Quad LP/Tape Poll Simon and Garfunkel: Bridge Over Troubled Water[SQ/Q8]
- Thread starter EMB
- Start date
Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:
In a perfect world, consumers would have embraced reel tape--at least for quad recordings. Some did, but not many and not nearly enough--reels always wound up a niche thing, since beginning in the mid-'60s first 4-track and then 8-tracks were heavily pushed, and by 1967 the cassette was being pushed as well. Of course, if Philips had allowed cassettes to be used as a one-sided 4-track (quad) tape, the history of quad might well have been different. but having to bother threading a leader to the other reel? Too much hassle, etc., so you know the rest. Regardless, the reel offered the best *potential* sound quality and separation of any format, including vinyl.
Another example of a mix you must hear on tape is Johnny Winter's STILL ALIVE AND WELL. Decoded from SQ vinyl, the sound quality is good enough but the separation isn't. On the Q8 the rears are very discrete, adding an even more spooky atmosphere to such tracks as "Cheap Tequila." That was the intention for the remix, anyway, and SQ separation was, as Jon noted, never near what it should have been.
ED
Another example of a mix you must hear on tape is Johnny Winter's STILL ALIVE AND WELL. Decoded from SQ vinyl, the sound quality is good enough but the separation isn't. On the Q8 the rears are very discrete, adding an even more spooky atmosphere to such tracks as "Cheap Tequila." That was the intention for the remix, anyway, and SQ separation was, as Jon noted, never near what it should have been.
ED
Interesting to note how technology ends up being less about what than who -- as in, who gets access. It's easy to forget that a high-quality, completely viable quad format did, in fact exist -- and right from the beginning. It just was very expensive ($15 reels were more than double an LP's list price) and a pain in the ass (but records weren't?) As we well know, completely viable formats often still fail if they're too expensive or inconvenient to catch on with the masses. You can't charge double for anything -- no matter how much better it is -- and expect it to become the new standard. (That did happen with CD's, but long story short -- I'd argue it was convenience that sold them more than sound quality.)
Convenience and reduced size, really. For some reason consumers tend to go for things that are smaller...or at the least, tend to buy into record company propaganda about how every new format is some kind of convenience or improvement over what came before. But not everyone is keen on digital--whether through downloads or on CD--or else we wouldn't still have so much vinyl being pressed. The latter format has over time gathered its own mystique, but it was far from perfect as well. The reel tape was the best format but never got beyond audiophiles. Well, what else is new?
ED
ED
Besides, I've never seen a reel changer.
And durability. CDs certainly aren't indescructible, but you do have to put a bit more work into damaging one vs. a record.
The vinyl resurgence really does make me laugh.
I can understand the grip of nostalgia too ... but really, come on.
The real market edge of vinyl was cost: at 50 cents per, it was by far the cheapest to produce. That's why labels tried so hard for an LP format -- the dream of a higher list price and low cost.
CD's initially were quite expensive to produce, but eventually dropped to almost nothing (pennies). Labels no doubt foresaw this as a great opportunity to make big profits.
I can understand the grip of nostalgia too ... but really, come on.
The real market edge of vinyl was cost: at 50 cents per, it was by far the cheapest to produce. That's why labels tried so hard for an LP format -- the dream of a higher list price and low cost.
CD's initially were quite expensive to produce, but eventually dropped to almost nothing (pennies). Labels no doubt foresaw this as a great opportunity to make big profits.
I still love vinyl - it has its issues, as does the hardware to play it on, but I like the whole putting a record on thing. I don't if the record sounds like garbage though! (Step forward Coldplay's A Rush of Blood to the Head, which sounds like it's being played down a phone.)
SQ never really fulfilled its promise. It was supposed to give a solid quad image that would be as faithful to the original mix as a matrix could be, but CBS really didn't think things through completely. They rushed it to market because EV had their quad system already in place, and Sansui was readying the QS matrix in Japan. Even in its most basic form, QS delivered a better quad effect as a result of their emphasizing separation to the diagonals, keeping the rate of separation constant between adjacent speakers. SQ put the emphasis on left-right separation, minimizing front-rear. Both systems benefitted from logic enhancement, but overall, there was a more discrete-like result with QS/RM than SQ. I had heard the BOTW album on Q8, and the separation was quite good. The SQ LP wasn't anywhere near as complete, even when played through a Tate SQ decoder. It took on a more "ethereal" effect, which suited the music but didn't match the Q8's separation. The mix sounded completely different.
