Deep Purple "Machine Head 50 (Deluxe)" 3CD+LP+BD-A w/ Atmos, US quad and 5.1 bonus (3/29/2024 -Universal)

[jimfisheye]

Guess I'm not the only cynical one around here! I mention that surround system setup and speaker management stuff is difficult. I'm not meaning to quip "You're hearing this all wrong and that's why you didn't like it." But just in case that is actually happening, I thought I'd mention it all the same. Maybe someone gets a revelation and suddenly their music collection gets new meaning today!

There was a thread around here not long ago (and many before that) where someone literally told a story like that! "Why all the 10s?! There's no bass. What the heck is with the 9s and 10s votes?! Oh, I had speaker management wrong all this time?! OK yeah, this is a 10 now!"
I'm paraphrasing but it went much like that.

Setup is critical. Audio is subjective to begin with. This stuff is genuinely challenging!

 

[edisonbaggins]

Different audio systems yield lots of variables, and that’s just when talking 5.1. Going from 5.1 to Atmos…even more variables for things not to sound exactly as they were recorded/mixed. And then there are even more variables just dealing with individual preferences in Atmos remixes.

I suspect that there would be comments disagreeing with Atmos remixes of new albums such as The Harmony Codex had the Atmos mix been created 50 years after the stereo version.

Tooooootally!

Not to mention far more choices the mixing engineer can make.

My long-time theory has been that the further you get from mono, toward Atmos, consensus will decrease. Add to that the new album vs. classic album thing, as you pointed out. The more classic an album is, the consensus dives even further.

 

[edisonbaggins]

Guess I'm not the only cynical one around here! I mention that surround system setup and speaker management stuff is difficult. I'm not meaning to quip "You're hearing this all wrong and that's why you didn't like it." But just in case that is actually happening, I thought I'd mention it all the same. Maybe someone gets a revelation and suddenly their music collection gets new meaning today!

There was a thread around here not long ago (and many before that) where someone literally told a story like that! "Why all the 10s?! There's no bass. What the heck is with the 9s and 10s votes?! Oh, I had speaker management wrong all this time?! OK yeah, this is a 10 now!"
I'm paraphrasing but it went much like that.

Setup is critical. Audio is subjective to begin with. This stuff is genuinely challenging!

I’m not cynical. I have pointed out an unclear statement that reads negative, in a way I find disagreeable. That is all.
If you care to state that you think there are no mixing mistakes for this Atmos mix, cool. If you think there are mistakes, cool.

We already completely agree that Atmos setup is tough and prone to cause some unenjoyable playback issues for some listeners.

 

[~dave~~wave~]

What I'm curious about also is whether some of the liberties taken on this mix were on the original tape. The closing scream on Highway Star sounds suspiciously like a cut and paste job from the opening scream. I actually like it, but I don't want it there if it wasn't on the original tape and is just artistic license taken by Dweezil. Same with echoes in the choruses of Smoke On The Water. Again, I like it, but where is it coming from?

As for the panning and stuff itself, I have no problems. The mix itself is adventurous and well-balanced, never out of whack. I only have problems with the low-end ON THE ATMOS MIX and any potential liberties he may have taken.

... I'd like to know whether the additional parts I'm hearing in the Atmos were on the original tape and just excluded from the original mixes or whether or not Dweezil has taken some liberties. The former I don't have a problem with. The latter I do.

Let the record show, according to Dweezil, it is the former.
This was made perfectly clear and transparent from his comments on the video posted in this thread in post # 245 on March 20.

The following is a transcript from the closed captions, edited for clarity:

Dweezil Zappa:
"There's so much about this classic record to love.
But now with another version in this box set, you have a chance to hear some things maybe you didn't know existed, and that was the whole goal.

So if I've done a reasonable job at all, I think people will hear some things they'll probably enjoy, because there's more detail that you can hear...


