Santana Lotus - Stereo SACD from Audio Fidelity (Dec 2016)

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
....At any rate, to encode SQ during a live concert recording when I'm sure it was multitracked doesn't seem logical.....unless Columbia Records had a SUPER DUPER SQ PROFESSIONAL encoder at the actual event .....as the SQ decoders built into the receivers of the time REALLY SUCKED!

I am just guessing by using old remembrances, but just remember that if the old SQ decoders of the time sucked, then how good could the ENCODERS of the time have been? A live event recorded and encoded in Japan where they were wild about quad at the time, a Sony artist with a Sony release that would promote the SQ format could possibly have been done that way. It would explain the absence of a stereo-only mix of this album.

But as I stated above twice, it's all conjecture. And really, we all have to stop agonizing over stuff that could have and should have come out in any format, from the '70s, to the early '00s, to now. If you can't buy it, then it's not worth dwelling on. There was probably more shit that almost came out then actually did come out, and all of it would have probably been great!

Getting arrogant about any of this stuff is a waste of energy.
 
I am just guessing by using old remembrances, but just remember that if the old SQ decoders of the time sucked, then how good could the ENCODERS of the time have been? A live event recorded and encoded in Japan where they were wild about quad at the time, a Sony artist with a Sony release that would promote the SQ format could possibly have been done that way. It would explain the absence of a stereo-only mix of this album.

But as I stated above twice, it's all conjecture. And really, we all have to stop agonizing over stuff that could have and should have come out in any format, from the '70s, to the early '00s, to now. If you can't buy it, then it's not worth dwelling on. There was probably more shit that almost came out then actually did come out, and all of it would have probably been great!

Getting arrogant about any of this stuff is a waste of energy.

I should think, Jon, that one of the prime deterrents in encoding this LIVE is the necessary editing which accompanies ALL Live Rock concerts. You cannot edit or do overdubs ON THE FLY.
 
I think you're misunderstanding why there might not be a 4-channel master.

It's not because this gig was mixed live, as it was being performed. Instead it would have been recorded live as usual, to 16 or 24 track tape. Then the engineer would take the tapes back to the (quad equipped) studio to mix them - but instead of mixing down to a discrete 4 track tape, he'd feed the 4 outputs of the mixing console in to the SQ encoder, and the stereo output of the SQ encoder to a 2-track stereo tape. If you read Stephen Desper's thread about the Beach Boys quad (and not quad) releases, he talks about doing this for the stuff he mixed to DY or EV-4, he didn't go multitrack->4 channel->matrix encoder->stereo, he went from the multitrack through a mixing desk that had a DY circuit set up so he was basically encoding on the fly as he was mixing, and able to hear the results. This is basically similar to what I'm suggesting what may have happened with Lotus, if there is no discrete master, just with an SQ encoder instead of DY.

I'm not saying this is definitely the case with Lotus, but the reason they would do this for single-inventory quad releases is because that way, they could be sure of what the SQ encode/decode process was doing to the sound. This was key because if this was going out as a single-inventory release, it still had to sound 'perfect' played back in stereo - if you've listened to any SQ quad played back undecoded in stereo, you'll notice that sometimes certain elements are overly buried or overly pronounced as a result of the quad encoding process and I'm sure they wanted to avoid that as much as possible.

It's my recollection anyway that Lotus is pretty much a band in front/audience & ambiance in the back kind of mix anyway, so if a discrete 4 channel master does exist, the main benefit isn't going to be a crazy directional enveloping quad extravaganza, it's going to be that the mix sounds less 'wet' or reverb-y/echoey. This because half of that ambiance is going to be in the rear speakers as opposed to the SQ encoded master which has the front reverbs and rear reverbs mixed down to two channels. I believe this is why the stereo CD's of ELP's 'Welcome Back My Friends' sound like you're in a reverb tank, because they took the quad mix and just folded it down to stereo, so you're really getting twice as much reverb as you'd really want.
 
I think you're misunderstanding why there might not be a 4-channel master.

It's not because this gig was mixed live, as it was being performed. Instead it would have been recorded live as usual, to 16 or 24 track tape. Then the engineer would take the tapes back to the (quad equipped) studio to mix them - but instead of mixing down to a discrete 4 track tape, he'd feed the 4 outputs of the mixing console in to the SQ encoder, and the stereo output of the SQ encoder to a 2-track stereo tape. If you read Stephen Desper's thread about the Beach Boys quad (and not quad) releases, he talks about doing this for the stuff he mixed to DY or EV-4, he didn't go multitrack->4 channel->matrix encoder->stereo, he went from the multitrack through a mixing desk that had a DY circuit set up so he was basically encoding on the fly as he was mixing, and able to hear the results. This is basically similar to what I'm suggesting what may have happened with Lotus, if there is no discrete master, just with an SQ encoder instead of DY.

