ELP Emerson Lake & Palmer Cataloge in 5.1 Surround

[ssully]

I need to check that out. It would be a wonderful surprise if the 5.1 DTS was ok.

@Group: The KE9 3rd Impression bass problem isn't just a "volume" issue like RT has noted. It is also the processing & eq which are all wrong. At first the bass has super distortion which cuts through the mix like a rusty knife through a fine oil canvas painting. Then... when the bass changes its timber to the "normal" sound, it has a flat and dry sound to it, like it was a practice take. And yes it is WAY too prominent in the mix and ruins all the great keyboard work & vocals.

In the original 2ch mix, the bass *does* have a wonderful grinding fuzz effect on it for the first few bars*. Then about 18 seconds in it reverts to 'dry' , though not really dry, it has little bit of chorus on it for most of the track.

In the old DVD-A 5.1, the fuzz bass section is mixed to all channels *except* the center. Then when the 'dry' bass that begins @ ~18 sec is almost entirely confined to center channel and stays that way for most of the track.

(The old DVD-A also reveals that the fuzz section includes at least one overdubbed bass riff.)



(*In live versions, e.g. WBMF, it was super-loud, and not nearly so good-sounding; the whole intro was played 'wrong' in the live performances, to my ears -- too frantic when it should have been stately and monolithic. ANd of course in the 'wrong' key to accomodate Greg's voice).

 

[DennisMoore Jr.]

Also Dennis, there's nothing wrong with the tone, EQ, etc of the bass as this is exactly how it sounded in the original stereo mix. You just didn't notice it as much because it was tucked further back in the mix where it belonged...

Fair enough, the level/sound & radical change from ultra-distortion to regular timbre is so alarming its hard to put down in words. Except for it is obviously a problem, like you stated.

For me I have played ELP - BSS since 1976, thousands of times and perhaps I am a bit more sensitive than the casual listener who plays BSS on occasion, but.... I really don't think so. Something is definitely wrong on the 5.1 remix on my DVD-A. Also, during KE9 1st impression the bass is fine in general, but when it is time for the organ solo, the bass level kinda drops off and the music kinda "looses its balls". I'll need to play the 2000 BSS DVD-A a few times to get my bearings back, sonically speaking.

Having said all this:

Still You Turn Me On, Benny The Bouncer & KE9 2nd Impression are wonderful. Very different from the 2000 DVD-A but are fabulous and welcome editions.

I consider ELP - BSS to be one of the great masterpieces of our times and not just some pop recording. I do think it deserves a better representation that what came out on my 5.1 DVD-A especially on KE9 3rd Impression.

I am still waiting for more reviews from the "testers"...

 

[dr. simple]

No one has seemed to mention yet (although I must admit I haven't thoroughly read all posts) that Merchnow WILL refund your money.

I pre-ordered the 3-disc set and my card was charged $21.69 US on February 10. Yesterday I asked for a refund and today they replied that they have done so (although it might not process for a few days).

Anyway, those of you concerned about Merchnow and your money, this one's for you.

As far as buying the big box, I'm with most of the rest of you: screw it. They'll either have to put out reasonable products or kill 5.1 altogether, but I'm not going to buy a box of crap to get 5.1.

 

[Robert van Diggele]

My box set shipped today from Amazon.de. As I do not have the first dvda, this one is welcome. I will listen to it with an open mind, despite the (hyperbole) critisism part of the mix it is getting from some.

 

[fredblue]

My box set shipped today from Amazon.de. As I do not have the first dvda, this one is welcome. I will listen to it with an open mind, despite the (hyperbole) critisism part of the mix it is getting from some.

The new mix isn't perfect but it is very good indeed for the most part.. if it weren't for the whole 3-disc fiasco and there being an old 5.1 mix already this set would've been received as something akin to the second coming.

I don't agree at all with the tactics of the bait & switch or whatever it is (it is outrageous) but there is absolutely nothing so bad as to get suicidal over in the new mix as DMJ said! (what a drama queen!)

 

[fredblue]

Nothing quite that simple (though it looks like the center volume could be reduced a bit). Here's the extraction:

iirc Jakko's Homo Erraticus 5.1 mix was a bit centre-heavy too..

 

[Robert van Diggele]

iirc Jakko's Homo Erraticus 5.1 mix was a bit centre-heavy too..

Perhaps Jakko's set up is not calibrated well, with less emphasis on the centre channel in his set up? Hence he is turning it up too much?

 

[rtbluray]

Perhaps Jakko's set up is not calibrated well, with less emphasis on the centre channel in his set up? Hence he is turning it up too much?

