Blue Oyster Cult "Agents of Fortune" - unreleased quad mix?

[Mark Anderson]

We would all love to see photos of your copy, along with the run off vinyl numbers; also I'll happily send you $50 to purchase this one from you!

Jeff, here is a link to Discogs for that pressing, several are offered for sale

Blue Öyster Cult - Agents Of Fortune (Vinyl, US, 1976) For Sale | Discogs

 

[J. PUPSTER]

Jeff, here is a link to Discogs for that pressing, several are offered for sale

Blue Öyster Cult - Agents Of Fortune (Vinyl, US, 1976) For Sale | Discogs

Only if you can guarantee me the PCG of the true SQ variety

 

[amontass]

Thank you for the clarity. I think I recall some previous older discussion here on this odd labeled LP.

It still deserved a Discogs entry for the label variation, and to warn potential buyers that it is not a quad mixed LP.

I would not be able to sleep at night if I sold this for more than $30 on ebay.

Yes, I paid $200.00. And yes it does indeed play differently than the stereo version in SQ setting as I have already explained. My quad labeled version plays as you would expect a SQ album to play and is exciting to hear. Someone did a fine job of SQ mixing. Again, I played it against a stereo copy ( both are T pressings) on the SQ setting. The stereo copy played mostly and evenly in the front with lower back channels.

 

[amontass]

Jeff, here is a link to Discogs for that pressing, several are offered for sale

Blue Öyster Cult - Agents Of Fortune (Vinyl, US, 1976) For Sale | Discogs

I would never think of selling this one cuz I would probably never find another!

I am in my DC house right now and will not get back to my Texas house, where the record and my quad system is, for another month or so (work for NASA and go back and forth a lot). I will try to answer your question when I get back to Texas.

 

[Old Quad Guy]

In regards to a possible Quad mix: Patty Smith’s spoken part comes discreetly (for SQ that is) from the right rear speaker, then all four speakers come in with the Quad mix, when decoded by SQ.

 

[Mark Anderson]

I might have missed this on some Columbia quad titles but I cannot think of one Columbia quad that does not differ from the stereo mix. Examples like Ten Years After-A Space in time, the song I'd Love To Change The World" has extra guitars, Pink Floyd-Wish You Were Here has additional bars making the song's longer. Chicago 5-Saturday in the Park has lowered vocals. Song duration's are different. This is all from mixing the Quad at a different session than the stereo version. A rip of a quad disc and the stereo version to two channel should surely show the difference between the two when looking at the waveform. Using a decoder on any stereo recording can make some sound good in 4 channel. Even if comparing a recording to another stereo pressing. Rear channel sound can be influenced by how deep the groove is cut on that particular master lacquer. so I would differ to song times and differences in the waveform to make a determination.
The simple fact is the matrix numbers in the run out groove. Look at the Not Quad for the number of vinyl recordings that had quad labels or covers that we know are not quad.
Regarding the value of this particular record, it is really cool, that it has those unique labels and that just makes record collecting fun.

 

[quicksrt]

Columbia always had gold labels, or label stated “Quadraphonic” on their LPs, and not just a cat# prefix notation.

 

[par4ken]

Columbia always had gold labels, or label stated “Quadraphonic” on their LPs, and not just a cat# prefix notation.

This one is so interesting partly because of the red labels but it does also say quadraphonic in addition to PCQ. I'm sure that we all wish we had a copy to check out further. I would love to check the numbers in the dead wax and to play test & directly compare to the stereo version. Skeptics abound but others here (who actually have the record) seem believe that it is the real McCoy.

I would suggest looking at the record grooves as well, the double helical modulation produces a much more complex groove pattern than regular stereo does. Compared to a regular copy the difference should be visually apparent.

Could this have been some kind of stealth quad test? Remember when they were putting a few quad albums into stereo sleeves along with a letter illustrating the compatibility and explaining the advantages of SQ encoded records. Maybe they took it a step further putting copies out there (of an "unreleased" title) further disguised as regular stereo and not telling anyone, in an attempt to gauge unbiased reaction? Pure speculation on my part but it seems more likely than a misprinted label.

