HiRez Poll Chicago - QUADIO [BluRay Audio]

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Rate the BDA of Chicago - QUADIO

  • 6:

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 5:

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 4:

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 3:

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 2:

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 1: Poor Fidelity, Poor Content, Poor Surround

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    151
Hey....has anyone ever noticed there's a glitch on the Quad mix of Chicago II? At :32 on "To Be Free", there's a bit of what sounds like tape drag you can hear as the horns are holding out a long note. It isn't on the stereo mix and appears on both my original and corrected versions of the disc.

Was this on the 70s quad issues? Or something that happened when Rhino mastering this issue?
 
Oops forgot to vote on this one, an easy 10, even the albums I didn't care that much for turn out to be quite good with the surround making me actually listen to them...who knew? LOL

Oh and Dr. RHINO Please, sir, I want some more.
 
Overall it's hard not to give this set a ten. Excellent sound and I can rip Blu-ray to my hard drive, unlike SACD's. I've owned all the albums in the set except for "Greatest Hit's". I never saw a reason to get that one as all the songs are on the other albums, and it misses such great hits as "Lowdown", "I'm a Man", Dialogue Part1, and the tracks are not in chronological order. But I can't fault the set for including it for completeness! Chicago VIII is one album that I didn't keep very long, I needed something to trade back in the day, as Quad was becoming scarce.
 
Looks like the box set is back in stock at importcds , rhino.com and I'm sure at other places as well.So if you missed your chance the first time around you may want to grab a copy while you still can!
 
If so, then I'm going to hell with you. I find the quad mixes on the box set really enjoyable, but the 5.1 Chicago V is practically a demo disc for me--full, crisp, immersive; nice heavy bass. The quad mix sounds midrange-heavy by comparison, and some of Tarnowski's instrument placements strike me as eccentric (but maybe that's just because I don't listen to enough 70s quad to begin with!). Glad we've got 'em both, though. Embarrassment of riches! Now if only someone could find a way to clean up Carnegie Hall...

Would it be heresy to say that I like the 5.1 mixes (where they exist) better?
 
I’m just working through this box now having bought a decent sounding Bluray player last summer (Cambridge CXU).

The plethora of 10’s surprises me a bit.
I’ve listened to the first 4 only therefore it’s too early for me to vote but based on what I’ve heard so far I’m thinking a 7 is about as high as I’d go
If the sound quality improves with the newer albums (I think the vocals start sounding better with V) maybe I up that to an 8 come voting time.
I know one other person who is big into hi-rez and multichannel and he feels the same.
Perhaps one has to factor in the age of these recordings too

But, the package is very nice and I strongly applaud its existence.
 
and I strongly applaud its existence.
Look at the polls here in general. It seems that the "leader board" is mostly more recent releases. I speculate that for some, they are just so grateful to get new surround releases that they will give most anything a 9 or 10. I speculate that others may be even more calculation, knowing that folks making release decisions for the format may read these threads so they want them to know how much they appreciate the efforts in hopes to spur them to continue in this direction. Again, all purely speculation on my part, but my favorite surround audio is still BIA and it's not very recent.
 
I like the quad mixes 100 times better than the two 5.1 mixes which are not balanced. Most of the stuff stays in the front. Those of you who like the 5.1 mixes better, are you using bass management and have small speakers in the back? That is the only reason I personally can understand liking the 5.1 better because your not actually set up for quad which is four large speakers, one in each corner. Very simple and very effective.
 
'four large speakers in the corner' doesn't change low bass, which is nondirectional.

If the surround speaker are *tiny*, that will affect presentation though, because upper bass and even lower midrange might be compromised.
 
'four large speakers in the corner' doesn't change low bass, which is nondirectional.

If the surround speaker are *tiny*, that will affect presentation though, because upper bass and even lower midrange might be compromised.

People that complain about quad mixes and are using a 5.1 setup don't know what they are missing.
Bass management is evil in my opinion when playing quad stuff. Just look at any simple quadraphonic layout. Yes bass management does change low bass. It bothers me. If you like it that is GREAT! I don't.
 
