Moody Blues - In Search Of The Lost Chord (50th Anniversary set with 5.1 "manipulation" by Jakko Jakszyk).

[skherbeck]

Just to clarify...if you are talking about me...I'm not fired up at all I just hope the guy I sold mine to on Ebay isn't fired up when he hears it....just wanted to mention something I thought was important....that's all...

Wow, that was a fast sale, lol!! Staying ahead of the flood, eh?

 

[Clint Eastwood]

Wow, that was a fast sale, lol!! Staying ahead of the flood, eh?

It was heavily discounted...because I'm already short of space and another dust collector won't help me

 

[4-earredwonder]

First I want the members to know that I PM'd ar surround before I made this post and let him know I was going to post it... so it doesn't appear that I am attacking him...because I'm not...I just have a point to convey...it's not about him...it's about the notion that it is a good idea to rate a title highly on a SURROUND poll when the rating is achieved with the stereo portion...not the surround mix...although I got frustrated with the poll system on here...I still care about it and IMO it's one of the great assets on the forum...it's the main reason I joined instead of continuing to lurk...I have noticed that the polls have morphed into things that aren't really relevant to the actual surround sound of a title like how many extras are included and the infamous "value" for the cost....it's not a blue light special poll it's a surround music poll...

One could advance the argument that box sets are different and are a sum of it's parts...hence all the trinkets and marbles and rings and extras are a part of that...and it's human nature to want to reward a title for how inexpensive it is...but here is the problem I have...people that look at these polls often don't read all the posts where someone might explain their high rating...let's say I just looked at this title that has a bunch of sevens...eights and nines..and maybe a brave soul or two might give it a ten...that person might think he/she is getting an excellent surround mix...when I looked at the polls I considered everything from 7 to 10 a viable purchase...without knowing the high rating was achieved due to the STEREO mix...I would be upset and wouldn't consider the polls very credible...very few people read all the pages on some of these older poll threads...there are some long ones..

That's all...some food for thought and hopefully some will consider that going forward...I have no vested interest in the polls anymore but I would hope some of the other members that are active in the polls consider my points

I would go one step further and consider whether the remix/remaster is LOSSY or LOSSLESS and I don't care if I sound like a drone. That's a VERY important consideration, at least to me. ALL the previous Moody Discs were LOSSLESS and utilizing 1990's technology to reissue a 2018 remix is, IMO, a STEP BACKWARDS.

I do understand a r surround's 'indifference' to the new 5.1 remix and his fondness for the Stereo remaster of ISotLC, because I felt the exact same way about the recent Days of Future Passed 5.1/Stereo reissue. The unheard Stereo version, IMO, was FAR superior to the same 5.1 remix which appeared on the DTS and SACD versions and I even posted about it.

This is, as Clint pointed out, a SURROUND forum and casual visitors to the site may look at these polls in a different light than we do. Like Clint, I take the polls with a grain of salt and have my own considerations when assessing a new remix.

Regarding In Search of the Lost Chord, I'm probably a week or so away from receiving my copy from AmazonUK but from the posts I've read, I'm actually looking forward to the new LOSSLESS Stereo 96/24 remaster and feel the 5.1 remix, which was THE BIG DRAW for purchasing this set in the first place, was a NOT READY FOR PRIMETIME remix and will most certainly disappoint the connoisseurs [including ME] of this forum.

And if Universal/The Moodys continue to reissue these box sets in similar fashion, I have NO interest in supporting both factions as I'm content with my LOSSLESS multichannel SACDs. Mixing LOSSY 5.1 remixes and LOSSLESS Stereo on the same disc is a RIDICULOUS practice when there's plenty of room on the same disc for a LOSSLESS LPCM 5.1 remix.

Would ISotLC have sounded better had it been LOSSLESS ..... Well, we'll never know.... will we?

 

[Mark Anderson]

So the multitracks were never lost, they were considered not worthy of a quad mix back in the day and that is the real reason for their absence all these years. Ok, makes sense now.

Can anyone tell me how many channels on tape they where recording too 4, 8, 16. That would help me understand what I am hearing and what was available to work with.

 

[rtbluray]

Can anyone tell me how many channels on tape they where recording too 4, 8, 16. That would help me understand what I am hearing and what was available to work with.

