• QuadraphonicQuad welcomes you and encourages your participation! Treat all members with respect. Please keep all discussions civil, even when you have a strong opinion on a particular topic.

    Do not offer for free, offer for sale, offer for trade, or request copies or files of copyrighted material - no matter how rare or unavailable to the public they might be. We do not condone the illegal sharing of music. There are many places on the internet where you can participate in such transactions, but QuadraphonicQuad is not one of them. We are here to encourage and support new multichannel releases from those companies that still provide them and as such the distribution of illegal copies of recordings is counter-productive to that effort. Any posts of this sort will be deleted without notification.

    Please try to avoid discussions that pit one format against another. Hint for new users: make liberal use of the search facilities here at QuadraphonicQuad. Our message base is an incredibly rich resource of detailed information on virtually all topics pertaining to surround-sound. You will be surprised at what you can find with a little digging!

Futzing with the HARVEST DVD-Audio

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

4-earredwonder

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Joined
Jan 9, 2013
Messages
12,350
Well the result of a brief play around is there in prev. post in 5.1 Flac form.. what do you think? :)

Ralph.. that is a million dollar can of worms question.. why, why, why do some people love it and some people hate this Marmite mix? Who knows!? I don't!

I guess.. some people love an artist or album so much they're prepared to overlook flaws in a surround mix?
Some people may not have their surround systems properly setup so it sounds fine to them on their rig?
Some people may not be as critical wrt things like surround soundfield as others?
Some people are silly billies?
Some people they hurt one another, they love to see hurt in the other one's eyes.. well I'm not like that at all.. :D

Nobody will be putting it out again corrected, even if they do put it out again (and again) just like Pet Sounds et al., no matter what, the official line will be there's nothing wrong with the mix, even if there really is/was (imho).. to some (not all) in this biz it's just a job and really they give less of a shit than we do. (Unpopular opinion among some I imagine.. but there you go.) also, maybe some of those jobs might still be on the line (even after all this time) if a big deal were made of it..? Ah I dunno, I've got work to do (got so much work, yeah, yeah...)
I fully realize this is a HARVEST poll but for comparison put on ANY AF QUAD SACD and you will be treated to absolutely superb sonics with placement of instruments and a quality of sound which will put the abomination I call HARVEST to rest.

Putting HARVEST 'together again' like good ole Humptey may be a labor of love but unlike a LOT of the reissue and smaller companies today who righted the wrongs of initial surround pressings, AFAIK this was a rather 'important' and much anticipated DVD~A mainstream release and RHINO/WARNER and yes, N. Young, should have recalled it immediately and reissued an OFFICIAL corrected pressing.

Com'on, RHINO/WARNER.........we'd love HARVEST (CORRECTED) and AFTER THE GOLD RUSH (presumably remixed for 5.1) on BD~A in 5.1..........and we want it N O W!
 

Franklin

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Joined
Aug 10, 2013
Messages
1,509
I'm not sure the Sly & The Family Stone quad SACD should be classed as having brilliant sonics.
 

4-earredwonder

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Joined
Jan 9, 2013
Messages
12,350
I'm not sure the Sly & The Family Stone quad SACD should be classed as having brilliant sonics.
An UNPOPULAR subject on this site but I treat my discs with Mapleshade Polish/Ultra Bit Diamond +, demagnetize them and damper them and they sound absolutely brilliant ON MY SYSTEM......ONE and ALL.
 

Franklin

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Joined
Aug 10, 2013
Messages
1,509
I don't believe polishing a disc can change the equipment, engineering and mix choices made forty odd years ago. But if it can you've got a real bargain, and possibly an insight into time travel.

Less cynically, I'd love some proof for this stuff - and it's very easily supplied - and I'd like to think I'd be prepared to be swayed, but for some reason simple before/after treatment null tests are not supplied. Convince me! :)
 

LuvMyQuad

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
QQ Supporter
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
2,285
Location
Western NY
I do not think all of the AF quads sound stellar, nor do I think Harvest is a total abomination (hence a good number of high poll scores).

First, this is a classic well known masterpiece of an album that is going to score high in the content category. Secondly, the fidelity of the tracks is extremely good. It is very well recorded and it is not compressed at all. This quality translates to good poll scores as well.

On the uncorrected album, my biggest complaint was the disembodiment of some of the instrumentation and particularly the vocals. That is where my complaints started and ended. Were it not for that unfortunate quality, this would be a sure fire 10 from me in a poll (note I have not voted yet, even though I’ve had this release for many years). To my mind, the other aspects of the mix simply are not that bad.

