DSOTM - was it remixed in stereo for SACD? (1 Viewer)

[Brian L]

There is a detailed article on DSOTM in this month's (June) Sound And Vision magazine.

You beat me to the punch John!

And its a damn good read too! Back to back comparison on the new surround mix by James Guthrie and Alan Parsons.

I found it a fascinating read. Never having heard Parsons' quad mix, I have no frame of reference, but what I found interesting was that he seemed to think Guthrie was a bit conservative in his use of the surrounds (too respectful of the original, I think he said).

Other than the clocks, cash registers, and the odd disembodied voice, its pretty much biased to the front, with some ambience in the rears.

I would completely agree (ya, like I would argue with the Parsons and Guthrie!), although I do not feel that this in anyway diminishes my enjoyment of the new 5.1 mix. Its just a bit more conservative, IMHO, in comparison to other current DVD-A, and SACD rock that I own (Bowie, Beck, Eagles, Yes).

An interesting point that I was unaware of was the Floyd never approved the quad mix, which I find odd given that I have read posts elsewhere complaining that if the DSOTM SACD does NOT use the quad mix, they won't even consider it. So if the band didn't approve or have input, why should we clamor for it?

Anyway, a great read, even if you hate S&V. Now, if they would get crakin' on the Wall (the real ONE), I would camp out at Best Buy waiting for that!

BGL

 

[Ken Stuart]

An interesting point that I was unaware of was the Floyd never approved the quad mix, which I find odd given that I have read posts elsewhere complaining that if the DSOTM SACD does NOT use the quad mix, they won't even consider it. So if the band didn't approve or have input, why should we clamor for it?

This "band didn't approve the quad" is a persistent myth (It's possible that some or all of the band members did not audition the quad mix prior to its release, but it's quite a stretch from that to the usual implication that they did not really want it in quad, when both the previous and subsequent albums were released in quad, and all their live concerts of that time period were in quad, as I myself witnessed).

In actuality, some of the components for the quad mix were recorded directly to the original multi-channel tapes - prior to any mix.

More on this in Alan Parson's article on the DSotM quad mix , written in 1975 (ie only two years later).

The reason we should clamor for it, is that in my case, the Quad mix sounds like the "right" mix for the album, and the stereo mixes all sound like they are "downconverted" for those who only have stereo.

 

[LanceJ]

An interesting point that I was unaware of was the Floyd never approved the quad mix,......

Go here and scroll down to "Bonus Reviews!", then read the third paragraph down.

It looks like Floyd didn't approve of EMI's handling of the decision to make a quad version.

According to some people at Steve Hoffman's forums they said the quad mix is pretty good: more discrete & aggressive than Guthrie's (they have it on DTS-CD ).

LJ

 

[Ken Stuart]

By the way, Lee:

On the liner notes for New York Reunion, there is a big picture of Tyner with electrostatic headphones (Sennheiser, IIRC). Then, there are 4 pictures of the band members, and another picture on the back of the liner notes.

Which headphones are those in those other five pictures?

 

[Lee Scoggins]

On the liner notes for New York Reunion, there is a big picture of Tyner with electrostatic headphones

I worked on this session. These were the Stax headphones I used to monitor the session and every once in a while McCoy would come in and listen to playback. In fact, Dave King took that fairly well respected picture which I have an autographed copy hanging in my listening room.

You are right that we used the AKG headphones on the session, which is why I hate them. They sounded so bad that McCoy could not hear the detail of the music. That is why he borrowed the ones I listened to (okay, David Chesky used them a lot too, he does run the show...). They were not part of Chesky's normal set up - they were supplied by RCA Studio A (sadly no longer in existence) as standard equipment.

Perhaps we should tell Vince Maskeeper we have found one more reason why mega-budget music sounds bad.

The photo of McCoy is classic because it captures how serious he is about his music. The man himself is a real nice guy who is great fun to be around.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

The reason we should clamor for it, is that in my case, the Quad mix sounds like the "right" mix for the album, and the stereo mixes all sound like they are "downconverted" for those who only have stereo.

This is debatable Ken. As Guthrie says in the Sound & Vision article, the band itself rejected using the Quad version. Even Parsons admits it was not a great recording sonically and had been rushed.

 

[Ken Stuart]

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reason we should clamor for it, is that in my case, the Quad mix sounds like the "right" mix for the album, and the stereo mixes all sound like they are "downconverted" for those who only have stereo.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is debatable Ken. As Guthrie says in the Sound & Vision article, the band itself rejected using the Quad version. Even Parsons admits it was not a great recording sonically and had been rushed.

