Rhino to Release Doobie Brothers QUADIO Edition! (ARCHIVE THREAD)

[JonUrban]

Jon, I'm sure if a smallish company like Dutton Vocalion can 'get it right the first time' with NO snafus in their mastering/replicating chain that Rhino/Warners would be cautious this time in mastering /replicating 4 or 5 BD~As...having 'learned a lesson' from the Chicago snafu.

In fact, a LOT of these 5.1 remasters would benefit from a simple process: TEST before you PRESS!

The problem is that the people testing have no clue about surround or what they're supposed to test. I can tell you for a fact that there were at least 2 AF releases that Marshall sent me preview SACD's of that had the channels wrong. One was a very big title that was about to go to press. He told me that I reported it to him at the last moment, which was the minute I heard it. Luckily I had wav files from my reels to compare to the SACD and that saved a lot of time, money and goodwill by not having that album pressed with the channels 90 degrees out of place. The internal problem was that the engineers or mastering folks had no clue what it was supposed to sound like. It was 4 channels, and that's all they knew!

When things like this happen, the internet crowd, like QQ'rs and SHF'ers are loud to complain "How could this happen? Blah, blah, blah" and then the small universe that is interested in releases like these get all high and mighty in posts. All this does is make the forces behind the releases more vulnerable to the people who don't want to get these things released.

Now you'll all start bitching and saying "I spent my money, and I DESERVE the thing to be PERFECT", and yes you do, but when fuck ups happen in the real world with items that have a very targeted market and low profile, a lot of times nothing ever gets fixed or replaced. We've seen AF and Rhino (and others) make the effort to please their customers. In some cases, it probably meant fewer releases.

What's a customer to do?

Hey, let's not start a big debate here. I am just saying that there are x2 or x3 more chances for a fuck up when there are x2 or x3 more channels to get on a digital disc. This in itself might be just another part of the problem.

In the end, all good things come to those who wait. and wait. and wait. and............

 

[key_wiz]

I wonder if the fact that the stereo tracks got screwed up on a few of the Chicago discs and Rhino had to go through the trouble and cost of creating and sending out replacements caused the bean counters to pull out the "it's not worth it" hat with regard to multiple new titles.

I also wonder how the messed up "Sly and the Family Stone" SACD hurt AF, as I am sure that they did not budget for replacement discs and processing.

Many things play into why stuff gets or doesn't get released, just as industry insiders like our own Brian Moura have said time and time again. We always think it's easy, but generally it's far from that.

That being said, I am still expecting the Doobies Quadio this year, hopefully sooner than later. "Foraging Rhino" has been pretty silent lately. I hope that means he's been busy!

I don't think such things are easy, but if having to correct and send out some replacement discs is the difference between a company going forward with future releases or not, then they probably have a lot of other problems. Rhino didn't HAVE to send out the corrections if the project was so costly and the profit margins so tight. They could have just said "sorry, but we are pulling this title from our inventory and we won't be sending out replacements" if it was going to put them even further into the red to do so. Instead, they not only sent out the new discs, but they sold out of their stock and ordered a second pressing. They wouldn't have ordered more if they didn't think the demand warranted doing so and profits were to be made.

Also, they included that quad disc on The Doors' Singles set. There doesn't seem to me for there to be any reason to do so unless they thought it would increase sales and be worth the cost of doing so. It didn't fit in with the concept of the set, but I was one who purchased it who would not have otherwise. (I didn't manage to get a copy of the AF quad disc before it sold out.)

As far as AF goes? Clearly the company was in trouble regardless of their quad reissues or one bad title. It doesn't seem to me that the quad titles sold any worse than the others (even if they didn't give the sales the boost they hoped for) and the Sly disc wasn't the only disc they ever had to correct and replace in their history.

