Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Pages: (4) < 1 2 3 [4] >

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

Topic: Hergest Ridge Mix differences, How do the Boxed and 74 mixes compare?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
Priabonia Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 264
Joined: July 2011
Posted: June 25 2012, 12:19

Hi all

If this has already been covered, then let me know (and point me in the right direction...I did a quick search but not exhaustive).

Anyway, has anyone noticed that the 2010 mix is not just a different mix (as in different balances of instrument tracks etc.) but whole sections have been removed? I just started analysing it in a digital audio program, and for example the "return to solo trumpet" section at around 6'35" is missing from 2010? Instead it skips straight to the "amplified organ chord" which is around 7'43" on 1974.

There seem to be other differences as well, but I haven't chopped up all the audio yet to analyse them (and if someone's already done this, let me know to save me the hassle!;).

Thoughts?

P


--------------
https://www.youtube.com/user/PriaboniaMusic

www.soundcloud.com/just-before-dawn
Back to top
Profile PM 
Cavalier (Lost Version) Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 598
Joined: Nov. 2010
Posted: July 06 2012, 13:31

Hi, Priabonia - just spent part of the afternoon going through the forum but can't direct you to a specific post yet.

We've highlighted a number of the differences of course; later oboe, 12:12, descending acoustic guitar next to the choir, for some of them.   Considering the lost two minutes running time, I've come to attribute them to Mike broadly following the structure of the Demo when he came to putting 2010 together.


--------------
"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 
First_Excursion Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 279
Joined: Aug. 2012
Posted: May 14 2013, 17:19

The deluxe version is a nice novelty, but IMHO once you go from the original mix to the Boxed mix, there is nowhere else to go. They nailed it with that one, I love the way it  developes so subtly with uncluttered simplicity. What was that quote? “there's nothing wrong with repetition so long as it's something worth repeating”.
Back to top
Profile PM 
TomX01 Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: Nov. 2006
Posted: May 22 2013, 05:57

My friend and I have spent many hours debating the differences between the 74 and 76 mix over the years. I wasn't sure where I come down with a third mix in the pan, but I decided to choose slightly more etheral about it. I love the 2010 mix, some great choices, the paired down acoustic guitars etc. But were I, as I may well, take a stroll on Hergest Ridge this summer, which version will be on the ipod? It has to be the 76 mix. It is warm, pastoral, and I think best reflects what he was at least trying to do at the time.
Back to top
Profile PM 
stpaul Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 230
Joined: Feb. 2005
Posted: May 22 2013, 11:35

The beginning of the 2010 mix is very good -means as good as the '74 & 76' mixes. But I don't like the rhythm guitar or mandolin starting a 12:12 in the 2010 mix. The solo bass guitar in the previous mixes is much better.
Back to top
Profile PM 
Chrissy Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 68
Joined: Sep. 2013
Posted: Nov. 15 2013, 12:13

Hi All, Long time Oldfield fan but only finally getting round to getting all the remastered versions that Mike has been bring out since 2009. Recently got the Hergest Ridge 2010 version. I love the new version it sounds a lot brighter, like it all apart from the lack of bass at 12.12 that has been discussed on many on these threads.

Can any of you HR experts out there explain why the 2010 version of HR (side 1) is over 2 minutes shorter than the 1976 version that I have on CD?

Which bits have been cut out? and Why?
Back to top
Profile PM 
Cavalier (Lost Version) Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 598
Joined: Nov. 2010
Posted: Nov. 30 2013, 09:39

Some of the earlier answers in the thread are useful for pointing out where the mixes have diverged.  I may be going mad (or I may have seen it elsewhere) but I thought a full timing comparison did appear at some point.  I refer you to my earlier point about the demo version though.   It may not be possible to run exactly concurrent comparisons ( the demo version runs faster at first, but loses the rhythm when you reach the equivalent of the oboe part and runs slower) but I would still argue that Mike in rediscovering his early plans decided that that was the model he would follow when assembling 2010.  The emergence of that highly-strung guitar at 12:12 would seem to me to be indicative of his being reminded about it when it appears at 13:13 or thereabouts in the demo.  One of the impressions I came away with from TB 2003 was that Mike was taking the opportunity to win some of the arguments he had lost when it came to how the original was played or put together.  HR faded from popularity while he was recording it, so I imagine that he looks back on some of the decisions that he, Tom Newman or anyone from Virgin took and thinks that in places they were adding bells and whistles for the sake of it; the busier it sounded, the more complex the harmonies, the more accolades it might receive.   Its, by comparison, muted reception must have sealed its reputation as a composition that Mike could choose to forget as much as he could in the intervening years!   When compelled to have another go, be that for Boxed or 2010 or if he were to nip into his studio tomorrow, he finds aspects that have been lost or muffled and decides some material is extraneous to his current tastes.  Perhaps he did like the multiple guitars just before the trumpet changes its melody in the opening section, but perhaps they were a bell or whistle too many for a section that hadn’t even appeared in the demo.

