ELP Emerson Lake & Palmer Cataloge in 5.1 Surround

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Phantom center won't give that pinpoint in the center, but it will provide a tonal duplicate, rather than an approximation from a smaller, center speaker. I see the merits and limitations of either way of going about it.

For me its a case of why have a phantom center when you ahve an actual center Pin it its 5.1 not 4.1/4.0
 
Phantom center won't give that pinpoint in the center, but it will provide a tonal duplicate, rather than an approximation from a smaller, center speaker. I see the merits and limitations of either way of going about it.

Not at all sure I understand that comment, Linda - centre channel in music setup is *never* smaller - all 5 channels should be full range (or as close as possible) and same make/model.
 
Yes, Neil, it is "full range," but it is usually a smaller cabinet, if not drivers. Although the center is the same brand & series and is timbre matched, it doesn't sound exactly the same. That's what my comment is based on. Few people who have 4 full-range speakers, as I do, have an identical fifth speaker as a center. My Mission center does not sound the same as its' "matching" 4 Mission 775 towers.

Not at all sure I understand that comment, Linda - centre channel in music setup is *never* smaller - all 5 channels should be full range (or as close as possible) and same make/model.
 
Phantom center won't give that pinpoint in the center.
Center channel gives you a pin point?
Actually with many modern 5.1 mixes the opposite is true, you get less pinpoint center imaging than with quad or stereo. Why is this?
Because many mixes blend all the elements into every speaker at slightly differing levels causing the sound field to blur.

For instance listen to the SW mixes of ELP and Tarkus on the center speaker only, everything is in there for the most part. It's almost like Mono x5 with a few variations that sound like separation.
I personally listen to these with the center channel muted. Better center imaging and a more powerful mix.

Now listen to the center only of the Kellogg mix of BSS, the mix sounds way out of balance with vocals and Bass guitar too loud and other instruments and backing vocals either missing or just in echoes or reverberation, because it is a more discreet mix. You can't listen to this with the center muted, the mix is out of balance.
 
If you want to hear a good example of Pure Center Channel vs Phantom Center Channel, queue up the SACD of James Taylor's "Dad Loves His Work".

The "hit" from that LP was "Her Town Too", a duet with J.D. Souther. For the mix, James Taylor is solo in the center channel, and J.D. Souther is absent from the center, but "phantom center" by being in both front channels.

The result is an interesting duet. Kill the center and there's no James, kill the fronts and there's no J.D.

I love stuff like that! :)
 
Center channel gives you a pin point?
Actually with many modern 5.1 mixes the opposite is true, you get less pinpoint center imaging than with quad or stereo. Why is this?
Because many mixes blend all the elements into every speaker at slightly differing levels causing the sound field to blur.

For instance listen to the SW mixes of ELP and Tarkus on the center speaker only, everything is in there for the most part. It's almost like Mono x5 with a few variations that sound like separation.
I personally listen to these with the center channel muted. Better center imaging and a more powerful mix.

Now listen to the center only of the Kellogg mix of BSS, the mix sounds way out of balance with vocals and Bass guitar too loud and other instruments and backing vocals either missing or just in echoes or reverberation, because it is a more discreet mix. You can't listen to this with the center muted, the mix is out of balance.

I was going to let this one pass, but I cannot.....
strat54, your system must be set up wrong. Sorry to be so blunt about this, but if you mute the centre channel then you lose almost all vocal & solo instruments.
If you solo the centre on Steven's mixes you will be getting acapella mixes - if I solo centre channel here, I get just that - centre channel, certainly not "everything is there for the most part".

How are you hooked up & connected?
 
If you want to hear a good example of Pure Center Channel vs Phantom Center Channel, queue up the SACD of James Taylor's "Dad Loves His Work".

The "hit" from that LP was "Her Town Too", a duet with J.D. Souther. For the mix, James Taylor is solo in the center channel, and J.D. Souther is absent from the center, but "phantom center" by being in both front channels.

The result is an interesting duet. Kill the center and there's no James, kill the fronts and there's no J.D.

I love stuff like that! :)

Damn - That's the only JT SACD I don't have....:( Might have to get it now...
 
If you want to hear a good example of Pure Center Channel vs Phantom Center Channel, queue up the SACD of James Taylor's "Dad Loves His Work".

The "hit" from that LP was "Her Town Too", a duet with J.D. Souther. For the mix, James Taylor is solo in the center channel, and J.D. Souther is absent from the center, but "phantom center" by being in both front channels.

The result is an interesting duet. Kill the center and there's no James, kill the fronts and there's no J.D.

I love stuff like that! :)

actually lead vocal, placed strictly into center channel without reverb duplication, placed at low level into L and R of front,
would sound in overall picture quite ugly.
there also option to manipulate with two vocals by placing lead as usual into center and secon vox into phantom point,
between C and L or R front. sort of like imitating an circumstance, when second singer does sing at the same mic, which
uses lead vocalist.
anyway, there are so much opportunities, offered by 5.1 configuration but sadly do not used by those, who does such mixes.
 
I was going to let this one pass, but I cannot.....
strat54, your system must be set up wrong. Sorry to be so blunt about this, but if you mute the centre channel then you lose almost all vocal & solo instruments.
If you solo the centre on Steven's mixes you will be getting acapella mixes - if I solo centre channel here, I get just that - centre channel, certainly not "everything is there for the most part".

