The Eagles DVD-A "Hotel California" and The Beatles "Yellow Submarine" remixes

[Angel]

And didn't really like it very much.

I know many folks think it a great sounding DVD-A disc, but I thought that all the magic of the original mix was totally lost.

Anyone else have an opinion? I'm probably in the minority here.

[Steve Hoffman]

I've only heard about 3 minutes of it, over at Capitol Studios, in the 5:1 room. Since I'm not a big fan of KRK self-powered monitors, I think I had hysterical deafness after the first 20 seconds (as did Marshall by the way), so I didn't really get to hear anything. Way too much 5k swirling around us!

But, and this is odd, just today our buddy from The Hit Factory Mastering in NYC, Rob LoVerde, wrote me mentioning the fact that he was not overjoyed with the 5:1 "Hotel California" remix and 5:1 mixes in general. Here is what he said:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"....So, yesterday I went to a 5.1 demonstration up in Hit Factory
Studio 1.

I gotta tell you, I'm scared for the future of audio. It looks
like this thing is really gonna take off. They played "Hotel California", and
I cringed! Then played Van Morrison's "Crazy Love" and I cringed some more!
I just don't understand the whole point, ya know?

I guess the thing I didn't like most about the 5.1 mix of "Hotel California" was how none of the *integrity* of the original sound was kept intact. When the guitars came in in the beginning, it sounded kind of interesting...spacious and clear and all the rest of it. But when those two tough drum hits came in, it turned me off completely. Instead of having that tight, dry sound that I know and love so well...they sounded like they were coming off the top of Mount Everest! Way too much reverb, which of course wasn't helped by the acoustics of Studio 1. In general, the sound was too diffuse. Again, I'm so used to that song sounding really tight that all the separation of instruments was kind of distracting. The mix just didn't come together, y'know? It felt like instruments were fighting for attention! "Hey lookee here! I'm an acoustic guitar coming from the rears!"..."Look at me, I'm that electric guitar overdub that was almost mixed out of the two-track!"!
I wish you could've been there to hear it so we could've shared thoughts. Next time..."

[MikeT]

I have stated this before, and I guess I will state it again - and for the record these are merely my own personal opinions:

But, I view 5.1 multi-channel as an alternate listening experience. Yes, there are times it is overdone, and other times where something is listed as 5.1 surround sound but you really wonder why did they bother. But, and I use my favorite analogy here, just as some people love a long, high and fast rollercoaster ride - others don't and are scared merely at the prospect of looking at the fast whizzing twists and turns on todays biggest and best coasters, and that is how I view MCH surround sound music. It is definitely not for everyone, but can be a fun ride nonetheless.

I wonder how people felt when stereo was just coming into existence, and mono was supreme? I wonder if people cringed at the thought of music bouncing from speaker to speaker, swirling back and forth. Hey, our beloved Jimi Hendrix used stereo to create psychedelic pop/rock masterpieces.

I think the biggest problem people have with surround sound music, is that they are so used to these re-mixed classics in stereo that listening to them any other way is a jarring experience. But what about music, that if done right, is tailor made for surround sound. Blue Man Group's - "Audio" comes to mind. That kind of music was specifically made with surround sound in mind. Even the new KODO album Mondo Head which I just got today on Japanese SACD was evidently, from listening to this great percussion album, was made with MCH surround sound in mind by producer Mickey Hart.

I know we will always have those who hate surround sound, or just can't warm up to the idea that it adds a new dimension to our experiences as people, and that is fine. But I like it, and will treasure my MCH DVD-Audio discs, SACDs, etc. as much as I treasure my stereo CDs, SACDs and vinyl LPs.

To each his own - and to mine I will add the experience of MCH surround sound music.

[Rob LoVerde]

Wow, what a coincidence, Angel! Did the traveling 5.1 dudes make a stop where you work, too?

Mike T put it very well, also. In a way, it might be BEST viewed as an alternate listening experience. Not something that should TAKE OVER! :(

I'm relieved to find myself in such good company...

