HiRez Poll Hancock, Herbie - SEXTANT [SACD]

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Rate the SACD of Herbie Hancock - SEXTANT

  • 7

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 6

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 5

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 4

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 2

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 1: Terrible Content, Surround Mix, and Fidelity

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    39
Sorry for the above, rather empty post. Meant to say that I envy those who can partake of the SQ encoded source. Let us know your impressions and how the two compare.

I do agree with Marpow - I would love to have Billy Hart’s drum work elevated in the mix, but that in no way detracts from my 10 vote!
 
A definite 10. Jazz is what I listen to mainly and there is very few options in multichannel if you're not a fan of 70ies easy listening. This one knocks it out of the park!!! I need more releases like this one, Bitches Brew or Donald Byrd. I have not heard it in quad before this SACD arrived, the LP is not too easy to find. This SACD sounds brilliant, I have only played the discrete mix so far, will need to check out the SQ encoded version as well.

Have you heard the quad Birds of Fire and Billy Cobham - Spectrum?
 
All reels listed in the RR list are very early quads, Sextant (1973) is out of this time frame. Still wondering where this come from... looking at a spectral analisys, the 4.0 discrete mix stops at the 16K-17K range, so it looks like a duplication master for quad 8 track carts. These values are consistent of other USA Columbia tapes of 1973-1974 era.

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/QQ-CQ4mr.html
I would expect a "slave" copy (master) used to dub Q8 tapes would sound quite a bit better than a Q8 does. In other words it would have far better values than the Q8 would, being a professionally copied reel, and not a fast dub like Q8s were done. What other USA Columbia 73-74 tapes are you referring to? The Q8 carts?
 
Apologies if I ask some dumb questions here but, how different should the SQ tracks sound from the stereo if being played non decoded?
Some sounds (synths?) on the first track that were firmly in the far left channel in stereo were in the right side , slightly towards centre, on the SQ.
 
Ethan Iverson--pianist (ex-The Bad Plus, Mark Morris Dance Company), blogger, writer, and music nerd extraordinaire--touting Bob Gluck's 2012 book You’ll Know When You Get There: Herbie Hancock and the Mwandishi Band, and dropping his own thoughts on Mwandishi, Crossings, and Sextant.

https://ethaniverson.com/2021/03/14/mwandishi-time/
Ethan Iverson again, this time guiding us on a career-wide tour of Hancock--with the Mwandishi band his point of departure--and doing what Iverson does best: illuminating Herbie's accomplishments with the aid of musical-theory concepts that only insiders would normally understand, but in a way that laypeople can grasp. "Any quick attempt to describe or catalog Herbie Hancock will leave things out. The very sound of American music is unthinkable without his contribution."

https://chambermusicamerica.org/articles/the-complete-herbie/
 
It's funny, I've never really thought in terms of the first track being weaker. I think I've just come at this album (and probably all of Herbie Hancock's albums really) from a whole album work concept, and so not considered tracks individually. But I think someone else here has also noted their dislike (or 'liking less') of the first track. I guess it's the repeated, electronic boing. It reminds me a little of Musique Electronique (e.g. a 70s [or 60s even] Ilhan Mimaroglu album I have where I think he comes up with similar sounds through tape manipulation of recorded sounds).

Anyway, thanks for the post ... as I see I haven't reviewed/rated this one yet. So from my whole album approach to this album musically, with it's amazing fidelity, discreteness and quirky sounds coming at you from all over the shop, this can be nothing less than a ten for me. And yes, absolutely agree, 'halfway between Miles and Sun Ra'. :)
 
It's funny, I've never really thought in terms of the first track being weaker. I think I've just come at this album (and probably all of Herbie Hancock's albums really) from a whole album work concept, and so not considered tracks individually. But I think someone else here has also noted their dislike (or 'liking less') of the first track. I guess it's the repeated, electronic boing. It reminds me a little of Musique Electronique (e.g. a 70s [or 60s even] Ilhan Mimaroglu album I have where I think he comes up with similar sounds through tape manipulation of recorded sounds).

Anyway, thanks for the post ... as I see I haven't reviewed/rated this one yet. So from my whole album approach to this album musically, with it's amazing fidelity, discreteness and quirky sounds coming at you from all over the shop, this can be nothing less than a ten for me. And yes, absolutely agree, 'halfway between Miles and Sun Ra'. :)
(it's like water torture!):censored::eek: boing boing
 
Good thing the voting algorithm discounts stupid outliers like this. Surely even if you hated the music it would be at least a 6 based on the mix and fidelity.
I tend to try to vote based on mix and fidelity, primarily. Though of course it's hard to separate my thoughts on the mix from the enjoyment of the music, I try my best to separate it as best as I can from my score.

On that note, I find the poll thread responses much more useful than the averages, which only really trend as low as a high 5 for the worst releases. Not a lot of deviation to work at an eye's glance with when it comes to scores like that. So that's why I tend to go more extreme with my scoring.

Also, having a score intentionally include the quality of the music itself isn't really necessary in my view for this forum. When it comes down to it, I generally can tell if an album is musically up to snuff without needing to hear its surround sound mix. (There are certainly a few exceptions however—AWB by Average White Band, for example—wherein the fidelity of the stereo mix is subpar to the point where I wouldn't really care for the album without its surround variant.) Of course, y'all should vote based on what you think. I don't mean to browbeat anyone for their own scores as long as they're clear on why they're give the score they give.

I really don't mean to get on my high horse about this, by the way. This is just something that's been on my mind for a bit and I wanted to put it into words.

In regards to Sextant, it's another banger surround sound mix. Albums like this are made to feel disorienting in a mixing sense as well, and I'm glad whoever mixed this wasn't afraid to take that risk.
 
The rating criteria for polls has always been 3/3/3 for music/fidelity/mix +1 bonus point for packaging and presentation.

It's an imperfect system but imperfect is better than no system, and QQ has the most extensive collection of ratings and reviews of surround product not just in the history of the internet but in the history of humankind. How's that for epic, haha.

I agree that anyone interested in the nuances of an album or mix is well served to dig in to the actual reviews, which is partly why I dismiss chatter about the number rating system being inflated (maybe it is, but we love surround) or misleading. If you want more granular analysis of a mix do the legwork and read some reviews - are the 7's, 8's and '9s too bunched up? Probably, but I think you'll find a lot of stone cold classics in the 10 category, and more importantly, you can save yourself a lot of money and disappointment by not buying the ones rated 5 and below.

I bought it and could not sit trough it.

Sounds like a you problem. What's the value to anyone here in leaving a 3 rating for an album you haven't even fully listened to, other than to throw your toys out of your stroller like a petulant child? Maybe don't vote next time. It's like buying a book written in a language you don't understand, and then leaving a review that says 'stupid, made no sense.'
 
Back
Top