Olfield "Hergest Ridge" NOT QUAD in "Boxed"

[kvadro]

http://amarok.ommadawn.net/mike/discog/boxed.htm

From the above site : "Boxed was compiled to keep Mike's music in the public eye during the time he was undergoing exegesis therapy. His first three albums, Tubular Bells, Hergest Ridge and Ommadawn were collected together, and the fourth album, Collaborations, gathered some of Mike's work with David Bedford and Leslie Penning. Tubular Bells and Ommadawn were remixed in quadrophonic sound. Hergest Ridge, however, appears here in an 'ambient stereo' mix." @:

Also read : http://amarok.ommadawn.net/mike/discog/hergestridge.htm

 

[jaybird100]

http://amarok.ommadawn.net/mike/discog/boxed.htm

From the above site : "Boxed was compiled to keep Mike's music in the public eye during the time he was undergoing exegesis therapy. His first three albums, Tubular Bells, Hergest Ridge and Ommadawn were collected together, and the fourth album, Collaborations, gathered some of Mike's work with David Bedford and Leslie Penning. Tubular Bells and Ommadawn were remixed in quadrophonic sound. Hergest Ridge, however, appears here in an 'ambient stereo' mix." @:

Also read : http://amarok.ommadawn.net/mike/discog/hergestridge.htm

I have "Boxed" in both vinyl and CD versions, and the "Tubular Bells" on the CD box set is the remixed version. It sounds less cluttered than the original mix, which I have as the CD layer on a hybrid SACD.
The remixed version is on the multichannel layer.

 

[OppoFood]

I have just aquired Boxed on CD.

Are there actually quad tracks on the cd's and if so how do you acess them?

I have an Oppo BPD83, it is connected to my Marantz SR8001 via analogue so any multichannel stuff is also in analogue.

Not sure if this helps answer the question but I am well confused as to whether it is possible to listen in quad with the cds.

However as they only cost me around US$15 including postage it was not a huge investment if I can only have stereo

 

[oxforddickie]

I have just aquired Boxed on CD.

Are there actually quad tracks on the cd's and if so how do you acess them?

I have an Oppo BPD83, it is connected to my Marantz SR8001 via analogue so any multichannel stuff is also in analogue.

Not sure if this helps answer the question but I am well confused as to whether it is possible to listen in quad with the cds.

However as they only cost me around US$15 including postage it was not a huge investment if I can only have stereo

The CD's are SQ encoded, so to play them in Quad you'll need to feed them through an SQ decoder, preferably one of the later designs.

If you don't have access to one, they are available already decoded......

I'd like tio add the original post is very misleading.

Mike was very unhappy with the original mix of Hergest Ridge because he was rushed by Virgin to get another album out after the success of TB. The new mix is more what he wanted it to be, and is a musical representation of his home & refuge at the time - Hergest Ridge. Hence its 'ambiant' feel, but it is quad, HE remixed the albums himself.

 

[jaybird100]

The CD's will also decode reasonably well if played through a Dolby Pro Logic II system in the music mode. The rear channel placements won't be accurate, but the surround effect will be there. I've tried this myself, and it works. Mike's 2010 remix, available as a 5.1 DVD, is quite a revelation. The same goes for the similar remixes of "TB" and "Ommadawn".

 

[OppoFood]

The CD's will also decode reasonably well if played through a Dolby Pro Logic II system in the music mode. The rear channel placements won't be accurate, but the surround effect will be there.

I set this up today and sure enough got surround, however the manual implies that this effect will be obtained with all stereo source material.

If this is the case what goes to the surround and what stays in front?

Both on MO and n general?

 

[jaybird100]

I set this up today and sure enough got surround, however the manual implies that this effect will be obtained with all stereo source material.

If this is the case what goes to the surround and what stays in front?

Both on MO and n general?

You're entirely right that you'll get a surround effect from stereo recordings when you play them through the PL II decoding. Information that's "out of phase" will route to the back speakers. This might be the reflected sounds, such as you have in a concert hall, to create the more ambient effects. Some stereo recordings may even offer some rear placements of instruments. But, with stereo recordings, it's purely random. It wasn't planned for. It becomes a "bonus".

Matrixed quad recordings, on the other hand, take those phase differences and actually use them to place sounds where the engineers want them. The encoders, whether SQ, QS, or Dolby MP, use phase shifting to separate the rear sounds from the front, and the algebra involved determines to which rear speaker the sound is directed. The algebra is very different between SQ and QS, but fairly similar between QS and Dolby. So while SQ recordings will play on these other decoders, the placements of the rear sounds will be less precise. You still get a quad effect, but a left rear sound may not appear in that particular speaker. The QS and Dolby matrices are fairly close, and QS decodes quite nicely on the Dolby decoder, and vice versa. Still not 100% spot on, but still good.

This may be an over-simplfied way of explaining it, but I hope it gives you some insight. So play your stereo recordings, and matrixed quad ones, in the Dolby PL II music mode, and enjoy.

 

[oxforddickie]

I'm sorry to say, but your completly wrong. Dolby Surround has nothing to do with QS.In fact it was 'stolen' fromSQ, in the end Dolby Labs had to buy the rights to SQ from CBS.

