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

[fredblue]

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...

re the diagonals, really good point, well made! i too thought they must be Sony SACD cockups for the longest time.. but then i found the channel assignments seemed to be the same on the SQ LP when decoded through the Surround Master and started to smell a wee channel assignment rat!! squeak squeak! time to get out the traps and shove the cat off the couch!

subsequently i somewhat stuck my neck on the block/ass on the line and some thought i must be borderline bonkers for suggesting those Ship Ahoy diagonals may have been intentional after all ("oh you don't do diagonals on SQ it'll make your decoder go schizoid!" etc.).. turns out Philadelphia Intentional, i mean International's, Quad remix blokey in charge Arthur Stoppe himself (no less!) said he and his fellow engineers mixed stuff using the diagonals to present a sort of phantom Centre position (i.e. a middle of the room Centre position, not Centre Front, not Centre Back, not Left Centre, not Right Centre but just "Centre" because the only other way to do so would be putting the same sound at equal energy into all 4 channels simultaneously and that would make your SQ setup go tits up, everything would cancel out to a momentary lapse of sound and all reason and logic would go to hell in a handcart!! maybe

err, where were we!? oh yeah! Guess Who!! whoops! sorry, i got carried away on a ship... a-hoyyyyyyyyy...!!!!

 

[fredblue]

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].

to suggest that AF went bust purely because they did some multichannel discs is stretching it, Ralph.. there was Stereo (and in the case of Sly Stone, mono, of course) also on all those discs they released, that Stereo took time and money and AF resources to put together as well as the surround and all the anti-Quad brigade could still buy all those discs and enjoy them in 2-channel. i'm sure there's more to it than that.. its easy to make Quad the scapegoat or villain of the piece but i don't believe that for one second and neither should you! ship ah-oy vey!!!

 

[fredblue]

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?

its not a bad idea, though tbh i doubt DV have the resources to pay for test discs to be pressed up with the RRP on these releases already possibly pip-squeakingly tight to turn a profit on? maybe though!

they may have blown this year's budget by getting Mark Wilder to remix those two Hard 'n Heavy tracks anyway, i bet that cost them a few quid to do..!?

thinking about it, Dutton's own skills aside (which to me are not in any doubt btw) for a mo, i'd be surprised if there wasn't some consultation with a knowledgeable Quaddy or 4 already?

i mean, just look at the releases themselves, just the choices.. can they have been plucked at random? i don't think so, we've already had some of CBS' great mixes (the well-known and the less well-known)...

...and interestingly have you noticed how he tends to put the better Quad mix and not just the bigger album first on the 2-fer's even if it's not chronological? like Poco's Cantamos is before Seven, Chase's Pure Music before the S/T.. Guess Who's Road Food came before #10... hmm hmm hmm... steelydave would know the in's and out's i guess.. but he's a tight-lipped fella so doubt you'll get any bean spilling! i said lipped ok, not clipped, these discs do have dynamic range alright! woo!!

 

[ar surround]

At 12 quid for a twofer, beautifully mastered in both quad and stereo, I'll take whatever DV gives me even if the channel assignments are messed up. 6 quid (US$ 7.34) for a stereo/quadraphonic high resolution album is essentially free. A quad LP cost what, US$ 6 in 1975? That's $28 in today's dollars. And often the mastering of those LP's left a lot to be desired.

Besides, learning to use a bunch of computer software to manipulate things to one's liking is good for an aging brain.

 

[jefe1]

Ok AR I need to enroll in QQ University to study sound engineering. If I had the time(im not retired yet) I would love to dive into that skill set.

But I do think there are several members here with intricate knowledge of the quad mixes and obvious and not so obvious channel mistakes that they should be consulted by the reissuers before releasing the final product.
Yes correcting 50 year old mistakes would be worth it.
On the other hand I have enjoyed these releases and will keep getting them. Frankly I don't even notice most of these problems until someone brings it up here. But you don't know what you don't know and as someone recently posted here the phasing errors from misaligned channels can hurt the music.
Would be nice if we could get both the original quad mix and the "corrected" mix to compare.....

 

[ar surround]

Ok AR I need to enroll in QQ University to study sound engineering.

I think of it as kind of ultra-low-grade hacking.

Frankly I don't even notice most of these problems until someone brings it up here.

Me too. Sometimes ignorance is bliss! This Best Of The Guess Who SACD was something like $25 to $30...Perhaps they should have addressed the channel issues. But I don't know if anyone other than @Q-Eight had the insight to figure out what was going on. I mean swapping channels and then rotating the thing 90 degrees clockwise...I never would have conceived of that.

Would be nice if we could get both the original quad mix and the "corrected" mix to compare.....

Unfortunately, I think that would be unlikely at 12 quid per DV quad twofer unless the error is blatantly obvious and not just a "something sounds weird" thing.

 

[thebarnman]

But you don't know what you don't know and as someone recently posted here the phasing errors from misaligned channels can hurt the music.

Ok here I go again. I posted this earlier and I ask again about this phase issue...

"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?

 

[4-earredwonder]

Ok here I go again. I posted this earlier and I ask again about this phase issue...

"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?

BTW, barnman, that is NOT my quote ....... it seems this thread is full of misunderstandings [see posts 105 & 106 above].......but no harm done!

 

[thebarnman]

BTW, barnman, that is NOT my quote ....... it seems this thread is full of misunderstandings [see posts 105 & 106 above].......but no harm done!

