HiRez Poll Beck, Jeff - BLOW BY BLOW [SACD]

[fredblue]

so i realise things happen, people come and go, forget their password, pass on to another dimension, etc..

..can't help but notice another patently solid title with more ultra low "old" votes from people who haven't been by QQ in many many years, between 6 and 14 years.. one of whom was only an active member for a matter of weeks.

personally its not a problem because i now just ignore these kinds of votes!
they're not invalid as such by definition of being cast a long time ago or by people who were 5-minute wonders, its the whole package of 'old vote by someone who didn't post or vote much, wasn't around long and hasn't been back since.' it happens a lot more than i think i ever realised.

(disclaimer: i know there's the outlier thing setup so they're just kinda bullshit relics really and don't skew the Polls anyway.. but.. oh well.. back to the Blow By Blowing!

 

[Mcallister]

So I just bought the 7” Sony japan version, is the phase issue corrected on this one?

 

[marpow]

So I just bought the 7” Sony japan version, is the phase issue corrected on this one?

Analogue Productions is what you want, but nice to have both. You really have to do serious critical listening with pen and paper to tell the difference.

 

[Mcallister]

Listening now, sounds great so I cant tell.

 

[ssully]

The bass difference between uncorrected and corrected is immediately noticeable and unmistakable ...if you can quickly switch between the two (which you can if you rip the SACDs to files).

 

[ssully]

Knowing the SQ matrix, I know that there WILL be a bass difference front to back.

The bass on an SQ record MUST be at front center or it would not work on a phonograph record.

Anything that appears at front center in SQ (and also RM) will be in phase LF to RF in the front speakers and out of phase LB to RB in the back speakers. There is an odd-angle phase shift front to back in SQ.

Summing all four channels to get the bass is a mistake with any matrix system except BMX.

Blow By Blow on SACD is not an 'sq' (matrixed) recording; it's a digital transfer of the original 4-track analog masters.

The front and rear channels should not be out of phase with each other. That *will* cause cancellation, notably in the bass when there is identical bass content in front/back. If you don't believe it, rewire your rear speaker to be out of phase with the fronts, and listen to your favorite quad (without bass redirection to subwoofers)

Summing front and rear channels *for the purpose of demonstrating phase cancellation effects* is a viable experiment with this SACD.

 

[JediJoker]

Blow By Blow on SACD is not an 'sq' (matrixed) recording; it's a digital transfer of the original 4-track analog masters.

Yes, but it was mixed for SQ, so the comment was entirely germane.

 

[knifeman]

I own the Sony Japan version and knew there was an issue with it. After watching Edison's review, I immediately had to order the Analogue Productions version. The A/B comparison in his video was all I had to hear.

 

[ssully]

Analogue Productions is what you want, but nice to have both. You really have to do serious critical listening with pen and paper to tell the difference.

That's far from foolproof...you previously reported actual *mix* differences using this method (thing 'moving around' differently in the rears, for example) which simply isn't supported by what we know of the genesis of these versions -- i.e., that the 2016 AP 5.1 'quad' SACD is apparently a re-release of the 2001 Sony 5,1 'quad' SACD, with the difference being that the Sony front-rear phase difference is corrected in the AP. Such a correction would not cause audio objects to move around differently in the mix.

Another critical listener reported a big dynamic range difference between them...which turned out not to exist when measured objectively. Ears are easy to fool when 'critical listening' means changing physical discs, and when sighted biases are in play.

Evidence to date suggests the mix has not changed and even the mastering is the same -- except for the corrected F-R phase.

At this late date, the best advice I can give anyone wanting the 'right' version (closest to the original 4.0 intent) of this is :

A) If you bass manage your system
1) buy the 2016 AP or any other subsequent version where the front-rear phase difference has bene *verified* to have been corrected (by examing rips, not just listening).
2) Rip it to files, and replace the center and LFE channels with silence. Those channels are low-level, superfluous, and the LFE is probably out of phase.


B) If you don't bass manage your system but use a subwoofer (for LFE):
1) buy the AP or a subsequent phase corrected version
2) turn off the subwoofer. You thus avoid the risk (admittedly minor since the LFE is so low-level in the mix anyway) of in-room bass cancellation. The center is also very low level, but in-phase so it won't harm the other content. But if you want to really replicate the 4.0 mix, turn it off too.

C) no bass management, no subwoofer
1) buy the AP or other phase corrected version and enjoy. You aren't ever hearing LFE content anyway in your setup. Same advice for Center applies as in B above.

 

[cornwall198]

Just got both versions - no doubt here, the bass is so much better on the AP in terms of presence, oomph, and definition. Oh and the music is rather wonderful! Nice quad mix indeed.

 

[quicksrt]

This is one of those quad mixed albums that once I heard the quad mix on SACD, I never wish to hear the stereo mix again. The separation really shows off the layers of the production in a 3D way. Things do move around a bit but are never jarring.

I hope this one makes it to Apple Music in discreet surround, as it could win over lots of folks who don't know that old quad can be as great as any of the more recent 5.1 mixes.

(edit)
PS I always turn off the center and sub when playing 70s quad mixes.

 

[mrcond]

Thanks to this thread, I purchased the Analogue Productions version of the SACD from Acoustic Sounds and agree, the bass is much better (deeper) than the 2001 Sony version I have. I didn't notice an appreciable difference in anything except the lower bass, so if you have the Sony version, it is still very good to have. But with the AP version still in stock at $30 plus shipping, it seemed a no-brainer to grab one before they are gone.

