Porcupine Tree's "Fear Of A Blank Planet" is Coming - Again, Deluxe Box Set w Blu Ray

[vegas]

Burning Shed pre-order £74.99

 

[stoopid]

Unlike the other sets, the 5.1 mix has been remastered this time around.

I'm curious to know where you learned this, as the information being copied/pasted everywhere isn't definitive in how it's phrased.

Blu-Ray: Includes remastered stereo and 5.1 surround sound mixes of Fear Of A Blank Planet and Nil Recurring, as well as a 2024 documentary - The Making of Fear Of A Blank Planet.

This can be interpreted as the stereo is remastered but the 5.1 is the same surround mix. I'd like to see something that breaks these out, specifically stating the album and Nil Recurring in 5.1 are remastered.

Fwiw, I found the original stereo mix to be a little light on the lower end (bass) but the original 5.1 has more guts to it, so IMO it's less important the surround gets revisited. Also, the later released [2012?] FOaBP stereo mix sounds fuller although a bit compressed.

 

[M-K]

Now it's online to order. Ok.
I'll order this because of the beautiful artwork.

 

[Steve Bruzonsky]

I'm curious to know where you learned this, as the information being copied/pasted everywhere isn't definitive in how it's phrased.



This can be interpreted as the stereo is remastered but the 5.1 is the same surround mix. I'd like to see something that breaks these out, specifically stating the album and Nil Recurring in 5.1 are remastered.

Fwiw, I found the original stereo mix to be a little light on the lower end (bass) but the original 5.1 has more guts to it, so IMO it's less important the surround gets revisited. Also, the later released [2012?] FOaBP stereo mix sounds fuller although a bit compressed.

I agree with you 100%. We have seen releases in the past from some of our favorites with new 2 channel remixes but simply regurgutating the prior 5.1 mix. The information on the new release should not be so ambiguos.

 

[sjcorne]

I'm curious to know where you learned this

I play-tested the remastered 5.1 mix for Steven Wilson earlier this year. It is definitely a more dynamic presentation than the original DVD-A (you'll hear it in the 'Pills I'm Taking" section of Anesthetize especially, the choruses really pop and sound less harsh than before IMO).

As for there not being an Atmos mix, here’s what Steven wanted me to pass on regarding that:

I wish I could have done Atmos of this album especially, but it was made on what would now be an antique computer system using an obsolete file format (SD2), no longer supported virtual instruments and plugins, and software without any Atmos capability. The great irony is that analogue recordings from 30-50 years ago are much easier to retrieve and remix, because everything was printed to tape.

 

[Steve Bruzonsky]

I play-tested the remastered 5.1 mix for Steven Wilson earlier this year. It is definitely a more dynamic presentation than the original DVD-A (you'll hear it in the 'Pills I'm Taking" section of Anesthetize especially, the choruses really pop and sound less harsh than before IMO).

As for there not being an Atmos mix, here’s what Steven wanted me to pass on regarding that:

As always thanks for this info! Though your good info always ends up costing me as now I’ll have to order this on top of the DVD-A that I already have!

 

[minimumtumbleweed]

I play-tested the remastered 5.1 mix for Steven Wilson earlier this year. It is definitely a more dynamic presentation than the original DVD-A (you'll hear it in the 'Pills I'm Taking" section of Anesthetize especially, the choruses really pop and sound less harsh than before IMO).

As for there not being an Atmos mix, here’s what Steven wanted me to pass on regarding that:

Interesting response, thanks for sharing. Wouldn't have thought that software from the late 00's would be 'antique'. Legitimately though, would we find ourselves having the same issues trying to remix albums made today in twenty years? I don't know much about recording, so I'm wondering if we are still digging ourselves a technological hole here.

 

[mandrix]

https://porcupinetree.lnk.to/FOABP_DeluxeFA

Here's a list of buying choices.

 

[Marplot]

*&(@ me, Rhino, Cherry Red, this ... this is shaping up to be a very expensive holiday weekend.

 

[madship]

I've already placed my order. Without a doubt PT's best album. For me this was their first release after I discovered them. It took a little getting used to at the time. IMO there is a lot go good material in the release. The first CD of Nil Recurring with the new material on discs 3, 4 and the first half of disc 5 all have me eager for this release.

No Atoms is a bummer, but the remastered 5.1 sounds like it'll be great to hear. I'm a sucker for a documentary and long essay about the making of the album.

Despite being in the US, I ordered it from Burning Shed. With Amazon's recent track record, I just don't order surround releases from them any more. They're usually months behind the release date and usually arrived damaged. With the Shed, I occasionally get the releases on release date, and usually no worse than a week later and they are always in pristine condition.

