FWIW: disc authoring != mastering
Rick Wakeman - Six Wives and Arthur
- Thread starter user 1679
- Start date
Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:
First, Owen, kindly read this post from one of our QQ Moderators, timbre4: https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/entry.php?208-Accidents-Will-Happen
Second, Neil Wilkes is one of our Moderators who is HIGHLY KNOWLEDGEABLE, and has mastered most of the DVD-A's done in the last several years, as Robert VanDiggele had pointed out. So, Owen, even if you hadn't heard of Neil Wilkes prior to your post, the fact is that the artists, record labels and MOST QQ members CERTAINLY KNOW who Mr. Wilkes is, as well as his interest and proficiency at creating DVD-A's. IMHO, I believe that an apology is in order.
I've included a photo capture of a page from the booklet from the 5.1 DVD-A of King Crimson's In the Court of the Crimson King:
You'll notice that the 5.1 DVD-A was both mastered and authored by Neil Wilkes.
It was also QC'ed by Jon Urban, QQ forum owner; Bob Romano, another QQ Moderator; and Bob Squires, a knowledgeable, long-time QQ member.
It was mixed for 5.1 by QQ Moderator, and Porcupine Tree/solo artist Steven Wilson.
That is alright obviously. I read your post as if you were saying Neil is some kind of nobody in the surround world, which he is definately not. But perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying, as English in not my mother language.
But let's not make it more complicated. I do not know much about this Six Wives saga, only followed it from the sideline.
Good god people it's only a disc. This is Stupid. Let's move on. Whether this title is a winner or a clunker, who cares? I would buy this just to support Neil. The Quad/MC community has no better friend than Neil. He has always been a friend for all of us here and was with us in our Darkest hour when there were NO TITLES at all coming out from anywhere. Anyone remember that? It wasn’t that long ago, and just because a few titles are coming out now, does not mean titles can’t and won’t dry up again.
EDIT: Order placed for this..
EDIT: Order placed for this..
Discussing this topic isn't stupid, not at all. When Universal is claiming they have a remaster from the master tapes, and the product we pay our hard earned money for has a needledrop on it, that suggests that we didn't get the product we were supposed to get. If the master tapes were found, and remastered, why should we settle for the mistake?
I mean no disrespect to anyone. I certainly respect Neil's work on the many discs he's authored. But, the fact of the matter is, we have a situation where Universal is claiming one thing, and what is on the disc that came to me is very clearly not what Universal is claiming. Being that my disc is containing an inferior product to what Universal is advertising and selling, I think us paying customers are owed an explanation for this.
I'm not creating "conspiracy theories" or out to disrespect anyone. I'm just trying to determine where the mistake is, and if there's a better product that we were supposed to get, so that Universal can fix their mistake and get us the right disc. In order for this to happen, Universal has to at least acknowledge their statements and their product do not match. I had hoped my video, which clearly proves the dvd-a contains an SQ software decoded needle drop, would put to rest any debate about the content of the disc that was released, and begin conversation on what happened, and if anything can be done to fix it. Was it a misunderstanding or a miscommunication and they never did find the tape? Or did the wrong disc get duplicated? I don't know. But I want to know.
But we can't find out until people actually listen to the disc and hear the obvious and acknowledge what I know as fact, this disc contains a needledrop.
I mean no disrespect to anyone. I certainly respect Neil's work on the many discs he's authored. But, the fact of the matter is, we have a situation where Universal is claiming one thing, and what is on the disc that came to me is very clearly not what Universal is claiming. Being that my disc is containing an inferior product to what Universal is advertising and selling, I think us paying customers are owed an explanation for this.
I'm not creating "conspiracy theories" or out to disrespect anyone. I'm just trying to determine where the mistake is, and if there's a better product that we were supposed to get, so that Universal can fix their mistake and get us the right disc. In order for this to happen, Universal has to at least acknowledge their statements and their product do not match. I had hoped my video, which clearly proves the dvd-a contains an SQ software decoded needle drop, would put to rest any debate about the content of the disc that was released, and begin conversation on what happened, and if anything can be done to fix it. Was it a misunderstanding or a miscommunication and they never did find the tape? Or did the wrong disc get duplicated? I don't know. But I want to know.
But we can't find out until people actually listen to the disc and hear the obvious and acknowledge what I know as fact, this disc contains a needledrop.
