Generally a Dark Side fan so far, but Bright Side really shines with some of the takes. The kicker is that one of the best parts of PG's music is the percussion, and sometimes Bright Side buries that...and hiding a Tony Levin bassline ought to be a crime.
To my ears, the Bright Side version is generally more pleasant to listen to, and sounds balanced in terms of frequencies and tonality. The Dark Side version sounds more harsh, aggressive and sometimes a bit crunchy. The Atmos Binaural Rendered version lacks clarity, sounds muddy...
I agree with you. I don't understand the greater general warmth to the dark side mixes - the bright side ones are usually easier on the ears as you said. "Love Can Heal" is especially better in the Bright Side version - much more atmospheric and rich imo.
I like the dark-side instrumental, the bright-side vocals and the feeling of space in the binaural mix. Releasing different mixes of the same album is a very interesting concept.
It is a fun concept... for this one album. Peter has routinely remixed/re-recorded songs in the past which makes a whole album mixed three different ways after a 20 year wait amusing, but boy do I hope this doesn't catch on as a trend.
Great comparison. Thank you - Before watching the video I liked the Bright mix better, now I am not so sure.. I have to pay more attention when listening to other songs to see if the Dark is the one to go for the vinyl purchase.
This is an awesome analysis thanks. Like you said, the Dark side feels grittier and more aggressive to me. I think I am generally more a fan of the Dark Side mixes. It sounds more like classic Peter Gabriel to me, like something that might have been on Us or So.
Thanks Ian - excellent. that's helped my dilemma (or has it (LoL)). Got the new 4xLP 2xCD 1xbluray box yesterday. Don't have a bluray player (or CD for that matter). The LP's on both main mixes sound amazing but because of vinyl limitations, track listing is a wee bit different. Good call when streaming to create an encompassing playlist - cheers.
Excellent video. Well done! Regardless of one's favourite version-and there are obvious marked differences between all three-, I find that my ears always are very 'grateful' when getting better dynamic range, and your excellent video proves this on more time.
I know exactly what you mean, but for this song at least I’m not sure it’s enough to be the deciding factor for me (which it often is). I’m looking forward to hearing the rest of the album
Very nice! Thanks for taking the time to do this. It still puzzles me a little why PG done this. Ok, more to listen to, but what was his purpose... Imagine that more artists start doing this... I need more time!! ;) But I like it and i'm fascinated. I thought I liked the Bright Side more, but this video changed my preference to the Dark Side, at least on this song. It's gonna be a hard job to compare all the mixes and make my own list of preferred versions, I want to do that one of these days.
Now to get quite personal ... One of the albums I really enjoyed listening to as a kid was Mike Oldfield's Tubular Bells. (And I was already quite an informed and experienced listener to music thanks to my parents's records, what I heard on the radio and what I watched on MTV.). When I was a teenager, I got it on CD and I noticed how "different" it sounded. I would confirm many years later that what I was listening to as a kid was a later reissue (1981 through Epic) that used the 1975 *quadrophonic* mix folded down to stereo but without any matrix encoding as "bring it back to stereo". As a result, listening to the 1973 stereo mix that was initially issued by Virgin is really different for me, whilst by all accounts should be seen as the "definitive" version. In hearing some other takes done over the years such as Mike Oldfield's own re-recording of it for 2003 and a 50th anniversary mix (done by David Kosten for both Atmos and stereo), I really want to make my own mix that will satisfy my own sensibilities. I bring this up because that experience made it very clear that if I were to be involved in making my own music - and I was interested in doing this when I was a kid - I need to be involved in the entire process, especially when it comes to mixing and mastering. As you can certainly understand, people who work on music start out as music listeners. Because of this, I think this is why you make music you would like to hear yourself. Yes, you work with various individuals to make that happen. But if your name is going to be attached to it, it means you agree to this: right, wrong, indifferent. So it makes sense that you would, at the very least, give that approval seal to a mix and to a master. Going back to PG ... he's always been interested in presentations and various conceptual schemes. Consider the "Scratch My Back / And I'll Scratch Yours" setup where he would cover various artists and in turn they will cover one of his. It was not a complete one-to-one as some artists would drop out of the project, namely Neil Young, Ray Davies and Radiohead. The latter withdrew from the project after not liking what he did with "Street Spirit (Fade Out)" (apparently they would have covered "Wallflower"). But it demonstrates that he likes possibilities and ways of creating more instead of less. (This is largely why he took his sweet time in making the "follow-up to ... well, Up" ;) =] ). So having a "Bright"/"Dark" mix scheme works. It was probably one of those "I call it that based on initial instinct" and then, like the mutual musical back-scratching, probably ended up something different than what was initially conceived. Yet, it's incredibly admirable for him to stick to it, present it as it is and allowing the listener to experience them for themselves, instead of imposing one vision on everyone. If you think about it, sometimes you want vanilla ice creams, other times chocolate, other times something else entirely =] And finally ... it's refreshing to hear that there is a difference between listening to music critically and listening to music simply. For my own work, I can be quite harsh about what I do and work to make sure there is no stone unturned. But in the end, I want to be able to listen to what I have done and simply enjoy it ... just like everybody else does. Happy listening and cheers =]
@@ProductionAdviceUpdate: I finally got the 2xCD+Blu set. In general, I would describe the Bright as an in-your-face pop album and the Dark as an introspective arty album. The In-Side is neither Bright nor Dark, but rather just takes advantage of the immersive sound field and having another pair of ears listening to all the elements in a new space. This is not surprising given the individuals involved: Mark "Spike" Stent for Bright, Tchad Blake for Dark, Hans-Martin Buff for In-. All in all, I liked that PG presented us with a choice with pretty much what you stated. It reminds me of art pieces that utilize vantage points, i.e. your impression of the work will vary depending on where you stand in the room. I probably like the In-Side the most, but I do genuinely like all of them for their own particular character. P.S. I guess if PG wants to continue his scheme, any officially issued live albums would be called "Out-Side" =D
For me, the dark side mix is almost too dry in headphones and the vocal is too up front. The bright side mix has that just-right polish for me (*referring to the song panopticon*)
Bright side mix seems a bit "safe" sounding and tame whereas Dark side mix sounds like the Peter Gabriel records I expect. Much more dynamic and keeps the interest and ear candy throughout. Nice video Ian !!