You should read the Parsons article that I previously gave the link for, especially if you are a fan of DSotM.

In fact, here is the link again:

Alan Parson's article on the DSotM quad mix

 

[Ken Stuart]

K 240 DF

Radio station reference headphones

Diffuse-field equalized, designed strictly to IRT (German Institute for Radio Technology) standards

Single cable for ease of use

Semi-open, circumaural design


Used as reference headphones by many radio stations worldwide, this model has been in the AKG catalog unchanged for ten years and has become a classic by now.

With their flat frequency response, these headphones provide an uncolored sound. The diffuse-field equalized K 240 DF meets not only the stringent criteria of the IRT standard but those of professional sound engineers as well.

Created to fulfill the international IRT specification, the K 240 DF establishes a uniform quality standard free from environmental variables. In fixed apposition to the ears, the sound output quality is unchanging and reliable – as opposed to loudspeaker monitors, sound from which is markedly influenced and colored by variations in control room architecture and furnishings.

 

[Brian L]

This is debatable Ken. As Guthrie says in the Sound & Vision article, the band itself rejected using the Quad version. Even Parsons admits it was not a great recording sonically and had been rushed.

Actually Lee, I think its Parsons who made the statement you reference.

Following is verbatim from the S&V Parsons article:

"I am not surpirsed that Pink Floyd rejected my quad mix of Dark Side of the Moon for the SACD. I did the mix very quickly. If I'd known that the record would sell in its millions, then I would've insisted on having more time. There's stuff missing from the quad mix. I just didn't have enough tape machines in the studio to get it all in. The quad was a compromise; I have no problem admitting the fact".

There is obviously more to the article, but absent the words of the actual band members, I would have to accept the words of the man that did the quad mix, in terms of what the band did or did not approve, or for that matter "rejected". There is a difference between "not approving of", and "rejecting", I would think.

But in the end, does it matter to anyone? This is all just Pink Floyd minutia. The SACD mix that exists today was approved by the artist (as quoted in the S&V Guthrie interview). Isn't that what everyone says they want...the vision of the artist?

Could it have been mixed differently? Of course. Would it have been better if Parsons did the new mix, or if we just got his old mix? Thats debatable; although it would be different for to be sure.

It would be different if Elliot Scheiner did it, or any other engineer, with or without the band. For that matter, it would be different if the band sat in the studio and actually did the mix, versus having it done by others, and then tweaked based on their input after the fact.

I like the new mix. I would probably like Parsons mix too, with or without the band signing on. So what?

I guess I am too much or a casual fan to get my panties all wadded into a bunch on this. I will leave it to Floyd historians to debate.

BGL

 

[Ken Stuart]

But in the end, does it matter to anyone? This is all just Pink Floyd minutia. The SACD mix that exists today was approved by the artist (as quoted in the S&V Guthrie interview). Isn't that what everyone says they want...the vision of the artist?

Were you aware that many of the sounds on the album were actually created by Alan Parsons, after the band had gone home for the night?

If you feel that George Martin is one of the "artists" involved with creating Sgt. Pepper, then Alan Parsons is equally one of the artists involved in the creation of DSotM.

If a new 5.1 version of Sgt. Pepper was being made, and George Martin wanted to be involved, and Yoko Ono said she would agree to the release only if Martin were not involved, everyone would be outraged...

 

[Brian L]

If you feel that George Martin is one of the "artists" involved with creating Sgt. Pepper, then Alan Parsons is equally one of the artists involved in the creation of DSotM.

Fair enough. The whole gist of the debate for me is proposition that the quad mix had no band input. I would agree that a new mix involving AP and the band would have been appropriate. Not to say better, but appropriate, and different for sure.

If they had nothing to do with the original quad, other than providing the source elements in the form of the original tracks, then while it has historic significance (and I would personally like the chance hear it, and wish it were available in SACD for comparison, since I personally do appreciate more aggressive use of the surrounds), it represents the work of only a portion (1/5th?) of the creative team. And I am sure that there is great debate (alluded to elsewhere) as to just what percentage AP represents.

I guess my point (if I have one), and relative only to the discussion of DSOTM, is the issue of the band's non-involvement with the original quad mix yet it is put forth as a holy grail of DSOTM (and as I said, I am not a band historian. I take the words of Guthrie and Parsons in S&V at face value. If any of that is revisionist history, or outright bull sh*t, I would not know).

WRT the Beatles, I would be of the opinion that George Martin represents a contribution to the Beatles catalog that is much greater than perhaps any other engineer in pop music, or at least in the category of "bands that truly changed the world", of which they are the sole occupants .

