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

[DuncanS]

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.

Reading the booklet it seems a lot of instruments used, overdubs etc., so I would think lots of bounce downs

 

[ar surround]

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!!!

It is obvious why they went with Mike Pinder's vocal for the final recording. I much as I am a fan of Justin Hayward, his version sucks and I removed it from the HD. But I'll admit that it a good example of how much work and trial and error goes into making a good record.

 

[ar surround]

I don't have a Surround Master yet. So when someone gets time, can you please play the new stereo remix through Surround Master and tell us what you think? Thanks.

 

[skindzier]

So I'm the real oddball here... haven't had a chance to listen to the 5.1 yet, however I watched the first chunk of the video this morning while trying to offset my weekend pizza intake on the treadmill. It was pretty cool to see them as a band just taking off into their prime. One thing that stuck out to me big time though - Graeme Edge at times looked like Keith Moon behind the kit. Arms flailing and weird expressions. Made me smile a bit. Check it out & by all means tell me I'm crazy if I deserve it!

 

[texquad]

I listened to the isolated rear channels and then the center channel and I could really hear what Jakko was trying to with his "manipulations". Some of the pans and cut ins & outs were pretty radical and would be down right jarring if they weren't covered up in the total mix. I must say I'm enjoying these new Frankenstein stereo and 5.1 mixes even if they are "manipulations".

 

[4-earredwonder]

View attachment 36393
Reading the booklet it seems a lot of instruments used, overdubs etc., so I would think lots of bounce downs

Willi Studer Open Reel decks were considered state of the art at the time, so really, what could've gone wrong with the original 8 track multitracks.

A total mystery! And yet the two track stereo mix down tapes are supposedly sublime [haven't heard it yet]!

Thanks for sharing Duncan.

 

[Mark Anderson]

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

That was my thoughts also, even if 4 or 8 track but I felt it was more 4 track but I thought I heard some upmixing on some gutar solos later in the songs

 

[Imbobman]

That's a pretty subjective question that would hinge on how poor the surround mix/fidelity was...I included the fidelity aspect because a lot of surrounds fall short of expectations as far as being discreet...but many do offer improved fidelity and for me that's enough if it ends up being the best available version of that album.

But lets say for the sake of the discussion that it was poor...my position would be to not purchase it...instead of the conventional wisdom that it somehow supports surround music as a viable niche product by buying them...I think that is a false assumption because the record company already knows of the existence of the surround buying customers and they have an idea of what % of the overall marketplace they comprise....all you do when buying "anything" which is inferior(not just music) is send a message to the seller that you are ok with this level of quality...

Clint, you brought up a very good point in the last part of your comment regarding 'Quality'. Reminds me of most of what is produced in China is inferior!
I'm also in the camp of folks who would be unhappy with the result.(..though I haven't receive/heard my copy yet). I can accept what others here who have heard it are saying. Somewhat subjective but their hearing is probably better than mine.
I'm trying to cancel my order on this one right now. Sad, because I had high hopes on a well down 5.1 discreet mix & higher fidelity sound.

 

[Clint Eastwood]

Clint, you brought up a very good point in the last part of your comment regarding 'Quality'. Reminds me of most of what is produced in China is inferior!
I'm also in the camp of folks who would be unhappy with the result.(..though I haven't receive/heard my copy yet). I can accept what others here who have heard it are saying. Somewhat subjective but their hearing is probably better than mine.
I'm trying to cancel my order on this one right now. Sad, because I had high hopes on a well down 5.1 discreet mix & higher fidelity sound.

Glad to see you posting on these threads

 

[quicksrt]

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.

It would of for sure worked out with a very different result in instrument placement and lack of discreet anything (except front to rear). But it could work out with impressive results I think.

Throw those stereo vocals in front in the best Fidelity possible, and get the two tracks of group instruments in rear surrounds and pressto you have a quad mix that is likely to display in the best Fidelity at least (which is one of the complaints). To generate a sub is nothing compared to working on getting a center created out of this limitation.

So results completely different, but "raw tracks" discreet is a soild and valid way to go when under these restrictions. I fail to see a drawback (just because it's not wonderful Imagine style multis).

 

[rtbluray]

It would of for sure worked out with a very different result in instrument placement and lack of discreet anything (except front to rear). But it could work out with impressive results I think.

Throw those stereo vocals in front in the best Fidelity possible, and get the two tracks of group instruments in rear surrounds and pressto you have a quad mix that is likely to display in the best Fidelity at least (which is one of the complaints). To generate a sub is nothing compared to working on getting a center created out of this limitation.

