Debating a 5.1 mix - "discrete" or "ambient" (and other musings)

[britre]

You need to get a copy of the MFSL Jethro Tull Aqualung and you will no longer be a Wilson follower. He really screwed with everyones head on that stereo mix. I have not had the pleasure/pain to hear the 5.1 creation yet. The original quad on the DVD interests me greatly however...

 

[ssully]

Brian Treml has also discovered distortion on the stereo mixes of 'Hymn 42'.

Alert the media.

 

[britre]

LOL very funny. Good thing I have 40+ years of listening experience and bought both Auqualung and WYWH at a retail store for 1975's $6.98 price. The Quadraphonic ones were a bit more. But I am not sure why I bought that since I hate surround so much. Or for that matter why I would blow $125 for Pink Floyd just to get surround sound I have had for years with the best of the best stereo versions out there. WYWH has been reissued at least 20 times and bottom line is Guthrie ruined it by obvoisly never really listening too it. The quad ones are on that DVD and anyone can listen and tell the difference between real surrround and derrived. If it doesn't sound right people should know before they plunk down all that cash for inferior product. Spend your cash on the real thing, not an imitation.

 

[dr. simple]

But I am not sure why I bought that since I hate surround so much.

Why are you here if you hate surround so much?

 

[ssully]

LOL very funny. Good thing I have 40+ years of listening experience and bought both Auqualung and WYWH at a retail store for 1975's $6.98 price.

I've been listening to it since 1971, when my older sister bought it and played it incessantly (I still have her beat-up old LP). So by your criterion, I win. And btw, that distortion on Hymn 42 has always been there.

The Quadraphonic ones were a bit more. But I am not sure why I bought that since I hate surround so much. Or for that matter why I would blow $125 for Pink Floyd just to get surround sound I have had for years with the best of the best stereo versions out there.

That does sound kind of crazy. Have you seen someone about it?

WYWH has been reissued at least 20 times and bottom line is Guthrie ruined it by obvoisly never really listening too it.

Makes perfect sense. That must be it.

 

[britre]

Ahh one of those who take four words of a full sentence and try to make it mean something else. Very good.

Why are you here if you hate surround so much?

 

[britre]

You have 4 years on me, I will give you this one except that distortion is not present on other versions including your Reprise copy. Further what I said was it starts out distorted and loud then you can hear plainly the fade being turned down. Name another version that has this?

 

[ssully]

1) this is the wrong thread -- and even the wrong forum -- for debate over a stereo mix of 'Aqualung'

2) I need to stop propagating your error : it's Hymn 43, not 42.

3) Listening to Hoffman's DCC CD mastering of the tune now, supposedly direct from the OMTs -- the vocal in particular is a blown out at times , e.g. the words 'father' and 'high' in line 1. Just like it's always been. If in fact Steve Wilson chose to highlight this that's fine, a little distortion never hurt a hard rock song, which is what this one aims to be.

 

[britre]

Although we are now off topic and this is the last post in regard to something other than the WYWH SACD, I do have a top 5 Modern Surround list...

The Who-Tommy-Awesome, sold my vinyl it was so good in 5.1.
King Crimson-Dicipline-I believe this is Wilsons work. He made this sound so clear and interesting it simply is better than any previous release.
Aerosmith-Toys In The Attic-This was a new surround on SACD that followed the Stereo version and the quad version with a new mix that is great and clear.
Billy Joel-The Stranger-The mix keeps the 70's sound while being much more clear and clean that 1977 could provide.
Pink Floyd-The Dark Side Of The Moon SACD-This was James Guthrie in impress mode. Which he did. It was not the quad, and not the stereo. It was a fresh version of a classic.

There you have it, some surround I find was not a taking of my hard earned money and the music industry providing a quality product.

 

[britre]

1) this is the wrong thread -- and even the wrong forum -- for debate over a stereo mix of 'Aqualung'

Correct.

2) I need to stop propagating your error : it's Hymn 43, not 42.

Correct again. My bad. Whoops, better stop using the android phone for replies.

3) Listening to Hoffman's DCC CD mastering of the tune now, supposedly direct from the OMTs -- the vocal in particular is a blown out at times , e.g. the words 'father' and 'high' in line 1. Just like it's always been. If in fact Steve Wilson chose to highlight this that's fine, a little distortion never hurt a hard rock song, which is what this one aims to be.

That is a good point too. The DCC master is from a different tape and is a good comparison. The fader is the issue however. And I agree, we are in the wrong forum and topic for the Aqualung album. I will discontinue.

 

[bangsezmax]

Brian, as they say, you may need to work on your people skills, especially when presenting yourself on a new forum. But let's not worry about that now.

Let me preface this by saying I haven't heard the 5.1 mix yet. What I want to know is what's going on with the 5.1 mix that makes you think that it's a fake (and by fake, I mean an artificial mix derived from a stereo source).

As I see it, there are two possibilities:

1 - You're right, and we're being sold something as 5.1 that was not mixes from the original multi-tracks
2 - You're wrong, it was mixed from the original multi-tracks, but it's just not mixed to your liking

The first scenario gives me pause. The second one does to a lesser extent. I looked at the waveforms posted from the other thread and the fronts and rears on the 5.1 really do look pretty same-y. That may have been Guthrie's preference. But I'd really like to know what's going on there.