Thanks for this great A/B thing. Originally I stopped thinking about the sonic differences of the dark- and the brightside-mixes, when I realized the dark-sides just touch me in a way the bright side mixes didn't, but after watching this, it even makes sense! But imho: the inside-mixes can't be part of this comparison. I listened to some of them in a mixing studio in 7.1.4 and it was otherworldly. These mixes where never meant to be played in stereo, and Hans-Martin Buff didn't give a f. about the perception in 2.x. On cans, there's a great possibility to get the feel he was aiming for, but you didn't mention this fact, which I think is crucial.
Fair comment, although hopefully most people understand the binaural tender is intended to be listened to on headphones, which is the version I’ve used for this comparison
I love how the low end is defined on the Dark Side Mix and I like it most, at least in Panopticom. I think Spike mix works better on radio but both are remarkable mixes. Very nice move from Peter to release both mixes
Very interesting! I've only listened to the Bright-Side ... side... so far. I really like the album. Can't wait to dive into the Dark-Side (mwuahahaha) ... but drastically different according to this ! Amazing. And of course the Tchad Blake mixes are going to have more distortion in them ;) ... that's his style (and I'm a fan). :)
Awesome video and very interesting to hear those compared next to each other. As much as I love the idea about two different mixes, I still think it is a bit of a wasted opportunity. Personally I feel the differences are too subtle (at least to non super audiophile people like me😂). I was hoping that the songs would have been transformed more drastically in arrangement , instrumentation, etc; at least this was my expectation when I first heard about that concept. Now we have a product that is different if you closely compare them directly, but I would argue just a few people would guess right in a blind test.
IMO-The Atmos (mix when heard on a calibrated 7.1.4 speaker system) is a tour de force. It's beautifully crafted and is quite possibly a new gold standard for the 3D Atmos music format. This contrast/compare video is well done. It's very hard to compare a level matched 3D binaural 2.0 mix to a traditional 2D 2.0 mix as the formats and mix practices are so different. Individual HRTF profiles on headphones serve to give the binaural version it's best chance of translation for comparison. Unless you hear the binaural version optimally with profiled headphones, it's very hard to judge decisions about the binaural balance and spectre-but in this video you sure can see how much natural dynamic range exists in the music performance. However, despite the heavy compression in the 2.0 mixes, when I listen to the "Light" and "Dark mixes" -each on their own-they both please me for their unique characteristics, pointed out by Ian. I acclimate to the energy level and spectral differences but think that these mixes will play reliably in hostile noise environments, meanwhile the Atmos mix serves a very different function. This Atmos mix -on speakers provides a completely different experience than either of the stereo mixes. To my ear the Atmos mix is stunningly immersive, dimensional, and natural-from the first sound you become mesmerized by the spatiality, staging, size of the sound and it's spectral depth. Tony Levin's sound is richly deep and thick, but clear. At all listening levels this Atmos mix fills the speakers-the wider dynamic range is compelling - it draws you into the music! PG's "performative touch" is often subtle and intimate on i/o. His lyric's are metaphoric and stimulate individual contemplation, so perhaps heavy compression and resultant "masking" could even undermine a deeper exploration of dimension, detail, and touch, with repeated listens. I like the bigger dynamic range of Atmos because there is more nuance to explore with repeated listens. I just want to keep coming back to see what more I can find. Thanks Ian.
Thanks for the detailed comments, and glad you liked the video ! I can imagine exactly what you're talking about with the Atmos - although personally I tried Apple's personalised HRTF and didn't really like the tonal changes. Interestingly this is one of the first Atmos mixes where head-tracking gives really interesting results, presumably because there is some adventurous panning going on. I need to figure out a way to get a 7.1.4 system up and running... ! 🤔
@@ProductionAdvice Ian-As we are just meeting this way I hope this does not appear awkward, but I may be able to help you in your quest for an affordable premium Atmos room. I'm in Toronto and have just authored a peer reviewed philosophy and benchmark for a novel size of Dolby Atmos room, a Hyper Near-Field Tiny Studio (HN-FTS). The convention will be published in Feb 2024 by Routledge/Focal press in proceedings from the Innovation in Music conference-Stockholm-2022. I started the research, design/build in Spring of 2020 and the room has now been tested with SMAART 2X. It's beautifully passing all Dolby criteria for SPL, dimensional separation and spectre. The phase between Center and Sub is as good as can be-verified by SMAART. The room is tonally balanced, a term Floyd Toole regards as the primary goal for all speakers and rooms and as such the tonal differences you describe between each i/o mix is easily confirmed in this room. The Dolby tuner (Ed Segerin) is highly experienced and he declared the room to be better than any larger size Atmos room he has ever tested. The measurements astonished us and PGs i/o sounds delicious in it. I really think this PG recording sets a new gold standard for Atmos mixers worldwide-of course Morten Lindberg (2L) is in a class all to his own. If you want to know more about the HN-FTS, I invite you to connect with me directly. Merging Technologies, Sonarworks, PSB speakers and Bryston power amps are involved in this project. Avid and Dolby are aware of it and soon I'll deliver the empirical SMAART test results to my Dolby Rep. The best part is that this room costs 1/3rd of a listed Dolby Atmos near-Field room. I believe that the Dolby Atmos Hyper Near-Field Tiny Studio is the way forward for us independent professionals who can not even think about spending 175 to 200 K on an Atmos room that will list with Dolby. If you go to one of my websites (below) you can contact me directly via email. All the best-Paul www.audioproducers.com/ www.paulnovotnymusic.com/ www.merging.com/news/use-cases/paul-novotny--tiny-studio-toronto--ca headlinermagazine.net/audio-producers-paul-novotny-immersive-audio-tiny-studios.html
Interesting examination of the mixes and much appreciated. From a purely subjective point of view, I have to say it works out like this: The Bright-Side mixes work on individual songs but add up to an album that feels like a mix tape while the Dark-Side mixes add up to a coherent listening experience as an album. It's difficult to pin down exactly why that is, but the best I can come up with is that the Dark-Side mixes force the songs into a common musical vocabulary while the Bright-Side lets the arrangements go off wherever they want with all manner of overdubs and extra instrument parts included. Obviously, your mileage may vary.
