Warning about Incubus mix

[daved64]

A poster on "another forum" who I really respect said that the Incubus SACD mix is doodee! Another disaster from Nick Didia, who also did The Thorns. Basically a 3.1 mix with everything up front for the most part.

Why bother????? It's like buying a 12 string guitar and only putting 6 strings on it!! Why are these guys afraid of making an interesting mix?

 

[Kal Rubinson]

A poster on "another forum" who I really respect said that the Incubus SACD mix is doodee! Another disaster from Nick Didia, who also did The Thorns. Basically a 3.1 mix with everything up front for the most part.

Why bother????? It's like buying a 12 string guitar and only putting 6 strings on it!! Why are these guys afraid of making an interesting mix?

I have not tried the Incubus SACD yet but, as I said in another post, some of us prefer to have only ambience in the rear channels as on most classical MCH releases. Apparently, what would satisfy us all is to have Mark Waldrep do all the mixing/mastering and give us both mixes.

Kal

 

[daved64]

You must LOVE Silverline!

I have not tried the Incubus SACD yet but, as I said in another post, some of us prefer to have only ambience in the rear channels as on most classical MCH releases. Apparently, what would satisfy us all is to have Mark Waldrep do all the mixing/mastering and give us both mixes.

Kal

 

[timbre4]

Since ambiance can be largely (not completely of course) imitated with DSP and good stereo recordings, some folks can always get what they want or come pretty close.

On the other hand, those of us who enjoy full adventurous deliberate surround music continually get screwed by these feeble half-way mixes (Paul Simon - You're The One is a complete waste of the DVD-A format potential).

There is little or no natual intended ambiance in studio recordings; studio recordings are a pleasant illusion transmitted to listeners through as many speakers as desired. So why not make use of it?

Not intentionally a rant but the scarcity of new releases has me edgy..... ;-)

 

[Cai Campbell]

You must LOVE Silverline!

Kal has stated elsewhere that he doesn't like surround-from-stereo so that excludes Silverline from the running. A "true" ambient mix can be very enjoyable and quite striking (check out the surround titles from Chesky). However, if the recording is not made with this end in mind you're going to be left with something less than optimal.

Most folks who like an ambient surround mix are after the realistic presentation of a live event (at least thats been my experience). I don't know if the Incubus album was recorded with an ambient surround mix in mind, but being familiar with their music, I kind of doubt it. This is the kind of music that screams for an aggressive surround presentation.

I guess what I'm getting at is that if ambiance is an afterthought in the recording/mixing process, how much better will it be than ambiance derived from stereo? I vote for making the aggressive mix folks happy (especially if it suits the music) and leave the ambiance for the surround processors. The Mark Waldrep approach to both mixes would be optimal but it is not realistic to expect the major labels to adopt this.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

You must LOVE Silverline!

Not particularly. Hate their repertoire.

Kal

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Since ambiance can be largely (not completely of course) imitated with DSP and good stereo recordings, some folks can always get what they want or come pretty close.

Close but no cigar. Fake ambience has been available to us for decades and it gets stale awfully fast.

On the other hand, those of us who enjoy full adventurous deliberate surround music continually get screwed by these feeble half-way mixes (Paul Simon - You're The One is a complete waste of the DVD-A format potential).

I am not opposed to recordings where the surround mix is aggressive as long as it is part and parcel of the musical creation. I think what was done on DSOTM is just fine but, when the guy doing the MCH re-mix puts the drums in the back simply because he can, I leave it alone.

There is little or no natual intended ambiance in studio recordings; studio recordings are a pleasant illusion transmitted to listeners through as many speakers as desired. So why not make use of it?

Again, no problemo. It's just that most of the recordings I really like have real ambience.

Not intentionally a rant but the scarcity of new releases has me edgy..... ;-)

I understand. Happens to all of us.

Kal

 

[JonUrban]

I have always enjoyed a "wild" surround mix, but I agree with Cai as far as some of the Chesky titles. The Livingston Taylor "Ink" SACD is an "ambience" 5.1 mix, and it is a joy to listen to. For music of this sort, where there is no heavy production or wide array of instruments or sounds (DSOTM, Yoshimi, etc), the "ambient" mix can really fill the room with sound that overtakes the listener.

