Not everyone is a fan of Quad

[key_wiz]

Interesting about RED OCTOPUS being 'toast'. This is one I was really hoping we might see come out from Dutton. I trust the same is not necessarily true for the quad master, but if the original stereo master is 'toast' would they consider using a 2nd generation tape? (I've never heard anything about them being "original master tape" purists).

 

[4-earredwonder]

Interesting about RED OCTOPUS being 'toast'. This is one I was really hoping we might see come out from Dutton. I trust the same is not necessarily true for the quad master, but if the original stereo master is 'toast' would they consider using a 2nd generation tape? (I've never heard anything about them being "original master tape" purists).

I think he was referring to the over utilized STEREO masters. I'm sure the QUAD masters were hardly utilized. I do have that title on QUAD dolby b encoded Open Reel but haven't played it in eons.

 

[key_wiz]

Personally, I prefer 5.1 or some variant to Quad as I feel it is a superior technology for surround music\soundtracks.
That said I have lots of AF Quad releases, greatly enjoy them and am really glad they've survived.
While I do like Hoffman's work, I totally disagree with a lot of his personal preferences in playback technology.

While Steve H might not want to comment on Steven W., I found the 2-channel Close To The Edge SACD by Hoffman & the 2-channel hi-res by Wilson of the same title to be indistinguishable on my system.

Which mixes? Hoffman would have used the original mix, of course. The Wilson version has both his new mixes and a flat-transfer of the original (meaning technically, not 'mastered' at all.)

As far as mastering differences go, I either don't have good enough ears to tell the difference or the differences between good mastering jobs gets way over-rated. (I suspect both is partially true). I found it interesting that in the SHF thread, when asked for an example of the biggest night-an-day difference between something he remastered and an original CD he named something for which he used a better-sounding source tape. Well, yeah. Even I can probably release a better sounding remaster if I'm given a better sounding source to work with!

 

[key_wiz]

I think he was referring to the over utilized STEREO masters. I'm sure the QUAD masters were hardly utilized. I do have that title on QUAD dolby b encoded Open Reel but haven't played it in eons.

Oh I know he was talking about the stereo. (I said I trusted was not the same for the quad.) But Dutton releases both quad and stereo versions. I was wondering if the fact that the original stereo masters are not usable is something that would make such a release unlikely to ever happen.

Also, he said the reason the stereo tapes were 'toast' wasn't due to over-use, but that they weren't handled properly (baked) and instead just discarded.

 

[key_wiz]

The problem is when the remixer doesn't have the perception to take in everything in the original mix.

I don't know that it's even that nuanced. I think that for many audiophiles the mix is the mix. Often it's a "what you grew up with" thing as well. The same people that can't stand ANY new remix of an album or insist on the mono (or the stereo over the mono) are going to be the same ones who can't abide multichannel. Even one where the remixer got everything 'right', there will still many who will dislike it simply because it now sounds different to them because the instrument placement isn't the same.

 

[sjcorne]

Interesting about RED OCTOPUS being 'toast'. This is one I was really hoping we might see come out from Dutton. I trust the same is not necessarily true for the quad master, but if the original stereo master is 'toast' would they consider using a 2nd generation tape? (I've never heard anything about them being "original master tape" purists).

Have the CD-4: I agree it's a good album, but the quad mix isn't that good IMO. It's one those mixes where everything is sort of everywhere aside from the occasional panning effect. Kinda reminds me of the mix on Styx's The Mission, now that I think about it.

Dragon Fly is the same way, have that one in both CD-4 and Q8. Haven't heard Spitfire yet.

The early JA quads are really where it gets interesting: I think for a lot of the best stuff there just aren't enough tracks to really make a good mix, but RCA gave it their best shot. Volunteers isn't particularly discrete (and the title track is a re-recorded take), while The Worst Of is actually not awful IMO, sort of discrete but with weird channel placements. In "Somebody To Love" if you isolate one channel you can hear the male harmony vocal without Grace's lead.

Personally I think RCA's quads were never as good or consistent as Columbia's. Dutton's already put out some of their best mixes I can think of (The Guess Who and PPL two-fers).

 

[4-earredwonder]

Have the CD-4: I agree it's a good album, but the quad mix isn't that good IMO. It's one those mixes where everything is sort of everywhere aside from the occasional panning effect. Kinda reminds me of the mix on Styx's The Mission, now that I think about it.

Dragon Fly is the same way, have that one in both CD-4 and Q8. Haven't heard Spitfire yet.

The early JA quads are really where it gets interesting: I think for a lot of the best stuff there just aren't enough tracks to really make a good mix, but RCA gave it their best shot. Volunteers isn't particularly discrete (and the title track is a re-recorded take), while The Worst Of is actually not awful IMO, sort of discrete but with weird channel placements. In "Somebody To Love" if you isolate one channel you can hear the male harmony vocal without Grace's lead.

