HiRez Poll Deep Purple - MACHINE HEAD [DVD-A]/[SACD-JAPAN]

[marpow]

OK, I'm just gonna be a normal guy here, I hope. I only have the DVD-A and have given it a 10. I absolutely love it and listen to it frequently which is more than I can say for a lot of discs. But, you guys have planted a seed in my head about the Amazon $33.00 SACD import. Even though my addiction wants me to get the SACD, I'm going to hold back, if I don't know the drums are better on the SACD then I don't know.:music

 

[4-earredwonder]

OK, I'm just gonna be a normal guy here, I hope. I only have the DVD-A and have given it a 10. I absolutely love it and listen to it frequently which is more than I can say for a lot of discs. But, you guys have planted a seed in my head about the Amazon $33.00 SACD import. Even though my addiction wants me to get the SACD, I'm going to hold back, if I don't know the drums are better on the SACD then I don't know.:music

Mark, are you referring to the SACD reissue from Warner Japan http://www.cdjapan.co.jp/product/WPCR-14166#customer-review. Same as the domestic DVD~A.

BTW, do you have the 35th Anniversary edition of Deep Purple's "Stormbringer?" The Original QUAD mix in DTS 5.1 and PCM Stereo 48/24? http://www.amazon.co.uk/Stormbringe...e:+Stormbringer+5.1+surround&tag=acleint06-21

 

[wavelength]

I have the dvd-a and I find it uninspiring. The rears are disappointing - it's pretty much a front-centric mix on my system. The fidelity is good and can be cranked but as a surround mix it comes off as boring. I find I'm not that far into the album when I'm reaching for something else to feed my surround appetite.

 

[edisonbaggins]

UK SQ LP mix fan here though!!!!

Listening now. It certainly rocks. Not sure how it compares to the SACD 5.1, as I'm on a different system. But it's powerful and discrete. I dig it.

 

[JonUrban]

If Audio Fidelity ever managed to release the U.S. quad mix that was only available on cd-4, Q8 and Q4 this whole debate on which has a better surround mix would finally be put to rest. The U.S. quad mix blows away all of the others, absolutely. Just my humble opinion though.

Remember the US Quad mix is/was available on the UK SACD whose poll is here: https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/fo...8-Deep-Purple-MACHINE-HEAD-(UK-Quad-Mix)-SACD

(NOTE: I was wrong! Please chalk this up to dead brain cells. The USA 1970's quad is in fact different thatn the EU 1970's quad, which was released on SACD in the early 00's)

 

[steelydave]

I don't think that's right is it? The UK SACD has the UK quad mix, done by Peter Mew at Abbey Road.

As far as I know the US quad mix (presumably done by Warners in LA) has never seen any legitimate digital release.

 

[fredblue]

I don't think that's right is it? The UK SACD has the UK quad mix, done by Peter Mew at Abbey Road.

As far as I know the US quad mix (presumably done by Warners in LA) has never seen any legitimate digital release.

If you have the time/inclination, Dave I would greatly appreciate some pointers on the key differences between the Warner US Quad and the EMI UK Quad, please?
(I've never heard the US Quad but will track it down if it's significantly different from the one on the SACD/40th Anniv. DVD-V..) Thanks!

 

[Philip Spinner]

As ssully said in post #50, just compare the song Lazy on the two Quad versions. The US quad of Lazy has a small guitar solo right after Jon Lords solo that is missing from all other versions including the original stereo version. Exclusive to that mix only. Jon Lord's solo is also incredible as well. When I hear that organ solo on the US quad it swooshes all around to the point of giving me goosebumps. No other version sounds like that to my ears. The US quad to my knowledge was never released on SACD. I have the SACD from years ago and it is fantastic but it is NOT the same mix as the US quad. I do listen to it often so I don't wear out my 2 Q4 tapes.

 

[ssully]

There's a lengthy discussion of the differences starting here

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/fo...Quad-Mix)-SACD&p=139783&viewfull=1#post139783

Btw it is *not* just that on some quad versions there is a new section that was never on the original stereo...it's also that part of the original stereo solo is *missing*

 

[ssully]

Quad Linda, on that thread, sorted out much of the confusion


Her three versions (as of early 2014)

1- EMI Purple UK SQ LP/German HorZu SQ LP/UK Q8/UK SACD/DVD-V and SQ encoded CD (BOTH in 40th anniv box)
UK SACD is what this thread specifically addresses. Maybe I'm a Leo & Lazy have different guitar solos from 2ch.