And thank you, Steve...:)

[Richard Feirstein]

There will be music produced using multi-channel sound that nails it. Some times it will be by accident. Just another tool to play with and mostly screw up. Ever listen to Bridge over Troubled water with a passive Dynaco rear speaker (out of phase run off the two front positives)? Something happens that is unintended but it is as good as it gets and I have not heard anything in 5.1 that comes close. If anyone trys to put out Blond on Blond in 4.1 I personally will try to shoot them. If the artist and producer are not in control of the mix 5.1 remixes will be bad news for everyone.:rolleyes:

[R. Cat Conrad]

The integrity of the music is what matters most, IMHO. Surround sound is fine on any music recorded with surround specifically in mind. OTOH, music originally recorded in stereo or mono should not be reprocessed for a "rollercoaster ride" because it toys with the artistry of the music (i.e., what the musicians and engineers heard while producing the recording you fondly remember).

I would compare it to artificially colorizing B&W movies, the caveat being whether the artificial color was added as part of the original process as was done in rare cases of early pre-sound films. Music is much the same. There have been surround mixes of multi-track classic rock dating back to the early 70's when early efforts at discrete and matrixed sound were marketed to a less than enthusiastic public. These recordings are fair game, IMHO ...as long as hi-rez stereo mixes of the original albums are included as well.

I'm intrigued by Angel's observations although I'd like to know her impression of the hi-rez stereo for comparissons sake. If the 24/192(?) hi-rez stereo track is as good as has been suggested in several of the reviews I've read then that may be my next DVD-A purchase. BTW, I've read other negative opinions about the Hotel California 5.1 surround tracks, but it's the higher resolution stereo (2.0) which interests me.

That's just my 2 bits; of course there's always another $2.75 worth of high-rez opinions out there! ;)

Cat

[MikeT]

The integrity of the music is what matters most, IMHO. Surround sound is fine on any music recorded with surround specifically in mind. OTOH, music originally recorded in stereo or mono should not be reprocessed for a "rollercoaster ride" because it toys with the artistry of the music (i.e., what the musicians and engineers heard while producing the recording you fondly remember).

Herein lies the "problem" as I see it, and the view above is very common. But, who is to say that what we are getting on 5.1 surround sound today is actually "reprocessed" in the true sense of the word. How do we know that if the technology were available, and widely marketed as it is being (or attempted to be done) today, that more artists wouldn't have created that mono or stereo masterpiece in 5.1 surround sound? Granted they didn't have the technology so it wasn't done, and yes creating a new surround mix can be like colorizing a well known B+W movie (which in my opinion, for whatever reason I can't explain, I don't like - but surround mixes I view differently).

One case that I would like to refute with the quoted statement above is the assertion that it "toys with the artistry of the music". Alot of the new 5.1 mixes are being created by the original engineers and musicians who originally created the initial product. So the argument doesn't stand as well in that respect. The Dead DVD-Audio discs were created by Mickey Hart (an integral member of the Dead). The Eagles 5.1 mix was created by the original producers. The Metallica 5.1 mix also created by the original producers. I am sure that those mixes were also approved by, and this is my assumption, the artists also.

James Taylor 5.1 SACD of Hourglass - created by the original producer, same with the Billy Joel 5.1 mixes. The O-Jays and Isley Bros. 5.1 SACD mixes taken from the original Quad mixes from the 70's which were created at the same time the original stereo mixes were done, again by the original producers and artists. Fleetwood Mac 5.1 created by the original session engineers, obviously with the artists involvment since they state so in their on-disc commentary.

So many times what we are getting in surround is a creation of the original artists, producers, engineers. Is it akin to what George Lucas did with the Star Wars movies many years after the fact when he re-released the movies with additional scenes and digital renderings; or what Steven Speilberg did with Close Encounters and now ET; or what was just done with the orginial Star Trek movie for release on DVD - probably yes. What about the re-mixing of movie soundtracks for DVD release, like the Terminator, which are also done by the original directors to make the movie "better". Many times what is done works great and doesn't negate the original product. Again, each is a new and different viewing experience that merely supplements the original.

I think we are merely venting our frustrations when "new" technologies enter the picture and threaten what we know and love. But just as Sundazed records is now releasing the early Bob Dylan LPs in MONO, even though most people in the last 25 years have only heard them in stereo, means that just because something new comes along doesn't mean the old will fade away.

