HiRez Poll Mahavishnu Orchestra, The - BIRDS OF FIRE [SACD]

[rtbluray]

BTW the whole book is a terrific read with stories of working with The Beatles, Elton, Bowie, George Harrison, Rick Wakeman, Supertramp, Missing Persons, Happy the Man and many more.

I completely agree! I met Ken Scott in 2014 when he came to MTSU with Brian Kehew (author of "Recording the Beatles") and gave a lecture on his work with the Beatles. Not only was it a great presentation, but he signed my 'A to Z' book afterwards. A loverly chap indeed!

 

[ssully]

When all three soloists were active in a tune Scott would place the instruments left, right and center (the quad does not follow his exact scheme).

It seems to follow it pretty closely though. JM left, JH middle, JG right for the most part.

 

[keenly]

This is a solid 8 for me. Thoroughly recommended.

 

[fredblue]

Very cool.. yet another "pinch yourself moment" = YES! It's 2015 -- and another lovely old Quad got the tip top Hi-Res Surround treatment courtesy of those spiffy guys at Audio Fidelity...! :yikes

I took it out of the shrink wrap tonight and just... stared at the case, almost lovingly ( ) for a good few minutes.. and then I loaded her up.. ohhh... my... such a delicious ultra discrete presentation (the kind of mix Columbia did where it's almost like there are two different albums going on at once at certain times - yet it all still gels when you're sat in the sweet spot... that's Quad XXL.. easily the best sound quality I've ever heard this record.. what's not to love about this release!?

More of the same please AF..!! How about the unreleased Quad of "Apocalypse"..??

Bravo on your Birds Of Fire Surround SACD making it on the Billboard Charts by the way.!! :wave :worthy

I thought about giving this SACD a "9".. and then I thought again.. for the not insignificant sonic upgrade to every other version of this I've heard (I've heard a few now) well, that tipped it over by that extra point that puts this in the super league of super audio.. so, it's got to be a "10".

 

[wavelength]

I'm hearing this album for the first time and loving it! For me the strong point is the content. These guys work together really well; makes for a great listen.

The mix the second good thing. I actually like the drums in the rears. It anchors the mix so that the other instruments are accented across the front. The fidelity is ..well, just don't play Red (King Crimson) right before you play Birds of Fire. The fidelity is acceptable but not truly wonderful. That's about the worst thing I can say about this album. An 8.

 

[ar surround]

...The fidelity is ..well, just don't play Red (King Crimson) right before you play Birds of Fire. The fidelity is acceptable but not truly wonderful. That's about the worst thing I can say about this album. An 8.

For comparing fidelity, listen to the SQ record of this release first, then this SACD. You'll then know why people are raving about the sound quality of the SACD. Big improvement. Glad that you love it!

 

[keenly]

I thinks this sounds better than Red. Much less compression.

 

[wavelength]

For comparing fidelity, listen to the SQ record of this release first, then this SACD. You'll then know why people are raving about the sound quality of the SACD. Big improvement. Glad that you love it!

I'll take your word on that - I don't have the SQ record or any original quad sources for that matter.

 

[MIDIQ]

I voted 8. I had never heard this album before either. Really enjoy it.

 

[blue.monk]

I love this album and was thrilled when it was announced to be part of the series. The drums-in-surrounds approach took me a bit of time to warm up to but I can now enjoy it without distraction. The rest of the mix works well apart from a few balance issues. Miles Beyond, for instance, the middle section has that cool breakdown with electric keys and pizzicato violin. The keys are all but inaudible now, essentially eliminating the nifty interplay between the two musicians. But, hey, no worries really. Quirks and all, I'm finding these 70's quad mixes to be a lot of fun and, given their history, don't feel a need to overly scrutinize as I might for a modern mix. I’m pleased with the fidelity and find it stronger than the stereo mix. A grateful ‘9’ for me.

 

[ssully]

Quick check: on the 4.0 SACD version, what is the left-right order of instruments people are hearing in the front channels? For example, during the trading bars sections of 'Celestial Terrestrial Commuters' or 'One Word'

Do you hear

guitar -- keys -- violin

or

violin -- keys -- guitar

?

