yup. The AF quad version front soundstage is flipped compared to the stereo version too
https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/fo...S-OF-FIRE-SACD&p=263109&viewfull=1#post263109
I'd guess AF screwed up. Again.
HiRez Poll Mahavishnu Orchestra, The - BIRDS OF FIRE [SACD]
- Thread starter JonUrban
- Start date
Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:
https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/fo...S-OF-FIRE-SACD&p=263109&viewfull=1#post263109
I'd guess AF screwed up. Again.
I hadn't noticed that; will have to play it again. But if so, it's nothing new. For all the bitching you hear from some collectors about monaural sound, if that's properly mastered there are, obviously, no issues about imaging. But when it comes to anything stereo and beyond, the potential for incorrect placement is always there. And for most listeners that sucks, because getting the imaging *right* would require futzing with your RF lines (not worth the trouble, since most recordings are mastered correctly in terms of imaging), or moving your speakers to match what you know to be the *proper* placement. I can do that because my speakers are medium size and relatively light, on stands, and the wires are more than long enough to accomadate the temporary change. But it's a nuisance that really shouldn't happen; as we know, referencing the original edition of any recording is essential when doing most remasters (even if the original source is wrong relative to what the master tape has going on).
ED
beerking
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Well to my ears this is a real musicians journey.
What a totally fantastic album
To get the percussion coming at me from my rears is awesome.
I'm blasting this on Marshall volume 11
No doubt in my mind, it's a very worthy, well orchestrated 9 (almost10)
What a totally fantastic album
To get the percussion coming at me from my rears is awesome.
I'm blasting this on Marshall volume 11
No doubt in my mind, it's a very worthy, well orchestrated 9 (almost10)
I'm landing on 8 for this. I love this album, my screen name should give you a hint of how highly I rate McLaughlin, and it's a killer sounding recording too. And very often, the surround mix works well and is certainly discrete. But some of the mix choices are a little odd and it actually ends up having less clarity than the stereo mix. Very often Jan Hammer is the one suffering. Title track is probably the worst - his guitar-y Moog solo is almost drowned out when it should be searing and screaming at you.
I was very happy to find this disc sealed for a reasonable price recently, now if I could only find Cobham's Spectrum... Anyway, this is an 11 for me. Musically this is a fantastic, bold, adventurous album with a lot of action and stunning performances. Cobham is a monster and McLaughlin is a jazz shredder. The fidelity is excellent, even though I don't have a previous release to compare it to, it just sounds incredible. Finally, I love the mix. I can just imagine being among the musicians, with this gigantic drum set that Cobham uses that takes up essentially all of the space behind the listener.
In anticipation of the arrival of this SACD I read through this whole thread and the discussion of the channel assignments, and I am puzzled. One thing is that between the few reports of channel swaps there are many inconsistencies. However, the more important thing is that when I play track 7 the drum roll does a perfect circle around the room, starting quietly in the front center, it goes counterclockwise and does 1.5 revolutions ending with a snap in the right rear channel. I double checked my channel assignments, playing test tones from the SACD player menu, playing SQ and QS test tones, as well as comparing the setup with the Dutton Vocalion Bartok SACD instrument assignments. I am fairly confident that my channels are hooked up correctly, and that the imaging I am getting is correct, I am still puzzled by earlier reports though.
EDIT: As we established with sjcorne in this thread http://www.quadraphonicquad.com/for...w-do-you-check-your-channel-assignment.27184/ my SACD player has a weird glitch that swaps rear channels on 5.0 authored SACDs when the center channel on the player is turned off. This is is the reason for the inconsistency in the mix I was hearing and reported above.
In anticipation of the arrival of this SACD I read through this whole thread and the discussion of the channel assignments, and I am puzzled. One thing is that between the few reports of channel swaps there are many inconsistencies. However, the more important thing is that when I play track 7 the drum roll does a perfect circle around the room, starting quietly in the front center, it goes counterclockwise and does 1.5 revolutions ending with a snap in the right rear channel. I double checked my channel assignments, playing test tones from the SACD player menu, playing SQ and QS test tones, as well as comparing the setup with the Dutton Vocalion Bartok SACD instrument assignments. I am fairly confident that my channels are hooked up correctly, and that the imaging I am getting is correct, I am still puzzled by earlier reports though.
