DIGITAL Futzing with the HARVEST DVD-Audio

[drpaulng]

To me it sounds like the rear speakers should be the front speakers and the front speakers should be the rear speakers.... So swap the front and rear channels around and I think you'll find it a whole lot more interesting to listen to.

but as it originally comes it is just annoying.....

Yes, it is a wrong mix. The truth is very simple. You should swap the front and back channels to the tracks 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 (6 tracks out of the 10 tracks) and you'll find the original mix. The audio engineer might make some fatal mistakes during the production process and it's a great surprise people did not discover this before mass production. I think some of you might be interesting in re-authoring this DVD-A in order to get us a correct one.

 

[bugdaddy]

Yes, it is a wrong mix. The truth is very simple. You should swap the front and back channels to the tracks 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 (6 tracks out of the 10 tracks) and you'll find the original mix.

or, if you're lazy like me, you can turn your chair around and face the back wall

 

[Frantic]

or, if you're lazy like me, you can turn your chair around and face the back wall

Great idea!
I will try that and let you know.

 

[deepsky4565]

Yes, it is a wrong mix. The truth is very simple. You should swap the front and back channels to the tracks 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 (6 tracks out of the 10 tracks) and you'll find the original mix. The audio engineer might make some fatal mistakes during the production process and it's a great surprise people did not discover this before mass production. I think some of you might be interesting in re-authoring this DVD-A in order to get us a correct one.[/QUOTE
This is correct. Working on this in Sound Forge it is obvious there was a mistake in mastering. 6 of the tracks suffer from the fronts and rears being swapped. The center channel has up front vocals, yet the fronts only have reverb vocals, with the surrounds having the fronts' dry stronger vocals. When corrected, the mixes are fantastic. This is likely why it was a poor seller. If this is out of print, someone should make available a corrected version for those who cannot correct it for themselves. I have limited bandwidth . Give this another chance!

 

[LizardKing]

This is correct. Working on this in Sound Forge it is obvious there was a mistake in mastering. 6 of the tracks suffer from the fronts and rears being swapped. The center channel has up front vocals, yet the fronts only have reverb vocals, with the surrounds having the fronts' dry stronger vocals. When corrected, the mixes are fantastic. This is likely why it was a poor seller. If this is out of print, someone should make available a corrected version for those who cannot correct it for themselves. I have limited bandwidth . Give this another chance!

Thanks for re-highlighting this!!!

I voted 7 - I've always thought that this sounded strange - almost like an out of phase effect... now I know why...

I've authored a blu-ray with LPCM with the channels swapped on the tracks as mentioned - it would now be a 9 for me.

 

[JonUrban]

Yes, it is a wrong mix. The truth is very simple. You should swap the front and back channels to the tracks 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 (6 tracks out of the 10 tracks) and you'll find the original mix. The audio engineer might make some fatal mistakes during the production process and it's a great surprise people did not discover this before mass production. I think some of you might be interesting in re-authoring this DVD-A in order to get us a correct one.[/QUOTE
This is correct. Working on this in Sound Forge it is obvious there was a mistake in mastering. 6 of the tracks suffer from the fronts and rears being swapped. The center channel has up front vocals, yet the fronts only have reverb vocals, with the surrounds having the fronts' dry stronger vocals. When corrected, the mixes are fantastic. This is likely why it was a poor seller. If this is out of print, someone should make available a corrected version for those who cannot correct it for themselves. I have limited bandwidth . Give this another chance!

Thanks for this. Never knew that, and now I'll have to try it! Good job, Dan.

 

[deepsky4565]

When you try it, it is very obviously a mastering error. I'm lovin' it now.

 

[bangsezmax]

Wow. So how would one create a re-done version of this?

 

[dr8track]

Yes, it is a wrong mix. The truth is very simple. You should swap the front and back channels to the tracks 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 (6 tracks out of the 10 tracks) and you'll find the original mix. The audio engineer might make some fatal mistakes during the production process and it's a great surprise people did not discover this before mass production. I think some of you might be interesting in re-authoring this DVD-A in order to get us a correct one.[/QUOTE
This is correct. Working on this in Sound Forge it is obvious there was a mistake in mastering. 6 of the tracks suffer from the fronts and rears being swapped. The center channel has up front vocals, yet the fronts only have reverb vocals, with the surrounds having the fronts' dry stronger vocals. When corrected, the mixes are fantastic. This is likely why it was a poor seller. If this is out of print, someone should make available a corrected version for those who cannot correct it for themselves. I have limited bandwidth . Give this another chance!

I was blissfully ignorant of the problem until I read about it here. After listening to the front and rears on a few cuts, it does seem like the front and back are swapped. Now it will forever drive me crazy.

 

[Quad Linda]

Driving me crazy is not a long ride. Knowing Mr. Young, I assumed he author(iz)ed an unorthodox mix. This makes sense.

Was EMI involved in this? It certainly seems "Mew-tilated!" Oh wait, it's WEA. EMI and Mew had nothing to do with this. Imagine that!

 

[byrdman7]

Driving me crazy is not a long ride. Knowing Mr. Young, I assumed he author(iz)ed an unorthodox mix. This makes sense.

This has been my theory too. I made a corrected disc and it is now on my listening rotation :>)

 

[uffeolby]

Thanks for this. Never knew that, and now I'll have to try it! Good job, Dan.

I never heard this either. Makes sense since the 5.1-mix always have been a joke for my ears - really unlistenable! However I adore the 2 channel HiRez - track 1 is demo material.

 

[LizardKing]

For the first track.....on Harvest...

Here are waveforms of the original:


And with the front L&R swapped with the rears:


Looks right (to me) now....