I'm curious about his setup as well. Based on pictures of his studio found here, it's certainly not the way I would have my monitors setup for mixing in 5.1 surround, nor does it follow the NARAS guidelines for surround mixing.
But then I wonder how well each of our listening systems are setup and if they are setup properly or not.

For example, on my home listening system, while playing a test tone through each speaker individually, I noticed that when all of the speakers were set to an even level, the tone was significantly louder coming out the center speaker than it was coming out of the other 4. Then when I dropped the level about 7 notches on the Center channel, the tone level was now more consistent with the other channels.
Then, when I started listening to some mixes again (like this BSS Mix), suddenly the center channel sat better in the mix with the other channels. Before, it was like whatever was coming out of the center channel was really poking out in front of the rest of the mix. Now it sounds better overall.
This is also the way it sounds in the main studios I use for 5.1 mixing on MTSU's campus.

Because my Master's Final Project is all about mixing for 5.1 surround, I'm really trying to make my listening environments as consistent as possible.

 

[Robert van Diggele]

That is right, our home systems are not perfect either. Although with a simple sound level meter the results can be easily adjusted to a better overall balance between the different speakers. Every 5.1 enthusiast home should have one

Off topic, would be great when any of your current or future 5.1 mixes get a release!

 

[fredblue]

too many speaker manufacturers treat the centre like a bit of an afterthought imho ("make it compact and unobtrusive" too often seems to be the brief) and while a lot of movie mixes work out fine with a centre speaker that isn't voice matched to front L&R, the deficiencies of a centre are soon revealed by 5.1 music.

even the best/most prominent mixing engineers doing surround music (I'm thinking Elliot Scheiner in particular, who tends not to use centre for dry lead vox but isn't shy of putting full range info in there) put lots of musical information into the centre channel (bass included) on their surround music mixes I've found... so what do you do?

I guess you either shut off the centre altogether, or calibrate and compensate for the "features" (shortcomings) of your centre as best you can, or upgrade to a speaker system with a centre that's better matched to front L&R by design.

from the 2 Jakko 5.1's I've heard so far ("Homo" & "Brain") I really like what he does with his rear panning (piano/keys, percussion a-go-go back there on his BSS for instance) but not sure he's quite licked the centre. if that sounds arrogant it's not my intention, it's just my response to what I'm hearing. I wouldn't dare to say I know better than him, I'm just a consumer/end user and he's the pro.. but I've possibly heard more 5.1 music mixes than him o) and I wonder if he ought to hear a few more to get a sensation of how others use the centre in different ways?

e.g., there's the Elliot Scheiner approach which seems to work for most people.. and then there's the Greg Penny-type approach, with ultra discrete centre mixing, which is like 'multi-channel marmite'.. some love it, others hate it.. night and day attitudes to 5.1 music mixing.. but they both get the job done.. neither out of whack to what's going on in Front L&R.

I particularly instantly felt with Jakko's Homo Erraticus 5.1 it sounded like it had a centre-bias that left it feeling a little narrow, congested almost, yet I loved the rear activity.

I think his BSS is an improvement wrt the centre (though those lead vocals really should be a bit less dry on "Still..") but I guess we'll always be left wondering "what if.." since SW didn't take on BSS.

No disrespect to Jakko at all, I like what I've heard.. but I feel maybe a bit more road testing on various systems with their different centre channel config's might take his stuff to the next level? That way he could "do a Scheiner" and maybe discover he could try being a bit less 'bold' in his centre usage.. the refinement ES uses in the centre (I hesitate to use the word "subtlety" since that might make how ES does it sound like a cop out) is an example that seems to work well for most people and their different setups.

 

[fredblue]

I'm curious about his setup as well. Based on pictures of his studio found here, it's certainly not the way I would have my monitors setup for mixing in 5.1 surround, nor does it follow the NARAS guidelines for surround mixing.
But then I wonder how well each of our listening systems are setup and if they are setup properly or not.

For example, on my home listening system, while playing a test tone through each speaker individually, I noticed that when all of the speakers were set to an even level, the tone was significantly louder coming out the center speaker than it was coming out of the other 4. Then when I dropped the level about 7 notches on the Center channel, the tone level was now more consistent with the other channels.
Then, when I started listening to some mixes again (like this BSS Mix), suddenly the center channel sat better in the mix with the other channels. Before, it was like whatever was coming out of the center channel was really poking out in front of the rest of the mix. Now it sounds better overall.
This is also the way it sounds in the main studios I use for 5.1 mixing on MTSU's campus.