EDIT: As we established with sjcorne in this thread http://www.quadraphonicquad.com/for...w-do-you-check-your-channel-assignment.27184/ my SACD player has a weird glitch that swaps rear channels on 5.0 authored SACDs when the center channel on the player is turned off. This is is the reason for the inconsistency in the mix I was hearing and reported above.
Last edited:
Based on your comments on this disc and on the Bitches Brew SACD, I'm inclined to believe your rear channels are reversed.
The problem with this disc is that the front channels are reversed in comparison to the old SQ vinyl and Q8 tape releases from the 1970s. The SQ and Q8 present a left-center-right image across the front channels: Goodman's violin is on the left, Hammer's keys are in the center, and McLaughlin's guitar is on the right (which matches the stereo mix). The SACD has the guitar on the left and keys on the right - swapping the fronts would match the SQ/Q8 and the original stereo mix.
You mentioned the circular pan of the drums at the beginning of "One Word": On the SQ and Q8, the drums start in the front right channel and move clockwise around the room, ending with the snap in the rear left channel. On the SACD, the drums start in front left channel and move in an "X" pattern, ending with the "snap" in the rear left channel. Swapping the fronts on the SACD would match the SQ/Q8.
The counterclockwise circular movement you described hearing would indicate that the rear channels are swapped, which means you are hearing the original quad mix with both the front and rear pairs reversed. That would restore the circular pan, but have it move in the opposite direction that the engineer intended.
On Bitches Brew, you mentioned hearing the drums in both right channels and McLaughlin's guitar in rear left. Myself and others reported that McLaughlin's guitar is in rear right and the drums diagonally stretch from front right to rear left. Again, that would indicate the rears are swapped on your end.
Regarding how you checked your channel assignments - I actually don't think the D-V Bartok SACD is a great reference, despite featuring all that great info about what's in each speaker. The information in each channel isn't completely distinct due to the leakage of the orchestra mics - it's more like the different sections are loudest in each quadrant rather than entirely isolated. Also, most of the prominent rear channel information (mostly horn parts, IIRC) is panned rear center rather than off to one side, so I think it would be difficult to tell if the rears were reversed based on that disc. What puzzles me is that your player's test tones indicate everything is correct.
Last edited:
I started a separate thread on channel identification: https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/fo...ck-your-channel-assignment.27184/#post-449724
There I described in detail the procedure I went through to identify the channels and to make sure the correct information ends up in the correct speaker and I feel confident that that is the final result.
On the SACD I have McLaughlin's guitar on the left, keys on Thousand Island Park are in the right rear.
Now, assume for a second that my channel identification is correct - are there any other explanations for what people are hearing?
I can think of two examples (apart from the obvious). One would be non-identical front and rear speakers, I had such a setup for a while and it can sound unbalanced and have weird effects. Another is accidentally leaving some kind of surround processing on the receiver instead of letting all the channels from the SACD go straight through.
BTW, the Bartok SACD is beautifully separated on my system, there is absolutely no question where each section is located. The rears have trumpets in the right rear and flutes, oboes and trombones in the rear left, if I remember correctly? All very distinct sounding and nicely isolated.
Last edited:
Please do not use the acoustic track of Birds of Fire for the channel placement, it's an outlier. In your setup, what is the placement on the *front* soundstage, of the guitar, violin, keyboards., on 'Celestial Terrestrial Commuters', or 'One Word', full-band tracks where the three lead instruments trade solos? I (and at least one one other) hear guitar-keys-violin on the SACD, whereas other releases of the quad (either matrixed or discrete) and the stereo mix, have violin-keys-guitar.
