No just that, my point is the "correct" discrete mix is likely not the best discrete mix!
Nektar: Remember The Future (50th Anniversary Set with New 5.1 Mix and 70s Quad Mix on Blu-Ray!)
- Thread starter rtbluray
- Start date
Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:
'Likely not' because why?
Obviously because the correct mix was a compromise to work properly with SQ encoding and good sounding stereo as well.
I would assume that the other/original mix gave no consideration to those two parameters, they just went for what sounded great discretely!
Last edited:
If I recall, and don't quote me on this, I think the original CD release was just the front channels of the quad mix. Which quad mix, I do not know.
Whereas I would assume the other/original mix was also fully intended from the start to be 'stereo compatible' because, if it's the only version you're releasing, it had better sound good on the average system in 1973. Which was definitely not quad.
Last edited:
I fail to see your point. If the first mix did not work SQ encoded (due to cancellations) it also did not work in stereo. It would have been abandoned for that reason alone! It was found to be incompatible.
What are you trying to allude to? You seem to be rejecting this mix because it was not the one originally released?
I did find that I had an .iso of the SACD on my hard drive, I don't remember where I got it from but I didn't get around to listening to it until recently, assuming that it was just a 5.1 remix. I have now listened and believe it to be the same mix as the SQ version. Right from the start the rear channels match. While that mix is also very good it doesn't "blow me away" like this one did.
I'm now very much "Nektared" out!
Exactly. But I believe the intent was to have a good sound in stereo, all along, There was never going to be a 'best' discrete mix, that did not have that in mind. The quad mix was never even released in discrete form back then.
I don;t quite know what you're talking about.
The quad mix in the box (the beginning of part 1, mainly) sounds wrong to me in a way that comports with the reason the first mix was rejected by Nektar. I conclude that what we are hearing here is likely the mix that Nektar rejected, and if I 'reject' it at all, it is for the same reason. I know I'll be listening to the 2002 quad more because that one sounds right.to me.
Well, yeah, like I said. The SACD quad matches the well known 2 channel version -- the one heard in 'stereo compatible SQ' since 1973 on the LP and on the second (not first) CD and on the CD layer of the SACD -- in crucial ways that the box quad mix doesn't. And yes, the SQ LP is from the 'corrected' second quad mix. That's the mix Nektar intended. The mix is very good in SQ and quad form AND it doesn't have the jarring instrument imbalance at the start of side one that is a big flaw of the original quad on the box, and the first CD issue. Which does not 'blow me away', but to each his own .
Last edited:
It was rejected because it didn't encode well. I think that it sounds fantastic! I'll listen to this version, thanks!
Hey, you think the Hammond swamping the guitar in the front channels sounds fantastic, you do you. I can easily understand why Nektar didn't.
The problem was with the mixdown not the discrete version. I hear plenty of guitar in this mix. You are used to the oficial mix and prefer it, that's fine but I have never found it to be that special myself.
(I made a mistake up there in writing 'front channels', the Hammond swamp is in the rears, as I originally noted on the other thread. ) I clearly hear that swamping problem --extremely apparent from 0'46" to 1'00" -- -- in the quad mix included with this boxed set. I haven't heard the (possible) mixdown of it since I sold the first CD issue many years ago.
I don't know what you're hearing, but let's review what happens in this segment, in the stereo and 2 quad mixes (easily done with all of them loaded into Audacity where one can 'solo' any channel):
LP and 2003 stereo (presumably the SQ encode of the 2nd quad mix) -- the version most listeners know:
Left : bass, drums, guitars (there are two)
Right: all of those, PLUS Hammond organ, which is a bit louder than the guitars
2023 box set quad (presumed 1st quad mix)
FL: bass and drums only
FR: bass and drums only
RL -- mostly Hammond, a little bit of guitars (there's two)
RR -- Hammond only
This results in guitars being relegated to a small audio space in the left rear channel, much reduced in level compared to the stereo version, and competing with the louder organ; the Hammond being very dominant in both rear channels, thus becomes a strong rear center image. And the front stage is purely bass and drums, centered. The result sounds quite different from , and radically unbalanced compared to, the stereo mix.
2003 quad (presumed 2nd quad mix)
FL: bass, drums, guitars (there are two)
FR: all of those, plus hammond, not as loud as in R stereo
RL: guitars (two) only
RR: hammond (only)
This results in the front sounding a lot like the stereo, with notable sweetening/reinforcement from discrete left and right rear instrument signals. That's why it sounds more 'correct' to me than the box quad, and I can understand why that quad might be the rejected...especially if I were Roye Albrighton in 1973. This is literally the first part of the album where the whole band is playing.
