HiRez Poll Guess Who, The - BEST OF THE GUESS WHO [SACD 4.0]

[Scott65]

" But when the openign strains of These Eyes came softly from the four corners, she perked up and said, "I know this song! Turn it up!" Priceless

10/10 for all the above reasons

I bought this one nearly 4 years ago. I hadnt heard 'these eyes' since the early 1970s and had forgotten about it (let alone 'Who' sang it...). I must give this one a spin again and rate it.

 

[lennon fan]

I just scored this disc after searching fairly regularly online and at brick and mortar stores, and I posted it in the "Listening to Now" thread, where @bmoura reminded me to vote on it! I never really got into the Guess Who beyond what I heard on AM radio (and the occasional FM foray into deep cuts). Odd, since I nearly always dug their songs. I have several of their greatest hits memorized from so many repeated radio listens during my younger and more vulnerable years. One of my favorite groups, the Roots, even named their absolutely stellar 2011 release after one of my favorite Guess Who songs: Undun. I always enjoyed the goings of Cummings, whose voice is one of the greatest in rock n roll. Seriously odd that I never even picked up this Best Of album. So much music, and No Time!

Anyhoo, what a joy this release is for These Ears. For me, the fidelity I'm used to hearing is on transistor and clock radios! And when the Roots disc came out, YouTube--none of these sources is hi-fi, so the sound on this disc is phenomenal to me. Great range of styles on this entertaining disc, showcasing the band's diversity. I can't believe this came out in '71--a whole lot of hits by the time I was ten! This is a disc I'll be returning to again and again. And even though a song like Bus Rider doesn't necessarily leave me Laughing, I'd rather have it than not.

And the mix! I did not experience Quad growing up. The first album I bought was Queen's Night at the Opera. I worked a lot of hours bussing tables and making nice with waitresses at the local Italian restaurant to be able to buy my first system--adding two more speakers was not in my budget! By the time I could drive, 8 tracks were nearly a thing of the past. Long way of saying this is my first listen to this quad mix, and I freaking LOVE it. Yeah, some of it is corny and forced, but whoever put it together was clearly having fun in the early daze of quadrophonic sound! If only as an historical document, this seems to me to be an essential release. The fact that it brings me so much joy, especially when cranked, cements the label of essential.

And as an added bonus, my daughter was visiting, and when she saw me put a disc in the ol' blu ray player, she rolled her eyes and said, "Seriously?! Surround!? Please turn it down!" But when the openign strains of These Eyes came softly from the four corners, she perked up and said, "I know this song! Turn it up!" Priceless

10/10 for all the above reasons

back around 1973, when I first got into quad, I demoed it for anyone who'd listen.
tapes were expensive so I didn't have loads, but of the 10 or so I had these 3 were the demos:
Edgar Winter They Only Come Out At Night
Best of Guess Who
Janis Joplin Pearl

 

[Audiowannabee]

I have to agree with the people here who have issues with the sound quality of the quad mix. With the exception of one or two tracks, the quad mix is murky to the point of frustration to me. This is also the only SACD in the excellent series of quad reissues that AF has done that I have any issue with in terms of sonics.

I recall reading on Steve Hoffman's forum years ago that the monitor speakers in the mixing rooms at RCA were very trebly, so as a result the mixes done there tended to have the treble rolled-off to compensate what the engineers were hearing as they did the mixes. The problem is when you listen to these mixes on other (normal) speakers they sound dull and need to be compensated for in mastering.

If you listen to the 2-ch stereo mixes on this disc that SH himself mastered, it's evident that he boosted the treble to flatten out the frequency response of these tracks. Right from the first second of track one ('These Eyes') there's a whole load of hiss before the song even kicks in - this isn't because they used a high generation tape (in fact I think Hoffman bragged that he'd sourced all the original stereo mixdowns for each track) but because of the treble boost needed to make these songs sound good.

I suspect if you applied Hoffman's EQ curves to the quad mix it would probably sound nearly as good as the stereo layer. You certainly can't fault the tape transfer of the quad version as it sounds as excellent as you'd expect, given the quad master probably hasn't come off the shelf since RCA stopped selling quad records in the late 70's.

Any chance of DV doing a rerelease of this...its oop n going for pretty big bucks used...maybe mike dutton could wave his magic wand...clean it up n do over???

