Blow By Blow Multi-Channel SACD from Analogue Productions

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
For what it's worth, my speakers are set to "small," and I have dual subs. I'm not set up to do a real A/B comparison, but if anything, I was expecting a placebo or bias confirmation effect to lead me to detect a significant improvement. On the other hand, I also read the posts that indicated the LFE was still out of phase. Who knows what my subconscious expectations are at this point?
 
You guys are going over my head. Please simply things; is the new version as it should be or what?
 
For what it's worth, my speakers are set to "small," and I have dual subs. I'm not set up to do a real A/B comparison, but if anything, I was expecting a placebo or bias confirmation effect to lead me to detect a significant improvement. On the other hand, I also read the posts that indicated the LFE was still out of phase. Who knows what my subconscious expectations are at this point?


This would very much depend on whether there is major LFE content in the new AP release. I don't have that one, so I don't know. But again, in the older Sony release, the LFE content was *minimal* (and out of phase with fronts). It was mainly the opposite phase of FRONT L/R versus REAR L/R that reduced the bass, *especially* when using bass managment (speakers 'small', bass content from them combined and sent to subwoofer).

And doing a listening comparison with *discs* would be very difficult because of the time it takes to switch between them. The sound comparisons I did (between 'as is' laserdrop of the Sony, and 'corrected' version of same) was easy because I was working with files and could switch between them very quickly. In that case, the bass difference was obvious

It was also *visible* using a Radio Shack decibel meter, so you could try that, making note of levels of A and B.
 
You guys are going over my head. Please simply things; is the new version as it should be or what?

Well, it's not simple, sorry. There are things that need to be known first. Without a good laserdrop of the AP it will be difficult verify objectively.

But:
IF
channel levels are like they were on the Sony (whose LFE and Center levels are very low compared to the other four channels), and IF AP correctly matched the phase of FRONT vs REAR channels on all tracks, that should have restored the vast majority of missing bass for the whole album (*even if* the phase of LFE and Center were not corrected).

If all 6 of the channels are correctly phase-matched on all tracks, then that would be 100% 'as it should be'.
 
But:
IF
channel levels are like they were on the Sony (whose LFE and Center levels are very low compared to the other four channels), and IF AP correctly matched the phase of FRONT vs REAR channels on all tracks, that should have restored the vast majority of missing bass for the whole album (*even if* the phase of LFE and Center were not corrected).

If all 6 of the channels are correctly phase-matched on all tracks, then that would be 100% 'as it should be'.

The levels look to me to be nearly identical.
 
You guys are going over my head. Please simply things; is the new version as it should be or what?
Right on Keenly, This type of thing does not support the audiophile who has an ingrained perception of the music as it gets released in it's various versions/formats. It is like the DR Meter, a good guideline, but not to be taken as end all. My beef with the whole conversation about BBB is the out of phase rears that came up as conversation AFTER the AP release. Funny, even on AP's site, they make no mention of any correction from before, I assume they are being polite to others if indeed they have the definitive version. The Sony MCH was considered reference by everybody 2 years ago, all reviews totally positive, and now a new version comes out and all of a sudden alot of people are smarter today than in the past. I hope to do my listening test tonight and I will let you know. I hope the AP version is better, why not, I paid $30.00, so now $60.00 for the same MCH music. Will I hear $30.00 better SQ or $1.00 better SQ, that is really the question.
Off topic, the brand new Santana IV 24 bit/48Khz download is great, fresh new music, $15.00 with discount code from HDTracks, stereo only.
 
@steelydave: Thank you for your techie info. in this thread. Others seem to be reaching audio conclusions better left to actual sound engineers, cause all the speculation can be a distraction.

My opinion: I have the new AP release(thanks ClintEastwood:)) and it does sound better than the older release. We all know its hard to truly compare, so I will just say it sounds better. More clear and especially fuller sounding.