 

[key_wiz]

The problem is that the people testing have no clue about surround or what they're supposed to test. I can tell you for a fact that there were at least 2 AF releases that Marshall sent me preview SACD's of that had the channels wrong. One was a very big title that was about to go to press. He told me that I reported it to him at the last moment, which was the minute I heard it. Luckily I had wav files from my reels to compare to the SACD and that saved a lot of time, money and goodwill by not having that album pressed with the channels 90 degrees out of place. The internal problem was that the engineers or mastering folks had no clue what it was supposed to sound like. It was 4 channels, and that's all they knew!

When things like this happen, the internet crowd, like QQ'rs and SHF'ers are loud to complain "How could this happen? Blah, blah, blah" and then the small universe that is interested in releases like these get all high and mighty in posts. All this does is make the forces behind the releases more vulnerable to the people who don't want to get these things released.

Now you'll all start bitching and saying "I spent my money, and I DESERVE the thing to be PERFECT", and yes you do, but when fuck ups happen in the real world with items that have a very targeted market and low profile, a lot of times nothing ever gets fixed or replaced. We've seen AF and Rhino (and others) make the effort to please their customers. In some cases, it probably meant fewer releases.

What's a customer to do?

Hey, let's not start a big debate here. I am just saying that there are x2 or x3 more chances for a fuck up when there are x2 or x3 more channels to get on a digital disc. This in itself might be just another part of the problem.

In the end, all good things come to those who wait. and wait. and wait. and............

Let's remember, however, that in the case of the Chicago set, it wasn't the surround layer that was messed up and needed to be tested. The quad layer was fine. It was the STEREO layer that had the problems.

 

[Tornado Red]

I wonder if the fact that the stereo tracks got screwed up on a few of the Chicago discs and Rhino had to go through the trouble and cost of creating and sending out replacements caused the bean counters to pull out the "it's not worth it" hat with regard to multiple new titles.

I also wonder how the messed up "Sly and the Family Stone" SACD hurt AF, as I am sure that they did not budget for replacement discs and processing.

Many things play into why stuff gets or doesn't get released, just as industry insiders like our own Brian Moura have said time and time again. We always think it's easy, but generally it's far from that.

That being said, I am still expecting the Doobies Quadio this year, hopefully sooner than later. "Foraging Rhino" has been pretty silent lately. I hope that means he's been busy!

I'd like to put a positive spin on this and say they're still going forward with the Doobies and are learning from the Chicago issue so they're taking their time to get this right, that's why it's a little slow coming out...

 

[key_wiz]

In some cases, it probably meant fewer releases.

If that's true, then they have some really stupid bean counters. The answer to "we didn't make as much money as we hoped on Release A because it was defective" isn't "therefore there won't be a Release B or C". It's make sure Release B and C aren't defective.

They only make money and make up for earlier lost revenue by RELEASING new products.

 

[4-earredwonder]

The common complaint I hear today and try to avoid firsthand by avoiding those discs in question is the RAMPANT Brick walling of a LOT of RBCDs......much more common in Pop/Rock than all the other genres combined!

Quality Control seems to be a thing of the past and with all the red ink spilled on the various music websites and even copious Amazon reviews, nothing seems to penetrate those engineers/record companies who continue to issue one bad 'remaster' after another.

So it's NOT just the surround remasters feeling the pinch ...... it's epidemic....or so it seems.

 

[JonUrban]

If that's true, then they have some really stupid bean counters. The answer to "we didn't make as much money as we hoped on Release A because it was defective" isn't "therefore there won't be a Release B or C". It's make sure Release B and C aren't defective.

They only make money and make up for earlier lost revenue by RELEASING new products.