If a surround mix of Sgt. Pepper where ever done, and it did NOT have his involvement, I would agree 1000% that this would be cause for TOTAL outrage. In fact, I would perhaps go out on a limb and say that, without Harrison and Lennon, I would rather have a mix done ONLY by George Martin, without creative input from anyone else, and that includes Paul and Ringo. He is perhaps the only person on the planet who's recollection of the events are likely not obscured by exposure to mind altering substances.

And just as a total aside, while reading the S&V article, it occurred to me that I would love to hear commentaries of the type presented in the article recorded onto the disc, by the artist, just like the alternate audio tracks of a DVD are encoded.

I can hear it now...Roger in the left channel, David in the right, offering on the fly commentary about the meaning of lyrics, dissecting instrumental passages, etc. Now that would be cool. Call it "Pop Up Audio".

BGL

 

[Javier_Huerta]

As a fan of Parsons' work, I must say I find his comments a bit misleading...

In the article that has been linked to before, AP explains how his vision was to have DSOTM made as a Quad recording all along.

In the Sound and Vision quote, it seems he now says it was a rushed work, and that had he known it would be a hot seller, he'd have reworked it a bit more.

So, which one was it? Did he really made the album with surround in mind, or not?

 

[Lee Scoggins]

I would have to accept the words of the man that did the quad mix, in terms of what the band did or did not approve, or for that matter "rejected". There is a difference between "not approving of", and "rejecting", I would think.I would have to accept the words of the man that did the quad mix, in terms of what the band did or did not approve, or for that matter "rejected". There is a difference between "not approving of", and "rejecting", I would think.

It seems like we are splitting hairs here. But what we know seems to be that the band did not like the Quad mix but liked a lot the 5.1 mix. Hmmmm...maybe it was not such a crime to just have the 5.1 mix on the disc.

Maybe we have a case of 70s nastalgia elevating the importance of the Quad mix. I heard the Quad mix and the Us and Them chorus does not wash over the listener like the 5.1 and that was really cool on the SACD.

 

[Ken Stuart]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I use the AKG K240DF, which is a specially engineered refinement of the 240 design, with more accurate timbres
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe these are a great improvement but if they are still dynamic, I would defer to the Stax for listening to detail.

I entirely agree.

The whole point of my review was that there was a problem (and certainly not just in this particular release) due to the increased detail of remasters.

The problem stems from the fact that certain instruments benefit more from increased detail and clarity than others, partially due to the deficiencies of 70's reproduction equipment (eg extreme high and low end), and partially due to specific situations of particular recordings.

Almost all remasters take an existing vault 2-track mix tape and then improve the sound quality over previous masterings to LP or CD. We expect certain things out of such a remastering, otherwise everyone would say "this sucks, isn't any better than the old mastering". These improvements include inner instrumental detail, clarity and transparency.

A good example is cymbals. The difference between 1973 and 2003 technology produces very large improvements in the reproduction of cymbals, including the complex tonal qualities and their high energy.

However, in 1973, even the studios did not have reproduction equipment comparable to what any home audiophile has today, or even the average home theater. No Stax headphones or even AKG K240s (IIRC). Speakers which were robust, but sadly lacking in the sort of qualities audiophiles value.

So, the new masterings make cymbals clearer, more detailed - and much higher in the mix than was intended back when these albums were first mixed. If you had a time machine, and brought back and played these new remasterings to the big rock bands in the 1970s, they would say "So how much did the drummer pay you to mix him up so high in the mix?".

All of this high frequency energy from the cymbals that is added by remastering also has the side effect of "stepping on" the upper harmonics of the other instruments. In simple terms, the cymbals momentarily monopolize a large portion of the sound.

A similar thing happens with the low frequncies - the increased extreme low end causes the bass instruments to overshadow the fundamentals of the other instruments.

An example of this in the 30th Anniversary DSotM redbook layer is in the opening portions of "Breathe" (ie the first minute in track 2 in the 30th Ann disk, and the second minute of track 1 in the old disks), the central melodic aspect should be the slide guitar - everything else should complement it (rhythm guitar, bass, drums) - and this is what Thomas' mix has been in every release prior to the recent remasterings.

But starting at about (track 2,0:30 in the 30th)(track 1,1:38 in the older CDs), and over the next 30 seconds or so, in the 30th Anniversary redbook layer, the rhythm guitar sinks way down in the mix, and even the slide guitar loses its prominence. What we end up is predominently bass and drums - fine for a London dance club, but not 70's Pink Floyd.