I mean, if you have a singer, a guitar, and a piano, there's not much you CAN do for 5.1 but create a "space"!

 

[Cai Campbell]

Those Chesky recordings were done in a church with a wonderful ambient sound. My favorite of the lot is the David Johansen title. This is ambiance done right; conceived and executed with the idea of preserving the ambient space of the recording venue.

Most popular recordings are performed in a studio, with musicians partitioned off in separate areas. There are multiple takes, overdubs, etc. that all go into the mix. In this case there is no cohesive, natural ambient space. A stereo or surround mix is going to be an artificial creation of whatever "space" the producers and engineers envision.

For most studio recordings, where acoustics are more a facade than anything else, I prefer an adventurous mix that is most revealing of the discrete elements that go into the mix itself.

 

[bizmopeen]

I'm with Cai on this, especially for more hard rock/alternative type recordings which seem to benefit for a more "in your face" (and I guess "back and side of your head" as well...) approach. Some discs like Disturbed's "Believe" work well with a "guitars all around" sound.

Of course, I think Jon's point is well taken about simpler recordings which lend themselves to a more ambient approach. In his above mentioned example, I might find myself a bit put out if it seemed like Livinsgton Taylor was shoved way in the back of the hall or perhaps even running around the room...

 

[daved64]

Someone call the cops, this thread's been hijacked!

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Those Chesky recordings were done in a church with a wonderful ambient sound. My favorite of the lot is the David Johansen title. This is ambiance done right; conceived and executed with the idea of preserving the ambient space of the recording venue.

Agreed. I was present at some of the sessions for both discs and they really captured the 'feel' of the place and the performance.

Kal

 

[timbre4]

Wow, that took off.

Ideally, we'd get both mix options (Stop Making Sense; be in the audience or surrounded by musicians), but that's all too rare.

I respect the capture of real space at a real event and the reproduction of such. But I'm far more attracted to active mixes by artists that warrant the treatment.

Adrian Legg (solo guitar) wouldn't sound right with stuff panned all over the place for example....

 

[solaris]

Sorry nothing about Incubus here
A good ambient mix is like having good seats at a concert
a good "all channels are equal" mix is like having the performers in your home.
both have their place, but i would rather have the personal visit myself

 

[john e. bogus]

This title is NOT just a "3.1" mix by any means....it's not only full surround, but very tastefully mixed and well-recorded. Not a discrete type of quad mix, as many sounds are placed between the speakers, and not as "aggressive" or "adventurous" as it could have been, but I found it a satisfying surround experience.....I'd give the recording and mix an 8/10. The only thing I would warn anyone about this disc (A Crow Left Of The Murder) is that it's different than Incubus' previous releases....it dosen't have any of the little noises going on during the songs, which I thought would lend itself nicely to surround mixing. As I'm lukewarm on this particular band (this one was my wife's pick, she's a huge fan), I can't really comment fairly on the songs themselves (except to say that I always found the little noises distracting from the songs themselves on the previous releases), but if you enjoy current pop and have liked previous material from this band, I'd recommend this for sure.....certainly not a "doodee" mix by any means! (Am I the only poster on this thread who has actually heard the disc?)

As far as the comments on ambience in this thread....

"A "true" ambient mix can be very enjoyable and quite striking"
"Most folks who like an ambient surround mix are after the realistic presentation of a live event (at least thats been my experience)"
"This is ambiance done right; conceived and executed with the idea of preserving the ambient space of the recording venue."

Anyone who feels this way should check out some of the quad live tapes I've been doing....I've got a whole pile of additional tapes now that I'm about to offer up! I might also mention that none of this music is or probably ever will be available in commercially released surround of any kind.....

"Those Chesky recordings were done in a church with a wonderful ambient sound."
"I was present at some of the sessions for both discs and they really captured the 'feel' of the place and the performance."

I would be extremely interested in hearing the technical details of how these recordings were made, especially with regards to microphone techniques! I've had excellent results with what I've been doing, but would like to hear about the mic patterms and placement used in these apparently highly regarded recordings (which I'm not familiar with myself), especially if they were actually done with more than 4 microphones.....

Yours Truly,
john e. bogus