Producer Nigel Godrich dismisses “all this Dolby Atmos rubbish” as he says that “stereo is optimum”

Some of these folks must be very confused when there's more than two people talking at one time

 

Agree. Thinking of music as limited to a band playing in front of you is restrictive to me, even though historically correct for recorded music. If it's well-done (subjective I know) I'll always opt for the surround (Avalon, Rumours, Brothers In Arms, etc.) I've never upgraded to Atmos, my 5.1 listening area is my living room, with all wiring hidden behind the baseboards, and Atmos would be a real challenge, in addition to the hardware upgrades.

 

Just found a copy of the DVD-A for under 10 €. Thanks again to this forum for making me spend money in a good way

 

Post your thoughts

 

I will

 

The quad experiment in the 70s was awful, hopefully rubbish like atmos and 5.1 will disappear for similar reasons

 

Listened to a couple of great interviews with him. So enjoyable. Thanks. Didn’t know him. I think in context of his gig the comment makes sense. He labors and puts out a mix. Doesn’t necessarily want it messed with. Me I kinda like the novelty of it. Just fun. New way of hearing the familiar. Like the new Revolver mix.

 

Why would you want something to disappear that so many enjoy? I honestly don't get this attitude.
There's tons of things I don't care for, but I'm not wishing them away.

 

The guy who got a lot of us excited about surround, is very busy these days. I opined about the Apple folks yanking every engineer off the street to help shove the music into the ATMOS analytic, like Marvel Studios signing every big name they can cast, or Netflix greenlighting so much material there's not enough people left in Hollywood to produce a game show. So, here's Steven "I mix every surround album you ever wanted" Wilson, starting with his own workload, and just trying to catch up!

It's hard to separate the surround mixing he's known for, with the authenticity the obsessive fans want upfront, but he doesn't shy away from saying that's Job One:


But still, I really perk at what he says at the end, starting at 10:25, about accepting digital into your life, with, "I really believe we're running out of excuses now..."
And, don't start there, listen to the whole thing, and see how he sets that conclusion up - and backs it up with an almost slavish attention to what the obsessives come for in the first place.

 

I understand your point...but I do wonder why so many people seem to scoff at the idea of immersion with just audio but happily embrace theatrical immersion. For me they are two paths to the same place.

And I think most new artists simply do not know what they are missing with 5.1, or just cant afford the extra mix.

I own many 5.1 mixes. All the Yes, King Crimson, XTC, Bjork, Talking Heads, Marley, Elton John, NIN, Floyd, Flaming Lips, Beatles... to name a few.. And while some mixes tread into a 5.1 "wow" swamp (Flaming Lips are probably the best example, but Yoshimi is so damn fun I give them a pass) for me the joy of this format is not in the "sound behind the head" but rather the spacial and tonal quality of an awakened soundstage.

The music of these mixes simply breathe differently, and when it's done right...5.1 provides a slack jawed wonder for this stoned half wit. I sit and marvel at the air around Bruford's snare on Red. Or the enveloping harmonies on Skylarking. Or the rich acoustic guitars of Animals that seem to pull one further into that dark territory.

Can a gimmick be transformative?

Yes, the stereo of Close To The Edge is definitive. No doubt. But, for me, the 5.1 is the most enjoyable version of that LP. By a mile.

These mixes give me that feeling of new discovery that I first had when wandering into Berkeley's Rasputins Records in 1980..

Escape!

 

As promised:

I really enjoyed it. It's a very discrete 5.1 mix, with discrete elements on the rears all the time, as opposed to other more "immersive" mixes (I can enjoy both approaches, if they are done right). But it doesn't get "gimmicky", the songs have enough instrumentation to fill the space and it's done very tastefully.
Another pleasant surprise: they retained the tonality of the original album, resisting the temptation to boost the low frequencies and other tactics to "beef up" the sound. So maybe some may think it sounds "thin", but if you listen to the original, it's like that.
The DVD has an option to listen to the songs without vocals, but with a track-by-track commentary by band members. Very interesting.

Curious thing: this is the third version of Rumours I own, and each of them has a different track listing. My 1977 German vinyl copy has 11 tracks, with Songbird as track 6 and no Silver Springs. My CD has 12 tracks, inserting Silver Springs as track 7. This DVD has the same 12 tracks, but this time Silver Springs is track 6 and Songbird has been moved to 12, last song of the album. Strange, but it worked, I think it's my favourite track listing for the album now.

 

Millions of people have grown up with Rumours, but never heard of Silver Springs.

 

Immersive is too hyper, too focused on special effects. And to me is not music. Save that for ADD video games, and for movies. Stereo is much more natural for music. Surround most of the time is outright artificial for music. Movies and gaming, I can understand immersive.

 

I think it's interesting what SW is saying but looking at it the other way? So close. Yes but when you have the choice of the original and it's the best then why not? For me it's about choice-everyone can choose their preference and in many cases we have different motivations for choice of format or what we are looking for in this hobby.

 

What about records designed for 5.1/Atmos? Do people dismiss the artist intent then and only listen to the stereo version? Just a question that popped up in my head reading this thread.

 

In the 50s-60s there were many artists who focused on mono mixes and that's how they intended their music to be listened to. Does that mean we shouldn't listen to stereo mixes of that material? Of course, the originals will always have a special consideration, but I don't see anything "artificial" in using the multitracks to create different mixes.

 

Impossible to answer, because no good music has come out since 1983

 

Wait a second! Forget Nigel's opinions on surround; there's a Dolby Atmos remix of Remain In Light? Please don't tell me it's exclusive to Apple Music...

 

5.1 really just kills for music. I never thought more speaker channels were needed and I still don't.

Some stereo albums are mixed so well that they sound like surround anyway.

 

(Genuinely) news to me - I had no idea.

 

Not sure if it is on any other platforms, but definitely in Apple Music.

 

I've got the Brick set; how different are these mixes from the 5.1 mixes done in 2005?

I remember there were some massive differences; "Drugs" was missing the birds chirping at the beginning, "I Zimba" had its opening guitar part way louder than the original stereo mix, and The Great Curve's guitar sounded much thinner.

Do the new mixes retain these differences, or are they closer to the original stereo mixes?

 

To be honest even though it's got plenty of likes, I regret my post a bit. I posted at about 4am, tired and a bit drunk. I think it's a mean spirited post towards people who like 5:1 and it's not really what I think of them. It's just not something that appeals to me, but I don't have the money or right kind of room for it anyway.

 

To me, every photograph in black-and-white before the advent of color...was "designed for color"...it just wasn't an option yet. Once there was color, you did have that option, and artistic choice.

You could say the Ford Model A was "designed for crappy horse trails and muddy troughs"...until there was the option for a flat road, designed for a Model A".

 

I don't know about that, photographers and film makers would have thought differently about how to use light and shade than to how they would had they been using colour. They'd have been very different photos and films, not the same thing but in colour.