But I really wanted the oversize cardboard sleeve and the large poster. :mad:
 
Well I have the definitive answer for everybody on this BBB AP disc. I have two pages of critical listening notes. I am too tired to produce my review with my notes. I have very strong opinions and will share tomorrow. I can say that I qualify as a Jeff Beck fan from 1968. I have all versions of this recording. I have a full blown McIntosh machine with B&W speakers and I am very confident in my ability to review this disc. I will say there are elements of each version that are better than the other. I do know now what others have eluded to as "out of phase rears". I think that statement is lacking in definition and makes one assume that what they had before is wrong, not true. This is a truly great MCH disc what ever version you have and I will follow up with details.
For now, I purchased today, a bunch of 24 bit stereo Santana digital downloads and they are absolutely awesome,winding down with Santana.
 
I do know now what others have eluded to as "out of phase rears". I think that statement is lacking in definition and makes one assume that what they had before is wrong, not true.

Very interested in reading your analysis. It is a fact that the rear channels on the new APO SACD have their polarity flipped when comparing the waveforms to the earlier release, I have looked at the waveforms and compared them. You are saying that neither is "wrong"? I guess they would each have a unique sound (especially in situations where instruments pan from front to back) and one could say they like both, but I would argue that only one of them is still "correct".
 
Right on Keenly, This type of thing does not support the audiophile who has an ingrained perception of the music as it gets released in it's various versions/formats.

what does that even *mean*?

It is like the DR Meter, a good guideline, but not to be taken as end all.

If you mean, some might prefer a version of a release with less dynamic range than before, or a version of BBB where F and R are out of phase, sure -- people get to prefer what they prefer.


My beef with the whole conversation about BBB is the out of phase rears that came up as conversation AFTER the AP release.

The issue was originally noted on QQ about the Sony release, before the AP release

Funny, even on AP's site, they make no mention of any correction from before, I assume they are being polite to others if indeed they have the definitive version. The Sony MCH was considered reference by everybody 2 years ago, all reviews totally positive, and now a new version comes out and all of a sudden alot of people are smarter today than in the past.

I read about the Sony BBB OOP issue on QQ first. I wrote that I thought the Sony sounded good as is and had never noticed a bass issue. I checked my own laserdrop visually and saw that indeed there were channels OOP just as reported. So I tried the correction and did fast switch comparison. And guess what, there was unquestionably, obviously, and measurably more bass. (This is all documented in posts I made to QQ, btw)

About the AP version, I can't say from personal experience. But the laws of physics don't change. If the two main sets of channels (Front L/R and Rear L/R) are OOP on the AP and have some of the same material (e.g. the bass) , there will be cancellation effects. That's how sound works. Phase is not mysterious....most audio checkup discs and room EQ systems have a 'phase test' to make sure your loudspeakers are all wired in phase (that is , all 'red' and 'black' terminals are connected the same way to your AVR). There's a reason for that. It's the same principle with the BBB discs.

I'm still very curious as to whether Analogue Productions actually did a new transfer from the quad tapes. Is there any testimony from the company or its engineers about it?
 
I will start my review. I only qualify as a life long listener of Jeff Beck. Which I can already tell means diddly to some. I do not do audio of any sort for a living, it is just a fun hobby for me. I will break it into three parts.
Similarity's between AP's 2016 issue CAPP 078 SA and the Japanese Sony issue (7" X 7") released March 14 2014 EICP 10001, both 5.1. The following is some sound notes and packaging, some hobbyists care about it and some only care about the music and sonic quality.
Packaging: The AP (Kansas) version is in a SACD plastic jewel case. Front and rear covers mostly original to the album, except Becks feet are cut off on rear and the photo is off center, darker and muddier than the Japanese. Orange disc, nice pictures of Beck. Standard SACD and AP logos. Disappointing to have zero liner notes as to transfer, who did it, etc. They tell a bit more on there purchase site, but nothing on the disc.
The Japanese version is over the top with goodies, posters, cardboard mini LP and extensive liner notes in Japanese, which I can tell are real good for the Japanese reader. Disc has what I assume to be the gold EPIC Quadraphonic Label, with sleeve of side one and two. Front and rear cover is exact replica of original LP. Nice and crisp looking pictures and colors.
For me as the fan and collector the winner of packaging is the Japanese version. I have heard others say they hate the 7"x7" as it is an oddball for there shelving.