Ugh ... last thing I wanted was another discussion of The Great Quad Formats That Could Have Been. SQ, QS, EV, CD- 4 ... "they are all equal now." Most sincerely dead, as they should be. Vinyl belongs in the adjacent gravesite, but isn't yet because it makes such a good-looking corpse.
Yeah, I used Oxforddickie's decent script from about a year (or less) ago and that can generate some really good front to rear seperation (the acoustic guitar into on Billy Joel's You're My Home for instance) but this just didn't decode as well, so maybe there's also something - aside from the shortcomings of SQ in general - in the way it was encoded for vinyl???
eggplant, vinyl is far from dead. Sales of new vinyl have been steadily climbing these past few years. I have a friend in a local record shop who tells me their sales have been way up, and the quality of the pressings has also improved in quantum leaps. Many of these new albums use 180- or 200-gram vinyl, and since the pressing plants aren't as concerned with quantity as much as quality, the sound is more consistant. Used vinyl still sells well, too. For you to say vinyl should be dead and buried, I have to respectfully disagree. As for the quad formats, you're right that they aren't being used so much anymore, and while they were as good as what the technology of the day allowed, they never fulfilled the promise. Today's digital hi-rez formats can provide amazing discrete surround sound, but the mainstream interest just isn't there. We're a unique group here in that we're still into surround sound for music. As much as we preach its virtues, the record companies are still not willing to offer it, save for some few-and-far-between releases on SACD and BD-Audio. I'm not giving up on vinyl, nor will I give up my desire for more great sounds in surround on digital formats.
watsontr
600 Club - QQ All-Star
I thought the reel version of BOTW had great presence if not great separation all round. Love the album. Writing such a song about an architect still amazes me
I'm not that keen on vinyl but would love to get a copy of the SQ mix of Still Alive and Well. Was the SQ mix released on CD? Sometimes I wonder, did Johnny Winter do Rick Derringer songs better than Rick? Actually, I like them both but the difference in the delivery of Cheap Tequila is remarkable.
I'm not that keen on vinyl but would love to get a copy of the SQ mix of Still Alive and Well. Was the SQ mix released on CD? Sometimes I wonder, did Johnny Winter do Rick Derringer songs better than Rick? Actually, I like them both but the difference in the delivery of Cheap Tequila is remarkable.
I wasn't aware that Columbia ever released quad reel to reel tapes. In fact, I've never seen one, nor have I seen any in any quad software listings. The only tapes I'm aware of from Columbia, and its associated labels, in quad were Q8's. Where did you see/hear BOTW on quad reel?
I'd say, given proper treatment, it's a wash, since both are highly vulnerable when not stored with care. But while one little scratch might not muck up a slab of vinyl, the wrong scratch can make a real mess out of a CD. With a reel tape, you'd have to have something go seriously wrong with the mechanism to crinkle or cut a tape.
Columbia didn't release reels; what exists are from at least one private collection, and the quality suggests dubs from the original quad master reels.
ED
Thanks, Ed.
Not available for sale.
MarioBR
New member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2011
- Messages
- 8
I know they recorded the album "Bridge" in 16 channels separately
Now the question is: Where is the 16 channels analog tape multi tracks??
why they do not convert this tape 16 channels to DSD digital??
(with 16 channels in the hands they can to do a new mix 2.0 and 5.1 surround)
Now the question is: Where is the 16 channels analog tape multi tracks??
why they do not convert this tape 16 channels to DSD digital??
(with 16 channels in the hands they can to do a new mix 2.0 and 5.1 surround)
The big question is, who has the tapes, if they even still exist? I'd like a multichannel SACD of this, but I sincerely doubt we'll ever see it. And it's a shame, since this is one of the best albums ever recorded. (My opinion.)
iyouwas
Active Member
Just picked this up yesterday.
Quite pleased!
Quite pleased!
Similar threads
