Chicago 2 Quadio Mix missing vocals

[ElBlancoChocolatte]

Sorry if this isn't the right place. I'm new and didn't see anything in the Quadio section where this would be answered.

I have the Chicago Quad box and on the song Now More Than Ever, Terry Kaths vocals aren't there. It's hard to describe if you don't know the song but during the chorus, Kath comes up with some Whoo's and yeahs and they aren't there on the quad mix. I have 4 different versions of that album and it's only on the quad mix they aren't there. I was just curious if that's common or why they would remove them. I always thought the 4 or 5.1 mixes of albums were still the original album, just surround added and nothing added/removed.

 

[Mr. Afternoon]

Sorry if this isn't the right place. I'm new and didn't see anything in the Quadio section where this would be answered.

I have the Chicago Quad box and on the song Now More Than Ever, Terry Kaths vocals aren't there. It's hard to describe if you don't know the song but during the chorus, Kath comes up with some Whoo's and yeahs and they aren't there on the quad mix. I have 4 different versions of that album and it's only on the quad mix they aren't there. I was just curious if that's common or why they would remove them. I always thought the 4 or 5.1 mixes of albums were still the original album, just surround added and nothing added/removed.

Maybe they forgot them.
Considering we've had official surround releases with messed up LFE channels to duplicated content in Front Speakers, I wouldn't be surprised.

 

[ar surround]

Sorry if this isn't the right place. I'm new and didn't see anything in the Quadio section where this would be answered.

I have the Chicago Quad box and on the song Now More Than Ever, Terry Kaths vocals aren't there. It's hard to describe if you don't know the song but during the chorus, Kath comes up with some Whoo's and yeahs and they aren't there on the quad mix. I have 4 different versions of that album and it's only on the quad mix they aren't there. I was just curious if that's common or why they would remove them. I always thought the 4 or 5.1 mixes of albums were still the original album, just surround added and nothing added/removed.

Welcome to the forum ElBlancoChocolatte. Looking forward to hearing more from you. That is an interesting bit of information. It is well known that the quad mix of 25 or 6 to 4 contains additional guitar flourishes by Kath, but I have never heard about these missing vocals.

 

[sjcorne]

always thought the 4 or 5.1 mixes of albums were still the original album, just surround added and nothing added/removed.

Most surround music mixes are created months or even years after the stereo version–often by a different mixing engineer in a different studio, without the input of the original artist or producer–so it's not uncommon to see parts added or removed for a variety of reasons. There are other examples of this on the Chicago set, such as the missing lead acoustic guitar part at the beginning of "Wishing You Were Here."

Even if even the remix engineer is trying their best to remain faithful to the original stereo version, it's incredibly difficult to replicate another person's mix down to the last detail. The only way to ensure a surround mix that exactly matches the stereo (in terms of edits, processing, balance, etc) is to have the same person create both mixes at the same time.

 

[jimfisheye]

Just FYI, surround isn't "added in" like an effect. You literally mix into 4 or more channels instead of 2. You choose what speakers or combinations of speakers to place the mix elements. Just like in stereo but now with more channels. The panner is a joystick now instead of a knob.

The stereo and surround mixes are done separately. That leads to the opportunity to make different mix balances between them (intentional or not). Someone may have decided they didn't like those vocals when they remixed it to quad. Someone might have made a mistake! (Like Phil Spector not noticing the backing vocals in Across the Universe and never pushing those faders up for his remix.)

This happened during the mono/stereo transition era too with sometimes very different balances between the mono and stereo mixes.

 

[ElBlancoChocolatte]

Welcome to the forum ElBlancoChocolatte. Looking forward to hearing more from you. That is an interesting bit of information. It is well known that the quad mix of 25 or 6 to 4 contains additional guitar flourishes by Kath, but I have never heard about these missing vocals.

Thanks for the welcome. I've noticed the additional guitar and was able to pick out some small things that seemed buried in previous mixes.

Yeah, it's really strange. I noticed it instantly because his vocals on that last chorus make the song for me, or at least make it more amazing than it is. If I'm not mistaken, these are the original quad mixes so maybe it was decided to drop the vocals in the quad mix and not album mix when they worked on it? It just seems so freaking odd. Still, amazing box set and I guess I can live without the Whoooooaaaas and Yeeeeaaaaahhhhyeeeaahhhhs!

