I just popped in my Japanese Wired to confirm it is 5.1. The label says SQ8 which I assume it was originally a quad 8 track ? Fredblue or RTbluray would know. But this sounds awesome, need to get to my new Rush.
Jeff Beck's "Wired"....now available as multi-channel hybrid SACD from Japan Sony
- Thread starter soundboy
- Start date
Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:
On most quad reissues a fake center channel is created by summing the two front channels. Usually it is at a much lower volume than the other channels so it doesn't stand out in the mix. To get the intended phantom center effect just shut it off.
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2016
- Messages
- 103
Thanks for the prompt response!
I'm a little unsure that just disabling center and LFE will actually "revert" back to the original 4.0 signal. I'm very newbish in general so please bear with me:
If the signal is manipulated to 5.1 from 4.0, then that's irreversible isn't it? Those frequencies and signals have been cut and then re-added by whatever media player you're using back into an approximated 4.0 right? Maybe I'm just dense but for example say you recorded a stereo signal to mono (say for example with a "Mono" switch on your Receiver / preamp). Then if you take that same tape and play back on the same receiver preamp but then switch the selector to "Stereo" you would NOT get a stereo signal since the way it was recorded was the summed mono signals on both L/R tracks of the tape. Seems like 4.0 to quad would be something similar.
I would love to be proven wrong since its a lot easier to find Multichannel mixes that were made from quad (ie; This Jeff beck, Moody Blues, etc) than releases that are dedicated 4.0 or have both (like some of the recent Floyd or Clapton boxes).
Thanks in advance for being gentle
Thanks for the prompt response!
I'm a little unsure that just disabling center and LFE will actually "revert" back to the original 4.0 signal. I'm very newbish in general so please bear with me:
If the signal is manipulated to 5.1 from 4.0, then that's irreversible isn't it? Those frequencies and signals have been cut and then re-added by whatever media player you're using back into an approximated 4.0 right? Maybe I'm just dense but for example say you recorded a stereo signal to mono (say for example with a "Mono" switch on your Receiver / preamp). Then if you take that same tape and play back on the same receiver preamp but then switch the selector to "Stereo" you would NOT get a stereo signal since the way it was recorded was the summed mono signals on both L/R tracks of the tape. Seems like 4.0 to quad would be something similar.
I would love to be proven wrong since its a lot easier to find Multichannel mixes that were made from quad (ie; This Jeff beck, Moody Blues, etc) than releases that are dedicated 4.0 or have both (like some of the recent Floyd or Clapton boxes).
Thanks in advance for being gentle
Sent PM and would be happy to discuss there. The mods get annoyed when we go off topic on poll threads.
I love this disc though! The 7-inch package mimicking the SQ release looks too cool next to my copy of the SQ LP.
hey Mark, yes the Surround mix on this SACD was previously released in 1976 on SQ-encoded Quadraphonic LP and Q8 Quadraphonic 8-track.
however, the SACD is presented as 5.1 with artificially created (faux/synthesised/derived, delete as applicable) Centre & LFE channels.
personally i'd rather the producers of this disc had left the redundant channels silent/empty as Audio Fidelity or Dutton Vocalion do with their Quad material on Surround SACD but the artificial C & LFE are not intrusive or invasive or detrimental to the Quad mix, imho.
fwiw i recorded in the 6 channels of this SACD and then chucked the (to me) unnecessary and redundant Centre & LFE - and exported as 6-ch Flac with silent Centre & LFE (for compatibility with my Receiver/Computer/Software solution which doesn't play nice with 4 channel content and wrongly assigns channels in that scenario) so i now effectively just enjoy this one on the computer in the 4-channel presentation of the original Quad and the Quad presentation does not suffer for this reverse-engineering, it compares very favourably to the decoded SQ LP imho, obviously its discrete, bottom line for me is i feel it does not adversely affect the 4.0/Quad 'salvageable' at the core of this SACD.
still such a thrill to me this Surround SACD saw release, sonically it wipes the floor with my SQ LP and its one of my all-time favourite Quad mixes, not dissimilar in presentation style of Quad mix to the excellent Audio Fidelity Billy Cobham "Spectrum" SACD from the previously unreleased Quad mix, which also has keys/synths in one Rear channel and guitar in the other, to equally dazzling effect.
