Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]


Question: Favourite Hergest Ridge version :: Total Votes:56
Poll choices Votes Statistics
1974 original mix 27  [48.21%]
1976 'Boxed' mix 14  [25.00%]
2010 mix 15  [26.79%]
Guests cannot vote
Pages: (5) < 1 2 3 4 [5] >

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

Topic: Favourite Hergest Ridge version, Which mix do you like the best?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
nightspore Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 4759
Joined: Mar. 2008
Posted: Mar. 24 2011, 05:53

Quote (Milamber @ Mar. 24 2011, 05:51)
Yes.

Well, bugger me with a fish-fork  :laugh:

Speaking of Matt's hand, I wonder how he developed such rapid motion  :O
Back to top
Profile PM 
Matt Offline




Group: Admins
Posts: 1186
Joined: Nov. 2002
Posted: Mar. 24 2011, 06:23

Quote (nightspore @ Mar. 24 2011, 09:53)
Speaking of Matt's hand, I wonder how he developed such rapid motion  :O

All those years spent trying to play the bass riff from Tubular Bells Finale of course!

Now please keep posts on topic from here on or we will have to start doing edits and moves.


--------------
"I say I say I say I say, what's got three bottles and five eyes and no legs and two wheels"
Back to top
Profile PM 
hph Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 70
Joined: Nov. 2009
Posted: May 25 2011, 14:33

I prefer the new 2010 mix. Good sound, very tasteful treatment of the original material.
Back to top
Profile PM 
oGUH Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 39
Joined: Mar. 2011
Posted: Aug. 17 2011, 21:19

it seems that the boxed mix was the one they put on CD, many people may not know that the original 74 vinyl mix is different from it, it's definitely my favourite
Back to top
Profile PM 
Sammy Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 43
Joined: Aug. 2011
Posted: Aug. 18 2011, 03:37

Quote (oGUH @ Aug. 18 2011, 04:19)
it seems that the boxed mix was the one they put on CD, many people may not know that the original 74 vinyl mix is different from it, it's definitely my favourite

Indeed. I must say I was very happy when the HR Deluxe edition came out and the original 1974 mix was finally available on cd. The previous cd version (which apparently is the Boxed mix) I never really liked 100% - but that's merely because the 1974 original vinyl is the one I grew up with so there was no competition really  :cool:

It's definitely very hard to say, come to think of it, which version would be "the best" if one only heard HR now for the first time. I believe this is a very subjective matter - someone who now has picked up the 2010 mix might well be quite right in thinking it's the "correct" and the "best" one - for me the 2010 mix is something that's quite interesting but still not quite right at the end of the day. Yes I admit I'm stuck with the -74 original mix, so many memories  :)

Mind you, I have never heard the 5.1. versions of HR or Ommadawn even though of course I now have them as part of the Deluxe editions. I don't have such a set-up, and frankly, I'm too much of an old f-rt to bother. If God had intended we listen to 5-channel mixes He would have given us 5 ears! :D (Seriously though the 5.1 mixes probably are very nice - maybe I'll get a chance someday to listen to them on someone's 5.1 system)
Back to top
Profile PM 
Chris Ibberson Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 88
Joined: Aug. 2011
Posted: Aug. 23 2011, 07:30

The second half of part one 1974 cannot be improved upon, as the 2010 showed. However I WAS impressed with the "thunderstorm" section on side two. It is the use of choir (side one) and female voice (side two) that makes Mike Oldfield stand out from his contempories, and no tinkering is needed.

--------------
Diana Luna Lucina
Back to top
Profile PM 
familyjules Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 1190
Joined: May 2004
Posted: Aug. 23 2011, 08:15

Quote (Chris Ibberson @ Aug. 23 2011, 07:30)
The second half of part one 1974 cannot be improved upon

I disagree - the Boxed mix improved upon it by bringing the vocals up.

Jules


--------------
I like beer and I like cheese
Back to top
Profile PM 
ForeignAffair Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: Jan. 2012
Posted: Jan. 22 2012, 09:58

Quote (Ugo @ Mar. 20 2011, 20:03)
Quote (Robert_Logan @ Feb. 28 2011, 20:09)
I'm surprised the 'Boxed' mix doesn't get more love.