5.1 sound quality: Both discs are identical in there 5.1 output, in fact they are more 4.0 than 5.1 as the center channel on both versions is almost non existent, not really hearing anything from center in the mix and the amplifier needle working less than half of the other 4 amp needles.
Both discs have gapless play back and are equal. Both discs are beautiful surround sound and would not be considered a gimmicky mix. I do believe both versions stayed true to the mix/masters.
I will type my critical listening notes later. There is a difference in the mix between the two. I will say this now, if you have never had a Blow By Blow version before than purchase the Analogue Production (Kansas) version. If you have the Japanese version already and you are a casual fan it is not necessary to spend another $30.00. If you are a big Jeff Beck fan then make up your own mind. Both versions are great. I will go in detail probably tomorrow.
 
I started this venture probably out of a WTF mood as the Japanese MCH version of BBB was one of my top 5 surround discs out of a large MCH library. It also had excellent reviews by others. I and nobody else, ever said it was not equal to a reference disc. Then the AP disc came out and all of a sudden, I felt, there was a knock of the Japanese version due to what was called "out of phase rears", so I decided to see/listen for my self, only using ears, pen and paper. I was relaxed and comfortable during both discs and I had no distractions.
I listened loud at a low of 77db to mostly a high of 81.5db. I did turn down to 64db in the middle of disc not because of ear fatigue, just a sheer volume break, then turned back up. See above my reference to both discs being more 4.0 than 5.1. Both discs where treated with Ultra Bit Diamond Plus. I was not reading or looking at computer, just sitting, eyes forward and listening.
My first listen, the AP disc: Right off the bat I noticed the big three where in perfect balance, bass, midrange, and treble, none overlaying the other, beautiful. In fact there where a few times I could feel the midrange cut through the room. Cymbals resonated perfect, snare had a nice snap to it, and bass guitar was defined, not muddled. Reverb on guitar was superb. Tracks 4 & 5, Air Blower and Scatterbrain are the best at pure sonic joy. Drums are best at tracks 7 & 8 Thelonius and Freeway Jam. Cymbals are beautiful at track 9 Diamond Dust. There is tape hiss at tracks 6 & 9 but as the volume of music naturally turns upward it is lost. A stunning disc that's for sure. Now,the infamous rears discussion. Keep in mind I was looking to hear a difference under normal situations I mostly take things as they come and keep my thoughts to myself. This AP version with it's stunning everything including rears sounds like this, if you can imagine, Becks guitar is almost always the rears, occasionally jumps to the front, can also be a strong rear right or a strong rear left. Many times and I really liked this, the guitar string would be picked rear right and finish resonating rear left, that is very subtle and very cool. If you where not in critical listening it might be unnoticeable. I will continue my Japanese notes on the next thread. There is definitely a difference in the rears between the two discs and I will tie the two reviews together.
 