It's 'Sophie' and it was discussed on the other thread about the Sony Japan WIRED 5.1 release (which really should just be folded into this one, minus the endless tedious chatter about price and shipping times.)there's one track on this lovely ol' Quad that i think maybe used the "patented CBS fake-o-matic upmixing" technique as also heard on the Quads of Santana's "Amigos" & "Festival" and Herbie Hancock's "Secrets".. can you spot which one it might be?
its would be unusual at QQ to lump such a discussion thread about a title in with a Poll..
and the first post of this Poll has the following link to the discussion anyway;
https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/fo...l-hybrid-SACD-from-Japan-Sony&highlight=wired
and the first post of this Poll has the following link to the discussion anyway;
https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/fo...l-hybrid-SACD-from-Japan-Sony&highlight=wired
it would be unusual...but also an improvement.
Most of the posts from page 9 on there are discussing listener responses to the SACD itself, not just faffing on about delivery dates. At least one such discussion there already crosses over to this thread. What is the point of having two such threads? (For any releases, not just this one)
Most of the posts from page 9 on there are discussing listener responses to the SACD itself, not just faffing on about delivery dates. At least one such discussion there already crosses over to this thread. What is the point of having two such threads? (For any releases, not just this one)
JediJoker
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
To keep the poll thread free of clutter, such as this...
Poll threads are for explaining votes. That's all."explaining your vote" means posting about your reaction to the release. You're effectively saying there should be two such threads for every release. One for voters, and the other for non voters. I don't vote, because 10 levels of discrimination is absurd. But I do read and post in poll threads because that's where the discussion of a release tends to be current and focused on the sound of the release.
Two threads per release is not a bad idea, if it were these two: one thread devoted to pre-release discussion, and the other, to post-release/poll/reaction -- which is probably what most posters care about (unless 'mine just shipped!' posts are the highlight of their day).
Two threads per release is not a bad idea, if it were these two: one thread devoted to pre-release discussion, and the other, to post-release/poll/reaction -- which is probably what most posters care about (unless 'mine just shipped!' posts are the highlight of their day).
Now for some actual Wired related content from me I'm posting this in both threads, because.
I 'reverting' the Sony Japan 5.1 release back to 4.0, by using MMH to silence the C and LFE channels.
It's a little hard for me to judge the result, because I am no fan of the 1970s quad mixing philosophy used for Blow by Blow and Wired -- lead guitar in the rear on most tracks, rhythm section up front. I really dislike it. And it's not because I use tiny surrounds -- I use the same Behringer Truth passive monitors all around. Plus two 12" subwoofers. System is 'crossed over' at 80Hz. The room is modestly treated for broadband reflections, and Audyssey does room EQ. I sit in the sweet spot in the near field. I know the album itself really well, having been a fan of it since the mid 70s (not to mention I'm currently practicing the bass part of 'Led Boots' to play in a music project honoring JB, so I know the stereo sound of that one really well now).
I compared my reverted 4.0 to the 5.1 (but with Center turned OFF in my AVR, so it was essentially 4.0 + LFE....call it 4.1. The AVR in this case should be distributing C content into LF and RF*). I could easily and rapidly switch between the two since they are files played in foobar2k. My main test tracks were 'Led Boots' and 'Blue Wind'.