2- WB US CD-4 LP/US Q8/US Q4 reel


3- WB US DVD-A/Japan SACD NOT from Quad masters

It would seem #2 had never been officially released in digital form. This of course doesn't include any releases since Jan 2014, if there are any (I have not kept track).

And I'm still not sure exactly what all the diffs are between #1 (UK quad) and #2 (US quad) But looking in my drive I see that sometime since then I seem to have acquired a DTS version of the US quad. Guess it time's to compare and report.

 

[ssully]

Here's a QQ thread devoted to the US quad mix

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/showthread.php?17210

 

[ssully]

Here's what I hear now, referring to the two guitar solos on Lazy, with the original stereo mix (length 7:22, from DVD-A) as reference:

UK quad: Sourced from SACD. Length is 7:06. The second solo is edited (shorter) compared to the stereo mix. The missing part corresponds to 6:08-6:20 on the stereo mix. This is what I reported previously too.

US quad: Sourced from quad reel. Length is 7:28. Both solos are the same as stereo mix. Length difference with stereo is due to slight fadein/out length difference


The UK mix is dead to me from now on. ;>

 

[fredblue]

As ssully said in post #50, just compare the song Lazy on the two Quad versions. The US quad of Lazy has a small guitar solo right after Jon Lords solo that is missing from all other versions including the original stereo version. Exclusive to that mix only. Jon Lord's solo is also incredible as well. When I hear that organ solo on the US quad it swooshes all around to the point of giving me goosebumps. No other version sounds like that to my ears. The US quad to my knowledge was never released on SACD. I have the SACD from years ago and it is fantastic but it is NOT the same mix as the US quad. I do listen to it often so I don't wear out my 2 Q4 tapes.

That's great info, for which I am v.grateful thank you.. but as I don't own/know the US/CD-4 Quad mix I have nothing to compare the UK Quad to in this way.. ah well..

 

[ssully]

As ssully said in post #50, just compare the song Lazy on the two Quad versions. The US quad of Lazy has a small guitar solo right after Jon Lords solo that is missing from all other versions including the original stereo version. Exclusive to that mix only.

'Lazy' on the US version (from quad reels) that I have does not include any 'new' solos or segments compared to the original stereo version. Can you re-listen to yours and check?

 

[Philip Spinner]

'Lazy' on the US version (from quad reels) that I have does not include any 'new' solos or segments compared to the original stereo version. Can you re-listen to yours and check?

The guitar solo I'm talking about is not really a solo, more like a chopping sound which starts at approx. !:50 and ends at approx2:02. Sounds like chunka chunka chunka over and over. I know not a big deal but it is there and loud, you can't miss it. I don't hear it on any other version. I listened to my original lp last night and it is not on there. I don't think it's on the DVD audio as well but I'll have to check to be sure.

 

[ssully]

Oh I know what you mean now. I was confused because I thought you meant there was a new part that added length to the track.

Blackmore overdubbed guitars on the song, on this mix we hear him keeping time in the left front channel while the other guitar (in the right rear channel) plays, before he plays his main riff. It's been edited out or faded down to inaudibility on all other versions; for some reason it's up at full volume here. Kind of funny!

 

[Scott65]

A '10' from me. 9 overall, plus one 'bonus' point for being a Rock mix AND having 'Smoke on the water' on it. I haven't heard the quad mix but I am sure I would love it too.

 

[Scott65]

Totally understandable. Yet, the 5.1 mix is pretty discrete and immersive, with great sonics. If the quad is better it must be very good indeed!

I agree, might have to find the quad mix, if the price is right. But love this mix anyway.

 

[key_wiz]

Wow. This has GOT to be the most confusing thread I’ve ever read here!

And none of those links to the threads of other versions work.

 

[sjcorne]

Wow. This has GOT to be the most confusing thread I’ve ever read here!

And none of those links to the threads of other versions work.

You're not the only one who's confused regarding Machine Head. This thread was set up a while ago to help alleviate the confusion regarding the different versions.

There are three different surround versions- two distinct quads, and one 5.1.

Poll threads:
U.K. Quadraphonic Mix (available on SACD)
U.S. Quadraphonic Mix (never released digitally)

The U.K. quad mix on the SACD is one of my all-time favorite surround mixes. It effectively puts you in the center of the band: drums, vocals, bass upfront, with guitar in one rear speaker and keys in the other. Definitely a desert island disc for me.

I'm not a fan of the 5.1 mix (which this thread pertains to). It may have a sonic advantage, but in terms of surround it's mostly upfront with the occasional backing vocal in the rears or around-the-room pan. It's been a coaster since I got the U.K. SACD.

"Pictures Of Home" (5.1 DVD-A):


"Picture Of Home (U.K. Quad SACD):