There's ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG with expressing one's dissatisfaction with a product. I certainly hope that we can do it respectfully, and not taking pot shots against folks on issues we know little or nothing about, like questioning Mr. Wilkes' credentials. "I never heard of Enrico Caruso" as an indictment of his singing talent reflects poorly on no one but the uninformed person who has never heard, or even heard of him.
Owen Smith
1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
I fail to see the relevance of an entirely different disc (King Crimson) that I do not own. The fact remains that until this thread I had never heard of Neil Wilkes. There are many people I've never heard of, that's no disrespect to them at all it simply means I've never come across them or their work. Such is the case with Neil.
Nor have I said anything against Neil's proficiency in creating the DVD-A, I'm simply disagreeing with him on what quad audio is on the disc. I also did not accuse him of lying or anything else, I said it's probably a mistake somewhere and someone sent him audio that they said was from a quad master but was actually SQ decoded. No-one can give accurate information when they themselves had been fed incorrect information.
I cannot see why I owe Neil an apology. I believe he was misled, that's all.
I think it unlikely that two different discs were authored with different quad audio, which ArmyOfQuad suggests. It takes time to author a disc and the Six Wives and King Arthur discs are similar in style, it looks to me as if both were authored by the same person (ie. Neil). It seems highly unlikely that someone else authored a similar Six Wives, and Neil would know if he'd done it twice. No, it's far more likely that Neil was supplied either with the wrong quad audio, or the only one available but which was incorrectly attributed as being from the master.
I swore I'd say no more on this subject, but if someone says I owe someone an apology and I'm then silent it doesn't look good. So that's why I am replying.
I'm not saying Six Wives quad is bad, actually I think it's rather good and far better than King Arthur in terms of sound quality. The ratings thread seem to bear this out, Six Wives rates higher than King Arthur.
And as the moderator posting that QuadLinda linked to says, it's only a disc. Don't get too distressed about it.
To borrow from the nefarious Rocky Rococo: "What's all this brouhaha? Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-...." 
Like Jon, I wasn't a particular fan of these albums back in the day, though for some reason, I own stereo and quad vinyl of both. I liked Rick in Yes, but thought he'd gone a bit over the top with these, as if he were channeling his inner Keith Emerson (that is, why be subtle when you can be a keyboard version of a sledgehammer, or a grenade?) Still, like the latter, Rick could be a lot of fun when in the mood, and both offer some interesting and certainly entertaining passages.
I'd been on the fence about these as soon as suggestions about their quad 'parentage' came to light, but now I'll have to get 'em, if only to hear what's going on.
Not a dull thread, this one...
ED
Like Jon, I wasn't a particular fan of these albums back in the day, though for some reason, I own stereo and quad vinyl of both. I liked Rick in Yes, but thought he'd gone a bit over the top with these, as if he were channeling his inner Keith Emerson (that is, why be subtle when you can be a keyboard version of a sledgehammer, or a grenade?) Still, like the latter, Rick could be a lot of fun when in the mood, and both offer some interesting and certainly entertaining passages.
I'd been on the fence about these as soon as suggestions about their quad 'parentage' came to light, but now I'll have to get 'em, if only to hear what's going on.
Not a dull thread, this one...
ED
Yes...and? None of this speaks to the evidence that Army of Quad presented, and which has been under discussion here for weeks now.
Yes, we know NW has authored and mastered some fine surround releases.
It wasn't his job to locate the 'right' source for Six Wives quad; by his own account, that was Abbey Road's responsibility.
Did Abbey Road get it right? NW believes so, but his argument so far rests on incredulity at the very idea that Abbey Road could have gotten it wrong.
Has NW even heard the evidence to the contrary from Army of Quad's rather extensive collection of quad Six Wives releases?
This whole thing is a MESS (IMHO)
First off, there is no question that Abbey Road and Universal have put it out there that the source for this release was the original master tapes. That is fact.
This is what they told Neil and Opus Productions, so there is no reason for them not to believe their client. They are Universal's "customer" and they basically do what they are told and support the information that they are given.
If, in fact as AoQ's testing has indicated, this release was sourced from an SQ decode, Neil or Opus are not going to publicly dispute what their client has told them. It's not their place to do so. They have to rely on what their client tells them.
