Deluxe Edition of "Imagine" Coming Soon! (Remixed 5.1 and Remastered Quad audio)

[quicksrt]

And there's a term for that, Clinty: Schizophrenia!

When you advertise an album as a 5.1 remaster and the REAL 5.1 is included on a bonus disc of outtakes, etc., it really is a bit of misrepresentation, AFAIK!

Because of the excellence of the box set I had to knock off a point and voted 9 for IMAGINE for this 'discrepancy!'

I'm confused again. The 5.1 mix of Imagine, not remaster. Of course it's remastered but 5.1 always refers to a mix.

And you are saying because you don't like the instrument layout (on original album) across the 5.1 spread, it's not REAL 5.1?

I'm sorry I am failing to keep up on every other page here.

 

[dobyblue]

I just don't understand why, if the masses couldn't care less about surround, you can't be adventurouns with the material and completely stray from the stereo or mono or "spirit" of the album. You KNOW it would not sound like this if ES, SW, Clearmountain or Parsons had a go at it. The biggest logic fail to me is that the stereo mix is the stereo mix, keep the spirit whatever, don't stray from the original, great; the 5.1 mix isn't the stereo mix tho so what's the point in not catering to the niche market that will actually listen to this?

One other question, did anyone find the surround maps confusing or gimmicky? There's one poster over on the Blu-ray.com forums in the Imagine SDE thread that says they don't make sense, don't represent the mix at all and provide no actual useful information and it seems like everyone else in the surround-verse gets it but him. Just wondering if perhaps he has some company, or if everyone else would agree they're pretty good representations of the surround field?

 

[rtbluray]

I'm confused again. The 5.1 mix of Imagine, not remaster. Of course it's remastered but 5.1 always refers to a mix.

And you are saying because you don't like the instrument layout (on original album) across the 5.1 spread, it's not REAL 5.1?

I'm sorry I am failing to keep up on every other page here.

You'll have to excuse him.
He constantly mixes up the terms 'remix' and 'remaster' on here, which is silly because I know he's been around here long enough to know the difference between the two terms.
That's why when I altered the thread title I specifically said 'REMIXED 5.1' and 'REMASTERED Quad' audio (because as we all know, all of the 5.1 mixes are brand new mixes, so obviously you cannot 'remaster' a new mix that's never been released before, unlike the Quadraphonic mix that has been released before.)
It's just as annoying when people put the DVD-Audio logo on DVD-Video discs...

 

[dobyblue]

It's just as annoying when people put the DVD-Audio logo on DVD-Video discs...

He's looking at YOU Mike Oldfield, yes YOU! The guy who's never heard of Blu-ray.

 

[Clint Eastwood]

I just don't understand why, if the masses couldn't care less about surround, you can't be adventurouns with the material and completely stray from the stereo or mono or "spirit" of the album. You KNOW it would not sound like this if ES, SW, Clearmountain or Parsons had a go at it. The biggest logic fail to me is that the stereo mix is the stereo mix, keep the spirit whatever, don't stray from the original, great; the 5.1 mix isn't the stereo mix tho so what's the point in not catering to the niche market that will actually listen to this?

One other question, did anyone find the surround maps confusing or gimmicky? There's one poster over on the Blu-ray.com forums in the Imagine SDE thread that says they don't make sense, don't represent the mix at all and provide no actual useful information and it seems like everyone else in the surround-verse gets it but him. Just wondering if perhaps he has some company, or if everyone else would agree they're pretty good representations of the surround field?

I think you are wrong on this assertion...whether it's ES, SW or whoever you want to name...at the end of the day they are merely employees...they don't have complete automony to do what they want...I can remember comments by ES about his experience with Beyoncé...he wanted to do something and he was overruled....working on Beatle titles isn't the same as doing mixes for Gentle Giant...and I mean no disrespect for that band...but it's not the same atmosphere...not even close...maybe Ryan can contribute his input about the mixer's freedom to do what they want...

 

[rtbluray]

I think you are wrong on this assertion...whether it's ES, SW or whoever you want to name...at the end of the day they are merely employees...they don't have complete automony to do what they want...I can remember comments by ES about his experience with Beyoncé...he wanted to do something and he was overruled....working on Beatle titles isn't the same as doing mixes for Gentle Giant...and I mean no disrespect for that band...but it's not the same atmosphere...not even close...maybe Ryan can contribute his input about the mixer's freedom to do what they want...

Yep, unless the artist has no involvement at all, then the mixing engineer is always subservient to the artist.
No one is above this, not even Elliot Scheiner or Steven Wilson.
Steven Wilson is pretty lucky though in that almost every artist he has worked with fully understands what's possible with a great 5.1 surround mix so thankfully those artists tend to let him do what he does best while at the same time being respectful of the original album's sound.

