Alan Parsons is not happy.......DSOTM (1 Viewer)

[Philip Hamm]

The problem Philip is that ambience can add extra information in the form of what we engineer's call "room tone" and reverberation-based sound cues. It brings the actual performance closer to life.
Listen to the "Ask Me Now" cut on the McCoy Tyner disc - you can hear his sax reverb all around the studio which brings the performance in closer and more natural. Done in surround, you can hear even more because mics are picking up more of the environment, but it must be done tastefully. Or you can listen to a great live to 2 track recording and get very darn close as I hinted before.

Lee, how many multichannel discs do you think have 3 or 4 mics for each instrument, including two in the rear corners of the recording studio to specifically record ambient noise of the room for the surround mix? While that would be nice, reastically, I don't think it's happening much, and I know it goes against your personal "minimal micing" philosophy (which I sympathize with BTW). Stereo micing an instrument should in my experiecne (which is limited to be sure, but I have been in some recording studios and have done some work) be sufficient to record room ambience. That is if the engineer knows what he's doing.

Where did the extra room ambience come from for an old recording remix like this? There's only one possible answer: Signal Processing. I hope it was DSD.

BTW, I listened to "Side 2" of this disc on my brother's Sony Dream system this weekend, and it sounded very cool.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Where did the extra room ambience come from for an old recording remix like this?

The McCoy Tyner reverb is on the master tape. With DSD, you just hear more of it (which is very enjoyable on Ask Me Now and throughout) with the extra detail.

I don't mind if an original production meant to be quad is played back in quad - that's different. I have just heard too many gimmicky 5.1 discs to be skeptical in general. IMHO SACD has been generally more tasteful than DVDA in this respect although both have good MC examples.

 

[LanceJ]

Philip: for info on creating ambience from an old recording, read this article about how the "Elv1s" 5.1-from-mono dvd-audio tracks were created.

This page describes non-DSP reverb creation also (under "Previously Owned Treasures"). And this informative site too (almost halfway down the page). Make sure to read the very last sentence!

LJ

 

[Lewis Besze]

IMHO SACD has been generally more tasteful than DVDA in this respect although both have good MC examples.

Not IMO,so far I'm finding SACD MCs a mixed bag,as oppose to DVD-A,though I have less SACD's,so in time with more purchase,I could change my mind about it.

 

[LanceJ]

IMO "tasteful" surround mixes translates to boring mixes.

For example, "The Nightfly" dvd-audio is as conservative as I can take.

LJ

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

I didn't find Parsons to be at all whiney about not participating, and I do think he had a valid reason for being included, as part of the original production. His observations are interesting, given that he was part of the creative process, and the concepts for doing various things would be known to him, such as the opening heartbeat.

Guthrie offers an interpretation, but since he wasn't present in the album's creation, he has to either guess or use his own judgement about how things should sound. Since he did have input from the band, it helps, but Parsons would obviously have a better grasp at what was trying to be achieved at the time, and I think he would do a good job of mixing if given the choice.

As for why Floyd went with Guthrie after Dark Side, I think the change of labels could have some bearing on it.

 

[Martin Rendall]

Guthrie offers an interpretation, but since he wasn't present in the album's creation, he has to either guess or use his own judgement about how things should sound.

The work was done 30 years ago, and drugs *may* have been involved. I'll bet that none of the original people really remember what was going through their heads back then. Hell, some the Floyd members have long ago admitted to not having listened to their own albums for many many years. Do you really think that they aren't interpreting their own work at this stage?

Martin.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

I'm not saying any modern remix isn't a reinterpretation, but the original engineer will have a far better idea of what they were trying to achieve than any third party unfamiliar with the sessions. It is easier for the ones initially involved to address issues they may have had with the original mixes. That isn't to say there's anything fundamentally wrong with Guthrie's version, just that Parsons would have a more intimate working knowledge of the tracks and what was used/disgarded and why.

 

[Ken Stuart]

I think that this Forum should use the same methodology as the Home Theater Forum Software (DVD) Forum, ie to have one "Official Thread on .... " and then either close or merge multiple threads on the same subject.

