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

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

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

Rate the BDA of Styx - THE MISSION


  • Total voters
    43
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.
 
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:
 
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 ;)
 
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:
 
"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.
 
"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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
For once I have no idea what to say. I have read all the comments and the only thing I can say is that I am not blown away, as I have been just recently on first listen to Ohio Players :Fire , Night At the Opera.
Cannot put my finger on wether its the songs, the surround mix but something is just not gelling with me. Need a few more listens but my gut feeling is this is going on discogs for sale.
 
I grew up on Styx up till Cornerstone and other than some of the vocal harmonies I don't hear the Styx I know on this album. There is a section of OUTPOST which is completely "borrowed" from Suite Madame Blue off my favorite Styx album Equinox. Certainly not a bad album but don't get the comparisons to early Styx at all...Shaw wasn't even in the band till Crystal Ball. A couple of songs sound (Musically) like they came off KANSAS "point of know return" era which is not an insult in the least. Im glad some people love this..I just dont hear the "throwback" sound they are referring to.
 
Back
Top