HiRez Poll Riverside - ID.ENTITY [Blu-Ray Audio (Dolby Atmos)]

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Rate the Blu-Ray of Riverside - ID.ENTITY


  • Total voters
    26

sjcorne

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 1, 2010
Messages
6,334
Location
Washington, D.C.
Well the mix is a little more subtle than I expected, but not unenjoyable. I actually recalibrated my system in anticipation of this release.
If you're looking for a "The Depths of Self Destruction" or "Time Travelers" here you're likely not going to find it as this album is off in another direction. Not a bad thing, just different.

I've only listened through twice. I've not heard anything that really grabs my attention, although the band is playing at their usual high level, and the fidelity is excellent.
Always glad to hear new Riverside. I guess I expected the Atmos mix to be more aggressive. I did seem to hear more in the side surrounds than the overheads.
I will knock off a point for the low key Atmos mix, and give this a 9.

I wish mixers would get off this "wall of sound" from the fronts and spread things out with some volume a bit more. If you're going to mix spatial audio, then mix spatial audio, not Phil Spector.
 
First listen of the Atmos mix.

Long time Riverside fan, But a bit disappointed as well.

It is true that there are some discrete sounds in the side/rears and top rears. They come to reinforce some muscial passages, but for my taste it was "too loud". It's curious that we complain many times about low level on rears/heights, but when it is too loud I don't like either.

It looks as not well balanced, and too discrete (like some old Quad mixes).

That sound emphasis from rears/tops are good enough to enjoy Atmos, but then... it takes long time in the rest of the song with "only stereo", with a very little echo in the rest of speakers.

The Mariusz vocals are in front stereo (not central). And some times you hear his voice from tops. But in a very short moments.

It all looks very little immersive.

After listening, to compensate, I changed to "Give it Back" Atmos from Pineapple Thief. What a difference... So immersive, Bruce vocals immersive around you. Gavin Drums with that exceptional sound. You feel completely surrounded by the Atmos bubble. I thought this Riverside Atmos was going to be similar, because I seem to remember that Bruce Soord mentioned Riverside when talking about similar groups for Atmos. But this is not the case.

I cannot vote yet. I need more listening.

EDITED: After more listening I find it good mix. See: HiRez Poll - Riverside - ID.ENTITY [Blu-Ray Audio (Dolby Atmos)]
 
Last edited:
I’m inclined to agree, this is one of the most disappointing surround releases of late. It reminds me of one of Nick DiDia’s awful 5.1 mixes from the early-2000s, like Train’s My Private Nation or The Wallflowers’ Rebel Sweetheart. 80% of the music is pushed up against the front wall (with minimal use of the center speaker), and then these random ancillary guitar or synth bits pop up in the rears that feel detached from the overall presentation.

Dynamics aren’t particularly great either, the louder passages have a flat ‘saturated’ sound when they should seem big and powerful. I can't see giving this more than a "5" on the merits of the surround mixes.

All that said, I enjoyed the music enough to try and ‘fix’ this on the computer using a variety of upmixing and stem separation tools.

One thing that’s interesting is nearly every song has dry lead vocals mixed way down in the center, like 15-20 dB. If you bring that out and phase-cancel with the front channels, you can get that dry lead in the center channel and reverb/delay in the fronts like Steven Wilson tends to do on his 5.1 mixes. From there, another member (thank you!) helped me upmix the new vocal-less front channels with Penteo - which spread the outer edges of the drum kit and some synth parts to the rear speakers - and separate out the backing vocals during the chorus using DeMix Pro.

Here’s a sample from the last chorus of “Friend Or Foe”, rear speakers only (top is the original, bottom is my tweaked version). Not much can be done about the crushed dynamics, but I think it sounds more like a cohesive surround mix rather than a stereo mix with random intrusions from behind.

Screen Shot 2023-01-23 at 11.55.16 AM.png

View attachment Friend Or Foe Rears Original.mp3

Screen Shot 2023-01-23 at 11.55.28 AM.png

View attachment Friend Or Foe Rears V2.mp3
 
I’m inclined to agree, this is one of the most disappointing surround releases of late. It reminds me of one of Nick DiDia’s awful 5.1 mixes from the early-2000s, like Train’s My Private Nation or The Wallflowers’ Rebel Sweetheart. 80% of the music is pushed up against the front wall (with minimal use of the center speaker), and then these random ancillary guitar or synth bits pop up in the rears that feel detached from the overall presentation.

Dynamics aren’t particularly great either, the louder passages have a flat ‘saturated’ sound when they should seem big and powerful. I can't see giving this more than a "5" on the merits of the surround mixes.