How are you hooked up & connected?

Oh Crap!
Neil, you are correct. I was mistaken. I didn't use my main surround system, I lazily opened the video folders on my PC using Media Player Classic, playing the DTS and DD tracks on ELP, Tarkus and BSS. For unknown reasons the app did some cross channel blending on ELP and Tarkus but not BSS which I played first. I should have opened the Audio_TS.IFO in Foobar2000 for accuracy. I will never trust MPC for surround again.

So to reiterate, you were right, I was wrong. No need to breakout the pitchforks and torches. The SW ELP mixes are very discreet and you will hear a pinpoint center.

I will have to use different examples where the L-R contains the same content as the Center, such as parts of Yes-Fragile, parts of Beatles-Love, possibly King Crimson-Epitaph or Fallen Angel where you can hear the vocal in L-R and Center.
 
Whereas I find it far more engaging that SW's ELP surround mixes.

YEs you are correct Sir, BSS is in my opinion INCREDIBLE and THE MOST EXCITING surround disc ever made PERIOD. SW mixes are - well ....you can tell it was a job and not a case of love.
Otto the truth is polar opposite of what you say..... LISTEN TO TOCCATA KE93rd impression (boring?) - if this is so then there is little hope ..... just what do you call Exciting? Lighting a tnt stick and counting to 11?
SW was wise to withdraw from the BSS he could not outdo the love that went into that mix
 
I will always treasure the Kellog BSS no matter what happens.

Having said that, until another BSS mix exists for direct comparison (of the SAME program material), the dismissal of SW's work on two *other* albums is without merit. #sheerconjecture
 
I will always treasure the Kellog BSS no matter what happens.

Having said that, until another BSS mix exists for direct comparison (of the SAME program material), the dismissal of SW's work on two *other* albums is without merit. #sheerconjecture

No comment...
 
I won't deny that the DVD-A of BSS is superb; further, I won't argue that it's probably one of the best demo 5.1's for music you're ever likely to hear. Not only are the sonics excellent, but the mix at times very playful and adventurous. If Mr. Wilson's don't match up in the latter regard, well, he was dealing with the first two albums and he apparently wanted to avoid too much gimmickry. Of course we have also lived with BSS a lot longer than these new ones, so that also might taint our opinions.

ED :)
 
I won't deny that the DVD-A of BSS is superb; further, I won't argue that it's probably one of the best demo 5.1's for music you're ever likely to hear. Not only are the sonics excellent, but the mix at times very playful and adventurous.
I refer to it as "gimmicky" and that's one of the things I don't like about it. I much prefer a more natural 5.1 that immerses you in the mix rather than sounds flying around the room. That's one of the things I like about SW's surround mixes.
 
While I generally don't like the gimmicks either, BSS was an album that, like the band, I can't take seriously anyway, so it's all the more to have things moving about and a little playfulness to go with the excess and BS. Made it even more fun for me. Wouldn't want it all the time, and a lot of music would seem weird with the gimmicks, but for me it works here.

ED :)
 
I love it all! ELP is a killer band and is as worth taking seriously as is Harry Chapin, Ed. Granted neither may not be to your tastes. You're entitled to your opinion. Both acts are among the '70's best. Would I have mixed them differently? Probably. Are all the mixes good? Yes. The more channels you mix to, the more variations are possible, especially given 24+ track masters. The DVD-A is superb and I'm so grateful for the Wilson mixes. I eagerly await 5.1's of the original Pictures, Trilogy, Works Vol. 1 and even Black Moon.
 
ELP had its moments, some of 'em pretty good, but Emerson never met a riff he didn't like, and Lake's pretentiousness often overwhelmed even his better ballads. Carl Palmer, on the other hand, fine drummer, didn't write much, just as well.

The first album is my favorite..."From the Beginning"'s pretty good, a fair portion of BSS--even Emerson's over-the-top madness seemed to work in its favor some of the time--and Lake's solo "Father Christmas" 45 I'm a bit fond of, same with the alt. version from WORKS. Be interesting to see if this series comes to full term, there's still some worthwhile material.

As for Harry, as far as I'm concerned, "Taxi" was as far as he got. For a pop record it was genuinely inventive, its length no barrier to enjoying it, and a story easy to relate to, except for the rich-girl poor-guy thing, which was kinda cliche. But after that? Well, if I can't say something nice. Pity, though, that despite being on Elektra, Harry had no quad album. "Taxi" in quad would have been a treat.

ED :)
 
Off topic, but W.O.L.D.,d,d,d, was made for Quad. Cat's in the Cradle was the obvious choice and a big hit. Harry won the Medal of Freedom posthumously because he played every second concert for charity. Good music and a humanitarian, as well.

We now return you to ELP, from the beginning.
 
I refer to it as "gimmicky" and that's one of the things I don't like about it. I much prefer a more natural 5.1 that immerses you in the mix rather than sounds flying around the room. That's one of the things I like about SW's surround mixes.

Funny how when ELP played BSS live, the surround system they used had the same "gimmicky" sounds flying around as is on their surround release.... so I guess Pink Floyd's Dark Side of The Moon was "gimicky" on their surround releases as I don't EVER recall sound flying around when I saw them play it LIVE.
 
Back
Top