Pink Floyd Animals in 5.1 Speculation, Now Pricing & Shipping thread starting Page 248

There are more than a few threads in the Forum Business section addressing this issue.

 

It looks like elaborate staging, ala the 2007 Genesis tour.

 

Ah, the thread appeared again... but I thought there's some news about it.

 

Every. Single. Time.

 

I always sit down before checking the latest posts in this thread .

 

I want this ! Arrgh......where and when ?

 

Seriously how hard could this release possibly be? Other bands put out multiple catalog 5.1 mixes in short order

 

It's Floyd. Nothing is simple.

 

I sincerely hope each of us could find other things to occupy ourselves with while waiting for Animals 5.1.

 

Ive never heard wish you were here or DSOTM in 5.1 ....or any 5.1 music for that matter...i have the quadrophonic vinyl pressing of DSOTM but dont have a quad receiver so ive never heard anything other than Amused to death with Q-Sound.
How does music get recorded in the 5.1 format? Does each channel get an instrument dedicated to it? Or are the front 2 channels playing the music and surround back speakers doing the sound effects? Im trying to figure it out without googling the answer

 

Bad form. Use Google.

Anyway, most surround music isn't recorded in surround, just like most stereo music isn't recorded in stereo. Although there are exceptions, especially in classical genres, it's generally multitracked and mixed just like any other music. More channels just means more real estate available. Mixes span the gamut from stereo with minor ambience in the rears to lots of active panning all around the room. The best multichannel mixes tend to reside somewhere in the middle. James Guthrie's 5.1 mixes, thus far, err on the "conservative" side and hew very closely to the original stereo mixes of the albums. The image is widened out into the room, with appropriate effects and occasional discrete musical elements in the surrounds.

 

Thanks for that breif explanation. It made me wonder this; since DSOTM and WYWH were both recorded in quadraphonic form for the quadrophonic lp releases wouldnt that indicate that there were tapes still available of these 2 albums recorded in more than 2 channels?
Im probably misguided in my thinking here, but wouldnt those tapes recorded in quad be a better way to go when making a 5.1 mix? Or at least an alternative mix in a "deluxe set"?

 

The DSOTM & WYWH Quad mixes were also included in the box sets along witht he 5.1 mixes.

In reality, nothing is “recorded in Quadrophonic”, or “Recorded in Stereo” per se. Recordings are built up from individual tracks and then you mix those tracks together into a final mono form, or stereo, or Quad, or 5.1. (I know I’m being a bit over-simplistic here, you might record something to facilitate it being mixed in stereo or 5.1, but the mix is the thing)

 

Hi! Back again. Checking in. See you next month.

 

Oh the years we saw this pic captioned "waiting for the new tool album"

 

And still relevant for both bands.

 

@Saul Pimon is correct, for the most part. Some things are actually recorded in the same number of channels in which they are delivered, with no mixing necessary or even possible before mastering. Likely most classical music is recorded this way, rather than the multitracking and mixing that dominates popular music.

The stereo, quad, and 5.1 mixes of these albums were all completed from the same sources: the original multitrack tapes (or facsimiles thereof).

 

I thought it had been released!.................... I'll check again in a month or so

 

One question.anyone like the remasters from 1994 or the 2012 remasters better?for me its the 2012 ones,seems to have a thicker bass sound.

 

I like 1994, OK, sorry - I guess I don't have the 2012. I guess I should of looked before I went to reply.

 

no problem cause those 1994 remasters were great.i think the new ones have a cleaner bass and mid range.but like i said those 1994 ones are great.

 

In the case of Animals, I definitely go for the 2011 remaster.

 

1994

 

Depends on which album. 2011 for Animals but it still isn't a great production (freely acknowledged very recently by Nick Mason). As a generalisation, the 94/95 remasters tend to work best for the earlier albums whereas the 2011 remasters tend to work better for the later albums. IMO, everything from ATH onwards sounds slightly veiled in the 2011 remasters with the vocals notably less clear. Apparently, other posters have different opinions. They're wrong...