 

[steelydave]

I'm just in the process of ripping this disc to 5.1 FLAC - for anyone who's done the front/back swap, do you need to adjust the levels of any of the channels or is it just a straight swap?

 

[EMB]

I'm just in the process of ripping this disc to 5.1 FLAC - for anyone who's done the front/back swap, do you need to adjust the levels of any of the channels or is it just a straight swap?

To my ears there is no need to adjust levels since, unless there's a problem somewhere that is consistent from track to track, it's something you might want to do after giving your first mix adjustment a serious listen, then adjust for a given song (though I don't hear anything amiss in this regard).

As I've said before, the solution is simple for anyone: simply sit in the middle of your listening room and turn your chair toward the rears. What I did was keep the center behind me and turn up the volume (obviously, if you're playing this one in your car, then the rearranged burn is essentia

Driving me crazy is not a long ride. Knowing Mr. Young, I assumed he author(iz)ed an unorthodox mix. This makes sense.

Has he ever discussed the mix of this DVD-A anywhere? Because unless it was intentional (listening to PET SOUNDS, we soon ascertained that its weird if fascinating mix could not possibly have been intentional) one must assume HARVEST was authored with reversed F/R channels by accident. It really doesn't make sense that a man like Young, who had expressed his dislike of compact disc audio and the limitations inherent to vinyl (and who had several of his albums put out on stereo DVD-A's) would put his stamp of approval on this edition of HARVEST (on the other hand, unlike the first pressing of COMES A TIME, it wasn't recalled, either. Hmm...)

Was EMI involved in this? It certainly seems "Mew-tilated!" Oh wait, it's WEA. EMI and Mew had nothing to do with this. Imagine that!

FWIW, NY has stated (IIRC) that he doesn't mind digital audio in so far as it can fix certain anomalies of analog recordings, including excessive tape hiss, among others. Listening to this one again, I do think that both stereo and 5.1 mixes suffer a bit from NR (the stereo to my ears being much more obvious in its lack of high end, though to be fair, don't remember the original album being exceptional in the sonics department to begin with. But it didn't have to be, right, since it was Neil).

While I'm in babbling mode, a few last things. Although I understand why Neil and/or the WEA folks would pick HARVEST as a DVD-A title, gotta say, if the choice had been left to me it would have come down to EVERYBODY KNOWS THIS IS NOWHERE (his 1969 sophomore solo album, mesmerizingly consistent and true) or the RUST NEVER SLEEPS/LIVE RUST albums (from acoustic solo to gut-crunching rock that is wholly unique and roughly, wonderfully pure) a decade hence. HARVEST, like many of NY's albums, are patchwork and erratic in style (if not always in quality).

And then there is the connection between "Cinnamon Girl" and "Pocahontas." Of course Neil is talking about that same, elusive woman throughout his work that most men dream about. She might have been an early, fleeting love, either personal or from a distance; or the 'girl of our dreams,' the one that got away. Maybe more, she's an amalgam of all the women we've loved, from mother and sister, to first lay to the girlfriends and wives along the way. Whoever she is, she always enthralls, most of all when we're asleep, and thinking is beyond our control. Then we wake up, and she's gone, except...she is always there: elusive, familiar, friendly, seductive (but never crude) and...just out of reach. Like an authentic, mint copy of an Elvis Presley Sun 45 or 78, worth her weight in gold and just as hard to find. And worth every penny not just to your body but your soul. She fills in the gaps that God left out of your part of the plan.

ED

 

[steelydave]

Wow, so much better with the fronts and rears swapped! Massively increases my enjoyment of this disc - no more weird indistinct vocal and instrument placement! Hallelujah!

 

[grill]

Yeah, it is better for sure. Thank you guys for the heads-up.

 

[himey]

Glad this thread got bumped up. I swiched the channels as recommended earlier in the thread and it makes all the difference. Never liked it before but now it's much better.

 

[Neb-Maat-Re]

transposed the front left with rear left, and front right with rear right channels on 6 of the tracks (1-4 and 6 & 7).

Thanks - that's the specific clarification I was just looking for!

I wasn't sure if it was RF to RR or RF to LR. If it was the latter, then just turning the chair around doesn't work either.

 

[JonUrban]

Well, after ALL THESE YEARS, I finally ripped this DVD-A to PC, and sure enough it's plain as freakin' day, the fronts and rears are swapped on tracks 1,2,3,4,6 and 7, as originally reported by QQ member 'drpaulng' back in May of 2007. So I'm a little slow.

That's not the only issue with this mix. The LFE isn't really an LFE, it's a real audio channel with full frequency information in it. In fact, if you pull up the LFE track on it's own and listen to it on a normal full range speaker (paste it into a stereo wav file and listen to it), you can hear Neil singing the lead SOLO!! Yes, this is the only place in all of the channels where Neil is without the background or harmony vocals. It's not "right up front" in the mix, but it's there.

So how much music info is lost by having it in the LFE channel? Well, probably not a lot, because a lot of it is drums which are also in the rears, but man, whoever mixed this thing must have been really spaced out.

If this was the first 5.1 disc that I ever ripped, I'd probably have to resort to many alcoholic beverages to sort it out.

This is such an iconic album it's a shame that this mix is such a mess. Not sure how people like Cai rated it so high, but maybe the joy of having an album of this heritage appear as a DVD-A helped in the decision.

HARVEST is a very very very very bizarre DVD-A, but what do we expect from Neil Young? The answer, as always, is expect NOTHING from Neil. Because Neil marches to his own drummer, which is probably why we all like the guy.

One more thing, IMHO, even with the channels swapped out to be proper, it's still not that great of a surround mix! :music
My original vote of '7' is still about right.