'The Beatles' (White Album) [50th Anniversary Box Set with 5.1 Blu-ray Disc!]

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
the necessity of a 5.1 of this masterwork goes without saying, all post 2nd album releases need surround....
but this holds a place in my heart, that along with Revolver, to me are just about the best albums ever made, flaws and all:)
 
T Since Sgt. Pepper was intended as a MONO release [at least in the mind of the Beatles/George Martin AT THE TIME] and there are some discrete elements in the new remix...........I'll settle for that.
I don't believe that for one second. In the 60s in England mono was the dominant format. Stereo was considered an oddity. Once the Beatles mixed the mono they left the stereo mixing to underlings. However the mono that they got was not the version that they wanted. Record players of the day could not reproduce bass and drums the way they would have wanted them reproduced. The bass and drums were what they settled on given the limits of the medium. The mix that Paul and Ringo agreed to is a lot closer to what they really wanted. I mean can you imagine Paul being happy about the fact his beautiful bass parts were usually buried in the mix?
 
Just being coy??

whitealbumtweet.jpg
 
By "honoring the mono mix" I hope they mean simply that no new elements exist that we didn't hear before and with nothing that "jumps out at you" as much louder than you remember it or some such.

Otherwise, what can it really mean short of just putting the mono mix in 5 speakers?

When I think of "honoring the stereo or mono mix", my go to example is Dark Side of the Moon. The Guthrie mix was created to "honor the stereo mix". The AP 4.0 mix is a quad mix, created to BE a surround mix.

Whichever one you prefer is of course a personal preference, but I much prefer the AP mix. (Of course, the SACD has better fidelity because it's newer, and that has nothing to do with the mix)
 
When I think of "honoring the stereo or mono mix", my go to example is Dark Side of the Moon. The Guthrie mix was created to "honor the stereo mix". The AP 4.0 mix is a quad mix, created to BE a surround mix.

On Dark Side of the Moon, the 5.1 SACD mix was done by Guthrie at the band's request because they did not like the 4.0 AP mix.
It didn't have anything to do with honoring the stereo or mono mix.

Guthrie talked with the PF band members during the 5.1 mix process to hear their concerns about the 4.0 AP mix and requests on ways to improve it.
Each PF band member heard Guthrie's 5.1 mix and requested further changes which were made until all of the band members signed off on the final 5.1 mix.

So the DSOTM 5.1 SACD mix is actually the band's mix - not AP's or Guthrie's surround sound mix.
 
On Dark Side of the Moon, the 5.1 SACD mix was done by Guthrie at the band's request because they did not like the 4.0 AP mix.
It didn't have anything to do with honoring the stereo or mono mix.

Guthrie talked with the PF band members during the 5.1 mix process to hear their concerns about the 4.0 AP mix and requests on ways to improve it.
Each PF band member heard Guthrie's 5.1 mix and requested further changes which were made until all of the band members signed off on the final 5.1 mix.

So the DSOTM 5.1 SACD mix is actually the band's mix - not AP's or Guthrie's surround sound mix.

BTW, Brian, ANY word on whether PF's The Wall will ever see the light of day in 5.1? Has Guthrie even finished working on the remix?
 
So the DSOTM 5.1 SACD mix is actually the band's mix - not AP's or Guthrie's surround sound mix.

Well, James actually makes great tea so he should at the very least get a little credit for that.
 
On Dark Side of the Moon, the 5.1 SACD mix was done by Guthrie at the band's request because they did not like the 4.0 AP mix.
It didn't have anything to do with honoring the stereo or mono mix.

Guthrie talked with the PF band members during the 5.1 mix process to hear their concerns about the 4.0 AP mix and requests on ways to improve it.
Each PF band member heard Guthrie's 5.1 mix and requested further changes which were made until all of the band members signed off on the final 5.1 mix.

So the DSOTM 5.1 SACD mix is actually the band's mix - not AP's or Guthrie's surround sound mix.

I wasn't debating who was better or which mix was "approved". The type of mixes are what I was saying. The Guthrie, 2000 era PF mix was more true to the stereo mix than the 1970's AP mix, which, despite some argument, was an official released mix. The fact that the band didn't care about it back in the day does not take away from the fact that it's there. Also, 30+ years changes one's preferences. Young Pink Floyd members may have liked something wild and inventive as opposed to 30 year older Pink Floyd members who probably didn't care much about the surround aspect of the release.

At any rate, I, myself, like a mix like the 1970's AP over the 2000's Guthrie version, be it approved, blessed, or otherwise vaulted. Because most of the albums we know and love from our youth are now 30-50 years old, their creators are now in their late 60s and 70s and unless they are surround wacko's like us, it's safe to assume they would prefer a more tame surround mix for their classics.

And that's a shame, as I've said before, we already have the stereo and mono mixes of these classics and a new take on them prevents no one from going back to listen to their cherished original mixes.
 
Well, James actually makes great tea so he should at the very least get a little credit for that.

I would also like to remind everyone that Dark Side Of The Moon was released on SACD by EMI, not Analogue Productions. The Wish You Were Here SACD was an Analogue Productions release.

AP = Alan Parsons
 
Mixed by committee never leads to the best creative result.

And yet, in this case, the band was much happier with the 5.1 mix they worked on with James Guthrie than the Parsons 4.0 mix.
Since it is their album, they get the final word. :)
 
Brian is right.
Like it or not, the bigger an artist is, the more say they usually have over a release, including how an album is mixed, and in the case of the Beatles, Paul & Ringo are still alive (& kicking), and they won't release anything until they are both satisfied with how it sounds.
This is what all engineers have to deal with almost all of the time.
It's a very rare exception when an engineer will get to do exactly what they want without having to answer to the artist and/or record label.

We'll never know how people like James Guthrie or Giles Martin would have mixed certain records in surround if they had the opportunity to mix them exactly as they wanted to without any interference from the artist and/or record label, so instead, we have to live with what was released, and in the vast majority of instances, it's better than nothing…
 
And yet, in this case, the band was much happier with the 5.1 mix they worked on with James Guthrie than the Parsons 4.0 mix.
Since it is their album, they get the final word. :)

You make a decent argument that the Guthrie mix is the "official" mix. Official does not = better though...
It's anecdotal, sure, but the vast majority of opinions that I've ever heard place the AP mix squarely above the Guthrie mix, even though Guthrie had the benefit of technology and better sources. The band can be enamored of whatever they like. The fans consistently speak fairly clearly...
I know of all kinds of cases where artists have lost touch with what makes their music compelling to their fans. The guys from Rush, for instance, think their music got good after Moving Pictures. Most fans think that's when they began to slide...
 
And yet, in this case, the band was much happier with the 5.1 mix they worked on with James Guthrie than the Parsons 4.0 mix.
Since it is their album, they get the final word. :)

I know this this article has been linked here before, but it's worth linking again in context to this discussion:
http://www.pinkfloydz.com/interviews/james-guthrie-alan-parsons-dark-side-interviews-2003/

Specifically the "Another Phase of the Moon" interview where Parsons compares the new 5.1 mix to his quad mix and is quite candid that the quad mix was rushed and also was missing some things. But he doesn't throw his own quad mix under the bus either, and alludes to the more aggressive nature of his mix compared to Guthrie's, which is the aspect that so many of us like.

It's safe to say each mix certainly has their own merit, and am glad the band opted to include both on the DVD and bluray set.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top