HiRez Poll Chicago - QUADIO [BluRay Audio]

[Larry Geller]

X was a big rebound from VIII. Much better album.

 

[The56Kid]

I

i hope you didn’t pull the plug on VIII before you got to Kath’s “Oh Thank You Great Spirit”.

Probably the hardest rocking track the band ever did and he is full-on channeling Hendrix with this one.

Just skip past “Harry Truman” and go right to it. It almost makes up for the rest of the album. .

Just took your advice and dialed up Oh, Thank You Great Spirit from VIII. Very nice Hendrixian vibe from my man Kath for sure. Thanks for the tip!!!

 

[key_wiz]

X was a big rebound from VIII. Much better album.

In some ways. Its stronger tracks are stronger, but the weaker stuff is worse (I think most of the 2nd side is pretty dreadful). But it’s also even further along that slick adult contemporary road that I think is what The56Kid was lamenting.

It makes sense they’d make that shift in many ways. By the mid/late 70s they were no longer young hungry kids needing to rock out.

They pretty much stopped “rocking” after VI. VII (my favorite album of theirs) works because it’s got so many great songs that touch on so many styles, but there’s not much on that one that rocks very hard. But I think it’s really their unappreciated masterpiece. The first three albums are all considered their classics, but all suffer from being a bit bloated with youthful self-indulgence. IMO, of course.

VII is mature and nearly flawless.

 

[The56Kid]

In some ways. Its stronger tracks are stronger, but the weaker stuff is worse (I think most of the 2nd side is pretty dreadful). But it’s also even further along that slick adult contemporary road that I think is what The56Kid was lamenting.

It makes sense they’d make that shift in many ways. By the mid/late 70s they were no longer young hungry kids needing to rock out.

They pretty much stopped “rocking” after VI. VII (my favorite album of theirs) works because it’s got so many great songs that touch on so many styles, but there’s not much on that one that rocks very hard. But I think it’s really their unappreciated masterpiece. The first three albums are all considered their classics, but all suffer from being a bit bloated with youthful self-indulgence. IMO, of course.

VII is mature and nearly flawless.

Well said on all points!

 

[Franklin]

I must play some of these albums again. I played the box in order then have dipped in (mainly to CTA as I recall). I picked up the live album (sadly not the expanded edition) on the back of enjoying the material and probably as some form of completism for the era covered. I've only played that once too. I only get small slots of dedicated solo listening time at the moment, and stuff can easily get 'lost'.

 

[Audiowannabee]

Just got this in

Played cta first...vocals seem lost...?
Now playing greastist hits disc...obviously will take a bit to get thru all of these

Note if u dont have this already better pull the trigger quckly as inventory appears to be going down & prices up
Ordered from walmart / movie mars & FOUR days later got email saying my order was CANCELLED...so ordered from amazon for more $$$

 

[sjcorne]

Played cta first...vocals seem lost...?

If you can, try dropping the rears something like 3 dB. A lot of these Columbia quads are pretty hot in the rears, as they were meant to be listened on full-range matched speakers arranged in a square around the listener. The vocals are indeed a bit less prevalent than they should be on the first couple of discs, but the last few (especially VII) are just about perfect in terms of balance.

 

[sbrom]

Just got this in

Played cta first...vocals seem lost...?
Now playing greastist hits disc...obviously will take a bit to get thru all of these

Note if u dont have this already better pull the trigger quckly as inventory appears to be going down & prices up
Ordered from walmart / movie mars & FOUR days later got email saying my order was CANCELLED...so ordered from amazon for more $$$

What AVR and Disk player are you using? Some combinations (Oppo 103 and Yamaha AVR for example) have a bug where if you play 4 channel using LPCM from the player, the rear channels won’t play. Switching to bitstream decoding in the player fixes this. Just a thought if something seems off....

 

[himey]

What AVR and Disk player are you using? Some combinations (Oppo 103 and Yamaha AVR for example) have a bug where if you play 4 channel using LPCM from the player, the rear channels won’t play. Switching to bitstream decoding in the player fixes this. Just a thought if something seems off....

That isn't the issue. It is the mix which I like a lot. There is so much going on in the rears, it can definitely drown out the vocals. It isn't perfect but I wouldn't change it.

Edit...I am speaking for the others who think the vocals are low in the mix...

 

[key_wiz]

That isn't the issue. It is the mix which I like a lot. There is so much going on in the rears, it can definitely drown out the vocals. It isn't perfect but I wouldn't change it.

Edit...I am speaking for the others who think the vocals are low in the mix...

The vocals are a bit low on the first album. I personally wouldn’t lower the rears though either.

 

[beerking]

I really must get my voting in order:
And what better release to start the ball rolling!!

