Which SQ quad albums have been faithfully released as SACD/DVDA?

[winopener]

There has been some titles, originally issued in SQ lp, that found their way on modern surround media, both SACD and/or DVD-A.
Usually these versions are or newly mixed (example: Carole King) or retrofitted for 5.1 surround with the creation of a center and a sub channel (example: O'Jays).
There has been any SACD/DVD-A which features the original 4 channels and nothing else of a SQ album?
BTW, Tubular Bells doesn't count, the SACD version is taken from the CD4 master which is slightly different from the SQ version of the same album.

 

[ssully]

There has been some titles, originally issued in SQ lp, that found their way on modern surround media, both SACD and/or DVD-A.
Usually these versions are or newly mixed (example: Carole King) or retrofitted for 5.1 surround with the creation of a center and a sub channel (example: O'Jays).
There has been any SACD/DVD-A which features the original 4 channels and nothing else of a SQ album?
BTW, Tubular Bells doesn't count, the SACD version is taken from the CD4 master which is slightly different from the SQ version of the same album.

I don't know if they were SQ, but many of the EMI classical DVD-A releases are in 4.0 and purport to be from old quad masters.

 

[bizmopeen]

There has been some titles, originally issued in SQ lp, that found their way on modern surround media, both SACD and/or DVD-A.
Usually these versions are or newly mixed (example: Carole King) or retrofitted for 5.1 surround with the creation of a center and a sub channel (example: O'Jays).
There has been any SACD/DVD-A which features the original 4 channels and nothing else of a SQ album?
BTW, Tubular Bells doesn't count, the SACD version is taken from the CD4 master which is slightly different from the SQ version of the same album.

Well, there's the first wave of DTS CDs that were taken from the original quad masters, and I think Jeff Beck's "Blow by Blow" multichannel SACD used old quad tapes, but what are you referring to by the original SQ version? For example, wouldn't the CD-4 and the SQ of "Tubular Bells" be taken from the same 4-channel master, just encoded differently? Or are you referring to 2-channel releases which use SQ-encoded tapes (which I know have popped up on CDs occasionally)?

 

[bmoura]

Well, there's the first wave of DTS CDs that were taken from the original quad masters, and I think Jeff Beck's "Blow by Blow" multichannel SACD used old quad tapes, but what are you referring to by the original SQ version? For example, wouldn't the CD-4 and the SQ of "Tubular Bells" be taken from the same 4-channel master, just encoded differently? Or are you referring to 2-channel releases which use SQ-encoded tapes (which I know have popped up on CDs occasionally)?

Correct. According to the liner notes from the original engineer on Tubular Bells, the Surround Sound SACD is taken from the original analog 4 channel discrete master tapes of Tubular Bells.

Other SACDs from the master tapes include Headhunters by Herbie Hancock (Columbia) and Machine Head by Deep Purple (EMI UK).

The 3+3 SACD by the Isley Brothers (Epic/T-Neck) and Ship Ahoy by the O'Jays (Epic/Philadelphia International) are from the original discrete quad analog master tapes with a conversion to 5.1. Both are very well done - with the O'Jays SACD being an SACD one shouldn't miss !

 

[bizmopeen]

The 3+3 SACD by the Isley Brothers (Epic/T-Neck) and Ship Ahoy by the O'Jays (Epic/Philadelphia International) are from the original discrete quad analog master tapes with a conversion to 5.1. Both are very well done - with the O'Jays SACD being an SACD one shouldn't miss !

I've heard these are good discs. However, how did the conversion process to 5.1 work? It would seem simple enough to roll off the low frequencies into the subwoofer, but how was the center channel derived, or was it left silent? I gotta get 'em anyway, of course!

 

[Bob Romano]

I've heard these are good discs. However, how did the conversion process to 5.1 work? It would seem simple enough to roll off the low frequencies into the subwoofer, but how was the center channel derived, or was it left silent? I gotta get 'em anyway, of course!

I believe the center channel is kind of a combo of left and right just to fill the center space. Though I don' tthink it is needed at all. Both the Ojay's and Isley discs aregreat both musically and sonically

 

[winopener]

I've heard these are good discs. However, how did the conversion process to 5.1 work? It would seem simple enough to roll off the low frequencies into the subwoofer, but how was the center channel derived, or was it left silent? I gotta get 'em anyway, of course!