--------------
"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 
Sweep Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 61
Joined: Sep. 2011
Posted: July 06 2015, 07:47

I don't think this has been mentioned yet - my apologies if I've missed it:

About 12 or 13 minutes through Part One there's a part that on the original vinyl was a beautiful mix of bass guitar and sleigh bells, with organ coming in shortly after.

On the Deluxe Edition 1974 mix the sleigh bells are still present, but much further down in the mix than they were on vinyl.

They're better on the CD which I think is the Boxed mix? - CDV 2013.

On the 2010 mix from Deluxe there's a chugging tinny guitar that for me ruins the effect of the whole passage, and a second organ part that doesn't really help either.

So basically one of my favourite parts of Hergest Ridge seems to have all but vanished from every mix, including the one that's supposed to be the original.

It's just possible that my tape of the vinyl brought out the sleigh bells more than on the record, making a fortunate accidental remix. I'm not able to play vinyl at present, and I listened to my own tape of the album quite a lot. But unless memory is deceiving me I think I recall listening to that passage on the vinyl.

So how does this section sound to other people?


--------------
Website@: http://www.musicbysweep.com
Twitter: sweep1

Bradnor Hill (in memory of David Bedford): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKeATjaMCgA
Back to top
Profile PM WEB 
Rob Alias Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: July 2015
Posted: July 18 2015, 16:12

Hi all.

My first post, and one that I hope will be taken in the spirit in which it is delivered. I saw the original thread title and remembered that I had written something in 2010 shortly after buying the album.

'The release of a re-mixed `Hergest Ridge' (HR/2010) follows the 2009 release of a remixed `Tubular Bells' (TB/2009), made possible by Oldfield's acquisition from Virgin Records (VR) of the rights to his entire VR back catalogue. This is not, of course, the first time that `Hergest Ridge' has been re-worked, as a substantially different version was released in 1976 as part of the `Mike Oldfield Boxed' (HR/MOB) set, intended as a QUAD mix. At the time Oldfield stated that his intention was to "...cut down on what I thought had been unnecessary trimmings...I thought people might think it was too repetitive". This pared down, textually revised version would be used in all subsequent releases of the album (mixed back to stereo), including the first cd and later HDCD issues.

For the 2010 release, Oldfield has returned and reconsidered the approach taken in the `boxed' and original stereo mix, producing a further hybrid, whilst also sanctioning the first ever issue on cd of the original 1974 stereo mix, something which fans have sought for many years. To further whet the appetite, a complete demo version is also available (allowing fans to compare and contrast the development of the music from initial stages to completed work) alongside a new 5.1 Surround Sound Mix (which I do not include in this review).

This represents a considerable amount of material of review meaningfully, so in order to save space (and perhaps your patience!;) I will concentrate on the new 2010 stereo mix with reference to HR/MOB and HR/1974.

The initial impression of HR/2010 is positive, with an immediately clearer and cleaner sound when compared directly against the earlier boxed and single cd editions, although this impression of greater clarity may owe much to the significantly increased loudness across the audio range, an effect also used with TB/2009. Part One, opening with sustained ethereal notes, emerges as if discovered by the listener. This quality is broken only through the introduction of single sustained bass notes, rooting the music to the present.

Oldfield appears to have continued the process of removing elements originally considered superfluous, and pushing forward within the mix particularly strident sounding instruments (such as the trumpet and mandolin) that originally provided a counter to the main melody - now removed. The effect might be harmonically disconcerting, particulary for fans familiar with the earlier issues. A particularly fine example of this can be heard in the transition in to the bass lead section, where a percussive mandolin is placed forward in the mix ( 12.14 - 14.08) - jarring and completely ill judged. In the final moments of Part One, the beautiful concluding section is graced by an added guitar lead (and possibly synth underpinning ), which sounds like a new interposition - the playing style may not be contemporary to HR/1974 or HR/MOB. A similar effect was heard in the conclusion of TB/2009, where the previously rousing entrance of the `Tubular Bells' sounded quite distinct and apart from the underlying mix.