Because my Master's Final Project is all about mixing for 5.1 surround, I'm really trying to make my listening environments as consistent as possible.

Either I'm going blind or mad but where is the centre speaker in that photo of Jakko's studio?

(I also don't like rears ceiling mounted but that's another story and potentially less problematic as to what we hear at home than someone remixing into 5.1 with only 4.1..?) oh and aren't the rears NS-10's or something and the fronts a different monitor? again not so crucial but if a pleb like me goes to the trouble/research/expense of getting an all timbre-matched set of 5 big old boxes why can't the engineers do it too!?

 

[fredblue]

Either I'm going blind or mad but where is the centre speaker in that photo of Jakko's studio?

(I also don't like rears ceiling mounted but that's another story and potentially less problematic as to what we hear at home than someone remixing into 5.1 with only 4.1..?) oh and aren't the rears NS-10's or something and the fronts a different monitor? again not so crucial but if a pleb like me goes to the trouble/research/expense of getting an all timbre-matched set of 5 big old boxes why can't the engineers do it too!?

or is he using 4 x NS-10 type speakers all ceiling mounted, with two speakers (one on either side of computer monitors) for the centre channel? (Eek!) :yikes

 

[fredblue]

or is he using 4 x NS-10 type speakers all ceiling mounted, with two speakers (one on either side of computer monitors) for the centre channel? (Eek!) :yikes

hang on.. there's a 3rd NS-10 type speaker (I don't know what it is, just from the white cones!?) we can't see as it's been chopped off (to the left of the photo) and the 2 on the desktop are for stereo monitoring? @: I need a lay down! It's all too much!

 

[DuncanS]

hang on.. there's a 3rd NS-10 type speaker (I don't know what it is, just from the white cones!?) we can't see as it's been chopped off (to the left of the photo) and the 2 on the desktop are for stereo monitoring? @: I need a lay down! It's all too much!

I'd say Centre is above the Window, and that the two speakers on either side on the desk are mix down monitors for listening to stereo to check what it sounds like through 'the average home system'. I've even seen ghetto-blasters used for that!

I haven't listened to BSS since it arrived but I did like the fact that it was different from the earlier versions, and I did like the Bass sound, but I have 4 floorstanders a matching centre and no sub.

 

[DennisMoore Jr.]

I don't agree at all with the tactics of the bait & switch or whatever it is (it is outrageous) but there is absolutely nothing so bad as to get suicidal over in the new mix as DMJ said! (what a drama queen!)

Ouch. @:

I would expect such a comment from one who owns Lada Gaga's complete collection. :yikes

I wonder how well each of our listening systems are setup and if they are setup properly or not.

@RT: No doubt most of our systems(including mine) could benefit from some fine tuning and more so, benefit from room correction panels and such, but...

There is something to be said when on any given system certain 5.1 mixes really shine such as:

Capt. Fantastic
J. Tull - Aqualung
Steven Wilson's TYA, CTTE or his 2 ELP mixes

and then you hear other mixes that clearly have issues. So you don't need a "reference" system to tell when something is wrong with a particular song or mix.

@The Group. It really would be nice to get some reviews from the testers. As one of the only two people who had the balls to say something about the new mix, it'd be nice to get more input. You guys can beat me up all you like. That doesn't change what happened on KE9 3rd Impression. (Sorry that was wrong, a very nice chap: rikpepe posted his thoughts first and we almost ran him out of town for being critical of KE9 3rd...) So that makes a total of 3 reviews so far...

I suppose for the casual listener who after listening to BSS then pops in a Frankie Goes To Hollywood CD, its no big deal. But I consider the 3 impressions of KarnEvil 9 to be pretty phookin important.

Perhaps I am spoiled from the so many excellent 5.1 mixes we have received the last few years.

 

[fredblue]

Ouch. @:

I would expect such a comment from one who owns Lada Gaga's complete collection. :yikes





@RT: No doubt most of our systems(including mine) could benefit from some fine tuning and more so, benefit from room correction panels and such, but...

There is something to be said when on any given system certain 5.1 mixes really shine such as:

Capt. Fantastic
J. Tull - Aqualung
Steven Wilson's TYA, CTTE or his 2 ELP mixes

and then you hear other mixes that clearly have issues. So you don't need a "reference" system to tell when something is wrong with a particular song or mix.

@The Group. It really would be nice to get some reviews from the testers. As one of the only two people who had the balls to say something about the new mix, it'd be nice to get more input. You guys can beat me up all you like. That doesn't change what happened on KE9 3rd Impression. (Sorry that was wrong, a very nice chap: rikpepe posted his thoughts first and we almost ran him out of town for being critical of KE9 3rd...) So that makes a total of 3 reviews so far...

