HiRez Poll Deep Purple - MACHINE HEAD (UK - Quad Mix) [SACD]

[winopener]

Finally heard the original Quad mix (DTS conversion from the SACD) today and:

1. I like it much better than the DVD-A 5.1 mix -- it's drier and thus more faithful to the MH I know and love.

2. The bonus 'Lazy' and 'Maybe I'm A Leo' are definitely from the DVD-A mixes. They're 5.1 (center channel is active) with same added 'verb, same instrument placement. (the DVD-A .ac3 is quite a bit louder though)

3. BUT: on the quad, there is about 12 sec of music missing from the final guitar solo in 'Lazy'! One of my favorite licks too. Verified by comparing the lengths -- it's 7:06 on the quad and 7:22 on the 'alternate mix' (which is the DVD-A 5.1 mix) . The missing section on the shorter version is 6:08 to 6:22 on the longer version. Is this a bug or a feature??

Things are beginning to be a bit confused... did a quick compare and that's the results.
I've lined up the UK SQ LP mix and the SACD (quad uk) mix. I've also checked the CD4, and it's a different animal.
In theory, the SQ and SACD mix should be the same.
In pratice, the SQ LP version miss these 15 secs. My SACD has it.

Now, if i understand correctly, you have noticed the "missing section" on the DTS from SACD. Correct?
Problem is, my SACD has the "missing section".

So, the SACD release of Machine Head had two different quad masterings?


BTW, the timings:
SQ version runs 6:54.
SACD quad runs 7.10
SACD alternate runs 7.23.
CD4 runs 7.14 (should be a bit longer, it runs a bit fast).


Stereo version (AF gold disc, Warner miniLP Japan, SACD Cd layer) runs 7.22-7.23.

 

[winopener]

Damn... the story is easier than supposed: there are two different edits.
Keeping the stereo version as a reference, it goes that way:
- dvd-a and cd4 keep the whole track
- sacd does one edit
- sq does two edits.

Now don't ask me why...

 

[ssully]

But unfortunately the DVD-A (= SACD 'alternate') is a lesser mix. Full length, but not as good-sounding a mix (to me) as the quad mix.

Not interested in the SQ if it has even *more* edits....

So the last 'hope' is the CD4 -- how does that mch mix sound compared to the one-edit SACD? (Other than running faster, of course)

 

[winopener]

The USA mix (CD4, Q8, QR) is my favourite. Instruments are placed differently however it's a very active mix.

 

[etzeppy]

The USA mix (CD4, Q8, QR) is my favourite. Instruments are placed differently however it's a very active mix.

So the USA quad mix of Machine Head is completely different from the UK quad mix?

 

[grill]

Damn... the story is easier than supposed: there are two different edits.
Keeping the stereo version as a reference, it goes that way:
- dvd-a and cd4 keep the whole track
- sacd does one edit
- sq does two edits.

Now don't ask me why...

Thanks for sharing these interesting findings. I wonder what about the other tracks?

 

[Bob Romano]

So the USA quad mix of Machine Head is completely different from the UK quad mix?

I can let you hear it in a couple of days ;-)

 

[kap'n krunch]

Couldn't help it...had to do it, so sue me....
Here are the first 49 secs of "Highway Star" from the SACD recorded in 96/24 direct from the Oppo, of the fronts, where the drums are...
Surprisingly , it DOESN'T have a HF cut off @ 20 K as most SACDs do, it seems that the original material wasn't that HF rich as I thought it'd be (although you can see all the digital HF noise up there in the 30 Ks)...so I guess that the SQ encoded CD in the box set would be a cool way to decode it...and hopefully the DTS doesn't have a HF cut off filter...


BTW, this is my favorite mix of this LP, the CD-4 was cool, but the separation of the instruments here makes it my fave...the others were not as good, enjoyable, but, no thanks, i.e . a TENNER from me!

 

[Eggplant]

Surprisingly , it DOESN'T have a HF cut off @ 20 K as most SACDs do, it seems that the original material wasn't that HF rich as I thought it'd be (although you can see all the digital HF noise up there in the 30 Ks)...so I guess that the SQ encoded CD in the box set would be a cool way to decode it...and hopefully the DTS doesn't have a HF cut off filter...

And your point is ... what, exactly?
You're happy with no 20K cutoff so you can hear the 30K digital noise?
Let's have the SQ version so we can hear what's above 20K?
Or the DTS version (no idea what you're referring to here) for the same reason?

I can't believe you are seriously suggesting taking a decoded SQ version over a discrete SACD -- in the thirteenth year of the 21st century.