 

[ElBlancoChocolatte]

Most surround music mixes are created months or even years after the stereo version–often by a different mixing engineer in a different studio, without the input of the original artist or producer–so it's not uncommon to see parts added or removed for a variety of reasons. There are other examples of this on the Chicago set, such as the missing lead acoustic guitar part at the beginning of "Wishing You Were Here."

Even if even the remix engineer is trying their best to remain faithful to the original stereo version, it's incredibly difficult to replicate another person's mix down to the last detail. The only way to ensure a surround mix that exactly matches the stereo (in terms of edits, processing, balance, etc) is to have the same person create both mixes at the same time.

Thanks for the info. I knew that with most surround mixes they are made way later but is that true with quadrophonic mixes? I always thought they were done at mixing or relatively close to it? I guess since they came out, from my understanding, when the stereo album came out, that they were done at the same time. Honestly, I have to relisten to Wishing You Were Here because I didn't notice that. That's not a song I know extremely well so I missed it.

 

[sjcorne]

I knew that with most surround mixes they are made way later but is that true with quadrophonic mixes? I always thought they were done at mixing or relatively close to it?

It varies, depending on the album. Chicago's second album originally came out in 1970, but the quad version wasn't released until 1974. The 5.1 remix done by John Kellogg & Paul Klingberg in the early-2000s restored all these missing parts, though the surround effect isn't nearly as pronounced.

 

[jimfisheye]

Another thing I think I hear in some 70s era quad mixes is running out of budget. A few mistakes or not quite perfect parts are let slide because they don't have the budget for any more time with the surround version. Meanwhile the stereo mix gets another 3 sessions to make it just perfect.

 

[par4ken]

Another thing I think I hear in some 70s era quad mixes is running out of budget. A few mistakes or not quite perfect parts are let slide because they don't have the budget for any more time with the surround version. Meanwhile the stereo mix gets another 3 sessions to make it just perfect.

The last couple of Santana's were terrible, some even say faked. Other than that I've always much preferred the quad mix's especially those SQ's done by Colombia/Epic. Often not having bothered to listen that much to the stereo versions when quad was available, I've never noticed anything missing in the quad versions vis-à-vis the stereo versions. More often it's the stereo version that lacks or is missing something. The cracking whip in " Back In The Saddle " by Aerosmith for one. I never noticed it at all in the stereo version (my brother and his friends played it all the time), although apparently it's there just buried in the mix. I would think that every bit or even more effort was put into those mid seventies quad releases, they sound damn good to me. Sadly near the end it would have been a different story.

 

[jimfisheye]

I thought Rick Wakeman's first 3 solo albums were quad mixes first and the stereo mixes were afterthoughts. There are other's like that too and it makes me smile. Then you get the ones that might not win any awards for either version but the quad turns out better just for having 4 channels to mix into. And I'll take that too!

Just that I've heard a few where the stereo version had flawless mixes and the quad had a few small flaws. The quad might still be more interesting regardless. Dark Side for example.

 

[Bob Romano]

Thanks for the welcome. I've noticed the additional guitar and was able to pick out some small things that seemed buried in previous mixes.

Yeah, it's really strange. I noticed it instantly because his vocals on that last chorus make the song for me, or at least make it more amazing than it is. If I'm not mistaken, these are the original quad mixes so maybe it was decided to drop the vocals in the quad mix and not album mix when they worked on it? It just seems so freaking odd. Still, amazing box set and I guess I can live without the Whoooooaaaas and Yeeeeaaaaahhhhyeeeaahhhhs!

Now More Than Ever has always been this way. I always thought it was weird as well but you just kind of get used to it. Had my first taste of it in the 70's when I got my Quad 8 player. I think that' partially why I got hooked on quad- different parts than stereo in the mix or extra parts.

 

[Q-Eight]

Sort of like the Quad version of "Cecilia" by Simon & Garfunkel. It's also missing some background whistles and whoop-whoops. Gotta remember that when these were mixed, the engineers were flying blind. They had to rely on VU meters and extensive track notes - or maybe no track notes at all! So if they listen to a track that is 99% silent except for a few whoops and calls, they might mistakenly label that track as BLANK unless a track sheet shows otherwise.

