Quad Mix Hall Of Shame (A List of Fake and/or Very Conservative Quad mixes)

[kennethbg]

I had BS&T "Greatest Hits on 8 track in quad in the early / mid 70's and I always thought it was a very good tape for the time.

 

[par4ken]

Once again, a somewhat OT comment:

I'm interested to know if, in the early 1960s, when dual inventory Mono and Stereo LPs were the norm (and the Mono mix wasn't just a folddown of the Stereo mix but a separate Mono mix), are there cases where the Stereo mix seemed to be an afterthought, just a quick mix so as to have something for the Stereo LP buyers?


Kirk Bayne

The early Beatles records come to mind. They were never intended to be released in stereo at all. When they came out in stereo they did the best that they could, often the vocals were mixed in one channel only. I actually love those mixes but they don't decode into surround worth a damn.

I remember in the seventies the LP's that got re-released that had been done in mono only saw release as synthesized stereo. While a couple of those sounded good most were a complete waste of time, it would of been better to release the original mono instead. It seems that that practice has now fallen by the wayside!

When mono 45's were the norm they were mixed specially for mono, not fold downs. With fold downs the common information (vocals) are emphasised by 6dB. CSG stereo was developed to prevent that image build up, but Neil Young in particular hated it!

 

[baward]

Not released as a quad mix, but Joni Mitchell's 'Both Sides Now' DVD-A is pretty ropey.

 

[MidiMagic]

Sorry but your timeline is a bit off there - Columbia NY was 16 track by mid-1969 (most of Chicago II is 16 track) and was 24 track less than 2 years later, as were many of the big US studios. They also had the capability to sync two multitrack machines by putting timecode or a sync pulse on an empty track of each machine - Bridge over Troubled Water did this, I can't remember if it was 8 and 4 or 16 and 8, and Roy Halee also did this for Garfunkel's Angel Clare, syncing two 16-track machines for a total of 30 tracks (minus the two tracks lost to the sync pulse process).

Not quite.

The fact that they had ONE 16-track does not mean that all of their bands got to use it. And Columbia was one of the leaders in the industry. At the prices they were charging for those things, they probably upgraded studios one at a time. And many smaller studios had to wait until much later. My figures were for a US average, not the leading users.

I have a timecode unit myself, and I know the limitations of using them. If two tracks are linked by common sounds (e.g. left and right bounce tracks) they must be on the same multitrack or the stereo image is smeared.

 

[MidiMagic]

The early Beatles records come to mind. They were never intended to be released in stereo at all. When they came out in stereo they did the best that they could, often the vocals were mixed in one channel only. I actually love those mixes but they don't decode into surround worth a damn.

I remember in the seventies the LP's that got re-released that had been done in mono only saw release as synthesized stereo. While a couple of those sounded good most were a complete waste of time, it would of been better to release the original mono instead. It seems that that practice has now fallen by the wayside!

When mono 45's were the norm they were mixed specially for mono, not fold downs. With fold downs the common information (vocals) are emphasised by 6dB. CSG stereo was developed to prevent that image build up, but Neil Young in particular hated it!

I have the mono and stereo versions of some early Beatle albums. The entire mono mix is on one side and new instrument tracks are on the other.

Try playing CSG records in SQ and the center info comes out the back speakers.

 

[kfbkfb]

Could be that since the record companies got away with providing a good mono mix and a shabby stereo mix for some albums released in the 1960s and it didn't seem to impede the transition from mono to stereo, they thought they could release some shabby quad mixes (maybe just to be able to list lots of quad albums released by them) and it wouldn't affect the (hoped for) stereo to quad transition.


Kirk Bayne

 

[mikusguitarius]

We have to remember that most studios were not as equipped as some of you imagine.

The Beatles started with 3-track recorders, and had two 4-track recorders until late in their recording careers. Only the White Album and Abbey Road and the single Hey Jude were made with an 8-track.

The Beach Boys was the first major group to use an 8-track (in the late 1960s). The Lovin' Spoonful was the first group to use a 16-track.

16-track equipment was rare until around 1973-74, and 24-track even later. So don't expect 24-track multitracks for anything in the classic quad era.

EMI Studios (later named Abbey Road Studios) in the UK never had 3 track recorders… that was an American standard at, for example, Capitol Studios.

 

[jaybird100]

I once bought a Q4 reel of Mantovani's "Latin Rendezvous" album, which was blatantly fake quad. It was double stereo, but with the rear channels reversed. It sounded awful.

 

[gvl_guy]

The early Beatles records come to mind. They were never intended to be released in stereo at all. When they came out in stereo they did the best that they could, often the vocals were mixed in one channel only. I actually love those mixes but they don't decode into surround worth a damn.

I remember in the seventies the LP's that got re-released that had been done in mono only saw release as synthesized stereo. While a couple of those sounded good most were a complete waste of time, it would of been better to release the original mono instead. It seems that that practice has now fallen by the wayside!

When mono 45's were the norm they were mixed specially for mono, not fold downs. With fold downs the common information (vocals) are emphasised by 6dB. CSG stereo was developed to prevent that image build up, but Neil Young in particular hated it!