I don't necessarily disagree with that (although I think "mix tape" is a bit harsh !) but having listened to the whole album since Christmas I actually prefer the Bright Side, precisely because of the extra variety, light & shade 👍 I also find the distortion of the Dark Side gets annoying after a few songs 😕
@@ProductionAdvice It's nice to see more people speak up in favour of the Bright Side mix. I found it more varied and musical for the reasons you said. "Love Can Heal" is particularly superior in the Bright Side version imho; much more atmospheric, sensitive, deep and moving with how the running background parts are balanced.
OK, I figured out the Peter Gabriel: the Both-Sides mix. Bright in left channel and Dark in right. Road to Joy takes a little extra to sync, but it's worth it for the headphones experience.
I think this is the consequence of having a binaural foldown listened on a stereo playback. Great part of the reverb is surely placed in the side and rear areas, I guess the front channels would be more dry and close to the stereo mix. In a surround / Atmos setup it would sound less mushy, I imagine. For s better result on stereo a manual foldup could be necessary.
I really prefer the in-side mixes, it's closer of what's going out the studio before mastering, it's less "commercial", less smoothed, in fact, it's very closer to we try to do in our home studios when mixing and mastering ;)
Nice video! I feel the same about the mixes as You, Ian. For me the Dark Side is strictly based on clarity and impact of transients, while the Bright Side delivers some more harmonic information and warmth, which I personally like, too. But when it comes to the different parts of the song I sometimes feel a merge of both would be fine and some "real" dynamics would suit the musical idea behind it. Apart from the fact that the titles between dark and bright side should be changed. .-), each version has its own charme for me. Comparing with the binaural version I tend to say that I like the dynamics in it very much :-). Soundwise for me its still a lack of good stereo quality in the binaural version and I would prefer to listen to it as it is meant, as an immersive production on headphones or in a good speaker setup.
Thanks Michael, I agree on almost every point - except I think maybe the "Dark" and "Bright" names are meant to be more about the mood than the sound, perhaps. I know what you mean, though !
You mentioned that word that defines music Ian - "taste" and so there is no right or wrong answer but you asked for our choices so here's mine. Overall my favourite is the Dark Side because it appeals to the EQ/Clarity that I like. What really disappoints me though is the Binaural Mix - if that had been sent to me I would not have approved it because to my taste it's lifeless and dull on my headphones. Maybe on a multi speaker system it could sound great but not translating for me here. Great to see Peter still making innovative music choices after all these years.
Thanks Bob - and yes I agree, the binaural is a little underwhelming in this case, even with the improved dynamics. Maybe because the mix wasn't made with the same focus on balancing against the stereo version, as I mention in the video ? I imagine it's great on a full rig, though.
Fwiw I've been told that the Dolby binaural (as heard on TIDAL & Amazon) has better EQ balance than the Apple Spatial render, which is what I used for this comparison, but I haven't had a chance to check it out, yet
Inside Mix for the win. I love that by default Apple/Dolby requires a higher dynamic range for spatial (Atmos) mixes than their stereo counterparts, which is a big win to me.
What a fascinating video. It's really interesting to compare the different sounds. I actually like none of them, really. The binaural (Atmos) mix has much better dynamics, which is good, but the music comes over as rather lifeless. There's very little bite to it. The other two are much more compressed, as you can see from the waveforms on the screen, which I don't like so much. The Bright-Side has too much midrange and not enough top and bottom end for me, whilst the Dark-Side has too much top and bottom end and not enough midrange. What we seem to have here are two extreme views of the track, when what is really needed is a balanced take on it (with some more dynamic range!). Perhaps this is what Peter Gabriel intended, but I think it's interesting thinking about it from the perspective of 'I can't decide, so I'll release both', when really what we needed was one great mix. If I'm really honest, there are parts of the album I like, but I think it's dominated by too many slow, dare I say ballad type songs, and I think it shows that he took 20 years over this. It would have been much better in many ways to say let's do the whole thing in 3 months. It was Peter Gabriel, after all, who said that artists become creative when you impose restrictions on them (I cite the 'no cymbals' third album here).
Overall Dark side hits better for me since I got the cds Inside mix is like mono to me. Love them all. I typically listen to any music with High bass and high treble and moderate Midrange.
Dark Side 🥷 I thought that you had mixed up the dark side and bright side. The bright side sounds muffled and darker in comparison, and the dark side sounds brighter, livelier, with more stereo depth and clear. Atmos mixes just can't be appreciated on UA-cam, and I agree with your opinion on it.
Great vid and comparisons, I think the bright and atmos are more sonically similar, the atmos lacks a bit of grunt, the vocals are really the only thing superrior for me on the bright side, the rest of this mix is a bit like his beatle attempt (but better than that), the dark has more overall feel and groove for me, but the vocals are average. The atmos, don't think it really translates well on here.
Dark Side Mix for me. Drums and especially the bass sound more defined and upfront in general. Also sounds more organic/analog to my ears (if that makes any sense)
Probably the different choices make the preference different for each song, but in most cases I find the Bright side mixes vastly superior. Perhaps this song specifically is not one of those cases.
... bought the cd album with the bright side + dark side . to my ears there are some saturated distortion , harsh , crunchy in the bass + drums ... .. .
Bright Side sounds more pleasant to me, overall. Dolby Atmos, while more dynamic, sounds overly 'thick'. I think both Dark and Bright have been pushed a bit to hard and could benefit from less compression/limiting in my humble opinion. (I can't belive I'm critiquing Peter Gabriel's work. Who the hell am I? LOL ) Not to be nitpicky, but you are actually comparing masters not mixes. I wonder how much 'colour' the mastering has added. And was each track mastered by a different engineer in different studios? Hearing mixes before mastering would be interesting too!
