HiRez Poll Deep Purple - MACHINE HEAD (UK - Quad Mix) [SACD]

[cornwall198]

Just got the 2003 UK EMI SACD today - and am hugely enjoying the quad mix. Wonderful stuff. Overall, I hear the bass with more clarity on the 5.1 Japanese SACD - but you gotta love the original quad mix.

Now a technical question for the technical experts. I also have the quad mix on the lossy 40th ann. Box DVD-V. On the cover it says Quad to 4.1 mix created and mastered by Peter Mew at Abbey Road, March 2012. Apart from the unfortunate lossiness, is there any other difference in the mix when compared to the 2003 UK EMI SACD? I've listened and on a first comparison, they sound like the same mixes to me.... Thanks!

 

[winopener]

They are the same mix.

 

[cornwall198]

And same mastering?

They are the same mix.

 

[kap'n krunch]

And same mastering?

That question remains unanswered, I haven't ripped the SACD and the DVD-V, but it seems to me that the DVD-V was sourced from an SACD (which was probably a DSD master, i.e., cut off at 21-23K)...OTOH, this kind of music really doesn't have too much info up there...

 

[LizardKing]

The UK SACD says "Remasters by Peter Mew at Abbey Road Studios, London"...

 

[cornwall198]

While the disc slip cover on the lossy 40th ann. Box DVD-V says Quad to 4.1 mix created and mastered by Peter Mew at Abbey Road, March 2012. It sounds like entirely the same mix to me - just wondered if it had been freshly re-mastered in March 2012?

 

[Clint Eastwood]

A classic album from an underappreciated band...I've had this disc for a year and just don't play it enough...vintage music with some sonic imperfections.... but done the right way...

 

[kap'n krunch]

My fave DP classic and Quad mix...damn the CD-4 and the DVD-A mix..THIS is the REAL thing

 

[sjcorne]

10. Perhaps my all-time favorite surround release. I was never all that impressed with the new 5.1 mix on the DVD-A, instead opting for my old SQ LP. But this takes it a whole new level - just hard discrete separation, no gimmicks (except for a bit of swirling in the beginning of "Lazy").

I've also heard the entirely different quad mix released in the U.S. as a WEA CD-4 LP, Q8, and QR. While that mix is also quite discrete (and deserving of a digital release), this one remains my favorite. Maybe one day they'll release a mega box with all the different mixes on a single Blu-Ray, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[ar surround]

I just listened to this album the other night. My rating of "8" is too low. Although the quad mix is a bit different than what I would have liked, the recording itself sounds wonderfully satisfying. It's very clean, clear and well balanced, unlike the somewhat muddy stereo version. It demonstrates that a rock music album does not have to be an earache inducing over-compressed recording.

Edit Oct 2019: Thanks to the “change vote” button, I’m now able to change my vote to a 9.

 

[jimfisheye]

Forgive me if this has been discussed/answered before.
Is the UK version actually a different mix? I don't believe I've heard it actually if that is the case.

I have the shared Q4 copy. This is from the US edition then?
I had the shared Q8 prior to that which was the very same mix. Naturally the Q4 is a much better copy! I mastered my copy of the Q4. The channels were a little out of balance between them which, combined with a little boominess from a not perfectly dialed in deck (the tape bass bump that can come about) had altered things a bit. So corrected for all that. Only gentle corrections needed.

I've heard the 5.1 remix from the DVD edition. Didn't like it. Might have if I'd never heard the quad before! It wasn't just one of those mixes given to the intern like some of the circa early 2000's DVDA remixes out there.

Anyway, is the UK version actually a unique different mix or is this a critique about the differences in quality of the mastering?


And yes this album and quad mix rocks like absolute crazy!

Man o man how I wish we could have quad mixes like this for Fireball and In Rock!
(And you know, WDWTWA and the 2 live albums too of course! Everything recorded by this specific lineup in other words.)
Machine Head was the first DP album to get a more hi-fi mix. The previous two are a bit crude and distorted. Some of the best albums of all time and all but crude mixes. (I love that they finally released them in 24/96 HD though! Distortion and all!)