I always hated vocals in one speaker. In the office I worked at, the stereo speakers were set in the ceiling so that, by my desk, the one never had the vocals! I always felt like I should just start belting out the lyrics when a Beatles song came on.

 

[par4ken]

Could be that since the record companies got away with providing a good mono mix and a shabby stereo mix for some albums released in the 1960s and it didn't seem to impede the transition from mono to stereo, they thought they could release some shabby quad mixes (maybe just to be able to list lots of quad albums released by them) and it wouldn't affect the (hoped for) stereo to quad transition.


Kirk Bayne

IMHO they did the best that they could with what they had on those early stereo mixes. I wouldn't call them shabby. I would tend to call stereo mixes that sound more like mono to be shabby though. As for quad again I don't feel that there were many shabby mixes at all. A few at the end of the quad era maybe, when they just didn't care anymore?

Some mixing choices might have been a bit odd in the early days and that's fine by me they weren't afraid to try out different things!

 

[marcb]

Probably the most striking example would be Pink Floyd Piper at the Gates of Dawn. The stereo remix comes across as an afterthought just knocked out by an intern or something. There were some vocals added 'live' during the original mono mix and thus are missing on the stereo remix as well. The sound quality is poor compared to the mono mix too.

Lots of them. Arguably the majority of them - particularly for UK bands.

 

[par4ken]

I always hated vocals in one speaker. In the office I worked at, the stereo speakers were set in the ceiling so that, by my desk, the one never had the vocals! I always felt like I should just start belting out the lyrics when a Beatles song came on.

A few years ago we were having a few drinks on our friends deck, they moved one front speaker of a typical home theatre sound system outside, or in the patio doorway. Listening to oldies on a streaming service, every second or third song would produce no sound from that speaker but only from the systems centre speaker inside the house! A major fault of such systems, I like my mono reproduced from all speakers!

 

[MidiMagic]

EMI Studios (later named Abbey Road Studios) in the UK never had 3 track recorders… that was an American standard at, for example, Capitol Studios.

Oops. The Beatles actually started with 2-track, not 3-track.

 

[steelydave]

Not quite.

The fact that they had ONE 16-track does not mean that all of their bands got to use it. And Columbia was one of the leaders in the industry. At the prices they were charging for those things, they probably upgraded studios one at a time. And many smaller studios had to wait until much later. My figures were for a US average, not the leading users.

I have a timecode unit myself, and I know the limitations of using them. If two tracks are linked by common sounds (e.g. left and right bounce tracks) they must be on the same multitrack or the stereo image is smeared.

Not sure what your point is here, equivocating about "the US average" when you previously cited a bunch of famous bands that were decidedly not 'the average'. Big bands recorded in the best studios, which had the latest equipment.

You said "don't expect 24-track multitracks for anything in the classic quad era." The "quadraphonic era kicked off in December 1970 when RCA released its first 50 Q8 tapes, and ran through 1977 or so. Most of the big US recording studios were capable of at least 16-track recording by 1971 - as I said Chicago's 2nd album was 16 track in 1969, most of the Guess Who recordings of 1969/70 done at RCA NY & Chicago were 16 track, Marvin Gaye's What's Going On was recorded at Motown in Detroit on 16-track in 1970 and 1971, and B.B. King's In London and the quad mix of Pink Floyd's Echoes were done at Command Studios Picadilly in London, which was 16-track in early 1971.

By 1973 the vast majority of leading studios were 24 track-capable, including Warner Bros. LA studio (where lots of quad records were mixed), CBS NY and San Francisco (where Garfunkel's Angel Clare was done, along with the Santana albums starting with Caravanserai), Sigma Sound in Philadelphia (where all the PIR quad mixes were done), and the Record Plant in NY, LA and Sausalito, as well as their mobile truck. Europe wasn't much different - Decca's studios in Paris were 24-track quad capable, as were their subsidiaries in Holland and Belgium.

Sure, there are some quad mixes that were culled from 8-track masters (some of the earliest Columbias for example) and even a handful from 3 and 4 track (A&M's Bacharach and Herb Alpert releases, and some of the very early RCA's) but by the vast majority are from 16 and more often than not 24 track, especially albums recorded from 1973 through 1977, which comprises the bulk of the quad era, both in number of years and number of releases.

 

[kfbkfb]

IMHO they did the best that they could with what they had on those early stereo mixes.

I see now I was making an over generalization, I don't know anything about the early stereo mixes and very little about the early quad mixes.

The mono to stereo transition occured even though some of the stereo mixes weren't very good, so there was no reason for record companies to make sure that (nearly) all quad mixes were demo quality to help with the stereo to quad transition.


Kirk Bayne

 

[Marcsten]

I'm struggling with a few of the reviews here of questionable quad mixes. There are the three notorious Guess Who quads that are not poor quad mixes - they are not quad mixes. They are double stereo. I could never understand taking the time and expense to release a CD 4 this way. And to do three of them. This is not trying something new; its lazy. They are not worth playing in quad. I was not a Carpenters fan until recently and just got the SQ US of the Singles. I have not really had time for a critical listen but the drums isolate in the right rear in every song as much as I recall from my first listening. While not adventurous, come in, its the Carpenters not Pink Floyd. As I say, I will have to listen to it more closely to see.

