Nektar: Remember The Future (50th Anniversary Set with New 5.1 Mix and 70s Quad Mix on Blu-Ray!)

[Bill B]

And, my copy from Walmart arrived today via Fedex.

My order status from Walmart indicates "delayed" with no other explanation.

Wonder WTF happened.

 

[GOS]

My order status from Walmart indicates "delayed" with no other explanation.

Wonder WTF happened.

I got their last copy. At least, that's what they told me. lol.
Laughing aside, itt will show up. In a flimsy box with little protection.

 

[Bill B]

I got their last copy. At least, that's what they told me. lol.
Laughing aside, itt will show up. In a flimsy box with little protection.

LOL…
I finally got a shipping notice this morning.
I guess one fell behind the shelf

Thanks for the packaging warning.

 

[ctoelle]

Mine is out for delivery (from Walmart)

 

[SHB]

I got mine from Barnes & Noble today. I also got my Air Born box set today as well. What a banner day!

 

[Tribby2001]

OMG what a laugh I had. [Keep in mind I recently received the coveted cheap 12" Camel "BOX set" from JPC.]

So, my package from Wally World arrived yesterday (Canceled cheaper Amazon order ). Before I opened the tiny box I said to myself, "They shipped the wrong item!" I crack open the package and there is this tiny version of a "BOX" set -
All this time, even after seeing pictures posted, I thought it was going to be a BIG BOX. But nooo, it's one of those tiny box sets. I had to read the contents to make sure I got the right item w/Blu-ray- OMG what a laugh I had at myself. So glad I ordered.

 

[Myro]

OMG what a laugh I had. [Keep in mind I recently received the coveted cheap 12" Camel "BOX set" from JPC.]

So, my package from Wally World arrived yesterday (Canceled cheaper Amazon order ). Before I opened the tiny box I said to myself, "They shipped the wrong item!" I crack open the package and there is this tiny version of a "BOX" set -
All this time, even after seeing pictures posted, I thought it was going to be a BIG BOX. But nooo, it's one of those tiny box sets. I had to read the contents to make sure I got the right item w/Blu-ray- OMG what a laugh I had at myself. So glad I ordered.

I had the same exact experience and was expecting a big box. I got mine from Wal-Mart as well.
What a shock when I opened it. I love the little box though. It's perfect and saves shelf space.

 

[Tribby2001]

I feel much normal-er now

 

[ssully]

You people and your posts about shipping times and packaging...jeezus.

Here's a post about actual sound of the thing (Part 1 only, haven't listened to Part 2 yet). The 2023 quad -- which actually has 6 channels, with some minimal LFE content and a silent C channel -- is definitely different from the 2004 SACD quad (which was also 6 channels, with minimal content in both C and LFE), notable right away starting at around 0:40, the prelude to the first verse.

At that point the 2004 quad has guitars, bass , drums plus low level Hammond organ in front, the rears have only guitars, but in the 2023 quad the front has bass and drums, the rears have quite loud Hammond, with all the guitars shoved into the left rear channel and are very low in the mix.

That's for starters.

Something strange has happened. Both of these were presumed to be from the original quad masters.

(I also have a file called REMEMBER THE FUTURE 44 CD SQ DECODE, four channels only, that I perhaps got from someone here...it's different from both of the above, which isn't unusual since I presume it is what it says, an SQ decode of a CD version thought to be SQ encoded. FWIW at 0:40 it sounds more like the 2004 quad than the 2023)


Has anyone got an old Q8 or CD4 version, for comparison to all this?

The new 6 channel mix , is , of course, altogether different , mostly very front-centric with an occasional circling content.

 

[jefe1]

I just got my box set shipped by Rarewaves yesterday. It is a beautiful presentation of the album. Arrived no damage.
Just listened to the quad mix need to listen to the other mixes. Great booklet.

 

[~dave~~wave~]

I just got my box set shipped by Rarewaves yesterday. It is a beautiful presentation of the album. Arrived no damage.
Just listened to the quad mix need to listen to the other mixes. Great booklet.