This idea gives the album a lot more shelf life I think, if you listen to "US" today, 30 years later, it does feel a bit tiresome. Fortunately there are different mixes of 4 those songs too, steam, digging in the dirt, blood of eden, and kiss that frog.
For me Dark side wins almost every time. The bright side is close, but loses out on some dynamism, the binaural is a distance behind those two for me as it sounds dull and lifeless.
You should really do a whole different video about the trend that Atmos mixes tend to be a lot more dynamic than regular stereo mixes. Archimago made a blogpost about this not to long ago stating that it's quite clear that all Atmos mixes gets way less compression. I'd say that this is bad, annoying and most of all stupid. This is probably because they want to sell Atmos as being this shiny, new and awesome technology that sounds so much better than whatever we had before, when in fact it's just a difference in mastering, ie nothing that a dank old MP3 shouldn't be able to handle.
I think it's because of lack of "bus compression" unless you route it to bed to use an compressor. You can't do that if you route your audio tracks to object.
Immersive mixes shouldn't be compared to stereo, and shouldn't be listened to in stereo even with a binaural mix down. They aren't as compressed because there's no reason to shove dozens of instruments into two speakers. Instead they're spread out over dozens of 3d objects, then the "mix" occurs during playback based on the amount of speakers you have.
I like the bright side mixes 1000 times more. Theyre ok, not really a fan of them either but for me the dark side mixes are almost unlistenable. It sounds so plastic and fake widened, and the drums dont even sound real.
the CD mastering of the Bright and Dark side is terrible, an insult to anyone wanting to enjoy the new PG opera on a decent quality stereo system: LUFS are to the roof (on average -9 ~ -8 dB), clipping, distortion, compression ... any artistic merit of the two mixes is killed by such a bad CD mastering. The BD 7.1 version has a much cleaner sound: a decent stereo downmix yields a ~ -17 dB LUFS version which is definitely more pleasant to listen to, with more delicate sounds, dynamics, details and no distortion at all; but the in-side mix is conceived for an immersive listening and the stereo down mix has some odd moments. I'm really disappointed by the way PG (or someone above him) decided to do the CD mastering like it's 2005 and he has to win the loudness war.
This has never happened on Peter Gabriel's releases. It is completely unclear what happened and how this could even have been allowed to happen?! Didn't anyone check after mastering? I just don't believe this could happen. But listening to the CD is completely unbearable.
I was set to purchase the double cd (how I collect albums) until I started seeing similar comments on other album reviews of IO. Such a shame. In UK The Blu ray is packaged with the 2 CDs for around £20.
@@andrewbrazier9664 with the CD versions you get a worse experience than listening on streaming. Why ? CD's are meant for collectors, music lovers who like to listen to their music with higher quality and with their beloved hi-fi equipment. What you get instead are two mixes which are suitable to be listened to with headphones on the go or as background music at low volume. Any serious listening session is really disappointing.
Please don't confuse the binaural mix with the Atmos mix. The binaural version is a down-mix of the Atmos version, and the technology to capture the nuances of a full Atmos mix in binaural is just not there yet. In fact, a good Atmos mix will always (in my opinion) be more that a slavish attempt to duplicate the stereo mix. You can make an Atmos mix that is stereo+, but the exciting part is that the Atmos mix (with Peter Gabriel's blessing apparently), is a more a re-imagining of the song.
Yeah I'll second this - often Atmos mixes are made as "stereo plus" to make the differences between the stereo & Atmos versions as small as possible - but in this case the Atmos version is entirely it's own animal. I wish the extra dynamics made more of a difference, but perhaps that just tells us that we haven't lost out _too_ much in the (very loud) stereo versions.
@@ProductionAdvice Of course I have checked out the whole album. On vinyl they sell each different mix. My cash-grab quote has nothing to do with the bad song writing. Gabriel lost it long time ago, silly fanboy. 😂
Generally a Dark Side fan so far, but Bright Side really shines with some of the takes.
The kicker is that one of the best parts of PG's music is the percussion, and sometimes Bright Side buries that...and hiding a Tony Levin bassline ought to be a crime.
To my ears, the Bright Side version is generally more pleasant to listen to, and sounds balanced in terms of frequencies and tonality. The Dark Side version sounds more harsh, aggressive and sometimes a bit crunchy. The Atmos Binaural Rendered version lacks clarity, sounds muddy...
It is the opposite. It is the bright that sounds harsh. You need either new ears or new speakers, especially how you explain your Atmos experience. 😂
I agree with you. I don't understand the greater general warmth to the dark side mixes - the bright side ones are usually easier on the ears as you said. "Love Can Heal" is especially better in the Bright Side version - much more atmospheric and rich imo.
I like the dark-side instrumental, the bright-side vocals and the feeling of space in the binaural mix. Releasing different mixes of the same album is a very interesting concept.
It's interesting, but I hate it. It's like there's no definitive version of any song. I don't like that.
It is a fun concept... for this one album. Peter has routinely remixed/re-recorded songs in the past which makes a whole album mixed three different ways after a 20 year wait amusing, but boy do I hope this doesn't catch on as a trend.
Great comparison. Thank you - Before watching the video I liked the Bright mix better, now I am not so sure.. I have to pay more attention when listening to other songs to see if the Dark is the one to go for the vinyl purchase.
This is an awesome analysis thanks. Like you said, the Dark side feels grittier and more aggressive to me. I think I am generally more a fan of the Dark Side mixes. It sounds more like classic Peter Gabriel to me, like something that might have been on Us or So.
Thanks, glad you found it interesting !
Your video is exactly what I was looking for. Very interesting, thank you for the explanation.
Pleasure, glad it was useful !
Amusing how the dark side mix is much brighter than the bright side!
