the rears is just not a compelling enough reason for me to say that a mix is not surround...

Ok, let me try and see what I hear. I was pretty much "ear to the speaker" and heard nothing for a lot of the time.

 

[Cai Campbell]

Ok, let me try and see what I hear. I was pretty much "ear to the speaker" and heard nothing for a lot of the time.

Okay, I just followed my own advice and listened to the disc through only the rear speakers. It is much, much more sparse than I imagined it would be!

The rear channels are only used for the occasional (and I do mean occasional) string or horn fill.

I'm going to change my mind and say that this is not a surround mix. It is a stereo mix with occasional and haphazard rear channel accents. It is not simply a volume issue as I imagined it would be. The rears lie dormant 95% of the time. However, it sounds pretty damn good for that 5%!

So, back to the question, what makes a surround mix? Well, a lot of things, but one thing for sure is that the rear channels need to be utilized a majority of the time, I would say. Based on this criteria, Devils and Dust is not a surround mix.

Dave, my hat is off to you!

 

[daved64]

You had me doubting myself.....I knew what I heard (or DIDN'T!).
Nick Didia.....why does he continue to do this to us?

 

[EMB]

This is a very tough disc to rate...

First of all, as Cai points out, the volume level in the rears is low...too low, IMO. Of course this can be adjusted, but that shouldn't be necessary. Seems to me that if you're going to use the rears sparingly, as was done here, at least mix it up a bit so that when they are used, it means something! Subtlety is one thing, but this is a bit much. I suppose we should be thankful there's no ambient nonsense instead....

Musically, this may not be a great work, but it does have a handful of good ones, as TOM JOAD did. As a huge fan of NEBRASKA, I don't think Bruce is ever gonna top that one; it just works, and anything in that mold since is gonna seem kinda pale or predictable by comparison.

I suppose what surprises me, on boards I've checked out pertaining to this disc, is how many folks have never heard a Springsteen album...aside from those who wish they never had. Strange notion, I thought, this guy's been visible since 1973(I remember ASBURY PARK getting a front page ad in the 1/6/63 Billboard--so, technically, 12/72), and yet there are those who either can't stand him or haven't heard enough to make a fair appraisal of his music.

I'm tempted to give the album an artistic '6'--subject to a bit of time and more listening--but in all honesty, must give the 5.1 mix a '3' at best, because I believe much more could have been done to spread the sound fairly evenly in the five speakers. Whether the mixer or Bruce and his minions are responsible for that, who knows? But it's not gonna be one of those 5.1's you bring out to brag about how great multi-channel sound is. But, like Cai, I'd rather have this than faux 5.1, obviously, and it is 'true 5.1,' just not a very good example.

ED

 

[Uncle Al]

Well...........

I gave it a 7.

I admit that the rears are used sparingly - but I immediately noticed that they WERE used. There are a few songs with a "full band" workout (All the Way Home for example) that NORMALLY would have embraced a discreet full surround mix, that seem to be presented in stereo (I detecetd NO REAR info during that track).

Anyways........... somehow it WORKS. Several tracks spread the background vocals, strings and keyboards out through the 360 deg soundfield, a few have near zero surround info at all. Track to track, the "aural placement" seems draw you further in. This ain't ELP swirling around your head. This is mature surround.

I like it.

 

[winopener]

Got my hands on D&D - it's not my first BS disc, have nearly all - and for the stereo disc it's ok.
The serious doubt is on the Surround disc (here is packed as CD + "Bonus DVD" instead of Dualdisc).
The song n.4 "Long time comin'" seems to suffer of Dynamic Range Compensation. On the chorus, when the band is more prominent, there's a lowering in the sound volume.
Does this happens also on your editions? It sounds really like a mix (or encoding) fault.

 

[Chris Gerhard]

I was searching for something to listen to today and got this out again. I am a Bruce Springsteen fan and this album is certainly different than his music I liked a couple of decades ago. The music on this one has really grown on me, but I think some care could have been taken with the surround mix. I give it a 7 overall, the mix is about a 5 and the music an 8 or better for me. I think some instruments coming from the rear channels would have improved this album, although Bruce is normally a perfectionist and he may have known better than I do. I may have to get his Pete Seeger tribute album recently released as both of those guys are such important musicians. This has become one of my favorite Springsteen albums.

Chris