100% agreed. I don't really understand why people love the 5.1 mixes so much...There's barely any front to back separation and the waveforms are brickwalled.

I still can't believe this set is real...for me it is without a doubt the best surround release of all time.

The horns and low bass blasting out of my rear speakers are my favorite part of the quad mixes. I don't get any of that on either 5.1 mixes.
 
Owning both the Quad set and the two 5.1 mixes I'm glad that I don't have to give up any of them. Both have their strengths. Heck, I even like listening to a number of the stereo versions in faux 7.1. Truly outstanding recordings...the whole lot.
 
For clarity, nothing beats the 5.1 mixes of II and V, which aren't compressed as much as the new stereo mixes on the same DVD-As. However, the 5.1 mixes of II and V are conservative to say the least - 'big stereo' in the same way some of the Tom Petty 5.1s are. There's actually nothing 100% discrete in the rears in the 5.1 mixes of II and V, anything that's in the rear speakers is also in the front speakers at a lower volume, so what you end up with is sort of mono side-wall imaging for those elements.

I love the Chicago quad mixes, I think they really preserve the character of the original stereo mixes, while also having some of the weird quirks that I've come to love in mixes done for SQ quad. The quad mixes of these albums are my go-to versions if I want to listen to some Chicago now. Having said that (and I don't want to look a gift horse in the mouth, this set is a fairly priced godsend) I don't love the mastering on these discs. Craig Anderson may be a skilled BluRay and DVD author, but I think his relative lack of experience with mastering shows - there seems to be a one-size-fits-all approach applied to the whole set. There seems to be (relative to the LPs and CDs, which I'm intimately familiar with) a bass boost, coupled with some compression on the bass frequencies that make these albums 'thump' (especially the bass drum) in a way that no previous versions have, and I don't love it. The very high end has also been boosted somewhat, so that the hi-hats especially have a 'sizzle' that's kind of strident, but the treble boost is so high it doesn't add any presence to the instruments and vocals (ie stuff in the 5kHz to 7kHz range) which is generally what a good audiophile remastering focuses on.

On the plus side, these niggles aren't so major that they prevent me from enjoying the set, and the upside of them being PCM is that we as end-users can do our own remastering if we choose to - obviously it's laborious and time-consuming to do so, but it's a small silver lining anyway. I think if this had been mastered in a way that was more pleasing to me it would be an easy 10, but as-is I'd probably give it 8.5 to 9. If Warner/Rhino are going to do any more of these sets, I hope they'll use someone like Bruce Botnick to do the mastering - the sound quality of the Doors GH quad mix on the BluRay in the Doors Singles set is phenomenal, and bests the AF SACD by a wide margin.


As for bass being 'non-directional', I think it's overly dogmatic to cling to that. It may be true to an extent for LFE content in movies and TV (ie 40Hz explosions and rumbles) but for music I don't think that's the case at all. The fundamental frequency in a bass drum is somewhere around 60Hz (depending on tuning) and the fundamental frequencies of bass guitar live between there and well over 140Hz, frequencies that are easily directionally discernable. If you can't detect bass instrument placements as being in corners of the room, or in front or behind you, you may want to check your system, or your ears, or both.
 
For clarity, nothing beats the 5.1 mixes of II and V, which aren't compressed as much as the new stereo mixes on the same DVD-As. However, the 5.1 mixes of II and V are conservative to say the least - 'big stereo' in the same way some of the Tom Petty 5.1s are. There's actually nothing 100% discrete in the rears in the 5.1 mixes of II and V, anything that's in the rear speakers is also in the front speakers at a lower volume, so what you end up with is sort of mono side-wall imaging for those elements.