All that said, I enjoyed the music enough to try and ‘fix’ this on the computer using a variety of upmixing and stem separation tools.

One thing that’s interesting is nearly every song has dry lead vocals mixed way down in the center, like 15-20 dB. If you bring that out and phase-cancel with the front channels, you can get that dry lead in the center channel and reverb/delay in the fronts like Steven Wilson tends to do on his 5.1 mixes. From there, another member (thank you!) helped me upmix the new vocal-less front channels with Penteo - which spread the outer edges of the drum kit and some synth parts to the rear speakers - and separate out the backing vocals during the chorus using DeMix Pro.

Here’s a sample from the last chorus of “Friend Or Foe”, rear speakers only (top is the original, bottom is my tweaked version). Not much can be done about the crushed dynamics, but I think it sounds more like a cohesive surround mix rather than a stereo mix with random intrusions from behind.

View attachment 87793

View attachment 87791

View attachment 87794

View attachment 87792
Interesting. I can't say I heard things exactly as you did. I don't claim to have the best hearing, however. Maybe the recent Dirac recalibration helped me? Unknown at this point.
 
I’m inclined to agree, this is one of the most disappointing surround releases of late. It reminds me of one of Nick DiDia’s awful 5.1 mixes from the early-2000s, like Train’s My Private Nation or The Wallflowers’ Rebel Sweetheart. 80% of the music is pushed up against the front wall (with minimal use of the center speaker), and then these random ancillary guitar or synth bits pop up in the rears that feel detached from the overall presentation.

Dynamics aren’t particularly great either, the louder passages have a flat ‘saturated’ sound when they should seem big and powerful. I can't see giving this more than a "5" on the merits of the surround mixes.

All that said, I enjoyed the music enough to try and ‘fix’ this on the computer using a variety of upmixing and stem separation tools.

One thing that’s interesting is nearly every song has dry lead vocals mixed way down in the center, like 15-20 dB. If you bring that out and phase-cancel with the front channels, you can get that dry lead in the center channel and reverb/delay in the fronts like Steven Wilson tends to do on his 5.1 mixes. From there, another member (thank you!) helped me upmix the new vocal-less front channels with Penteo - which spread the outer edges of the drum kit and some synth parts to the rear speakers - and separate out the backing vocals during the chorus using DeMix Pro.

Here’s a sample from the last chorus of “Friend Or Foe”, rear speakers only (top is the original, bottom is my tweaked version). Not much can be done about the crushed dynamics, but I think it sounds more like a cohesive surround mix rather than a stereo mix with random intrusions from behind.

View attachment 87793

View attachment 87791

View attachment 87794

View attachment 87792

You have explained it better than me. Thanks. I feel exactly the same.

First I thought that my system could be not properly calibrated. But some improvement in calibration cannot improve any poor mix.

That's why I switched to "Give It Back" Pineapple Thief Atmos. With my same 'even poor calibrated system' the difference was abismal. The mix and immersion of "Give it Back" was notably much better.

EDITED: After more listening I find it good mix. See: HiRez Poll - Riverside - ID.ENTITY [Blu-Ray Audio (Dolby Atmos)]
 
Last edited:
Pineapple Thief, The Tipping Point, and xPropaganda are my go to's when I've been listening to crap mixes or just tiresome ones.
The funny thing is that - at least in my opinion - the mix approach on xPropaganda isn't actually all that different from this one on paper. The rhythm section & lead vocal are nailed down to the fronts, while additional supportive elements like backing vocals, synth, or guitar occasionally pop up in the rear or height speakers. Yet that mix sounds so powerful and spacious, while this one kind of shrinks in the expanded soundstage. I'd argue the loss of dynamics is a big contributor to that feeling, perhaps even more so than the spatial positioning decisions. I think I get more enjoyment out of the stereo version on headphones.
 
The funny thing is that - at least in my opinion - the mix approach on xPropaganda isn't actually all that different from this one on paper. The rhythm section & lead vocal are nailed down to the fronts, while additional supportive elements like backing vocals, synth, or guitar occasionally pop up in the rear or height speakers. Yet that mix sounds so powerful and spacious, while this one kind of shrinks in the expanded soundstage. I'd argue the loss of dynamics is a big contributor to that feeling, perhaps even more so than the spatial positioning decisions. I think I get more enjoyment out of the stereo version on headphones.
On xPropaganda, they have allowed the music to breathe, as I think you say, and that makes a difference. I know Riverside are (oversimplified perhaps) rockers, and I love that. But like a Jazz great used to say, don't be afraid to put some space in between. I think in a lot of Riverside music Duda and Co. have done that very well.
But my main complaint here is what I perceive now to be the awful, loud, dynamics, and I don't know what I was thinking in my first post. I stand corrected after further listening. mea culpa.
It's not the mix as much...like @AYanguas said, or I think he said, the rear heights especially got some treatment....IDK it's like after mixing, someone EQ'd everything and made a mess of it.

