R.E.M. - "Out of Time" 25th Anniversary Edition (with Blu-Ray) coming soon!

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I don't get the "dry" terminology for ES, wouldn't that be a result of the original production rather than the surround mixers choice of what instruments to place in each channel? I don't consider Hotel California a reference disc either, but it is very good, again, I don't get the "dry" adjective to describe the mix, the recording, maybe.

It all depends. When we say a recording or mix is 'dry', it means it doesn't have a lot of effects like reverb or delay on it.
Most engineers do not record effects onto the raw tracks themselves (though that's not to say it's never been done before, cause it has) because then the effects are unalterable. The effects are usually added during the mixing process.
Sometimes during a mix, an engineer would record a track's effects onto a separate track for posterity, but if that didn't happen and the original effects are only present on the stereo mix tape, that means that an engineer remixing a classic album in surround sound would have to recreate the effects for the new surround mix.

In this instance, it seems Elliot Scheiner decided not to try and recreate the original effects (reverbs, delays, etc.) and go for a more direct and dry mix.
Because effects like reverb and delays are used to create a sense of space and depth (which is harder to achieve in stereo than it is in surround) perhaps he thought his surround mix did not need as many effects on it.

Ymmv, but I hope this explanation helps! :)
 
Sorry but I don't judge a mix based on the stereo version.

I guess if I'm familiar with the stereo mix I very much do - although not in terms of placement particularly, more atmosphere. Even within just the stereo domain (say a single remix vs the album version, for example) one person can somehow seem to find what the track needs to shine above the other mix(er).
 
I guess if I'm familiar with the stereo mix I very much do - although not in terms of placement particularly, more atmosphere. Even within just the stereo domain (say a single remix vs the album version, for example) one person can somehow seem to find what the track needs to shine above the other mix(er).

Shine = Scheiner..! Ah ha!
I see what you did there! :D
(I'll get me coat.. :eek: )
 
It all depends. When we say a recording or mix is 'dry', it means it doesn't have a lot of effects like reverb or delay on it.
Most engineers do not record effects onto the raw tracks themselves (though that's not to say it's never been done before, cause it has) because then the effects are unalterable. The effects are usually added during the mixing process.
Sometimes during a mix, an engineer would record a track's effects onto a separate track for posterity, but if that didn't happen and the original effects are only present on the stereo mix tape, that means that an engineer remixing a classic album in surround sound would have to recreate the effects for the new surround mix.

In this instance, it seems Elliot Scheiner decided not to try and recreate the original effects (reverbs, delays, etc.) and go for a more direct and dry mix.
Because effects like reverb and delays are used to create a sense of space and depth (which is harder to achieve in stereo than it is in surround) perhaps he thought his surround mix did not need as many effects on it.

Ymmv, but I hope this explanation helps! :)

re all this, if (big IF but anythings possible I guess) any of these R.E.M. 5.1's were potentially mucked about with in mastering after Elliot S was done with them (not one of ELS' but I'm mindful of the Breezin' DVD-A) then when channels are lowered/raised you might get all sorts of issues apart from obvious surround balance being out of whack in that any such processing (like reverb etc) would get screwed up too (take Breezin' 5.1 for example.. the DVD-A sounds like George Benson's vocals on This Masquerade were laid down in a tunnel they're so reverb laden.. whack up the centre channel which has his dry lead vocal in it and hey presto what was wet is now dry. etc. you get the picture.. :)
 
Shine = Scheiner..! Ah ha!
I see what you did there! :D
(I'll get me coat.. :eek: )

I do feel a tension with this stuff though. It's horrible having one's work criticised, and I am aware of the possibilty of hurting Elliot Scheiner's feelings... I do think I've finally sussed out what people seem to like about his mixes, and what I don't. That takes us back to the votes and why it's a great idea to discuss our scoring. Do we like the music? Are we an über fan of the band and just thrilled they've been mixed in surround and/or think they can do no wrong? Do we love loads of things in the back regardless - is that predominently our "thing" (and fair enough if so)? Is it about correlation to the stereo mix, be it placement or overall balance? Is it about atmosphere? and so on, and so on. :)
 
I do feel a tension with this stuff though. It's horrible having one's work criticised, and I am aware of the possibilty of hurting Elliot Scheiner's feelings... I do think I've finally sussed out what people seem to like about his mixes, and what I don't. That takes us back to the votes and why it's a great idea to discuss our scoring. Do we like the music? Are we an über fan of the band and just thrilled they've been mixed in surround and/or think they can do no wrong? Do we love loads of things in the back regardless - is that predominently our "thing" (and fair enough if so)? Is it about correlation to the stereo mix, be it placement or overall balance? Is it about atmosphere? and so on, and so on. :)

Tension.. interesting choice of word.. I'm now being accused of being paranoid for postulating a mere theory.
I'm outta here, I don't need this in my life :)
 
Previous comment retracted


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks Ryan, I really appreciate that.