Smoke On The Water:

...One of the goals was I want to make the drums as big as possible. I want to hear every single tom fill and I want to hear more things happening from the keyboards.
So I would take those parts and I would make those much louder.

Especially in Atmos I would actually start moving them, so that they would sweep into the new section and give you like a bigger impact on the choruses. Doing the slight little changes, it kind of gives you like pockets of grooviness.

At the end of the song we're going to be able to hear some stuff that definitely wasn't on the original... so at this point there's some flange happening and you start hearing more keyboards... the keyboards move around a bit... but there's more vocal.

Rarely do you get to hear one of your favorite albums as if you're hearing it for the first time again... and hear details [you] didn't even know were there..."

 

[ar surround]

My long-time theory has been that the further you get from mono, toward Atmos, consensus will decrease. Add to that the new album vs. classic album thing, as you pointed out. The more classic an album is, the consensus dives even further.

We already completely agree that Atmos setup is tough and prone to cause some unenjoyable playback issues for some listeners.

And Atmos is relatively nascent technology with which mixing engineers are still discovering possibilities. Remember how long it took to make stereo sound better than just a source pegged in the left speaker, with a source pegged in the right speaker, with a phantom image in between?

But what really awes me is how people like Steven Wilson can take raw multi-tracks, mix them into 5.1 or Atmos, and get them to sound very close to the original stereo recording but with judicious improvements (i.e. Crosseyed Mary.) So much of the sound of the stereo classics involved post processing during the mixdown to stereo. Can one imagine how difficult it would be to tackle Led Zep?

 

[Guy Robinson]

I suspect that there would be comments disagreeing with Atmos remixes of new albums such as The Harmony Codex had the Atmos mix been created 50 years after the stereo version.

It's funny though that there is almost a 100% acceptance of most of Steven Wilson's ATMOS mixes.

 

[madscot]

It's funny though that there is almost a 100% acceptance of most of Steven Wilson's ATMOS mixes.

I think the major thing with SW is this, he only works on stuff he likes so puts a lot of love into it, other mixers will treat it like a job, just my twopence worth

 

[quicksrt]

Different audio systems yield lots of variables, and that’s just when talking 5.1. Going from 5.1 to Atmos…even more variables for things not to sound exactly as they were recorded/mixed. And then there are even more variables just dealing with individual preferences in Atmos remixes.

I suspect that there would be comments disagreeing with Atmos remixes of new albums such as The Harmony Codex had the Atmos mix been created 50 years after the stereo version.

For spans of 50 years on..., all we have to go with is the Atmos mixes that Steven Wilson has performed on old rock classics. I see no difference in the amount of disagreement over at Atmos mix of a 50 year old album, or an Atmos mix done on a current new album in another 50 years so far as the appreciation or dissatisfaction. Not sure I see any relevance. What am I missing.

 

[jefe1]

All I can say is I wish I could buy a Quadio of Machine Head with the US quad mix to put on the shelf next to the Quadio of Paranoid. But no way an album that was this big was not going to get the box set treatment...

 

[ar surround]

For spans of 50 years on..., all we have to go with is the Atmos mixes that Steven Wilson has performed on old rock classics. I see no difference in the amount of disagreement over at Atmos mix of a 50 year old album, or an Atmos mix done on a current new album in another 50 years so far as the appreciation or dissatisfaction. Not sure I see any relevance. What am I missing.

There are expectations of what a new mix should sound like to one who has been listening to the stereo mix of the album for decades. The stereo mix has become embedded in that person's brain. However, that listener does not have that long term 'prejudice' with a new recording, although one indeed may not care for the 5.1 or Atmos mixes regardless.

 

[mandrix]

I always give my honest opinion, and I normally don't try to dissect everything. Those who do, I always try to see what their thinking is without judgement. Often I completely understand and agree with much of what they say. I'm also sure many have better ears than this 74 year old.