My 5 loudspeakers are identical monitors all around. My channel assignments were checked with two SACD that have 'test tones'.
https://www.discogs.com/Various-DMP-Multichannel-Reference-SACD/release/12266121https://www.discogs.com/Various-Stay-In-Tune-With-Pentatone/release/9619391
I edited my original post since in a separate thread we've discovered a glitch in my SACD player that swaps rear channels on 5.0 authored discs when the center speaker is turned off in the player menu. How weird is that!
However, this made me think about the surround mix on this release and here is my take: I think the most logical way to mix this material is to have the front soundstage swapped in relation to the stereo version. Let me explain.
When approaching the placement of the instrument two decisions can be made. The first one to move Billy Cobham's drums entirely to the back. The second one to preserve the drum roll pattern as going in a circle. I claim that these two factors imply that the front soundstage needs to be reversed.
Cobham's drum set is so large that it occupies two channels, not just one, so when one is moving him to the back channels one also needs to rotate the drum set 180 degrees in relation to the front - otherwise Cobham would be sitting with his back towards the listener and the rest of the band (this is how the Q8 is mixed, as I understand from the discussion). This however means that the drum track from the LF needs to be moved to RR and the drum track from the RF moves to LR. As a consequence, two things happen.
1) drum roll does not do a circle anymore,
2) the very minor bleedthrough between the left front and back, and right front and back, will be mismatched.
However, if one now swaps the front channels both of these snap back in place! The drum roll does a 1.5 rotation, but now in the counterclockwise direction.
In my humble opinion this would be the proper, most logical way to mix this album for 4.0, if one is paying attention to detail. The fact that Cobham's drum set is so large and moved entirely to the back simply requires a different approach when mixing for surround, and in view of this I personally don't see much value in trying to preserve the stereo layout in the front or the Q8 mix, but of course opinions will differ.
In any case, the swapped fronts in relation to stereo suggest to me that perhaps this is what AF was trying to achieve, but they managed to also incorrectly mix the rear channels and killed the result.
However, this made me think about the surround mix on this release and here is my take: I think the most logical way to mix this material is to have the front soundstage swapped in relation to the stereo version. Let me explain.
When approaching the placement of the instrument two decisions can be made. The first one to move Billy Cobham's drums entirely to the back. The second one to preserve the drum roll pattern as going in a circle. I claim that these two factors imply that the front soundstage needs to be reversed.
Cobham's drum set is so large that it occupies two channels, not just one, so when one is moving him to the back channels one also needs to rotate the drum set 180 degrees in relation to the front - otherwise Cobham would be sitting with his back towards the listener and the rest of the band (this is how the Q8 is mixed, as I understand from the discussion). This however means that the drum track from the LF needs to be moved to RR and the drum track from the RF moves to LR. As a consequence, two things happen.
1) drum roll does not do a circle anymore,
2) the very minor bleedthrough between the left front and back, and right front and back, will be mismatched.
However, if one now swaps the front channels both of these snap back in place! The drum roll does a 1.5 rotation, but now in the counterclockwise direction.
In my humble opinion this would be the proper, most logical way to mix this album for 4.0, if one is paying attention to detail. The fact that Cobham's drum set is so large and moved entirely to the back simply requires a different approach when mixing for surround, and in view of this I personally don't see much value in trying to preserve the stereo layout in the front or the Q8 mix, but of course opinions will differ.
In any case, the swapped fronts in relation to stereo suggest to me that perhaps this is what AF was trying to achieve, but they managed to also incorrectly mix the rear channels and killed the result.
Last edited:
The music on this album is so dissonant...which makes it cool...that I've never noticed the reported channel error. Once again, ignorance is bliss! 
My take:
1) the front Left and Right on the original stereo and quad mix has violin left, guitar right.