That is what is so great in life - it offers us many choices. So what if they create a 10.1 mix of Blonde on Blonde. You will still have your stereo LPs, SACDs, CDs and soon to come Mono Sundazed LP re-master. And for those who want to compliment their collection of those with the 10.1 mix, so be it. That's life.

I do agree though, if 5.1 or 6.1 or 7.1 becomes the norm - so that the original stereo and mono recordings of the past all disappear then even I say we have a problem. But I don't see that happening. Just because there might be talented artists out there who can re-paint what might look like a Picasso, doesn't mean we are going to hang those pictures in the Met and say hey look here is "Starry Night" the way it was meant to be painted, while they destroy the original. No the original will stand forever - but someone always could come along and paint a variation of that picture and it will still be art - maybe not as valid or viable as the original, but art nonetheless.

[Drew]

Originally posted by MikeT


Herein lies the "problem" as I see it, and the view above is very common. But, who is to say that what we are getting on 5.1 surround sound today is actually "reprocessed" in the true sense of the word. How do we know that if the technology were available, and widely marketed as it is being (or attempted to be done) today, that more artists wouldn't have created that mono or stereo masterpiece in 5.1 surround sound? Granted they didn't have the technology so it wasn't done, and yes creating a new surround mix can be like colorizing a well known B+W movie (which in my opinion, for whatever reason I can't explain, I don't like - but surround mixes I view differently).

One case that I would like to refute with the quoted statement above is the assertion that it "toys with the artistry of the music". Alot of the new 5.1 mixes are being created by the original engineers and musicians who originally created the initial product. So the argument doesn't stand as well in that respect. The Dead DVD-Audio discs were created by Mickey Hart (an integral member of the Dead). The Eagles 5.1 mix was created by the original producers. The Metallica 5.1 mix also created by the original producers. I am sure that those mixes were also approved by, and this is my assumption, the artists also.



I've always believed that necessity is the mother of invention. There was no need for these kind of gimmicks in order to make Hotel California (or insert your favorite album here) the great album it was, therefore there was no invention.


JMHO

[Dan]

I agree with Mike T. I see 5.1 mixes as an "alternate listening experience". Sometimes it's done well, sometimes not. It's totally subjective to who is doing the 5.1 mixing. I don't think you can ever keep the integrity of a recording intact when you are re-mixing in any fashion.

I believe one of the gems of this format that many largely ignore are the "hi-res" 2 channel mixes. I've enjoyed some of those quite a bit.

[TimM]

I find the 5.1 hi-rez mixes interesting to listen to and I am glad when they are included as long as the original mix is also preserved. I enjoy the stereo remix on the Capitol Pet Sounds CD, although I know some consider it sacrilege. I think it opens up the mix and I hear some things that I had thought sounded congested before. I don't see it as a replacement for the original but rather as an addition. I view the 5.1 mixes the same way, I don't listen to them much but I am glad to have them.

[Beagle]

Originally posted by Drew


I've always believed that necessity is the mother of invention. There was no need for these kind of gimmicks in order to make Hotel California (or insert your favorite album here) the great album it was, therefore there was no invention.


JMHO I'm not sure I wholly agree with that. If you have a great record (musically), it would still be a great record if it was mono. But I'd prefer to listen to "Avalon" or "Rumours" in stereo.

I do think that DVD-A and SACD should be formats of choice, in that they offer different ways of listening to the recording. As long as there is a true hi-rez stereo version, I'll be happy. If others get thrills listening in surround, great. It's not for me. Having a guitar in front of me and drums behind me and bass off to the side is unappealing, unless you want the listening perspective of a mic stand. But I think it is commendable that a DVD-A disc offers 4 listening options. But if the stereo version has been "tinkered" with, I don't want it.

[Shoes4Industry]

Count me as another who is fine with redoing the mixes if the artists are involved/approve. As long as the original version remains available (which should be no problem with the new formats), this is fine by me. I own some DTS CDs and while I enjoy listening to them sometimes, they really don't replace the originals for me (obviously I'm talking lps that were originally in stereo). It's when people like Lucas want the "improved" versions to be the only one available that it bothers me. I'll continue to hold onto my vinyl (and laserdiscs) for the older material in particular.

