You mean the crummy issue you heard. The CD-4 and quad reel sound wonderful.
DVD/DTS Poll Black Sabbath - Paranoid [DTS/DD DVD+2CD]
- Thread starter Bob Romano
- Start date
Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:
You mean the crummy issue you heard. The CD-4 and quad reel sound wonderful.
Plan9
800 Club - QQ All-Star
Well, of course, this thread is for the DVD.
I know, but you said "the quad mix" which made me wonder, rather than "the quad mix as it sounds here".
EB, this Poll is for an absolute shambles of a Sanctuary Deluxe Edition of Paranoid from about 7/8 years ago (?), which had the Quad mix on a DVD-V, in sound quality which can only be described in one word.
FUCKINDIABOLICALKISSMYASSITSLIKEFINGERNAILSDOWNACHALKBOARDCAPTUREDATTHEBOTTOMOFTHEOCEANBYAMICROPHONESMOTHEREDWITHAPILLOWANDTHERESULTSRRECORDEDONAFLEXIDISCTTHATSTHENBEENDRAGGEDROUNDTHEFLOORFEDTOTHEDOG
SHATOUTINTHEMIDDLEOFTHEROADANDRUNOVERBYATENTON
TRUCKANDTHENAUTHOREDTOLOSSYDVD-V.
Well, the mix I have has been packaged on to a DVD (I burned an ISO), so I wondered if it were a rip of this release. I'm guessing no, based on some abysmal ratings.
Hmm.. I doubt you'd love something I hated, sound quality wise..
Were there any menu's/onscreen front end?I've had a couple conversions of it over the years, one from (I think) Quad reel (excellent) and one from Q8 (not bad).. one was a DTS CD for sure I used to play it a lot I can't remember what the other one was.. I'll have a rummage and see if I've still got the burnt discs, though I've been unlucky with recordable media and most of my old CDR's are fah-ucked now (and I lost a lot when powerbook went bye bye's.. ah well learned lesson now, backup, backup, backup and backup again.!
)Ps. This is a QQ Poll.. maybe this old Quad deserves its own discussion thread separate from the Poll if its become a hot topic again?
Well, these comments could serve as a warning for those considering buying this set. Apparently there is a rip of the reel or a quad LP. Maybe even some of the previous "7" votes on this poll were of the rip, not this release.
I agree with you.. the situation with this title is a bit of a mess.. could have all been avoided if the official release of the Quad had been any good.. and then folk wouldn't have needed to resort to transferring, decoding, demodulating, click repairing, equalising, compressing, ripping, looting, pillaging, pilfering, decapitating, mutilating, freebasing -- and burning discs, bras, hamlets, small towns and villages and Joan of Arc at the stake - and all manner of other ghastly sounding - nay unspeakable - acts ..! :yikes
Or we could always just keep it simple, avoid any unpleasantness and start a new topic on the subject.. and then one of the Mods (the lossy DVD Poll section is Bob Romano's domain, I think?) could move our last few posts with a link from here to that new thread?
Whatever toats those proverbial, collective floats!
Oh, to answer your previous question, the disc I have just displays the album cover, has the tracklisting over that. You can select a song if you want to, but the disc just fires up in 4.0 on it's own.
I saw no other options whatsoever.
Oh, to answer your previous question, the disc I have just displays the album cover, has the tracklisting over that. You can select a song if you want to, but the disc just fires up in 4.0 on it's own.
I saw no other options whatsoever.
I voted 10, come over to my house and check it out.
Was scrolling through files on my HDD and happened to come across this one. Given the overall negative reception about this release, I thought I'd take a quick look on my PC.
Absolutely love the quad mix on this. I have the CD-4 LP, this DVD, and a Q4 reel transfer.
First off, the channel separation actually isn't bad. It's nowhere near as bad as say, comparing a CBS SQ LP through an early decoder to a Q8 of the same title.
If you look at the waveforms for the DVD and the Q4 reel side-by-side you can tell it's the same mix, just less discrete, which is the telltale sign that a CD-4 LP is the source. It's especially obvious on "Planet Caravan", where the rears actually go completely silent at certain moments. Even the best CD-4 setup will always have slight amounts of crosstalk between channels.
I'm shocked they took the time to mess with CD-4 equipment (which can be very difficult to properly set-up and calibrate), and I wonder what demodulator/cartridge they used. I also wonder why they couldn't find the master tape...
To make things worse, the sound quality isn't the greatest and it's mastered much louder than the reel conversion.
"War Pigs" (Quad Reel):
"War Pigs" (DVD):
"Planet Caravan" (Quad Reel):
"Planet Caravan" (DVD):
I wouldn't call this release a total disaster. It's nice that some version of the quad mix was included in an inexpensive package, and it is far from "double-stereo", but I just don't understand why the master tape or a higher-quality source (Q8 or Q4) wasn't used. I'll give it a 5.
Absolutely love the quad mix on this. I have the CD-4 LP, this DVD, and a Q4 reel transfer.
First off, the channel separation actually isn't bad. It's nowhere near as bad as say, comparing a CBS SQ LP through an early decoder to a Q8 of the same title.
If you look at the waveforms for the DVD and the Q4 reel side-by-side you can tell it's the same mix, just less discrete, which is the telltale sign that a CD-4 LP is the source. It's especially obvious on "Planet Caravan", where the rears actually go completely silent at certain moments. Even the best CD-4 setup will always have slight amounts of crosstalk between channels.
I'm shocked they took the time to mess with CD-4 equipment (which can be very difficult to properly set-up and calibrate), and I wonder what demodulator/cartridge they used. I also wonder why they couldn't find the master tape...
