Not everyone is a fan of Quad

[Clint Eastwood]

I was over at SHF and noticed an interesting thread Started by Steve Hoffman....I'm asked stuff....Steve mentions and answers general questions...I was interested because I do appreciate Steve's work and have bought titles solely because he worked on them...and I saw a question answered that I have been curious about myself....scroll down to post 21.....

 

[DuncanS]

...........but surely the Quad is true to itself!

 

[Clint Eastwood]

...........but surely the Quad is true to itself!

I think if you go thru that thread and just look for Steve's responses it's pretty interesting...I do know what you mean about original quad vs original recordings

 

[sjcorne]

SH has mentioned in the past he does enjoy several quad mixes- I believe they were Paul Simon's There Goes Rhymin' Simon, The Doobie Brothers' China Grove, Joni Mitchell's Court & Spark, and Redbone's Message From A Drum.

I would disagree with this idea that all quad mixes are radically different than the stereo versions- I think Columbia in particular took great care in honoring the original version, as most of their quad mixes are practically perfect 3-D versions of the stereo mix, with all instrument placements and levels nearly the same (though sometimes with less reverb because of the rules of SQ).

The best are the later-era mixes ('74-'77) where the stereo and quad mixes were done at the same time by the same person, which Columbia called "recording in quad". A good example of that would be Rick Derringer's Spring Fever (recently released by D-V)- both the quad and stereo were done by Shelly Yakus in the same studio at the same time.

When you have different people doing the stereo and surround mixes years or even decades apart, it's never gonna have exactly the same feel. . But why should it? The surround mix should be it's own thing.

 

[MCDave]

When you have different people doing the stereo and surround mixes years or even decades apart, it's never gonna have exactly the same feel. . But why should it? The surround mix should be it's own thing.

Yeah, I've come to accept that. But my preference for modern surround mixes of original stereo recordings is the "3D version of the stereo mix", as you put it. After having a loving relationship with so many titles from the 60's-80's, a different take on them usually evokes a response from me of "man, he really hosed this up. It doesn't sound right at all."

I'm not a great fan of the "re-interpretation" approach. It's not all bad though. I do find some of the new mixes interesting, even if not faithful to the original. But for a handful of titles, most notably the ELP ones, I'm not very happy with the 5.1 mixes. For those ELP titles, I think they would have been stellar if SW and JJ had been more faithful to the original mixes. But that subject's been discussed plenty already.

Maybe I'm not a qualified QQ'er. I don't really want new mixes, I just want the original mixes with the instruments spread around so I can hear more of what's going on, and a spacious presentation. I'll take what I can get though.

 

[jimfisheye]

The problem is when the remixer doesn't have the perception to take in everything in the original mix. That seems to be more the norm than the exception unfortunately. Then you end up with nuance in the stereo mix that is missing in the surround no matter what other elements might have been improved or revealed. Steve Wilson is still a really big exception to this IMHO. His perception to the nuance of the original and the period is exceptional.

Then there are the technical mistakes (or damage in old release copies) that can really distract. The ELP remixes really showcase a lot of this. (From missing whole songs on the 1st album to those Jakko remixes that seem like someone turned in wrong or unfinished files - especially the BSS album.)

I fully agree with the sentiment that the mix has to be right first and foremost and the surround format can be meaningless if the mix isn't on point first. Probably what the point of that post was?

Those circa early 2000's DVDA releases with the cookie cutter 5.1 remixes are an example of one problem. Some of these have the overall fidelity on point but are just missing the nuance and vibe of the originals. As though they were knocked out by an intern that didn't really get into the music.

I believe some of the '70s quad surround mixes suffer from budget issues. It's a harsh reality that some of these only got so much time behind the board and didn't get some of the time spent reworking things that the stereo mix saw. You just know some producer said something like: "That mix is fine. Hardly anyone is going to ever hear it anyway. Put your time into finessing the stereo mix."

The mixes that rose above that and the few that were conceived as surround first are magical.

 

[JonUrban]

.....Maybe I'm not a qualified QQ'er........

Bull! Everyone is a "qualified QQ'er"! If we all had exactly the same opinions this would be a very boring place, er, more boring than it can be!

Never de-value your opinion. Especially here. You like what you like - that's why you like it. Hmm, that sounds like I should like something l should copyright.

 

[4-earredwonder]

I was over at SHF and noticed an interesting thread Started by Steve Hoffman....I'm asked stuff....Steve mentions and answers general questions...I was interested because I do appreciate Steve's work and have bought titles solely because he worked on them...and I saw a question answered that I have been curious about myself....scroll down to post 21.....

Clinty, I can't thank you enough for providing that link to the SHF. I just finished avidly reading all 28 pages and came away with renewed respect for Steve Hoffman.

Where do I start: One of the saddest posts was when SH was asked if he mentored or was mentoring any up and coming audio engineers and his reply was he used to .... but not anymore due to the fact there ARE NO jobs in that industry.

When asked if he would consider starting a new audiophile label his emphatic answer was NO!