And that Tchad Blake's mix *isn't* the binaural one
i think exactrly the same. the sound is more open
Thanks Ian - excellent. that's helped my dilemma (or has it (LoL)). Got the new 4xLP 2xCD 1xbluray box yesterday. Don't have a bluray player (or CD for that matter). The LP's on both main mixes sound amazing but because of vinyl limitations, track listing is a wee bit different. Good call when streaming to create an encompassing playlist - cheers.
This was really helpful to determine which mix I would like to keep, rather than all of them, which can be confusing
Excellent video. Well done! Regardless of one's favourite version-and there are obvious marked differences between all three-, I find that my ears always are very 'grateful' when getting better dynamic range, and your excellent video proves this on more time.
I know exactly what you mean, but for this song at least I’m not sure it’s enough to be the deciding factor for me (which it often is). I’m looking forward to hearing the rest of the album
Very nice! Thanks for taking the time to do this.
It still puzzles me a little why PG done this. Ok, more to listen to, but what was his purpose... Imagine that more artists start doing this... I need more time!! ;)
But I like it and i'm fascinated. I thought I liked the Bright Side more, but this video changed my preference to the Dark Side, at least on this song.
It's gonna be a hard job to compare all the mixes and make my own list of preferred versions, I want to do that one of these days.
Yeah this was a fun experiment but I’m not sure I’d want it for every album 🤔
@@ProductionAdvice 😄 That is exactly what I mean
Now to get quite personal ...
One of the albums I really enjoyed listening to as a kid was Mike Oldfield's Tubular Bells. (And I was already quite an informed and experienced listener to music thanks to my parents's records, what I heard on the radio and what I watched on MTV.). When I was a teenager, I got it on CD and I noticed how "different" it sounded. I would confirm many years later that what I was listening to as a kid was a later reissue (1981 through Epic) that used the 1975 *quadrophonic* mix folded down to stereo but without any matrix encoding as "bring it back to stereo". As a result, listening to the 1973 stereo mix that was initially issued by Virgin is really different for me, whilst by all accounts should be seen as the "definitive" version. In hearing some other takes done over the years such as Mike Oldfield's own re-recording of it for 2003 and a 50th anniversary mix (done by David Kosten for both Atmos and stereo), I really want to make my own mix that will satisfy my own sensibilities.
I bring this up because that experience made it very clear that if I were to be involved in making my own music - and I was interested in doing this when I was a kid - I need to be involved in the entire process, especially when it comes to mixing and mastering. As you can certainly understand, people who work on music start out as music listeners. Because of this, I think this is why you make music you would like to hear yourself. Yes, you work with various individuals to make that happen. But if your name is going to be attached to it, it means you agree to this: right, wrong, indifferent. So it makes sense that you would, at the very least, give that approval seal to a mix and to a master.
Going back to PG ... he's always been interested in presentations and various conceptual schemes. Consider the "Scratch My Back / And I'll Scratch Yours" setup where he would cover various artists and in turn they will cover one of his. It was not a complete one-to-one as some artists would drop out of the project, namely Neil Young, Ray Davies and Radiohead. The latter withdrew from the project after not liking what he did with "Street Spirit (Fade Out)" (apparently they would have covered "Wallflower"). But it demonstrates that he likes possibilities and ways of creating more instead of less. (This is largely why he took his sweet time in making the "follow-up to ... well, Up" ;) =] ). So having a "Bright"/"Dark" mix scheme works. It was probably one of those "I call it that based on initial instinct" and then, like the mutual musical back-scratching, probably ended up something different than what was initially conceived. Yet, it's incredibly admirable for him to stick to it, present it as it is and allowing the listener to experience them for themselves, instead of imposing one vision on everyone. If you think about it, sometimes you want vanilla ice creams, other times chocolate, other times something else entirely =]
And finally ... it's refreshing to hear that there is a difference between listening to music critically and listening to music simply. For my own work, I can be quite harsh about what I do and work to make sure there is no stone unturned. But in the end, I want to be able to listen to what I have done and simply enjoy it ... just like everybody else does.
Happy listening and cheers =]
Thanks, glad you liked it !
@@ProductionAdviceUpdate: I finally got the 2xCD+Blu set. In general, I would describe the Bright as an in-your-face pop album and the Dark as an introspective arty album. The In-Side is neither Bright nor Dark, but rather just takes advantage of the immersive sound field and having another pair of ears listening to all the elements in a new space. This is not surprising given the individuals involved: Mark "Spike" Stent for Bright, Tchad Blake for Dark, Hans-Martin Buff for In-. All in all, I liked that PG presented us with a choice with pretty much what you stated. It reminds me of art pieces that utilize vantage points, i.e. your impression of the work will vary depending on where you stand in the room. I probably like the In-Side the most, but I do genuinely like all of them for their own particular character.
P.S. I guess if PG wants to continue his scheme, any officially issued live albums would be called "Out-Side" =D
Thanks a lot for all these explanations...very useful!!
For me, the dark side mix is almost too dry in headphones and the vocal is too up front. The bright side mix has that just-right polish for me (*referring to the song panopticon*)
Bright side mix seems a bit "safe" sounding and tame whereas Dark side mix sounds like the Peter Gabriel records I expect. Much more dynamic and keeps the interest and ear candy throughout. Nice video Ian !!
Thanks for this great A/B thing. Originally I stopped thinking about the sonic differences of the dark- and the brightside-mixes, when I realized the dark-sides just touch me in a way the bright side mixes didn't, but after watching this, it even makes sense! But imho: the inside-mixes can't be part of this comparison. I listened to some of them in a mixing studio in 7.1.4 and it was otherworldly. These mixes where never meant to be played in stereo, and Hans-Martin Buff didn't give a f. about the perception in 2.x. On cans, there's a great possibility to get the feel he was aiming for, but you didn't mention this fact, which I think is crucial.
Fair comment, although hopefully most people understand the binaural tender is intended to be listened to on headphones, which is the version I’ve used for this comparison
I love how the low end is defined on the Dark Side Mix and I like it most, at least in Panopticom. I think Spike mix works better on radio but both are remarkable mixes. Very nice move from Peter to release both mixes
Enjoyed your analysis Ian, great video.
