21 of 25 people found the following review helpful
High resolution stereo but no 5.1,
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
This review is from: Layla And Other Assorted Love Song (Blu-ray Audio)
Everyone knows the album, this rating is not based on the content but rather on a wasted opportunity. The Hi Fidelity Pure Audio releases interested me as some of the titles have been released previously on SACD and DVD-A in 5.1. Most of which are now deleted and if you can find them are ridiculously priced.
I had hoped that the 5.1 multi channel mix would be included on this blu ray, it's only available on SACD and in the very expensive box set. There's plenty of room on the disc itself but was disappointed to find it is just the stereo mix, albeit in high resolution. Buy this if you have two speakers and have a blu ray player connected to them, but not if you want the surround sound experience.
Tracked by 2 customers
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 12 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 30 Jul 2013 19:54:02 BDT
Thank you. I'm glad I read this as I wanted a 5.1 mix, not stereo. Agree it's a lost opportunity and a waste of the format. Cancelled my order as a result.
In reply to an earlier post on 31 Jul 2013 14:58:45 BDT
I don't think you should give this a miss. Even a DVD Audio that comes with 5.1 does not sound any good from personal experience. Most of the DVD Audio that comes with 5.1 surround sound seems to sound rather 'echoey' on the rear speakers. The only true 5.1 surround sound in my opinion are the SACDs (Multi-channel). Take for example Elton John - Captain Fantastic and Brown Dirt Cowboy, the recording is a true 5.1 surround sound. I could virtually hear every note on my rear speakers in comparison to The Doors LA Woman DVD Audio. Supertramp Live in Paris was supposed to be 5.1 surround sound but the surround speakers are rather echoey but I still enjoy the sound quality and the concert itself.
Posted on 16 Sep 2013 18:42:52 BDT
Last edited by the author on 16 Sep 2013 18:43:26 BDT
I agree that some SACD's reaches ridiculous prices, but I must say that the 5.1. track on this title on SACD outperforms the stereo CD layer on the same disc to a degree that it is worth the price:
I don't agree though that everybody knows this album - I don't know how I could miss out on it for so many years, first got it nov 2010, and was surpriced it has almost 80 minutes on it, and except for two tracks exiting all the way :-)
Posted on 23 Nov 2013 20:54:22 GMT
Barney McRubble says:
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Nov 2013 19:49:23 GMT
Gav H says:
There is little point arguing the merits of multi channel recordings and playback, that is in the eye/ear of the beholder. You could have the same argument with mono and stereo recordings and their subsequent remasters.
The point of the original review was that with something with a such huge capacity for data, this blu-ray disc could have, and should have, contained both the high resolution stereo and the multi channel mixes.
The DTS 5.1 and the Dolby Surround Sound 5.1 mixes are on the dvd in the very expensive Layla box set, and on the SACD is in hi res stereo and multi channel too. So this was an opportunity to put them all together in one neat little package. They didn't, and just put the one mix in stereo, so I found the release to be pointless.
I've since tracked down and bought the Layla SACD and got it for around the same price as this was. I personally think that 5.1 mix is fantastic and really adds to the listening experience and would recommend that without hesitation.
In reply to an earlier post on 29 Jan 2014 15:00:32 GMT
Actually the point is you shouldn't have given a review 3 stars because of your ignorance of what was on the disk.
Agreed Amazon should have more details on these products.
You should not assume it's going to be in surround and apply an unfair rating as you have!!!
The manufacturer is not obliged to supply a surround mix on the disk just because you think it should be there!!!
And merits of multi channel aside, as you say is in the eye/ear of the beholder, and many puists would say there should ONLY be a stereo recording included on the disk (not me though I actually like some surround mixes).
In reply to some of the other comments while I am commenting I think the DVD-Audio disks that just sound echoey in the back channels are often because they have been lazy and just run them through a processor and split out some of the detail for the back speakers without a true discreet surround mix. This is utterly pointless because most surround amps have DSP modes which will do this for you from a stereo source as a virtual surround or whatever so the mind boggles why they bother to do that, it's just to get money off people that don't know the difference I guess. They even seem to do this for old movies with stereo soundtracks. You can generally tell the difference from something that's been properly mixed.
On the other hand some music releases seem to be deliberately re mixed with only minor activity in the surround channels because it is "artistically" decided to stay as true to the original stereo mix as possible, and you can still tell where this has been done properly and not through a processor. In this respect I agree with Barney McRubble, and also overly using the surround channels can be distracting from the source material itself.
I think that a few albums do actually benefit from a proper surround sound mix, the example that comes to mind is Queens A Night At The Opera on DVD-Audio, not sure if you can still get it now but it's a pretty silly (but good album) that actually lends itself quite well to sounds panning from speaker to speaker.
In reply to an earlier post on 14 Apr 2014 10:30:43 BDT
Neil Wilkes says:
Speaking as a serious Clapton & surround fan, I have to agree with most of the above.
One stereo transfer and neither of the surround mixes and none of the additional content we know exists (it was in the expensive box set, although CD resolution only and the surround was lossy only) is included here - why?
This would have been an excellent opportunity to do this album properly.
We could have had the original stereo mix and the best of the rest (there are at least 4 I know of done over the years) in addition to the entire second CD's worth from the Box Set, both 5.1 mixes could have been included as well as the full live album also in the box set (the Fillmore show).
But no - yet again it gets dribbled out in expensive limited editions.