I love the Chicago quad mixes, I think they really preserve the character of the original stereo mixes, while also having some of the weird quirks that I've come to love in mixes done for SQ quad. The quad mixes of these albums are my go-to versions if I want to listen to some Chicago now. Having said that (and I don't want to look a gift horse in the mouth, this set is a fairly priced godsend) I don't love the mastering on these discs. Craig Anderson may be a skilled BluRay and DVD author, but I think his relative lack of experience with mastering shows - there seems to be a one-size-fits-all approach applied to the whole set. There seems to be (relative to the LPs and CDs, which I'm intimately familiar with) a bass boost, coupled with some compression on the bass frequencies that make these albums 'thump' (especially the bass drum) in a way that no previous versions have, and I don't love it. The very high end has also been boosted somewhat, so that the hi-hats especially have a 'sizzle' that's kind of strident, but the treble boost is so high it doesn't add any presence to the instruments and vocals (ie stuff in the 5kHz to 7kHz range) which is generally what a good audiophile remastering focuses on.

On the plus side, these niggles aren't so major that they prevent me from enjoying the set, and the upside of them being PCM is that we as end-users can do our own remastering if we choose to - obviously it's laborious and time-consuming to do so, but it's a small silver lining anyway. I think if this had been mastered in a way that was more pleasing to me it would be an easy 10, but as-is I'd probably give it 8.5 to 9. If Warner/Rhino are going to do any more of these sets, I hope they'll use someone like Bruce Botnick to do the mastering - the sound quality of the Doors GH quad mix on the BluRay in the Doors Singles set is phenomenal, and bests the AF SACD by a wide margin.


As for bass being 'non-directional', I think it's overly dogmatic to cling to that. It may be true to an extent for LFE content in movies and TV (ie 40Hz explosions and rumbles) but for music I don't think that's the case at all. The fundamental frequency in a bass drum is somewhere around 60Hz (depending on tuning) and the fundamental frequencies of bass guitar live between there and well over 140Hz, frequencies that are easily directionally discernable. If you can't detect bass instrument placements as being in corners of the room, or in front or behind you, you may want to check your system, or your ears, or both.

I dislike the remastering job on the quad DSOTM bluray much more than any of the quadio box discs, but like you I still enjoy it very much and prefer it over the web dvd-audio version. Yes, that new Doors quad IS something to strive for. Great post.

...on the other topic, splitting a low range instrument and sending it to another part of the room (to sub via bass management) changes the bass. Don't mess with it. Let the full range channels come from the direction they were designed to come from in the mix.
 
I agree with steelydave regarding the elementary authoring and the unnecessary EQ....but, nevertheless, I think it's one of the best collections and items in MCH...I was never a big Chicago fan, mostly cause of the sometimes too syrupy or "corny"(pun not intended) songs, but this box has made me realize they were a groundbreaking group!

As for the bass being non directional (derail), in theory , it is because the wave of a 30 Hz signal is around 100 meters long (or something ridiculous like that, I've forgottten, it's been years since my acoustics class!), but when you hear an explosion in a movie or even a real low bass in a song, remember that, it HAS to have harmonics (even or uneven) or some extra info in higher frequencies to "assign" it a place in the surround field... that is one thing that is always done in music for deep bass...you GOTTA have some "upper" information for it to not "disappear" if you are listening thru a system that can't go too low...(how low can you go??? )
 
Last edited:
'four large speakers in the corner' doesn't change low bass, which is nondirectional.

Actually, that isn't true. Phase issues between two speakers can cause all sorts of room cancellations, etc.. Those issues can become even more pronounced when you put four speakers into the mix. I've had to deal with these issues all my life in sound reinforcement. The part about being non-directional is true (which is just one reason that bass management can work well), but that isn't the only factor to be considered. Multiple speakers and bass management are both attempts to solve the same issues. Each can be implemented poorly, each can be implemented well.
 
I was never a big Chicago fan, mostly cause of the sometimes too syrupy or "corny"(pun not intended) songs, but this box has made me realize they were a groundbreaking group!

Chicago were a lot like Heart, or Paul McCartney, or Stevie Wonder, or several others. They were brilliant in the 70s but horrible in the 80s. I blame it on Reagan. :couch
 
Back
Top