This has to be a more than a Bearable 10

 

[Rickko]

If you can, try dropping the rears something like 3 dB. A lot of these Columbia quads are pretty hot in the rears, as they were meant to be listened on full-range matched speakers arranged in a square around the listener. The vocals are indeed a bit less prevalent than they should be on the first couple of discs, but the last few (especially VII) are just about perfect in terms of balance.

The origins of quadraphonic sound were based on four full range speakers placed in the corners of the listening room with the listener placed in the centre. My assumption is, of course, quad was mixed based on the listener's position ideally centre-based. So, "Quadio" as old quad mix releases (without a remix) would fall under this principle.

The listening position in my music room is not in the centre. I sit approximately at the two-third's point towards the back of the room. In the case of "Quadio", I initially heard the vocals as buried in the mix (notably on the first two albums). However, I did not decrease the rear channels. I increased the 2 front channels to compensate and settled upon an addition of +3.5 db to obtain a balance for the vocals.

I personally consider balance to be the most important factor for critically listening in surround sound. For any old quad release (without remix) in a hi-rez format, I often increase the front channels from +3 to +4 db to obtain a balance for vocals. I also check instrumental only quad releases to maximize balance by increasing both front channels equally.

By the way, I have tested a few quad releases for balance by decreasing rear channels and the results were unsatisfactory on my playing system.

 

[Franklin]

I don't recall having any issues with the Chicago quad mixes. I'm not matched up - the rears are probably standmount speakers - but I've done the system measurement thing and manually tweaked levels using whatever noise (white? pink?) that the A/V generates and a phone SPL app. Distances and delays should be pretty much sorted out on the auto calibration. Unlikely to be perfect for all settings, but it seems to work well enough. I don't use dynamic EQ, as that seems to significantly upset the front/rear balance at the volume levels I listen to.

 

[key_wiz]

The origins of quadraphonic sound were based on four full range speakers placed in the corners of the listening room with the listener placed in the centre. My assumption is, of course, quad was mixed based on the listener's position ideally centre-based. So, "Quadio" as old quad mix releases (without a remix) would fall under this principle.

The listening position in my music room is not in the centre. I sit approximately at the two-third's point towards the back of the room. In the case of "Quadio", I initially heard the vocals as buried in the mix (notably on the first two albums). However, I did not decrease the rear channels. I increased the 2 front channels to compensate and settled upon an addition of +3.5 db to obtain a balance for the vocals.

I personally consider balance to be the most important factor for critically listening in surround sound. For any old quad release (without remix) in a hi-rez format, I often increase the front channels from +3 to +4 db to obtain a balance for vocals. I also check instrumental only quad releases to maximize balance by increasing both front channels equally.

By the way, I have tested a few quad releases for balance by decreasing rear channels and the results were unsatisfactory on my playing system.

Not sure I’m understanding exactly what you’re doing here and of course I don’t know your system—-

Why is it any different to the overall mix to increase the fronts rather than to decrease the rears?

 

[Rickko]

Not sure I’m understanding exactly what you’re doing here and of course I don’t know your system—-

Why is it any different to the overall mix to increase the fronts rather than to decrease the rears?

On "Quadio", as I recall, the lead vocals emanate from the front channels for the most part. As these lead vocals did sound buried in the mix, I increased the front channels to adjust the vocals and, in effect, push them forward. It works very well on my system. I do not sit directly in the centre of the room (as noted in my previous post).

I did test "Quadio" by decreasing the rear channels but it did not solve the problem of buried lead vocals (at least to my satisfaction). It also created another problem by negatively impacting the discrete elements in the rears.

In my system, I utilize mainly Paradigm speakers..... Studio 60's for the front..... CC-370 for centre..... Studio Side ADP-470 as two speakers that are side-wall mounted and positioned high, near ceiling, about 2 feet behind my head from the sitting position (these speakers are omni-directional with sound coming out the sides). I also use a Rel R-305 subwoofer. Needless to say, I thoroughly enjoy my speaker setup.

 

[JediJoker]

Why is it any different to the overall mix to increase the fronts rather than to decrease the rears?

It isn't. Assuming no clipping, dropping the rears 3dB or raising the fronts 3dB and level-matching will produce the same result.

 

[steelydave]

I love the Quadio box as a set, but the more I listen to it, the more frustrated I am with the mastering. That isn't to say it's a trainwreck by any means, but for me the set is more of a 'close but no cigar' proposition.

The whole thing seems to suffer from a kind of uniform 'smiley face' EQ (and it seems like some compression has been applied to the low end too, making it more "thumpy" than the original albums) that for me (as it seems others too) buries the vocals in particular.

Craig Anderson may be a skilled Blu-Ray author, but I think his relative lack of experience as a mastering engineer shows in this release - lead vocals and lead instruments seem buried under the sizzle of high hats, and the brass seems too brassy as a result of the treble boost. I know it's a cliche but I would have much preferred a more audiophile style mastering that slightly boosted the upper mids (ie maybe a wide 2dB boost centered around 5kHz) rather than the ski-ramp boost he's applied to the top end. Bob Vosgien's original mastering of CTA for the old Rhino quad DVD-V was just about perfect (and didn't exhibit any of the "buried vocals" problems that Anderson's Blu-Ray does), as was Bruce Botnick's quad mastering of the Doors Greatest Hits Blu-Ray - I wish the Chicago Quadio box had been more like either of these.