Thanks David !
Thank you for this precious video!
My pleasure !
Very interesting! I've only listened to the Bright-Side ... side... so far. I really like the album. Can't wait to dive into the Dark-Side (mwuahahaha) ... but drastically different according to this ! Amazing.
And of course the Tchad Blake mixes are going to have more distortion in them ;) ... that's his style (and I'm a fan). :)
Awesome video and very interesting to hear those compared next to each other. As much as I love the idea about two different mixes, I still think it is a bit of a wasted opportunity. Personally I feel the differences are too subtle (at least to non super audiophile people like me😂). I was hoping that the songs would have been transformed more drastically in arrangement , instrumentation, etc; at least this was my expectation when I first heard about that concept. Now we have a product that is different if you closely compare them directly, but I would argue just a few people would guess right in a blind test.
Very interesting, thanks Ian. If I had to choose one out of the three I'd go for the Dark Side, the drums are much more present.
Excellent analysis Ian. I for one would choose a blend of all three if that was an option as none of the three mixes really do it for me
IMO-The Atmos (mix when heard on a calibrated 7.1.4 speaker system) is a tour de force. It's beautifully crafted and is quite possibly a new gold standard for the 3D Atmos music format.
This contrast/compare video is well done. It's very hard to compare a level matched 3D binaural 2.0 mix to a traditional 2D 2.0 mix as the formats and mix practices are so different. Individual HRTF profiles on headphones serve to give the binaural version it's best chance of translation for comparison. Unless you hear the binaural version optimally with profiled headphones, it's very hard to judge decisions about the binaural balance and spectre-but in this video you sure can see how much natural dynamic range exists in the music performance.
However, despite the heavy compression in the 2.0 mixes, when I listen to the "Light" and "Dark mixes" -each on their own-they both please me for their unique characteristics, pointed out by Ian. I acclimate to the energy level and spectral differences but think that these mixes will play reliably in hostile noise environments, meanwhile the Atmos mix serves a very different function.
This Atmos mix -on speakers provides a completely different experience than either of the stereo mixes. To my ear the Atmos mix is stunningly immersive, dimensional, and natural-from the first sound you become mesmerized by the spatiality, staging, size of the sound and it's spectral depth. Tony Levin's sound is richly deep and thick, but clear. At all listening levels this Atmos mix fills the speakers-the wider dynamic range is compelling - it draws you into the music!
PG's "performative touch" is often subtle and intimate on i/o. His lyric's are metaphoric and stimulate individual contemplation, so perhaps heavy compression and resultant "masking" could even undermine a deeper exploration of dimension, detail, and touch, with repeated listens. I like the bigger dynamic range of Atmos because there is more nuance to explore with repeated listens. I just want to keep coming back to see what more I can find. Thanks Ian.
Thanks for the detailed comments, and glad you liked the video ! I can imagine exactly what you're talking about with the Atmos - although personally I tried Apple's personalised HRTF and didn't really like the tonal changes.
Interestingly this is one of the first Atmos mixes where head-tracking gives really interesting results, presumably because there is some adventurous panning going on.
I need to figure out a way to get a 7.1.4 system up and running... ! 🤔
@@ProductionAdvice Ian-As we are just meeting this way I hope this does not appear awkward, but I may be able to help you in your quest for an affordable premium Atmos room.
I'm in Toronto and have just authored a peer reviewed philosophy and benchmark for a novel size of Dolby Atmos room, a Hyper Near-Field Tiny Studio (HN-FTS). The convention will be published in Feb 2024 by Routledge/Focal press in proceedings from the Innovation in Music conference-Stockholm-2022.
I started the research, design/build in Spring of 2020 and the room has now been tested with SMAART 2X. It's beautifully passing all Dolby criteria for SPL, dimensional separation and spectre. The phase between Center and Sub is as good as can be-verified by SMAART. The room is tonally balanced, a term Floyd Toole regards as the primary goal for all speakers and rooms and as such the tonal differences you describe between each i/o mix is easily confirmed in this room.
The Dolby tuner (Ed Segerin) is highly experienced and he declared the room to be better than any larger size Atmos room he has ever tested.
The measurements astonished us and PGs i/o sounds delicious in it.
I really think this PG recording sets a new gold standard for Atmos mixers worldwide-of course Morten Lindberg (2L) is in a class all to his own.
If you want to know more about the HN-FTS, I invite you to connect with me directly. Merging Technologies, Sonarworks, PSB speakers and Bryston power amps are involved in this project. Avid and Dolby are aware of it and soon I'll deliver the empirical SMAART test results to my Dolby Rep. The best part is that this room costs 1/3rd of a listed Dolby Atmos near-Field room.
I believe that the Dolby Atmos Hyper Near-Field Tiny Studio is the way forward for us independent professionals who can not even think about spending 175 to 200 K on an Atmos room that will list with Dolby. If you go to one of my websites (below) you can contact me directly via email.
All the best-Paul
www.audioproducers.com/
www.paulnovotnymusic.com/
www.merging.com/news/use-cases/paul-novotny--tiny-studio-toronto--ca
headlinermagazine.net/audio-producers-paul-novotny-immersive-audio-tiny-studios.html
Interesting examination of the mixes and much appreciated.
From a purely subjective point of view, I have to say it works out like this: The Bright-Side mixes work on individual songs but add up to an album that feels like a mix tape while the Dark-Side mixes add up to a coherent listening experience as an album. It's difficult to pin down exactly why that is, but the best I can come up with is that the Dark-Side mixes force the songs into a common musical vocabulary while the Bright-Side lets the arrangements go off wherever they want with all manner of overdubs and extra instrument parts included.
Obviously, your mileage may vary.
I don't necessarily disagree with that (although I think "mix tape" is a bit harsh !) but having listened to the whole album since Christmas I actually prefer the Bright Side, precisely because of the extra variety, light & shade 👍 I also find the distortion of the Dark Side gets annoying after a few songs 😕
@@ProductionAdvice It's nice to see more people speak up in favour of the Bright Side mix. I found it more varied and musical for the reasons you said. "Love Can Heal" is particularly superior in the Bright Side version imho; much more atmospheric, sensitive, deep and moving with how the running background parts are balanced.