As the "end users" and "customers", we all can make our own opinion, via ear, via podcast, or via recommendation from others. It's not like a large company has ever gotten something wrong either knowingly or mistakenly. It's a $25 niche product. The big guys have probably already put it out of their thoughts and the disc will go out of print and soon be forgotten.
You take from it what you perceive from your ears and your own conclusions. The worst thing about internet forums and chats is that some people (and I do not mean anyone here in particular, I'm being VERY GENERAL) is that when there is a two sided argument, it seems to propagate itself into perpetuity because each "side" insists on having the last word. It's not, in the mind of many, an ended argument until the other guy capitulates. We've seen that here at QQ and it's very disheartening to deal with.
Neil, in my book, is top shelf. He is totally responsible for 5.1 audio getting through the dry years, and DVD-A surviving with the whole King Crimson/Steven Wilson release catalog, and other releases from Dorothee Munyaneza to XTC and YES. Jonathan (AoQ) is one of the top surround converters in the world and has a vast knowledge of quadraphonics both in its history and from an audio engineering perspective.
Taking sides here should not be an issue. This is NOT NEIL vs AoQ. Anyone who breaks this down as that is way off course.
As I said earlier, this whole thing is a mess. When I first heard that these titles were going to be released with "Fan conversions" if the masters could not be found, all I could think of was trouble. In fact, I stayed away from them. Granted, I was not a fan of these albums in the first place, and when I heard that one or two of them were sourced from the web, I cringed. As it turned out, I was right.
So, to conclude, what we have here is a mess. If you complain to Universal I would think your concerns might fall on deaf ears. They've moved on. I suggest we do the same.
There are too many other good releases coming down our way to spend valuable time debating the merits of this title. Vote on it in the polls to express your opinions to future listeners, and let that be that.
At least Audio Fidelity was smart enough NOT to include a "fan conversion" on their Joe Cocker SACD. I know they considered it. :yikes
Further responses to this topic are still welcome, I frankly just wish that we all moved on.
First off, there is no question that Abbey Road and Universal have put it out there that the source for this release was the original master tapes. That is fact.
This is what they told Neil and Opus Productions, so there is no reason for them not to believe their client. They are Universal's "customer" and they basically do what they are told and support the information that they are given.
If, in fact as AoQ's testing has indicated, this release was sourced from an SQ decode, Neil or Opus are not going to publicly dispute what their client has told them. It's not their place to do so. They have to rely on what their client tells them.
As the "end users" and "customers", we all can make our own opinion, via ear, via podcast, or via recommendation from others. It's not like a large company has ever gotten something wrong either knowingly or mistakenly. It's a $25 niche product. The big guys have probably already put it out of their thoughts and the disc will go out of print and soon be forgotten.
You take from it what you perceive from your ears and your own conclusions. The worst thing about internet forums and chats is that some people (and I do not mean anyone here in particular, I'm being VERY GENERAL) is that when there is a two sided argument, it seems to propagate itself into perpetuity because each "side" insists on having the last word. It's not, in the mind of many, an ended argument until the other guy capitulates. We've seen that here at QQ and it's very disheartening to deal with.
Neil, in my book, is top shelf. He is totally responsible for 5.1 audio getting through the dry years, and DVD-A surviving with the whole King Crimson/Steven Wilson release catalog, and other releases from Dorothee Munyaneza to XTC and YES. Jonathan (AoQ) is one of the top surround converters in the world and has a vast knowledge of quadraphonics both in its history and from an audio engineering perspective.
Taking sides here should not be an issue. This is NOT NEIL vs AoQ. Anyone who breaks this down as that is way off course.
As I said earlier, this whole thing is a mess. When I first heard that these titles were going to be released with "Fan conversions" if the masters could not be found, all I could think of was trouble. In fact, I stayed away from them. Granted, I was not a fan of these albums in the first place, and when I heard that one or two of them were sourced from the web, I cringed. As it turned out, I was right.
So, to conclude, what we have here is a mess. If you complain to Universal I would think your concerns might fall on deaf ears. They've moved on. I suggest we do the same.
There are too many other good releases coming down our way to spend valuable time debating the merits of this title. Vote on it in the polls to express your opinions to future listeners, and let that be that.
At least Audio Fidelity was smart enough NOT to include a "fan conversion" on their Joe Cocker SACD. I know they considered it. :yikes
Further responses to this topic are still welcome, I frankly just wish that we all moved on.
