HiRez Poll Moody Blues - DAYS OF FUTURE PASSED [SACD]

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

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

Rate the SACD of Moody Blues - DAYS OF FUTURE PASSED


  • Total voters
    56
I always found it funny that there was a mono pressing of DoFP at all considering that the album was recorded purely as a demonstration record to demonstrate stereo.

Not many mono pressings were made in the USA, since the labels were (mostly slowly but steadily) reducing mono to where, by 1969, everything would be 'single inventory' stereo (or whatever). But in England, where mono would be more commonplace for a few more years, a mono pressing was made, and remains easier to find than the US edition.

The only reason it got released was because Decca had spent so much money on the recording process, they decided to release it to recoup some of their cost.

It helped that "Nights" became a hit before the album got full release. And though it was only a minor seller back in 1968, the single did help make DOFP a sleeper success in the US, and over the next few years, as the band toured, it sold quite well.

I've never heard for certain whether the mono was just a fold-down or if it was a genuine mono mix, but I'd have a VERY hard time believing they'd mix that album to mono from the multi-tracks, since it was recorded specifically for stereo. So I'm sure it's fold down. A US pressing is going to be pretty hard to find because that album did absolutely nothing in the US until 1972. By then, the mono album was long out of print. As a rule, mono records were not discontinued to the general public in the US until 1968. Since DoFP came out in 1967, there is almost definitely a US mono pressing. I'm sure when one comes up on eBay, it'll fetch major amounts of cash.

Actually it was 1968 for the US album, and yes, it's a fold down, as are the next three UK mono editions. Singles were sometimes dedicated mixes, though.

From 1968 onward, mono LPs may have been pressed, but they were promo only. Case in point: Frank Zappa's We're Only in It for the Money and The Velvet Underground's White Light/White Heat, both released in 1968 had unique mono mixes and mono LPs were pressed, but they were promo only. There were never stock US mono copies that you could buy in stores. Another example was The Beatles' White Album, released in 1968. There is a mono mix, but it was never released in the US, only in the UK. (y)

Actually some stock copies of both titles exist, but are few and far between. As for promos, once stock mono pressings were eliminated, promo mono's (on almost any label) were usually folds, not dedicated mixes. But it wasn't until 1969 that stock mono was all but gone in the US; there were quite a lot in 1968, just in reduced numbers. As for the WHITE ALBUM, the UK mono press was a strong selling import title for years since it was indeed unavailable here.


ED :)
 
The only logical explanation--beyond 'because they could'--would have been to equalize the timings on each side. But I think there's one other track, "Another Morning," which runs longer, too.

ED :)
 
On the discreet 4 channel 8 track version, is it possible the right front is considered "FRONT" and Left Rear is considered "REAR"? This would make left front "Left" and right rear "RIGHT". It seems different, but when I listen to it using this orientation the sound seems more 'correct.
 
That's confusing. What do you mean by Front? The right front would already be in the front, and the left rear would already be in the rear. Maybe I'm nuts though.

On the discreet 4 channel 8 track version, is it possible the right front is considered "FRONT" and Left Rear is considered "REAR"? This would make left front "Left" and right rear "RIGHT". It seems different, but when I listen to it using this orientation the sound seems more 'correct.
 
He means a speaker layout in a diamond rather than four in the corners.

That is what I meant and diamond is a good description, thanks. I was testing speaker placement and find that seems to be a better placement for this tape. The front right speaker seems to be heavily weighted to vocals and what might be called the "Front". For instance on 'Knights' the spoken parts are mostly "Front" (right front) except for some lines which are the "Back" (left rear) in a diamond layout.
Either way its still good music.

The next morning....
I think the diamond is both a mistake and a good idea. It may have been the plugs were incorrectly set. When I fed the tracks into a digitl recorder I see the original had the vocals in the normal Front left-right and the orchastra Back left-right.

But I find the diamond with vocals front and back and the orchtra left and right makes a nicer sound. I'm going to set the speakers in this configuration for this tape at least.
Sometime it pays to make mistakes.
 
Last edited:
"Once Upon A Long Ago" (when I first bought this SACD release back in 2010) I was listening on a surround system that wasn't positioned correctly with the surround speakers up a lot higher in level than the fronts.
But since my move to TN in 2012 (when I had the chance to properly set up a surround system to my liking) I slowly became more conscientious and interested in making sure that my system was properly calibrated to the correct standards, not to what 'sounded best'.
And since that time, I have now recently come to the conclusion that this disc (and potentially all of the Moodies' SACD releases) has a surround mix that is not properly balanced.
The back channels definitely seem more recessed compared to the fronts, and that could be due to a variety of reasons:
1) They could have raised the level on the fronts.
2) They could have lowered the level on the rears.
3) They could have applied (more) compression/limiting to the front channels while leaving the back channels more dynamic.