[Sckott]

I don't think the Hotel California DVD-A is all that bad. I do agree though, that the original LP/CD mix and original feel has to still be available, and we cannot dismiss the past formats because on Planet 5.1, it sounds 'neato'.

But if someone was to take a trip to "Planet 5.1", I would say go listen to the DTS of Hotel California for an interesting trip. A lot of Moody Blues and a couple of others DO sound kinda interesting in 5.1....but don't take my sunshine away...

[Dave B]

To me these 5.1 remixes are like colorizing old B&W movies. Different but not better. It's simply a way for the studios to remarket old product.
That's not to say that there is no place for multchannel recordings but when you take a well known piece of work and alter it, it's no longer what was originally intended by artist. I've read things from some artists and producers saying, "If we'd had this technology back then we would have used it", but that point is moot. The simple fact is that once you pressed it into vinyl on that first run that's the way it is. It's like Picasso showing up at the Museum of Modern Art in 1968 with his brushes and paint saying, "If I'd had this blue back then I'd have used it".
Again, I'm not saying there can't be interesting and involving uses of this new technology; but why alter existing works? I recently read two articles on Hotel California, American Beauty and Working Man's Dead. In each case it appears that the mix was altered drastically from the original albums to make use of the multichannel effects. This may make for some "neat" effects but it's not the same album that we all know and love. Maybe they should be relabeled. "New! Improved! Hotel California", "American Beauty - Now With Surround Sound".
I would be interested to hear new music composed and recorded specifically for this format. Especially jazz. I can think of some very interesting ways the multi-channel aspect could be worked into a composition. Just leave the classics alone!

[R. Cat Conrad]

Well put, Dave; that's exactly my point.

The thing that concerns me is that at some point after the original artist(s), engineer(s) and producer(s) have passed on and the "intellectual property" is in the hands of less scrupulous folks will anyone step up to the plate and defend the original art against revisionist theories like "this is how the artist would've done it if he'd had surround technology available way back when?"

Not to beat the movie analogy horse to death, but it seems that I recall an almost catastrophic attempt at revisionism back in the 70's when that atrocious remake of "King Kong" was thrust upon the great unwashed by producer Dino DeLaurentis. If memory serves, an attempt was made to secure all release prints of the earlier version by DeLaurentis production company with the intention of destroying the "obsolite" B&W original. His belief was that ownership of the rights entitled him to destroy what he wanted to convince the public was inferior to his product.

Could this not happen to music over time? :confused:

Food for thought!

Cheers,
Cat

[John Oteri]

I hope not.

I also fear a "fold down" of the 5:1 mixes will be offered in place of the real two-track mix on many DVD-A's and SACD's.

Heck, look at the Beatles "Yellow Submarine Songtrack" (or what ever it's called). That disc is all surround mixes folded down to stereo. Sounds really wonky to me, with crucial rhythm tracks being mixed too low, etc. Disaster!

[R. Cat Conrad]

Yep, the "fold-down mix" was decidedly NOT hi-rez stereo on the mislabeled DVD-A of ELP's Brain Salad Surgery; that's why I returned it to Best Buy. Fortunately, the return's clerk took pity on me and accepted it back even though it violates store policy to do so on openned items. :(

If DVD-A and SACD want to retain the trust of those early-adopter audiophiles they've been courting the least they can do is be honest on the packaging. :rolleyes:

Cat

[Carl Baron]

Two channel stereo require only two good amplifier channels and speakers. 5.1 requires more equiptment. Typically the rear channels
will not be as good. Unless you spend a lot more for the 5.1 system than the the two channel system, the sound quality will be degraded.

Also the 5.1 decoder gets to make so choices that are not perfect.
I prefer two channel for music and 5.1 for movies.

[peterC]

Let's just take one step back here.

What is stereo all about? Recreating the live sound stage I believe. Placing the musicians at various locations across the stage which is normally located forward of the listener.

This surround stuff is surely not the equivalent of the evolution from mono to stereo.

