Alan Parsons speaks re: DSOTM

[JonUrban]

From the Sound & Vision article:

About the Guthrie mix:

"I'm generally rather disappointed. It's not very discrete. There is <em>some</em> discrete information in there. But I found myself, about two-thirds of the way through, kind of forgetting that this mix was surround. James was possibly a little too true to the original mix. He could have taken some risks, as I did on the quad. One of the parameters I always work when mixing for surround is: Keep the interest. If there's nothing going on, then stick something in the back."

I strongly urge all members to go out and get this magazine and read the two articles, the Guthrie view and the Parsons view. It's amazing that they pretty much parallel what we have discussed here all along.

It's great, as both engineers go throught their mixes song by song. I am telling you, it reads like they took it from our threads!!

Alan Parsons is THE MAN!!!!

As far as I am concerned, he can do my quad mixes anytime.

:-jon - - - adding fuel to a fire that should be out!

 

[daved64]

I was afraid S&V had forgotten about DSOTM....but it looks like they waited to make a big double whammy article....can't wait to read it....it's a friggin holiday here so everything is closed! Gotta wait till tomorrow.

I listened to DSOTM again this morning.....while I do like it, it could have been so much better....I agree with the AP comment.....too true to the original...maybe Guthrie is too much of a lacky....they needed an objective ear.

 

[AllAroundSurround]

This is what I said over and over and I was afraid this was going to be lack luster unless "The Man" himself did the 5.1 remix. I pray they let him do A DVD-A and then the world will see just who IS the Mix Master! A.P. The King!
0] Rob

 

[proufo]

> "I'm generally rather disappointed. It's not very discrete. There is some discrete information in there. But I found myself, about two-thirds of the way through, kind of forgetting that this mix was surround. James was possibly a little too true to the original mix. He could have taken some risks, as I did on the quad. One of the parameters I always work when mixing for surround is: Keep the interest. If there's nothing going on, then stick something in the back."

Oh, that's what it takes to be a producer!

I bet I can make software that does that automatically:

If LR = 0 or RR = 0 then
LR= EXTRACT1 (LF,RF)
RR= EXTRACT2 (LF, RF)
Endif

I'm so glad the music I like is already recorded and mixed.

 

[Guy Robinson]

I think anyone that has heard the original Parsons mix will agree that the Guthrie mix absolutely sucks in comparison. In fact it could be considered as "enhanced stereo" in comparison. Whenever I want to listen to DSOTM it is the Parson's mix that I use. I played the SACD 2 or 3 times but substance overrides sonics anyday in my book. I actually use the Guthrie SACD and the Parsons DTS in an A/B fashion to illustrate this to my friends. They all leave saying that Guthrie blew it.

 

[Cai Campbell]

I think proufo missed the point...

Anyway, I don't agree that the Guthrie mix "sucks" by any measure. It is different, and in my opinion, is in some ways better than the AP mix, and I'm one of the guys that put the AP mix up on a pedestal. However, I try and keep an open mind, and I think Guthrie succeeded to a large extent. As I've said before, if I had a gun to my head and I had to choose one to live with for the rest of my life, I'd choose the AP mix, but on a song-by-song basis, the Guthrie mix wins out (to my ears) a fair amount of the time.

 

[AllAroundSurround]

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>If there's nothing going on, then stick something in the back."[/quote]
He was just generalizing! That's not what it takes to be a producer ! Come on! Be real! Did you miss the point he was making! The Guthrie mix is mostly a Stereo image over 5.1 channels. For the most part that is!
I'd put anything up that Alan Parsons has done against anyone else ! Period! His stereo mixes are very active! Just check out any of the Alan Parsons Projects and You'll see what I mean! Even the 5.1 "On Air" Is light years more active then the Guthrie DSOTM And that was done years ago !
0] Rob

 

[JonUrban]

Guys, you should read the whole article. Alan Parsons gives the nod to Guthrie on a couple of tunes, like "Great Gig". He is very complimentary, actually. Don't go by the small quote I posted here. Go read the magazine.

I am from the quad camp that LIKES stuff coming at me from all around. So, for me, be it SACD, DVD-A, Q8, etc, give me an active surround mix over a "wider" stereo mix.

That's all ...........................