The Result:
Misgivings about the mix itself aside, the 4.0 reversion sounds 'OK' on its own...but anemic compared to the 4.1. There is bass, for sure, but it's perceptibly very obviously reduced compared to the 4.1. The whole experience becomes more visceral and immersive in 4.1, because the front (where the bass instruments are) becomes in better perceived balance with the rears. It doesn't help the reverted 4.0 that the mix is so dry (the original stereo mix had a fair amount of reverb on it) -- in 4.0 it sounds rather clinical and disjointed.** Adding back the LFE seems to ameliorate that issue.
This is NOT the case for every 5.1 mix that I have 'reverted' to 4.0 -- Nektar's Remember the Future (which has low level C and LFE content), for example, does NOT suffer such a massive perceived bass reduction when C and LFE are silenced.
That said, the Wired SACD bass in 4.1 is not ideal. It feels just a bit too much, on the verge of being overwhelming, at times - which I believe one critic here said about it already. My setup can handle it, nothing sounds boomy or distorted, but I can easily imagine it being obnoxious in some setups and some playback levels. An ideal mix might have the LFE at a bit lower level. Or no LFE at all, just more bass in the main channels...my preferred solution....
My experience with Wired hints that the derived LFE content on the SACD mix consists of lowpassed content of the main channels BUT that those main channels are themselves highpassed -- i.e., they actually lack that bass, as opposed to the practice of 'doubling' bass in mains and LFE. (Such highpassing is actually best practice, to my mind. ) I don't know for sure that this is actually what's happened. I'd have to do spectral analysis on a per channel basis to test it.
Regardless, it still seems to my ears that the bass is a bit 'pumped up' when LFE is included. One question is, is that perception accurate to the original quad mix, or is it from juice added for a .1 mix? An obvious way to approach this is to compare the 5.1 mix and reverted 4.0 to actual 70s-era quad media sound. I don't have any matrixed/Q8/CD4 rips of Wired, but I'd love to to see how much, if any, the bass has been pumped up on the SACD.
*As I write it occurs to me that this is not really equivalent to silencing the C, so I should also try adding back the C channel to my 4.0 and leave C on in the AVR, so I can isolate just the LFE as a variable. Maybe the C has something useful in it after all!
**It also occurs to me as I write this that I had left Audyssey Dynamic EQ 'on' by default, which I probably shouldn't for a comparison like this. DEQ might exacerbate 'disjointedness' of the mix because DEQ is known to bump up the surround channels a few dB. I have tried to compensated for this with manual speaker adjustment, bumping them down. But for comparison purposes it may be best to turn DEQ off and re-calibrate the surrounds so they match the fronts in level again.
I'm posting this in both threads, because.I 'reverting' the Sony Japan 5.1 release back to 4.0, by using MMH to silence the C and LFE channels.
It's a little hard for me to judge the result, because I am no fan of the 1970s quad mixing philosophy used for Blow by Blow and Wired -- lead guitar in the rear on most tracks, rhythm section up front. I really dislike it. And it's not because I use tiny surrounds -- I use the same Behringer Truth passive monitors all around. Plus two 12" subwoofers. System is 'crossed over' at 80Hz. The room is modestly treated for broadband reflections, and Audyssey does room EQ. I sit in the sweet spot in the near field. I know the album itself really well, having been a fan of it since the mid 70s (not to mention I'm currently practicing the bass part of 'Led Boots' to play in a music project honoring JB, so I know the stereo sound of that one really well now).
I compared my reverted 4.0 to the 5.1 (but with Center turned OFF in my AVR, so it was essentially 4.0 + LFE....call it 4.1. The AVR in this case should be distributing C content into LF and RF*). I could easily and rapidly switch between the two since they are files played in foobar2k. My main test tracks were 'Led Boots' and 'Blue Wind'.
The Result:
Misgivings about the mix itself aside, the 4.0 reversion sounds 'OK' on its own...but anemic compared to the 4.1. There is bass, for sure, but it's perceptibly very obviously reduced compared to the 4.1. The whole experience becomes more visceral and immersive in 4.1, because the front (where the bass instruments are) becomes in better perceived balance with the rears. It doesn't help the reverted 4.0 that the mix is so dry (the original stereo mix had a fair amount of reverb on it) -- in 4.0 it sounds rather clinical and disjointed.** Adding back the LFE seems to ameliorate that issue.