But as far as the mix goes, there were several odd choices made and I think a lot of it has to do with the idea of reproducing the “Barn” atmosphere.

It seems like the mixer was shooting for two primary sound stages. One to the front, and one to the left. There is also a right side sound stage, but it is mainly used for fill in and for some isolated instruments on some tracks (ie: banjo on Old Man). This pretty much explains the drums placed on the left side (maybe where they were in the barn?).

Since the instruments are located in what amounts to three stereo sound fields with phantom center points corresponding to each one, we can swap front for back channels and still have those phantom centers do their thing, all be it, with some changes in location going front or back. This is very much like the majority of 5.1 releases where all manner of instrumentation is located on the side stages. With this release however, the vocals being present to some degree in all 5 active channels is where the problem seems to come in.

The full range LFE does not cause me concern. For most of the tracks the LFE contains only drums, bass, and a little miscellaneous leakage (these comments do not apply to tracks 3, 7 and 8, as those three are different animals entirely owing to the orchestral accompaniment and the live recording of Needle). At no time when playing this release did I ever feel that there was something wrong with the LFE channel. Full range output or not. I think on the majority of systems, the natural roll off of the sub makes it a non issue. And I would prefer that to any kind of sonic compromise that might show up due to trying to limit its output to 200 hz or less via filtering.

When you isolate the original front right, it sounds like only ambiance. Oddly, when it is played along with the other channels in the unaltered mix, I don’t notice a lack of information to the front right. When we swap the fronts and rears, I do notice a lack of information in the rear right. I’m not sure why that is. Perhaps I need to listen again closer. At any rate, having an ambiance channel located in the front right is simply not something we are used to, and to me it is the strangest mixing choice of them all. Could it have been the “back wall” side of the barn?

By swapping the fronts and rears the vocals become more stable in the sound field, the slide guitar parts in the left sound stage move more toward the rear and seem to become more discrete. Anything else that was originally placed in the side sound stages moves a bit to the front or rear. All good so far, but the down side is it also opens up that sound hole in the right rear where there is little discrete information (from memory, “Old Man” is at least one exception to this, there may be more).

To be sure, both the “fixed” and the “unfixed” versions of this album have their flaws. To think that an error was made during mastering and we should have gotten a version with the fronts and rears swapped doesn’t make sense to me either. That would mean Neil and crew listened to the swapped mix and had no objection to the obvious lack on information in the right rear. I can’t see that.

I’m leaning towards the idea that the mix we got, however oddball it may seem, is the mix that was intended. Maybe they thought the disembodied vocals were a neat effect or something. And on some other release, maybe that would be the case. It might fit in well on a Floyd tune or a Yes album, but it just doesn’t seem to suit this album all that well.

I can’t say yet which “version” of this release I like better. Do I prefer a hole in the RR, or a general disembodiment of vocals? It’s a bit like trying to decide to vote for Clinton or Trump, you lose either way.
 

LuvMyQuad

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
QQ Supporter
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
2,285
Location
Western NY
An UNPOPULAR subject on this site but I treat my discs with Mapleshade Polish/Ultra Bit Diamond +, demagnetize them and damper them and they sound absolutely brilliant ON MY SYSTEM......ONE and ALL.
To quote the great Jack Nicholson (portraying Melvin Udall in "As Good As it Gets"): Go sell crazy someplace else. We're all stocked up here.
 
Last edited:

fredblue

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
QQ Supporter
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
23,226
Location
London, England
I don't believe polishing a disc can change the equipment, engineering and mix choices made forty odd years ago. But if it can you've got a real bargain, and possibly an insight into time travel.

Less cynically, I'd love some proof for this stuff - and it's very easily supplied - and I'd like to think I'd be prepared to be swayed, but for some reason simple before/after treatment null tests are not supplied. Convince me! :)
I'm reminded of the expression; "You can't polish a turd",.. delightful turn of phrase isn't it! :ugham:
 

fredblue

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
QQ Supporter
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
23,226
Location
London, England
An UNPOPULAR subject on this site but I treat my discs with Mapleshade Polish/Ultra Bit Diamond +, demagnetize them and damper them and they sound absolutely brilliant ON MY SYSTEM......ONE and ALL.
More power to your buffing elbow Ralphie..! :D
(I kinda know how you feel.. it was a bit unfortunate having the piss taken out of me for cleaning my old vinyl records with Fairy washing up liquid, which really does work and can be proven with before & after needledrops... but there you go, we take these things on the chin, the rib-tickling, not the elbow.. next time I'll use the elbow grease to rub the genie's lamp instead and see if a Surround SACD of Tale Spinnin' or Musicmagic comes out.. :eek:
 

milt

800 Club - QQ All-Star
Joined
Apr 18, 2006
Messages
803
Location
Puget Sound
I do not think all of the AF quads sound stellar, nor do I think Harvest is a total abomination (hence a good number of high poll scores).

