Rick Wakeman - Six Wives and Arthur

[corneredcat]

For a detailed analysis of the different sources of The Six Wives of Henry VIII, check out the first episode of my new youtube channel, the quadcast, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1OA81R41_0

love the podcast...hope to see you do many more :sun

 

[ssully]

Curiouser and curiouser...this fellow claims to possess 2 Wakeman master tapes from 1975


http://yesworld.com/2015/03/yes-pro...9744137057646_944936792205047_944936792205047

 

[himey]

Hmm, this thread is more interesting than the Arthur disc

 

[mjk]

I've gone and ordered Six Wives of Henry VIII despite the fact that a matrix source was used. I don't have an SQ decoder and it seems like the thing is listenable, even if it isn't perfect. I look forward to listening to it next week.

 

[ssully]

Curiouser and curiouser...this fellow claims to possess 2 Wakeman master tapes from 1975


http://yesworld.com/2015/03/yes-pro...9744137057646_944936792205047_944936792205047

Images of the tapes

 

[Owen Smith]

Images of the tapes

Possibly during the period Scotch were selling Ampex tape because some Scotch facilities burnt down. Almost certainly sufffering sticky shed syndrome like all Ampex from the time.

 

[Franklin]

...and there I was thinking sticky shed syndrome was when a paint can exploded in an out house.

 

[Owen Smith]

...and there I was thinking sticky shed syndrome was when a paint can exploded in an out house.

Wouldn't treacle make the shed stickier than paint?

 

[Franklin]

Yes, that's why you don't get paint tarts.

 

[willothewisp]

I have it and it's plainly record noise. If you have any doubts listen to it through headphones.

 

[neil wilkes]

I have to confess I am really bored with the whole conspiracy thing.
No SQ versions were used on these releases.
Abbey Road provided me with the Quad of 6 Wives and tell me it is from a tape. Why would they lie about it? (sensible answers only please) There is no reason whatsoever, especially as we are freely admitting when vinyl sources are used (as on King Arthur) and the decoded Quad of King Arthur we got sent was unusable as it sounded nothing like the stereo version sonically - and I mean nothing like it. So we hunted around and found a better quality CD-4 version. So AFAIK (and again, ABbey Road would not risk their name & reputation telling Lies, Andy Walters is a very highly thought of ME and also very good at his job - he would not lie about sources as he has no need or reason to and for that matter, neither do UMGi - after all, what's in it for them?

I like a good conspiracy theory as much as the next man, if not more than the next man but the emphasis here is on a good conspiracy theory whereas this is simply beyond nonsense.
I shall say nothing more on this now as there is little point

 

[rtbluray]

All I know is that the Six Wives DVD-A sounds SIGNIFICANTLY better than King Arthur to my ears, so that's what matters most.
I'll take a listen to Six Wives again before I comment further.

 

[Owen Smith]

I have to confess I am really bored with the whole conspiracy thing.
No SQ versions were used on these releases.
Abbey Road provided me with the Quad of 6 Wives and tell me it is from a tape. Why would they lie about it? (sensible answers only please) There is no reason whatsoever, especially as we are freely admitting when vinyl sources are used (as on King Arthur) and the decoded Quad of King Arthur we got sent was unusable as it sounded nothing like the stereo version sonically - and I mean nothing like it. So we hunted around and found a better quality CD-4 version. So AFAIK (and again, ABbey Road would not risk their name & reputation telling Lies, Andy Walters is a very highly thought of ME and also very good at his job - he would not lie about sources as he has no need or reason to and for that matter, neither do UMGi - after all, what's in it for them?

I like a good conspiracy theory as much as the next man, if not more than the next man but the emphasis here is on a good conspiracy theory whereas this is simply beyond nonsense.
I shall say nothing more on this now as there is little point

Mistakes happen. "Never ascribe to malice what can be adequately explained by simple cock up." as the saying goes. That's what I think about the SQ decode for Six Wives. Maybe they thought they had a quad master but didn't. Maybe they had a quad master but accidentally sent the wrong thing to you. Stuff happens. Deep Purple Machine Head quad on SACD has the rears swapped left/right compared to SQ which is the same mix otherwise, and they can't possible both be as intended ie. someone made a mistake somewhere.

Listening to Six Wives there are clear SQ decode artefacts (rear channel information in the fronts) which simply aren't present on the (rather rare) CD-4. This was well demonstrated by ArmyOfQuad in his quadcast. I have the choice of either taking your word for it (and I'd never heard of you before this thread), or ArmyOfQuad's actual demonstration of the facts. Given that choice I'll go with the facts every time.

