Chicago II DVD-A or SQ/Q8, Which Mix Do You Prefer?

[Quad Linda]

Chicago II is one of their best albums. Some would say it is their best. Do you prefer the DVD-A or SQ/Q8 mix?

I like both mixes. Overall, I'd rate the DVD-A best because it is a great mix. Every copy I've ever owned of Chicago II sound like a prerecorded tape, except the DVD-A, which sounds far more natural. I've owned a cassette, 2 ch LP, SQ, 2 CD, single CD and DVD-A. The DVD-A is the only way to listen to this album!

 

[Old Quad Guy]

Well these are interesting questions to ponder. IMHO Quad and 5.1 although both Multi-Channel are slightly different animals. The Quadraphonic mixes were mixed by folks who seemed to know how to use all 4 speakers equally to create a 360 degree sound field. With some of the modern mixers of the 2000s, it sounded like many were not so certain and scared on how to use all the speakers to create the 360 degree sound field. But they did a great job here with the DVD-A.

In a ideal world and with more space on a BR disc we should get more approaches to dealing with surround and different mixes, all on one title such as what we got with the recent Pink Floyd material. A record company could even get even more bang from the same material by having guest mixers redoing the material from time to time in surround, stereo and even mono. And if a company is offering a subscription download service, this might give insensitive to stay with such service to keep things interesting.

But to answer the question which Chicago II is better, I'd have to say I like them both. . Would have been nice to have got an official lossless release of the original Quadraphonic mix of Chicago II.

 

[Quad Linda]

I've said it in other threads, and I'll repeat it here: 5.1 IS Quad. Quad has 4 full range speakers and a phantom center. Those other 2 speakers in 5.1 seem to throw many of today's engineers off.

As to Chicago II's Quad mix in hi-res, it would have been a great mix, but it would have been muddy just like every copy other than the DVD-A, unless they remixed it to duplicate the quad mix. They would have needed to go back to the master tapes, and I suspect do some severe equalizing to have a clean sounding album like the DVD-A.

Well these are interesting questions to ponder. IMHO Quad and 5.1 although both Multi-Channel are slightly different animals. The Quadraphonic mixes were mixed by folks who seemed to know how to use all 4 speakers equally to create a 360 degree sound field. With some of the modern mixers of the 2000s, it sounded like many were not so certain and scared on how to use all the speakers to create the 360 degree sound field. But they did a great job here with the DVD-A.

In a ideal world and with more space on a BR disc we should get more approaches to dealing with surround and different mixes, all on one title such as what we got with the recent Pink Floyd material. A record company could even get even more bang from the same material by having guest mixers redoing the material from time to time in surround, stereo and even mono. And if a company is offering a subscription download service, this might give insensitive to stay with such service to keep things interesting.

But to answer the question which Chicago II is better, I'd have to say I like them both. . Would have been nice to have got an official lossless release of the original Quadraphonic mix of Chicago II.

 

[Old Quad Guy]

Well your right, and I do believe that's what I'm going to say from now on: 5.1 IS Quad. Because the new equipment is really the same as the vintage. If I'm getting what your saying, it's some of the mixers who sometimes get it wrong, not the equipment itself. I agree, the Chicago DVD-A is excellent and most likely the best version. But you know how it is, there is a sentimental factor with the Quadraphonic as that's what we grew up with.

I've said it in other threads, and I'll repeat it here: 5.1 IS Quad. Quad has 4 full range speakers and a phantom center. Those other 2 speakers in 5.1 seem to throw many of today's engineers off.

As to Chicago II's Quad mix in hi-res, it would have been a great mix, but it would have been muddy just like every copy other than the DVD-A, unless they remixed it to duplicate the quad mix. They would have needed to go back to the master tapes, and I suspect do some severe equalizing to have a clean sounding album like the DVD-A.

 

[Quad Linda]

Jim, I think you understand what I'm saying. No, the new digital gear isn't the old analog gear. In that, they truly are different. Every component in the analog chain potentially has a huge effect on the sound.

Theoretically, there is little difference between Quad and 5.1. The .1 is simply the sub-bass (bass in sub-sat systems). With 4 full range speakers and a REAL sub, it is sub-bass. The center is in essence the sounds that were of equal level in both front speakers in Quad (phantom center.)

My point about this particular album is that there is something drastically wrong tonally with every 2 ch or 4 ch mix I've ever heard of it. I suspect that the DVD-A not only went back to the analog multi-channel masters, but that a great deal of equalization was done to get it to sound crisp, and not like a prerecorded tape. Either that, or the other 2ch & 4ch releases were taken from copies, and not the master tapes themselves. Whether transferred to CD, cassette, SQ or 2 ch LP, all previous copies sounded compressed and lacking in the high frequencies. Although the DVD-A isn't overly bright, the highs sound adequate and for the first time, the album doesn't sound compressed.

Although many more recent recordings have better dynamic range and frequency response than Chicago II, it would be my vote for the most tonally improved recording released in high res. On first listen to the DVD-A, I was astounded that it sounded open and had a nice high end, which I'd never heard in the 5 previous copies I'd owned.

Regarding today's engineers, many, though not all, seem overwhelmed by all the channels and devices they have to work with. There often seems to be a lack of creativity in using the tracks and equipment at their disposal. No, I'm not referring to many of the crazy effects that plagued some early Quad releases. I'm referring to a good "discrete" mix without gimmicks.

 

[Ge Someone]

What I don't like about the Chicago DVD-A releases is the mastering, there is an awful lot of dynamic compression going on. The treble (say horns) is much better on the DVD-A mixes, but on the Quad mixes I like the sound of the bass guitar by miles.