This a somewhat very late reply, but nevertheless a reply. :)
Robert, apart from the fact that "get more love" sounds weird to me [I'd rather talk about affection, admiration, fondness... I don't think anyone or anything can "get love", as I don't think love is something you get - you are loved, but you don't "get love". I have absolutely no intention of being rude to you by talking like this, these are just my thoughts.]... apart from that, I think that there isn't a great deal of fondness or affection towards the Boxed mix going on here simply because all of us who post in this board are aware that it's a remix. The fact that it's a remix implies that there was an original version before that, which Mike O. remixed, and of course the original version wasn't available on CD until the release of the 2010 Deluxe Edition... and actually it still isn't available, because the mix that it's on the second CD of the Deluxe Edition, labeled as "Original 1974 stereo mix", has been re-touched in several places. The actual original 1974 stereo mix is only on the 2010 vinyl edition, as it always was - only on vinyl, I mean. :) All of this essentially means that people here have always been bitching about how Mike, in his 1976 mix, altered stuff that was in the original 1974 mix and about the fact that the 1976 mix is inferior to the 1974 one because of the alterations. Of course different people here have different thoughts, but I think that the 1976 mix is generally plagued with inferiority to the 1974 one. At least in here. ;)

so, is there any way to get the "original" 1974 stereo mix without buying a record player?

Isnt the 2nd cd of the Deluxe version cut from the lp? what exactly did MO tamper with there?

And the HDCD version, is that HR Boxed remastered?

The original unremastered CD i thought WAS the real 1974 stereo mix, right?

I've been a lifelong MO fan but only rececently stumbled on this nice forum here so pardon my loads of questions+newbie enthusiasm if you please :)
Back to top
Profile PM 
mindphaser Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 46
Joined: Aug. 2005
Posted: Jan. 31 2012, 09:08

Quote (ForeignAffair @ Jan. 22 2012, 15:58)
so, is there any way to get the "original" 1974 stereo mix without buying a record player?

Isnt the 2nd cd of the Deluxe version cut from the lp? what exactly did MO tamper with there?

And the HDCD version, is that HR Boxed remastered?

The original unremastered CD i thought WAS the real 1974 stereo mix, right?

I've been a lifelong MO fan but only rececently stumbled on this nice forum here so pardon my loads of questions+newbie enthusiasm if you please :)

I know that there's some doubt in this forum if the mix on CD2 of the HR deluxe edition is the original mix but after many listening/comparing sessions I'm now sure that the CD definitely contains the original mix with the only real change being the fade-in at the start of part 1.
Obviously the CD sounds different from the original vinyl but that's just because HR supposedly was a VERY difficult track to cut into vinyl and back then the vinyl cutters had to apply some tricks (compressors/limiters etc) to get the dynamics under control. Those tricks weren't necessary for the CD master and the tapes have been remastered for CD release, so the sound on the CD is different. But the mix is the original, believe me. ;)

The HR deluxe edition is the only way to get the original mix on CD. All CDs prior to that (the first edition from 1984 and the HDCD from around 2000) contain the "Boxed" mix and all single CDs with the new cover contain the 2010 mix. Hope this helps...


--------------
www.facebook.com/thesiliconscientist
soundcloud.com/the-silicon-scientist‎
Back to top
Profile PM 
Ugo Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 5495
Joined: April 2000
Posted: Jan. 31 2012, 19:37

Quote (mindphaser @ Jan. 31 2012, 15:08)
The HR deluxe edition is the only way to get the original mix on CD.

Well, the mix on that CD is very, very close to the 1974 original mix but it's not really it all the way through, because it's been re-touched in various points. The most obvious re-touches are the fade-in at the very start of Part 1 (which is only here) and the snares starting at 4:08 (also in Part 1), quite prominent on the original 1974 vinyl mix and quite low here. :) Also, the version on the 2010 CD is taken straight from the vinyl. Listen for (slight) vinyl crackle at the very start and for a vinyl click at 0:03 in Part 2. :D

--------------
Ugo C. - a devoted Amarokian
Back to top
Profile PM 
mindphaser Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 46
Joined: Aug. 2005
Posted: Feb. 01 2012, 05:13

Quote (ugo @ Feb. 01 2012, 01:37)
Well, the mix on that CD is very, very close to the 1974 original mix but it's not really it all the way through, because it's been re-touched in various points.