 

[ArmyOfQuad]

I have to confess I am really bored with the whole conspiracy thing.
No SQ versions were used on these releases.
Abbey Road provided me with the Quad of 6 Wives and tell me it is from a tape. Why would they lie about it? (sensible answers only please) There is no reason whatsoever, especially as we are freely admitting when vinyl sources are used (as on King Arthur) and the decoded Quad of King Arthur we got sent was unusable as it sounded nothing like the stereo version sonically - and I mean nothing like it. So we hunted around and found a better quality CD-4 version. So AFAIK (and again, ABbey Road would not risk their name & reputation telling Lies, Andy Walters is a very highly thought of ME and also very good at his job - he would not lie about sources as he has no need or reason to and for that matter, neither do UMGi - after all, what's in it for them?

I like a good conspiracy theory as much as the next man, if not more than the next man but the emphasis here is on a good conspiracy theory whereas this is simply beyond nonsense.
I shall say nothing more on this now as there is little point

Did you even watch my video? I'm sorry, Neil, but there's no way in hell what was on my dvd-a came from the master tape. Why would they lie? I don't know. All I know is, what was on the dvd-a that came to me in the mail was an SQ software decode from vinyl. There is no doubt about this, and if you'd listen to the disc or watch my video, you'd see there's no argument about it, it is what it is.

It sounds like someone owes all of us an explanation, if you actually authored a disc using a remaster from the master tape.

 

[ssully]

All I know is that the Six Wives DVD-A sounds SIGNIFICANTLY better than King Arthur to my ears, so that's what matters most.
I'll take a listen to Six Wives again before I comment further.

What I know (from Army of Quad's video) is that there are significantly better-sounding quad versions of Six Wives out there. So it's a shame this one is the 'official' version for the forseeable future.

 

[Cheezmo]

After watching the video, and reading Neil's post, I think this is right on. Mistakes happen. One should never assume someone is lying, but it is often the case that someone is mistaken.

Mistakes happen. "Never ascribe to malice what can be adequately explained by simple cock up." as the saying goes. That's what I think about the SQ decode for Six Wives. Maybe they thought they had a quad master but didn't. Maybe they had a quad master but accidentally sent the wrong thing to you. Stuff happens. Deep Purple Machine Head quad on SACD has the rears swapped left/right compared to SQ which is the same mix otherwise, and they can't possible both be as intended ie. someone made a mistake somewhere.

Listening to Six Wives there are clear SQ decode artefacts (rear channel information in the fronts) which simply aren't present on the (rather rare) CD-4. This was well demonstrated by ArmyOfQuad in his quadcast. I have the choice of either taking your word for it (and I'd never heard of you before this thread), or ArmyOfQuad's actual demonstration of the facts. Given that choice I'll go with the facts every time.

 

[Robert van Diggele]

Mistakes happen. "Never ascribe to malice what can be adequately explained by simple cock up." as the saying goes. That's what I think about the SQ decode for Six Wives. Maybe they thought they had a quad master but didn't. Maybe they had a quad master but accidentally sent the wrong thing to you. Stuff happens. Deep Purple Machine Head quad on SACD has the rears swapped left/right compared to SQ which is the same mix otherwise, and they can't possible both be as intended ie. someone made a mistake somewhere.

Listening to Six Wives there are clear SQ decode artefacts (rear channel information in the fronts) which simply aren't present on the (rather rare) CD-4. This was well demonstrated by ArmyOfQuad in his quadcast. I have the choice of either taking your word for it (and I'd never heard of you before this thread), or ArmyOfQuad's actual demonstration of the facts. Given that choice I'll go with the facts every time.

you have never heard of Neil Wilkes? So you do not own any of the Dvd-a 's that were released in the last 5 years? The majority of those were authored by Neil as stated in the credits.

If it wasn't for Neil, dvd-a would have vanished of the earth by now.

 

[Drabs]

you have never heard of Neil Wilkes? So you do not own any of the Dvd-a 's that were released in the last 5 years? The majority of those were authored by Neil as stated in the credits.

If it wasn't for Neil, dvd-a would have vanished of the earth by now.

I would also concur. If I ever see the name Neil Wilkes on a DVD-A or blu-ray I know it is going to be a well authored disc. That is the sign of quality to me.

 

[ssully]

I've read most of the Neil Wilkes's posts here over the years, and own many of the releases he authored. So I know who he is and highly respect what he's done


I've also seen the objective evidence Army of Quad presented (though I don't recall the word 'conspiracy' coming into play) and it's pretty compelling. As counterarguments, 'I believe what Abbey Road told me' and 'why would they lie?' don't really address that evidence. (And, as others have already said, it needn't be the case that anyone 'lied'. )

 

[Owen Smith]

you have never heard of Neil Wilkes? So you do not own any of the Dvd-a 's that were released in the last 5 years? The majority of those were authored by Neil as stated in the credits.

If it wasn't for Neil, dvd-a would have vanished of the earth by now.

I think the only DVD-As I've bought in the last 5 years are The Beatles - Love and these two Wakeman discs. I'm not keen on 5.1 for music, I much prefer a quad presentation. And when I do buy discs, I can't remember the last time I waded through the credits far enough to see who mastered it.