OK, I figured out the Peter Gabriel: the Both-Sides mix. Bright in left channel and Dark in right. Road to Joy takes a little extra to sync, but it's worth it for the headphones experience.
😯😂
The extra thirty seconds of "Live and Let Live" in only the right, is a bit of a distraction, but one must suffer for art. @@ProductionAdvice
Would love a full album comparison, I really like the dynamics of the Atmos mix.
Sounds like fun but I'm not sure I'll have time to do that, sorry !
Great video! I like this comparison a lot. As an atmos enthusiast i am a bit disappointed by the mushy and soft mix.
I think this is the consequence of having a binaural foldown listened on a stereo playback.
Great part of the reverb is surely placed in the side and rear areas, I guess the front channels would be more dry and close to the stereo mix.
In a surround / Atmos setup it would sound less mushy, I imagine. For s better result on stereo a manual foldup could be necessary.
I really prefer the in-side mixes, it's closer of what's going out the studio before mastering, it's less "commercial", less smoothed, in fact, it's very closer to we try to do in our home studios when mixing and mastering ;)
Fantastic video, thank you!
Nice video! I feel the same about the mixes as You, Ian. For me the Dark Side is strictly based on clarity and impact of transients, while the Bright Side delivers some more harmonic information and warmth, which I personally like, too. But when it comes to the different parts of the song I sometimes feel a merge of both would be fine and some "real" dynamics would suit the musical idea behind it. Apart from the fact that the titles between dark and bright side should be changed. .-), each version has its own charme for me. Comparing with the binaural version I tend to say that I like the dynamics in it very much :-). Soundwise for me its still a lack of good stereo quality in the binaural version and I would prefer to listen to it as it is meant, as an immersive production on headphones or in a good speaker setup.
Thanks Michael, I agree on almost every point - except I think maybe the "Dark" and "Bright" names are meant to be more about the mood than the sound, perhaps. I know what you mean, though !
You mentioned that word that defines music Ian - "taste" and so there is no right or wrong answer but you asked for our choices so here's mine. Overall my favourite is the Dark Side because it appeals to the EQ/Clarity that I like. What really disappoints me though is the Binaural Mix - if that had been sent to me I would not have approved it because to my taste it's lifeless and dull on my headphones. Maybe on a multi speaker system it could sound great but not translating for me here. Great to see Peter still making innovative music choices after all these years.
Thanks Bob - and yes I agree, the binaural is a little underwhelming in this case, even with the improved dynamics. Maybe because the mix wasn't made with the same focus on balancing against the stereo version, as I mention in the video ? I imagine it's great on a full rig, though.
Fwiw I've been told that the Dolby binaural (as heard on TIDAL & Amazon) has better EQ balance than the Apple Spatial render, which is what I used for this comparison, but I haven't had a chance to check it out, yet
I love having two mixes, whenever i don't feel like listen to one, i listen the other, hahaahah
Inside Mix for the win. I love that by default Apple/Dolby requires a higher dynamic range for spatial (Atmos) mixes than their stereo counterparts, which is a big win to me.
What a fascinating video. It's really interesting to compare the different sounds. I actually like none of them, really. The binaural (Atmos) mix has much better dynamics, which is good, but the music comes over as rather lifeless. There's very little bite to it. The other two are much more compressed, as you can see from the waveforms on the screen, which I don't like so much. The Bright-Side has too much midrange and not enough top and bottom end for me, whilst the Dark-Side has too much top and bottom end and not enough midrange. What we seem to have here are two extreme views of the track, when what is really needed is a balanced take on it (with some more dynamic range!). Perhaps this is what Peter Gabriel intended, but I think it's interesting thinking about it from the perspective of 'I can't decide, so I'll release both', when really what we needed was one great mix. If I'm really honest, there are parts of the album I like, but I think it's dominated by too many slow, dare I say ballad type songs, and I think it shows that he took 20 years over this. It would have been much better in many ways to say let's do the whole thing in 3 months. It was Peter Gabriel, after all, who said that artists become creative when you impose restrictions on them (I cite the 'no cymbals' third album here).
Overall Dark side hits better for me since I got the cds Inside mix is like mono to me. Love them all. I typically listen to any music with High bass and high treble and moderate Midrange.
Dark Side 🥷 I thought that you had mixed up the dark side and bright side. The bright side sounds muffled and darker in comparison, and the dark side sounds brighter, livelier, with more stereo depth and clear. Atmos mixes just can't be appreciated on UA-cam, and I agree with your opinion on it.
Struggling to find the Atmos version. Is it another Apple deal?
It’s on Apple Music, yes, but also Amazon Music I think - search for In-Side mix
There's also a version of the album which has all three versions on disc (with the immersive mixes on a bluray).
Bright side is on some songs sonically quite pleasing, emontonial connection with the dark side mixes is generally higher for me.
How are you getting lossless files of the binaural stereo mix?
They aren’t really lossless, I’m just capturing the binaural render of the lossy stream from Apple Music in a WAV file
Great vid and comparisons, I think the bright and atmos are more sonically similar, the atmos lacks a bit of grunt, the vocals are really the only thing superrior for me on the bright side, the rest of this mix is a bit like his beatle attempt (but better than that), the dark has more overall feel and groove for me, but the vocals are average. The atmos, don't think it really translates well on here.
Do the vinyl releases have more dynamics, or were they cut from the same masters ?
Apparently they used the same source
I heard that Apple Music is gonna provide higher royalties for songs with Dolby Atmos Spatial Audio.
I've heard that too...
Sounds to me like you should play them all at once, then adjust the mix to taste.
😂
Dark Side Mix for me. Drums and especially the bass sound more defined and upfront in general. Also sounds more organic/analog to my ears (if that makes any sense)
Probably the different choices make the preference different for each song, but in most cases I find the Bright side mixes vastly superior. Perhaps this song specifically is not one of those cases.