I was really looking forward to this release, and I'd prefer not to shell out lots of $ for the updated Quad on the Immersion set if that's the definitive version of WYWH. So what to do?

 

[britre]

Glad you took the time to ask, It is simply because it is Dolby Surround format. If you listen to each individual channel independently you will find there is no discreetness. For the most part this is a matrix surround sound recording presented digitally in high resolution. I personally expect a discreet 5.1 channel disc when I plunk down close to $50 for the disc (or more if you bought the box). The Quad on the DVD is awesome and discreet. Further, the wave screenshots on the other site prove there is nothing discreet about this new 5.1 mix. My Dolby Analog Surround from the 80's does a better job with the Stereo version than this mix. I expected alot more for my money at least. The other recordings I cited earlier ARE discreet and well worth the cash you will have to pay for them. Acoustic Sounds should be ashamed.

Brian, as they say, you may need to work on your people skills, especially when presenting yourself on a new forum. But let's not worry about that now.

Let me preface this by saying I haven't heard the 5.1 mix yet. What I want to know is what's going on with the 5.1 mix that makes you think that it's a fake (and by fake, I mean an artificial mix derived from a stereo source).

As I see it, there are two possibilities:

1 - You're right, and we're being sold something as 5.1 that was not mixes from the original multi-tracks
2 - You're wrong, it was mixed from the original multi-tracks, but it's just not mixed to your liking

The first scenario gives me pause. The second one does to a lesser extent. I looked at the waveforms posted from the other thread and the fronts and rears on the 5.1 really do look pretty same-y. That may have been Guthrie's preference. But I'd really like to know what's going on there.

I was really looking forward to this release, and I'd prefer not to shell out lots of $ for the updated Quad on the Immersion set if that's the definitive version of WYWH. So what to do?

 

[ssully]

Guys. You are making this thread a joke. I am going to have to move all of these non-topic threads outta here. Once I figure out what I'm going to do with them, they're gone. Please stay on topic.

You are totally free to start new threads in the appropriate forum sections to discuss any of the above issues in their own place. 2 years from now, someone looking for info on this SACD is not going to give a shit about Aqualung distortion, Steve Wilson, or who bought what in the '70s.

me:

1) this is the wrong thread -- and even the wrong forum -- for debate over a stereo mix of 'Aqualung'

That was your cue, Jon. I figured it would all to go to the cornfield, or to another thread.

 

[bangsezmax]

It is simply because it is Dolby Surround format. If you listen to each individual channel independently you will find there is no discreetness. For the most part this is a matrix surround sound recording presented digitally in high resolution.

This is conjecture on your part. Do you have any way to prove this?

 

[britre]

I am with that, get rid of the Aqualung stuff, it is not relevant and just is causing responses to a non topic..

me:


That was your cue, Jon. I figured it would all to go to the cornfield, or to another thread.

 

[JonUrban]

That was your cue, Jon. I figured it would all to go to the cornfield, or to another thread.

Sully,

Yup! I just wanted to think about where I was going to put it all. Now you guys can go to town!

Have fun.

 

[DKA]

Glad you took the time to ask, It is simply because it is Dolby Surround format. If you listen to each individual channel independently you will find there is no discreetness. For the most part this is a matrix surround sound recording presented digitally in high resolution.

This is absolutely the wrong way to judge a surround mix. By listening to a channel independently, you have no idea how what you are hearing plays off the other channel. As I said in the WYWH SACD thread, my feeling is that the magic in a surround mix is how the channels psychoacoustically play one another to produce a surround experience when in the sweet spot. It's why many of the Ambisonic mixes out there can give the illusion of separation when played together, but often possess little to no separation when heard apart.

What you hear, or don't hear, when listening to one channel on its own is almost irrelevant. If you don't hear it when listening to the entire mix, it's not there. That's a principle I live by A LOT.

The mix wasn't what I expected it to be either. Neither was "Moving Pictures." I still believe what they are presenting to me is what it actually is. I don't believe I'm being had.

 

[kap'n krunch]

Sooooo...
I guess I'm not missing much from the "new" 5.1 James(never been impressed by any of his Surround mixes)Guthrie ( I somehow suspected that that was gonna be the case with it) ...good thing I got a GREAT homebrewed DVD-A of a minty SQ...it rocks!!!

 

[Bob Squires Jr]

Judging from the SACD...
I personally think the 5.1 mix of WYWH is more like an "expanded stereo" mix than a surround mix.
I rather liked the quad mix that I have from the LP (we did the "Quadumvirate" DVD-A from it).
I have yet to receive my copy of the box so I'm looking forward to hearing the 4.0 from the BD.
I just think the 5.1 is very tentative almost as if JG was afraid to experiment with it a little.

My lousy 2 cents.

-B

 

[ar surround]

I'd rather have a great sounding 5.1 channel mix that is more ambient than discreet than a great discreet mix with lousy sound quality. Don't forget that one is getting a high resolution product in the WYWH SACD. I have the three Alan Parson's DVD-A's (Eye in the Sky, Turn of a Friendly Card, and I Robot) and they sound better enhanced into 7.1 using Logic 7 than some 5.1 surround sound mixes. What is important is that the flow of 5.1 material continues. Some recordings will be gems, some will be duds and most will be somewhere in the middle. Overall, I have found the high res 5.1 offerings to be superior to the red book 2-channel versions and that's what matters most to me.