Dear QQers,
There has been a great deal of debate on the authenticity of the Whites Off Earth Now!! MFSL surround mix, with some going so far as to call it "fake surround." I have been recently reading these debates and posting hereabouts on the topic, but the truth is there does not seem to be any good documentation about the intent of the recording that led to the release on SACD. I therefore took it upon myself to look up the email address for Peter J. Moore, the original engineer on the project and also the man responsible in part for the surround mix, and I sent him this inquiry:
"I am on a surround sound forum where there is great debate as to whether the MSFL 5.1 mix of Whites Off Earth Now!! is a decode or an upmix. It is understood that the recording was made with a "Calrec Ambiosonic Microphone" per the liner notes. The question is, was this UHJ encoded, and if so was it properly decoded for the multichannel mix that appears on the MFSL release?"
He was kind enough to reply, and herewith is the response I received:
"The {Whites Off Earth Now!!} recording was UHJ encoded. When we decoded it for multichannel we were not happy with the result. This led to finding a better way. With some privately funded research we developed a way to "Generate Perfect Surround" or GPS as we now call it. To call it simply an Upmix does not do it justice as the many rave reviews of that SACD we have received would confirm."
-Yours Truly
Peter J. Moore
So this does answer two questions definitively: was the recording UHJ encoded, and was the MFSL release an "upmix" from a stereo master. Yes, it was a UHJ recording, and no, it was not an upmix from stereo.
Now let the debate begin: Since it was not a straight decode, does it qualify as "true" surround or "fake" surround. My opinion is that considering it was recorded using a directional technique, and since the engineer in charge feels as though the presented surround mix is a good representation of the soundstage, I think it can be called a true surround sound mix. I recently listened to the mix again critically and to me it had definite directionality from individual elements. These elements were not as isolated as when a vocal or a guitar is placed exclusively in a single channel, but neither was that the intention.
So clearly this was recorded and decoded with the intent of "real surround." And I think it sounds directional, but not discrete.
Anyone else?
Ken
There has been a great deal of debate on the authenticity of the Whites Off Earth Now!! MFSL surround mix, with some going so far as to call it "fake surround." I have been recently reading these debates and posting hereabouts on the topic, but the truth is there does not seem to be any good documentation about the intent of the recording that led to the release on SACD. I therefore took it upon myself to look up the email address for Peter J. Moore, the original engineer on the project and also the man responsible in part for the surround mix, and I sent him this inquiry:
"I am on a surround sound forum where there is great debate as to whether the MSFL 5.1 mix of Whites Off Earth Now!! is a decode or an upmix. It is understood that the recording was made with a "Calrec Ambiosonic Microphone" per the liner notes. The question is, was this UHJ encoded, and if so was it properly decoded for the multichannel mix that appears on the MFSL release?"
He was kind enough to reply, and herewith is the response I received:
"The {Whites Off Earth Now!!} recording was UHJ encoded. When we decoded it for multichannel we were not happy with the result. This led to finding a better way. With some privately funded research we developed a way to "Generate Perfect Surround" or GPS as we now call it. To call it simply an Upmix does not do it justice as the many rave reviews of that SACD we have received would confirm."
-Yours Truly
Peter J. Moore
So this does answer two questions definitively: was the recording UHJ encoded, and was the MFSL release an "upmix" from a stereo master. Yes, it was a UHJ recording, and no, it was not an upmix from stereo.
Now let the debate begin: Since it was not a straight decode, does it qualify as "true" surround or "fake" surround. My opinion is that considering it was recorded using a directional technique, and since the engineer in charge feels as though the presented surround mix is a good representation of the soundstage, I think it can be called a true surround sound mix. I recently listened to the mix again critically and to me it had definite directionality from individual elements. These elements were not as isolated as when a vocal or a guitar is placed exclusively in a single channel, but neither was that the intention.
So clearly this was recorded and decoded with the intent of "real surround." And I think it sounds directional, but not discrete.
Anyone else?
Ken