 

[kap'n krunch]

And your point is ... what, exactly?
You're happy with no 20K cutoff so you can hear the 30K digital noise?
Let's have the SQ version so we can hear what's above 20K (perhaps some exciting analog noise?)
Or the DTS version (no idea what you're referring to here) for the same reason?

I can't believe you are seriously suggesting taking a decoded SQ version over a discrete SACD -- in the thirteenth year of the 21st century.

If you don't get it, you DON'T GET IT...

I'm referring to the box set which has the SQ encoded mix as a CD
AND
a DTS 96/24 DTS Quad mix which, if you had seen my earlier posts, was wondering if they actually DID a 96/24 REAL transfer or they just COPIED the SACD disc(to which NOBODY replied) and if they did a good job , it'd would NOT have any "gremlins" up there...

That and other doubts will be cleared as soon as I get the box set...and if you cared so much you'd be just a spectator....do YOU have anything to contribute?
Please , if you do, go ahead...and please, don't question my good intentions...I don't question YOUR posts...let's all be a happy family, grumpy ole' uncles and all---

 

[rusinurbe]

If you don't get it, you DON'T GET IT...

I'm referring to the box set which has the SQ encoded mix as a CD
AND
a DTS 96/24 DTS Quad mix which, if you had seen my earlier posts, was wondering if they actually DID a 96/24 REAL transfer or they just COPIED the SACD disc(to which NOBODY replied) and if they did a good job , it'd would NOT have any "gremlins" up there...

That and other doubts will be cleared as soon as I get the box set...and if you cared so much you'd be just a spectator....do YOU have anything to contribute?
Please , if you do, go ahead...and please, don't question my good intentions...I don't question YOUR posts...let's all be a happy family, grumpy ole' uncles and all---

my guess would be like many SACDS its derived from a 96/24 LPCM transfer of the original master.

 

[kap'n krunch]

Couldn't help it...had to do it, so sue me....
Here are the first 49 secs of "Highway Star" from the SACD recorded in 96/24 direct from the Oppo, of the fronts, where the drums are...
Surprisingly , it DOESN'T have a HF cut off @ 20 K as most SACDs do, it seems that the original material wasn't that HF rich as I thought it'd be (although you can see all the digital HF noise up there in the 30 Ks)...so I guess that the SQ encoded CD in the box set would be a cool way to decode it...and hopefully the DTS doesn't have a HF cut off filter...
View attachment 11016

BTW, this is my favorite mix of this LP, the CD-4 was cool, but the separation of the instruments here makes it my fave...the others were not as good, enjoyable, but, no thanks, i.e . a TENNER from me!

Well, there is no thread for it , cause ..let's face it , it doesn't deserve it!!!!!
Talkin' bout the Machine Head Box Set 40th anniversary...
As I posted earlier the SACD spectrum, which surprisingly was not filtered (except for the HF gremlins inherent to the SACD medium)
Here is the spectrum of the Front DTS 96/24 of the same song "Highway Star", first 49 secs of it...notice that the signal looks more natural on the SACD (thought I'd never say that!), the DVD-V is truncated somewhere at 23K, as you can see by the pitch black on top...there are even some HF "gremlins"...so, keep your SACDs boys and girls , which is ..THE WAY TO GO!!!(again , thought I'd never'd say that!)
The DVD-V is another "MEWtilation"-don't bother...I think an SACD transfer would have been better!!! What a wasted opportunity- a nice 96/24 transfer would have been great....


As for the box set, the CDs are on PURPLE plastic (not clear), still haven't listened to the rest of them, not even the '72 Paris Theater Concert or the SQ encoded CD...The booklet looks like a throwaway, and AGAIN,
NO LYRICS!!!!!get 'em at Discogs!!!

EDIT...it also has some abysmal authoring, Music in the Menus, etc. and you can not switch streams while playing!!!!! VERY SLOPPY , RAY!!!

 

[cornwall198]

Machine Head is one of my favorite albums - and I vividly remember getting it when first released. And I've been hugely enjoying reading all the various threads on the various versions, here. Although my head certainly hurts in terms of being sure which version people are referring to!

Here's are my questions. Forgive me if these have been answered earlier - but I did get confused when people refer to DVD/SACD versions etc. Thanks to anyone who can help:
- I have the DVD on the 40th Ann boxed set. Is this the same quad version that is on the 2003 UK SACD? Or do I need to get that SACD too - because there are differences in sound/mixes/versions of tracks?
- I have the Japan Hybrid SACD. Is this the same 5.1 version that is on the 2001 DVD-Audio? Or do I need to get that DVD-Audio too - because there are differences in sound/mixes/versions of tracks?

When referring to tracks, I mean the original 7 - and not any extras. Thanks in advance - appreciate it!