I'm also impressed with the quad mix, and observed that it is in a 4.1 mix.
Definite sub-octave kick drum thump in the LFE channel, and as noted on the menu, presented in a 5.1 wrapper with silent center for best compatibility with most disc spinners.

Maximum resolution 24/96 LPCM is is most welcome.

The three included videos are a welcome bonus.
The two Old Grey Whistle Test tracks are wonderfully sharp & clear, as usual.

But my favorite is the first one, Remember The Future, performed with live liquid light show.
They are the only band I know of who gave full credit on their records to their lighting techs as full members of the band.
Kudos to the film makers for capturing a glimpse of the projector platform.

Anyone who caught the last Nick Mason Saucerful of Secrets tour on dates where they brought live liquid lights got a taste 50 years after the heyday of this delightful art form.

2:53

As a follow up, after watching the blu ray, I took a walk in the wooded park under the bright daytime moon on a clear day listening on airpods to old favorite Down To Earth, followed by new-to-me Evolution, another great album in the Space Rock pantheon.

Have a playlist now of the entire 70s catalog I will be re-visiting, as well as old favorite Journey To The Centre Of The Eye 5.1 SACD, bought seven years ago new for $17.

Delivered on the Solstice from the Amazon Global discount order, $52.34 shipped, a little over two weeks transit time, USA shipment after Atlantic crossing was USPS media mail from Chalky's in Maryland.

 

[SHB]

I see Cherry Red is releasing a 5cd remastered and expanded boxset of Recycled on March 29th. Sucks no 5.1 remix.

 

[ssully]

The last remaster of Recycled already had Geoff Emerick's early mix of the album as a bonus , which was a revelation, and, unlike the remaster, wasn't whacked with digital compression. So it's desirable but hardly 'rare'.

So what is the Cherry Red version bringing to the table? Some live tracks. And yet another 'remaster from the original master tapes'.

 

[par4ken]

A further Quadraphonic mix was undertaken at Dieter Dierks studio in Strommeln, along with a stereo version in September 1973 to everyone's satisfaction. Remember the Future was released on November 23rd 1973." --Mark Powell

Has anyone confirmed that there was a stereo (non SQ) version ever released. I only have one of the German released LP's, all release from that country are clearly marked as quadro. According to Mark Andersons Discography all released LP's marked or not were SQ encoded.

I did another brief listening and the so called "stereo" version is definitely SQ encoded! SQ decoding gives discrete sounding left and right back channels, you don't get that from plain stereo. The phase issue with the original mix might have to do with the SQ encoder that was used. With the normal encoder anything common to Lb and Rf will mostly cancel in the encode process. Dieter Dierks is one who would have known just what he was doing regarding SQ mixing as he did it a lot.

The discrete mix on this 2023 release is excellent in any case, no matter what version it is! Liner notes about Quad are often suspect as not everyone was up to speed on the technicalities actually involved.
https://www.surrounddiscography.com/quaddisc/quadpall.htm
Ssully, if you are correct (about two quad mixes) that might be why the SQ encoded LP was rather lackluster, if it's not the same mix as this discrete version. I might have to get that other release just to compare.

 

[ssully]

I don't quite get what the problem is.

It appears from the text that 'from the beginning' this album was intended to be mixed to quad rather than stereo, then (presumably) encoded in SQ for release as a matrixed stereo LP (as I'm unaware of any CD4 LP, or Q4 or Q8 releases and neither Discogs nor Mark's discography list any).

The way I read it, the first quad mix , done in London, had a problem that rendered some instrumental parts 'inaudible' , so a second quad mix was made in Germany, and I presume the 'stereo quad' (SQ) 'mix' was generated from that. Whether a dedicated, non-encoded stereo mix was made, is a side question.

As noted in Wikipedia "in the absence of a quad decoder, SQ-encoded records would play almost as normal stereo records and CBS stated their desire to maintain excellent compatibility between their SQ-encoded records and standard stereo systems" though that 'almost' hides some serious issues. , French releases of RtF even said 'Quadraphonic and Stereo compatible" on the cover to make sure consumers know they could play it on their plain stereo systems. So referring to a 'stereo mix' could be appropriate simply to mean the SQ.

