DKA, you are entitled to your opinion on the use of the "fake Quad/surround" term. I believe it is a valid term and can alert potential buyers to what they're getting into. I've bought many titles, especially ones that were only available as Q8's that had no Quad effect, except to slap some echo in the rears. I could have done better by synthesizing Quad from stereo. Fake.
The technique used to create the 5.1 Kind of Blue is a valid one. It is reconstituted, but certainly tasteful. Although I prefer to listen in stereo, it is well done in 5.1, considering what they had to work with. "Fake surround?" In this case, it's debatable. I heard about how they did it prior to purchasing the SACD multi, and was excited about getting it. The DualDisc is the same mix, though not advanced res. Both versions are worth owning!
What is "fake Quad or surround?" If it is not mixed for Quad or surround using multichannel masters, it is fake. It may be tasteful and might sound better than stereo, but it is still fake. A classical title where the actual concert hall or recording studio is used to create the rear channels is not fake. It is simply a multichannel recording with natural hall effect. I greatly prefer these to stereo. Having had season tickets for the Chicago Symphony under both Solti and Barenboim, I know what a live orchestra should sound like. If I'd rather have a more intimate sound, the option of switching to the 2ch layer or info is there. In the case of Quad, switching from SQ or QS to 2ch will eliminate the hall effect, without loss of program information. I rarely choose to eliminate that REAL hall effect, though the option is there.
A pop recording, which is normally assembled anyway, and has no natural rear ambience to utilize, is most definitely fake if ambience is added to create rears. It is not fake if the multichannel masters are remixed. If multiple Quad or 5.1 mixes are created over the years, they are all "real Quad or surround." Different reinterpretations by different engineers, but all very real. Kind of Blue is closer to real classical surround than to traditional "fake Quad." It is reconstituted and recreated, rather than having mikes capture the hall effect while the musicians are there. I would suspect that the flooring, acoustical tiles, etc. in the studio have been replaced since '59, so it might be subtly different. That's negligible.
Even if I know the title is "fake Quad or surround," I'll buy it. Then, I have the opportunity to judge for myself and choose fake Quad/surround or stereo. I also am a completist. Surprise? Probably not for anyone who has read my posts. Yet, I can't help but feeling ripped off when I cue up a Quad/surround title that has multichannel masters, only to find hall effect and nothing else in the rears. It smacks of being done "on the cheap." Sometimes, the ineptitude of the record labels causes the multitrack masters to become misfiled, lost or stolen. "Fake Quad" varies from pleasant to horrendous. The CD-4 of Tony Orlando's Greatest is horrendous. My vote for most awful "fake Quad" ever is the Q8 of Tapestry. I prefer any 2ch copy to this mess. Yet, the REAL 5.1 mix on the SACD multi of Tapestry is one of the best ever pop surround discs.
Kudos to CBS for a project well conceived and executed. That helps make amends for the best selling jazz album ever being available as the wrong speed for 30 years. The more we speak out against fakery and demand the real deal, where possible, the more things will be properly done. If Kind of Blue were made in the '70's as Quad, it would have been at the wrong speed and echoey "fake Quad" besides. In light of what was available, Kind of Blue was very well done.
Linda