I suppose for the casual listener who after listening to BSS then pops in a Frankie Goes To Hollywood CD, its no big deal. But I consider the 3 impressions of KarnEvil 9 to be pretty phookin important.

Perhaps I am spoiled from the so many excellent 5.1 mixes we have received the last few years.

Lady Gaga!? I'm more a Radio Ga Ga man myself (hence I'm Fred!) :ugham:

 

[kap'n krunch]

NS-10 's???????

VADE RETRO!!!!

 

[blue.monk]

I just gave the new 5.1 mix a listen. It's a mixed bag to be sure. On the plus side it's an active and discrete mix (which is appropriate) but it appears that Jakko's goal was not simply to expand the soundstage of the original but rather to re-interpret it. There are loads of bits that were either buried or muted in the original that pop up throughout. This isn't necessarily a bad thing but I did find it distracting at times.

There are some fine moments but much of it suffers from a lack of good balance. Keith, Greg and Carl each are all too faint at various times. The lead vocal is placed in the center speaker but with virtually no support in the other channels (save for occasional light reverb). This is an odd approach that leaves the vocal sounding somewhat disconnected. Plus the vocal often shares the center channel with other instruments. And, yes, the bass is FAR TOO LOUD in the 3rd Impression! When that distortion pedal kicks in run for the hills. It absolutely buries the keyboards in the intro.

I prefer the older Kellogg mix but I’ll check out the rest of the set and give the 5.1 mix a few more listens before voting.

 

[timbre4]

Been buried with work, took some time to listen as a consumer this morning after not playing this DVD-A for 2-3 weeks. I'll answer the main question first and then qualify it as best I can. The bass is indeed louder on KE9 3rd Impression.

Qualifiers: I play bass because of Greg Lake and John Wetton, having seen them both live in 1974; I understand the role of bass guitar, I know where Moog bass is employed. This album is burned into my senses from hundreds of chrome cassette with undecoded Dolby B brightness and then good and bad CDs after that and of course John Kellogg's 2000 jewel that I lusted for so badly I bought the $500 JVC lemon DVD-A player just to have ELP BSS in 5.1 surround. Mr Kellogg employed some very cool subtle sub-harmonic bass synthesis that gave the Rhino DVD-A a lovely enhanced bass foundation that I still enjoy very much.

IMHO: I believe the fact that the bass is not at this level throughout the BSS album exonerates Jakko's monitoring system and points directly to an artistic decision. This is after all just one man's interpretation; frankly the band members seem oblivious to these productions so their input is missing. Did SW hear the results? Unknown. I actually find the balance of the album to feel a little bass shy and wish some energy was applied to the LFE; if this muscle was there, one could dial it back if need be. Perhaps (and I'm only guessing) Jakko had the notion that KE9 3I was the third act and it was time to kick it up to monster level for the finale? The minimal organ parts in the rears are a casualty but the synthesizers always seem to cut through. The initial appearance with the bass effect at the beginning produces a sense of what-the-hell that a listener might not shake off, then dissipates somewhat when the bass is "normal" (chorused as reported elsewhere) If Jakko was out to maximize the menacing swagger and keep the bass at a consistent level throughout, he might have considered the gain of the other instruments. This was not the case. As Ryan points out "the bass is everywhere" so that smacks of intention and thus not a technical error (but arguably an artistic one).

It is true that Jakko emphasizes certain elements and unmutes things previously buried that we'd never heard in the original mix and I really like that aspect. It's what I think I know with a few left turns applied. The vocal is almost always very clear and up front isolated (featured prominently) in the center. The previous reverb philosophy (created by producer Greg Lake) was tossed out and the vocals seem more direct as a result.

In summary, this album means the world to me and I want to know everything about it and have as much of it's history as they will share with me (that I can afford of course). As previously stated, nobody has to buy the box (unless already a diehard like me). It is a damn shame that somebody screwed up the marketing plans for this release to the point of misreading (or ignoring the wishes of) the fans who have been waiting patiently for these releases. I suspect that the album will be revisited again for Blu-Ray (no there is nothing to indicate this just my suspicions) and that the mix will either be used again or someone else will take a shot at it. Enjoy the 2000 DVD-A if you have it, enjoy the SACD if you have it, buy the box or not, let's see what happens next.

 

[Plan9]

From what I can gather here and there, it seems the multitracks for this album are a bit of a mess, and thus it may be more difficult to faithfully reproduce the original mix...