 

[proufo]

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>What's Your Point proufo?[/quote]

When the music-recording technology switched to stereo, it was quite common for producers and perhaps artist to make it absolutely obvious that the stereo product was different, and alos it was common for producers to do ping-pong mixes so the stereoness of the product was obvious.

Later producers learned that music is not served well with those parameters. Stereo became what was intended, a way to make recordings more realistic and also a new way for artists to express themselves more creatively.

We went through the same cycle with Quad in the 70s. But it seems producers have not learned anything, even in 2004. They still believe that multi-channel is a gimmick.

At least 70s quad had the value of a pioneering effort, and even some naivete value. But Parsons in 2004 thinking in terms of making the m-ch mix "interesting" is just disrespectful of the work, and the listener too.

He's not alone. Someone said a couple of years ago that he puts things in the back to show the kids that there was some action there.

As Crawdaddy magazine once printed, and I paraphrase, there should be some capable acts that use m-ch effectively, to create works that HAVE to be listened in m-ch. Gimmicky reworkings by producers is a mistake.

 

[DPROKOPY]

I actually agree here. There are some rather gimicky moments in some surround discs I own that make me kinda cringe. The most obvious one is the "Mr. Mojo Rising" bit on the Doors' "LA Woman" DVD-A. (For those who don't own it, Bruce Botnick basically "pings" Jim's voice from speaker to speaker with each repeat of the line.) Sure, it's "cool," but it's ultimately rather distracting. There are other discs that I own that have instruments doing full 360's around my room (like the guitar solo on "Enter Sandman" on the Metallica disc). And unless you've got ideal speaker placement and matched speakers (yes, I know, we all should have that - but not everyone does), that sort of effect sounds like garbage (and would probably be enough to turn off a more casual listener to the surround experience).

I haven't heard the Parsons Quad mix of "DSotM" (yet), and I'll reserve judgement on it (and comparisons with the Guthrie mix) until I do. But I really do like what Guthrie did. Sure it's basically just a 3-D version of the stereo mix, but that's actually the kind of surround mixing I prefer - something that still maintains the feel of the original mix, but expands it out to surround the listener, without getting too obvious or distracting.

 

[Guy Robinson]

Well, I kind of like this gimicky stuff most of the time. It works much better in a 360 degree format than in the stereo days of yore.

I also agree that it is better if everything is matched. My speakers are exactly matched all around with type and number of drivers per cabinet. Makes it relatively seamless.

Also, the Parson's mix has subtle and sometimes not so subtle details that are missing from the Guthrie mix.

 

[Cai Campbell]

Proufo, taking your comments in the context of this thread, which happens to be about DSOTM, can I assume correctly that you are inferring that you think Alan Parson's surround mix of DSOTM is gimmicky? And even if the answer is yes, do you not think that it suits the music? And if the answer still continues to be yes, I must then ask again, what is your point?

Gimmicky is a very strong word that is seeped in subjectivity. Such a discussion may belong in its own thread if not directed to the topic at hand.

 

[proufo]

> Proufo, taking your comments in the context of this thread, which happens to be about DSOTM, can I assume correctly that you are inferring that you think Alan Parson's surround mix of DSOTM is gimmicky? And even if the answer is yes, do you not think that it suits the music? And if the answer still continues to be yes, I must then ask again, what is your point?

Hello Cai.

No, I'm referring to the comment about making the rear channels "interesting".

I enjoy the old quad mixes (such as Parson's DSOTM) even if gimmicky, but doing it again in this new era is not my idea of evolution.

Agressive effects are very much a part of Pink Floyd music, both in stereo and m-ch (perhaps mono). But I'd hope for more profound criteria for placing sounds creatively than "interesting".

Would Chase 1st in quad be "interesting" to Parsons?

I'd really want to see artists doing new works in m-ch, not producers repurposing old works to create saleable product.

 

[Guy Robinson]

Well I also agree with this. In fact I agree with anything that will get well mixed surround QUALITY MUSIC in my hands. I think that RadioHead would be a band that could create from scratch a MC experience that would not work in stereo. In fact they have created quite a lot of things that would have been better done in MC than stereo.

 

[Cai Campbell]

Well, I don't think it is fair to take Parson's quote and turn it into a generalization, because it isn't a generalization, it is one engineer giving his opinion. To take that out of context and apply it to some perceived surround engineering "approach" (that being "repurposing old works to create saleable product") is irresponsible.