So results completely different, but "raw tracks" discreet is a soild and valid way to go when under these restrictions. I fail to see a drawback (just because it's not wonderful Imagine style multis).

Maybe some people would like that mixing approach but for me that would sound too lop-sided and I wouldn't like it.

 

[jimfisheye]

I think he just ran the stereo mix through a mid side encode-decode. The side extraction is in the fronts. The mid extraction is in the center and the rears are the mid extraction with some added reverb. Not sure how the over the top stepped on fidelity came about in addition to that. This is just the most juvenile mix attempt I think I've ever heard! No skill. No clue. This didn't even come from the 4 track reduction master. The stepped on CD editions from a few years ago with the bonus tracks clearly had those bonus mixes made from that 4 track reduction master. (The instrumental takes. The Mike Pinder outtake vocal mixed together with the keeper in Best Way to Travel, etc.) Don't know why that wasn't available to use for this. All the thoughts of being able to maybe sync up earlier pre-reduction tapes and all the possibilities... yeah, none of that happened here.
This is just insulting to release something this over the top botched. You'll get much better sound form an mp3 copy of the worst volume war CD version of this album.

 

[popshop]

I was curious about the fantastic cover painting. Seemed to me it was influenced by El Greco. After reading about it, nay. Influenced by reflections in the glass in the mixing room: Article with artist Phil Travers. Still, anyone else see the similarities of composition, and themes of death, birth, JC pose, ascension through a ... space, etc?

I have also really enjoyed reading this thread regarding the botched 5.1. A bit sad, of course, but oddly shows that 5.1 wields some power.

 

[atrocity]

One thing that stuck out to me big time though - Graeme Edge at times looked like Keith Moon behind the kit. Arms flailing and weird expressions. Made me smile a bit. Check it out & by all means tell me I'm crazy if I deserve it!

I had EXACTLY the same thought!

It's interesting that all the French TV stuff appears to be 100% live but back home in England the "Colour Me Pop" stuff seemed to be mostly live vocals with pre-recorded instrumentals. My only real complaint with any of the performance video is that they took "encore" literally and played "Nights in White Satin" twice while either not playing a complete "Legend of a Mind" or losing the first half in the cutting room.

 

[ar surround]

Get your comments in soon because in a few days Tull, The Beatles and Hendrix will be out and discussions about the 5.1 ISOTLC will be relegated to the anuses of history.

 

[quicksrt]

This is great news, as this is the only one of the "Classic Seven" that never had a quad mix back in the day, and consequently never had a 5.1 SACD release because there was no quad mix to go back to.

Quite an astounding release out of nowhere, as back when SACD was hot at retail would have been the time to do a new 5.1 mix to call attention to the original Moodies 5.1 SACD program.

No more home upmixes of this album, and hopefully whoever does it, does it well. Still, it's hard to believe that it will be a complete new remix. I mean they could pull the old upmix trick on the tracks where the masters were lost - if they were lost. Time will tell I suppose.

Fingers crossed and ears ready.

This is not the big announcement several members have hinted at in the last 4 or 5 weeks is it? There were hints dropped but no title, no artist, and I just waited. Now 5 weeks later nothing yet?

There is something really cool about to be announced right, please tell me there is!

 

[JonUrban]

This is not the big announcement several members have hinted at in the last 4 or 5 weeks is it? There were hints dropped but no title, no artist, and I just waited. Now 5 weeks later nothing yet?

There is something really cool about to be announced right, please tell me there is!

=?=

 

[4-earredwonder]

=?=

Is that Morse Code for "Beats the Shit Out Of Me?"

 

[jefe1]

This is not the big announcement several members have hinted at in the last 4 or 5 weeks is it? There were hints dropped but no title, no artist, and I just waited. Now 5 weeks later nothing yet?

There is something really cool about to be announced right, please tell me there is!

I wish I was smoking what you are.........

Just kidding.

 

[jefe1]

Ok
I caved last night and opened it.
The packaging is great merits a 9 for the booklet photos etc.
I had time to listen once to the 5.1. It is disappointing. My main complaint is the lack of fidelity. I also keep hearing hiss noise in the background. After reading reviews and having low expectations I was precushioned for disappointment. Yes See Saw is lifeless. I jumped to the new stereo mix and it is much better. Then again listening to the original mix on the bluray just for this song not too different either but both clearly better than the 5.1.
So the sparse use of rear speakers is disappointing but it is the bad sound that kills this for me although I do love most of the music. It will be hard to listen again after the great mixes coming my way......