Gurkensalat

This is now available as digital download. But can I get it in 5.1? That is the big question here. https://intl.varesesarabande.com/products/the-matrix-the-complete-score

sounds promising, thank you!

I have 2 DVD Audios without a DVD backwards compatibility, but I agree that most have it, although only in compressed sound. DVD Audio can store 24 bit 96 kHz in lossless with MLP compression which is standard for many years. I have dozens of them.

I am sorry, but every single sentence here is false. SACD and DVD Audio use a standard DVD with the same storage space, it is just used different. SACD is stored as DSD which is a 1 bit format using 2.8224 MHz sampling frequency, so it does not offer greater bit depth. And the surround encoding of DVD audio can use 24 bit at 96 kHz, so much better than CD. Lastly a DVD Audio cannot be played on a regular DVD player, except it has a DVD-Video-Portion on it, e.g. a Dolby Digital version in addition to the hirez portion. The latter is not accessible to a regular DVD player. This is a difference to Blu-ray audio which can be played on every regular BD player. This I can agree on :-)

In my opinion the real sound differences between well made SACD, DVD-Audio and Blu-ray Audio are not significant, although I hear them (SACD of the same 5.1. recording sounding a bit rounder, warmer, the Blu-ray a bit clearer and brighter). The main drawing point for me is a good multichannel mix which can elevate a recording very much, see the JW Vienna Blu-ray. For the matrix release I would have also welcomed a Blu-ray audio sold separately. Doing a backwards to CD compatible SACD and selling it separately is just trying to extract more money from the audiophile customers. Several classical recording companies like Bis show, that it is perfectly find to just release one SACD for all for the standard CD price. People without SACD player just pop it into the CD or DVD/Audio player and do not notice a difference to a normal CD. Therefore I am a bit miffed about Varese´release policy, but am willing to pay the premium just to give a sign that multichannel is a point of interest to some. Providing the mix is good, which it seems to be according to @Jim Ware. Although it is not clear to me if there is just a lot of ambience in the surround or discreetly placed instruments. Well, I think I will just hav to bite the bullet and order the SACD for myself and hope for the best.

I can't believe that nobody has listened to this in multichannel? Really?

Congratulation! So, how is the surround mix? :-) ambience only or a bit more creative/aggressive? And do you think the general sound quality is better than the CD version?

I love good surround mixes, and this is the main reason that I am contemplating buying this one. But only if it is really a good mix, not just a bit ambience. About foreign Blu-ray: Amazon.de is the obvious choice because they have a lot of other European Blu-ray on offer, often by third party sellers

So there is no way for me to get the SACD cheaper than almost 60 Euro… This is a tough one.

Does anybody know if there will be additional customs to pay when ordering from the European store in the UK? I live in Germany and am still confused about the implications of Brexit.

Images directly from Quartet costs 17 Euro plus 13,40 Euro Courier (they do not offer any other postage). From Soundtrackcorner it is 19 Euro plus 2,50 Euro postage, since I am in Germany (and publicist, too).

I compared Images and Always, and there is not much difference

Sounds good! still torn whether to get the SACD for the surround mix. Waiting for somebody who bought that to chime in.

I will try to get tickets for Saturday. Unfortunately I can't get to Berlin during the week, or rather my wife can't since she is a teacher. And she is as interested as I am.

Why don't you use Chris Soundtrack corner since you are also in Germany? Shipping is very cheap there (3 Euro for 2 CDs)

So, no comments yet about the surround mix of the SACD? I am curious.

Do you know, how the synth part was mixed then? only ambience in surround or more aggressive with directional placing? The reason I am unsure whether to get the SACD is that I am mostly interested in interesting creative surround mixes like those from Pink Floyd. If this is the case here, I would gladly pay the premium. If surround means only ambience, well that would be less interesting in a recording that is surely created very artificially in a studio and not reflecting the natural glorious acoustics of a good concert hall like in the John Williams in Vienna Plural recording. Ambience I can recreate with Dolby Pro Logic or Anthem Music on my Receiver, for that I do not need 5.1.