Wow, sorry about that. Thanks for the correction. By the way I did read those (105 & 106) and now I see how confused things have been getting around here! Moving on, I guess I won't know for sure the full answer till Q-Eight or anyone else could care to ring in on this.

Thanks again for the clarification!

 

[Old Quad Guy]

AF doesn't even exist anymore. But the main thing is, we got the release out. A miracle we could not have imagined 10 years ago, although not an unreasonable request, since there was room on a SACD for Multi-Channel.

It is important to agree what the channel assignments were, so we know and can move on. But that should be for it's own thread. Also, the discussion about channel assignments falls into two theories:

1. How was it originally released in the Quad era (something we can prove).

2. Did a song or album get released with perhaps wrong channels to begin with in the 1970s Quad era?

In the second case, we might know, or could be wrong. We once thought "Ship Ahoy" was wrong, but now we know from the original Engineer it was correct.

So, since we don't know everything all at once, forever, just release a title as it came out originally in the 1970s. We can know this fact for sure. From there, after buying your disc, you can do whatever you want with it and play it back however you like.

 

[Imbobman]

I agree...at some point, it simply isn't fair to compare the sound of some to the more modern releases. It simply isn't. So, either we're gonna appreciate these releases, or not. I do........and I admit, that sometimes I get caught up in the "it doesn't sound as good as Steven Wilson" stuff......well.....that's a very high bar to hit and really we cannot expect some of these old quad titles to sound as good as others. So, either we love them for what they are....and vote accordingly, or trash them because they don't sound as good as Tull material (as an example)

Oh well....I think this is a moving target and of course, emotion plays a roll. Cannot be helped. I personally don't care if someone doesn't share my view of emotion of this release....as long as when I get home from work, I can put this on and all is good.....

Well said GOS. .
I voted a 9 on this. Great material & quad mix. Yes, there are limitations some what to the fidelity as others mentioned but considering the era it is from, it's outstanding. Stereo mix on 'American Women' is excellent.
Very interesting to quickly switch between quad & stereo mixes...
& rear levels are loud, but that's fine.
..sadly I must admit, this sat for 2 years unopened until recently. It was a very enjoyable listen.
Well done Audio Fidelity!

 

[J. PUPSTER]

I was just reading through some of these posts here and went to check the Poll "view results" to get a better idea of who voted for what (curiosity gets the better of me, and I'm no cat) and it doesn't display those stats?
What's UP?

 

[GOS]

I was just reading through some of these posts here and went to check the Poll "view results" to get a better idea of who voted for what (curiosity gets the better of me, and I'm no cat) and it doesn't display those stats?
What's UP?

LOL! Wow, I literally was doing the exact same thing....and noticed the exact same thing.......then I was thinking the exact same thing. Hmmmm wonder why I keep saying the exact same thing? lmao

 

[J. PUPSTER]

LOL! Wow, I literally was doing the exact same thing....and noticed the exact same thing.......then I was thinking the exact same thing. Hmmmm wonder why I keep saying the exact same thing? lmao

It's just the old thing: great minds think alike!

 

[JonUrban]

Guys, I checked this out. When polls are created, there is a check box that needs to be checked that says "DISPLAY VOTES PUBLICLY". Unless we want a private poll, the box must be checked. Sometimes we forget!

The problem is that once it's not checked, you cannot change it to public. This was possible with the old forum, but when I checked with the XenForo folks, I was told that this is by design. Their thinking is that if a private poll is created, and the membership votes in the poll, it would be unfair if a moderator could change the poll to public - as it would reveal who voted for what.

 

[fredblue]

I was just reading through some of these posts here and went to check the Poll "view results" to get a better idea of who voted for what (curiosity gets the better of me, and I'm no cat) and it doesn't display those stats?
What's UP?

eight carries its' weight

 

[J. PUPSTER]

eight carries its' weight

Ahh, it ain't no toad - it's the mode of it

 

[4-earredwonder]

eight carries its' weight

Well, snookins, I voted a 9 as it was on my most desirable of QUAD reissues LIST. And who'd have thunk that only a few years later, UK's D~V would not only give us GREATEST HITS, Volume 2, but Rockin' as well [on 1 SACD] and then bestow upon us mere mortals 2 more Guess Who two~fers!

 

[JerseyEd]

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.

Just want to be clear... I started playing with the channel swaps on the AF Best Of V1 and am a bit confused (no surprise lol). Are you saying that after swapping the rears on every song but "No Time" and "American Woman" I should then use FL = OK, FR = output to Back Right, BL = output to Front Right, BR = output to Back Left on AW and NT?

The American Woman album 4 song front to back fixes are simple enough (even a Cave Man could do it ). Thanks.

 

[Q-Eight]

Just want to be clear... I started playing with the channel swaps on the AF Best Of V1 and am a bit confused (no surprise lol). Are you saying that after swapping the rears on every song but "No Time" and "American Woman" I should then use FL = OK, FR = output to Back Right, BL = output to Front Right, BR = output to Back Left on AW and NT?

On No Time and American Woman, just do the moves mentioned in bold.

I know when I first posted, I mentioned a different move, and then rotating the field one position to the left. But then I thought that a bit convoluted and figured out the above repositioning scheme. Sometimes, I'm figuring this out as we go along, too.