Better hurry for the O'Jays title: i've found it only on the elusivedisc web site, seems out-of-stock in all other places, a nd no way to get it in europe on record stores - don't ask me why.
IMHO on both titles the center has been derives doing a sum of L+R and lowering the result of some dB. Nevertheless they sounds absolutely nice, especially O'Jays.

Question: is the SACD mix of Machine Head a real 4.0? I have the DVD-A version and it's a 5.1...

 

[Bob Romano]

Question: is the SACD mix of Machine Head a real 4.0? I have the DVD-A version and it's a 5.1...

Its been a long time (a month or so) since I listened to it but it is the quad mix (original 70's 4.0 mix) but if I remember correctly, they added the .1 channel to the mix. Really sounds great though. The bonus tracks are still in 5.1 however.

 

[The Quadfather]

I don't know about the SQ version, but the SACD version of Tubular Bells is different from the CD-4 version, notably the Sailor's Hornpipe ending. It is the longer "Romp through the Mansion" version, and the chainsaws are deleted. But there are other differences, one spot where a guitar bounces around the room in the CD-4 version it stays in one place in the SACD version. There are also other subtle differences. Tubular Bells on SACD is a remix, with some instruments having been reperformed. However, if you're thinking about buying it, go ahead, it is an excellent recording.

The Quadfather

There has been some titles, originally issued in SQ lp, that found their way on modern surround media, both SACD and/or DVD-A.
Usually these versions are or newly mixed (example: Carole King) or retrofitted for 5.1 surround with the creation of a center and a sub channel (example: O'Jays).
There has been any SACD/DVD-A which features the original 4 channels and nothing else of a SQ album?
BTW, Tubular Bells doesn't count, the SACD version is taken from the CD4 master which is slightly different from the SQ version of the same album.

 

[bmoura]

Its been a long time (a month or so) since I listened to it but it is the quad mix (original 70's 4.0 mix) but if I remember correctly, they added the .1 channel to the mix. Really sounds great though. The bonus tracks are still in 5.1 however.

According to the liner notes on th Surround SACD of Tubular Bells, it is a 4.0 mix from the original discrete analog master tapes.

While I don't still own the Quad versions of Tubular Bells, I can say that on my system Tubular Bells sounds much better today via the Surround SACD than it ever did in the '70s. A great job here. Highly recommended.

 

[Scottmoose]

According to the liner notes on th Surround SACD of Tubular Bells, it is a 4.0 mix from the original discrete analog master tapes.

While I don't still own the Quad versions of Tubular Bells, I can say that on my system Tubular Bells sounds much better today via the Surround SACD than it ever did in the '70s. A great job here. Highly recommended.

I understand that Mike didn't have anything to do with the SACD release -that was Virgin, but he doesn't have a problem with it per se. At least, not any more of a problem thah he has with 'Bells itself anyway. Me, I love it, both in stereo, and the 4.0, which is really effective, as it finally gives the original recording of 'Bells the clarity it's long deserved -much better now than the 1970's I'm sure. Vinyl was never the ideal medium for 'Bells (ouch! That'll upset some people!); that's why they had to go to such a heavy type (180 / 200) for the stereo alone. Not bad, but not perfect. Vinyl can't do constant lows & out of phase stuff very well. Yes, it's higher res than CD or the new formats technically, but it's not without it's limitations too, when the rose-tinted glasses are put away.
That said, I have an original stereo copy that my parents bought, and through my early 1990's LP12 and decoder, it sounds superb -methinks vinyl reproduction has moved on somewhat, and that's through a deck that's hardly a world beater anymore, with a dated tonearm and cart. But the SACD is still clearly better, with roch-solid placement, and a more spacious feel, which is what vinyl is supposed to be good at itself. Plus, it's much cheaper to get good results via SACD (in this case)than to equal it from vinyl. To do that would mean spending well over £1000. Not worth it.
Oh -from what I hear, if you're into DVD-A, you'll like Mike's new surround mix for TB 2003, swirling instruments and everything. Oh well, time to dust of the credit card! Spiders of the world unite! Your friends are free! :brew
Scott

 

[sspsandy]

I currently have 3 sifferent quad mixes of Tubular bells, and I like all of them . The CD-4 with the chainsaw ending is the most discrete, but the SQ lp also has some interesting effects. The version in the box set is a remixed SQ mix, with the drunken muttering in the mansion sailors hornpipe ending, and the whole mix differs entirely from either of the othe qudad lps as well as the stereo. That being said, I will definately pick up the DVD-A version when it comes out. BTW, has anyone ever heard the UD-4 version through a correct decoder? Same goes for the supposed QS version, which is possibly unmarked? :sun