Had anybody the chance to listen to the 5.1. mix yet? I am curious if it is a conservative mix with just some reverb in the surrounds, or more adventurous with instruments surrounding the listener. With this score I would welcome the latter.

When I listen to the finale to Rachmaninov 1st Symphony I always imagine it to be the soundtrack to the beginning to an oldfashioned swashbuckling movie, like in the Errol Flynn days. Agree about Strauss and about Elektra, even more it is with Salome, I think, which is possibly the greatest opera of the 20th century IMO. I would say, yes, there was and is a general stigma against synthesizers in so called classical music, although some more modern composers used it from time to time. But they are widely regarded as a cheap imitation of acoustic instruments. And one would NEVER use it as an addition to an established work which is instrumented conventionally with acoustic instruments. I understand that Williams used it just to augment the sound of organ and choir, not to introduce a new sound, but rather try to let the synth vanish and not be discernible. That I would say may be okay, because somehow it is kind of an extension of modern recording techniques using lots of microphones and manipulating the recorded sound afterward in the studio for the mix to achieve a desired result. So I personally would let it pass in this case :-)

While I would not call SACD outdated (there are still compatible players made, and for 5.1 Blu-ray sounds about the same) I am surprised at this as well. The big advantage of SACD is backwards compatibility to CD, so you have to make only one disc for everybody, like the classical recordings from BIS, for example. If you produce a separate CD release you might as well do a Blu-ray for hires multichannel since now there are probably much more BD players in homes than SACD compatible ones. Either way I am very happy that finally a soundtrack is release in proper hires surround and will buy it, once I read the review if the SACD offered an audible advantage here. Unfortunately earlier Soundtrack releases on SACD or DVD Audio like E.T. And A.I. did not seem to offer a much better sound. I hope, with the Matrix they got better masters that can take full use of the potential of SACD.

I love it, it is like out of one of Bruckner´s symphonies (which I adore). Pure taken as music, apart from the movie context, it is great.

The Fury Witches of Eastwick Monsignor Jane Eyre Nixon

There is a lot of music that is composed with the idea of spatial audio, from the early Renaissance antiphonal Venetian school to Mozarts Notturno for 4 orchestras and Berlioz Requiem to Stockhausen´s Gruppen and the 20th century music. Pop music also, I am thinking of the phase experiements and quad recordings from Pink Floyd and others. Music does not have to be restricted to the simple front podium situation. And in a classic concert hall, the ambient reflective sound is often almost as intense as the direct sound from the front. Back to the Gerhardt series, as far as I know TESB was never released in Surround, but his recording for ROTJ was. But for me, there is not much audible difference. since there is little ambience in the recording.

Not necessarily, as Marian said. Every surround encoded Music CD I have sound perfectly ok in simple stereo, although I have the feeling that they often tend to widen the stereo panorama and enhance the hight frequencies a bit; both because of drawbacks of early surround decoders which often decreased high frequencies and tended to collapse the stereo panorama in the center. With modern equipment using Prologic II and better, this is not a concern any more. One main reason for surround encoding of music was that some recording engineers, especially for classical music, used phase stereo recording techniques which lead to unwanted effects when played through surround decoders like putting instruments in the surrounds and such.

One has to differentiate. Those were Dolby Surround albums, if I remember correctly. Those just used a Dolby encoder to make sure, that you got the correct stereo panorama when playing through a Dolby decoder at home: Instruments left, center, right, and ambiance in the surround. Like in a real concert hall. With Quad and modern surround sound like Blu-ray and SACD it depends on the aim of the producer or engineer. Most have only ambience in the surround, so NOT the situation as if one is in the orchestra. And the concept is NOT bad. Just different tastes. I personally like those "middle in the orchestra" recordings very much, since they remind me of the soundscape when I am playing myself in an orchestra or chamber group. And concerning this album: I have it on CD since around 1990 and like it very much, although some pieces like asteroid field sound a bit hurried and slightly chaotic.