 

[steelydave]

That's correct, the UK and US quad mixes are different.

The UK quad mix was done in 1972 by Peter Mew at Abbey Road. It's been discussed elsewhere, but this version has 20 or 25 seconds chopped out of one of the guitar solos on side 2 - Lazy I think? My suspicion is they did this to even out the runtimes of the sides for the 8-track version. The UK quad mix has been re-released digitally on SACD in the mid 00's and DVD-V as part of a box set a few years ago.

The US quad mix was done in (or at least released in) 1974 by WB by persons unknown. WB's quad guys at that time were generally Donn Landee, Ted Templeman and Lee Herschberg so it could have been any of them, or even someone else. The US quad mix has never been digitally re-released.

 

[quadsearcher]

I know the differences have been discussed here. But, which mix opens with the opening wail of Highway Star first in one speaker, then repeated on each speaker in a circle?

 

[JanBakker]

I know the differences have been discussed here. But, which mix opens with the opening wail of Highway Star first in one speaker, then repeated on each speaker in a circle?

The UK - Quad Mix SACD does that, my Japanese 5.1 SACD doesn't .

 

[marpow]

Speaking of Deep Purple off topic there new released, 5 track, RBCD, 5 track, All I Got Is You, is great music.

 

[ssully]

I have a party elsewhere insisting to me that Lazy on the 1972 UK/EMI quad mix (the one released on SACD in 2003, and again in 2012 for the Machine head box but repurposed to 4.1 for that) is a 'completely different' recording from the stereo version we all know . My ears say otherwise...all the instrumentation and vocals are virtually the same as on the stereo version EXCEPT during the final guitar solo, after the last verse. At that point there's a balance difference at the beginning section of the solo, so that the 'standard' lead line is much quieter compared to an 'alternate' lead (but they're both there); then there's the glaring edit deleting about 13 seconds of the stereo arrangement; then it finishes as normal.

Does that sound right to others here? Or do you hear any other big differences?

 

[fredblue]

I have a party elsewhere insisting to me that Lazy on the 1972 UK/EMI quad mix (the one released on SACD in 2003, and again in 2012 for the Machine head box but repurposed to 4.1 for that) is a 'completely different' recording from the stereo version we all know . My ears say otherwise...all the instrumentation and vocals are virtually the same as on the stereo version EXCEPT during the final guitar solo, after the last verse. At that point there's a balance difference at the beginning section of the solo, so that the 'standard' lead line is much quieter compared to an 'alternate' lead (but they're both there); then there's the glaring edit deleting about 13 seconds of the stereo arrangement; then it finishes as normal.

Does that sound right to others here? Or do you hear any other big differences?

hearing pretty much the same as you on that track

 

[sbrom]

Finally, after grabbing both SACD's and holding a long listen-off between the U.K. mix and the U.S. version, the winner for me is clear: UK.

Demo quality across the board, with standouts Lazy and Smoke on the Water. Very discrete, powerful rock mix, sound as clear as museum glass. Play loud for the best experience.

Not that the US disc is bad. It's just the UK is that good.

10.

 

[sjcorne]

Finally, after grabbing both SACD's and holding a long listen-off between the U.K. mix and the U.S. version, the winner for me is clear: UK.

Demo quality across the board, with standouts Lazy and Smoke on the Water. Very discrete, powerful rock mix, sound as clear as museum glass. Play loud for the best experience.

Not that the US disc is bad. It's just the UK is that good.

10.

Remember there's a third MCH mix...The US quad released on CD-4/Q8/Q4. Also quite discrete and never released digitally. A listen-off between that and the U.K. SACD is the real challenge.

 

[sbrom]

Sounds like an intriguing challenge. I'm presently (and likely forever) limited to digital sources.

I see from the QQ poll it is highly rated (9.4). With some saying the mix is better than the U.K. SACD!

Remember there's a third MCH mix...The US quad released on CD-4/Q8/Q4. Also quite discrete and never released digitally. A listen-off between that and the U.K. SACD is the real challenge.