Jeff Beck's "Wired"....now available as multi-channel hybrid SACD from Japan Sony

[ssully]

the two Quads are not mixed alike, so whether you're using an old Quad Receiver or a more modern AVR, or have a Centre speaker or not, or are using a Subwoofer or not, or are using Bass Management or not, is irrelevant when comparing the Quads of "Blow By Blow" and "Wired" to one another because the two Quads are not mixed in the same way.

This is beyond pedantic, it is in the realm of willfully obtuse. It is dogged mountain-building from a molehill.

Sir, it is indisputable that both of these Jeff Beck album quad mixes often place his lead guitar in a rear channel, for extended periods of time. I'm not a fan of that.

However, my opinion on such 70s quad 'mix philosophy' aka 'approach to mixing' aka 'mixing decisions' was not even close to being my main topic in that post about Wired. It was a aside, as in 'Misgivings about the mix itself aside" as I literally wrote in the post . Other than glancing on the indisputable fact that I note above, I have no concern for Blow By Blow at all in this particular investigation. And I was definitely not 'comparing them to one another' beyond that side note.

What I was comparing, was the sound of Wired, on my system, when the LFE and C are silenced, vs not.

 

[ssully]

I have the SQ LP to compare to of course! If anything the SACD would have better/more bass!

Thank you. This is the useful information I was seeking, if you are saying that the bass from the Sony SACD with silenced C and LFE (which you achieve by simply not providing a playback channel for them and also not folding them into active channels), sounds comparable to the SQ LP's. Did you do that comparison, and that's what you observed?

If so, it might interest you to try to listen to the Sony SACD with the LFE included, to hear the startling difference I am talking about.

 

[ssully]

yes, all of those previously mentioned aspects of one's equipment and playback settings and so on are vitally important when discussing the MultiCh SACDs of "Blow By Blow" and "Wired" but not in comparing them to one another, not least because of the mastering and manipulation, channel allocation and potential filtering of the Quad mixes on both MultiCh SACDs, which i feel may be somewhat questionable.

As I wasn't comparing the two in terms of listening with active channels vs silenced LFE and C , this is beside the point.

why do i say this? well because when comparing the Japanese MultiCh SACD of "Wired" to my old SQ Quad LP of “Wired", the Japanese MultiCh SACD had more Bass than the Quad LP and at times i felt that extra Bass on the SACD was boomy and excessive.

by removing the C & LFE altogether (rather than reallocating their contents into the other 4 channels) i found the "Wired" Japanese MultiCh SACD sounded closer to my old "Wired" SQ Quad LP when decoded and that's how i prefer to listen to it.

Thank you. This is precisely to the point. It is the sort of useful comparative information I was seeking in my post.

Next question would be, did a nonmatrixed quad (i.e., Q8 tape or CD4 LP) exist and might it have different/more bass output than an SQ LP? Because again the question is whether the Sony Japan SACD bass (with LFE active) is more true to the original quad master's bass, than the same with silenced LFE.

 

[fredblue]

As I wasn't comparing the two in terms of listening with active channels vs silenced LFE and C , this is beside the point.



Thank you. This is precisely to the point. It is the sort of useful comparative information I was seeking in my post.

Next question would be, did a nonmatrixed quad (i.e., Q8 tape or CD4 LP) exist and might it have different/more bass output than an SQ LP? Because again the question is whether the Sony Japan SACD bass (with LFE active) is more true to the original quad master's bass, than the same with silenced LFE.

there was no CD-4 Quad release of "Wired", unfortunately. i never owned the Q8 but there's possibly a conversion floating about out there, i don't know.

 

[ssully]

Regarding with the Wired Q8 might sound like: interestingly, in this old post of yours, where I believe you're talking about Blow by Blow with paligap (though the thread is about Wired) , you mention 'out of control bass' on its Q8, though you attribute that to it being an 8-track, rather than to the mix itself:

could fidelity play a part in you're preferring the CD over the quad or is it just the mix rather than the sound that does it for you? (the Q8 transfer sounds very nice, just the usual out of control bass of 8-track blots its' copybook a bit! the redbook of Wired does sound very good indeed. I must try it through PLII now! Thanks for the tip-spiration paligap

The further complication here is that the quad mix of Blow by Blow (at least as initially offered on digital format ) had out of phase front-to-back signal as well as being OOP to the very low-level LFE found on the repurposed 5.1. Correcting that makes the bass much more pronounced indeed, whether you include LFE or not. Could it be that the phase on the Q8 actually correct way back when?

A bit further on in that 2013 thread, member blackpage notes sonic/impressionistic differences between the SQ LP and Q8 cassette of Wired:

The Wired SQ/Q8 has always been a favorite quad album (the stereo being a part of my DNA since it was released), the SQ LP "sounding" better to my ears than the Q8, but the Q8 mix is intangibly better (not better sounding, just more unique material is audible - which gives it it's plus side). I gave it a "9" and hope one day this old gem gets the real treatment it deserves.

 

[par4ken]

Regarding with the Wired Q8 might sound like: interestingly, in this old post of yours, where I believe you're talking about Blow by Blow with paligap (though the thread is about Wired) , you mention 'out of control bass' on its Q8, though you attribute that to it being an 8-track, rather than to the mix itself:

I think what fredblue is getting at is the the sound of tape seems more bassy, especially when compared to vinyl. I have always felt the same in that the mid bass is emphasised on eight track and as well on open reel tape. Part of that boominess must be some aberration in the low end frequency response, prevalent with tape. The high frequency roll off could also contribute to that bassy sound. People Back in the day generally thought that eight tracks sounded really good. That could be because those budget systems had smallish speaker systems so a bit of added bass actually made them sound better.

The sound of vinyl has long been the standard to which other formats are compared. Do to the limitations of vinyl bass was summed to mono and limited as well. When I first heard CD I thought WOW what good rock solid bass! That bass was cleaner than vinyl and more pronounced but not boomy like tape tended to be.