I'm certainly not looking for anyone to take sides. To be honest, I'm just baffled how anyone that knows anything about quad and has listened to the disc could possibly believe it is sourced from anything other than an SQ software decoded needledrop. As I see it, we're all on the same side, we all want top notch product. And we've all (including Neil) been bamboozled by Universal. Whether or not they've moved on, I'll continue to feel we are all owed an explanation from them.
Meanwhile, I have my Q8 and CD4 to enjoy.
Meanwhile, I have my Q8 and CD4 to enjoy.
Neil clearly made a mistake by reigniting this thread when there had not been any posts in it since over a month ago, and it should have stayed that way!
I don't recall there being many positive posts on these releases, and I don't anticipate there will be going forward either.
So my advice to everyone would be to go get "Geese & The Ghost" or "Trilogy" and enjoy those for what they are!
(I'll give the "Six Wives" DVD-A another listen when I can.)
I don't recall there being many positive posts on these releases, and I don't anticipate there will be going forward either.
So my advice to everyone would be to go get "Geese & The Ghost" or "Trilogy" and enjoy those for what they are!
(I'll give the "Six Wives" DVD-A another listen when I can.)
How about refraining from bashing Neil Wilkes in this thread?
Perhaps the message of my previous posts in this thread got lost, so let me reiterate my feelings:
1- Everyone has a right to complain, especially where they've spent their hard-earned money.
2- Neil is one of our members, a moderator, and the guy who has labored to make this and other 5.1 releases as good as he can make them.
3- Neil deserves to be treated with respect, as every person here does.
4- Attacking or second guessing someone who is sympathetic to our cause and willing to share insights into the process is dead wrong and counterproductive.
5- As a moderator, I received PM's from other QQ members yesterday as to some derisive comments in this thread. Just as the folks who PM'ed me, I was aghast at the disrespect that was shown to another mod, especially someone who is an industry member and an active QQ member.
6- Where would QQ be if Jon, Neil, Bob, Brian, Jim, Tim, Ed, Steven and the other mods get tired of being disrespected and abandon QQ? I humbly ask EVERY MEMBER to consider this in advance of a post that attacks any moderator.
7- For anyone who is highly disappointed with this release, you have my sympathies and I share in your frustration.
Perhaps the message of my previous posts in this thread got lost, so let me reiterate my feelings:
1- Everyone has a right to complain, especially where they've spent their hard-earned money.
2- Neil is one of our members, a moderator, and the guy who has labored to make this and other 5.1 releases as good as he can make them.
3- Neil deserves to be treated with respect, as every person here does.
4- Attacking or second guessing someone who is sympathetic to our cause and willing to share insights into the process is dead wrong and counterproductive.
5- As a moderator, I received PM's from other QQ members yesterday as to some derisive comments in this thread. Just as the folks who PM'ed me, I was aghast at the disrespect that was shown to another mod, especially someone who is an industry member and an active QQ member.
6- Where would QQ be if Jon, Neil, Bob, Brian, Jim, Tim, Ed, Steven and the other mods get tired of being disrespected and abandon QQ? I humbly ask EVERY MEMBER to consider this in advance of a post that attacks any moderator.
7- For anyone who is highly disappointed with this release, you have my sympathies and I share in your frustration.
Sorry if you felt I was "bashing" Neil Wilkes, but I swear that wasn't my intention.
I probably should have phrased my post better.
I just didn't enjoy seeing this argument over what the source is or isn't get rehashed again, which I knew was going to happen as soon as the first naysayer (those with the opposite view of Neil) replied to his post.
For the record, I NEVER felt that Neil intentionally misled us about the source of the Quad Mix on the DVD-A. He did his job right by authoring these discs as best he can, and that's all he can do.
It's so easy sometimes on a forum to read more into people's comments than what is actually there, and that's all this thread is IMO.
I'm not going to post in this thread anymore as I'd rather further the dialogue on exceptional surround releases and promising forthcoming attractions rather than go down older roads that shouldn't be traveled on any further.
G'day!
I probably should have phrased my post better.
I just didn't enjoy seeing this argument over what the source is or isn't get rehashed again, which I knew was going to happen as soon as the first naysayer (those with the opposite view of Neil) replied to his post.