For instance, here's the "extensive" track sheets for Paul Revere & The Raiders' "Kicks". Spread across TWO Eight-Track multitracks. Note there are also two drum tracks! (One being live during the session, the other a Hal Blaine overdub). Which track do you use? One? The other? Both??? Believe it or not, there have been remixes of this song using the wrong tracks.

In other instances, there's stuff in Quad mixes that SHOULDN'T be there. How about the upright bass on CCR's "Down on the Corner"? Yes, they thought it sounded cool in the studio, but for the released version, they potted it way down because it sounded hokey on record.

 

[key_wiz]

It has been that way since the release of the original Quad mix (which this is of course). I have always presumed it was simply an oversight by the quad remix engineers, who often missed some thing you wouldn’t think they should. Unfortunately.

Another glaring error is a missing acoustic guitar track all through “Wishing You Were Here” on Chicago VII (and IX). Especially noticeable in the intro. Can’t have been intentional as it just sounds too weird and empty.

 

[ar surround]

It has been that way since the release of the original Quad mix (which this is of course). I have always presumed it was simply an oversight by the quad remix engineers, who often missed some thing you wouldn’t think they should. Unfortunately.

Another glaring error is a missing acoustic guitar track all through “Wishing You Were Here” on Chicago VII (and IX). Especially noticeable in the intro. Can’t have been intentional as it just sounds too weird and empty.

I never noticed that one either. It may because I've only listened to the quad version during the last 40 years or so.

 

[MidiMagic]

It varies, depending on the album. Chicago's second album originally came out in 1970, but the quad version wasn't released until 1974. The 5.1 remix done by John Kellogg & Paul Klingberg in the early-2000s restored all these missing parts, though the surround effect isn't nearly as pronounced.

In this case, they had to wait until SQ was developed and decided on as the Columbia matrix. That decision was not made until 1971.

And here is another reason why many quad albums sound so bad:

They were actually producing three different products here.
- A stereo mix for people without quad.
- A discrete mix for Q8 tapes.
- A matrix mix for quad LPs.

There was a tendency to shortcut the process in one of these ways:
- Make a Q8 mix and then run it through an SQ 4-corners encoder for the LP.
- Make an SQ mix and then decode it for the Q8 tape.
- Make an SQ mix and use it for the stereo LP.

In each case, some products are not as good as they could be.

 

[sjcorne]

They were actually producing three different products here.
- A stereo mix for people without quad.
- A discrete mix for Q8 tapes.
- A matrix mix for quad LPs.

CBS (and the other labels that issued product on matrix quad LPs) would never make two separate quad mixes, they always used the same discrete mix for both the tape and LP variants. How closely the decoded LP's separation would match that of the discrete tape varied based a number of factors, including the way the quad mix was constructed and what type of decoder the listener was using.

 

[par4ken]

And here is another reason why many quad albums sound so bad:

Which sound bad? I think that most sound damn good.

- Make a Q8 mix and then run it through an SQ 4-corners encoder for the LP.

I think A&M did that, their mixes aren't as good as the Columbia's, but they still sound good through a Tate

- Make an SQ mix and then decode it for the Q8 tape.

Who did that? The discrete version was done alongside, in parallel with the SQ mix.

 

[ssully]

In this case, they had to wait until SQ was developed and decided on as the Columbia matrix. That decision was not made until 1971.

And here is another reason why many quad albums sound so bad:

They were actually producing three different products here.
- A stereo mix for people without quad.
- A discrete mix for Q8 tapes.
- A matrix mix for quad LPs.

Companies paid for 2 different quad mixes.?

I always assumed the matrixes versions were sourced from the discrete quad mix.

 

[sjcorne]

I always assumed the matrixes versions were sourced from the discrete quad mix.

That's correct.

Who did that? The discrete version was done alongside, in parallel with the SQ mix.

The only instance of that I can think of is the Isley Brothers' Live It Up, for reasons unknown the Q8 tape appears to use a matrix decode of the quad mix instead of the discrete version.