Should Dutton Vocalion avoid releasing SACDs of Quads with inferior mixes?

[Q-Eight]

Tommy James & The Shondells - Best of.

That is probably one of, if not the topper of flawed Quad mixes. But straighten out the channel assignments on the four true-multitrack songs and they are really, really good. I'd love if Dutton could tackle that one.

But this gets me thinking now..... if D-V actually has enough pull to remix..... can we maybe start a petition? Say to have The Guess Who's "Flavours" and "Power in the Music" remixed from the multitracks? Even if there's an increased cost in that, I'd be all in. Hell, I'd offer up my services as an amateur Quad mixing guy!

 

[fredblue]

Me too. To finally hear "Mr. Sun, Mr. Moon" in a real, 4-channel mix was pretty cool. "Without You" it seemed they were trying to emulate the other mixes on the tape, but "Mr. Sun, Mr. Moon" is the shining star in a beautiful 4-corner mix with a very balanced front center stage.



Well, yes - they are all flawed in some way. "Lady Marmalade" by Labelle is flawed with it's funny drum situation with the drum kit split between FL and BR. Had the drums been across the front, it'd be a great mix. But as it is, it's flawed.

"Indian Reservation" is flawed with both bass and drums in the rear channels but some drum kit tracks are in FL and a tympani or kettle drum in FR. Not only that, but it lacks the subtle drum pan that is present in the stereo mix during each break.

I could write a thesis paper on Sly & the Family Stones' Greatest Hits or Janis Joplins' Pearl. There are MANY things I would change about those mixes. But remember, I love Quad for it's warts and all. Why else would I be on a Quad message board? There's something very wabi-sabi about the whole Quad phenomenon. (finding acceptance with the imperfect)

well i would suggest maybe those aren't flaws as such, rather they are features of those mixes and that perhaps they are mixing decisions you just don't agree with.

take Labelle's "Nightbirds", what you perceive to be a flaw was more than likely arrived at by the engineer wanting to have certain elements appear in the Centre position but knew that using diagonal pans was the only way to mix for the SQ system to create that Centre position in the middle of the room without elements cancelling out and everything going tits up!

 

[4-earredwonder]

I've noticed this a lot actually, and others have too - the new mixes on DV releases often sound much better than the vintage mixtapes. In many cases I'm guessing the multitracks were essentially untouched once the masters were created, and the tapes are in better shape. Compare the mix on the Prokofiev DV disc (vintage quad mix for Alexander Nevsky, new quad mix for Lt. Kije) - it's not a subtle difference.

I also think the playback devices and electronics of today are somewhat superior to the 70's gear they were utilizing to transfer/remix these tapes to early QUAD. There was a manic flurry of activity in getting QUAD to market during that period and yes, while those multitracks were in pristine condition, with today's pro tools, superior tape heads and state of the art sound studios and less pressure in remixing them 'properly' they would sound better.

 

[fredblue]

I like drums in the rear, too! Ten Years After "Baby Woncha Let Me Rock & Roll you" ? Absolute bliss. I love just listening to the rear channels by themselves!

But with the Raiders and Janis Joplin title, they've split it up a little too much. Pearl has drums setup like: Room Mics in FL, Overheads and Cymbals in FR, Kicker in BR and Snare in BL. That to me pushes the gimmicky level up a notch. Nobody sits in the middle of a drum kit. The way I mix, primary percussion up front, secondary percussion in the rear. You're still surrounded in sound but you're put in the middle of the band.

the drummer sits in the middle of the drumkit.. maybe the intention of the Pearl Quad mix engineer (name escapes me at present!) was to make us the merry little listener feel just like Janis Joplin's drummer for the day! they could've included a bag of smack with every LP but maybe they thought doing a Quad mix like that was the less messy option..

 

[4-earredwonder]

Tommy James & The Shondells - Best of.

That is probably one of, if not the topper of flawed Quad mixes. But straighten out the channel assignments on the four true-multitrack songs and they are really, really good. I'd love if Dutton could tackle that one.

But this gets me thinking now..... if D-V actually has enough pull to remix..... can we maybe start a petition? Say to have The Guess Who's "Flavours" and "Power in the Music" remixed from the multitracks? Even if there's an increased cost in that, I'd be all in. Hell, I'd offer up my services as an amateur Quad mixing guy!