In reply to an earlier post on 14 Apr 2014 14:50:35 BDT
Don't get me wrong.
I agree with you in that they could have put a surround mix on there.
But like I said above "The manufacturer is not obliged to supply a surround mix on the disk just because you think it should be there!!!"
And for someone to give it 3 stars because they made an incorrect assumption is still wrong, it says no where that a 5.1 mix is included.
And I notice some idiot as also given a 1 star since.
In reply to an earlier post on 14 Apr 2014 16:29:58 BDT
Gav H says:
I stand by my original review and rating. If I made an `incorrect assumption' on the content, it has been explained in detail as to why that would be.
It was also an 'assumption' that a number of other people made judging by other comments and reviews. Calling someone an `idiot' because their viewpoint disagrees with yours isn't really necessary is it?
When purchased by myself there was zero information about the product. Zero. So everyone was in complete `ignorance' of what was on the disc. Mine was the first review, and it was as valid then as it is now. The very first comment in response from Humberman says thank you for pointing out there was no surround sound mix and that he wouldn't be buying it because of that.
If you bought `The Hobbit' on Blu-ray and it just had a stereo soundtrack, you would be entitled to feel hard done by. Likewise, I was and still am as far as this release goes. ' Selling England by The Pound' by Genesis was released earlier this year on the same format, but that release had BOTH mixes. Hi Res Stereo and a DTS 5.1 That had been taken from directly the SACD, why couldn't Layla?
A Blu-Ray disc can hold 25gb of data and a dvd 4.7gb. The Stereo mix on this disc would easily have gone on a dvd with plenty to spare. The whole point of the review is that the Blu-ray release of Layla is completely superfluous.
Saying that the `manufacturer is not obliged to supply a surround mix on the disk just because you think it should be there' doesn't really hold much water. If you bought a cd and it didn't have any music on it, then you'd rightly question why the cd was released in the first place. That is exactly what I did with my review.
At the very start of the review I stated that the rating was for the product itself and not the music. The music is 5 star, the product is far from that.
In reply to an earlier post on 22 Apr 2014 16:00:16 BDT
Sorry for the delay in replying.
Some of us have jobs and lives.
Something more important came up so saved to desktop.
Anyhow, I stand by my original review and rating of you being an idiot.
Ok let's start here, I haven't listened to this album before.
So your "Everyone knows the album" statement is incorrect to say the least.
Reasons you're an idiot #1 is you include such a statement in a REVIEW.
I'll try to explain for you because, well, I feel I need to with your disability.
Generally people look at reviews when they buy things.
People tend to buy things they haven't already got, believe it or not!
Therefore most of the people buying this will NOT have heard the album.
That's what a review is for, for them to decide to buy or not, do you get it yet?
Bet you're thinking "people buying BluRay are going to already have it on CD".
This is incorrect, most of the people coming across this item will be via search.
They will have had a recommendation from a friend and come looking for it.
Might then get CD version, but majority reading reviews won't have it already.
So I came on here looking for a REVIEW, but you've not reviewed the album though.
Prospective buyers (myself) see 1-3 star reviews and think "skip that, looks pants".
I'm not one to be shallow, I tend to read reviews as well as ratings, but others won't.
But hopefully you get the point, it makes the album look unnecessarily bad.
Yet you've said in your last comment the music is 5 star?
So you've given a (in your own words now) 5 star album a 3 star rating???
This represents your disappointment based on expectations only you yourself set.
Reasons you're an idiot #2, this contradiction, and that it's not a review, it's a whine.
What you SHOULD have done is given the review 5 stars.
Any important comments/details then go in the review heading.
Such as, actually, what you have done: "High resolution stereo but no 5.1"
Bless your little heart though, you got half of it right!
I reiterate, your rating is, you say, is for the product itself.
But the product IS the music, that's why people are buying it.
Your review would have been different without false expectations.
You can protest about not knowing all you want, but all you had to do was Google.
Yes I wouldn't expect The Hobbit to just be in stereo, as it's a modern release.
I would not, however, expect this album to be in surround because I'm not an idiot.
It's not exactly a modern release and generally music is stereo, so not at all.
Reasons you're an idiot #3, making a parallel to The Hobbit has no basis in reality.
And why didn't you just wait till someone else bought it and reviewed it?
Reasons you're an idiot #4, not sure it's surround but, bizarrely, you buy it anyway!!!
I've bought things not knowing if surround, never had a tantrum when they weren't.
Not being an idiot, I was prepared and ready to take the chance of only being stereo.
As to my statement "doesn't hold much water", a better example for reason #3.
Another parallel with no basis in reality, I mean a CD with no music, really???
Absolute nonsense again, it's nothing like buying a CD with no music.
A legitimate release not meeting expectations based on false assumptions, simple as.
Many people I know would buy this release and actually be pleased it's stereo.
Some people see surround mixes as a perversion of nature, I like both.
The point of the release, you recognise from own review heading, "high resolution".
Reasons you're an idiot #5, high resolution yet apparently "completely superfluous".
So, stand by your original review if you wish.
I just pity you for not seeing how invalid it is.
I give you a week to come up with some more idiotic parallels.
Seeing as I'm busy.
I'll even point out I made a spelling error in my previous comment.
Just in case you want to attempt to insult me and try to call me an idiot back.
Even try to insult my mother if you want, or my four line paragraphs!
People like you need all the help you can get, bless you.