First, this is a classic well known masterpiece of an album that is going to score high in the content category. Secondly, the fidelity of the tracks is extremely good. It is very well recorded and it is not compressed at all. This quality translates to good poll scores as well.

On the uncorrected album, my biggest complaint was the disembodiment of some of the instrumentation and particularly the vocals. That is where my complaints started and ended. Were it not for that unfortunate quality, this would be a sure fire 10 from me in a poll (note I have not voted yet, even though I’ve had this release for many years). To my mind, the other aspects of the mix simply are not that bad.

But as far as the mix goes, there were several odd choices made and I think a lot of it has to do with the idea of reproducing the “Barn” atmosphere.

It seems like the mixer was shooting for two primary sound stages. One to the front, and one to the left. There is also a right side sound stage, but it is mainly used for fill in and for some isolated instruments on some tracks (ie: banjo on Old Man). This pretty much explains the drums placed on the left side (maybe where they were in the barn?).

Since the instruments are located in what amounts to three stereo sound fields with phantom center points corresponding to each one, we can swap front for back channels and still have those phantom centers do their thing, all be it, with some changes in location going front or back. This is very much like the majority of 5.1 releases where all manner of instrumentation is located on the side stages. With this release however, the vocals being present to some degree in all 5 active channels is where the problem seems to come in.

The full range LFE does not cause me concern. For most of the tracks the LFE contains only drums, bass, and a little miscellaneous leakage (these comments do not apply to tracks 3, 7 and 8, as those three are different animals entirely owing to the orchestral accompaniment and the live recording of Needle). At no time when playing this release did I ever feel that there was something wrong with the LFE channel. Full range output or not. I think on the majority of systems, the natural roll off of the sub makes it a non issue. And I would prefer that to any kind of sonic compromise that might show up due to trying to limit its output to 200 hz or less via filtering.

When you isolate the original front right, it sounds like only ambiance. Oddly, when it is played along with the other channels in the unaltered mix, I don’t notice a lack of information to the front right. When we swap the fronts and rears, I do notice a lack of information in the rear right. I’m not sure why that is. Perhaps I need to listen again closer. At any rate, having an ambiance channel located in the front right is simply not something we are used to, and to me it is the strangest mixing choice of them all. Could it have been the “back wall” side of the barn?

By swapping the fronts and rears the vocals become more stable in the sound field, the slide guitar parts in the left sound stage move more toward the rear and seem to become more discrete. Anything else that was originally placed in the side sound stages moves a bit to the front or rear. All good so far, but the down side is it also opens up that sound hole in the right rear where there is little discrete information (from memory, “Old Man” is at least one exception to this, there may be more).

To be sure, both the “fixed” and the “unfixed” versions of this album have their flaws. To think that an error was made during mastering and we should have gotten a version with the fronts and rears swapped doesn’t make sense to me either. That would mean Neil and crew listened to the swapped mix and had no objection to the obvious lack on information in the right rear. I can’t see that.

I’m leaning towards the idea that the mix we got, however oddball it may seem, is the mix that was intended. Maybe they thought the disembodied vocals were a neat effect or something. And on some other release, maybe that would be the case. It might fit in well on a Floyd tune or a Yes album, but it just doesn’t seem to suit this album all that well.

I can’t say yet which “version” of this release I like better. Do I prefer a hole in the RR, or a general disembodiment of vocals? It’s a bit like trying to decide to vote for Clinton or Trump, you lose either way.
FWIW, Linda, I totally agree with your observation.
I've posted my opinions about Harvest before.
2 things:
Look at the back cover and where the musicians are situated on the stage in the barn.
The video on the disc shows that they placed a mic, maybe more than one can't remember, outside of the barn.
Obviously not all tracks were recorded at the ranch and at the time I have to believe that surround sound as in 5.1 or quad was not in the equation.