IMO, I think Michael Dutton's efforts and time would be better utilized doing what he's doing at present ......releasing so many quality old QUAD masters across all genres with a rapidity unheard of with modern reissue companies. Perhaps with Mark Wilder's involvement, new remixes could be a reality and he could spur on other SONY artists [like perhaps the BOSS, Bruce Springsteen] to consider remixing their amazing back catalogues into surround.....but as far as doing complete new remixes with D~V's limited staff and the fact that Mr. Dutton is also heavily invested in his own classical projects would be a yeoman's task.

 

[4-earredwonder]

the drummer sits in the middle of the drumkit.. maybe the intention of the Pearl Quad mix engineer (name escapes me at present!) was to make us the merry little listener feel just like Janis Joplin's drummer for the day! they could've included a bag of smack with every LP but maybe they thought doing a Quad mix like that was the less messy option..

Pearls of wisdom from UK's QUAD prodigy!

 

[Q-Eight]

the drummer sits in the middle of the drumkit.. maybe the intention of the Pearl Quad mix engineer (name escapes me at present!) was to make us the merry little listener feel just like Janis Joplin's drummer for the day! they could've included a bag of smack with every LP but maybe they thought doing a Quad mix like that was the less messy option..

Pearls of Wisdom indeed. This isn't an argument, it's just contradiction! Thing is, if you have to send an engineer around to every household that bought the tape simply to explain the mix ..... that in itself means that it's a flawed mix. A good mix should require no explanation.

 

[quicksrt]

I say yes.

I view much of the work Mr. Dutton is doing as archival. Good, bad or otherwise, these mixes should be transferred to digital in as best quality as they can be. If they were acceptable to release once before, why not again? We will still be free to pan them, not buy them, throw them in the trash, etc.

Because it can do damage to the reputation of D/V's reissued product in general, and help to create an over-all impression (to some) that quad mixes just do not cut it in todays digital world of 5.1 and 7.1.

When the truth is that there are many quad mixes from the 70s that are so good, doing remixing of those particular albums could be considered a waste of time.

 

[fredblue]

Pearls of Wisdom indeed. This isn't an argument, it's just contradiction! Thing is, if you have to send an engineer around to every household that bought the tape simply to explain the mix ..... that in itself means that it's a flawed mix. A good mix should require no explanation.

of course it's not an argument, its a healthy discussion, that's what this place is all about! what would anyone need explaining about the Pearl Quad mix? it speaks for itself! i doubt the fella who did its still alive to explain it anyway, long time ago now all this old Quad stuff, they likely weren't all spring chickens mixing Quad back then.. and none of us are getting any younger! hint hint; Vocalion, hurry up and release hundreds more "flawed" Quads before we're all six feet under!!!

 

[Philip Spinner]

Quad mix vs channel assignments. Apples and oranges. I doubt that the mixers had anything to do with channel assignment. The GRT tapes were all messed with after the fact and can all be easily corrected.

 

[fredblue]

Quad mix vs channel assignments. Apples and oranges. I doubt that the mixers had anything to do with channel assignment. The GRT tapes were all messed with after the fact and can all be easily corrected.

if you'll indulge me for a sec and go down a hypothetical route and take some of the ABC/Command Quads, just as an example of how things could get mighty complicated if you're a label like DV (for example) and take the (imho brave/borderline foolhardy) decision to go down a revisionist road in this respect.. some iterations of the ABC Q8s have channel swaps and some don't.. and then the QS LP equivalents of some of these ABC Quads pan out the same as one revision of the Q8 and yet others don't.. what then in that circumstance is your accurate point of reference? there's no mastertape.. none of the channel assignments on the legacy formats match.. a tricky proposition, isn't it?

 

[Larry Geller]

This is all straying from my original point in the other thread. I want mixes that are bad WHEN THE CHANNELS ARE ASSIGNED CORRECTLY! There's never been any confusion involving Flavours or Power In The Music. Tommy James either. I want them as is.

 

[key_wiz]

Because it can do damage to the reputation of D/V's reissued product in general, and help to create an over-all impression (to some) that quad mixes just do not cut it in todays digital world of 5.1 and 7.1.