This review is of the Japanese infamous 7" X 7" 5.1 disc, released 2014. This disc critical listen was done at same time but volume was lowered to 78.5db. I will be simple and say all of the good quality's of the AP disc this disc has also. Beautiful bass, midrange and treble. There are at times this disc is a hair too bright,(treble), but I am being highly critical. All drum parts are equal to the AP as they all resonate well. I did feel that the keyboards and drums where a little more forward on this disc. The intro to Freeway Jam is better on this disc than the AP. There where times when I felt the center channel was a little stronger on this disc. So far, based on these notes I give a nod to the Japanese version. Now the rears, and they are easily different. Mostly Beck's guitar is equal rear right and rear left, not as much movement as the AP and when there is movement it moves differently. Track 9 Diamond Dust, a hair out of balance with the rear guitar and the front string section all a little too bright. Track 6 Cause Wev'e Ended As Lovers guitar moves from right rear to left front. In the end I felt this Japanese version had the guitar a little overloaded in the rear. Balance of guitar is more right/left compared to the AP version is more front/rear.
There you have it, three pages of a A/B comparison of 5.1 Blow By Blow. I commend somebody for having the ability to say, "I can make this 5.1 disc better or at least different" . The differences are so subtle, only because I wanted to hear a difference and took the time to do it that I even came close to noticing the differences. Notice in my Japanese review I use words like 'a little ", the differences are very slight. What both discs have is great sonic quality between what is very important and that is midrange, trebel and bass. These versions are not something that would bug anybody, unlike some surround discs, Neil Young's Harvest, as an example, where people complain about vocals in the rears. These two BBB discs are almost exact and they have different approaches to the use of Beck's guitar primarily being used in rears. Maybe an engineer or a audio professional could scold me on my veiwpoint, but that would not change how I heard it as I am my own person and not a clone of anybody. Neither version sounds harsh or irritating they are both reference quality.
The question: should I have purchased another $30.00 disc because it is that much better? I honestly can't answer as I have it now and in the end whenever I listen again I will probably listen to the AP as I loved the part when the guitar gets picked rear right and finishes resonating rear left. They are both superb discs and if you play them and are focusing on reading or playing on the computer you probably wouldn't even notice. But I guess I have to make a choice, and the winner is the AP, by a "little". I have spent a lot of time on this review with heart and soul, I hope you like it and I won't be able to answer anybodys questions. What you read is what you get. Thanks for QQ and a place provided to me to really indulge in this very fun hobby.
 
Thanks marpow for your excellent analysis. As far as I'm concerned it completely confirms the polarity issue with the rears on the Japan disc. The subtle little improvement in placement, solid positioning, the pick rear, finish resonating left, etc. just fall into place when everything is right and are strange or lacking when the polarity is wrong. Subtle yes, but it seems as if your listening confirms what is "right".
 
All that verbiage is going to be funny if it turns out the AP just the Sony with corrected Front/Back phase.

Why? It seems to me that just about everything he describes could be explained by that (and from my look at the waveforms, that is the only significant difference).
 
I am mildly interested in the AP BBB and with that being said if you look at my comments on the review thread, and listening to it again right now, I can say IMO that I definitely prefer the front and back channels reversed. I much prefer Jeff's guitar upfront than in the rear. I also much, much, much, prefer this music now than when it first came out back in the 1970's.

With that being said I notice no sonic deficiency with the speakers reversed and my center channel has nothing in it or else I'm playing it too low to detect anything from the center channel. IMO it is the quad 4.0 mix.

The bass goes to a sub-woofer so don't ask about the LFE.

I listen to the Sony/Columbia single layer SACD released in 2001.

Wow that's 15 years ago and we are still discussing it. Must be a landmark/great album!!!!
 
We aren't talking about the channels being reversed (i.e. moving the fronts to the backs and vice versa).

We are talking about the polarity on the rear channels being flipped. The consequence of that is that if something pans from front to rear, it would "disappear" half way as the fronts and rears would cancel out. When corrected the sound of the instrument would move cleanly from front to rear with the volume staying the same as it moved.

So, the position of the instruments doesn't change in the new corrected AP disc, but the "solidity" of sounds as they move from front to back or back to front is there where as things would be canceling out before.

If you have easy access to your rear speakers, you could test this using just the old Sony SACD but switching the red/black wires on your rear speakers. That is effectively what the correction on the APO disc does.
 
We aren't talking about the channels being reversed (i.e. moving the fronts to the backs and vice versa).

We are talking about the polarity on the rear channels being flipped. The consequence of that is that if something pans from front to rear, it would "disappear" half way as the fronts and rears would cancel out. When corrected the sound of the instrument would move cleanly from front to rear with the volume staying the same as it moved.

So, the position of the instruments doesn't change in the new corrected AP disc, but the "solidity" of sounds as they move from front to back or back to front is there where as things would be canceling out before.

If you have easy access to your rear speakers, you could test this using just the old Sony SACD but switching the red/black wires on your rear speakers. That is effectively what the correction on the APO disc does.

No problem with your comments but I don't find instruments fading as a problem. IMO I ENJOY BBB WITH THE CHANNELS REVERSED AND THAT IS IT. I do have easy access to my rear speakers and sometime this week, since the wife is out of town, will do your easy experiment to check out the sonics.
 
Back
Top