With the right room acoustics do we need more than 2 quality speakers (etc) to achieve "honesty" or "high fidelity"?

Sorry about the simplistic argument!

[MikeT]

The thing that concerns me is that at some point after the original artist(s), engineer(s) and producer(s) have passed on and the "intellectual property" is in the hands of less scrupulous folks will anyone step up to the plate and defend the original art against revisionist theories like "this is how the artist would've done it if he'd had surround technology available way back when?"

The point many seem to be missing is that the artist is sometimes actually involved in creating the surround sound mix. In both cases mentioned by Dave, Hotel California's surround mix was created by the original producer, and both Dead DVD-Audio discs were mixed by Mickey Hart (with even a stamp of approval I understand from Bob Weir) an integral member of the Grateful Dead.

So yes the albums were changed from what we have come to know and love - but it was the artist involved in making those changes.

I do agree that if, for the mere sake of creating a surround mix, the artist is not involved nor approves, then maybe we can institue the shoot down the revisionist theories argument.

[Steve Hoffman]

I have stated on record (pun intended) many times that:

If the artist is involved, a "revisionist" version of an original mix is inevitable.

Most artists want to modernize their old stuff. ZZ Top did, Ray Charles wanted to (but I talked him out of it), The Who did, and many others.

Can't blame them, you know? Do they have a right to? I don't know. Do I want them to? Usually, no.

If I want to hear ZZ Top with fake over the top digital echo, I can add it myself with a cheap echo box. I don't want it built in to a new mix.

[Richard Feirstein]

This is a human exercise with a very large learning curve, with lots of luck and skill thrown in. It has taken years for the industry to figure out how to intergrate stereo sound into TV. At first (and likely still typical) only the background music was in stereo. But over time audio for TV has evolved and quality is typically at a much higher level today.

When stereo and then Dolby Surround and then Dolby Digital and DTS were added to film it took years for most productions to figure out how to effectively use those technologies.

The production of a satisfactory stereo record took a lot more than the invention of two track tape recorders and two track records. Many if not most early stereo records were very poorly produced. Yet we know that sound from our beloved musical treasures and they are part of us.

Multi-channel sound is just another tool with great potential. And yes, you need more than 2 channels to reproduce an accurate sound stage, but only if you nail everything correctly. Very few pop productions will get it right, at least without a lot more experience. Heck, many of my classic stereo recordings sound superb with a passive matrix rear channel derived with just a pair of wires and a decent single rear speaker. The "natural" out of phase information sometimes adds something real to the reproduction of that stereo recording. It is a natural effect.

But to think you can take a classic stereo recording from the 70's and find the multi-track tape and procuce a 5.1 DVD-A/SACD/DTS recording, even with input from the artistic crew, well ........

Now I just purchased the multi-channel Carole King Tapestry on SACD. It needed the Steve Hoffman treatment. Even though they found the multi-track master it is so highly compressed that the most poorly run AM station would not have to have its gear on line to play this sucker in low fi mono. The rear channel information is there to a point; but what is the point.

But I urge you to try a passive matrix single rear channel setup and play the vinyl stereo mix of The Boxer. You will not believe your ears. Sometimes the magic is there and you will understand the potential of multi-channel audio.

[FabFourFan]

Originally posted by John Oteri
Heck, look at the Beatles "Yellow Submarine Songtrack" (or what ever it's called). That disc is all surround mixes folded down to stereo.The YS Songtrack CD was separately mixed to stereo for that CD. There was no 'fold-down" involved.


(Which reminds me, where has Luke been lately? He used to do all the heavy lifting for these Beatles questions, and I miss him!!)

[Steve Hoffman]

Fab buddy,

The engineer told me that the new Yellow Sub. stereo mixes were derived directly from the 5:1 mixes.

Honest.

[FabFourFan]

Originally posted by Steve Hoffman
The engineer told me that the new Yellow Sub Songtrack stereo mixes were derived directly from the 5:1 mixes.I thought they said that they did the stereo mixes to match the 'new sound' of the 5.1 mixes,
not that they actually used the 5.1 tracks to make a 2.0...

See, where is Luke when ya' need 'em?? ;)