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

[bmoura]

Some members on this Forum appear to like the quad mix. But you are not alone. Check reviews on the internet Amazon etc. I also have the same opinion as you and found the Quad layer marginal at best. In my opinion, the issue resides the original Quad master tapes.

The Stereo mix mastered by Steve Hoffman is excellent and my preference for listening.


I posted a review on another site regarding my views on The Best of the Guess Who per http://www.hraudio.net/covers2/8/10278rev2.jpg

Depends on your system I suspect.
It sounds pretty amazing in SACD Surround here - with the exception of track 1 which sounds great sonically but not much happening on the Quad mix.

 

[Clint Eastwood]

Depends on your system I suspect.
It sounds pretty amazing in SACD Surround here - with the exception of track 1 which sounds great sonically but not much happening on the Quad mix.

I'm with you...sounds impressive to me..I can't comment on the stereo layer because I don't listen to the stereo sides of these discs..

 

[Rickko]

Depends on your system I suspect.
It sounds pretty amazing in SACD Surround here - with the exception of track 1 which sounds great sonically but not much happening on the Quad mix.

I do not attribute my views to my equipment (which I consider to be very good). Any release by a label should sound reasonably good to any buyer with reasonably good equipment capable of playing surround sound. Personal taste may vary but reasonably good sound should not.

I stand by my assessment regarding the original Quad master tapes. Lets just say I respectfully disagree.

 

[steelydave]

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.

 

[JonUrban]

As I posted earlier in the thread, the original quad release was never an audio spectacular. Even the quad reel can sound muddy. It's the vintage of the material. The SACD sounds about as good as it's going to sound. If they did the Volume 2 quad, that would sound a bit better.

It's interesting to note that RCA never even bothered to do a CD-4 of this album, one of their biggest sellers of the time. That probably speaks volumes about the audio quality of the sources.

 

[bmoura]

As I posted earlier in the thread, the original quad release was never an audio spectacular. Even the quad reel can sound muddy. It's the vintage of the material. The SACD sounds about as good as it's going to sound. If they did the Volume 2 quad, that would sound a bit better.

It's interesting to note that RCA never even bothered to do a CD-4 of this album, one of their biggest sellers of the time. That probably speaks volumes about the audio quality of the sources.

The Quad mix was one of the early ones and isn't as immersive as the first CD-4 release (Love Theme from the Godfather by Hugo Montenegro) or others that followed.
That could be chalked up to the early days of Quad mixing (learning how it all works) or having fewer tracks on the multitrack tapes to work with than later releases.

As to the sonic quality, there has been some disagreement on this album on QQ.
It sounds quite good here, but as they say YMMV (your mileage may vary)....

 

[LuvMyQuad]

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.

This seems to explain it the way I hear it. Sometimes I wish I had tone controls again. No 5 channel graphic equalizers these days eh?.

Also, there does seem to be a larger than normal range of interpretation on the sonics of this one. Its not typical of this board.

 

[quicksrt]

As I posted earlier in the thread, the original quad release was never an audio spectacular. Even the quad reel can sound muddy. It's the vintage of the material. The SACD sounds about as good as it's going to sound. If they did the Volume 2 quad, that would sound a bit better.

It's interesting to note that RCA never even bothered to do a CD-4 of this album, one of their biggest sellers of the time. That probably speaks volumes about the audio quality of the sources.

I am ok with the sound quality of this 4.0 mix other than the first two songs. The first two are brutal, and then it improves quite a bit, and by the forth or fifth track I'm ok with it. I do wonder what this was chosen as one of the early AF 4.0s. I'd have launched with better stuff at the beginning where none of the tracks are in question.

 

[ar surround]

This seems to explain it the way I hear it. Sometimes I wish I had tone controls again. No 5 channel graphic equalizers these days eh?.

Also, there does seem to be a larger than normal range of interpretation on the sonics of this one. Its not typical of this board.

Sorry that you no longer have tone controls. A good bit of my surround stuff still gets some tweeking with the tone controls, especially with the "Tilt Equalization" control (a notch around 1000 Hz) on my particular receiver. One definitely could dink with the tone controls especially on the first two tracks of this SACD. Every two-channel version that I have of These Eyes sounds sizzly while the quad version sounds dead. Both need equalization. Laughing is also an issue, as well as Undone to a lesser extent. Fortunately, by the time it gets to No Time, things sound a lot better.

