DIGITAL Deep Purple - Machine Head (UK Quad Mix on the 2003 EMI SACD)

[ssully]

Spectacular work steelydave.

Coupla things:

The 'Lazy' guitar lead at 6:06 is not new -- it's on the famous stereo version too. It starts at 6:23 there. So it's been shuffled.

The front left channel of Lazy is also notably compressed compared to all other channels, especially evident in the final third of the track. Looks like a clipped hedge. Perhaps this is due to some Mew attempt at mastering

Also, do you think the LFE is even necessary on the UK 'quad' on the SACD? It was obviously just derived (poorly) by Mew from the quad.

 

[ssully]

Look at them in MMH’s Channel Volume tool. You will see the bonus tracks look suspect so I also tweaked them a fraction Ls. Look at the rms value not peak. Rms is the average level for the entire track, all those channel volume adjustments move the rms closer to the fronts.

The bonus tracks on the SACD are all from the 2001 DVDA 5.1. Completely different source and mixes. Also polarity-inverted compared to the DVDA.

 

[steelydave]

Spectacular work steelydave.

Coupla things:

The 'Lazy' guitar lead at 6:06 is not new -- it's on the famous stereo version too. It starts at 6:23 there. So it's been shuffled.

The front left channel of Lazy is also notably compressed compared to all other channels, especially evident in the final third of the track. Looks like a clipped hedge. Perhaps this is due to some Mew attempt at mastering

Also, do you think the LFE is even necessary on the UK 'quad' on the SACD? It was obviously just derived (poorly) by Mew from the quad.

Thanks - I think the reason that the front left channel on Lazy is clipped as much as it is is because being 5dB louder than all the other channels as the result of the boost in mastering, it ran afoul of the peak limiter used on the whole album that much more than the other channels. I think if you used restoration software like iZotope RX to repair the clipped peaks in the front left, it would end up looking (visually) a lot like the waveforms from the front right.

As far as the LFE goes, simply using the ear test, I liked the amount of bass it had with the corrected .1 track so I was loath to remove it. From a more theoretical/intellectual standpoint, I feel like Peter Mew mastered this listening to it on a system with a sub (albeit with a full range setup so he wasn't experiencing the cancellation you get from the out of sync LFE) and so if you remove the LFE you're losing some of the bass that should be there - ie if he'd mastered it with no LFE channel, he would've had more bass in the other full range channels.

Having said that, I think you should do these things to taste - if you feel like my corrections make the result too bassy, you can delete the LFE channel and have less bass. It's like the three bears, at least on a system where you're using bass management and getting phase-related cancellation: original version (least bass), deleted LFE (medium bass), corrected LFE (most bass).

 

[steelydave]

I meant to add as well, the reason I thought the guitar solos on Lazy were different is that the rhythm section underneath is (to my recollection right now, I'd have to go back and double check) identical for that part starting at 6:06. Could the reason for the missing solo section in the quad be that for the stereo mix they made a tape loop of the section 6:06-6:19 and had Blackmore overdub another solo over the same rhythm section part to extend it?

 

[ssully]

Thanks - I think the reason that the front left channel on Lazy is clipped as much as it is is because being 5dB louder than all the other channels as the result of the boost in mastering, it ran afoul of the peak limiter used on the whole album that much more than the other channels. I think if you used restoration software like iZotope RX to repair the clipped peaks in the front left, it would end up looking (visually) a lot like the waveforms from the front right.

yeah, though I'm not sure I really believe those things 'work'. They can't 'restore' lost information , they can only 'guess', and I haven't done any decent listening comparisons of them at all.

As far as the LFE goes, simply using the ear test, I liked the amount of bass it had with the corrected .1 track so I was loath to remove it. From a more theoretical/intellectual standpoint, I feel like Peter Mew mastered this listening to it on a system with a sub (albeit with a full range setup so he wasn't experiencing the cancellation you get from the out of sync LFE) and so if you remove the LFE you're losing some of the bass that should be there - ie if he'd mastered it with no LFE channel, he would've had more bass in the other full range channels.

Still, I feel a lot of ME's simply create a derived LFE 'because the listener will be angry' if nothing's coming out of their subwoofer. This is an attitude from the olden days (like 2003) when most people didn't have or use bass management of other channels: the sub was for the LFE of a 5.1 mix only. The result can be unnatural 'doubled bass'. For sure, the vast majority of music (including Machine Head) doesn't *need* a separate LFE to handle its (puny compared to earthquakes and cannon fire) bass.

Having said that, I think you should do these things to taste - if you feel like my corrections make the result too bassy, you can delete the LFE channel and have less bass. It's like the three bears, at least on a system where you're using bass management and getting phase-related cancellation: original version (least bass), deleted LFE (medium bass), corrected LFE (most bass).

For sure.

 

[ssully]

I meant to add as well, the reason I thought the guitar solos on Lazy were different is that the rhythm section underneath is (to my recollection right now, I'd have to go back and double check) identical for that part starting at 6:06. Could the reason for the missing solo section in the quad be that for the stereo mix they made a tape loop of the section 6:06-6:19 and had Blackmore overdub another solo over the same rhythm section part to extend it?

On the UK quad the fact that it's an edit there, hits you right in the ears (at least mine). It's a bit better integrated in the stereo mix, though I can't say exactly how it was done or if looping was involed. The EQ on the bass guitar does change there, is one thing I hear in stereo. It gets toppier.

 

[Dynamic Editor]

yeah, though I'm not sure I really believe those things 'work'. They can't 'restore' lost information , they can only 'guess', and I haven't done any decent listening comparisons of them at all.

They can actually work pretty great! Listen to how the chorus of "Parallel Universe" used to sound before editing:


And how it can sound after editing:


With that release of Machine Head though, I question how audibly distorted it could be to make a discernable difference with a program like a declipper.

 

[ssully]

Sorry, I can't stand the intrinsic awfulness of RHCP. They both sound terrible to me.

 

[Dynamic Editor]

Sorry, I can't stand the intrinsic awfulness of RHCP. They both sound terrible to me.

I meant how it sounds in regards to high frequency distortion. You can hear an audible difference in the crackle present in the original.

 

[ssully]

I know you did. To me the whole thing sounds like utter crap. Yeah, the snare hits are cleaner.

 

[ssully]

I'm sure it's been announced elsewhere on QQ, but the US quad is finally getting an official release, on the upcoming Super Deluxe set for Machine Head, announced today.