Yes, but in this case the re-touching means that it's still the original mix, only improved in sound and not as compressed as it was on the 1974 vinyl album.
At around 0:45 into part 1 there's an audible drop in the high frequencies on the right channel for about 30 seconds which is present on the 1974 album and the "original mix" CD but not on the remixes. This is obviously a fault on the 2 track master tape which has already been there when the album was released in 1974, and this shows more than anything else that the mix on the CD is the original mix.  

Quote (ugo @ Feb. 01 2012, 01:37)
and the snares starting at 4:08 (also in Part 1), quite prominent on the original 1974 vinyl mix and quite low here. :)

That part was heavily compressed on the original vinyl album, so that the snare seems to be louder there.

Quote (ugo @ Feb. 01 2012, 01:37)
Also, the version on the 2010 CD is taken straight from the vinyl. Listen for (slight) vinyl crackle at the very start and for a vinyl click at 0:03 in Part 2. :D

I thought that this question has already been sorted out somewhere else in this forum... ;) I'm definitely sure that this is no vinyl rip - there's just tape hiss at the start of part 2 and that ominous click at 0:03 is present on the 1976 remix as well, so it must be somewhere on the multitrack tape from which the album has been mixed and, later, remixed.
More generally, a click on a CD doesn't necessarily mean that it was copied from a vinyl record - you can have clicks on old analogue tapes as well, e.g. by electrostatic discharge. After working with analogue tapes for more than 20 years I know what I'm talking about... :/

Also, if the version on the "original mix" CD was a vinyl rip as you assume but is not the original mix, this would mean that there are vinyl records of yet another mix around... the "original original mix" and the "non-original orignal mix"...? Things are getting really mysterious here! :D


--------------
www.facebook.com/thesiliconscientist
soundcloud.com/the-silicon-scientist‎
Back to top
Profile PM 
Ugo Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 5495
Joined: April 2000
Posted: Feb. 01 2012, 08:05

Quote (mindphaser @ Feb. 01 2012, 11:13)
Also, if the version on the "original mix" CD was a vinyl rip as you assume but is not the original mix, this would mean that there are vinyl records of yet another mix around...

I didn't say that the version on the new CD is not the original 1974 vinyl mix. I did say that it's not the exact same mix as people who bought the vinyl in 1974 heard it, because it's been re-touched. And it's not only for sonic improvement: as I said, the fade-in at the very start of Part 1 wasn't there at all in the original vinyl mix - it started 'cold', as it's commonly called, i.e. a straight attack of the two simultaneous organ notes with no fade-in. Re. the snares, yes, they are definitely louder in the mix I'm more familiar with, but I'm not sure that it happened because of compression. I think it's more likely than the mix on the new CD was ripped from the vinyl (OK for the click at 0:03 on Part 2, but check out the very faint noise at 0:00 on Part 1: it's not tape hiss, it's not static discharge, it's vinyl crackle!! :D) and then digitized to allow Mike (or whoever else) to make the re-touches, including (but not limited to, IMHO) the fade-in. So, in conclusion, I think that the "original mix" of HR is only the one originally released in 1974 on vinyl (and ripped by various fans here). The version on the 2010 CD is not a remix. It's a re-touch. :D


--------------
Ugo C. - a devoted Amarokian
Back to top
Profile PM 
mindphaser Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 46
Joined: Aug. 2005
Posted: Feb. 01 2012, 10:30

Quote (ugo @ Feb. 01 2012, 14:05)
I didn't say that the version on the new CD is not the original 1974 vinyl mix. I did say that it's not the exact same mix as people who bought the vinyl in 1974 heard it, because it's been re-touched.

There are just 2 options: Either it's the original mix or it's another mix. It's impossible to change the mix level of single instruments on a 2 track master and at the same time leave everything else untouched. You can change the presence of certain instruments by reducing their frequencies but this affects every other instrument that shares that frequency, too.

Quote (ugo @ Feb. 01 2012, 14:05)
but check out the very faint noise at 0:00 on Part 1: it's not tape hiss, it's not static discharge, it's vinyl crackle!!