So I love this set for what it is, and the packaging is superb, but every time I listen to most of the albums from it (I'll agree, VII does sound very good) I despair when I think of all the work I'd have to put in to re-EQ it to make it match the tonality of the albums as they originally sounded.

 

[key_wiz]

It isn't. Assuming no clipping, dropping the rears 3dB or raising the fronts 3dB and level-matching will produce the same result.

That was what I would presume as well.

I can’t understand why would make any difference. Of course one would have to also raise the overall volume 3db when lowering the rears to get the same result.

But other than that?

I just wanted to make sure I wasn’t missing something.

 

[fredblue]

I love the Quadio box as a set, but the more I listen to it, the more frustrated I am with the mastering. That isn't to say it's a trainwreck by any means, but for me the set is more of a 'close but no cigar' proposition.

The whole thing seems to suffer from a kind of uniform 'smiley face' EQ (and it seems like some compression has been applied to the low end too, making it more "thumpy" than the original albums) that for me (as it seems others too) buries the vocals in particular.

Craig Anderson may be a skilled Blu-Ray author, but I think his relative lack of experience as a mastering engineer shows in this release - lead vocals and lead instruments seem buried under the sizzle of high hats, and the brass seems too brassy as a result of the treble boost. I know it's a cliche but I would have much preferred a more audiophile style mastering that slightly boosted the upper mids (ie maybe a wide 2dB boost centered around 5kHz) rather than the ski-ramp boost he's applied to the top end. Bob Vosgien's original mastering of CTA for the old Rhino quad DVD-V was just about perfect (and didn't exhibit any of the "buried vocals" problems that Anderson's Blu-Ray does), as was Bruce Botnick's quad mastering of the Doors Greatest Hits Blu-Ray - I wish the Chicago Quadio box had been more like either of these.

So I love this set for what it is, and the packaging is superb, but every time I listen to most of the albums from it (I'll agree, VII does sound very good) I despair when I think of all the work I'd have to put in to re-EQ it to make it match the tonality of the albums as they originally sounded.

"Long time no see!" nil desperandum, Dave!
just think of all the work those old Q8 tapes and SQ LPs needed.. and they still sounded inferior compared to.. well, everything in this set! this set is "Skin Tiiiiight!!!"

more seriously, would i have rather unmolested flat transfers or Hoffman-esque mastering moves been applied? possibly.. and maybe there's tonality differences from the originals (the bass hump i noticed straight away, i agree, its a little excessive) but these sound so pristine, like they were mixed yesterday (maybe not VIII.. i dunno?).. but overall these transfers are incredible, its a joy to hear things like the Hits comp and X (etc) in the kind of sound quality never even amounted to a fraction of on the old vinyl and tape Quad formats.

is the mastering irreversible? is it an ordeal to apply something perhaps approaching a frowny face inverse of such a universally applied smiley face EQ, or implementing whatever boosts and cuts to suit one's tastes? its easy to create a "Chicago Quadio" EQ preset along those lines when playing all these back on something like VLC (if i can do it, anybody can!) if they've all had the same stuff done to them by the mastering engineer?

turn that EQ frown upside down, inside out and round and round (and turn that heartbeat over again while you're at it) and do it "anyway you want" when you "think in terms of two", in terms of EQ you'll be "feeling stronger every daaaay!!".. and "All
is well", "Goodbye"!

 

[Fourplay]

"... but these sound so pristine, like they were mixed yesterday (maybe not VIII.. i dunno?).. but overall these transfers are incredible, its a joy to hear things like the Hits comp and X (etc) in the kind of sound quality never even amounted to a fraction of on the old vinyl and tape Quad formats.

is the mastering irreversible? is it an ordeal to apply something perhaps approaching a frowny face inverse of such a universally applied smiley face EQ, or implementing whatever boosts and cuts to suit one's tastes? its easy to create a "Chicago Quadio" EQ preset along those lines when playing all these back on something like VLC (if i can do it, anybody can!) if they've all had the same stuff done to them by the mastering engineer?

turn that EQ frown upside down, inside out and round and round (and turn that heartbeat over again while you're at it) and do it "anyway you want" when you "think in terms of two", in terms of EQ you'll be "feeling stronger every daaaay!!".. and "All is well", "Goodbye"!

Agreed. I am so grateful efforts are being made to get these mixes out in clean modern formats. EQ can be adjusted at home, if it is that bothersome. I would encourage any industry people reading these posts to focus on the gratitude many of us feel for hearing these mixes cleanly. Keep 'em coming!