 

[Clint Eastwood]

Yep, unless the artist has no involvement at all, then the mixing engineer is always subservient to the artist.
No one is above this, not even Elliot Scheiner or Steven Wilson.
Steven Wilson is pretty lucky though in that almost every artist he has worked with fully understands what's possible with a great 5.1 surround mix so thankfully those artists tend to let him do what he does best while at the same time being respectful of the original album's sound.

Exactly...and by extension maybe that's why Steven Wilson doesn't work with just anybody...and then there is his musical preference...he has to like what he works on...and those bands in the progressive genre know him and I think he gets additional respect because he is a musician...he's one of them...

 

[dobyblue]

No-one with any thoughts on the surround maps?

 

[milt]

Yep, unless the artist has no involvement at all, then the mixing engineer is always subservient to the artist.
No one is above this, not even Elliot Scheiner or Steven Wilson.
Steven Wilson is pretty lucky though in that almost every artist he has worked with fully understands what's possible with a great 5.1 surround mix so thankfully those artists tend to let him do what he does best while at the same time being respectful of the original album's sound.

True but he's not working for The Beatles.
Although I have to believe that Robert Fripp is a whole nother level of OCD, it's still obviously not the same thing.
That's what floors me with all the negativity regarding Giles Martin.
Basically criticism from armchair Internet jockeys who've never stepped inside a recording studio, much less Abbey Road EMI.
And if they ever did they'd poop & pee their knickers at the same time

Sure, you don't like, you don't like it. Fine.
But the derision without any experience, knowledge or anything with what's involved is disappointing to me.
Especially here.

SHF is the Immature\Expert\Amateur Hour.
I feel this place is more about the music and not about trying to be in the middle-aged cool kid clique and critique everything trying too hard to prove how "discerning" you are.

 

[milt]

BTW, T-minus 24 hours til my Imagine set ships from Japan.
Hopefully less in real hours given the International Date Line.
I'm very Zen-like in my patience, Grasshoppers.

 

[quicksrt]

True but he's not working for The Beatles.
Although I have to believe that Robert Fripp is a whole nother level of OCD, it's still obviously not the same thing.
That's what floors me with all the negativity regarding Giles Martin.
Basically criticism from armchair Internet jockeys who've never stepped inside a recording studio, much less Abbey Road EMI.
And if they ever did they'd poop & pee their knickers at the same time

Sure, you don't like, you don't like it. Fine.
But the derision without any experience, knowledge or anything with what's involved is disappointing to me.
Especially here.

SHF is the Immature\Expert\Amateur Hour.
I feel this place is more about the music and not about trying to be in the middle-aged cool kid clique and critique everything trying too hard to prove how "discerning" you are.

I only disagree that one needs to be able to play an instrument well to be a music critic. Of have done mixing to know that Giles Martin did not create an exciting Sgt. Pepper 5.1 mix as a whole.

I personally think he should be given credit for the 2 or 3 tunes from that album that wholly work in 5.1. Rather than saying the entire thing is botched, unless one strongly feels there are not any tracks which suceeed in 5.1 out of those Martin mixes.

 

[dobyblue]

I think you are wrong on this assertion...whether it's ES, SW or whoever you want to name...at the end of the day they are merely employees...they don't have complete automony to do what they want...I can remember comments by ES about his experience with Beyoncé...he wanted to do something and he was overruled....working on Beatle titles isn't the same as doing mixes for Gentle Giant...and I mean no disrespect for that band...but it's not the same atmosphere...not even close...maybe Ryan can contribute his input about the mixer's freedom to do what they want...

It's true, giving a good listen to INXS recently I'm reminded that it's not Giles...it's someone else. Or at least, if it is Giles...why is he doing such a better job on the INXS surround mix than the Peppers mix? Plus the INXS mix has several dBs of headroom and received a fully dynamic mastering whereas Peppers every track peaks under 0.1dB and has faily aggressive dynamic range compression.

So remove my second sentence, the rest of the post stands.

 

[fredblue]

It's true, giving a good listen to INXS recently I'm reminded that it's not Giles...it's someone else. Or at least, if it is Giles...why is he doing such a better job on the INXS surround mix than the Peppers mix? Plus the INXS mix has several dBs of headroom and received a fully dynamic mastering whereas Peppers every track peaks under 0.1dB and has faily aggressive dynamic range compression.