When the truth is that there are many quad mixes from the 70s that are so good, doing remixing of those particular albums could be considered a waste of time.

I hear you. But, at the same time, if DV releases an album that had a bad quad mix and doesn’t include that mix, there will be a lot of complaints about that and maybe fewer sales.

Maybe they could be included with the disclaimer that it is what it is but is included only for posterity and really as “bonus tracks”? I get there are some that are probably just completely pointless, but those are just “double stereo” or “reverb in the rears” and such might be Ok?

But certainly I don’t think these releases should supersede releasing the GOOD mixes.

 

[markshan]

I would prefer it if they would avoid releasing SACDs of Quads with inferior music.

 

[fredblue]

I would prefer it if they would avoid releasing SACDs of Quads with inferior music.

please, can you elaborate?

 

[sjcorne]

I would prefer it if they would avoid releasing SACDs of Quads with inferior music

Inflammatory and off-topic comment - we all have our personal wishlists, but D-V will continue to release whichever 70’s titles they choose. End of story.

 

[markshan]

please, can you elaborate?

They put out a lot of Muzak. I wouldn't care if it was mono, stereo, quad, 5.1 or Atmos. I find it to be unlistenable. My larger point for those who aren't easily offended is that the music is more important that the mix or the fidelity (and that is COMPLETELY on topic).

dr. simple nailed it on the second post.

 

[fredblue]

They put out a lot of Muzak. I wouldn't care if it was mono, stereo, quad, 5.1 or Atmos. I find it to be unlistenable. My larger point for those who aren't easily offended is that the music is more important that the mix or the fidelity (and that is COMPLETELY on topic).

oh right, well i take your point, absolutely

if one considers the likes of Herbie Hancock, Deodato, Billy Paul, Poco, Chase, Art Garfunkel, Rick Derringer, Tower Of Power, Return To Forever, Weather Report, Donald Byrd, Pure Prairie League, The Guess Who and Santana to be "Muzak", then i'm not sure myself and that other person would be entirely in agreement as to what exactly constitutes "Muzak".

Quad's naturally frozen at a set point in time, essentially its all gonna stem from the better part of the 1970's so i guess if music from that era is not necessarily somebody's bag they may not always find too much on offer from Vocalion's latest Quad releases that appeals to their tastes maybe?

honestly, each to their own, i respect music's a rich tapestry that elicits wide ranging responses, its all good in my book, i was just curious as to what you meant by inferior music, whether sound quality, content, style, etc

 

[markshan]

if one considers the likes of Herbie Hancock, Deodato, Billy Paul, Poco, Chase, Art Garfunkel, Rick Derringer, Tower Of Power, Return To Forever, Weather Report, Donald Byrd, Pure Prairie League, The Guess Who and Santana to be "Muzak", then i'm not sure myself and that other person would be entirely in agreement as to what exactly constitutes "Muzak".

No. That's the good stuff (except maybe Deodado). I was referring to the heavy focus on artists like Henry Mancini, Arthur Fiedler, Ray Conniff, Percy Faith and Paul Mauriat. You know, Muzak. The word has a definition and manufactured disdain doesn't change that. I don't care who or how those relics of history's dustbin are reissued. I had no interest in them then and I have no interest in them now.

 

[fredblue]

No. That's the good stuff (except maybe Deodado). I was referring to the heavy focus on artists like Henry Mancini, Arthur Fiedler, Ray Conniff, Percy Faith and Paul Mauriat. You know, Muzak. The word has a definition and manufactured disdain doesn't change that. I don't care who or how those relics of history's dustbin are reissued. I had no interest in them then and I have no interest in them now.

oh yes, i totally get it, its absolutely fair game, if it don't float your boat musically its never going to no matter the number of channels!

if its any consolation there are (as far as i know) barely any Quad mixes left for Vocalion to plunder from those artists you mention, i'm not sure about Fiedler & Mauriat but we're talking like a couple of Mancini's, Faiths & Conniff's apiece now and i've no idea if DV are going to even do any of those but i feel quietly confident that in time they'll hopefully release more titles along the lines of those you enjoy already.

exciting times to be a Quaddy, n'est pas!