 

[quicksrt]

Jeff, here is a link to Discogs for that pressing, several are offered for sale

Blue Öyster Cult - Agents Of Fortune (Vinyl, US, 1976) For Sale | Discogs

Mark, I don't see any quad notion of cat# on the item you have linked. Did I misunderstand, and you intentionally linked a standard red label copy? Is there a copy in Discogs with a Q in cat#, and quadraphonic mentioned on the label? I looked and did not find it.

 

[Old Quad Guy]

Columbia always had gold labels, or label stated “Quadraphonic” on their LPs, and not just a cat# prefix notation.

That’s what my copy had, along with the standard Quadraphonic logo in white at the top center (it was not a gatefold cover). Dave Mason’s “Let It Flow” had the same logo at the top, except that it didn’t have that gold label, but the stereo label art with a SQ logo on one side of the record I had never seen before or since. It was rectangle with rounded edges and a large SQ at the bottom, with smaller lettering designating this as Quadraphonic above that. Unlike, “Agents of Fortune,” I didn’t have the stereo version to absolutely compare the two. I distinctly remember A/B the two records to make sure AOF was Quad by playing “Don’t Fear the Reaper.” I was 17 at the time.

This is the last post that I care to mention the subject. It’s a bit painful for me. At best, at this point, I feel like the drunk at the end of the bar that claims they once had a million dollars, or worse yet, say it was Quad, but that I sold it and it’s now irreplaceable. I can’t tell you how many hours of my life I’ve wasted trying to track it down on eBay. Over the years I’ve seen more than a few Promotional copies of the stereo version. Some with White labels with black lettering, similar to stereos version.

My only intention in January 2007 was to put the two titles on people’s radar. But now, because things can be faked these days, we would hate to see fake copies of something out there. If I had bought this record, that would have been the first thing to check out. I didn’t buy this, I’m skeptical. But if the label is real, then it’s a curiosity record to collect and maybe, possibly prima facie evidence that a Quad version was considered. Or someone was drunk at the printing plant in the 1970s. If this is actually Quad, nothing would make me happier.

You would think by now because DV or other labels with deep connections with Sony/CBS to release back catalog material that we would be able to find out what’s in their vaults.

Bottom line: Buyer beware. If someone says it’s Quad and it looks like a Unicorn, have them provide a small sound sample so you can decode it before buying anything.

 

[Mark Anderson]

Mark, I don't see any quad notion of cat# on the item you have linked. Did I misunderstand, and you intentionally linked a standard red label copy? Is there a copy in Discogs with a Q in cat#, and quadraphonic mentioned on the label? I looked and did not find it.

The discogs link is to the matrix number in the run out groove. Discogs has been consolidating runout groove numbers into one listing. So there are others pressings on that page and who knows what photo was used and from what pressing.

 

[quicksrt]

The discogs link is to the matrix number in the run out groove. Discogs has been consolidating runout groove numbers into one listing. So there are others pressings on that page and who knows what photo was used and from what pressing.

Ok, you've matched the runouts exactly with the recent $600 pressing. But there is not an entry (yet) with this Q prefix label at Discogs. That is the problem, no one with ownership of the Q prefix will go there apparently.

 

[quicksrt]

In regards to a possible Quad mix: Patty Smith’s spoken part comes discreetly (for SQ that is) from the right rear speaker, then all four speakers come in with the Quad mix, when decoded by SQ.

(I think) I've got a DTS conversion from the Q8, so at least I can hear this on that format.

 

[Old Quad Guy]

(I think) I've got a DTS conversion from the Q8, so at least I can hear this on that format.

If only it had been released on Q8. But, please check it out, and let us know what you have. Thanks.

 

[quicksrt]

Oh I was thinking of T&M for a second. NO Agents in Q8.

 

[atrocity]

Pink Floyd-Wish You Were Here has additional bars making the song's longer.

And the backing singers come in with "Remember when you were young..." instead of waiting until later.

Makes me nuts that the additional bars were cut from the Blu-ray.

 

[sjcorne]

I might have missed this on some Columbia quad titles but I cannot think of one Columbia quad that does not differ from the stereo mix.

They're also usually very dry in comparison to their stereo counterparts.