 

[thebarnman]

Is this the same mix as this The Guess Who? https://www.duttonvocalion.co.uk/proddetail.php?prod=CDSML8564

 

[LuvMyQuad]

Is this the same mix as this The Guess Who? https://www.duttonvocalion.co.uk/proddetail.php?prod=CDSML8564

The best of disk includes a handful of tracks that are on the DV 2fer. The other tracks on best of are from earlier albums. The version of American Woman on the best of is the truncated single version. I am not sure of the actual mixes themselves.

 

[Larry Geller]

As far as I know, the cuts on V1 that are duplicated on the 2fers are the same mixes, as V1 was not re-remixed as V2 was.

 

[edisonbaggins]

There wasn't something about singles edits being used? Or was that The Doors or some other band?

 

[sjcorne]

There wasn't something about singles edits being used? Or was that The Doors or some other band?

Perhaps you're thinking of Blood, Sweat & Tears? Oddly, both the self-titled album and greatest hits quads use the single edits of "Spinning Wheel" and "You're Made Me So Very Happy". Only way to hear the full versions of both tracks in quad is the unreleased 2nd mix of the S/T album on the Robin Reel.

 

[Larry Geller]

There wasn't something about singles edits being used? Or was that The Doors or some other band?

I'm talking about the mixes, not the edits. Tracks are edited, like American Woman losing its beginning, but the mixes are the same.

 

[Q-Eight]

As far as I know, the cuts on V1 that are duplicated on the 2fers are the same mixes, as V1 was not re-remixed as V2 was.

I would wholeheartedly agree. Because the songs that are present on both Best of Volume 1 and American Woman share the same channel location error.
Now if we talk the Q8, all songs have correct channels except for "No Time" and "American Woman"; both from the American Woman album. The American Woman Q8's entire first side has a channel error.

I just spent a ton of time this weekend going through my Guess Who stuff and there was something that always put me off about AF's Best Of #1. It's channel locations are all over the place. It doesn't sound so bad right off the bat. "These Eyes" sounds fine. Drums in the back, keyboard in the back, guitar front center. All seems good because there's no panning. However the next track "Laughing" we instantly get a panning error. The guitar starts in FL, pans to BR, then BL finally front right. Swapping the rears left to right fixes the panning issue. I said in another discussion to swap fronts, but when I compared to the Q8, the pans go counter clockwise, not clockwise. So, Swapping the rears on every song but "No Time" and "American Woman" fixes the error.

After a bit of playing around, with the two above mentioned songs, set your outputs to:
FL = OK
FR = output to Back Right
BL = output to Front Right
BR = output to Back Left

On "No Time", this puts the drums mostly in the rears, and for most of the song backing vocals mostly to the front. The Fuzz Guitar solos will spin counter clockwise and the backing vocals will jump around in a clockwise motion at the end of the song.

For "American Woman" this will make the solos spin in a clockwise motion. Rhythm Guitar Back Center, Jangley Guitar Front Center, Congas Phantom Left, Punch Drum Phantom Right.

Whew!
No wonder nobody seems to be able to get this right. It's a mess and not discrete enough to really tell what's going on during the first listen.

 

[The Rang]

Thanks Q-Eight, I will try those channel reassignments.
If it recreates my memory of the Q8 I’ll be happy because the AF as it sits was a huge disappointment

 

[4-earredwonder]

The REAL shame is AF was 'supposedly' charged a $30K licensing/royalty fee PER DISC and the list price on these discs was $30 for a single QUAD SACD. Those masters which SONY supplied to AF should have been PERFECT! In retrospect, quite a few AF QUAD SACDs were imperfect........Even the George Benson 5.1 'redo' of 'Breezin' IMO was shoddy as the vinyl was often cited as audiophile and though it was an improvement over the botched Warner MLP DVD~A, it was in no way an audiophile transfer. The AF Best of the Doors QUAD SACD was bettered within a year with the Rhino/Warner re~release on BD~A [@ almost half AF's SACD list price] ..... The Collection was hit and miss and now THIS ...... a DIY correction to ameliorate the switched channels on The Best of the Guess WHO. And how about the missing multis for Santana's LOTUS .......AF was told they were missing and then within a year, SONY JAPAN not only found those'missing' multis but also added a second bonus disc from the LOTUS concerts in surround. Consequently, AF was forced to release a 2 disc STEREO SACD set, for which, I'm sure, SONY charged them a pretty penny in licensing/royalty fees.