I don't know what you're hearing, but let's review what happens in this segment, in the stereo and 2 quad mixes (easily done with all of them loaded into Audacity where one can 'solo' any channel):
LP and 2003 stereo (presumably the SQ encode of the 2nd quad mix) -- the version most listeners know:
Left : bass, drums, guitars (there are two)
Right: all of those, PLUS Hammond organ, which is a bit louder than the guitars
2023 box set quad (presumed 1st quad mix)
FL: bass and drums only
FR: bass and drums only
RL -- mostly Hammond, a little bit of guitars (there's two)
RR -- Hammond only
This results in guitars being relegated to a small audio space in the left rear channel, much reduced in level compared to the stereo version, and competing with the louder organ; the Hammond being very dominant in both rear channels, thus becomes a strong rear center image. And the front stage is purely bass and drums, centered. The result sounds quite different from , and radically unbalanced compared to, the stereo mix.
2003 quad (presumed 2nd quad mix)
FL: bass, drums, guitars (there are two)
FR: all of those, plus hammond, not as loud as in R stereo
RL: guitars (two) only
RR: hammond (only)
This results in the front sounding a lot like the stereo, with notable sweetening/reinforcement from discrete left and right rear instrument signals. That's why it sounds more 'correct' to me than the box quad, and I can understand why that quad might be the rejected...especially if I were Roye Albrighton in 1973. This is literally the first part of the album where the whole band is playing.
Last edited:
I'm rather amazed at how you analyze these mixes regarding things like exact instrument placement, I don't have the time nor inclination to do that. The "swamping" effect is near the beginning lasting 14 seconds? That is definitely something that I would not be concerned about!
You are used to the SQ "stereo" mix played in stereo. The front channels are exactly what you would hear from that SQ "stereo" mix, with the rear mixed between. When I SQ decode the "stereo" I hear the same guitars organ and backing vocal in the rear as from the discrete mix on the SACD. We can agree that they are the same mix. The stereo and official quad mix sound the same because they are the same.
While the "official" SACD mix sounds good the other mix has "that sound" of very active channels, discrete sounds firing at you continuously, simultaneously. Very few quad mixes sound like that. That is why I prefer it, rating it very highly.
Ken ....from my experienced memory ..yes , there was a separate stereo version.
I went to buy the SQ encoded album not long after I spotted it on sale in an import store ...and thought what's this !!??
No where on the album was the standard SQ emblem associated with these German Bellaphon Bacillus records ....only stereo indications on the sleeve front and back .
I was somewhat disappointed in that find but after a good search I did manage to find a quad version . So yes a stereo album was available, although I will admit , after a few years I only ever came across the SQ quad version .
Additionally they did the same with Down To Earth .
But by 1976 only quad SQ versions were available, as i've a letter from Ingo Shantz ..Bellaphon Bacillus..which lists only SQ versions of all their quad releases .
My edumacated bssst guess ? is they yanked all stereo copies for some unknown reason. Perhaps at the artist's request ?
My understanding now, is that all copies were SQ encoded, marked as such or not. It says so in Mark Anderson's Discography.
I prefer to have a copy that says SQ rather than take a chance on an unmarked copy. In any case, the "stereo" on the Blu-ray decodes properly, so it has to be encoded. You don't get that decoded result from pure stereo.
Check "The Matrix" for a "Down To Earth" decode. O.D. has a note on his site about corruption in CD mastering affecting some or the "Bellaphon Bacillus" CD re-releases, I wonder if they were just screwed up coming from the wrong master, like the first CD release of this title?
I only do that after first simply hearing that something sounds quite wrong to me. Listening always comes first. Analysis just tells me exactly why it sounds wrong.
The swamp-organ mistake continues throughout that whole first 'song' -- "Images in Time" -- not just that snippet. It's just most nakedly apparent in that snippet.
But I haven't bothered to check every other moment of the mix that closely. I don't have the time or inclination. Yet.
Yes, as are , I would wager, 99% of people who have ever become familiar with this album.
I also wrote already that fans should aim to hear all three surround mixes.
Last edited:
According to the quad discography:
{The French versions list Quadraphonic & Stereo Compatible on the cover, The German version of RTF has an SQ logo on the cover and Quadro on the
label. All others make no mention of quad}
So I wonder how one would even know, without directly auditioning two pressings.
Did the 'true stereo' mix sound significantly different from the SQ played in stereo?
Agree, by three, you are including the 5.1 re-mix. To me that one is typical of modern mixes, too front oriented. The SQ version is the same as the SACD. Sounds good (near discrete) via the Composer, perhaps less so via a garden variety decoder.
What do you think of the 5.1 version and of the stereo re-mix?
But I don't believe (I could be wrong) that there is an actual pure stereo version, with the exception of the remix. I haven't listened to the stereo remix yet, nor the CD's. I need a break from Nektar for awhile!
I've already gone through all that in my first long post on the new box from Dec 8 , which unfortunately is on a different though more appropriate thread. Which is probably where this entire conversation should be moved to.
I'm not convinced either, which is why I asked (of fizzywiggs)
then you probably saw one of the many SQ versions that weren't marked as SQ, as per the discography.