I'm not saying this is definitely the case with Lotus, but the reason they would do this for single-inventory quad releases is because that way, they could be sure of what the SQ encode/decode process was doing to the sound. This was key because if this was going out as a single-inventory release, it still had to sound 'perfect' played back in stereo - if you've listened to any SQ quad played back undecoded in stereo, you'll notice that sometimes certain elements are overly buried or overly pronounced as a result of the quad encoding process and I'm sure they wanted to avoid that as much as possible.

It's my recollection anyway that Lotus is pretty much a band in front/audience & ambiance in the back kind of mix anyway, so if a discrete 4 channel master does exist, the main benefit isn't going to be a crazy directional enveloping quad extravaganza, it's going to be that the mix sounds less 'wet' or reverb-y/echoey. This because half of that ambiance is going to be in the rear speakers as opposed to the SQ encoded master which has the front reverbs and rear reverbs mixed down to two channels. I believe this is why the stereo CD's of ELP's 'Welcome Back My Friends' sound like you're in a reverb tank, because they took the quad mix and just folded it down to stereo, so you're really getting twice as much reverb as you'd really want.

It is an excellent mix and not like you described. I do like your post however, thanks for the technical info.
 
Fair enough, I'll defer to those descriptions of the mix as it's been years since I've listened to it.

I'm just not a big fan of SQ and also don't trust it, so in situations like that my bias leads me to believe that it's just the SQ decoder pushing out-of-phase stuff to the rears rather than instruments that were actually mixed back there.

If it does turn out to be a real discrete mix with instruments in the rears, I'll be happier than fredblue is when he finds a rare new zealand pressing of an obscure ray conniff quad EP. ie incredibly happy. :D
 
I would like to invite you to have a Surround Master SQ unit to give these SQ LP`s a good fare listen you may change your mind on matrix LP`s ...........:music

Fair enough, I'll defer to those descriptions of the mix as it's been years since I've listened to it.

I'm just not a big fan of SQ and also don't trust it, so in situations like that my bias leads me to believe that it's just the SQ decoder pushing out-of-phase stuff to the rears rather than instruments that were actually mixed back there.

If it does turn out to be a real discrete mix with instruments in the rears, I'll be happier than fredblue is when he finds a rare new zealand pressing of an obscure ray conniff quad EP. ie incredibly happy. :D
 
It is an excellent mix and not like you described. I do like your post however, thanks for the technical info.

So, obviously, it is discrete, himey? I've actually never heard LOTUS much less the SQ Vinyl version so I'd be curious how you would describe the mix.
 
I have a DTS conversion from stereo/SQ CD. I'm not sure I ever listened to it. Well, the time has come to review that set.
 
I have a suspicious feeling that this live concert was in fact recorded and encoded to SQ at the source, and an actual 4 channel discrete master may not exist. It will be very interesting to see if AF can locate a quad master.

I would bet this release will be SQ encoded stereo only, but hey, you never know. If it is, don't jump down Marshall's throat on this one. He is clearly trying to locate this master if it does indeed exist.
Well they can always do like the Beach Boys SACDs recently have, and decode the SQ and give us that on surround layer (joke).
 
Well they can always do like the Beach Boys SACDs recently have, and decode the SQ and give us that on surround layer (joke).

Haha! :D

Good idea! I'll run the SQ thru my Surround Master for them - for free

(they can just give me the Quads of Return To Forever & Weather Report in return, no payment is necessary for my time! ;) )
 
I have a DTS conversion from stereo/SQ CD. I'm not sure I ever listened to it. Well, the time has come to review that set.

Similar situation, though mine was among a load of conversions i had on DTS that went down the toilet when my laptop went kaput!
If I had the Lotus to hand now I'd be able to check too.
Ah, well, it'll all come out in the wash! :D
 
I would like to invite you to have a Surround Master SQ unit to give these SQ LP`s a good fare listen you may change your mind on matrix LP`s ...........:music

Its alright Bill, I'm pretty sure Dave's heard his fair share of Surround Master SQ conversions.. you have to accept/be aware that there's some (not disparaging its just a silly little phrase I made up!) "separation snobs" on here (I'm one of them :eek: ) and you just do not get that exact same feeling of surround you get with the likes of SACD/DVD-A/Q4/Q8, from any of the matrix Quad encode/decode systems with regard to separation (hope not to get embroiled in a big debate over this, you all know how much I've come to grow very fond of SQ thanks to the Surround Master., after years of dismissing SQ as a load of crap I now bizarrely love SQ! ..but lets not kid ourselves, SQ is not discrete surround and never will be. C'est tout! :D )
 
So, obviously, it is discrete, himey? I've actually never heard LOTUS much less the SQ Vinyl version so I'd be curious how you would describe the mix.