FACT: a LOT of us do NOT have the matrixed/CD~4 vinyl nor Q8s to do comparisons of what is correct or not, so, in effect, we have been duped into believing we have perfect replicas of the artists'/remixers' intent based on the masters supplied to AF from the majors [at insidious licensing fees].

Having read QQ posts over the years, it seems a LOT of Surround releases have been in some way defective ...... with BD~A disc failures......shoddy remixes [with missing instruments or such] and subpar remixes. It's not like thousands of remixes or surround reissues have been bestowed upon us over the years but when one plucks down their hard earned dollars for a hopeful mirror image of the masters and trusts the engineers and or major comglomerates who supply the multis to accurately portray the transfer AS PER THE ARTIST'S INTENT, there is, IMO, some cause for some alarm!

 

[jefe1]

Perhaps going forward there is a way for Michael Dutton to send test files to some QQers here to verify the channel assignments? A test sacdR might be too late in the process to change anything. I have so many modern discs with reported channel errors why do I have to become a computer engineer to rip and remix them?

 

[4-earredwonder]

Perhaps going forward there is a way for Michael Dutton to send test files to some QQers here to verify the channel assignments? A test sacdR might be too late in the process to change anything. I have so many modern discs with reported channel errors why do I have to become a computer engineer to rip and remix them/

My point EXACTLY! At least Steve Wilson, whenever possible, PREFERS to do remixes with input from the artists themselves ...... and now we know WHY. Of course, it's impossible to do this when the artists are no longer with us but, IMO, MORE knowledgeable engineers should be involved when either attempting a 5.1 remix from scratch or ensure the QUAD masters have the correct channel assignments, etc. before releasing it to the general public.

 

[sjcorne]

...ensure the QUAD masters have the correct channel assignments, etc. before releasing it to the general public.

Perhaps you'd like to explain exactly how would one go about this. In the case of The Guess Who's American Woman, the Q8 is said to have a channel error, yet the SACD transfer from the master tape has the same channel assignment. So it is really a mistake? What other point of reference is there besides the master tape? If there's no way to verify the correct channel assignments, should the reissue label just guess for themselves and hope for the best? Or should they play it safe and stick to what's written on the tape box, however illogical it may seem?

Not so long ago, everyone was so sure that The O'Jays' Ship Ahoy had a channel error, but it turned out that all the diagonally-panned instruments were intentional.

For me, if an quad SACD release features the same channel assignments as the old quad vinyl/tape release, then it's a win. If you like it better with channels switched around, fine, but the bottom line is that it's out there, and it's not like anyone's obligated to release these things...

 

[edisonbaggins]

For all this hullabaloo, I just want to point out that it is quite possible to enjoy this release, regardless of the channel assignments. A pan in a Z pattern can be just as interesting as a pan around the room.
I.e. if there are mistaken channel assignments on this release, many have not even noticed and have enjoyed their experience just fine.
For those annoyed by the channels, I sympathize with the frustration. I've certainly gotten worked up over recordings I know super well and care about a lot (Rush Hemispheres).

I just hope that, as much as possible, we can all remember to enjoy this hobby. Life is short. Time is precious. So are enjoyment and fulfillment.

 

[Q-Eight]

Perhaps you'd like to explain exactly how would one go about this. In the case of The Guess Who's American Woman, the Q8 is said to have a channel error, yet the SACD transfer from the master tape has the same channel assignment. So it is really a mistake?

That's sort of like, "If a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound?"
A mistake 50 years ago is still a mistake today. And the proof is in the pudding.

Let's go with the Best Of: ALL songs feature pans that go around the room in a circular motion except two songs culled from the "American Woman" album.
Share the Land : ALL songs feature instrument pans that go full circle.
American Woman: ALL songs on Program 2 feature instrument pans that go full circle. But curiously, not side 1, which the "Best Of" uses two songs from.
Canned Wheat : ALL songs feature instrument pans that go full circle.
Wheatfield Soul : ALL songs feature instrument pans that go full circle.

I'm going to say that right there is what I'm basing all this on. Discounting the "Best Of" album that is a total of 36 songs. Of those 36 songs, FOUR have awkward pans.
32 songs feature solo instruments or vocals that spin around in a solid circle - - that's 89%.
I'm pretty sure that's proof enough that THAT was the original engineers' intent.