Part Two continues this trend, with most of the changes being concerned with the placement of the vocal sections (barely discernible in HR/1974 but `restored' in HR/MOB). The final section of Part Two, in which a rising bass drives forward unrelentingly accompanied by counter melodic material is magnificent, but has been much simplified in contrast to HR/1974 - opening up the distinctly reggae influenced lilt that can be heard underpinning this section. The final coda, simple and beautiful, restores the reflective mood, but the mix is notably different to that of HR/1976 and HR/MOB, with changes to the vocals and the lead melodic instrumentation.

So. Do you buy?

In recent years Oldfield has been content to concentrate on offering differing versions of `Tubular Bells' and other material of wildly varying quality, in what might have seemed (to even the most loyal of fans) a cynical exercise in marketing and maximising financial reward. Those familiar with his earlier work, including `Ommadawn' and `Incantations', might well have had their patience stretched to the extreme - particularly given the fact that no new music has been released by Oldfield to accompany the re-release of his older material. This release might go some way to restoring their goodwill, representing good material value for money in product and presentational terms (particularly with the inclusion of the `demo' version).

Moreover, for people unfamiliar with `Hergest Ridge', there has probably never been a better time to explore a far more cohesive and musically unified work than `Tubular Bells'. Where the latter is essentially an impressive shifting rock tableux, `Hergest Ridge' is reflective and complex, a satisfying tone poem of greater depth but less immediacy.

Whilst the 2010 mix does not offer a great improvement on previously issued mixes the undoubted star of the stereo package has to be the restored original 1974 `Hergest Ridge', here heard in all its magnificently complex and imperfect glory. The strength of Oldfield's original vision is enough to warrant purchase, even after 36 years.

Strongly recommended.'

Rob A
:)
Back to top
Profile PM 
Sweep Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 61
Joined: Sep. 2011
Posted: July 18 2015, 16:46

Hi, Rob, many thanks for that, and welcome to the forum.

I think what you've posted helps pinpoint many of the differences between the mixes. The problem for me, though, is that the sleigh bells have just dropped down quite a bit in volume, still audible (and gaining towards the end of the passage) but losing the delicate balance between them and the bass guitar at the point where only those two instruments are audible, with the organ added just after. At this point in the mix there's nothing much that can be altered because there's so little going on - which, along with the unorthodox arrangement, is part of the genius of the section. At first there are only two instruments to balance, then later just three.

Thinking further, since my original post on this, I have a theory that this may not be a mix change as such, but an odd audio phenomenon that can occur with changes in noise reduction technology. I've noticed that a mix can appear to change when a piece is recorded with Dolby B and then played back without any noise reduction. It may also be that a piece recorded with the original Dolby, or whatever else might have been used in 1974, could change in character when reproduced on much later audio equipment. I wonder if that might be what's happened here. Dolby B to no Dolby at all results in minor background sounds becoming more audible. Going from the original Dolby to a later version of Dolby may well have the opposite effect and partially mute a sleigh bell kind of sound.  And if you're mixing while monitoring on high end equipment, and you're consciously listening for the sound, you may not realise it's dropped in level quite significantly.

I may be totally wrong there, but I think this is possible and would be an explanation for a mix change that was quite unintended.

I'll try to find my old audio tape of the original vinyl, and see what that shows, perhaps doing some experiments with noise reduction.


--------------
Website@: http://www.musicbysweep.com
Twitter: sweep1

Bradnor Hill (in memory of David Bedford): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKeATjaMCgA
Back to top
Profile PM WEB 
Rob Alias Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: July 2015
Posted: July 19 2015, 15:59

Sweep.

Thank you for the welcome to the forum. I am intrigued by your idea regarding the possible consequences of noise reduction technology - is there any indication as to what Mike may have been using during the recording of HR?

Rob Alias
:)
Back to top
Profile PM 
Sweep Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 61
Joined: Sep. 2011
Posted: July 20 2015, 17:42

I'd expect it was the original version of Dolby, as Dolby B hadn't been developed yet as far as I know. Maybe someone here with a lot more knowledge would be able to add more detail.

I discovered the `remix' effect of changing noise reduction encodings by accident, and I haven't experimented with it. It strikes me that it might be worth asking a couple of trained recording engineers, so I'll ask one with recent training (who might therefore know about different encodings) and one old school engineer who's worked with Mike (though not on Hergest Ridge). He'll probably know about what noise reduction might have been available, as well. I'll report back if and when I have some information.

In the meantime if someone who can play the original vinyl of Hergest Ridge could compare the sleigh bell section with the 1974 mix on the 2010 Deluxe Edition and see how the levels may differ, that would help.


--------------
Website@: http://www.musicbysweep.com
Twitter: sweep1

Bradnor Hill (in memory of David Bedford): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKeATjaMCgA
Back to top
Profile PM WEB 
Dr Bogenbroom Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 57
Joined: June 2015
Posted: July 23 2015, 03:15

Just to confirm, does the Deluxe Edition definitely contain the original mix? It's selling for under £10 online so I will snap it up if so.

Can anyone tell me which mix this is?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4jeh5txfsA

Thanks.


--------------
Dancing the Entropy Tango
Back to top
Profile PM 
Sweep Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 61
Joined: Sep. 2011
Posted: Aug. 03 2015, 17:05

"does the Deluxe Edition definitely contain the original mix"?  There's the question.

For the most part, probably yes.  It certainly contains what's supposed to be the original 1974 mix, and as far as I can recall it's like the mix I remember apart from the bass guitar/sleighbells issue I've been discussing - and that may have been closer to the Deluxe Edition than my tape from the vinyl, for the reasons I've been discussing.  My tape may have altered the levels because of anomalies with Dolby encoding.  (More on this below.)

But certainly for under £10 I'd definitely buy the Deluxe.  I have no regrets whatsoever.  It's worth twice that figure, or more, I think.

Regarding your question on the mix, the clip no longer plays due to copyright infringement.  But if it turns out to be different from any of the Deluxe Edition mixes then it's presumably the Boxed mix.

Regarding the bass and sleighbells question discussed previously:

I've found out a few things over the last few days.  No-one I've spoken with seems to be aware of the anomaly I found with changing Dolby settings and getting slight changes in levels. But there may well be reasons why the album I noticed it on was particularly apt to do this, and more importantly, there are some aspects of the way the original Dolby (now called Dolby A) works that may have a bearing on all of this.

Specifically, Dolby A divides the signal into four frequency bands and then recombines them after decoding.  That being the case, I can see how sounds within specific frequency bands may possibly be boosted or cut when you start messing around with the encoding/decoding as I inadvertently did.

That could conceivably alter the level of the sleighbells, I think?

The big question is, what did the original 1974 mix sound like on vinyl?  Is my tape a faithful reproduction of that, or did I accidentally get a mix that sounds to my ears better than the vinyl?  Until I can play the vinyl again I have no answer to that.

I certainly intend to get an arrangement of that section of Hergest Ridge that's to my liking, whether it turns out to be restoring the original vinyl from 1974 or whether it just sounds better to my ears.  It could take a while, the way things are at the moment, but at least now I think I can see how the existence of different levels for the sleighbells in relation to the bass has occurred.


--------------
Website@: http://www.musicbysweep.com
Twitter: sweep1

Bradnor Hill (in memory of David Bedford): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKeATjaMCgA
Back to top
Profile PM WEB 
Dr Bogenbroom Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 57
Joined: June 2015
Posted: Aug. 04 2015, 03:53

Having heard all of the different mixes now, I am firmly in the Boxed camp. Nice to hear them all, but the enhanced, stepping guitar in particular makes this version superior for me. Wonderful album!

--------------
Dancing the Entropy Tango
Back to top
Profile PM 
Happy? Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 52
Joined: April 2022
Posted: Feb. 13 2023, 16:07

Not being tied by nostalgia, this is my order of HR mix preference:
1. 2010 remix
2. 1974 mix
3. (a lot of free space)
4. 1976 Boxed mix

Yes, I like the 2010 remix a lot, and dislike the 1976 mix in many aspects. The 2010 version is crispier and it better highlights the melodic gems Mike hid in the sound texture. Overall, it takes the strong points of both the demo, the 1974 mix and the very few of the 1976 mix. Except for the infamous chug-chug-chug-chug section around 12:12. That's the only disturbing part. I don't mind the chug-chug-chug-chug itself, it should only not start that loud in the beginning of the section. Were it a crescendo which only would reach full strength at the modulation around 12:59 (or even 14:10) it would have sound a lot better.

Furthermore, I like the sharper trumpet sound, the more layered melodies and the more straightforward structure of the 2010 mix. As the trumpet solo section of the older mixes sounds only facultative to me, it is not something I really miss in the 2010 remix.

At first, I only knew the 1976 mix. I found it a boring album, only few memorable melodies, a lot of boring basslines without sounds building up. Then I discovered both the 1974 and 2010 versions. Wow! The 1976 version always sounded so boring, so minimal, so full of dust, and when hearing both the 1974 and 2010 versions it seemed like all the dust was just blown away! Beautiful layered melodies became uncovered.

I really don't get why Mike commissioned the 1976 mix to be the default since. But I'm glad he eventually switched back (of forward, just as one interprets it). So thank you, Mike.  ;)


--------------
I'd rather be... happy?
Back to top
Profile PM 
75 replies since June 08 2010, 15:36 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

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

Pages: (4) < 1 2 3 [4] >






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