This is NOT the case for every 5.1 mix that I have 'reverted' to 4.0 -- Nektar's Remember the Future (which has low level C and LFE content), for example, does NOT suffer such a massive perceived bass reduction when C and LFE are silenced.
That said, the Wired SACD bass in 4.1 is not ideal. It feels just a bit too much, on the verge of being overwhelming, at times - which I believe one critic here said about it already. My setup can handle it, nothing sounds boomy or distorted, but I can easily imagine it being obnoxious in some setups and some playback levels. An ideal mix might have the LFE at a bit lower level. Or no LFE at all, just more bass in the main channels...my preferred solution....
My experience with Wired hints that the derived LFE content on the SACD mix consists of lowpassed content of the main channels BUT that those main channels are themselves highpassed -- i.e., they actually lack that bass, as opposed to the practice of 'doubling' bass in mains and LFE. (Such highpassing is actually best practice, to my mind. ) I don't know for sure that this is actually what's happened. I'd have to do spectral analysis on a per channel basis to test it.
Regardless, it still seems to my ears that the bass is a bit 'pumped up' when LFE is included. One question is, is that perception accurate to the original quad mix, or is it from juice added for a .1 mix? An obvious way to approach this is to compare the 5.1 mix and reverted 4.0 to actual 70s-era quad media sound. I don't have any matrixed/Q8/CD4 rips of Wired, but I'd love to to see how much, if any, the bass has been pumped up on the SACD.
*As I write it occurs to me that this is not really equivalent to silencing the C, so I should also try adding back the C channel to my 4.0 and leave C on in the AVR, so I can isolate just the LFE as a variable. Maybe the C has something useful in it after all!
**It also occurs to me as I write this that I had left Audyssey Dynamic EQ 'on' by default, which I probably shouldn't for a comparison like this. DEQ might exacerbate 'disjointedness' of the mix because DEQ is known to bump up the surround channels a few dB. I have tried to compensated for this with manual speaker adjustment, bumping them down. But for comparison purposes it may be best to turn DEQ off and re-calibrate the surrounds so they match the fronts in level again.
Last edited:
i need to double check but fwiw i don't remember "Blow By Blow" and "Wired" having the exact same Quad mix approach.
guitar work on "Blow By Blow" was in both Rears, whereas "Wired" had guitar parts in one Rear and Jan Hammer in another Rear (and rhythm guitar and keys were not always assigned to the same Rear channel from track to track/song to song, sometimes Jan's in the Left Rear, sometimes in the Right Rear) and there were other (mainly lead i think?) guitar parts up in the Centre Front.
its been too long since i played some of these old Quads so its a good excuse to revisit old friends.
guitar work on "Blow By Blow" was in both Rears, whereas "Wired" had guitar parts in one Rear and Jan Hammer in another Rear (and rhythm guitar and keys were not always assigned to the same Rear channel from track to track/song to song, sometimes Jan's in the Left Rear, sometimes in the Right Rear) and there were other (mainly lead i think?) guitar parts up in the Centre Front.
its been too long since i played some of these old Quads so its a good excuse to revisit old friends.
I love the drums in the rear! I don't mind lead instruments assigned there either it sure beats the wimpy modern day mixes with little more than ambience back there. Sounds great in a vehicle as well (or at least it did when we had 6x9's in the rear deck)!
I didn't notice a lack of base without the lfe channel. I use the same full range speakers all the way around without a sub. It would be my personal preference to mix the lfe channel equally into all four speakers, not just the fronts.