Right now, the exact same discussion is going on in at least two threads in this Music Area Forum, and possibly three. :frowning:

 

[Ralph Summa]

When I first heard that Parsons was not involved in the SACD I was a little bummed out. After reading the two articles in S&V I now look forward to the DVD-A even more. Parsons was complimentary to Guthrie's SACD mix, and his criticisms seemed to say "I don't like the way Guthrie did this because I was trying to do that." The thing that stuck with me when I had finished reading the two articles was that the Guthrie article talked about the band's wishes and intentions and the Parsons article seemed to talk about his particular wishes and intentions.

I thought it was particular interesting that the remix brought about a 30 year-old argument between Waters and Gilmour on "Speak to Me". It seems as if Waters and Gilmour are talking again. Possible reunion?

 

[Dennis Nicholls]

One more question, will the sacd play on a conventional cd player?

Yes, I played it on my conventional DVD player yesterday. My SACD player gets delivered via FedEx today. The CD layer sounds very nice although I have no point of reference vis-a-vis other CD recordings.

 

[Wayne Bundrick]

I thought it was particular interesting that the remix brought about a 30 year-old argument between Waters and Gilmour on "Speak to Me". It seems as if Waters and Gilmour are talking again. Possible reunion?

Did anybody else get that impression? I didn't.

I'm inclined to believe that each member of the band -- not necessarily all at the same time -- listened to Guthrie's initial mix and requested a few changes. Wherever there was disagreement, Guthrie had to be the mediator to reach a compromise. Then, each band member listened again to all of the incorporated changes for final approval.

Anyway, I don't think either one is interested in a reunion.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Guthrie offers an interpretation

The SACD is a very accurate portrayal of the original master tape, so my question is what "interpretation"?

I think this is a great album musically and sonically, and all the discussion on Parsons borders on the anal retentive.

 

[Lewis Besze]

No he does not - he simply works with the band members that were there. What makes their input less valuable than Parsons?

It's not about value but facts,and knowledge. The fact that Parsons did many of the effects himself without the band members being present,but later approved by them.

 

[Ken Stuart]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guthrie offers an interpretation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The SACD is a very accurate portrayal of the original master tape, so my question is what "interpretation"?

That would be true if Guthrie had only made a remastering of the two track masters. But, he also made his own mix from the multi-track masters, which is therefore automatically an interpretation.

PS Can the moderator please close this thread, since the same topic is discussed in the "Official..." thread?

 

[Lee Scoggins]

That would be true if Guthrie had only made a remastering of the two track masters. But, he also made his own mix from the multi-track masters, which is therefore automatically an interpretation.

But Ken its been repeatedly stated that Guthrie did his best on the two channel to preserve the exact 2 channel mix. This seems an awefully anal point to criticize even from an audiophile standpoint.

 

[Ken Stuart]

Lee - you are confused - read slower.

Guthrie offers an interpretation

was Jeff's comment about the SACD multitrack mix .

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

Guthrie should not have been able to do anything that should have affected the two channel mix (other than EQ, compression/limiting and noise reduction) if all he was doing was a mastering job. He should not have been able to change the mix considerably from two track masters.

As Ken says, my comments are in regard to the multichannel mix, which went back to the original multitrack tapes.

As for whether the band's approval supercedes the producer's, that I would question, depending on the artist. In this case Parsons was an awfully big part of what Dark Side what it was, and only he and his assistants would have the first hand knowledge of what they were doing, and to what end.

 

[Wes]

Does any one know if Parson's dts mix was much different than the original quad?

Wes

 

[Justin Lane]

Does any one know if Parson's dts mix was much different than the original quad?

The so called DTS mix is the original quad if I am not mistaken.

Guthrie did a bang up job on this remaster. Would I have liked to see Parsons involved? Of course, for historical purposes. Do I think this release was compromised in any way because he was not involved? Not one bit.

Either way, we can be sure that in another 5 years Floyd will be pimping a new anniversary edition, so maybe Parsons will then get an opportunity for input.

J