 

[JulesRules]

Legitimately though, would we find ourselves having the same issues trying to remix albums made today in twenty years? I don't know much about recording, so I'm wondering if we are still digging ourselves a technological hole here.

It depends on whether artists/engineers have the foresight to export backup "stems" - in this case that would be basic tracks of all the instruments and vocals in WAV or a comparable format.

 

[minimumtumbleweed]

It depends on whether artists/engineers have the foresight to export backup "stems" - in this case that would be basic tracks of all the instruments and vocals in WAV or a comparable format.

I suppose that depends on whether a hypothetical future technology would use these things in the same way we do today. Hopefully we are better at predicting these things now.

 

[stoopid]

I suppose that depends on whether a hypothetical future technology would use these things in the same way we do today. Hopefully we are better at predicting these things now.

Stems will always be useful in a multitrack daw. They're the foundation off which most music is build (that isn't entirely synth/midi driven).

I understand SW overlooking this, I did for several years myself and have "lost" the ability to go back to my earliest recordings and remix them for similar reasons to what he stated. I have all the original project files backed up, just none of the software needed to open/play it.

 

[duneman]

I play-tested the remastered 5.1 mix for Steven Wilson earlier this year. It is definitely a more dynamic presentation than the original DVD-A (you'll hear it in the 'Pills I'm Taking" section of Anesthetize especially, the choruses really pop and sound less harsh than before IMO).

As for there not being an Atmos mix, here’s what Steven wanted me to pass on regarding that:

Regarding SD2 and the virtual instruments and plug-ins of that version of Protools which used the SD2 audio format. If I read this correctly, SD2 itself is not the issue but the virtual instruments and plug-ins that present the greatest obstacle.

So in order to remix the album he'd have to convert the SD2 audio files to .wav or .aiff and import them into his DAW (which is doable per the reading I've done on the subject), which almost certainly is Logic, and then pretty much mix the album from scratch. This begs the question... curious he used Protools in the first place when he's a confirmed user of Logic? Seems there might be more to this story.

Enquiring minds and all.

ps... he remixes classic albums from scratch using plug-in that emulate old analog outboard gear.

 

[M-K]

SW: I wish I could have done Atmos of this album especially, but it was made on what would now be an antique computer system using an obsolete file format (SD2), no longer supported virtual instruments and plugins, and software without any Atmos capability. The great irony is that analogue recordings from 30-50 years ago are much easier to retrieve and remix, because everything was printed to tape.

I usually bounce my tracks (freeze in Nuendo) which produces audio files. These include all effects that are active during that process. These could easily import to a new system. It's like getting tracks from a tape machine.
But I've had similar problems with older sessions from the 32bit era that I wanted to remix (even rearrange) in my new 64bit environment. To reproduce obsolete plugins with others is difficult if you want to achieve exact the same sound as an example.
As Steven Wilson is an absolute pro I understand his decision not to do an Atmos.

Sad. But understandable.

 

[JulesRules]

These include all effects that are active during that process. These could easily import to a new system. It's like getting tracks from a tape machine.

But of course that also means you can't re-apply the effects, so if there is reverb on an element, you can't recreate that reverb in a larger sound field.

 

[stoopid]

But of course that also means you can't re-apply the effects, so if there is reverb on an element, you can't recreate that reverb in a larger sound field.

You can try, and if you need a bunch of tracks to get a particular reverb effect you send them to a bus with the reverb applied to that bus. Getting it to match the original is another story.

Most of the issues in the modern era revolves around missing virtual (software) instruments and specific software effects as someone mentioned, getting older software running or activated can have a multitude of hurtles. Some hurtles can't be overcome, and depending on how integral to the song/project that thing is, could render the whole exercise in resurrection moot.

That's why stems become the preferred way -- it's the individual tracks exactly as they're appearing in the final stereo mix, and can be loaded into a surround workflow and moved around independently just fine. Saves a lot of headache long term trying to sus all the software stuff out.

 

[sjcorne]

That's why stems become the preferred way -- it's the individual tracks exactly as they're appearing in the final stereo mix, and can be loaded into a surround workflow and moved around independently just fine. Saves a lot of headache long term trying to sus all the software stuff out.

It would require a pretty complex set of pre-mixed elements, probably beyond the degree to which people normally stem things out, to create an effective surround presentation. For instance in his Atmos mixes, SW will do things like spread the drum kit out around the listener (kick/snare mainly front, but toms/overheads pushed further out toward the back) or place reverb returns up in the height speakers. So you'd need to print all that stuff separately to have that degree of control.

I think part of the reason why so many Atmos mixes on the streaming services feel half-baked is because mixers are being supplied with a limited stem count, like a stereo track with all the drums (with reverb and compression baked-in), then another track with both lead and backing vocals combined, another with all the guitars, etc.