Impressions Of The Quad Version

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

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

Guy Robinson

Guest
Different I guess. Everyone is bound to have a preference. Thank God we have different surround versions that we can compare. At this point, that in itself is marvelous. Don't you think? It's all good. Let's enjoy it.
 
I have now had the opportunity to listen several times to the quad version, as generously provided me by some unspoken few. I want to be measured in my remarks, because there are enthusiasts on this board far more intimately familiar with this version than me, and I sense a passion for this version that, among audio enthusiasts, often leads to very unproductive discussion. If that's a tipoff that I prefer the SACD, pretty much across the board, then you're right. But let me make some observations.

First, I am not endeavoring to provide a "review" of this disc, as a point-by-point comparison; the review of the SACD required an insane amount of listening in an abbreviated period of time, and, frankly, that's work.

Second, and perhaps most importantly, you should understand my orientation in terms of listening to the discs; I first heard the multichannel SACD--and then I heard this disc; I suspect the reverse is true with the core of people on this board, and, to the extent that this forms a frame of reference that makes one lean in one direction, then I confess which one I heard first, and I'd suggest that you consider this in your own analysis of things.

I'll also say that, in contrast to the two channel version, I would also have formed a preference for and an attachment to the quad version. DSOTM sort of cries out to be spread around the room, and, as much as I've loved the music for as long as it's been out, you never know what you're missing until you hear the surround version. Obviously, there's a core group who have known that for a long, long, time, and it's easy to see how strong impressions get formed, in particular when the only contrast is the two channel version.

Enough of all that. The first, and, I think, obvious difference between the versions is the fidelity of the SACD compared to this version. I recognize that I'm listening to a digitized DTS version on a CDR, as contrasted to the newly mastered version on DSD, but . . . the differerence in fidelity is striking. The audio term "bright" is often described as a negative, but, I believe, only when it is excessively bright. There is a brightness that speaks of high quality, and the SACD has this over the quad version, and it is a significant difference. I hear more of the instruments, and I hear them articulated more cleanly, and in more detail. While I was warned of a slight tape hiss in the quad version, it seemed to me very slight, and you had to search for it to find it. It was not really distracting, though it was there.

The difference in the "surround mixes" (if you want to describe them like that) is interesting. As much as I thought that sparing use of the center channel was made in the SACD, its presence is pronounced in contrast to the quad version (obviously). This is not merely because there is no center channel in the quad mix--it seemed to me that the distinction between left and right was far more pronounced in the quad version, but this didn't really strike me as a virtue; a difference, to be sure, but not one that I preferred.

The Us & Them difference was . . . well, there. I heard the sax in the quad version from the right front channel, while it's in the center in the SACD . . . but there's much more in the SACD (and I think--can't be sure as I write--that Guthrie said that something was added to that particular mix on the SACD--could've been a different cut, though). But the sax was spread in greater detail across the front in the SACD--in the quad version it was from discrete place in the room.

Which leads to, I think, one of the main points. If you do think about a surround mix simply as putting stuff in certain places, then consider that those who became attached to the quad version have long been used to the sax "belonging" in a certain place, and the SACD version moved it; don't get me wrong, most multichannel enthusiasts enjoy hearing this kind of new dimension, but I know where I've reacted in the past to something that sounded "wrong" because it wasn't the way I formed an impression of what was right.

On Money, the sound effects in the quad version interestingly "jumped" from discrete point to discrete point, and it certainly made for a pungent surround experience, and one that was truly enjoyable. Perhaps some might prefer it to the SACD version, and that's certainly the listener's prerogative.

There was also a more pronounced difference between the front and rear channels, as opposed to left and right. I sometimes heard points where it seemed the left front matched the right rear, and the right front the left rear, almost as if an X were being sonically conducted. I enjoyed this, but it is a different approach than the much wider spread (from all directions) that you get in the SACD.

Your own mileage will undoubtedly vary. I'm glad I had the opportunity to hear it.

Nick


 
Nick,

I am glad that you got to hear the AP mix. It really is a different experience.

The SACD is truely a sonic spectacular, created for the year 2003, while the AP mix is 25+ years old, so the audio considerations are understandable.

Imagine the differences in studio equipment that has occurred since the AP miz was created. Some members here probably have more creative hardware and software at home than AP had in the studio back then!

Those of us who have heard the AP mix for a long time are familiar with it, like an "old shoe" effect, and have an attachment for it. I think Cai summed it up by comapring track-by-track and stating his preferences.

The thing that I missed from the AP mix in the Guthrie mix was the pinging of the response vocals in "Us and Them". This too me is the highlight of the AP mix, and if Guthrie had duplicated the effect, the SACD in my mind would have obsoleted the AP version. (Of course, he may have been taken to task for "copying" AP).

(NOTE: I merely pointed out that the sax was discrete in the front right to make sure that you had the correct mix. In the SQ version, it is kind blurry. In the discrete version, it is spot right on. The real gem of the tune is the pinging voices)

At any rate, the AP mix is relegated to historical reference by the SACD, and since .00000000001% of the population will ever hear it, it is pretty much a footnote.

You have to, and do, understand our point. If you had been listening to the stereo disc all of these years, then say in 1999 someone sent you the AP DTS conversion and you "finally" heard a piece of work that you were totally familiar with in a completly new way, with the fidelity of the DTS CD, you have to admit you would have been blown away.

Once the SACD came out, you would have also been impressed, but the "leap" from "AP" to "SACD" is not as great a leap as from "stereo" to "SACD".