But after reading comments I'm seriously considering just not voting in polls any more. I've given out 9's, 8's and even lower.
If something is "off" when most everything else plays and sounds just fine, then people's individual setups get the blame. While that can certainly be the case, I would expect that to be a constant problem, not just with one mix. I have many, many, surround titles, and when something stands out to me, especially on subsequent plays, I call it like I see it. But some things for me aren't enough to lower the scores I give.
Can't make everyone happy, no matter what is observed/said. Calling others out for their rating or observations in an accusatory way is not productive.

 

[Sal1950]

Can't make everyone happy, no matter what is observed/said. Calling others out for their rating or observations in an accusatory way is not productive.

Like with everything else, there's always going to be differences of opinion.
So long as folks don't get nasty which each other, a little debate is fine.
If they do, that's why the mod's are here.

 

[ssully]

I think the major thing with SW is this, he only works on stuff he likes so puts a lot of love into it, other mixers will treat it like a job, just my twopence worth

Greg Penny and Eliot Scheiner did/do consistently great work despite being not Steven Wilson.

And I've consistently preferred their work to Wilson's.

 

[jimfisheye]

The poll is weird to me too. I've upset people by not getting the rules. So I'll just leave that for those it's important to. I try to say something I'd like to read myself about a release. I try to mention fidelity and technical things before emotions or opinions on the music. If I'm familiar with a previous release - either of the same mix or different mix - that seems important to note. If a newer release has a degraded copy (accidentally or otherwise) of something previously released, that's really something I'd like to hear about!

If I can spot someone doing something wrong - revealing they made a wrong setting or something - I like to say something too. In the spirit of trying to help. Everyone must have their stuff dialed in as well as possible, right? Can't let someone just sit there hearing unintentional things!

And then someone says a slightly exaggerated comment about the bass and then someone else says their speaker management is set wrong and they say no it's not (because they were just exaggerating) and then all hell breaks loose! "What did you call my system?!" "No. You are!"

 

[ssully]

Guess I'm not the only cynical one around here! I mention that surround system setup and speaker management stuff is difficult.

And if you've been around here awhile, as I know you have, you know a lot of QQ folk have a lot of crazy-ass listening setups.

I take *every* report with a grain of salt.

 

[ssully]

Let the record show, according to Dweezil, it is the former.
This was made perfectly clear and transparent from his comments on the video posted in this thread in post # 245 on March 20.
Dweezil Zappa:
"There's so much about this classic record to love.
But now with another version in this box set, you have a chance to hear some things maybe you didn't know existed, and that was the whole goal.

The things left off were typically left off as an artistic/aesthetic judgement: "sounds better without it". *

As with most 'bonus tracks', when I hear these omitted bits on remixes I'm almost always convinced that the original decision to omit was the correct one.

*Though sometimes, it could be due to time constraints, e.g., tracks that are faded out while still going full blast.

 

[ssully]

I always give my honest opinion, and I normally don't try to dissect everything. Those who do, I always try to see what their thinking is without judgement. Often I completely understand and agree with much of what they say. I'm also sure many have better ears than this 74 year old.

But after reading comments I'm seriously considering just not voting in polls any more.

The polls are silly. They're like the children of Lake Woebegone: all above average.

 

[Dynamic Editor]

The polls are silly. They're like the children of Lake Woebegone: all above average.

I think the comments in the poll threads are much more useful. I also try to be pretty heavily (but fairly) critical in these polls when I do vote.

 

[ssully]

I see a few comments about the new stereo remaster of the 1972 original on this (though I see more comments on the new remix).

I'm kinda wondering how anyone/anything could significantly improve on the mastering that was included on the 2001
DVD-A. It's superb.

 

[quicksrt]

I think the comments in the poll threads are much more useful. I also try to be pretty heavily (but fairly) critical in these polls when I do vote.

Me too, I don't care so much if a title gets a very low rating. But when it gets a very low rating and the poster could not be bothered to state why, no comment at all, then I'm irked.