 

[The Rang]

I don't vote in many of these polls because I rarely play the surround portion of my discs (embarassed).
But this is a lifelong favorite so I gave the 4.0 a spin.

10 for content, 6 for sound quality (I was disappointed) for an averaged score of 8

 

[Cibola]

Sorry, poll thread.

 

[rtbluray]

I am ok with the sound quality of this 4.0 mix other than the first two songs. The first two are brutal, and then it improves quite a bit, and by the forth or fifth track I'm ok with it. I do wonder what this was chosen as one of the early AF 4.0s. I'd have launched with better stuff at the beginning where none of the tracks are in question.

It was probably chosen because not only is the content superb, but it always has been and always will be a big seller among classic rock fans.
To sum up an earlier review I posted on this disc, the songs are so good that it makes it easier to forgive the surround mixing and fidelity shortcomings, but overall this disc still doesn't shine as brightly to me as some of the others in this series, like "Best of Bread", "Blood Sweat & Tears", and "Loggins & Messina".

 

[GOS]

It was probably chosen because not only is the content superb, but it always has been and always will be a big seller among classic rock fans.
To sum up an earlier review I posted on this disc, the songs are so good that it makes it easier to forgive the surround mixing and fidelity shortcomings, but overall this disc still doesn't shine as brightly to me as some of the others in this series, like "Best of Bread", "Blood Sweat & Tears", and "Loggins & Messina".

I agree - there was a bit of "forgiving" going on with the ratings I think. Me included. BoB just blows it away in terms of fidelity...IMO of course.

 

[Clint Eastwood]

I agree - there was a bit of "forgiving" going on with the ratings I think. Me included. BoB just blows it away in terms of fidelity...IMO of course.

I only gave this one a brief spin as it was in the middle of several purchases... but whatever my rating was it was content driven and a direct comparison to other releases of this music...which as Jon mentioned were pretty bad due to the source material..IMO what "good songs" exist on this disc more than justify the expense...I'm ok with releasing something that doesn't sound stellar but has the best available sound quality for that specific material...content is king for me..I've got enough "demo" type discs in my collection that really don't interest me that much anymore..I'll try different formats of my favorite music to find the best one...and sometimes that "best" sound is on a lower rez alternative...like a CD...these releases can't all be Steven Wilson miracle projects...I'm just happy that someone has brought these back to life after all these years....so your term "forgiving" is probably spot on...another word that comes to mind is "appreciation"..for unearthing these treasures..

 

[ar surround]

I think that my own ratings for these Audio Fidelity quad releases are perhaps a bit inflated. However, they deserve some "grade inflation" for the reasons noted by others as well:
- Never thought we'd ever see them
- Unearthed treasures
- State of the technology when first released as multi-channel
Also, these AF quads are a good value compared to the high-priced ultra-ubersuper-deluxe box sets. I get what I want without a bunch of pricey stuff in which I have no interest.

 

[Simon A]

I won't bother mentioning the lack of overall fidelity as it's been mentioned ad nauseum.

I love the songs and the way the album flows. Yes, I skip American Woman everytime because the Montreal Rock FM Station overplayed it to death (and probably still does).

Some of the songs do feature simple Quad mixes, but I still think that everything works well. This SACD is amongst my favourite five Audio Fidelity Multichannel releases and get played every week.

I voted 9.

 

[quadanasaziland]

Can't believe I just got around to popping this into the oppo.
On Undun and No sugar Tonite my Technics scope could barely keep up, literally looked like a swirl.

 

[Clement]

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 opening 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

 

[Simon A]

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

Thanks for sharing this with us. Both heartfelt and eloquent. You're quite the storyteller Sir.

The reason I got bitten, and hard at that, by the Quad bug was Audio Fidelity's release of The Best of The Doors. But the disc I come back to most often and which always makes me sit down in pure enjoyment is this one by this underrated Canadian group.

I'm under the impression that Dutton/Vocalion's reissue of Volume 2 will make many of us back to playing this one more often.

Whatever lack of fidelity this set is supposedly guilty of is soon put aside by sheer fun and delight.

 

[van1]

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.

Late to the party on this one. I wonder if D-V could have a go at ‘fixing’ the quad. I dont have this and looking at discog prices, i probably wont get the opportunity unless its reissued