From what I know, they were working with 4 track tape.
I don't think they had 8 track tape use until "On the Threshold of a Dream"

 

[4-earredwonder]

Can anyone tell me how many channels on tape they where recording too 4, 8, 16. That would help me understand what I am hearing and what was available to work with.

Even the usual reliable source Wikipedia doesn't state how many tracks were utilized for this 1968 recording. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Search_of_the_Lost_Chord

Perhaps that 76 page booklet which comes with the set might shed some light. Since I don't presently have it, I cannot comment.

 

[quicksrt]

From what I know, they were working with 4 track tape.
I don't think they had 8 track tape use until "On the Threshold of a Dream"

Maybe a John Lennon "Imagine raw tracks" approach would have been more fun here?

 

[fredblue]

Maybe a John Lennon "Imagine raw tracks" approach would have been more fun here?

oh definitely! i'd have loved that!
not sure how it might have gone down if it had been the only surround mix on offer, people can be so conservative.. but as a bonus alternative surround mix, brilliant!

 

[rtbluray]

Given what it sounds like they had to work with (two tracks of group instruments and two tracks of vocals) a 'raw studio mix' probably would not have worked either. The reason that worked so well for "Imagine" is because they had the ability to split up the drums, bass, guitars, keyboards, etc. into different corners of the rooms whereas they could not have done that here.

 

[fredblue]

From what I know, they were working with 4 track tape.
I don't think they had 8 track tape use until "On the Threshold of a Dream"

maybe phase tricks were used to separate stuff out of the vocal tracks and then the various extracted vocal bits got panned around the speakers, then a similar thing was done with the instrumentation?

I wonder if something like the Penteo system would be applied to each set of 2-tracks separately or might all 4 tracks have been processed at the same time..

it would be interesting to find out how the 5.1 mix was created.. does anyone here have any contact with Jakko Jakszyk and could try and ask him?

 

[rtbluray]

maybe phase tricks were used to separate stuff out of the vocal tracks and then the various extracted vocal bits got panned around the speakers, then a similar thing was done with the instrumentation?

I wonder if something like the Penteo system would be applied to each set of 2-tracks separately or might all 4 tracks have been processed at the same time..

it would be interesting to find out how the 5.1 mix was created.. does anyone here have any contact with Jakko Jakszyk and could try and ask him?

Jakko doesn’t like to talk to fans about his work. I get the sense that he feels like everyone is overly critical of him and what he does. (I know people have written some very nasty and unwarranted comments on the interwebz so I think he just steers clear of all of that.)

As for the mixes itself the new mixes had to come from some sort of multitrack (even though it sounds like it was a very limited one)
That’s because the separation between the instrument and vocal tracks is so clear, there’s no way that any kind of upmixing software could do that.
Just listen to “Dr Livingstone” and “House of Four Doors” after that. The difference is clear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ar surround]

Regarding the nice book that comes with this set: The text is plagarized almost word for word from the little booklet that is included in the SACD. Well, at least the book in the new set has much larger print...and you folks know by now that I love large print.

 

[atrocity]

Yes, this 5.1 mix is really not discrete at all, but I actually do like the way the new mixes sound (both in stereo & surround)

Comparing the majority of the comments here to my feelings about this release has taught me something about myself: Apparently, as long as the four corner speakers are firing all at once at clearly audible levels, I'm happy. And that seems to be the case with this release: When I sit in the sweet spot, there's sound all around me and I'm reasonably happy. Probably fooled and deluded and easily amused and a million other similar things, but I'm not actively disliking what I'm hearing.

Compared to the non-"LOVE" Beatles alleged surround stuff that's out there, this is practically "The Dark Side of the Moon". (OK, yes, I'm exaggerating...but I really do get more pleasure out of whatever fakery or half-assedness or ??? is going on here than I do out of SPLHCB or 1(+).)

 

[fredblue]

Jakko doesn’t like to talk to fans about his work. I get the sense that he feels like everyone is overly critical of him and what he does. (I know people have written some very nasty and unwarranted comments on the interwebz so I think he just steers clear of all of that.)

As for the mixes itself the new mixes had to come from some sort of multitrack (even though it sounds like it was a very limited one)
That’s because the separation between the instrument and vocal tracks is so clear, there’s no way that any kind of upmixing software could do that.
Just listen to “Dr Livingstone” and “House of Four Doors” after that. The difference is clear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

fair enough, I wouldn't want to face a bloodthirsty mob either..

seriously, doing this in surround was i guess something of an unenviable task.. they were dammed if they did and damned if they didn't.

yet "they did" and i admire the effort in trying to create a surround mix and the efforts involved in so doing even if i'm not 100% sold on the end result.