I didn't notice a lack of base without the lfe channel. I use the same full range speakers all the way around without a sub. It would be my personal preference to mix the lfe channel equally into all four speakers, not just the fronts.
they don't have the same 'mixing philosophy' either, as previously mentioned
There's plenty of mix options in between those two extremes.
Are you folding the LFE into your mains? That's what turning off the subwoofer channel does in modern AVRs (as it should). Though I'm aware many here seem wedded to pre-AVR technology.
At the risk of encouraging yet more pedantry, may I ask where the 'mixing philosophy' of these two quads was previously discussed ? Because clearly that's the most important issue raised in my lengthy post (I naively thought it would be the difference between active LFE and silent LFE playback).
Yes I fold the lfe channel into the mains (via the Oppo) but that is done with PCM only.
I set SACD playback for DSD as it sounds better than when converted to PCM by the OPPO, no mixing is done nor is it possible.
Quad releases should contain the original four channel only, full bass from all four speakers. I believe that the DV releases have only silent lfe and centre channels. I notice no loss of bass with the Sony SACDs. I don't use the centre and lfe with those.
My homebuilt equipment (pre AVR) it is designed as a mixer (no input switching required) I added an extra input for that pesky centre channel and plan to add another for the sub bass. A set up pot will be needed to get the mixing right.
In the past I made 5.1 to quad mixdowns (using Foobar) where I added the lfe to the rear channels only. The centre was obviously added the fronts, adding the lfe only to the rear helped to bring up the rear speaker levels closer to that of the fronts. It sounded fine to me!
the two Quads are not mixed alike, so whether you're using an old Quad Receiver or a more modern AVR, or have a Centre speaker or not, or are using a Subwoofer or not, or are using Bass Management or not, is irrelevant when comparing the Quads of "Blow By Blow" and "Wired" to one another because the two Quads are not mixed in the same way.
yes, all of those previously mentioned aspects of one's equipment and playback settings and so on are vitally important when discussing the MultiCh SACDs of "Blow By Blow" and "Wired" but not in comparing them to one another, not least because of the mastering and manipulation, channel allocation and potential filtering of the Quad mixes on both MultiCh SACDs, which i feel may be somewhat questionable.
why do i say this? well because when comparing the Japanese MultiCh SACD of "Wired" to my old SQ Quad LP of “Wired", the Japanese MultiCh SACD had more Bass than the Quad LP and at times i felt that extra Bass on the SACD was boomy and excessive.
by removing the C & LFE altogether (rather than reallocating their contents into the other 4 channels) i found the "Wired" Japanese MultiCh SACD sounded closer to my old "Wired" SQ Quad LP when decoded and that's how i prefer to listen to it.
i honestly wish both MultiCh SACDs of "Blow By Blow" and "Wired" had utilised straight flat transfers of the 4-channel masters with Silent Centre & LFE for compatibility purposes only rather than have content mixed and filtered into the C & LFE but still i enjoy them to this day, tinkered around with to suit my tastes and setup.
why do i say this? well because when comparing the Japanese MultiCh SACD of "Wired" to my old SQ Quad LP of “Wired", the Japanese MultiCh SACD had more Bass than the Quad LP and at times i felt that extra Bass on the SACD was boomy and excessive.
by removing the C & LFE altogether (rather than reallocating their contents into the other 4 channels) i found the "Wired" Japanese MultiCh SACD sounded closer to my old "Wired" SQ Quad LP when decoded and that's how i prefer to listen to it.
i honestly wish both MultiCh SACDs of "Blow By Blow" and "Wired" had utilised straight flat transfers of the 4-channel masters with Silent Centre & LFE for compatibility purposes only rather than have content mixed and filtered into the C & LFE but still i enjoy them to this day, tinkered around with to suit my tastes and setup.
Then you aren't comparing what I am comparing.
For a quad mix repurposed to 5.1 via addition of derived LFE and C content, e.g. Sony Japan Wired, can you know if there's any change in bass unless you hear them with the LFE (and possibly C) included?
Similar threads