I would venture that the 'correct' quad mix of the two is whatever sounds most like the decoded SQ, though the SQ encode/decode process is never as good and faithful to the quad mix, as a discrete format.

 

[mandrix]

How likely is it Bacillus used a Q4 reel to base their SQ encoding on?
Some years ago I ran upon something that may have been "borrowed" from Bacillus, purporting to be from Q4.

 

[par4ken]

I don't quite get what the problem is.

It appears from the text that 'from the beginning' this album was intended to be mixed to quad rather than stereo, then (presumably) encoded in SQ for release as a matrixed stereo LP (as I'm unaware of any CD4 LP, or Q4 or Q8 releases and neither Discogs nor Mark's discography list any).

Correct I'm sure, but the text is less clear when referring to a stereo and a quad version. If the SQ is the stereo version then where is the quad? If the SQ is the quad version why talk about a (separate) stereo version. They are the same thing! The notes do not explain this properly so either the author is unaware or the text is dumbed down for mass consumption.

The way I read it, the first quad mix , done in London, had a problem that rendered some instrumental parts 'inaudible' , so a second quad mix was made in Germany, and I presume the 'stereo quad' (SQ) 'mix' was generated from that. Whether a dedicated, non-encoded stereo mix was made, is a side question.

I think that it is highly unlikely that a separate stereo only mix was made. The notes make it sound like it was, but I believe that to be incorrect. The stereo on this release and I'm sure on all other previous releases are SQ encoded.

As noted in Wikipedia "in the absence of a quad decoder, SQ-encoded records would play almost as normal stereo records and CBS stated their desire to maintain excellent compatibility between their SQ-encoded records and standard stereo systems" though that 'almost' hides some serious issues. , French releases of RtF even said 'Quadraphonic and Stereo compatible" on the cover to make sure consumers know they could play it on their plain stereo systems. So referring to a 'stereo mix' could be appropriate simply to mean the SQ.

Old news, it is sad that more record labels didn't release single inventory quads. Yes I'm sure that they are referring to the SQ encoded version as the "stereo" version as that was all that was made. I suppose if it was referred to as SQ-encoded matrix quad most people wouldn't have a clue what that is!

I would venture that the 'correct' quad mix of the two is whatever sounds most like the decoded SQ, though the SQ encode/decode process is never as good and faithful to the quad mix, as a discrete format.

This mix sounds fantastic even if it is the original and not the official version. It will require more listening to try to determine that. I don't normally analise mixes as to actual instrument placement but tend to judge each purely subjectively. I'm not really concerned about which one is "correct".

 

[ssully]

Correct I'm sure, but the text is less clear when referring to a stereo and a quad version. If the SQ is the stereo version then where is the quad? If the SQ is the quad version why talk about a (separate) stereo version. They are the same thing! The notes do not explain this properly so either the author is unaware or the text is dumbed down for mass consumption.

Playing an SQ LP on a stereo, non-decoding rig does not sound the same as decoding it to 4 channels, obviously. So they aren't the same thing, in that important sense.

Don't you think the engineer and band wanted to make sure the quad mix sounds good in matrixed stereo too? That was how most fans were going to hear it when it was released, after all.

This mix sounds fantastic even if it is the original and not the official version. It will require more listening to try to determine that. I don't normally analise mixes as to actual instrument placement but tend to judge each purely subjectively. I'm not really concerned about which one is "correct".

I'm only 'concerned' that quad fans are aware there's two, and give both versions a listen ..and the 5.1 too.

I go back a long time with this album; my older sister bought it in 1973/4 and I heard it that way. My only exposure to RtF, for decades since the 1970s, was this stereo version (i.e., the presumed SQ encode) , so it's been interesting to watch its digital incarnations evolve over the years.