2) the AF quad mix front Left and Right has guitar left, violin right
3) drums are in rear in both quad mixes
either it's just a mistake on AF's part, or the Q8 is a mistake and the AF is correct...
or this:
The original stereo mix is from an 'audience ' perspective':
(btw violin left like this is where Jerry Goodman actually played onstage. McLaughlin was in the middle, and Jan Hammer and Ric Laird to the right. Billy Cobham's tom-toms (tt) were on the left, from an audience perspective)
The AF idea for the quad was to give the listener an onstage perspective, from a point between the drums and the front line instruments. In which case *everything* should be swapped left/right.
But is that what happened? Are the drums also swapped L/R on the AF compared to the stereo and Q8/SQ LP quad? I haven't got my AF file with me at the moment so I can't check.
1) the front Left and Right on the original stereo and quad mix has violin left, guitar right.
2) the AF quad mix front Left and Right has guitar left, violin right
3) drums are in rear in both quad mixes
either it's just a mistake on AF's part, or the Q8 is a mistake and the AF is correct...
or this:
The original stereo mix is from an 'audience ' perspective':
Code:
tt-drums
violin keys guitar
-------------------------------------------------
^ (listener)(btw violin left like this is where Jerry Goodman actually played onstage. McLaughlin was in the middle, and Jan Hammer and Ric Laird to the right. Billy Cobham's tom-toms (tt) were on the left, from an audience perspective)
The AF idea for the quad was to give the listener an onstage perspective, from a point between the drums and the front line instruments. In which case *everything* should be swapped left/right.
Code:
----------------------------------------------
guitar keys violin
^
drums-ttBut is that what happened? Are the drums also swapped L/R on the AF compared to the stereo and Q8/SQ LP quad? I haven't got my AF file with me at the moment so I can't check.
Last edited:
Exactly - that is just another way to put what I explained above.
Glad to see we agree!Exactly - that is just another way to put what I explained above.
I'm just trying to figure out why it might have been done the way it was. It's one hypothesis. I'm not saying I approve*.
If the drums are not reversed Left/Right on the AF quad compared to stereo, then the hypothesis is not supported.
(*And beyond the L/R switches, I don't like the fundamental decision to put all the drums in back in the first place, a decision made 40+ years ago)
Of course, all I mean is that your sketch agrees with what I wrote earlier.
I just checked the drums - on One Word around 7:30 during the drum solo Cobham hits the crash cymbals several times.
On the stereo version on Tidal they are in the left channel.
On the SACD I remember hearing them in the right rear - but my rear channels were swapped because of that glitch, which would mean on the SACD they are actually in the left rear.
In other words, this would mean that the actual situation on the SACD is that the front is reversed in relation to the stereo, but the drums in the rears are not - and that is precisely the point that they didn't switch all channels, just the fronts, and destroyed the effect.
Swapping both front and rear would give the perspective from your sketch (since the other players are isolated in their positions I was actually thinking more of "circle of musicians" setup) and, in particular, preserve the drum roll.
It's my belief that when they were doing they quad mix, they didn't take account for the shifting perspective of being in the audience with the band playing upfront vs. being on stage with the band playing around you. They simply took the drums as they are presented in the stereo mix and panned them hard to the rear. For better or for worse, that's the mixing decision that was made by whomever did this quad mix in 1973.
Well this is a big messy of a thread! I just choked up $77 CAD for this thing and it's on its way; did anyone ever reach a conclusion about whether the Audio Fidelity SACD has things swapped around or not; basically, do I have to swap cables on my front speakers to listen to this thing properly? If so I might try to cancel my order.
I'm in the camp where I would not know the difference unless someone told me that the channels were swapped. The mixing of this quad is not like certain tracks on Neil Young Harvest or Ten Years After A Space In Time where it is quite obvious that something was incorrectly swapped.
Still beyond shocked that a disc could ever make it through QA,mixing, mastering, pressing and whatever and nobody notices that.
The fronts are swapped, but it won't really impact your enjoyment of the quad mix (in my opinion). It's only really noticeable at the beginning of the song "One Word", in which Billy Cobham's drum roll pans around-the-room in an "x" pattern rather than a circle.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