To make things worse, the sound quality isn't the greatest and it's mastered much louder than the reel conversion.
"War Pigs" (Quad Reel):
"War Pigs" (DVD):
"Planet Caravan" (Quad Reel):
"Planet Caravan" (DVD):
I wouldn't call this release a total disaster. It's nice that some version of the quad mix was included in an inexpensive package, and it is far from "double-stereo", but I just don't understand why the master tape or a higher-quality source (Q8 or Q4) wasn't used. I'll give it a 5.
Last edited:
I can understand some of the disappointed consumers regarding this disc, but can't abide by the suggestion that this is a mediocre quad mix .
Apart from the rather muddy sound of the transfer this is a superb quad mix and was always one of my favourite quad mixes.
Also are we absolutely certain the source was a demodulted discrete vinyl disc ? I had an excellent and almost pops and ticks free, clean sounding pressed CD-4 copy (well ....still have it actually), haven't played it since tossing my demodulator, fwiw.
I think more likely a buggered Q4 tape copy.
And I notice the recent box with stereo mixdown from the quad or quad source.....more than likely tape.
This could also be a CD-4 disc recorded to Q4 some many years ago when that was more commonplace with era equipment .
I gave it an eight for trying . Oh maybe a little generous... but I do enjoy this vintage quad mix so that really tempers my jugdement .
it could always be better but it could also be a quad release that was never reissued and I applaude the quad effort renewed.
Apart from the rather muddy sound of the transfer this is a superb quad mix and was always one of my favourite quad mixes.
Also are we absolutely certain the source was a demodulted discrete vinyl disc ? I had an excellent and almost pops and ticks free, clean sounding pressed CD-4 copy (well ....still have it actually), haven't played it since tossing my demodulator, fwiw.
I think more likely a buggered Q4 tape copy.
And I notice the recent box with stereo mixdown from the quad or quad source.....more than likely tape.
This could also be a CD-4 disc recorded to Q4 some many years ago when that was more commonplace with era equipment .
I gave it an eight for trying . Oh maybe a little generous... but I do enjoy this vintage quad mix so that really tempers my jugdement .
it could always be better but it could also be a quad release that was never reissued and I applaude the quad effort renewed.
where's the 'visible over compression'? Doesn't look too bad at this zoom level. Is it obviously worse at higher magnification?
Yeah at that zoom it doesn't look as bad- I'll upload some more wav pics
Couldn't fit all 4 channels at this zoom.
"War Pigs"- Quad Reel:
"War Pigs"- Deluxe Edition DVD:
JediJoker
Audio Engineer/Enthusiast
Audio engineer, here. I don't see much (if any) additional compression there, mostly (or only) a change in level. You didn't loudness match before screenshotting, did you?
Nope..just ripped both sources (DVD-A ISO and DTS DVD-V) to FLAC and opened the files side-by-side.
I see now "compression" was the wrong term to use here- my point is that it's a lot louder than the conversion (which has superior separation and fidelity). I would imagine boosting the audio level so much probably didn't help an already mediocre-sounding vinyl conversion.
Seems I mixed up loudness and compression- my apologies.
Last edited:
I think there's *some* added compression, as in the old days when this was recorded, you wouldn't see so many peaks hitting the same equivalent of 'max' within one track. You'd see just one highest peak per track, typically -- as we see in the old quad reel transfer here (front right channel, near the end) .
Or should I say: I assume there's been some added compression; if it's simply been boosted in level *without* compression, to create all those peaks hitting 0dB, yikes, that would be amateurish and produce gross distortion.
Last edited:
AFaIK, there is a difference between "limiting" and "compression." I think those terms are being confused in this thread.
Limiting is what compression using a high ratio is called. They aren't fundamentally different, the names represent different degrees.
Because Black Sabbath's early music was intentionally limited in dynamic range--or so it always seemed to me--even mastering a first gen tape, stereo or quad, isn't going to yield remarkable sonics, any more than Mobile Fidelity could squeeze out of the first two Velvet Underground albums; they is what they is, short of remixing. When I first heard PARANOID in quad I was pleasantly surprised because it sounded very *natural* relative to the stereo version.
Compare the sound of this album to, say, Uriah Heep's LOOK AT YOURSELF or DEMONS AND WIZARDS, even though the latter is a rather cotton candy version of PARANOID, at least for me. It has more dynamic range but even then, part of its charm is in the inherent compression that was used on certain tracks or instruments, usually done to give them a special *feel* or sound you wouldn't normally hear.
With limiting or compression, how well or how much either is employed determines if we like what we hear or if it comes off as too loud or too shrill or whatever. Case by case sort of thing, of course. But few fans of PARANOID would argue that however the album was mixed or produced, the band early on had its own unique style and sound, some of which was theirs, some of which was their producer/sound engineer.
ED
Compare the sound of this album to, say, Uriah Heep's LOOK AT YOURSELF or DEMONS AND WIZARDS, even though the latter is a rather cotton candy version of PARANOID, at least for me. It has more dynamic range but even then, part of its charm is in the inherent compression that was used on certain tracks or instruments, usually done to give them a special *feel* or sound you wouldn't normally hear.
With limiting or compression, how well or how much either is employed determines if we like what we hear or if it comes off as too loud or too shrill or whatever. Case by case sort of thing, of course. But few fans of PARANOID would argue that however the album was mixed or produced, the band early on had its own unique style and sound, some of which was theirs, some of which was their producer/sound engineer.
ED
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
- Poll
- Sticky
- Poll
- Poll