 

[Q-Eight]

You said "don't expect 24-track multitracks for anything in the classic quad era." The "quadraphonic era kicked off in December 1970 when RCA released its first 50 Q8 tapes, and ran through 1977 or so. Most of the big US recording studios were capable of at least 16-track recording by 1971 - as I said Chicago's 2nd album was 16 track in 1969, most of the Guess Who recordings of 1969/70 done at RCA NY & Chicago were 16 track, Marvin Gaye's What's Going On was recorded at Motown in Detroit on 16-track in 1970 and 1971, and B.B. King's In London and the quad mix of Pink Floyd's Echoes were done at Command Studios Picadilly in London, which was 16-track in early 1971.

By 1973 the vast majority of leading studios were 24 track-capable, including Warner Bros. LA studio (where lots of quad records were mixed), CBS NY and San Francisco (where Garfunkel's Angel Clare was done, along with the Santana albums starting with Caravanserai), Sigma Sound in Philadelphia (where all the PIR quad mixes were done), and the Record Plant in NY, LA and Sausalito, as well as their mobile truck. Europe wasn't much different - Decca's studios in Paris were 24-track quad capable, as were their subsidiaries in Holland and Belgium.

Sure, there are some quad mixes that were culled from 8-track masters (some of the earliest Columbias for example) and even a handful from 3 and 4 track (A&M's Bacharach and Herb Alpert releases, and some of the very early RCA's) but by the vast majority are from 16 and more often than not 24 track, especially albums recorded from 1973 through 1977, which comprises the bulk of the quad era, both in number of years and number of releases.

Ya beat me to the punch, Steelydave! I used to think like Mr. Midimagic, thinking that it took a long time for technology to be embraced. I mean, if you listen to some stereo mixes of certain songs, they're pretty bad. There was an ongoing discussion over at the Both Sides Now stereo chat board about the Buffalo Springfield song "For What it's Worth". Some were even trying to explain it's vocal tracks off by saying it was recorded to 2-track at a radio station and mixed on the fly! But then I come around with the actual 8-track multi, and one member in particular labelled me a heretic claiming that the multitrack was either fake or a re-recording.

The truth is, lots of big studios had serious multitrack machines a LOT earlier than we thought! CBS Studios in Hollywood was 8-track in 1965! Paul Revere and the Raiders, The Byrds. The New York studios must've had them too because Simon and Garfunkel were on 8-track for "Sounds of Silence" onward. (Let's not forget, Jim Reeves telling us he did 'Bookends' to Quad, though I'd wager they were still on 8-track for that one) Tommy James has been on record saying "Crimson & Clover" was on 16-track. It might have been! Released in December of '68 and recorded (obviously) prior to that, it's entirely possible. Judging by the Quad mix though, I'd say he's mis-remembering and they might've been using a 16-track BOARD with an 8-track tape machine. But, I'd be happy to be wrong assuming that. I've seen lots of 16-track tapes where they don't utilize all 16 tracks. Even some where they've bounced the drums down to only 2-tracks (kicker & kit) only to leave some blank tracks.

Hell, we could've had the Bobby Fuller Four in Quad if somebody had the idea to do so. They were playing with an experimental 1-inch 10-track machine in 1964!

 

[MidiMagic]

While the very few had more than 8 tracks in 1970, the majority at that time probably did not just because they didn't have the money. Many were using bouncing techniques to stave off having to upgrade.

The first time I saw a studio recorder with more than 8 tracks was in 1974. Most of the studios in my area had 4 or 8 track equipment (Many had the TEAC 3340). I was doing repair jobs for some of them back then.

 

[Titch]

Not released as a quad mix, but Joni Mitchell's 'Both Sides Now' DVD-A is pretty ropey.

What absolute rubbish! Pretty ropey?! What are you listening to it on? A mobile telephone?! On a well-calibrated, decent 5.1 set up, this is a stellar, audiophile recording and surround mix. I've yet to play Both Sides Now in my listening room and see a dry eye to anyone listening to Joni Mitchell with the London Philharmonic Orchestra. The surround mix is beautifully done. Anywhere you walk around in the room, it sounds like you’re there in the auditorium and the London Philharmonic is playing. It’s an amazing experience. I've seen some clueless postings on this forum, but this takes the biscuit.

 

[marcb]

While the very few had more than 8 tracks in 1970, the majority at that time probably did not just because they didn't have the money. Many were using bouncing techniques to stave off having to upgrade.

The first time I saw a studio recorder with more than 8 tracks was in 1974. Most of the studios in my area had 4 or 8 track equipment (Many had the TEAC 3340). I was doing repair jobs for some of them back then.

I believe most major studios in NY, LA, London, etc. had at least one 16 track recorder by ‘72-ish. I think even the Ronnie Lane and Rolling Stones Mobiles were 16 track by ‘73.