 

[leevitalone1]

Machine Head is one of my favorite albums - and I vividly remember getting it when first released. And I've been hugely enjoying reading all the various threads on the various versions, here. Although my head certainly hurts in terms of being sure which version people are referring to!

Here's are my questions. Forgive me if these have been answered earlier - but I did get confused when people refer to DVD/SACD versions etc. Thanks to anyone who can help:
- I have the DVD on the 40th Ann boxed set. Is this the same quad version that is on the 2003 UK SACD? Or do I need to get that SACD too - because there are differences in sound/mixes/versions of tracks?
- I have the Japan Hybrid SACD. Is this the same 5.1 version that is on the 2001 DVD-Audio? Or do I need to get that DVD-Audio too - because there are differences in sound/mixes/versions of tracks?

When referring to tracks, I mean the original 7 - and not any extras. Thanks in advance - appreciate it!

The reference is to dvd audio and sacd. Both are taken from the quad masters. can't comment on the sacd-but have the dvd audio and it's great. (Machine Head) 5.1 is nice and clean

 

[cornwall198]

Great - cheers!

 

[Quad Linda]

Actually, there are three surround mixes of this album, which all have been released multiple times:

1- EMI Purple UK SQ LP/German HorZu SQ LP/UK Q8/UK SACD/DVD-V and SQ encoded CD (BOTH in 40th anniv box)
UK SACD is what this thread specifically addresses. Maybe I'm a Leo & Lazy have different guitar solos from 2ch.
UK SACD:

UK SQ LP:

UK 40th Anniv box:

German HorZu SQ LP:

2- WB US CD-4 LP/US Q8/US Q4 reel
WB US CD-4 Quadradisc:

WB US Q4 reel:

3- WB US DVD-A/Japan SACD NOT from Quad masters
Rhino (WB) US DVD-A (original pressing in CD-size case w/slipcover):

Rhino (WB) US DVD-A (in oversized jewel box):

WB Japan SACD:

IMHO, #3 is the one to own, preferably the DVD-A version. (Yes, I know that's not what this thread discusses.)

My first copy of this was a mint UK SQ which I bought in early '73, prior to the US Quad's release. So, the version reviewed in this thread is the mix I've listened to most. I also own the DVD-A (CD size box w/slipcase) and the 40th Anniv box. Although the box has the UK Quad mix, both the CD and DVD-V are lossy. I bought the 40th anniv box for the 2ch unreleased material. The sole 2-ch only version of this album I bought is the UK 25th anniv edition.

The reference is to dvd audio and sacd. Both are taken from the quad masters. can't comment on the sacd-but have the dvd audio and it's great. (Machine Head) 5.1 is nice and clean

 

[cornwall198]

Oh my - that is so , so helpful, Quad Linda. Sorry, if I've hijacked this thread - forgive me. So you have helped me figure out that I have versions of 1 (lossy on 40th Ann) and 3 (Japanese SACD). One final question from me, and I promise to stop the hijack - why do you recommend the DVD-A version of 3? Is it better than the Japanese SACD of 3? Thanks for any clarification on that one! Cheers...

 

[etzeppy]

Machine Head gets really confusing to talk about doesn't it? As Linda said, there are two old quad mixes and a 5.1 mix. The quad mixes have been released in every format imaginable. It used to be easy to keep up with the 5.1 mix; it was only available as a DVD-A. The hi-rez choice used to be....1) get the new 5.1 mix on DVD-A or 2) the UK quad mix on SACD. I personally prefer the quad mix to the newer 5.1 but the audio quality is probably better on the 5.1 mix.

But now with the re-release of the 5.1 mix on SACD and the release of the 40th Aniv Box, you have to be really careful to figure out what you are actually buying. Machine Head has to win the prize for the most multichannel mixes available in the most formats. I don't think anything else is even close.

 

[Quad Linda]

Experts agree that DVD-A is a technically better format than SACD. I prefer this (#3) mix, even though many would disagree. The Japan SACD was certainly a cost-effective way to get that mix, and in hi-res.

The 40th anniv box was a disappointment in not offering a hi-res lossless version.

However you choose to listen, this album is a killer in surround. That's the bottom line.

Oh my - that is so , so helpful, Quad Linda. Sorry, if I've hijacked this thread - forgive me. So you have helped me figure out that I have versions of 1 (lossy on 40th Ann) and 3 (Japanese SACD). One final question from me, and I promise to stop the hijack - why do you recommend the DVD-A version of 3? Is it better than the Japanese SACD of 3? Thanks for any clarification on that one! Cheers...

 

[cornwall198]

Appreciate the responses. Extremely helpful to a relative newbie. Now here's a point we can all agree with! Thanks Quad Linda...:

However you choose to listen, this album is a killer in surround. That's the bottom line.