 

[skherbeck]

Quick check: on the 4.0 SACD version, what is the left-right order of instruments people are hearing in the front channels? For example, during the trading bars sections of 'Celestial Terrestrial Commuters' or 'One Word'

Do you hear

guitar -- keys -- violin

or

violin -- keys -- guitar

?

Guitar, keys, violin

 

[ssully]

That's what I hear too. It's the opposite of the stereo mix (which has violin - keys - guitar )

It's also the opposite of an older fan-made decode that I have, made from the SQ LP (which is much less discrete, but the front instrumental placements are still obvious: violin - keys - guitar)

I wonder if AF screwed up the channel assignments?

 

[atrocity]

I wonder if AF screwed up the channel assignments?

Or it's just a choice for the quad mix. This makes me think of Brian Eno's "King's Lead Hat" where the overall differences in the remixed single version compared to the album are pretty subtle except for some channel placement.

 

[ssully]

The original quad mix was matrixed to SQ LP back in the day. When decoded, the violin is in the left channel, guitar in the right.

So , you're saying AF chose to move the left front channel content to the right front, and vice versa, for aesthetic reasons, for their release?

 

[quicksrt]

That's what I hear too. It's the opposite of the stereo mix (which has violin - keys - guitar )

It's also the opposite of an older fan-made decode that I have, made from the SQ LP (which is much less discrete, but the front instrumental placements are still obvious: violin - keys - guitar)

I wonder if AF screwed up the channel assignments?

They may have, shite happens!

 

[DuncanS]

This is an album I bought on cassette when it came out, that probably makes it about the 8th or 9th I bought. Its an album I really like, having subsequently bought on vinyl, CD, remastered CD, and 2nd hand on SQ vinyl. So I'm a little biased! Anyway back to the point.

Its a solid 9 for the music, 9 for the 4.0 mix (I think the drums spread across the rear speakers works for this album), and I'm giving it an 8-9 for the sound quality. Its come out very well for an old recording. So a solid 9 overall from me.

Bring out more 4.0 Mahavishnu Orchestra please Audio Fidelity :banana:

 

[elinter]

Well, this one was a hard one to rate. While I recognize the phenomenal musicianship, I really had a hard time staying interested. I'm generally a fan of prog rock (Yes, ELP, Steven Wilson, etc), but this one is on the edge of my liking. The mix is discrete, but have to agree with the other raters that the balance seems a little off. Ratings: Sound quality (fidelity) - 6; Surround Soundness (discreteness) - 8; Music (evoke emotion)- 5. Overall - 7 and worth buying if you liked the vinyl.

 

[davie]

This is one of my favorite recordings in the jazz fusion genre. I took to Inner Mounting Flame immediately and though it took awhile before I got around to hearing Birds of Fire, I feel much the same about it. My only objection to this recording as issued on Columbia has been the excessive brightness of Cobham's cymbal crashes. Although Audio Fidelity may have dialed it back a tad on the stereo master, it is still too much for these ears. Evasive maneuvers are necessary. So one of the things I like about the quad mix is that the drums generally are dialed back in the surround channels (although I have actually dialed it back up a bit for my listening). The balance of the drum kit across the surround channels is quite nice and is analogous left to right to that in the stereo mix. This stands in contrast to the front channels where Goodman's violin, which is otherwise always on the left, is in the right channel in the quad mix. The only real quibble I have is that the violin sounds a bit tinny on the title track even though I don't hear that on the stereo mix. Nevertheless, the sound is quite transparent overall. The bass is well-defined and is notably forward in the mix.
Overall I think this is one of the better quad mixes I have heard. I give it a solid 9 for content, fidelity, and mix.

 

[GOS]

I'm honestly not qualified to vote on this....I mean....I bought this on a whim and I really assumed I'd like it. Well, I don't. Really surprises me....

Anyway - if I were an ass - I'd vote and probably call it a 5 or a 4. Content for me is in the tank. I just don't like it. The mix is OK at best.
That being said - for all of you who grew up listening to this, I'm sure you are crazy in love with it and I don't want to diminish that. Go for it...and love it.

In all honesty - if someone wants to buy my copy...I'm all ears. PM