Re: [SurroundSound] Re: Santa Claws was nice and gave me the Jethro Tull DVD

ps as an aside I think the addition of various mixes is a great idea and will satisfy us both.  I like that the original quad was included.  I think one need only look at releases like Paul McCs BOTR to know there are absolutely advantages to both techniques.  I can tell you though, I'd never have had much interest in the album had it not been done by Steve Wilson and didn't sound like it was some warped copy spinning on an analog rig just getting contained in a high res format and boxed up for surround a la dolby. At least with BR disc there is enough space to be creative.  Multiple mixes, mixes with or without video, ect. Remixes...the possibilities are at least endless.

On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 2:20 PM, August Bleed <bleedink@gmail.com> wrote:

Heard it.  As one not at all familiar with the album and only mediocre interest in the band I can evaluate it with 'clean' ears since I never heard the original album or quad.  I thought it was crisp and clean.  That is personally something I like which is one reason I liked SACDs alot as they seemed to be able to get most of the noise out of the audible band (obviously not perfectly).  That said I generally dislike hearing hiss and stuff in my digital formats.  I don't mind it when I know it's sourced from an LP.  OOH I get the purists here who want to hear whatever was on the original.  OTOH I personally get annoyed with releases that sound like straight transfers.  IMHO Steve Wilson did a great job with this as one who's never heard or had interest in the album.  I keep going back to his recent blu ray because he just does stunning things with sound.  Caravan was extremely clean and modern sounding as well.  I guess to each his own but I want every bit of my hi fi exploited.  I think his imaging is one of the more imaginative in the business letting every speaker just disappear.  I don't find that with most others who are doing these surround mixes.  So I guess I understand where you guys are coming from but personally I somewhat prefer cleaning this stuff up rather than the messes that are Paranoid and the first VU on SHMSACD.  Disasters IMHO (not to mention stereo).

On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Britre <britre123@gmail.com> wrote:

Did not preview the BR as I have been hesitent to make that move due
to the expense of getting a "good" player. Most are cheap pieces of
you know what.
I wanted to listen to the vinyl today just for kicks but to be honest
I do not care for that Wilson mix one bit. It is clear as a bell
almost too much making it sound like a unnatural time period of
recording meaning the piano and flute sound as if they were recorded
yesterday, not in 1971. Missing hiss and hum is also another dead
giveaway of a recording doctored to not be in it's time frame. Other
recording do not have this issue. I will cite for an example the SACD
of Billy Joel The Stranger. Surround is mediocre at best however the
sound is 1976 and puts the time period in your mind as you listen.
Lots of tape hiss too! That is the magic I look for.

 Another issue is Cross Eyed Mary, while sounding clear as a bell, the
volume of certain vocals and insturments are wayy too much apparent in
your face, while alot of detail is again missing. I turned it off half
way through as it gave me a headache which is a sure sign of poor
sound.

Had I know Avax was willing to allow me a preview I would have kept
this boxed and obtained a whole lotta vinyl instead from Santa. Ohh
Welll A pirates life ;)

On Dec 26, 5:04 pm, Tab Cursor <tabcur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We got the chance to preview the DVD last week. We listened to the 5.1
> remaster only. Our impression was that the recording didn't sound new.
> A bit disappointing really.
>
> There wasn't "magic" like PF's new releases or Rush's new "Farewell to
> Kings"... But of course those are hi res audio tracks on bluray and
> dvd audio, respectively.
>
> Since this was a gift, you must have the whole box set. How does the
> bluray sound?
>
> We are going to give this recording another chance next week listening
> to the original quad. We guess that's the best it gets?
>
> Those interested in a preview of this one need only search Avax.
>
> Happy Holiidays!
>
> On Dec 25, 5:13 pm, Britre <britre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Well after all the hoopla I caused over at QQ I finally was able to
> > listen to the Jethro Tull Aqualung 5.1 and Quad on DVD.
>
> > The Quad was very good and matched the CD-4 version wonderfully. It
> > was nice not to have channels drop from the bad carrier signal and in
> > fact this had more detail than it's vinyl counterpart. There is that
> > familiar 70's static hum present on lots of early 70's recordings and
> > I can say at least in my opinion this realistically sounds like it
> > came off the original master tape. Besides the loss of carrier I could
> > not tell side by side the Vinyl and DVD. A great transfer and I hope
> > our friends at the executive level release more of this material.
>
> > Alas the 5.1 mix. It turned out to be exactly as I was prepared for. I
> > will say this. There was wayyyy more imaging and placement in this
> > then the J.G. WYWH. To compare the mix I ran a CD I made of the Stereo
> > through my Audiosource Dolby Surround and did a side by side with Mr.
> > Wilsons surround. What do you know? No difference except the stereo
> > was way over the top louder. I am not sure if anyone picked up on the
> > fact Locomotive Breath is from a completely different take than was
> > used for the original album. Both the Stereo and 5.1 have this issue.
> > While good it is missing alot of information for instance the
> > tambourine after the solo, but I suppose others are happy with missing
> > info. My hope is that future Surround releases are not the Dolby
> > Surround stuff I can create at home and have been for years. Since I
> > bought the Audiosource in the late 80's it has done cool things with
> > alot of my more intense stereo recordings. So if that be the case I
> > will need to stick with vinyl on the stereo side. Ohh.... Forgot that
> > static hum, Hey Mr. Wison, Where Did it go???? And what other minute
> > detail did you delete with it??
>
> > Also take a listen to My God in Quad then 5.1. On the Quad the chior
> > is in all channels and individual voice pop out and knock you over. On
> > the 5.1 it is placed front far left as if from a church in the
> > distance. Maybe Ian intended it to be that way originally? Don't know.
> > And also why would the flute be in the rear and then jump to the
> > center front? He did bolt around alot live but not in my listening
> > area.....
>

> > Ok. Review is done. Someone else chime in.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to SurroundSound@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSound-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound

--
August
Bleed, Inc.
Selling Art Is Tying Your Ego To a Leash And Walking It Like a Dog

--
August
Bleed, Inc.
Selling Art Is Tying Your Ego To a Leash And Walking It Like a Dog

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to SurroundSound@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSound-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound