Tubular.net :: Mike Oldfield Forums Discussion, news, reviews, fan music, and more.
	Search :: Members :: Help :: Guidelines

Pages: (3) < [1] 2 3 > [ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

Cudsie Group: Members Posts: 48 Joined: Mar. 2010 Posted: June 08 2010, 15:24 so I played the surround mixes this evening... Hergest Ridge actually does sound better in its surround mix and helps to explain why some of the instruments have been given such prominence on the Stereo mix...however, I seriously think there is something wrong with the encoding of Ommadawn Part One. It really just does not sound like its all there! Its far too quiet, it lacks depth of sound and seems as tho many foreground instruments are just way too down in the mix whilst some other backing instruments are too high! When Part Two starts its much better - depth comes back and there is a much better homogenised balance of sound tho it is also quieter than the Hergest Ridge Surround mixes (and other discs I tested). I really can't believe this is something that Mike would have of approved... Can those with surround systems let me know what you think... Back to top

Cudsie Group: Members Posts: 48 Joined: Mar. 2010 Posted: June 12 2010, 05:51 I've been in contact with the Universal Music Store to see if they have heard anything about the possibility of a problem with the Ommadawn surround mix. Unfortunately they couldn't divulge anything as I had bought my product from Amazon so have to use them as a first port of call...however...they did intimate that there could well be a faulty batch! So I have contacted Amazon UK and they have said they are going to look into it with their suppliers... Its noteworthy that a number of reviewers on the Amazon website are also picking up on this. Back to top

Ugo Group: Members Posts: 5495 Joined: April 2000 Posted: June 12 2010, 14:52 @ Cudsie: you really have to listen to it on a 5.1 system, because on mine it's absolutely perfect. Every little detail is perfectly balanced. So it is absolutely not a matter of a faulty encoding. Quiet? Yes, it is. But Ommadawn Part 1 has always been quieter than Part 2, on all the releases of the album. So, IMHO, that's not a fault. -------------- Ugo C. - a devoted Amarokian Back to top

neilwilkes Group: Members Posts: 10 Joined: June 2010 Posted: June 14 2010, 05:56 Quote (Cudsie @ June 08 2010, 15:24) I seriously think there is something wrong with the encoding of Ommadawn Part One. It really just does not sound like its all there! Its far too quiet, it lacks depth of sound and seems as tho many foreground instruments are just way too down in the mix whilst some other backing instruments are too high! When Part Two starts its much better - depth comes back and there is a much better homogenised balance of sound tho it is also quieter than the Hergest Ridge Surround mixes (and other discs I tested). I really can't believe this is something that Mike would have of approved... Can those with surround systems let me know what you think... Surely can. The biggest problem I have with this mix is the fact that it is in the ghastly Dolby Digital format only, so presumably someone, somewhere decided that the dreadfully trite "video" that accompanies this is deserving of the bulk of the available bitrate. Speaking as a surround sound mixer & engineer, this is a terrible error in judgement on somebody's part - at the very least there should be a DTS stream, ideally a fully lossless one. I cannot hear anything missing here - can you please be a little more specific about the precise section you are having issues with? Admittedly this is a very aggressive mix (great - L/R and reverb in rear channels with occasional sparse use of Centre channel ain't 5.1 to me) although it is also very, very quiet so I wonder what the DRC profiles and Dialnorm settings are (Later on I will rip the Dolby Digital stream & see what the metadata settings are - if, for example, Dialnorm is incorrectly set then this will cause serious skewing of the mix). (The only other version I have available to compare with of course is the old Quadraphonic mix, and as this is a different mix it is akin to comparing apples to oranges and giving the answer in bananas   ) Back to top

Cudsie Group: Members Posts: 48 Joined: Mar. 2010 Posted: June 14 2010, 06:36 Quote (Ugo @ June 12 2010, 14:52) @ Cudsie: you really have to listen to it on a 5.1 system, because on mine it's absolutely perfect. Every little detail is perfectly balanced. So it is absolutely not a matter of a faulty encoding. Quiet? Yes, it is. But Ommadawn Part 1 has always been quieter than Part 2, on all the releases of the album. So, IMHO, that's not a fault. Hi Ugo, thanks for your feedback. I can confirm that I am indeed listening to the product on a 5.1 system (7.1 actually but lets not quibble) and that I have a vast collection of DVD's, Blu-Ray and surround audio discs to compare and contrast with - I've followed cinema sound for some years now so being used to the differences and variances of what gets released I consider myself to have a good ear for what sounds right or not - irrespective of intended sound design. As Universal Stores suggested it may just be 1 batch out of several that have this fault meaning yours is indeed fine. Tho how that happened I have no idea - were multiple duplication masters struck and one of them has this fault somehow? I don't know - but its useful to know that yours and some others sound fine and others (cf. Amazon reviews) including mine definitly sound wrong. As I noted - it seems to be only Part One that has this fault - when Part Two comes on straight after Part One there is a notable shift in quality tonally and in surround separation which indicates nothing wrong with my set up (proved by years of use anyway) but a fault with Part One. @ Neil - your background should prove invaluable in deciding this issue - perhaps if your copy is fine I can somehow get a copy of my product to you to assess which would prove if its a batch issue? I will gird my loins and listen to it again tonight to try and be more specific about what I think is wrong. cheers Back to top

neilwilkes Group: Members Posts: 10 Joined: June 2010 Posted: June 14 2010, 12:24 Hi Cudsie. Just got the AC3 streams off the DVD and decoded using a Dolby Labs approved Decoder. Part One. Dialnorm -31 (this is correct for Zero attenuation) No DRC profile. All correct for Music production (for a pleasant change! Part Two. As Part One. Can you possibly please give me a specific example of a section you feel is wrong? I know Part 1 really well from the Stereo original (well, the SQ Quad one, anyway) in both 2 and 4 channel modes. If you can give me an example? Where to listen, what is there on stereo and what you feel is missing? That would be a great help. Also, on your DVD, can you tell me what the Hub Code is? You will find this on the inner ring of the DVD. Back to top

El Mystico Group: Members Posts: 51 Joined: Dec. 2005 Posted: June 15 2010, 09:17 In the Surround Sound mix, in the verse of On Horseback there is a surprisingly strong echo on Mike's voice....is that what others are hearing, or have I got my Surround Sound wired up wrong??? Back to top

neilwilkes Group: Members Posts: 10 Joined: June 2010 Posted: June 15 2010, 09:41 Quote (El Mystico @ June 15 2010, 09:17) In the Surround Sound mix, in the verse of On Horseback there is a surprisingly strong echo on Mike's voice....is that what others are hearing, or have I got my Surround Sound wired up wrong??? I thought we were talking about Part One? (or is this another example?). Either way, one thing to remember is that a 5.1 remix from multitracks as opposed to an electronically recreated 5.1 from a stereo source (aka "upmixing") is never going to sound like the original stereo mix.......you have 5 channels to play with here against having to shoe-horn everything into a 2-channel prison so stuff that was previously buried, masked or otherwise inaudible comes to the fore........ Will A/B against the stereo (what mix? 2010 or 1975?) Back to top

El Mystico Group: Members Posts: 51 Joined: Dec. 2005 Posted: June 15 2010, 10:36 For me the second half of part one is quiet, but not obviously "wrong". I would have played it louder, but my daugter told me to turn it down (Somehow we have our relationships the wrong way round...) It was just that additionally I noticed the echo on On Horseback, which I dont hear on the new stereo mix. Back to top

starfish Group: Members Posts: 93 Joined: June 2009 Posted: June 15 2010, 15:08 Hi guys, I don't have a surround sound set-up at present, but have already bought the deluxe edition. I don't want to have to re-buy this set down the line - i'd rather find out NOW whether or not my copy is faulty. If there have been multiple batches made of this disc (some faulty, some fine), might I siggest comparing the batch numbers of a 'good' and 'bad' copy. Look at the playing (under) side of the disc, there should be a number printed around the spindle-hole. It should start with the number 06007 532 676-4 (this is the catalogue number and will be identical to all discs regardless of batch. The remainder of the numbers will identify different batches. My copy reads 50 01 52540012. If you guys have numbers which are the same, then they are the same batch and your discs will have been authored identically. Back to top

Ugo Group: Members Posts: 5495 Joined: April 2000 Posted: June 15 2010, 15:25 @ El Mystico: on my copy, Mike's voice in "On Horseback" is very emphasized (I get to hear even the final phrase - "You know, I'd rather be on horseback" - which is almost unhearable in the original mix) in the front-middle channel, and it's only there, with no echo at all. @ starfish: I'm too lazy to check the spindle numbers right now, but I shall do so in the near future. -------------- Ugo C. - a devoted Amarokian Back to top

familyjules Group: Members Posts: 1190 Joined: May 2004 Posted: June 16 2010, 03:58 Quote (Ugo @ June 15 2010, 15:25) I get to hear even the final phrase - "You know, I'd rather be on horseback" - which is almost unhearable in the original mix After years of only listening to the Boxed mix, where you can't hear that part at all (at least I never noticed it), I thought that the phrase had only been brought to prominence for the 2010 remix.  But now I hear it plain as day on the 1975 mix also.  So I must have heard it when I was young, but forgotten it existed.  It was a bit of a shock.  I think I prefer the sound balance on the Boxed mix of On Horseback. Jules -------------- I like beer and I like cheese Back to top

neilwilkes Group: Members Posts: 10 Joined: June 2010 Posted: June 16 2010, 06:38 Quote (familyjules @ June 16 2010, 03:58) [quote=Ugo,June 15 2010, 15:25] After years of only listening to the Boxed mix, where you can't hear that part at all (at least I never noticed it), I thought that the phrase had only been brought to prominence for the 2010 remix.  But now I hear it plain as day on the 1975 mix also.  So I must have heard it when I was young, but forgotten it existed.  It was a bit of a shock.  I think I prefer the sound balance on the Boxed mix of On Horseback. Jules The version on "Boxed" is not stereo, it is SQ Quadraphonic - so will be different again to the '75 single. SQ was "Stereo/Quadraphonic" where the 2 rear channels were matrix encoded into the front 2 channels allowing for compatibility with stereo systems as well as Quadraphonic ones. This means we are talking about multiple versions here, all of which are different mixes. Trying to compare is like adding up Apples & Bananas with the answer expressed in Oranges. Back to top

familyjules Group: Members Posts: 1190 Joined: May 2004 Posted: June 16 2010, 06:56 Quote (neilwilkes @ June 16 2010, 06:38) The version on "Boxed" is not stereo, it is SQ Quadraphonic My Boxed was on CD, and I never had quad speakers anyway, so it might as well have been stereo. There was talk about the CD version of Boxed still being quad compatible, but surely it was all folded down to stereo? Jules -------------- I like beer and I like cheese Back to top

neilwilkes Group: Members Posts: 10 Joined: June 2010 Posted: June 16 2010, 07:36 Quote (familyjules @ June 16 2010, 06:56) Quote (neilwilkes @ June 16 2010, 06:38) The version on "Boxed" is not stereo, it is SQ Quadraphonic My Boxed was on CD, and I never had quad speakers anyway, so it might as well have been stereo. There was talk about the CD version of Boxed still being quad compatible, but surely it was all folded down to stereo? Jules Folded down (or downmixed) to Stereo is not the same as a dedicated stereo mix. The CD version of "Boxed" still used the original SQ masters AFAIK. Why are they different to "ordinary" stereo? Simply because you still have the Ls/Rs channels information present. To borrow a quote: SQ Description Quote STEREO QUADRAPHONIC SQ was created by the CBS Technology Center and was made available to the public in April 1971. Rear channel information was placed on a vinyl record by adding “…double helical groove modulations… alongside . . .vectored modulations…” that produced the sound for the front channels. The SQ decoder sensed the different signals and did its best to send the appropriate sound to the correct speaker. So the 4 channel information is there, and as such an SQ "stereo compatible" stream will not sound the same as a dedicated stereo stream. Back to top

The Caveman Group: Members Posts: 2178 Joined: Jan. 2008 Posted: June 16 2010, 08:51 Quote (familyjules @ June 16 2010, 03:58) Quote (Ugo @ June 15 2010, 15:25) I get to hear even the final phrase - "You know, I'd rather be on horseback" - which is almost unhearable in the original mix After years of only listening to the Boxed mix, where you can't hear that part at all (at least I never noticed it), I thought that the phrase had only been brought to prominence for the 2010 remix.  But now I hear it plain as day on the 1975 mix also.  So I must have heard it when I was young, but forgotten it existed.  It was a bit of a shock.  I think I prefer the sound balance on the Boxed mix of On Horseback. Jules I notice the kids are louder as well on the new mix.I always felt that the "remember-i'd rather be on horseback" was really quiet on the orginal,a wee bit louder on the Boxed version and on this new one it's right up there. -------------- THE COMING OF THE GREAT WHITE HANDKERCHEIF IS NIGH. Back to top

familyjules Group: Members Posts: 1190 Joined: May 2004 Posted: June 16 2010, 08:57 Quote (The Caveman @ June 16 2010, 08:51) I notice the kids are louder as well on the new mix.I always felt that the "remember-i'd rather be on horseback" was really quiet on the orginal,a wee bit louder on the Boxed version and on this new one it's right up there. Yes the kids are indeed louder on the 2010 mix.  Too loud, I think.  You can clearly hear how out of time they are. Listening to all three mixes this week I noticed the "I'd rather be on horseback" line was as near as non-existent on the Boxed mix, certainly present on the original 1975 mix, and upfront on the 2010 mix. So.....different from the results you had, Caveman.  Are my ears faulty, or yours?   Jules -------------- I like beer and I like cheese Back to top

familyjules Group: Members Posts: 1190 Joined: May 2004 Posted: June 16 2010, 09:01 Quote (neilwilkes @ June 16 2010, 07:36) SQ was created by the CBS Technology Center and was made available to the public in April 1971. Rear channel information was placed on a vinyl record by adding “…double helical groove modulations… alongside . . .vectored modulations…” that produced the sound for the front channels. The SQ decoder sensed the different signals and did its best to send the appropriate sound to the correct speaker. So the 4 channel information is there, and as such an SQ "stereo compatible" stream will not sound the same as a dedicated stereo stream. Fascinating stuff, but largely irrelevant for my post, really.   All I was saying is that of the three mixes I've heard (4 if the single mix was different, but I believe it's the same as the original LP mix), the vocal level for that final spoken phrase you can hear on On Horseback is different each time.  That's all.   Jules -------------- I like beer and I like cheese Back to top

Ugo Group: Members Posts: 5495 Joined: April 2000 Posted: June 16 2010, 09:54 Quote (The Caveman @ June 16 2010, 14:51) I notice the kids are louder as well on the new mix.I always felt that the "remember-i'd rather be on horseback" was really quiet on the orginal,a wee bit louder on the Boxed version and on this new one it's right up there. In the 5.1 version of the 2010 mix, the kids are not louder than the rest when the mix is listened to on a 5.1 system; they are in the rear speakers (left-rear and right-rear) and they are very well balanced. I guess that the 5.1 mix was the first one that Mike created for the 2010 reissue of Ommadawn, and then it was "downmixed" to stereo for the CD. BTW, it's "you know", not "remember". -------------- Ugo C. - a devoted Amarokian Back to top

El Mystico Group: Members Posts: 51 Joined: Dec. 2005 Posted: June 16 2010, 10:07 Ugo thanks for your comments. I listened again today, without children to tell me to turn it down, and I was in Oldfield heaven. With no echo on Mike's voice, so I don't know what I was doing yesterday. Back to top

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ] Pages: (3) < [1] 2 3 >

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


Mike Oldfield Tubular.net