I think you also have to know a thing or 2 about Neil Young and his history.
He made his first album almost entirely on his own. He called it "overdub city" and vowed never to do that again.
He wants an open, natural, live sound.
Between After the Gold Rush and Harvest, Neil purchased the ranch.
During the writing and recording of Harvest, Neil was luxuriating in his new home and everything about it.
Loving recording and playing in a barn in is newfound nirvana and band.
Again in the video, he's drinking a Michelob, laying in the field and listening to playback of the album coming from the barn.
He totally loved the sound he was getting.
Regarding all of the technical critiques of the Harvest 5.1 mix here, and I'm not saying anyone is wrong, I can guarantee that Neil doesn't give a rat's a$$.
The sonics are beautiful and real and for myself I have no issues with the choices made on the mix.

Personally, I'll take a Harvest any day over a technically perfect 5.1 like many of the AIX discs where the content does nothing for me.

Always, just my 2 cents.
 

ssully

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Jul 2, 2003
Messages
2,684
Location
in your face
So how does it sound, Adam?

What I don't fully comprehend are the posters (67 of them) who voted between an 8~10 for the unassigned DVD~A of Harvest when it was SO BLATANTLY off~kilter. One only has to listen to the hi res stereo HARVEST to understand how screwed up it REALLY is :yikes

One could only wish that Audio Fidelity or Rhino/Warner could re~release HARVEST in its corrected form as a 5.1 hybrid SACD or BD~A.....but hardly likely at this juncture.

Again, we don't know that it 's 'off kilter' given that the 5.1 mix goal was reported as being...something we would consider peculiar in the first place. They likely really wanted to the drums to sound like they were off to the left, on those recordings. The vocals, for example, are *meant* to sound 'disembodied* (floating in the center). As Quad Linda says, the idea was to create a virtual 'barn' setup .
 

fredblue

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
QQ Supporter
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
23,226
Location
London, England
Surprised no-one's tried out my attempt at rejigging trk 1 (or if they have they're too kind to say anything! :eek: ) won't be wasting time doing so with the rest of the album, I can't justify it as don't play this one in Surround often enough as it is. If the mix is correct "as is" then my original "5" vote stands, I don't care for what the engineers & NY etc did in remixing this in surround sound, though I respect their vision for it and the views of others here who enjoy the mix as presented. Peace out :smokin
 

fredblue

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
QQ Supporter
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
23,226
Location
London, England
I have it converted to flac, both the original and fixed versions. And I have downloaded torrents in the past, but I haven't got a clue how to host one. If someone wants to provide a little instruction I'll put in some time.
I'm no expert by any means, Luv.. but fwiw I like these two..

6GB Free space with Dropbox..
Dropbox

Send upto 2GB files to a friend's email with WeTransfer..
We Transfer

(Edit: Just noticed the Harvest DVD-A totals 2.23 GB when ripped w/DVDAE as 96/24 5.1 FLAC.. so that might be a problem with WeTransfer if results are same for you with either original and/or fixed versions.. :eek: )
 

JonUrban

Forum Curmudgeon
Staff member
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Mar 2, 2002
Messages
15,790
Location
Connecticut
OK Guys, here I am, late to the party, but here's what I meant about Neil Solo in the LFE.

The song is "Words", and if you listen to each track at the verse that begins "When I look through the window and out on the road, they're bringing me presents and saying "Hello"", on every channel, including the center, Neil's voice is mixed in with Crosby and Nash Harmonies.

Not in the LFE!! Neil is there, a bit subdued but there, by himself!!!

Have a listen at the mono LFE, cut down to MP3 for playing right here. You might have to turn it up.
 

Attachments

LuvMyQuad

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
QQ Supporter
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
2,285
Location
Western NY
OK Guys, here I am, late to the party, but here's what I meant about Neil Solo in the LFE.

The song is "Words", and if you listen to each track at the verse that begins "When I look through the window and out on the road, they're bringing me presents and saying "Hello"", on every channel, including the center, Neil's voice is mixed in with Crosby and Nash Harmonies.

Not in the LFE!! Neil is there, a bit subdued but there, by himself!!!


Have a listen at the mono LFE, cut down to MP3 for playing right here. You might have to turn it up.
When I heard it I assumed that vocal was leakage into the Bass and/or piano tracks which were then routed to the LFE. The vocals are subdued as you said, and the LFE info doesn't sound full range to me. It is documented in one or two of the links above that due to the recording locale/method (pretty much played live in a barn), that there is a significant amount of leakage between tracks, and I think this track has more than the others. The harmony vocals are not there because they were overdubbed at a later time. The majority of the tracks on the album do not have clearly audible vocals present in the LFE.
 