If you're going to take the man's quote and tear it down, it's only fair that you concentrate on his own work. His comments and what he "really" meant will be reflected in his own surround mixing projects. Alan never had anything to do with Chase releases, so why even mention them? Is there anything that Alan has ever done that you have a problem with?

 

[proufo]

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Well, I don't think it is fair to take Parson's quote and turn it into a generalization, because it isn't a generalization, it is one engineer giving his opinion. To take that out of context and apply it to some perceived surround engineering "approach" (that being "repurposing old works to create saleable product") is irresponsible.[/quote]
Parson's comment was general enough IMHO. And it echoes other producer's comment.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>If you're going to take the man's quote and tear it down, it's only fair that you concentrate on his own work. His comments and what he "really" meant will be reflected in his own surround mixing projects. Alan never had anything to do with Chase releases, so why even mention them? Is there anything that Alan has ever done that you have a problem with?[/quote]

Wow!

Er... No. I don't. I guess. Only my shrink knows for sure.

 

[guest]

James Guthrie with a track by track commentary of his surround sound version of "Dark side of the Moon"
www.soundandvisionmag.com...e_number=1

And even MORE interesting is Alan Parsons track by track analasis of Guthries new re-mix. He was not consulted and claims to be somewhat disappointed.
www.soundandvisionmag.com...cle_id=444

 

[proufo]

Guthrie's comments seem so much respectful and well thought out.

I don't know how (currently broke) but I HAVE to be able to play SACDs real soon now!

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>“It would be a case of the people sitting in the front seats saying, ‘We’ve got rhythm section up here! How are the vocals back there?’ ‘Not bad. How’s the groove up there?[/quote]

I am sure many engineers working in m-ch these days would paraphrase that comment with a "Wouldn't it be cool for kids in a car..."

Kudos to James Guthrie. Hope he is able to prompt PF to do a new album specifically for m-ch.

And it would be a dream to have Meedle in m-ch, done by him.

 

[AllAroundSurround]

I went out and bought the magzine and read both articules and have to say I miss spoke about the guthrie mix as he said they .."FLOYD" wanted it that way!
Not the way Alan did it and Alan said he had he respected the way Guthrie did the mix! So I can't complain as to the way it was done , I just prefer the Parsons Mix over the SACD/MC Mix. I can't wait for Alan To work on his back catolouge of Works In 5.1 . I will buy every one of them site unheard! I have that much respect for his work ! And can only hope that he gets a shot at DSOTM the way he saw it !
0] Rob

 

[pauly1973]

I am *sick* of spineless, unimaginative 5.1 mixes, especially on DVD music Videos (ie. live concerts) and SACD (eg. DSOTM)

The current mentality is one of "dumbing down" the virgin (and ever expanding) 5.1 audience.....
"Let's just assume the average user of 5.1 is pretty naive to the medium and is ignorant musically and technically, and we'll mix the music so it sounds like you're a couple of rows back from the front"

If i hear another 5.1 concert mix with only the audience microphones in the rear channels i will puke!!!!!

I am a trained musician, and i want to feel like i am on stage with the band!!!
I want to hear drums in front and guitars and keyboards behind me.... i want to hear the ambience from the rear channels in the front and vice-versa!!!!

I want to hear the Alan Parsons DSOTM filling my room and using every watt of power from every channel of my amp, not that lame SACD so-called "mix"!!!!

it's bad enough that most 5.1 movies cheat on the mix by merely reverberating the Lf and Rf channels and sending this very wet and nebulous ambience to the rear channels.... a lot of music 5.1 mixes use the same cheat method!!!!

beware folks! - i have heard too many so-called "remixed for 5.1" DVD's that have simply applied a psuedo ProLogic matrix to pure stereo source material!!!!

AAAARRRRRGGGGH!!!!!!

someone, please save 5.1 from the ignomony of "ambience only" rear channels!!!

why not be creative and record a grand piano with four microphones directly over the strings, and panning them into the four corners... turning your entire room into the inside of a piano!

or how about panning a drum kit's individual pieces around the room, like "moby dick" on the Led Zeppelin DVD??

how about recording a Leslie rotating speaker with four mics and panning them around the room??? am i the only person who wants to experience the sensation of being *inside* an instrument?

modern 5.1 engineers are probably 20-something young punks who have never heard good quad and thus have no appreciation for filling a room with sound

peace,
pauly1973