HiRez Poll Santana - SANTANA III [SACD]

[texquad]

I recently purchased all 3 of these Santana SACD's even though I have the SQ vinyl and Q8 conversion's. I feel the best mix is on the debut and this might be because it was the last one to be released. Many tracks on the earlier released Abraxas & III in my opinion suffer from being too gimmicky. And yes I do like immersive mixes but some of these are abusive like the sonic kitchen sink was thrown in just for fun. For comparison look at the highly rated Doobie Bros. mixes which are immersive but don't scream "look at me I'm quad". Unfortunately this was a problem with many early mixes and I think unfortunately Abraxas & III suffer in this regard even though they seem highly regarded in the surround poll.

 

[Simon A]

I recently purchased all 3 of these Santana SACD's even though I have the SQ vinyl and Q8 conversion's. I feel the best mix is on the debut and this might be because it was the last one to be released. Many tracks on the earlier released Abraxas & III in my opinion suffer from being too gimmicky. And yes I do like immersive mixes but some of these are abusive like the sonic kitchen sink was thrown in just for fun. For comparison look at the highly rated Doobie Bros. mixes which are immersive but don't scream "look at me I'm quad". Unfortunately this was a problem with many early mixes and I think unfortunately Abraxas & III suffer in this regard even though they seem highly regarded in the surround poll.

So based on this, what are you voting?

 

[par4ken]

I recently purchased all 3 of these Santana SACD's even though I have the SQ vinyl and Q8 conversion's. I feel the best mix is on the debut and this might be because it was the last one to be released. Many tracks on the earlier released Abraxas & III in my opinion suffer from being too gimmicky. And yes I do like immersive mixes but some of these are abusive like the sonic kitchen sink was thrown in just for fun. For comparison look at the highly rated Doobie Bros. mixes which are immersive but don't scream "look at me I'm quad". Unfortunately this was a problem with many early mixes and I think unfortunately Abraxas & III suffer in this regard even though they seem highly regarded in the surround poll.

I agree that the early Santana's are gimmicky but remember that the early decoders had poor separation, so the mix had to exaggerated quite a bit to generate a more pleasing effect when decoded. It only seems over the top when you listen to a high quality discrete version (the SACD).

Most of us still love the effect(s) anyway even though overblown! I also love those old ping pong type stereo mixes!

 

[Quad Linda]

Some great additions to this thread today.

Although III is an early Quad mix, I like it better than the Abraxas Quad mix. Less gimmicky. Call it gimmicky, but I can't imagine No One to Depend On without the ending in Quad. It belongs.

Musically, it's spectacular. No One may be the best track. IMHO, their best LP.

 

[texquad]

I tagree with Par4ken on the shitty decoders but also factor in the joystick mentality of the 70's for some of these over the top mixes. We're so used today's active but sensitive mixes that these throwbacks can be abrasive. In the case of these Santana and other similar time pieces hopefully we'll live long enough to hear a modern surround alternative.
And no I didn't vote.

 

[Todd 987]

I like that it’s gimmicky. It fits the energy of the music to me. Let everything come at me from all over. The only problem I have is that I live in an apartment and can’t crank it. A shame.

 

[texquad]

For what it's worth I did a comparison between my original stereo single layer Abraxas SACD and the stereo layer on this new one and the new one blew it away. Also the packaging on these reissues is almost worth the price of admission.

 

[quicksrt]

Santana III in quad on the Japanese 7" SACD series sounds marvelous don't it. The overall sound quality here as well as all that percussion, some piano (and yet some of the backing vocals as well) in the rear speakers is quite nice. The strong separation here wins me over rather than sounding gimmicky. Very clean sound from perfectly preserved analog masters and a mix that has incredible separation, yet things are not ping-ponging around much at all (which I feared), a few reverb trails maybe but not main elements. I don't find the mix to be a joystick ride at all.

Things are separated really nicely - I think it holds up well for a few reasons, the sound quality of the recording/mix, and the lack of ping-pong gimmicks. 70s rock in quad at it's finest.

Again a 9.5 that I'm inclined to rate a 10. This has too many good things going for it to be less than a 10. Mind boggling to think that this mix sat around for 50 years after that original release. This is an good example the kind of quad album I am waiting for to come out on modern disc. Great album, strong production, excellent quad mix, and mastered well to play loud on our surround rigs.

 

[shakti]

I hadn’t voted on this title and now that I’ve had plenty of time with it, I have some serious reservations. The album itself is of course legendary, superb, a 10 (well, maybe 9.5) for content. The packaging as always outstanding, and fidelity is great. But the mix is seriously wonky at times. Compared to the stereo mix, percussion benefits a lot by being better spread out, but it comes at the expense of the guitars which quite often are all but absent. It’s particularly noticeable on the first few tracks. Often a guitar part is drenched in reverb, or all you can hear is actually the reverb tails like the dry sound is missing. I have to wonder if this is really how the mix was made? Several of the trading guitar solos are almost absent. Did the old SQ release actually sound like this?

Overall I give it an 8, but the mix itself is a 6 or maybe 7, as it gets better and some songs don’t suffer as much from these problems.

 

[Matt Wilson]

Awesome! a 10. Keep these Santana quads a comin'!