JonUrban

Forum Curmudgeon
Staff member
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Mar 2, 2002
Messages
15,790
Location
Connecticut
NOTE: These threads have been pulled from the Poll thread for Harvest, with a directional link to this thread posted in Post #1 of the Poll Thread

Use this thread for all experimentation and futzing! THANKS
 

cornwall198

Well-known Member
QQ Supporter
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
106
I somehow managed to replicate what FredBlue outlined (brilliantly helpfully) above. And, oh my goodness, Harvest now sounds wonderful - with the soundstage spread across all speakers in a much more balanced and appealing way, no black hole on the rear right, and just beautiful. Took me a while to figure out Audacity - but I'm sure glad that I stuck with it. Wonderful - and thanks so much, FrebBlue... Amazing work, really. How'd you figure it all out...?
 

GOS

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
QQ Supporter
Joined
Apr 23, 2013
Messages
13,207
Location
Central Illinois
I somehow managed to replicate what FredBlue outlined (brilliantly helpfully) above. And, oh my goodness, Harvest now sounds wonderful - with the soundstage spread across all speakers in a much more balanced and appealing way, no black hole on the rear right, and just beautiful. Took me a while to figure out Audacity - but I'm sure glad that I stuck with it. Wonderful - and thanks so much, FrebBlue... Amazing work, really. How'd you figure it all out...?
Because Adam (Fred B) is a relentless freak. :banana:
All the best Adam, all with the most respect! :banana::banana::banana::banana:
 

cornwall198

Well-known Member
QQ Supporter
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
106
Because Adam (Fred B) is a relentless freak. :banana:
All the best Adam, all with the most respect! :banana::banana::banana::banana:
Ha ha! Well, I'm certainly very grateful...
 

fredblue

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
QQ Supporter
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
23,226
Location
London, England
I somehow managed to replicate what FredBlue outlined (brilliantly helpfully) above. And, oh my goodness, Harvest now sounds wonderful - with the soundstage spread across all speakers in a much more balanced and appealing way, no black hole on the rear right, and just beautiful. Took me a while to figure out Audacity - but I'm sure glad that I stuck with it. Wonderful - and thanks so much, FrebBlue... Amazing work, really. How'd you figure it all out...?
oh crikey! you're v.welcome! so glad you got something pleasing out of rejigging it!

I don't know really.. I just thought of the layout of static conventional kind of 5.1 mixes vs the placement of what's on the Harvest DVD-A and then applied what I was hearing in the individual stems along those kind of lines.. in bouncing things about so much the rears turned out dual mono or something weird I think but you get a sort of surround spread as opposed to some drums over here and something else disjointed over there.. my suggestions probably all wrong and as it is on the DVD-A is how it should be but I just fiddled about with it to satisfy my own daft curiosity more than anything!
(currently mucking around with the Quad of Santana's Amigos.. another futile folly probably.. but life's full of fun and frolics isn't it!? multichannel rabbit holes with hugo in wonderland.. mucking about with surround stuff on the computer is my latest favourite waste of time! :p )

did you use a similar channel readjustment for all the songs?
(only asking as i might still revisit this and fiddle about with the whole album.. though I'm caught up in old Quads so much these days they steal my free time like billy-o!)
 

cornwall198

Well-known Member
QQ Supporter
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
106
oh crikey! you're v.welcome! so glad you got something pleasing out of rejigging it!

I don't know really.. I just thought of the layout of static conventional kind of 5.1 mixes vs the placement of what's on the Harvest DVD-A and then applied what I was hearing in the individual stems along those kind of lines.. in bouncing things about so much the rears turned out dual mono or something weird I think but you get a sort of surround spread as opposed to some drums over here and something else disjointed over there.. my suggestions probably all wrong and as it is on the DVD-A is how it should be but I just fiddled about with it to satisfy my own daft curiosity more than anything!
(currently mucking around with the Quad of Santana's Amigos.. another futile folly probably.. but life's full of fun and frolics isn't it!? multichannel rabbit holes with hugo in wonderland.. mucking about with surround stuff on the computer is my latest favourite waste of time! :p )

did you use a similar channel readjustment for all the songs?
(only asking as i might still revisit this and fiddle about with the whole album.. though I'm caught up in old Quads so much these days they steal my free time like billy-o!)
Yes, FredBlue, I used your realignment on tracks 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7. As suggested by others, the other 4 tracks sound fine as they are. And your formula has definitely improved my experience of the entire album in surround. Hugely!! My favorite improvement is Old Man. Much better balance now. Also, I derived a perverse amount of pleasure just being able to follow your suggestions to realign and adjust the tracks. Mucking about with surround stuff is certainly addictive. And getting to grips with some audacity basics is a minor triumph for me! Cheers again for the terrific recommendations!
 
2
Group builder
Top