As they say....................timing is everything! :D

:-jon
 
Not to mention that the version I sent you was a "proof of existence" tape. It was not tweaked, sweetened or anything. I'm not even sure if speed and alignment were checked. A lot needs to be said about the original, since it was basically created using stone knives and bear skins...in the world or surround sound. I still think that "Side B" of the SACD was a colossal let down. Us and them is the stand out for banality...

Tab
 
The 2 let downs for me were Us and Them AND ANY COLOUR You like.... Didn't anyone feel robbed by the lack of the round the room of the guitar parts in the SACD. The sacd it's planted in one channel and the AP. mix it goes round the room...BOO!
Rob
 
Ok, while I pretty much lay claim as a "hardware" guy, I do think a couple of Nick's points warrant commentary on the "software" side!
I think Nick's comments immediately point out the difference between long time quadraphiles, and a professional audio reviewer/critic. Quadraphiles are long used to overlooking the faults of whatever format we're listening to......CD-4, SQ, QS, and Quad 8-track tapes! While Nick immediately points out the "sonic" differences, ie; quality of the music. I think this also shows in his remark of a digitized DTS cdr.......when it really should be a digitized DTS cdr of a Quadraphonic 8-track tape. This is no slight difference, we can all acknowledge the audible faults of the DTS format, but in this case the original source was an 8-track tape...with all its limitations as to freq. response, etc. Combine that with its original playback on a Q8 deck with a good 20+ years of use before even getting into a PC where the audio got all the help that it could! With tremendous Kudos to the great job of "cleaning" this up.......it still started off life as a Q8 in this instance!
So, the only judgement that should be made in this instance is that the SACD is sonically fantastic. A comparison between the two, would only reflect upon the SACD...not the AP mix as heard. If the DTS CDR had come even close, it would reflect more upon the faults of the SACD, unless you really think we should be debating the quality of an 8-track tape in 2003! (In which case........I concede!:lol: )
As to the mix, differences yes, better or worse.....can be debated from now on. But, I think one of the key differences is the "art" of mixing and recording today versus 30yrs ago.
One of the long known facts amongst quadraphiles is that the better a recording is, the more detailed and carefully mixed......the better it will be "decoded" or processed by especially our (then) high-end quad decoders. This is due to our decoders separating based upon the "phasing" of the music.....minor shifts in phasing (which was commonly done in the past to keep instruments from cancelling each other out) become significant when decoded by a TATE or QSD decoder. Today, with all our technology and digital processing.........it is quickly becoming clear that today's engineers don't seem to be spending nearly as much time dealing with the nuances of the phase relationships. The DSOTM SACD demonstrates this point clearly. Try running the SACD stereo mix through a decoder and compare that to the original "stereo" mix (I use the MOFI CD).......it just doesn't decode as well......as Cai so adeptly described it......"great taste, less filling".......the quality is fantastic, but the synthesized "quad" mix is flat in comparison.
Now, you might think......who cares! I don't plan to listen to the stereo mix anyway (neither do I!!:rollin: ). But, the same "clues" show in the multi-channel mix......as Jon mentioned with the vocals, or the panning of effects, etc.
I've often listened to "modern" DVD-A or SACD mixes and wondered aloud "did they ever listen to the original quad mix before doing this".......and of course the answer is no. And, I seem to remember someone famous once saying... "if you don't study and learn from history.....you're bound to repeat it".....or something along those lines. I think thats really at the heart of the debate today. When I listen to a DVD-A or SACD I think I should be able to have the expectation that what I hear will not only be "sonically" improved, but that the "mix" will be better than what I can obtain by listening to a regular stereo cd as processed by my QSD-1000.........and as of 4/06/2003...........we're not there yet!:mad:

QuadBob:cool:
 
It just goes to show what was said all along that James Guthrie is an excellent mixer in Stereo, but has a lot to learn on the quad/5.1 mixing front.
Pink Floyd a band known for years for quality, have been let down by not choosing someone who is is world renowned for creating the best 5.1 mixes. Sony's money talking and someone rushing a job, to try an make the anniversary rather than doing the job properly.
I just don't understand why James Guthrie referenced the Stereo version of the album to mix it, when the opportunity was there to totally recreate the mix.
 
Hey Tab,

I've heard this rumor before about this copy of DSOTM. However, I'm not convinced of the "higher source" proclamation........just because it sounds good, and doesn't have the track change audible. Unless its lineage is clearly proven, I would still assume that it IS from the British Q8.
Mainly because I do know that an extremely excellent conversion was produced (not by one of our contributing DTS converters on this board) from my dub of the British Q8. It was cleaned up extensively and the track change is virtually inaudible.
While I'm sure that those involved in this might not want to discuss it in public........if you'd like to email me with the particulars as you know them (source, etc.)...we might be able to clear this up. I think we'd be able to ascertain "where" this copy originated. Until then, I believe it is pure conjecture that this version came from anything other than the Brit. Q8. Ahhhhhhhhh, the webs we weave!:lol:

QuadBob:cool:
 
If anyone can help me out with a copy of the DTS version from the "higher source", I'd love to trade for it.

Pink Floyd fans in particular might be interested in the list I have at music.wywh.com

You won't have to think too hard about where I came up with my domain name. :)

 
Nick, thanks for your considerate thoughts regarding the old and new surround mixes of DSOTM. Your allusion to the "first love" factor cannot be understated. This has proven to have a profound effect on the preferences of many audio enthusiasts (sometimes well beyond the point of obsession).

As others have pointed out, it really isn't fair to compare the sonic quality of the two discs. As you know, the DTS CD is at a severe disadvantage compared to the SACD. Besides the issues already discussed in this regard, it is worth mentioning that DTS uses 4 to 1 compression, which, in my opinion, is the biggest negative for the sonic quality of the quad disc.

 
Back
Top