You are a good man, a fair and balanced character and a fine example of the new generation coming up.. to me you represent the future of Multichannel music.

If I feel like I can't (let's face it I'm an old(er) hand at this now, doing Surround in some form for 22 years now) express mere opinion and even give proviso's to that effect (if's, but's and imho's abound in my posts these days, I'm sure it will not have escaped your notice.. there is a reason behind that, which I'm not prepared to go into in the open forum, besides its a whole other thing) but if we can't discuss and explore the "what if's", then IDK if I have much purpose here anymore.

Point is = Can we ever talk in absolutes with these surround things unless we're involved in the project or hear the actual mixes right off the board? At this stage I'm open to any possiblity, there have been many Quad/Surround screw ups over the years, have there not?
 
I guess if I'm familiar with the stereo mix I very much do - although not in terms of placement particularly, more atmosphere. Even within just the stereo domain (say a single remix vs the album version, for example) one person can somehow seem to find what the track needs to shine above the other mix(er).

Green was the last REM album I bought by the band on release date. Know the 2.0 mix well and wasn't let down by the 5.1 mix. It is a 5.1 mix that is great enough to hold back any criticism I have of it and just enjoy it. From World Leader Pretend, to the end, is epic in my opinion. Doesn't get much better for me with the band.
 
:yikes

I thought Green was pretty terrible in surround. For me, it frequently killed the feel of the original album, and if anything made it sound under produced in places. Out of interest, was this an album you were well acquainted in stereo beforehand? I think I may understand the love for ES work here in terms of him sticking a lot in the rears, but some of the mixes seem to be over dry for my tastes. That said, his mix of the Hotel California album is amazing, but I guess that was a very dry sounding album to begin with.

After further review...

Doubt we will ever see eye to eye on Green if you think it is terrible, sorry.
 
Further question occurs, if I may.. has Mr. Scheiner ever done a truly awful surround music mix (i.e. one with poor use of surround, totally unsympathetic to the material and so on)..?

I know from past comments Mike TF hasn't enjoyed these R.E.M. surround mixes as much as some other members.. and Toto IV has had some criticism from some quarters over the years (I like it but its not perfect) but struggling to recall a universally panned (no pun intended, for a change ;) ) Scheiner surround mix, tbh.

Off the top of my head I don't remember Lukather's Candyman on DTS being that special (do you?) but its a long time since I last heard it and would have to refresh the memory before dissing it at this point (and of course opinions mutable; new gear, new ears, new beers.. :eek: )

Revisionism is one thing (personally love differences in surround mixes from the Stereo, I invariably find it quite thrilling to hear something new or different in a 5.1 or Quad mix) but a poor surround mix is another whole can of worms (and that's what I'm getting at.. though I'm mindful of not taking this excellent discussion off on a whole new tangent!)

(on that note; sorry for going a bit off the beaten track, I won't be offended if this is moved/deleted/edited I'm not at all precious about all that, its just you know while I've got breath in my body and I'm still a member here its nice to be able to occasionally explore variations on a theme or topic, especially seeing as I've got nobody in real life to talk about this surround stuff with.. no big deal, just wanted to get that orf me ample bosom, thanks mods and rockers! :) )
 
Tension.. interesting choice of word..

Looks like I didn't explain myself very well! I meant a tension between having a (strong) opinion about somebody's work vs the possibility of it being painful to them (the mixer) for it to be expressed in that manner.
 
After further review...

Doubt we will ever see eye to eye on Green if you think it is terrible, sorry.

No need for apologies. Interesting that we feel so differently about an album we're both familiar with in stereo - you possibly much more familiar than I. Terrible, on reflection may be an exageration. Disappointing could be more on the mark. I submit "Stand" for scrutiny. Might check out the 5.1 again soon on the basis of you rating it.
 
Revisionism is one thing (personally love differences in surround mixes from the Stereo, I invariably find it quite thrilling to hear something new or different in a 5.1 or Quad mix) but a poor surround mix is another whole can of worms (and that's what I'm getting at.. though I'm mindful of not taking this excellent discussion off on a whole new tangent!)

Yes, indeed, and what is poor and what just isn't to our taste?
 
No need for apologies. Interesting that we feel so differently about an album we're both familiar with in stereo - you possibly much more familiar than I. Terrible, on reflection may be an exageration. Disappointing could be more on the mark. I submit "Stand" for scrutiny. Might check out the 5.1 again soon on the basis of you rating it.

I don't find the 5.1 mix of Green to be particularly thrilling, I prefer the more recent analogue cut vinyl WB did on the 25th, I think cut by kevin Gray.

For Out of Time and Automatic For The People I much prefer the surround presentations. I just found Green doesn't open up particularly well which is unusual for an ES mix. My fave tracks are the slower tracks, like Hairshirt and The Wrong Child...maybe that has something to do with it. The tracks on Green I found better in surround were a bit fuller-sounding songs such as I Remember, Turn You Inside Out and World Leader Pretend.
 
Back
Top