When asked to comment about Steve Wilson's musical and/or mastering style, his reply: NO comment!

Asked about how he preserved his hearing: "I've been wearing earplugs for the past thirty years!"

Regarding Vinyl: The majors always detested Vinyl......still do.....too problematic...and too many returns due to poor pressings.

Interesting tidbit about SINATRA AT THE SANDS....Frank refused to use an audiophile microphone and resorted to an el cheapo PA mike for his vocals and SH advised against spending $250+ on the OOP MoFi Audiophile Vinyl version

The absolute Master Tapes for the Doors Debut album and RED OCTOPUS are for all intensive purposes TOAST.

Scotch 200 tape utilized as Master Tapes for a slew of classic recordings was defective from the start and has not held up.

Steve utilizes 16/44.1 and DSD for his mastering projects and NOT 96/24 {?}

Anyone interested in a brief history of recorded music should peruse all 28 pages of this Q and A forum. I think you'll find it quite interesting.

And as usual on any internet forum, the List of silly or just plain stupid questions are there in droves. Just smirk and skip over them.

 

[Clint Eastwood]

Clinty, I can't thank you enough for providing that link to the SHF. I just finished avidly reading all 28 pages and came away with renewed respect for Steve Hoffman.

Where do I start: One of the saddest posts was when SH was asked if he mentored or was mentoring any up and coming audio engineers and his reply was he used to .... but not anymore due to the fact there ARE NO jobs in that industry.

When asked if he would consider starting a new audiophile label his emphatic answer was NO!

When asked to comment about Steve Wilson's musical and/or mastering style, his reply: NO comment!

Asked about how he preserved his hearing: "I've been wearing earplugs for the last thirty years!"

Regarding Vinyl: The majors always detested Vinyl......still do.....too problematic...and too many returns due to poor pressings.

Interesting tidbit about SINATRA AT THE SANDS....Frank refused to use an audiophile microphone and resorted to an el cheapo PA mike for his vocals and SH advised against spending $250+ on the OOP MoFi Audiophile Vinyl version

The absolute Master Tapes for the Doors Debut album and RED OCTOPUS are for all intensive purposes TOAST.

Scotch 200 tape utilized as Master Tapes for a slew of classic recordings was defective from the start and has not held up.

Steve utilizes 16/44.1 and DSD for his mastering projects and NOT 96/24 {?}

Anyone interested in a brief history of recorded music should peruse all 28 pages of this Q and A forum. I think you'll find it quite interesting.

And, as usual on any internet forum, the List of silly or just plain stupid questions are there in droves. Just smirk and skip over them.

I'm not finished yet but it's a good read...anytime you can get some questions answered by a music professional it is time well spent

 

[4-earredwonder]

I'm not finished yet but it's a good read...anytime you can get some questions answered by a music professional it is time well spent

One more interesting tidbit: When considering doing a STEREO remaster of ALL THINGS MUST PASS, the only interested parties were Paul and Ringo. No one from the Harrison camp expressed ANY interest!

So, if we're EVER to realize a 5.1 remaster of this iconic album ALL THINGS MUST CHANGE!

One additional tidbit I omitted: SH was asked if he ever heard any of Jimi Hendrix's MASTER TAPES: His reply, "ARE YOU EXPERIENCED and it was CRAPPY!" IMO, that doesn't bode well for the upcoming AP Stereo SACD!

 

[ar surround]

Thanks for the excellent synopsis of the Hoffman thread, Ralph. Saves a lot of time for those who don't want dig through it.

 

[4-earredwonder]

Thanks for the excellent synopsis of the Hoffman thread, Ralph. Saves a lot of time for those who don't want dig through it.

Truth be told.....it's well worth the read .... if you have the time. I'm sure I omitted a lot of interesting details but the ones I posted were the ones which stood out, at least for me.

 

[ssully]

Yeah, I've come to accept that. But my preference for modern surround mixes of original stereo recordings is the "3D version of the stereo mix", as you put it. After having a loving relationship with so many titles from the 60's-80's, a different take on them usually evokes a response from me of "man, he really hosed this up. It doesn't sound right at all."

I'm not a great fan of the "re-interpretation" approach. It's not all bad though. I do find some of the new mixes interesting, even if not faithful to the original. But for a handful of titles, most notably the ELP ones, I'm not very happy with the 5.1 mixes. For those ELP titles, I think they would have been stellar if SW and JJ had been more faithful to the original mixes. But that subject's been discussed plenty already.

Maybe I'm not a qualified QQ'er. I don't really want new mixes, I just want the original mixes with the instruments spread around so I can hear more of what's going on, and a spacious presentation. I'll take what I can get though.

Upmixing is your friend

 

[milt]

Personally, I prefer 5.1 or some variant to Quad as I feel it is a superior technology for surround music\soundtracks.
That said I have lots of AF Quad releases, greatly enjoy them and am really glad they've survived.
While I do like Hoffman's work, I totally disagree with a lot of his personal preferences in playback technology.