 

[EricKalet]

I voted a 10 based on an incredible surround mix, very aggressive but not over the top. The sound quality is top notch, everything is very well defined and a joy to listen to. I have both the original Sony and just got the AP version, so I had reserved my vote until I had a chance to listen to both. Always enjoyed the Sony version but it always seemed to be missing the low end. Listening today to both, level matched, the original Sony is no slouch but as attested to earlier in this thread the Sony is anemic with the low end. Had I been voting just on the Sony, I would have landed at 8 or 9. The AP feels much more like a "full" version experience and the lack of bass not withstanding, might even have a more than slight edge on the Sony sonically. The AP version is certainly the one to have.

 

[bookofsaturdays]

I voted 9 for the AP version. Sonics are awesome and of course the music is classic. At times the mix sounded a little unbalanced on my system, but that might not be the fault of the SACD. I really love the use of the phantom center on this one, which I didn't hear too much of on Wired. For example, on She's A Woman you've got the talk box in the fronts and the dry guitar dead center in the rears, really cool dynamic there.
Scatterbrain is a real stunner especially with the addition of Sir George's unmistakable string arrangements.

Freeway Jam is one of my personal favorites in stereo and the quad just enhances it further. I don't own the original Sony to compare, but the bass here sounds deep and rich.

All around a fabulous effort from Analogue Productions.

 

[fredblue]

the more i think about it, the more i suspect the out of phase Rears on the original Sony MultiCh SACD may have been correct all along..

all that Centre Back panned guitar found on the AP MultiCh SACD would be a total no-no for CBS' SQ matrix-encoded Quad system and if you check out the original SQ Quad LP it more closely resembles the original Sony MultiCh SACD, the guitar work does not appear to be hard panned in the Centre Back and the Rears generally have a more diffuse quality

 

[bookofsaturdays]

the more i think about it, the more i suspect the out of phase Rears on the original Sony MultiCh SACD may have been correct all along..

all that Centre Back panned guitar found on the AP MultiCh SACD would be a total no-no for CBS' SQ matrix-encoded Quad system and if you check out the original SQ Quad LP it more closely resembles the original Sony MultiCh SACD, the guitar work does not appear to be hard panned in the Centre Back and the Rears generally have a more diffuse quality

Interesting, I know next to nothing about how matrixed quad works. Might have to track down the original Sony and see if I like it.

 

[fredblue]

Interesting, I know next to nothing about how matrixed quad works. Might have to track down the original Sony and see if I like it.

essentially there were two main room positions CBS engineers knew not to mix Quad to, since the SQ system had major issues in this regard;

1.) Room Centre.
If the same sound is mixed to all 4 channels at equal volume, it will cancel out. To get around this, CBS engineers would use diagonal pans to create a sensation of Room Centre placement.

2.) Rear Centre.
This is more of a Stereo/Mono compatibility issue than a Quad/Surround playback problem, in so much as the point directly behind the listener is out of phase in Stereo playback, causing Rear Centre information to cancel out in Mono.

 

[fredblue]

(conjecture alert!)

we don't know exactly who mixed Blow By Blow in Quad, the Quad LP doesn't give any credit. it is possible it was not mixed by one of CBS' guys, as CBS engineers almost always received a mix credit.

Geoff Emerick's sometimes mooted as doing the Quad mix and curiously his Wings Quads (on Capitol, on Q8 only, so no matrix Quad LP release) have Rear Centre mixing going on.

so there is the possibility that the Blow By Blow Quad was not mixed "by the book" (there was literally a CBS SQ mixing handbook, Geoff Emerick or whoever mixed this one may have been unaware of the SQ do's and don't's, or just not been inclined to adhere to the rules) and after the mix was delivered to CBS it was discovered the Rear Centre had Stereo-panned guitar, the Rears were (hastily?) flipped out of phase, for compatibility, for the final release. ahh..

 

[sjcorne]

so there is the possibility that the Blow By Blow Quad was not mixed "by the book" (there was literally a CBS SQ mixing handbook, Geoff Emerick or whoever mixed this one may have been unaware of the SQ do's and don't's, or just not been inclined to adhere to the rules) and after the mix was delivered to CBS it was discovered the Rear Centre had Stereo-panned guitar, the Rears were (hastily?) flipped out of phase, for compatibility, for the final release. ahh..

I don't have the SQ LP handy to check how it sounds in mono - but if you listen to just the rears on the first track from the SACD ("You Know What I Mean") summed to mono with the phase flipped on one side, the dry lead guitar signal almost completely disappears. That guitar is truly centered in the rears, I'm surprised they didn't try to artificially stereo-ize it by use of a delay (Larry Keyes did something like that with the handclaps in the rear speakers on the Isley's "The Pride" from Go For Your Guns).

 

[ssully]

the more i think about it, the more i suspect the out of phase Rears on the original Sony MultiCh SACD may have been correct all along..

All that Centre Back panned guitar found on the AP MultiCh SACD would be a total no-no for CBS' SQ matrix-encoded Quad system and if you check out the original SQ Quad LP it more closely resembles the original Sony MultiCh SACD, the guitar work does not appear to be hard panned in the Centre Back and the Rears generally have a more diffuse quality

The rears were not out of phase with each other. It would certainly affect rear image 'diffusion' if they were. They were out of phase with the fronts. Restoring phase coherence of front and rear mainly restores bass content, because that's the main thing shared between front and rear.