I still like the music itself overall. It's undeniably Riverside, no doubt.
 
The funny thing is that - at least in my opinion - the mix approach on xPropaganda isn't actually all that different from this one on paper. The rhythm section & lead vocal are nailed down to the fronts, while additional supportive elements like backing vocals, synth, or guitar occasionally pop up in the rear or height speakers. Yet that mix sounds so powerful and spacious, while this one kind of shrinks in the expanded soundstage. I'd argue the loss of dynamics is a big contributor to that feeling, perhaps even more so than the spatial positioning decisions. I think I get more enjoyment out of the stereo version on headphones.

What I see "visually", looking into my 13 channel DIY VUmeters, is that in xPropaganda there is more "balance" between the fronts and the sides/top rears. The keyboards and synth in the rear/top does not "hide" the power of the rhythm section in fronts, as it is done with Riverside when the loud guitars appears on sides.

There are many sections in Riverside that the running VUmeters are only the two fronts stereo. The rest of speakers do almost nothing. xPropaganda is more "balanced".

Also the vocals on xPropaganda (at least in the first song that I checked just now) are immersive surround because they output not only in fronts but they are mixed (together) also in side surrounds. That gives an immersive surroundy of the vocals, similar to Bruce in Pineapple Thief. Again, the sounds are more "balanced" and distributed among all channels in xPropaganda than in Riverside. I listen, but I can "see" visually also in the VUMeters.

I do not know if it is just a matter of volume level in Riverside, to "balance" the overall levels better. But I'm afraid it is not just that. There is only stereo, with very small echos in the rest, and when a pure "discrete" sound is coming from sides, like distorted guitar, it is not the same as subtle keywords or synth from xPropaganda. The riverside guitar sound much more aggresive and really "hides" the rhythm section on the fronts. Perhaps it is something like the "size" of the Atmos objects that are very narrow and then appear very discrete in only a speaker, instead of imaging wider in several speakers.

It is supposed that the mixing engineer have to do a listening to check the mix result. Perhaps his criteria, or testing studio equipment, or his ears are different as ours.

I don't have enough knowledge to understand how a good mix could be later spoiled by a mastering with EQ or dynamic compression. I believe, that the mix is poor from the beginning.

EDITED: But, indeed is Riverside and I like a lot the Duda voice. Perhaps I have to enjoy it in stereo :rolleyes:

EDITED: After more listening I find it good mix. See: HiRez Poll - Riverside - ID.ENTITY [Blu-Ray Audio (Dolby Atmos)]
 
Last edited:
What I see "visually", looking into my 13 channel DIY VUmeters, is that in xPropaganda there is more "balance" between the fronts and the sides/top rears. The keyboards and synth in the rear/top does not "hide" the power of the rhythm section in fronts, as it is done with Riverside when the loud guitars appears on sides.

There are many sections in Riverside that the running VUmeters are only the two fronts stereo. The rest of speakers do almost nothing. xPropaganda is more "balanced".

Also the vocals on xPropaganda (at least in the first song that I checked just now) are immersive surround because they output not only in fronts but they are mixed (together) also in side surrounds. That gives an immersive surroundy of the vocals, similar to Bruce in Pineapple Thief. Again, the sounds are more "balanced" and distributed among all channels in xPropaganda than in Riverside. I listen, but I can "see" visually also in the VUMeters.

I do not know if it is just a matter of volume level in Riverside, to "balance" the overall levels better. But I'm afraid it is not just that. There is only stereo, with very small echos in the rest, and when a pure "discrete" sound is coming from sides, like distorted guitar, it is not the same as subtle keywords or synth from xPropaganda. The riverside guitar sound much more aggresive and really "hides" the rhythm section on the fronts. Perhaps it is something like the "size" of the Atmos objects that are very narrow and then appear very discrete in only a speaker, instead of imaging wider in several speakers.

It is supposed that the mixing engineer have to do a listening to check the mix result. Perhaps his criteria, or testing studio equipment, or his ears are different as ours.

I don't have enough knowledge to understand how a good mix could be later spoiled by a mastering with EQ or dynamic compression. I believe, that the mix is poor from the beginning.

EDITED: But, indeed is Riverside and I like a lot the Duda voice. Perhaps I have to enjoy it in stereo :rolleyes:
Try to up mix it with Auro 3D, to me that sounds quite good. :cool:
 
Back
Top