In order to more fully balance the surround mix on this SACD and get the sound closer to the way it sounds in stereo, I think you have to raise the back channels by around 5dB. That's especially true on tracks like "Dawn is a Feeling" and "Tuesday Afternoon", where the back channels feature the lead vocal at some exclusive moments, and without rebalancing, the lead vocal in the surrounds will always sound much lower and off-balance compared to when it is in the front.

That's my finding for this disc, and I'm working my way through the others to see if that holds true for the others as well.
Feel free to debate me on whether you think what I'm saying is off-base or not. :)
 
"Once Upon A Long Ago" (when I first bought this SACD release back in 2010) I was listening on a surround system that wasn't positioned correctly with the surround speakers up a lot higher in level than the fronts.
But since my move to TN in 2012 (when I had the chance to properly set up a surround system to my liking) I slowly became more conscientious and interested in making sure that my system was properly calibrated to the correct standards, not to what 'sounded best'.
And since that time, I have now recently come to the conclusion that this disc (and potentially all of the Moodies' SACD releases) has a surround mix that is not properly balanced.
The back channels definitely seem more recessed compared to the fronts, and that could be due to a variety of reasons:
1) They could have raised the level on the fronts.
2) They could have lowered the level on the rears.
3) They could have applied (more) compression/limiting to the front channels while leaving the back channels more dynamic.

In order to more fully balance the surround mix on this SACD and get the sound closer to the way it sounds in stereo, I think you have to raise the back channels by around 5dB. That's especially true on tracks like "Dawn is a Feeling" and "Tuesday Afternoon", where the back channels feature the lead vocal at some exclusive moments, and without rebalancing, the lead vocal in the surrounds will always sound much lower and off-balance compared to when it is in the front.

That's my finding for this disc, and I'm working my way through the others to see if that holds true for the others as well.
Feel free to debate me on whether you think what I'm saying is off-base or not. :)

Unfortunately, I have noticed the same issue and raise the surround levels on this disc. I juice Nights In White Satin up 6dB to 7dB, less on the other tracks. There are quite a number of discs where I raise the surrounds by 2 to 3dB. Steven Wilson seems to have been the one person to consistently get the surrounds to sound just right at 0dB. Fortunately, we live in age where adjusting channel volumes can be easily done from the listening position; unlike the "good ole days" when you had to walk back and forth to the preamp.
 
Question for all you QQers. Which do you think is better. This SACD release from 2006, or the DVD release from 2017?

To me, they are pretty much the same.
If there is any difference it's only down to the difference in format qualities, and even then, it's pretty minuscule in this instance.
Even though the SACD is a high-res format, the DTS 96/24 audio on the 2017 DVD still sounds very good.
Plus the 2017 release not only has the original stereo mix (released for the first time since 1967 and in high-res too!) but it also has some cool B&W video footage from around 67/68 too.

So overall I say the new 2017 package has better value than the 2006 SACD, even though I don't plan on getting rid of either release!

:)
 
Interesting comment. I had the DTS CD of Seventh Sojourn and thought that its sizzling high end was horrid, so I shied away from DOFP.
I just did an a/b (not blind) with the SACD. To my ears the DTS-CD has a more balanced sound all round. Better distinction between instruments, tighter bass, clearer treble. Not harsh at all. It also has a derived centre channel which the SACD lacks, and the rears seen to mixed higher as well. The overall mix is the same, ie the original quad, but the DTS-CD has centre and sub channels added.

Sent from my K5000 using Tapatalk
 
I just did an a/b (not blind) with the SACD. To my ears the DTS-CD has a more balanced sound all round. Better distinction between instruments, tighter bass, clearer treble. Not harsh at all. It also has a derived centre channel which the SACD lacks, and the rears seen to mixed higher as well. The overall mix is the same, ie the original quad, but the DTS-CD has centre and sub channels added.

Sent from my K5000 using Tapatalk
I cant speak for what you have there, but both my SACD and DTSCD have a derived centers and LFEs. They may in fact be the same mix, I'm not sure. To my knowledge, the only true 4 channel versions of the Moody Classics is on 70's era records and tapes, the best of which are the Q4's. Everything else has been "manipulated".
 
I just did an a/b (not blind) with the SACD. To my ears the DTS-CD has a more balanced sound all round. Better distinction between instruments, tighter bass, clearer treble. Not harsh at all. It also has a derived centre channel which the SACD lacks, and the rears seen to mixed higher as well. The overall mix is the same, ie the original quad, but the DTS-CD has centre and sub channels added.

Sent from my K5000 using Tapatalk

So now, boxhead, you are going to send me on yet another extended search for the Holy Grail!:)
 
Back
Top