 

[surroundophile]

The EMI UK SACD version of Machine Head is an exact 4.0 duplication of the EMI UK SQ LP. The US WEA DVD-A was completly remixed to 5.1. The US CD-4 WEA LP was completly different than the UK SQ mix, using a different master. So now there are four versions:
stereo LP/CD
SQ LP and SACD 4.0 MC
CD-4 LP
DVD-A 5.1

 

[Scottmoose]

The EMI UK SACD version of Machine Head is an exact 4.0 duplication of the EMI UK SQ LP. The US WEA DVD-A was completly remixed to 5.1. The US CD-4 WEA LP was completly different than the UK SQ mix, using a different master. So now there are four versions:
stereo LP/CD
SQ LP and SACD 4.0 MC
CD-4 LP
DVD-A 5.1

Are you sure that's all?!?
Scott

 

[The Quadfather]

I prefer the Quadradisc version of Machine Head. To me it is clearly a better mix. Though the DVD-A is very clean. The music has so much intentional distortion that it really doesn't matter like it does on Tubular Bells. I will still listen to the Quadradisc of TB, but more often than not it will probably be the SACD. The SACD is so clean and airy. Someone, I forgot who, sent me a copy of Machine Head on DTS CDR, and it is excellent. It is from Reel to Reel, and it is the Quadradisc mix.

The Quadfather

 

[bizmopeen]

The US CD-4 WEA LP was completly different than the UK SQ mix, using a different master.

Is this true? In general, why would a different 4-channel master be used for each of these? Was it a territorial/marketing issue, or did they have to be mixed differently to accomodate any issues involved with playback under different decoding formats? Interesting...

 

[JonUrban]

Just like AP says about DSOTM, they created a "mild" mix for SQ, and a discrete mix for tape.

Unfortunately, we in the US did not get the discrete Q8, instead Capitol used the SQ mix for its discrete Q8.

They probably did not even know.

 

[bizmopeen]

Just like AP says about DSOTM, they created a "mild" mix for SQ, and a discrete mix for tape.

Unfortunately, we in the US did not get the discrete Q8, instead Capitol used the SQ mix for its discrete Q8.

They probably did not even know.

Interesting. Was it standard practice to make a different mix for SQ vs. more discrete formats? (Like, say, for a Columbia SQ LP vs. a Q8?) What was the logic behind that? I would think that an SQ decoder would not be able to extract a very discrete playback, so the mix used for SQ would need to be, if anything, MORE discrete (if there is such a thing) to compensate for the lack of...er...discretion. Any ideas on the history of this?

 

[Cai Campbell]

Strange things can happen when you encode to SQ. Upon playback, sometimes things did not always sound right. From what I understand, certain types of sounds did not encode well and would get lost. Engineers realized that they had to produce a mix that catered to the vagaries of the SQ system.

I know that Tubular Bells was originally released as a CD-4 LP. It wouldn't surprise me if they had to an "SQ friendly" remix when it was released as an SQ LP.

Wendy Carlos talks about the problems with SQ encoding on her website. She wanted her music released on CD-4. CBS (her record company at the time) would not hear of it. As a demonstration of the problems with SQ, Wendy produced a quadraphonic tape of people talking, where you could not really make out a distinct voice (like party babble or whatever). However, when this same tape was encoded and decoded using the SQ system, the result produced a distinct voice saying "Where did everybody go?" What a great way to make a point! I understand the record execs at CBS were less than amused with the demonstration...

 

[bizmopeen]

Wendy Carlos talks about the problems with SQ encoding on her website. She wanted her music released on CD-4. CBS (her record company at the time) would not hear of it. As a demonstration of the problems with SQ, Wendy produced a quadraphonic tape of people talking, where you could not really make out a distinct voice (like party babble or whatever). However, when this same tape was encoded and decoded using the SQ system, the result produced a distinct voice saying "Where did everybody go?" What a great way to make a point! I understand the record execs at CBS were less than amused with the demonstration...

LOL! That's great...I've got to check out her website!

Well, not to run this into the ground (maybe this is a different thread?), but do the same issues arise for "modern" matrix encoding/decoding systems such as ProLogic 1 or 2? I've made a bit of noise here about trying to get my band's music encoded into SQ to press onto vinyl, but would enjoy pursuing these options as well, especially since SurCode has a PL2 encoder out there...

Thanks!