While Steve H might not want to comment on Steven W., I found the 2-channel Close To The Edge SACD by Hoffman & the 2-channel hi-res by Wilson of the same title to be indistinguishable on my system.

 

[Clint Eastwood]

I finally got to hear some quad recordings these last 2 years on the forum...I missed out on quad "back in the day"...I think the biggest attraction to Quad are the titles that haven't been covered by other hi rez methods....I am a little bias toward the 5.1 mixes because my background is in the video world and the use of the center channel is something I was accustomed to hearing...so I favor mixes that use the center channel which is absent in the Quad tech....but thanks to some members on here and AF and Dutton...I have been exposed to some excellent Quad recordings...I like both methods when the end result is great sound quality..

 

[MCDave]

Upmixing is your friend

I don't mind it, especially when done really well like SW can do (some of the Gentle Giant tracks come to mind), but I do use "fake quad" in the form of DTS Neo:6 quite a bit on CDs and other stereo titles. Using Neo:6 on stereo is often nearly as good as many of the discrete mixes I own. It's pretty remarkable how it can fool me. It does magic on the MoFi SACD of Parsons' I Robot. That's such an incredibly good sounding disc to start with that the effect is pretty convincing.

 

[skherbeck]

The 5.1 vs Quad debate is interesting... I tend to be in the camp that it really just depends on the mix/mixer... I’ve heard great mixes and crap mixes in both formats. Recently I’ve been taking my most discrete 5.1 tracks, merging the center and .1 channels, dividing that wave “in half”, and merging each of the resultant “halved tracks” with the LF and RF channels (creating a phantom center). This gives me a Quad track from a 5.1 track without losing any audio information... and it sounds exactly the same as the 5.1 track to my ears! (I’m doing this to put together a song list of demo tunes for my “portable” Quad surround system.) I guess this reaffirms my belief that both formats can be equally great when the mix is done right... and Quad is much more portable than 5.1

 

[4-earredwonder]

I finally got to hear some quad recordings these last 2 years on the forum...I missed out on quad "back in the day"...I think the biggest attraction to Quad are the titles that haven't been covered by other hi rez methods....I am a little bias toward the 5.1 mixes because my background is in the video world and the use of the center channel is something I was accustomed to hearing...so I favor mixes that use the center channel which is absent in the Quad tech....but thanks to some members on here and AF and Dutton...I have been exposed to some excellent Quad recordings...I like both methods when the end result is great sound quality..

What I still find confounding is that QUAD does present an extremely convincing PHANTOM center channel if one's front right and left speakers are properly imaged. Even Steve Wilson himself asserts that we've been listening to multichannel for years as Stereo is actually three channels [referring to the phantom center].

If QUAD is such an enigma to some, imagine how ALL those QUAD REELS,Q8 cartridges and matrix systems [with a properly calibrated matrix decoder] would sound if they didn't EFFECTIVELY produce that all important PHANTOM CENTER?

If one can realize that the center channel was introduced for cavernous movie theaters to anchor the dialogue channel and that it wasn't originally intended with music replication in mind, then consider the modern application of the center channel, as pertains to music, a bonus but not primarily a necessity.

 

[sjcorne]

I think the biggest attraction to Quad are the titles that haven't been covered by other hi rez methods

Definitely true, there are so many excellent quad titles that never would never stand a chance of being remixed in surround today.

I am a little bias toward the 5.1 mixes because my background is in the video world and the use of the center channel is something I was accustomed to hearing...so I favor mixes that use the center channel which is absent in the Quad tech

I feel like there's only a handful of engineers (SW, Frank Filipetti, and Bob Clearmountain come to mind) that really know how to use the center channel properly. Even ES, my personal favorite 5.1 mixer, doesn't really use it at all: he just sends some some bass, drums, and vocal that's doubled at a higher volume in the fronts. I'd say if you shut the channel off while playing one of his mixes, 90% of the time you wouldn't even notice it's gone.

To me the amount of sheer separation is what makes a good surround mix, and Columbia's quad mixes are unbeatable for that.

 

[sjcorne]

The 5.1 vs Quad debate is interesting... I tend to be in the camp that it really just depends on the mix/mixer... I’ve heard great mixes and crap mixes in both formats. Recently I’ve been taking my most discrete 5.1 tracks, merging the center and .1 channels, dividing that wave “in half”, and merging each of the resultant “halved tracks” with the LF and RF channels (creating a phantom center). This gives me a Quad track from a 5.1 track without losing any audio information... and it sounds exactly the same as the 5.1 track to my ears! (I’m doing this to put together a song list of demo tunes for my “portable” Quad surround system.) I guess this reaffirms my belief that both formats can be equally great when the mix is done right... and Quad is much more portable than 5.1

Ain't that the truth- when it comes to quad especially for every Cantamos (epic 4-corner affair) there's an Imagine (separation you think/hope is there but can barely tell).

(...and for my money The Allman Brothers' Idlewild South is the most discrete/separated 5.1 mix I've heard to date. Kevin Reeves is the closest thing we have today to a reincarnated Larry Keyes or Don Young.)