For the record, I NEVER felt that Neil intentionally misled us about the source of the Quad Mix on the DVD-A. He did his job right by authoring these discs as best he can, and that's all he can do.
It's so easy sometimes on a forum to read more into people's comments than what is actually there, and that's all this thread is IMO.
I'm not going to post in this thread anymore as I'd rather further the dialogue on exceptional surround releases and promising forthcoming attractions rather than go down older roads that shouldn't be traveled on any further.
G'day!
I think you may have gone wrong by opening with, "Neil clearly made a mistake".
jimfisheye
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 3,023
I had never heard the quad mix for this one before. Now that I've had the chance to finally hear it (and the Journey and Arthur albums in quad as well), the striking thing is that it was the quad mix that was obviously fussed over and perfected while the stereo mix was knocked out as a quick afterthought! Like they had a maverick attitude about quad at the time.
Directly the opposite of many quad releases in the 1970's where it was clear the budget allowed for many remixes and fixes to perfect the stereo version while the quad release was clearly the first mix. Hard to fault that reality too. For this album, they put their foot down and said "This mix is in quad! It's the new format. The rest of you only get a quick sloppy mix for stereo. Deal with it!"
All 3 of these albums are like this! Well Rick, way to stick to your guns on this quad mix being the definitive mix! I finally got to hear it here in 2015!
The quad mix is VERY obviously a vinyl transfer as mentioned. I think it's been transferred and cleaned up spectacularly considering the difficulty and 'lossiness' of the encoding format. Truth be told, this and a few other recent vinyl decodes and transfers I've heard have GREATLY increased my opinion of what is possible to achieve from the format in the best cases. Ask me a few years ago about quad encoded vinyl and I would have told you it's entirely worthless and the program gets completely obliterated. Which is still the worst case scenario.
This is noticeably less than perfectly discreet and there's obvious vinyl damage noise but this is VERY well done. The mix is excellent and far beyond the stereo "rough mix" they did. The quality of mix FAR outweighs any fidelity issues vs. the stereo mix. For example, I always wondered what was up with that beginner-level awkward guitar lead that comes up a couple times. Turns out it was supposed to be back in the mix and further is a 'duet' with Rick working his frequency generator - they're doing that dissonant howling along and playing off each other thing with it.
Really cool to finally hear this album as intended!
PS. Those commenting that they have better quality copies of the quad mix than this restoration... feel free to set me up with an example of that!
Directly the opposite of many quad releases in the 1970's where it was clear the budget allowed for many remixes and fixes to perfect the stereo version while the quad release was clearly the first mix. Hard to fault that reality too. For this album, they put their foot down and said "This mix is in quad! It's the new format. The rest of you only get a quick sloppy mix for stereo. Deal with it!"
All 3 of these albums are like this! Well Rick, way to stick to your guns on this quad mix being the definitive mix! I finally got to hear it here in 2015!
The quad mix is VERY obviously a vinyl transfer as mentioned. I think it's been transferred and cleaned up spectacularly considering the difficulty and 'lossiness' of the encoding format. Truth be told, this and a few other recent vinyl decodes and transfers I've heard have GREATLY increased my opinion of what is possible to achieve from the format in the best cases. Ask me a few years ago about quad encoded vinyl and I would have told you it's entirely worthless and the program gets completely obliterated. Which is still the worst case scenario.
This is noticeably less than perfectly discreet and there's obvious vinyl damage noise but this is VERY well done. The mix is excellent and far beyond the stereo "rough mix" they did. The quality of mix FAR outweighs any fidelity issues vs. the stereo mix. For example, I always wondered what was up with that beginner-level awkward guitar lead that comes up a couple times. Turns out it was supposed to be back in the mix and further is a 'duet' with Rick working his frequency generator - they're doing that dissonant howling along and playing off each other thing with it.
Really cool to finally hear this album as intended!
PS. Those commenting that they have better quality copies of the quad mix than this restoration... feel free to set me up with an example of that!
I had no idea this was on DVD-A. I do like my stereo copy. Probably my favorite Wakeman solo work.
jimfisheye
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 3,023
There seem to be *several* quad versions/decodes of Six Wives, and to my ears the one on the DVD-A is not the best.
They're all compared/demo'd here by QQ member Army of Quad:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1OA81R41_0
Similar threads