Personally I think RCA's quads were never as good or consistent as Columbia's. Dutton's already put out some of their best mixes I can think of (The Guess Who and PPL two-fers).

I really have to hook up my TEAC QUAD OR with outboard dolby b decoder and spin all three of the Jefferson Starship dolby b QRs....also have the Blue Jays in dolby b QR.....plus The Worst of the Jefferson Airplane and Volunteers. What am I waiting for ....... probably high end RCA cables ...... I would need a whole bunch .... and I'm anal about quality interconnects.

But you're right, sjcorne, the Columbia QUADs were much more adventuresome. Too bad they NEVER released them as dolby b encoded QUAD Open Reels! Might've given the format a much needed boost and delayed the demise of QUAD!

 

[sjcorne]

I really have to hook up my TEAC QUAD OR with outboard dolby b decoder and spin all three of the Jefferson Starship dolby b QRs....also have the Blue Jays in dolby b QR.....plus The Worst of the Jefferson Airplane and Volunteers. What am I waiting for ....... probably high end RCA cables ...... I would need a whole bunch .... and I'm anal about quality interconnects.

Record 'em in! Burn some DVD-As!

I know you're not really a PC/ripping guy but it's actually a lot of fun once you get good at it.

 

[4-earredwonder]

Record 'em in! Burn some DVD-As!

I know you're not really a PC/ripping guy but it's actually a lot of fun once you get good at it.

I ought to just send them to HDTT [High Definition Tape Transfers] and let them transfer them via their megabuck custom modified QUAD OR Decks onto DVD~A 192/24.

Of course, we'd all rather have D~V license them from SONY and transfer the 15 ips QUAD masters to SACD via their meticulous custom mastering chain.

We're a tough demanding bunch at QQForum and only want the BEST! And I know I'm not in the minority......

 

[ssully]

Personally, I prefer 5.1 or some variant to Quad as I feel it is a superior technology for surround music\soundtracks.
That said I have lots of AF Quad releases, greatly enjoy them and am really glad they've survived.
While I do like Hoffman's work, I totally disagree with a lot of his personal preferences in playback technology.

While Steve H might not want to comment on Steven W., I found the 2-channel Close To The Edge SACD by Hoffman & the 2-channel hi-res by Wilson of the same title to be indistinguishable on my system.

You found Wilson's 2-channel remix indistinguishable from Eddy Offord's original mix? I find that hard to believe.

So I presume you're referring to the 2-channel 'flat transfer' of the original mix. That isn't Wilson's work; he doesn't do the digital transfers of master tapes, or the mastering of them (such as it is).

 

[jimfisheye]

I don't know that it's even that nuanced. I think that for many audiophiles the mix is the mix. Often it's a "what you grew up with" thing as well. The same people that can't stand ANY new remix of an album or insist on the mono (or the stereo over the mono) are going to be the same ones who can't abide multichannel. Even one where the remixer got everything 'right', there will still many who will dislike it simply because it now sounds different to them because the instrument placement isn't the same.

When the remixer is aware of all the nuance in a production and remixes it with genuine improvements that serve and extend the original vision, it's like listening to the very same show you have been familiar with but now from much better seats. Going from a somewhat stepped on stereo mix to a proper surround mix can be like upgrading your seats from the bathroom stall in the back to front row center. But if the remix engineer isn't truly on to all the details, you're in better seats now but it feels like a cover band. Hopefully that analogy works. If something is different enough or some element is missing, then the mix engineer DIDN'T get it right. Even if there are fidelity improvements. Subjective stuff for sure!

 

[ssully]

When the remixer is aware of all the nuance in a production and remixes it with genuine improvements that serve and extend the original vision, it's like listening to the very same show you have been familiar with but now from much better seats. Going from a somewhat stepped on stereo mix to a proper surround mix can be like upgrading your seats from the bathroom stall in the back to front row center. But if the remix engineer isn't truly on to all the details, you're in better seats now but it feels like a cover band. Hopefully that analogy works. If something is different enough or some element is missing, then the mix engineer DIDN'T get it right. Even if there are fidelity improvements. Subjective stuff for sure!

Though if there are elements that can't be found on tape, it's not the remix engineer's fault.

 

[key_wiz]

When the remixer is aware of all the nuance in a production and remixes it with genuine improvements that serve and extend the original vision, it's like listening to the very same show you have been familiar with but now from much better seats. Going from a somewhat stepped on stereo mix to a proper surround mix can be like upgrading your seats from the bathroom stall in the back to front row center. But if the remix engineer isn't truly on to all the details, you're in better seats now but it feels like a cover band. Hopefully that analogy works. If something is different enough or some element is missing, then the mix engineer DIDN'T get it right. Even if there are fidelity improvements. Subjective stuff for sure!

