• 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!

HiRez Poll Styx - THE MISSION [Blu-Ray Audio]

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

Rate the BDA of Styx - THE MISSION


  • Total voters
    37

boondocks

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
1,136
Location
boondocks of NC Florida
I haven't made it all the way through yet, and only at my pc sound station. (big backlog of surround for a change!) But I think the comments/opposite views are very interesting. Why? Well I used to do a lot of stereo to surround conversions, or "upmixing" as folks like to call it.
I noticed that no matter how good something sounded to me, some folks might hold their head to the speakers and complain that it's not discrete enough. Some prefer to sit in the sweet spot and relax while some seem to almost strain to hear imperfections. Mind you, I'm not calling anyone out! We all have our listening styles and preferences. Sometimes in the upmixing, a great source was not available, like the "Wall Of Sound" stuff that's more mono than stereo...but you work with whatever you have if like the music enough.
I know for a fact that some of my upmixes have spread quite far and wide - yet at the time some folks just hated them and told me so. lol. It's all good-we're all different....this is part of being human.
\
TL:DR:
OK I'm up to "Time May Bend" but I can see the limits of my Polk bookshelf speakers at my pc so I'll have to get this to the main system before I make up my mind.
 

Clint Eastwood

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Joined
Jun 11, 2014
Messages
11,319
Location
Int Space Station
Obviously we disagree over this, but to me it's really not about a "template". Here's my thinking behind it: placing something dead center in a surround mix creates a really unforgiving sweet spot and can sort of obscure or even overpower the stuff going on in other channels. To me it makes the mix seem less discrete and often unbalanced. It's like listening to a decoded matrix LP, you kinda sorta hear discrete stuff but it's hard to pick it out. I guess I'm looking for "precision" in a multichannel mix, if that makes sense? But you're absolutely right that it is a preference and not a requirement.

I do enjoy this disc quite a bit, there are some catchy tunes and the mix has some great moments- love that clockwise rotation of backing vocals in "Locomotive". It's a great value too, hats off to UMG for going with the all-too-rare CD/Blu-Ray package. I stand by my 8.
I think center vocals are my preference because I came from the video world...the early dealings with multichannel in movies started out that way for me...the dialog was center oriented...but I'm fine with integrated vocals since I have joined the surround "music" community:cool:
 

skherbeck

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
QQ Supporter
Joined
Apr 15, 2015
Messages
2,586
Location
SoCal, USA
I think center vocals are my preference because I came from the video world...the early dealings with multichannel in movies started out that way for me...the dialog was center oriented...but I'm fine with integrated vocals since I have joined the surround "music" community:cool:
I think he’s talking about dead center in the rear channels... when you have stuff dead center in the rear channels, it makes the discrete elements in the left and right rear a little less clear (IMO)... I also love vocals dead center in the front ;)
 

Clint Eastwood

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Joined
Jun 11, 2014
Messages
11,319
Location
Int Space Station
I think he’s talking about dead center in the rear channels... when you have stuff dead center in the rear channels, it makes the discrete elements in the left and right rear a little less clear (IMO)... I also love vocals dead center in the front ;)
I think my wording led to some confusion...when I said "surrounds" I didn't mean the surround speakers(rear)...I meant the surround titles:cool:
 

edisonbaggins

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Joined
Aug 13, 2015
Messages
6,862
Location
Wherever I May Roam
"Dead center" for surround could mean a number of things. For quad (speakers at 90°) it could mean equal in all speakers, bringing the singer to the middle of the room, right in front of your face. For 5.1 (or 7.1) it could mean the same thing, though the percentage of vocal wouldn't necessarily match to get the singer in the same spot. Matching percentages would set the singer a bit out ahead of you.
This all assumes sitting in the sweet spot, which I do when auditioning and reviewing music.
 

sjcorne

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Joined
Jan 1, 2010
Messages
2,348
Location
Southern NY
"Dead center" for surround could mean a number of things. For quad (speakers at 90°) it could mean equal in all speakers, bringing the singer to the middle of the room, right in front of your face. For 5.1 (or 7.1) it could mean the same thing, though the percentage of vocal wouldn't necessarily match to get the singer in the same spot. Matching percentages would set the singer a bit out ahead of you.
This all assumes sitting in the sweet spot, which I do when auditioning and reviewing music.
I meant equal level in all speakers, sorry for the confusion.
 

edisonbaggins

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Joined
Aug 13, 2015
Messages
6,862
Location
Wherever I May Roam
I meant equal level in all speakers, sorry for the confusion.
Yeah, I figured. I don't have a problem with it, though you raise an interesting point about the sweet spot. To me it distributes the main vocal better to all positions, but I can see the point of view where some listeners get too much.
I'm usually in the sweet spot or pretty close by though.
 

LuvMyQuad

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
QQ Supporter
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
2,093
Location
Western NY
Obviously we disagree over this, but to me it's really not about a "template". Here's my thinking behind it: placing something dead center in a surround mix creates a really unforgiving sweet spot and can sort of obscure or even overpower the stuff going on in other channels. To me it makes the mix seem less discrete and often unbalanced. It's like listening to a decoded matrix LP, you kinda sorta hear discrete stuff but it's hard to pick it out. I guess I'm looking for "precision" in a multichannel mix, if that makes sense? But you're absolutely right that it is a preference and not a requirement.
Interesting discussion...

I pretty much agree with your interpretation of this. In my mind, the determing factor on how much you may or may not like a mix engineered in the style of The Mission is system dependent, more specifically, what kind of sweet spot you have.

I would characterize my system as very much a near field layout. I have 5 identical smallish monitors, all arrayed to be about 8 feet away from the sweet spot. The room is only 12x20. The sweet spot is quite narrow... within 6 inches or so to either side. But, magic can happen in that sweet spot with a mix like this. Those vocals seem to appear in 3D space in front of you. Once you leave the sweet spot, the balance is ruined and the illusion evaporates. A traditionally anchored mix is much more forgiving as you said.

The band was trying to provide an experience similar to listening with headphones, only in surround. I think they succeeded pretty well... as long as you stay in that narrow sweet spot.
 

4-earredwonder

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Joined
Jan 9, 2013
Messages
11,042
All I could muster for this album and remix was a 7. It was hardly indicative of Styx's glory days and the mix was all over the map. Glad I have it and thankfully it was LOSSLESS and cheap, as well, but I anxiously await the day STYX releases their earlier hook~laden works and finds a solid remix engineer to do FULL justice to them.
 

holland123

900 Club - QQ All-Star
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
949
Location
detroit, michigan.usa
this one is a solid 9 for me. Having not been a fan of Styx brand of synth pop in their heyday I can honestly say that this is my favorite album of theirs. most of the album is straight ahead rock with toned down synthesizers and some very catchy ballads, very nice. It hearkens back to their 1st album. the surround mix is not normal with vocals all around but it has been done by others before and it really works well here to my ears, very enjoyable.
 

Woody71

Well-known Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2013
Messages
181
Location
NSW, Australia
Great music for a start, just a great great album. The mix is focused on immersion rather than isolation, which has taken me a few listens to get into but I'm enjoying the experience. Getting the 'sweet spot' was a journey but once I found it, I was rewarded. Of course, I'm hoping that this might be a catalyst to present 5.1 versions of earlier albums, but for now this is more than enough. An easy 10 for me.
 
Group builder
Top