This is not factual, just a hypothesis:

QuadGuy: I would like to see us release some quad titles
VP of Beans: Why. No one buys that stuff
QuadGuy: I think you would be surprised. There's a demand in some circles
VP of Beans: How do you know
QuadGuy: Rumblings on the internet
VP of Beans: That doesn't mean anything
QuadGuy: Blankity-Blank sold quite a few surround titles last year
VP of Beans: Did they make any money
QuadGuy: I am sure they did, they sold out of a lot of titles
VP of Beans: Well, if you want to try it, it will be on you
QuadGuy: Great. Let's do it.
-----------------------------------
QuadGuy: Um, that quad release got out with a pressing error
VP of Beans: What? How did that happen?
QuadGuy: We missed it in the manufacturing
VP of Beans: What's it going to cost us
QuadGuy: We'll have to remake and repress the discs
VP of Beans: Wonderful. This is on your ass, QuadGuy
QuadGuy: But the title was selling quite well
VP of Beans: Fine.
QuadGuy: Now what about the next release?
VP of Beans: Next release? The next release is going to be YOU from your job!

 

[4-earredwonder]

I'd like to put a positive spin on this and say they're still going forward with the Doobies and are learning from the Chicago issue so they're taking their time to get this right, that's why it's a little slow coming out...

BTW, Tornado Red, how many Doobie Discs will be contained in this reissue [QUAD or otherwise]?

 

[The Rang]

Yes, over on the SH forum

I would be one of those people
Though I really ought to try all of the quad mixes (have only played 3 so far) because at least half of the stereo ones are underwhelming

 

[The Rang]

Where most of them probably panned the mastering?

I know I did LOL

 

[4-earredwonder]

This is not factual, just a hypothesis:

QuadGuy: I would like to see us release some quad titles
VP of Beans: Why. No one buys that stuff
QuadGuy: I think you would be surprised. There's a demand in some circles
VP of Beans: How do you know
QuadGuy: Rumblings on the internet
VP of Beans: That doesn't mean anything
QuadGuy: Blankity-Blank sold quite a few surround titles last year
VP of Beans: Did they make any money
QuadGuy: I am sure they did, they sold out of a lot of titles
VP of Beans: Well, if you want to try it, it will be on you
QuadGuy: Great. Let's do it.
-----------------------------------
QuadGuy: Um, that quad release got out with a pressing error
VP of Beans: What? How did that happen?
QuadGuy: We missed it in the manufacturing
VP of Beans: What's it going to cost us
QuadGuy: We'll have to remake and repress the discs
VP of Beans: Wonderful. This is on your ass, QuadGuy
QuadGuy: But the title was selling quite well
VP of Beans: Fine.
QuadGuy: Now what about the next release?
VP of Beans: Next release? The next release is going to be YOU from your job!

Jon, is this an excerpt from your upcoming bio "Citizen QUAD?"

 

[key_wiz]

The common complaint I hear today and try to avoid firsthand by avoiding those discs in question is the RAMPANT Brick walling of a LOT of RBCDs......much more common in Pop/Rock than all the other genres combined!

Quality Control seems to be a thing of the past and with all the red ink spilled on the various music websites and even copious Amazon reviews, nothing seems to penetrate those engineers/record companies who continue to issue one bad 'remaster' after another.

So it's NOT just the surround remasters feeling the pinch ...... it's epidemic....or so it seems.

That’s not a “quality control” problem, however. That’s a production decision. If they are ignoring the cries for less brickwalling and are continuing to do so, it’s because they believe it’s the right artistic and business call to make.

 

[4-earredwonder]

That’s not a “quality control” problem, however. That’s a production decision. If they are ignoring the cries for less brickwalling and are continuing to do so, it’s because they believe it’s the right artistic and business call to make.

Then TECHNICALLY it IS a quality control issue. If the Jazz, Classical, World Music reissues can get it right without anomalies, then either those rock/pop remix engineers are DEAF or the artists themselves are insanely 'irreverent' of their own work...by allowing their music to be 'distorted, contorted etc.'

When one hears the Vinyl is superior to the RBCD or hi res remaster ........ then there's something definitely wrong with this picture as digital, MOST especially Hi Res, when properly mastered, should sound superior to the vinyl specs......hands down.