 

[fredblue]

I might have missed this on some Columbia quad titles but I cannot think of one Columbia quad that does not differ from the stereo mix. Examples like Ten Years After-A Space in time, the song I'd Love To Change The World" has extra guitars, Pink Floyd-Wish You Were Here has additional bars making the song's longer. Chicago 5-Saturday in the Park has lowered vocals. Song duration's are different. This is all from mixing the Quad at a different session than the stereo version. A rip of a quad disc and the stereo version to two channel should surely show the difference between the two when looking at the waveform. Using a decoder on any stereo recording can make some sound good in 4 channel. Even if comparing a recording to another stereo pressing. Rear channel sound can be influenced by how deep the groove is cut on that particular master lacquer. so I would differ to song times and differences in the waveform to make a determination.
The simple fact is the matrix numbers in the run out groove. Look at the Not Quad for the number of vinyl recordings that had quad labels or covers that we know are not quad.
Regarding the value of this particular record, it is really cool, that it has those unique labels and that just makes record collecting fun.

you're right, even those that don't feel radically different (a couple of the later PIR Quads, MFSB's "Philadelphia Freedom" and The O'Jays "Message In The Music", mixed by Arthur Stoppe, come to mind) are still noticeably different when you compare them directly to the Stereo.

i think possibly the lone exceptions (i.e. those SQ discs that don't deviate from the Stereo LPs) may be the very very few CBS fakes, i'm thinking specifically of the late Fred Catero's 'Quads' of Santana's "Amigos" & "Festival" and Herbie Hancock's "Secrets" from '76-'77.

 

[fredblue]

That’s what my copy had, along with the standard Quadraphonic logo in white at the top center (it was not a gatefold cover). Dave Mason’s “Let It Flow” had the same logo at the top, except that it didn’t have that gold label, but the stereo label art with a SQ logo on one side of the record I had never seen before or since. It was rectangle with rounded edges and a large SQ at the bottom, with smaller lettering designating this as Quadraphonic above that. Unlike, “Agents of Fortune,” I didn’t have the stereo version to absolutely compare the two. I distinctly remember A/B the two records to make sure AOF was Quad by playing “Don’t Fear the Reaper.” I was 17 at the time.

This is the last post that I care to mention the subject. It’s a bit painful for me. At best, at this point, I feel like the drunk at the end of the bar that claims they once had a million dollars, or worse yet, say it was Quad, but that I sold it and it’s now irreplaceable. I can’t tell you how many hours of my life I’ve wasted trying to track it down on eBay. Over the years I’ve seen more than a few Promotional copies of the stereo version. Some with White labels with black lettering, similar to stereos version.

My only intention in January 2007 was to put the two titles on people’s radar. But now, because things can be faked these days, we would hate to see fake copies of something out there. If I had bought this record, that would have been the first thing to check out. I didn’t buy this, I’m skeptical. But if the label is real, then it’s a curiosity record to collect and maybe, possibly prima facie evidence that a Quad version was considered. Or someone was drunk at the printing plant in the 1970s. If this is actually Quad, nothing would make me happier.

You would think by now because DV or other labels with deep connections with Sony/CBS to release back catalog material that we would be able to find out what’s in their vaults.

Bottom line: Buyer beware. If someone says it’s Quad and it looks like a Unicorn, have them provide a small sound sample so you can decode it before buying anything.

wow i think i'd love to hear "Let It Flow" in Quad even more than "Agents Of Fortune".. and that's saying something! (baby pleeeease!!)

two of the other Dave Mason albums that were mixed in Quad are quite different from their Stereo counterparts ("It's Like You Never Left", "Split Coconut") only the eponymous one is harder to tell the Quad in SQ apart from the Stereo but you could mainly spot the difference on tracks with more/less reverb (Stereo wetter than the SQ).

don't beat yourself up about it all, let it go, let it flow and someday it'll re-emerge and the Quad will flow again!

 

[par4ken]

They're also usually very dry in comparison to their stereo counterparts.

I've always felt that the reverse is true. Quad mixes are usually wetter than their stereo counterparts. They give a much richer sound when played via stereo than the stereo record does! Off the top of my head I can't even think of an exception to that "rule".