 

[Clint Eastwood]

fair enough, I wouldn't want to face a bloodthirsty mob either..

seriously, doing this in surround was i guess something of an unenviable task.. they were dammed if they did and damned if they didn't.

yet "they did" and i admire the effort in trying to create a surround mix and the efforts involved in so doing even if i'm not 100% sold on the end result.

I've been thinking about this release and maybe it's a case of "be careful what you wish for"....I can remember some of us(me included)saying that they should release some of these titles that had some missing tapes...Aja comes to mind and there were other titles...so now they did and guess what...few are happy with the results....maybe there is a message in there for us

 

[JonUrban]

Listening now - so far, track 1 & 2, not so bad....................... ?

 

[JonUrban]

Listening now - so far, track 1 & 2, not so bad....................... ?

Nevermind. It's downhill from track 1. However, I do not blame Jakko - It's the material and the source. It's pretty muddy. It's not very discrete at all, except for the poetry reads and a few sound effects.

Still listening.......................

 

[ar surround]

Nevermind. It's downhill from track 1. However, I do not blame Jakko - It's the material and the source. It's pretty muddy. It's not very discrete at all, except for the poetry reads and a few sound effects.

Still listening.......................

Yes, track 1 (Departure) has always sounded as if it came from a completely different album. It was even spectacular in Dyanaquad.

 

[JonUrban]

Well, after reading 17+ pages of this thread, I was ready to be disappointed, so in a way, I was not disappointed. Oh yes, it could be better, way better, much better. It's not very clear, it not very detailed. It's not "immersive", but it's also not totally 'Silverline'd. There is some stuff in there to let your mind, be it legend or not, to pick out that it's a surround mix. "Om" is pretty good, so are the spoken word tracks. The middle stuff is OK, vocals pretty much in the center. The overall audio quality is lacking, it's not a revelation by any means, but it's also a very old album.

As for me, well, I have to say that of the "core 7", this album is my least favorite, or maybe 2nd least to "Children's Children's Children". In my Moodies life experience, I started with "Threshold of a Dream", then "Every Good Boy...", then "Question", "Seventh Sojourn", then back to "DOFP", and then "Chord" and "Children". It's just the way I was introduced to them and consequently that's my preference.

So I guess my "outrage" is tempered as this album was never special to me. The one's I like, and love, are safely stored away as Q4 rips and whatever they do to those, I can always go back to the originals.

So, I guess what I'm saying is if you love this album you will probably be disappointed as there has been no cloud lifted off the audio, but it's also not horrible. In fact, I just listened to "Om" a second time and it's a pretty damn nice surround mix.

For those that know the music well, take the "sweeps" from "Thinking Is the Best Way to Travel". You would expect them to fly from speaker to speaker. Well, they try, but they don't really. So that tells me there were no multi-tracks. That little section speaks volumes as to what they had to work with.

I just would have liked to hear "The Actor" the way I thought I would be hearing it, same with "Voices in the Sky". Then again, I might be, and we might be, spoiled after hearing "Imagine (Outakes)" and other new stuff. The White Album may blow this right off the top of the forum, so who knows.

Really, it's not that bad. It's a decent upmix as the vocals are clearly center based, and there is a nice hall effect throughout the album with some isolated flutes and instruments.

Heck, are our expectations too high, or are we just getting annoyed too easily? I don't know.

I would not send this back as it's decent enough for me. Your opinions may oppose mine. But hey, that's the deal. Actually, it's still playing as I type, and there are some nice things about this mix. It's probably a 7-ish vote for me. For now.

Let's hear some more opinions. Keep the discussion here, leave the poll thread for the long term talk.

 

[JonUrban]

One more thing. I ripped "Simple Game" to HD because I really like that track, mostly because of "This is.."

Anyway, it's 5.1-ish, like the core album, but it's the JUSTIN HAYWARD vocal, not the Mike Pinder vocal. WHAT'S UP WITH THAT??

Are the guys still pissed at Mike? This is crap. I mean, it's interesting to hear Justin's take on the song, which was also on the SACD, but we all know and love the original version. That should have been the 5.1 version, not the out take.

Maybe I will send this back!!!