 

[key_wiz]

Then TECHNICALLY it IS a quality control issue. If the Jazz, Classical, World Music reissues can get it right without anomalies, then either those remix engineers are DEAF or the artists themselves are insanely 'irreverent' of their own work...by allowing their music to be 'distorted, contorted etc.'

When one hears the Vinyl is superior to the RBCD or hi res remaster ........ then there's something definitely wrong with this picture as digital, when properly mastered, should sound superior to the vinyl specs......hands down.

Sure, but that’s a different issue. They brickwall things because they think the market prefers it and it works better for playing music on mobile devices and such.

It’s not a issue of defective product they may have to replace.

 

[key_wiz]

This is not factual, just a hypothesis:

QuadGuy: I would like to see us release some quad titles
VP of Beans: Why. No one buys that stuff
QuadGuy: I think you would be surprised. There's a demand in some circles
VP of Beans: How do you know
QuadGuy: Rumblings on the internet
VP of Beans: That doesn't mean anything
QuadGuy: Blankity-Blank sold quite a few surround titles last year
VP of Beans: Did they make any money
QuadGuy: I am sure they did, they sold out of a lot of titles
VP of Beans: Well, if you want to try it, it will be on you
QuadGuy: Great. Let's do it.
-----------------------------------
QuadGuy: Um, that quad release got out with a pressing error
VP of Beans: What? How did that happen?
QuadGuy: We missed it in the manufacturing
VP of Beans: What's it going to cost us
QuadGuy: We'll have to remake and repress the discs
VP of Beans: Wonderful. This is on your ass, QuadGuy
QuadGuy: But the title was selling quite well
VP of Beans: Fine.
QuadGuy: Now what about the next release?
VP of Beans: Next release? The next release is going to be YOU from your job!

That’s certainly not out of the question. But considering that the two titles mentioned had nothing at all wrong with the quad layers and it was the stereo and mono mixes that were messed up, then I would suggest Quad Guy better work on his arguments!

 

[4-earredwonder]

That’s certainly not out of the question. But considering that the two titles mentioned had nothing at all wrong with the quad layers and it was the stereo and mono mixes that were messed up, then I would suggest Quad Guy better work on his arguments!

But the point Jon was making that the need for replacement discs because of either Stereo or Mono screw~ups still clouded the QUAD issues in question .... but at least both Rhino and AF addressed them by offering pesky/pricey replacement discs.

I wish the same could be said for the Ten Years After "A Space In Time" fiasco [front/rear channels COMPLETELY switched] with NO replacements in sight...except for a DIY 'fix.'

 

[key_wiz]

But the point Jon was making that the need for replacement discs because of either Stereo or Mono screw~ups still clouded the QUAD issues in question .... but at least both Rhino and AF addressed them by offering pesky/pricey replacement discs.

Yes, I got his point. But mine is that it SHOULDN'T have clouded the quad issues. The f'ups had nothing to do with the quad.

I wish the same could be said for the Ten Years After "A Space In Time" fiasco [front/rear channels COMPLETELY switched] with NO replacements in sight.

I think that kind of says it all. If it’s the MC layer that’s f’d up, then the beancounters might not find it makes sense to offer a replacement.

 

[Scott65]

Although I’m sure there were those who bought the set just for the hi-rez stereo mixes.

It was a bonus for me. I play the hi-res stereo tracks in my portable music player.

 

[key_wiz]

It was a bonus for me. I play the hi-res stereo tracks in my portable music player.

I don't have a portable player that plays Blu-ray or hi-res.

The only place I really listen to stereo is in my car, and for that, I'm fine with the rips of the CDs I have on my iPod.

 

[Scott65]

Also, they included that quad disc on The Doors' Singles set. There doesn't seem to me for there to be any reason to do so unless they thought it would increase sales and be worth the cost of doing so. It didn't fit in with the concept of the set, but I was one who purchased it who would not have otherwise. (I didn't manage to get a copy of the AF quad disc before it sold out.)
.

Same here. It was the quad blu-ray that pursuaded me to buy this one.