And I did mention..... that to me , Signals was very much lacking when it could have been a hell of a lot better in Surround mixing . Most especially in the usage of the rears. And that album is to me , is one of the best Rush has created for the fan .
Geddy Lee's electronic wizardry is outstanding .
Personally I'd like to see a remix of Signals , much the same way Steven Wilson did a remix for A Farewell To Kings.
I haven't heard Signals because I got burned by 2112 so bad and don't want to waste any more money on Chycki mixes. And yep, that would be amazing as would Power Windows as well. Those two albums are tour de forces for the synth years. You could really do a lot of fun things.
I suppose I'd be disappointed if like you said , (2112* ) Rush is your 2nd favourite Band and you expected more from this particular album*.
The favoritism doesn't really matter to me, I just want a quality mix that is a joy to listen to. I had never heard of Ultravox before their Vienna album got mixed in 5.1 and that is still my favorite MC mix to this day. I don't really care for a lot of their music but if SW got to mix any more of their catalog in surround, I would buy it in a heartbeat.
Me, I'm just happy someone in Universal/Mercury decided to release so many of Rush's material .
That the Band used and Continued to use Mr. Chycki for almost every one of their surround remixes kinda justifies that they were satisfied with his work .
Remember they have to sign off on his completed projects for Rush . And so they did.
No offense to the band members or their management, but most of them have no clue about the engineering and mixing side of their careers. For some reason they trust this man, and people have to come out to tell them that they shouldn't. If they want to continue with him, then so be it I guess. It seems Chycki is thankfully limited to Canadian bands for the most part.
Perhaps part of the problem with 2112 could be the use of alternate tracks , or to put it another way , some multis are missing
Nope, its just a bad mix. And if multi's are missing, then don't attempt and advertise a completed surround mix. That's even more maddening than a bad mix.
Also , I have to note that the average score on the votes for 2112 , are at "Seven" , that's certainly not a Silverline type of mix vote ! Even with all the faults you and others have mentioned.
Honestly, for QQ, an average of 7 is not good at all. There's one '10' vote out of 52. That's tragic for this site. Hell, I still gave it a 5 and I hate that mix with a passion. If I didn't know what I know, I would probably think this was a decent mix. Once you realize that theres a whole stereo mix in the center channel and surrounds with a couple of volume/panning automations happening to create "discrete" elements, then you get sick to your stomach and feel like the rug just got pulled from beneath your feet and you got cheated out of your hard earned money.
Now in summation , we bought these recordings for their surround mixes , and in my case , as I'm sure in yours , we'll end up keeping em .
You're not wrong there, only because there's a quality Hi-rez stereo mix on that disc. The surround will never be touched again unless i'm showing someone the difference between a good a bad mix.
To stay on topic, I finally listened to this for the first time and cannot find a way that this album will benefit from an Atmos mix. It's pretty barebones.