Of course, none of this results from any conscious change of the mix by the engineer, it is simply a by-product of the increased sound quality. Someone who is remastering old recordings needs to be aware of this factor, and take steps to correct it (in the digital domain, where they will have minimal effect of the overall quality).

By the way, I think this is what some people may have meant in the other thread, by "de-emphasized midrange".

 

[LanceJ]

Speaking of confusing sacd mixing:

We ALMOST had a fair sacd vs. dvd-audio comparison--damn!

They're discussing Ray Brown's "Soular Energy" album, now on sacd & 192kHz stereo dvd-audio. This album was an analog recording.

Hi-Res Music is maker of the dvd-audio version.

LJ

 

[Brian L]

No actually Guthrie said that the band rejected the Quad version. Obviously they have some bad blood with Parsons to not include him at all.

I quoted Parsons straight from the S&V article, Lee. Read it again, or re-read the original article.

Agree on the hairs being split, but I don't see how anyone reading the S&V article could come away thinking there is any bad blood, just professional difference of opinion.

Time for me to shut the hell up and just enjoy the frickin' disc.

BGL

 

[Wayne Bundrick]

As a fan of Parsons' work, I must say I find his comments a bit misleading...

In the article that has been linked to before, AP explains how his vision was to have DSOTM made as a Quad recording all along.

In the Sound and Vision quote, it seems he now says it was a rushed work, and that had he known it would be a hot seller, he'd have reworked it a bit more.

So, which one was it? Did he really made the album with surround in mind, or not?

Furthermore, in Nicholas Schaffner's biography of Pink Floyd "A Saucerful of Secrets", he wrote that the band refused to attend the album's premiere party for the press at the London Planetarium because EMI was going to have the press listen to the stereo mix instead of the quad mix, which was not yet finished. Does that sound like the quad mix was rushed?

Anyway, Pink Floyd and EMI have just two short years to prepare the original quad mix of "Wish You Were Here" if they want to do a 30th anniversary remaster, but I won't mind if they release it before 2005!

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Time for me to shut the hell up and just enjoy the frickin' disc.

Me too!

 

[Ken Stuart]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of this high frequency energy from the cymbals that is added by remastering also has the side effect of "stepping on" the upper harmonics of the other instruments. In simple terms, the cymbals momentarily monopolize a large portion of the sound.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not sure I can agree. From my experience, the closer and clearer you get to the master tape, EVERY INSTRUMENT improves.

In each case in this thread, I'm talking about the mix of instruments and you are talking about the sound of individual instruments.

The midrange sound of individual instruments is improved.

But, the amount of midrange is reduced.

Suppose you create two different CDs (NOT DSotM). They are mastered to be at the exact same total output level.

These two CDs are made on the exact same equipment from the same multitrack master, but in one case, all of the levels on the mixers are equal, while in the other case, the faders for the cymbals and bass guitar are increased.

If you play those two CDs back on your home system, with the volume setting the same in both cases (say "75"), then the one that was made with the cymbals and bass guitar will have more extreme high end and low end, and as a result, will have less midrange - than the other CD from the same multitrack tape with all instruments equal.

In other words, it is a "zero sum" game.

If a + b + c = 100, then if you increase a and c, then b is less.

Now, in the case of recent remastering of recordings from the 70's, the mix is not being changed, but the technological improvements in playback result in more extreme high end and extreme low end. If nothing is done to correct the situation, this results in less midrange, and a lower place in the resulting "mix" for instruments that don't have much high or low end.

There are two types of consumers of these 70's CDs - people who have heard them many times, and people who have not heard them. People who have not heard them don't know any different.

So, why don't people who have heard the older pressings notice the difference? Because they already know the music so well. If I type out the lyrics here for "Breathe", most readers will be hearing the Pink Floyd in their head. So, when they listen to the remasters, they are still "hearing" the rhythm and slide guitars - even though they are lower in the "mix". But their focus is on the improved sound quality - since they've spent $13 of their hard earned money on yet another copy of the album...

 

[Lewis Besze]

I agree with both Ken and Lee,let me axplain.
I pointed to the different "soundstage" of the new SACD[the same on the redbook layer too],in my Denon 2900 review thread.It seems that most vocals,and some instruments got "pushed" forward,compared to the original CD and I thought this wasn't a benefit.
Interestingly you Lee,advocated that I'm simply hearing more details,which is precisly the same thing Ken is suggesting here as well.So you guys saying the same thing here IMO.
The fact that the technology evolved in the past 30 years and it shows on this SACD, were also posted by you two,in different threads.It seems that you guys agree more,then dissagree in this case.