I know your going to need proof, so here it is:

SQ
Lt = Lf + (0.707 Lb -j + 0.707 Rb)
Rt = Rf + (-0.707 Lb + 0.707 Rb j)

QS
Lt = (0.924 Lf + 0.383 Rf) + (0.924 Lb j + 0.383 Rb j)
Rt = (0.383 Lf + 0.924 Rf) + (0.383 Lb -j + 0.924 Rb -j)

Dolby Surround
Lt = Lf + (0.707 Lb j + 0.707 Rb)
Rt = Rf + (0.707 Lb + 0.707 Rb -j)

The changes they made ensured the two systemswere incompatible. DP-II added stereo to the rears, but still ensured it was incompatible


Hope this makes it clear

 

[jaybird100]

CBS sold the rights to SQ to Tate-Reber, the people who created the Tate DES SQ decoders. As for displaying the co-efficients here, I'm no mathematician. I have, however, found that playing QS recordings through a Dolby PL II decoder, yields more accurate placement of rear channels than SQ discs do. Before you dismiss this, try it. I've noticed that the logic steering in the PL II does a better job than the Sansui Vario-matrix decoders in delivering a more discrete effect. SQ records, played via PL II, are good, but not as good. Again, try it for yourself. Use a variety of recordings, not just one or two.

 

[oxforddickie]

Dolby Surround was based on SQ. Fact. You don't need to be a mathematician to see that.

The reason Dolby does not decode SQ correctly is (as i said) dolby altered the matrix enough to be incompatible

 

[jaybird100]

So they altered it just enough that QS/RM recordings decode so well on them? I go by what I hear, Dickie. Have you actually played a QS recording via PL II? You may disagree with me, and I respect your doing so. But I trust my ears.

 

[oxforddickie]

They do not decode accurately in DP-II, but it is known (like the QS decoders) that DP-II can give a 'quad' effect from almost any source

I don't need to listen to SQ through DP-II, why would i want to? DP-II IS NOT compatible with SQ. The phase of the encoded rears is totally opposite, PLUS the inversion is not there.

before you start arguing, i think it may be wise to learn a little about the subject in hand. I've given you the equations.......

 

[oxforddickie]

Here's the encode equation for DP-II:

Lt = Lf + (j .76 Lr) + (j .24 Rr)
Rt = Rf + (-j .24 Lr) + (-j .76 Rr)


I hope this clarifies things. In no way am i saying that playing a SQ encoded album does not produce a pleasurable surround experience, it's just not an accureate decode.

 

[bmoura]

CBS sold the rights to SQ to Tate-Reber, the people who created the Tate DES SQ decoders. As for displaying the co-efficients here, I'm no mathematician. I have, however, found that playing QS recordings through a Dolby PL II decoder, yields more accurate placement of rear channels than SQ discs do. Before you dismiss this, try it. I've noticed that the logic steering in the PL II does a better job than the Sansui Vario-matrix decoders in delivering a more discrete effect. SQ records, played via PL II, are good, but not as good. Again, try it for yourself. Use a variety of recordings, not just one or two.

Actually Dolby picked up rights to the CBS Matrix patents after the Quad era ended. Think it was for around $100,000 - a bargain some would say.

 

[OppoFood]

Settle guys let's not start a fight here.

The interesting thing I personally see here is the chance to put through some stereo source and have fun, who knows what it will throw up.

I have a fair few favorite stereo cds which were never, and will never be, released in surround so let's see what happens.

In the case of the other encodings (SQ) put through PLII - The placement of the sounds may not be accurate but unless you know where the sound is supposed to eminate from it will be hard to know what you are missing, this is personal opinion and not aimed at dismissing the knowledge of other more expert in the relevant fields.

As to the equations, I am afraid they mean nothing to me, despite the years spent suffering the subject at university.

 

[oxforddickie]

There's no fight.I'm just trying to correct some of the mis-information being put around. After all this time this should be a place where only the facts are accepted, not myths and legends

 

[jaybird100]

Agreed, there's no fight. I have played many QS recordings, SQ as well, through the PL II decoder, and found more accurate placement with QS. Algebra be damned, that's what I heard. And I also agree that playing stereo recordings via PL II can be very interesting, indeed. Sansui used to include a "QS Synthesizer" mode to do just that. In any event, I extend a hand to Oxforddickie in friendship. A little debate (as opposed to an argument) is always interesting. We debated. We both made our points. Now, it's up to the rest of you to try this for yourselves. Post your findings here. I, for one, am curious what you find.

 

[oxforddickie]

:brew

I'm curious to.............................

 

[jaybird100]

So give it a try, my friend. I can make a suggestion of a track that really shows this off. If you have the QS pressing of Enoch Light's "Spanish Strings" album, there's a track that bounces a harpsichord back and forth in the rear channels. There's also an SQ encoding of the same album. I have both. I played the SQ version first, and while the harpsichord was in the rear channels, it didn't bounce back and forth. The QS encoding did. The track is "Come On, Come On, Come On, Don't Be Timido". It's quite interesting to hear.

 

[oxforddickie]

Well, i would if i had the track, and i had the time. The blog is taking all ofmy time nowadays, i'm afraid.The backlog has grown to massive proportions,and i need to get on top of it


it would be interesting to know what a 'true' decode sounded like