... bought the cd album with the bright side + dark side . to my ears there are some saturated distortion , harsh , crunchy in the bass + drums ... .. .
The Dark Side gives me the urge to have cookies. 😏
I like Dark Side, More Punch,Clarity and Deep to Me, Bright Side too Hash.
Bright Side sounds more pleasant to me, overall. Dolby Atmos, while more dynamic, sounds overly 'thick'. I think both Dark and Bright have been pushed a bit to hard and could benefit from less compression/limiting in my humble opinion. (I can't belive I'm critiquing Peter Gabriel's work. Who the hell am I? LOL ) Not to be nitpicky, but you are actually comparing masters not mixes. I wonder how much 'colour' the mastering has added. And was each track mastered by a different engineer in different studios? Hearing mixes before mastering would be interesting too!
This idea gives the album a lot more shelf life I think, if you listen to "US" today, 30 years later, it does feel a bit tiresome. Fortunately there are different mixes of 4 those songs too, steam, digging in the dirt, blood of eden, and kiss that frog.
For me Dark side wins almost every time. The bright side is close, but loses out on some dynamism, the binaural is a distance behind those two for me as it sounds dull and lifeless.
I wouldn't go that far, but I agree the binaural isn't as impressive as I hoped, for this song at least
Good album but releasing two mixes that are only slightly different EQ tweaks was a swing and a miss.
Chad nailed it.
Why not a Dynamic Side Mix ? 😂🤣🎶🎵
The binaural. It is just my auditory system lighting up. It is the most dynamic. It is what I like. ❤
You should really do a whole different video about the trend that Atmos mixes tend to be a lot more dynamic than regular stereo mixes. Archimago made a blogpost about this not to long ago stating that it's quite clear that all Atmos mixes gets way less compression. I'd say that this is bad, annoying and most of all stupid. This is probably because they want to sell Atmos as being this shiny, new and awesome technology that sounds so much better than whatever we had before, when in fact it's just a difference in mastering, ie nothing that a dank old MP3 shouldn't be able to handle.
You mean like this one ? 😛
ua-cam.com/video/2cVLKNfbU9Q/v-deo.htmlsi=0zAgAnL5xdrpSrHl
I think it's because of lack of "bus compression" unless you route it to bed to use an compressor. You can't do that if you route your audio tracks to object.
To be fair, you can find dynamic mix in stereo though.
@@ProductionAdvice Ah wow, seems like I missed that one, very well then :)
Immersive mixes shouldn't be compared to stereo, and shouldn't be listened to in stereo even with a binaural mix down. They aren't as compressed because there's no reason to shove dozens of instruments into two speakers. Instead they're spread out over dozens of 3d objects, then the "mix" occurs during playback based on the amount of speakers you have.
I like the bright side mixes 1000 times more. Theyre ok, not really a fan of them either but for me the dark side mixes are almost unlistenable. It sounds so plastic and fake widened, and the drums dont even sound real.
the CD mastering of the Bright and Dark side is terrible, an insult to anyone wanting to enjoy the new PG opera on a decent quality stereo system: LUFS are to the roof (on average -9 ~ -8 dB), clipping, distortion, compression ... any artistic merit of the two mixes is killed by such a bad CD mastering. The BD 7.1 version has a much cleaner sound: a decent stereo downmix yields a ~ -17 dB LUFS version which is definitely more pleasant to listen to, with more delicate sounds, dynamics, details and no distortion at all; but the in-side mix is conceived for an immersive listening and the stereo down mix has some odd moments. I'm really disappointed by the way PG (or someone above him) decided to do the CD mastering like it's 2005 and he has to win the loudness war.
Dan Worrall won the loudness war anyway
I'm very confident that the loudness decisions were made at the mixing stage, not during mastering...
This has never happened on Peter Gabriel's releases. It is completely unclear what happened and how this could even have been allowed to happen?! Didn't anyone check after mastering? I just don't believe this could happen. But listening to the CD is completely unbearable.
I was set to purchase the double cd (how I collect albums) until I started seeing similar comments on other album reviews of IO.
Such a shame. In UK The Blu ray is packaged with the 2 CDs for around £20.
@@andrewbrazier9664 with the CD versions you get a worse experience than listening on streaming. Why ? CD's are meant for collectors, music lovers who like to listen to their music with higher quality and with their beloved hi-fi equipment. What you get instead are two mixes which are suitable to be listened to with headphones on the go or as background music at low volume. Any serious listening session is really disappointing.
I don’t like the Atmos version it’s quite awful
Please don't confuse the binaural mix with the Atmos mix. The binaural version is a down-mix of the Atmos version, and the technology to capture the nuances of a full Atmos mix in binaural is just not there yet. In fact, a good Atmos mix will always (in my opinion) be more that a slavish attempt to duplicate the stereo mix. You can make an Atmos mix that is stereo+, but the exciting part is that the Atmos mix (with Peter Gabriel's blessing apparently), is a more a re-imagining of the song.
Yeah I'll second this - often Atmos mixes are made as "stereo plus" to make the differences between the stereo & Atmos versions as small as possible - but in this case the Atmos version is entirely it's own animal.
I wish the extra dynamics made more of a difference, but perhaps that just tells us that we haven't lost out _too_ much in the (very loud) stereo versions.
Atmos is a dead parrot. 🦜
Because of bad song writing / Composition, they needed three different mixes so they could cash in on the Gabriel-completists.
😂 I'm guessing you haven't actually listened to the album, right ?! Or noticed that you can get all 3 versions for £20 ?
@@ProductionAdvice Of course I have checked out the whole album. On vinyl they sell each different mix. My cash-grab quote has nothing to do with the bad song writing. Gabriel lost it long time ago, silly fanboy. 😂
@@rabarebra We’ll have to agree to disagree about that
@@ProductionAdvice Lets see if the majority agree. Then my point is valid.
@@rabarebra Your opinion is valid regardless of the majority. (Most people gave the album good reviews, even Pitchfork, for what it's worth.)