I agree. As would all of us surround fans, I’m sure.

I’m just pointing out that for a great many people they don’t care HOW good the surround mix is. Moving stuff around is simply “wrong” to them. It might as well be a different take with a different guitar solo.

 

[ar surround]

I agree. As would all of us surround fans, I’m sure.

I’m just pointing out that for a great many people they don’t care HOW good the surround mix is. Moving stuff around is simply “wrong” to them. It might as well be a different take with a different guitar solo.

Some are averse to messing with historical artifacts of any kind...even if the fidelity doesn't warrant playback on anything better than an AM car radio. With all this stuff, I'm most interested in improvements to the fidelity of the music...surround or otherwise. Some works are so dense and/or have so much going on that multi-channel, or at least a stereo remix, is the only way to get there. Engineers can remaster albums from the 70's until they are blue in the face and will never get the fidelity achievable by going back to the multis and remixing using today's technology.

Too bad that Steve Hoffman isn't an aficionado of remixes/quads because his stereo remasters sound really good on my new Oppo.

 

[sjcorne]

Recently I’ve been taking my most discrete 5.1 tracks, merging the center and .1 channels, dividing that wave “in half”, and merging each of the resultant “halved tracks” with the LF and RF channels (creating a phantom center). This gives me a Quad track from a 5.1 track without losing any audio information... and it sounds exactly the same as the 5.1 track to my ears!

Can you explain how you "halved" the center/sub wave you made? This process sounds really intriguing. I'm running a 4.0 portable system at the moment and I'm not thrilled with how the Foobar channel mixer integrates the center.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

Can you explain how you "halved" the center/sub wave you made? This process sounds really intriguing. I'm running a 4.0 portable system at the moment and I'm not thrilled with how the Foobar channel mixer integrates the center.

I thought the correct method was to take the center/LFE channels and reduce the level by 3dB and then add it back to the FL and FR equally. The 3 dB cut is to account for the 3dB rise that results from taking a mono signal and reproducing it across two channels. I thought that's what Foobar did as well. No?

 

[sjcorne]

I thought the correct method was to take the center/LFE channels and reduce the level by 3dB and then add it back to the FL and FR equally. The 3 dB cut is to account for the 3dB rise that results from taking a mono signal and reproducing it across two channels. I thought that's what Foobar did as well. No?

That "channel mixer" DSP on Foobar seems to be doing something fishy on my system- when I shut center off the channel levels get altered and bass in weirdly accentuated.

Anyway, on Audacity I took a 5.1 track and merged C & sub (tracks/mix and render to new track), dropped it 3 dB, and then diverted it to both fronts in the channel mapping menu before exporting. We'll see how that sounds...

 

[skherbeck]

[QUOTE="Anyway, on Audacity I took a 5.1 track and merged C & sub (tracks/mix and render to new track), dropped it 3 dB, and then diverted it to both fronts in the channel mapping menu before exporting. We'll see how that sounds...[/QUOTE]

How did it sound?

If you take a track (such as the center channel), lower it 3 dB, create a copy, then "mix & render" those two copies together, you will get something fairly different than the original track... I lower the channel I want to split by 5.5dB, and if I copy it and "mix & render" the two copies, I get something that looks almost exactly like the original channel (it's not exactly the same, however, but it's definitely close enough for my ears).

Do any audio engineers out there have a precise way to do this? What I'm doing sounds great to me, but I'd like to do it "right"

 

[sjcorne]

How did it sound?

If you take a track (such as the center channel), lower it 3 dB, create a copy, then "mix & render" those two copies together, you will get something fairly different than the original track... I lower the channel I want to split by 5.5dB, and if I copy it and "mix & render" the two copies, I get something that looks almost exactly like the original channel (it's not exactly the same, however, but it's definitely close enough for my ears).

Do any audio engineers out there have a precise way to do this? What I'm doing sounds great to me, but I'd like to do it "right"

It sounded a little wonky to me. I used PT's "Piano Lessons" (being an SW mix all the vocals are in the center), and it came out with the fronts way louder than the rears. Will try your way and report back...

 

[kap'n krunch]

as a reply to the original question.. it's fascinating to see what the medical world has to say about the way that , since everybody is different, there is no "uniform" way to classify human hearing because we are all physiologically different...
my take has always been that , since all humans share the same "standard" listening equipment; two ears with spatial recognition discerning physiological microphones, us quad/MCH folk not only have a more refined "peripheral" hearing , but also use a bit more of our cortex to process the different sources, therefore , not classifying Surround as a gimmick, but as a bona fide way of perceiving music..