So remove my second sentence, the rest of the post stands.

i genuinely believe someone (at Abbey Rd?) is mucking around with some of this stuff in the authoring stage, between the final mixes being delivered and the discs getting replicated, as when you lower the Front 3 channels by 3dB on both the 5.1's of Sgt Pepper's & Imagine - hey presto! - the mixes improve immeasurably (to my ears and on my little system anyway). I'm guessing somewhere in the (Abbey Rd?) chain someone has their 5.1 setup with the Rears too hot or something!? ho hum.. at least we can easily change the channel levels and "restore" (if it is an unnecessary futz up) the surround sound balance. the EQ stuff I have no explanation for and no idea wtf they were thinking of, if these 5.1 mixes have indeed been fiddled about with at a later stage by someone other than Giles Martin/Paul Hicks?!

 

[wavelength]

i genuinely believe someone (at Abbey Rd?) is mucking around with some of this stuff in the authoring stage, between the final mixes being delivered and the discs getting replicated, as when you lower the Front 3 channels by 3dB on both the 5.1's of Sgt Pepper's & Imagine - hey presto! - the mixes improve immeasurably (to my ears and on my little system anyway). I'm guessing somewhere in the (Abbey Rd?) chain someone has their 5.1 setup with the Rears too hot or something!? ho hum.. at least we can easily change the channel levels and "restore" (if it is an unnecessary futz up) the surround sound balance. the EQ stuff I have no explanation for and no idea wtf they were thinking of, if these 5.1 mixes have indeed been fiddled about with at a later stage by someone other than Giles Martin/Paul Hicks?!

But if that were the case you'd think Giles would catch this. I mean surely he listens to the final product.

 

[Clint Eastwood]

It's true, giving a good listen to INXS recently I'm reminded that it's not Giles...it's someone else. Or at least, if it is Giles...why is he doing such a better job on the INXS surround mix than the Peppers mix? Plus the INXS mix has several dBs of headroom and received a fully dynamic mastering whereas Peppers every track peaks under 0.1dB and has faily aggressive dynamic range compression.

So remove my second sentence, the rest of the post stands.

Your second sentence is the essence of the problem...you do present a good argument for having an adventurous mix...AND I AGREE....the stereo mix should be for the purists...HOWEVER....it's painfully obvious that they(management)don't want that...don't blame the messenger(Giles) for the message....if ever there was proof about the "keep the original feel" intact...it was this Imagine album...it could have been like the raw cuts...but it wasn't...it's pretty clear to me the direction that they want...

 

[fredblue]

But if that were the case you'd think Giles would catch this. I mean surely he listens to the final product.

you'd hope so but i don't know i'm afraid.. the tiny bit of knowledge i do have on how other houses/teams/labels etc sometimes do it is no factory pressed test discs are produced (cost cutting measure or time-saving, maybe?) and so theoretically anything could happen between a surround remix engineer signing off on their work and the discs we buy getting made, I guess..

 

[Simon A]

Ultimately, I'm hoping this box set will set a standard (although I doubt it will). By offering two shades of mixes, one conservative and one more active (discrete), the artist/record company would actually cater to both camps. I'm sure that for every QQ member who prefers the approach found on Disc 2, there will be a silent majority/minority (we may never know) who will prefer the mixes on Disc 1.

If collectors knew they had the choice between two 5.1 mixes in every box set, it may make these purchases easier to make knowing they had better chance of getting a 5.1 mix they were excited about.

 

[rtbluray]

i genuinely believe someone (at Abbey Rd?) is mucking around with some of this stuff in the authoring stage, between the final mixes being delivered and the discs getting replicated, as when you lower the Front 3 channels by 3dB on both the 5.1's of Sgt Pepper's & Imagine - hey presto! - the mixes improve immeasurably (to my ears and on my little system anyway). I'm guessing somewhere in the (Abbey Rd?) chain someone has their 5.1 setup with the Rears too hot or something!? ho hum.. at least we can easily change the channel levels and "restore" (if it is an unnecessary futz up) the surround sound balance. the EQ stuff I have no explanation for and no idea wtf they were thinking of, if these 5.1 mixes have indeed been fiddled about with at a later stage by someone other than Giles Martin/Paul Hicks?!

I don't think it's simply a matter of someone changing the channel levels during the mastering or authoring stage.
I think what's happening is that the front channels are being mastered differently than the back channels, so if they are adding more compression and limiting to the front channels than they are to the back channels that's going to make the front channels louder.

 

[quicksrt]

I would not be surprised at all if Giles has no say in mastering and that the person(s) mastering these sets was well trained by Peter Mew.

 

[marpow]

CDJapan is sending my Imagine box set with SHM CD today, hope to have Monday or Tuesday, looking forward to posting my impression on the poll thread.