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!
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!