The next thing we could start talking about is phase. Because with the channels out of order, it creates mathematical phase issues. Re-arranging the channels in their correct order suddenly makes the music "pop" that much more because things aren't being cancelled out.

 

[sjcorne]

That's sort of like, "If a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound?"
A mistake 50 years ago is still a mistake today. And the proof is in the pudding.

Put yourself in the position of heading a label reissuing quad mixes - a master tape is delivered to you, and while remastering you may find that the way channels are assigned doesn't make sense. You're not intimately familiar with the old quad tapes or LPs. You could change things around, and be absolutely sure you're correcting a mistake, but there's still a chance there may have been nothing wrong to begin with. And then what - now everyone's pissed and wants a repress. So what reason is there to deviate from what's on the tape to begin with? As far as I'm concerned, reissue labels are not liable for 50 year-old mistakes. No one complained when Sony Japan didn't restore Jan Hammer's missing keyboard solo on "Come Dancing" from Jeff Beck's Wired.

You disagree - that's fine. I don't want to argue about it and wreck the poll thread. And to clarify, I don't disagree with your statements about the channel swaps, I just don't think it's fair to slam the reissue label for it. Backing off now...

 

[4-earredwonder]

Put yourself in the position of heading a label reissuing quad mixes - a master tape is delivered to you, and while remastering you may find that the way channels are assigned doesn't make sense. You're not intimately familiar with the old quad tapes or LPs. You could change things around, and be absolutely sure you're correcting a mistake, but there's still a chance there may have been nothing wrong to begin with. And then what - now everyone's pissed and wants a repress. So what reason is there to deviate from what's on the tape to begin with? As far as I'm concerned, reissue labels are not liable for 50 year-old mistakes. No one complained when Sony Japan didn't restore Jan Hammer's missing keyboard solo on "Come Dancing" from Jeff Beck's Wired.

You disagree - that's fine. I don't want to argue about it and wreck the poll thread. And to clarify, I don't disagree with your statements about the channel swaps, I just don't think it's fair to slam the reissue label for it. Backing off now...

NO ONE is blaming the reissue company .... in this case Audio Fidelity. If you read my post I pointed the blame at the major conglomerates, in this case SONY and Warner who supplied AF with subpar remixes, albeit at a hefty outrageous $30K fee. For that kind of money isn't a 'modicum' of perfection anticipated. If you recall, after searching for the multi masters of Santana's LOTUS to no avail, AF released it as a double STEREO SACD and then MIRACULOUSLY out of the blue, SONY Japan released it LESS THAN A YEAR LATER as a 2 SACD mch SACD with a bonus disc....I have BOTH remasters and indeed was peeved......not at AF but SONY for what I consider double dealing!

And why only a year after AF released The Best of The Doors as a QUAD SACD, RHINO WARNER released it at almost half the price [with discounts] as a 2 RBCD/BD~A set with IMPROVED REMIXES. Why not offer that option to AF in the first place especially considering that $30K licensing fee!

And while the Warner supplied AF Surround Remasters of both Winelight and most especially Billy Cobham's SPECTRUM were impeccable, I still felt the 5.1 AF Remaster of George Benson's BREEZIN' was NOT [although it did improve on the Warner/RHINO 'botched' MLP DVD~A] which makes me question whether Warner indeed accessed the absolute master tapes for the remix [my guess is NOT].

We are all privy to our own opinions, Jonathan ....but before you question my logic, kindly READ MY POSTS CORRECTLY?

All in all, I would estimate that Audio Fidelity spent well over $1M licensing and pressing approximately 33 multichannel SACD discs, a gamble, which unfortunately put the company into insolvency. But I will always credit AF with paving the way for Dutton Vocalion as both reissue companies had never released Surround SACDs before. For that, thank you Audio Fidelity [and now D~V].

 

[thebarnman]

The next thing we could start talking about is phase. Because with the channels out of order, it creates mathematical phase issues. Re-arranging the channels in their correct order suddenly makes the music "pop" that much more because things aren't being cancelled out.

Correct Quad speaker setting (as far as I know) is to have all four speakers equal distances from the listener. Assuming everything is in phase in the recording, and all four speakers are at an equal distance, how can phase get messed up if one channel plays in a different speaker?

A port hole in a speaker can mess with phase, bad cross over in speaker design can effect phase, room characteristics can effect phase, and many recording themselves are not in phase. But, if everything is perfectly in phase; how can a channel swap between two speakers effect phase?