SQ can never be discrete but with some (not all) material (particularly instrumental stuff with no vocals to bleed through to the rears) I've found it does a very convincing job of psychoacoustically conning your lugholes into thinking they're listening to the real thing.. especially with that Surround Master SQ vinyl unit which is (to my ears) so musical and lovely and smooth, yet so good at attempting to separate stuff from front to back (unlike a Tate which is superb at separating FTB and STS but has a kinda mechanical slightly clinical approach imho.. you know Ralph, I've heard so many SQ conversions over the years, you could blindfold me and test to see if I can tell the difference between a Tate and a Surround Master, in fact I may play that game with the Kap'n he'll be here in a minute! ..all that said, that SQ vinyl Surround Master has been a godsend to someone like me who loves all that Soul/R&B that was only ever released in Quad on SQ records, I am a fan of SQ in as much as when it is good it is very good (just don't mention Bridge Over Distorted Water.. or Still Crazy After All These Rears.. which are among several SQ LP abominations imho! :D )
 
Fair enough, I'll defer to those descriptions of the mix as it's been years since I've listened to it.

I'm just not a big fan of SQ and also don't trust it, so in situations like that my bias leads me to believe that it's just the SQ decoder pushing out-of-phase stuff to the rears rather than instruments that were actually mixed back there.

If it does turn out to be a real discrete mix with instruments in the rears, I'll be happier than fredblue is when he finds a rare new zealand pressing of an obscure ray conniff quad EP. ie incredibly happy. :D

We have had some lovely chats touching on all this old Quad pallava since I caught the Surround Master SQ fever.. you know my thoughts on it Dave, sometimes its great, sometimes its shit but its always "Sorta Quad" (TM) and its been so wonderful since its enabled me to hear almost all of the R&B/Soul/Jazz Quads that either nobody had ever got around to converting or never appeared on any other format but SQ.

If you'd told me 2 years ago that by the time I was 40 (today btw, hooray.. lets hear it for getting old! NOT!) I would have heard the Quads of:

Isley Brothers: Live It Up, Harvest For The World, Go For Your Guns,
O'Jays: Survival, Family Reunion, Message In The Music,
Johnnie Taylor: Eargasm,
Miracles: Love Crazy,
Manhattans: It Feels So Good,
Weather Report: Tale Spinnin',
Return To Forever: Musicmagic,
Maynard Ferguson: Conquistador,
Wild Cherry: Electrified Funk, etc....

..I would have laughed in your face (in your face! :p ) but I'm not laughing now.. well, I am, kind of.. because thanks to SQ and the SQ Vinyl modded Surround Master I have got to hear all those and more in "Sorta Quad"... YIPPEE-DIPPEE-DOO.

Nobody else converted them and/or put them out there (whether they were on 8track or not!) so I did them all myself. Rock and flucking Roll. Ahem. Thanks.. I'll get me coat!

Ps. I still can't stomach too much Ray Connie, Quad or no Quad, it gets on me thrupenny bits after a while! Percy The Engine Faith on the other hand.. groovy baby (vinyl records.. groovy.. geddit?) :eek:
 
".... you know Ralph, I've heard so many SQ conversions over the years, you could blindfold me and test to see if I can tell the difference between a Tate and a Surround Master, in fact I may play that game with the Kap'n he'll be here in a minute!" A certain member will love you for the methodology! ;)
 
.... it's all conjecture. And really, we all have to stop agonizing over stuff that could have and should have come out in any format, from the '70s, to the early '00s, to now. If you can't buy it, then it's not worth dwelling on. There was probably more shit that almost came out then actually did come out, and all of it would have probably been great!

Getting arrogant about any of this stuff is a waste of energy.

Can we get this message pinned to a pop up that appears every 3 minutes or so? Thanks...
 
Yes fredy my boy, I concur Matrix Surround can never be discrete ....:slap:....yes it can....:slap:....no it cant....:slap:....But when its good its bloody good.....:banana:

SQ can never be discrete but with some (not all) material (particularly instrumental stuff with no vocals to bleed through to the rears) I've found it does a very convincing job of psychoacoustically conning your lugholes into thinking they're listening to the real thing.. especially with that Surround Master SQ vinyl unit which is (to my ears) so musical and lovely and smooth, yet so good at attempting to separate stuff from front to back (unlike a Tate which is superb at separating FTB and STS but has a kinda mechanical slightly clinical approach imho.. you know Ralph, I've heard so many SQ conversions over the years, you could blindfold me and test to see if I can tell the difference between a Tate and a Surround Master, in fact I may play that game with the Kap'n he'll be here in a minute! ..all that said, that SQ vinyl Surround Master has been a godsend to someone like me who loves all that Soul/R&B that was only ever released in Quad on SQ records, I am a fan of SQ in as much as when it is good it is very good (just don't mention Bridge Over Distorted Water.. or Still Crazy After All These Rears.. which are among several SQ LP abominations imho! :D )
 
So, obviously, it is discrete, himey? I've actually never heard LOTUS much less the SQ Vinyl version so I'd be curious how you would describe the mix.

I was going to use the term discrete when I posted last night but changed it to excellent to avoid any needless arguments :) ...my source was a DVDA conversion from a script I believe, it is at least 4 1/2 years old so there may be a slightly better version with an improved script. Even if you don't consider the fact that it is sq and live, it is still very good. Relative to the majority of live mixes, it is excellent in comparison.

If there is indeed a discrete master available, there is no doubt that an AF release would turn out amazing. Not going to get my hopes too high after the recent Musicmagic letdown.
 
Back
Top