First there was a botched CD release -- I recall there were 'missing instruments', -- I no longer own it to verify, though I have a pile of old ICE magazines, I'm tempted to look up the release year of that first CD and see what complaints were lodged. I wonder if that botched CD was in fact the SQ encode of the 'rejected' quad mix, and I wonder if auditioning it on a stereo rig is what tipped Nektar et al off that the quad mix had a problem (which Mo says traced to an out-of-phase speaker used during mixing)

Then came a corrected version on CD

Then a quad SACD

Then (possibly leaving out a stereo remaster or two) this new box, with an alternate quad mix, and new (somewhat conservative) 5.1 mix.

 

[par4ken]

Playing an SQ LP on a stereo, non-decoding rig does not sound the same as decoding it to 4 channels, obviously. So they aren't the same thing, in that important sense.

Don't you think the engineer and band wanted to make sure the quad mix sounds good in matrixed stereo too? That was how most fans were going to hear it when it was released, after all.

I think that I alluded to that, when I stated that I assumed that the mix was made primarily to sound good in stereo playback.

First there was a botched CD release -- I recall there were 'missing instruments', -- I no longer own it to verify, though I have a pile of old ICE magazines, I'm tempted to look up the release year of that first CD and see what complaints were lodged. I wonder if that botched CD was in fact the SQ encode of the 'rejected' quad mix, and I wonder if auditioning it on a stereo rig is what tipped Nektar et al off that the quad mix had a problem (which Mo says traced to an out-of-phase speaker used during mixing)

Incredible that things like that happen. It would seem that those who prepare these re-releases don't actually review (listen to) them!

I find that comment about a "speaker" being out of phase to be a bit odd. The phase issue would be with the recording itself not the phase of one of the monitor speakers. Don't mixing desks have the means to swap around phase anyway?

Use of the Forward Oriented Encode or the Position Encoder could have prevented the cancellation issue. I assume that they originally simply made a discrete mix and then ran it through a normal encoder. The released version done by Dieter Dierks (who did many SQ releases) would have been mixed to avoid the phase/cancellation issue. In doing so and perhaps also in making a few compromises for better stereo sound we get the released version.

I have always been an SQ supporter, the best mixes came from CBS especially those done by Don Young. Monitoring after the encode/decode process.

That being said there are some things that you can only do with discrete. I'm thinking in particular of those BTO releases, Donald Byrd as well. Anything with "that sound" of all speakers discretely firing simultaneously, can not be duplicated by any matrix system.

 

[ssully]

I think that I alluded to that, when I stated that I assumed that the mix was made primarily to sound good in stereo playback.

And could that not be an iterative process, -- make a quad mix, check the stereo 'mix', tweak quad mix to make stereo sound better, recheck it in stereo, repeat until happy? Thus one could speak of 'making' a quad and a stereo mix, in the sense that the latter wasn't entirely hands-off, automatic. It's semantics....unless a bona-fide dedicated stereo mix from 1973 turns up!

Incredible that things like that happen. It would seem that those who prepare these re-releases don't actually review (listen to) them!

I find that comment about a "speaker" being out of phase to be a bit odd. The phase issue would be with the recording itself not the phase of one of the monitor speakers. Don't mixing desks have the means to swap around phase anyway?

Use of the Forward Oriented Encode or the Position Encoder could have prevented the cancellation issue. I assume that they originally simply made a discrete mix and then ran it through a normal encoder. The released version done by Dieter Dierks (who did many SQ releases) would have been mixed to avoid the phase/cancellation issue. In doing so and perhaps also in making a few compromises for better stereo sound we get the released version.

Perhaps take Mo Moore's recollection less literally than the Mark Powell's, even though it sounds more specific. He could be paraphrasing, misremembering, or simply using the wrong terminology. Or maybe things really were that effed up in that London control room. There is wiggle room every way.

I have always been an SQ supporter, the best mixes came from CBS especially those done by Don Young. Monitoring after the encode/decode process.

That being said there are some things that you can only do with discrete. I'm thinking in particular of those BTO releases, Donald Byrd as well. Anything with "that sound" of all speakers discretely firing simultaneously, can not be duplicated by any matrix system.

The superiority of a discrete source versus its (necessarily compromised) SQ encode isn't really in question, is it?