Ok, I've taken a closer look at the start of part one. At least on my CD there is just nothing (digital silence) between 0sec and 1sec. Next is some very quiet noise, then digital silence again (short) and then the fade up starts at around 1.2 sec. Closer inspection of that "noise" reveals this:

These are absolutely clean digital pulses, not vinyl noises. And of course they shouldn't be there, on a professionally mastered CD... ;)
Just for comparison, vinyl surface noise looks like this:


There's another very simple reason why the noise on the CD cannot be vinyl noise: The fade up! This is not present on the vinyl album, so why should there be vinyl noise before the track is digitally being faded up from zero? That doesn't make sense, at least to me...  :D


--------------
www.facebook.com/thesiliconscientist
soundcloud.com/the-silicon-scientist‎
Back to top
Profile PM 
Ugo Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 5495
Joined: April 2000
Posted: Feb. 01 2012, 17:40

Quote (mindphaser @ Feb. 01 2012, 16:30)
There are just 2 options: Either it's the original mix or it's another mix.

Okay, so I think it's safe to say that it's another mix. :) It's definitely not the original 1974 vinyl mix as the fade-in is not on that - just that element being changed classifies this 2010 cleaned-up version as "another mix". So this brings the grand total of HR mixes up to four:

1) The original 1974 vinyl mix.
2) The Boxed remix.
3) Mike's 2010 remix, on Disc One of the Deluxe Edition.
4) The re-touched, 'almost original' mix on Disc Two of the Deluxe Edition. I don't know how else to call it. :D

By the way, thanks a lot for the explanation about the noises. The graphs make it much clearer than just words.


--------------
Ugo C. - a devoted Amarokian
Back to top
Profile PM 
mindphaser Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 46
Joined: Aug. 2005
Posted: Feb. 02 2012, 04:01

Quote (Ugo @ Feb. 01 2012, 23:40)
[/quote]
[quote=ugo,Feb. 01 2012, 23:40]Okay, so I think it's safe to say that it's another mix.

OK, I think it's time to stop this discussion here...  ;) You've got your opinion, I've got mine, that's it. This is an album that should be listened to, not discussed about... :)

Quote (ugo @ Feb. 01 2012, 23:40)
By the way, thanks a lot for the explanation about the noises. The graphs make it much clearer than just words.

You're welcome!


--------------
www.facebook.com/thesiliconscientist
soundcloud.com/the-silicon-scientist‎
Back to top
Profile PM 
Cavalier (Lost Version) Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 598
Joined: Nov. 2010
Posted: July 06 2012, 14:16

Quote (Ugo @ July 15 2010, 09:32)
@ Jules: yes, you are correct. All of the Beatles' short films you quoted as being made "all in one go" are quite widely recognized as being the first short films ever made as promotional tools for songs. Musical films don't count, as their purpose is illustrating songs, giving a visual context to them, rather than promoting them. :)

I've learned today (or trusted Wikipedia at least) that when I first read this thread and Ugo's post, and when checking HR again today, that the two examples I thought of to disprove The Beatles as the answer were atypical of their time.  I presumed that lots of American artists must have done what was done on behalf of Jan and Dean for Surf City, and I was positive it must have been common practice for British bands to do what The Animals did and film their peripatetic version of The House of the Rising Sun - to be shown in cinemas maybe.  I guess that the fact that I have seen both of these, in various situations over the years, was more a testament to their rarity.

This said, would you say they count as earlier, Ugo?  The Animals may not be showing any abstraction by simply miming to their recording but there's the teeniest hint of a narrative on the beach! :D


--------------
"Who was that?"
"That was Venger - the force of Evil!  I am Dungeon Master - your guide in the realm of Dungeons & Dragons!"
Back to top
Profile PM 
95 replies since June 09 2010, 15:23 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

Pages: (5) < 1 2 3 4 [5] >






Forums | Links | Instruments | Discography | Tours | Articles | FAQ | Artwork | Wallpapers
Biography | Gallery | Videos | MIDI / Ringtones | Tabs | Lyrics | Books | Sitemap | Contact

Mike Oldfield Tubular.net
Mike Oldfield Tubular.net