Ramblings from the 2CDLX7369 Poll Thread

[Larry Geller]

This ain't no veggies, this is filet mignon.

 

[4-earredwonder]

This ain't no veggies, this is filet mignon.

Glad YOU said it, Larry. Still don't like my veggies but LOVE Filet Mignon!

But you get the gist......

 

[JonUrban]

.....

No one can force one to LOVE classical music if they're not so inclined but it's like being a kid and not wanting to eat your veggies. My advice: TRY IT, you'll like it ....and it's good for you!

With respect to veggies, this disc skews directly towards corn, and far away from Brussel Sprouts!

 

[4-earredwonder]

As far as I know, any CBS single-inventory quad should be SQ on the stereo layer, unless they did a dedicated stereo mix back in the day and never released it. The whole point of single-inventory quad from a production standpoint was that it would reduce the amount of time and money spent on doing two mixes - instead of having to engineer two distinct stereo and quad mixes, you'd just do the quad mix and stereo listeners could listen to it folded down. RCA tried this with their early single-inventory CD-4 QuadraDiscs, but the mistake they made (which Masterworks didn't with these) was putting way too many quad annotations, special borders on the artwork etc. which led to their LPs being filed in the quad sections of record stores instead of with the regular stereo releases.

I would've liked to have seen Columbia's pop division try this single-inventory approach, maybe it would've helped quad get a bit wider acceptance. But unfortunately by the time Masterworks started doing single-inventory classical quads in (I think?) mid/late 1975, Columbia's pop division had already started to wind their quad output down, by moving from trying to release everything in quad, to only releasing select titles from top-tier artists. I think maybe this would've been more feasible if SQ mixing didn't require so many compromises with panning and instrument placement, and an arcane set of rules that required a 50-page instruction manual to explain. Mixing a stereo pop album in the mid-70s was a difficult enough proposition without adding that extra burden on top, and I suspect bands were probably pretty particular about who they wanted to use for the task, ie. their own guy rather than some CBS staff guy they didn't know who was au fait with the quad mixing "rules". So as a result you don't get any single-inventory pop quads.

But, I digress. As I said, I think the stereo layers of these single-inventory titles (any album that starts with the M- prefix instead of MQ-) should be SQ-encoded, but the only way to be certain is via the smell test, running it through an SQ decoder and seeing if the instrument placements roughly line up with the discrete master.

So while you're online Dave, can you spill the beans as to when we can expect our next batch of Rock/Pop/Jazz QUAD SACDs from the indefatigable Michael Dutton?

 

[JonUrban]

I'll answer for Dave: No

 

[4-earredwonder]

I'll answer for Dave: No

MAYBE?

 

[steelydave]

MAYBE?

Michael Dutton will sell no quad SACD before it's time!

Single inventory SQ rock quad = Lotus.

Yes you're right, I should've specified that I meant studio recordings from the post-1975 era. Lotus was never going to present any stereo playback difficulties because it's essentially a stereo mix in the front speakers with some crowd noise/venue ambiance in the rears. I think there was a feeling (and I'm in agreement with it) amongst pop producers that SQ quad LPs played back in stereo weren't as sonically satisfying as a dedicated stereo mix. Unlike CD-4, where the quad to stereo fold-down was pretty much transparent (aside from the reduced frequency response, which made a lot of CD-4 LPs sound pretty bad) there was always something slightly wonky about SQ records played back in stereo that's hard to put your finger on. I suppose it's true that the records live up to their SQ acronym in being "stereo compatible quadraphonic" but they're definitely not stereo-identical quadraphonic.

 

[fredblue]

So while you're online Dave, can you spill the beans as to when we can expect our next batch of Rock/Pop/Jazz QUAD SACDs from the indefatigable Michael Dutton?

sorry Ralphie, looks like you'll just have to go through the same agonising torture as the rest of us and check the Vocalion website for updates 84 times a day!

the silver lining is, as soon as the new titles go live, you can pre-order/order them straight away! you can't say that about (m)any other SACD-flogging boutique labels!

 

[fredblue]

Michael Dutton will sell no quad SACD before it's time!



Yes you're right, I should've specified that I meant studio recordings from the post-1975 era. Lotus was never going to present any stereo playback difficulties because it's essentially a stereo mix in the front speakers with some crowd noise/venue ambiance in the rears. I think there was a feeling (and I'm in agreement with it) amongst pop producers that SQ quad LPs played back in stereo weren't as sonically satisfying as a dedicated stereo mix. Unlike CD-4, where the quad to stereo fold-down was pretty much transparent (aside from the reduced frequency response, which made a lot of CD-4 LPs sound pretty bad) there was always something slightly wonky about SQ records played back in stereo that's hard to put your finger on. I suppose it's true that the records live up to their SQ acronym in being "stereo compatible quadraphonic" but they're definitely not stereo-identical quadraphonic.

no time before its wine...

CUT!!!

 

[4-earredwonder]

no time before its wine...

CUT!!!

Quit your whining, Adam........Rosé, BUD!

 

[hirez]

So that is where a BBQ restaurant got the saying "No Swine Before Its Time"

 

[JonUrban]

Sorry folks, but this type of rambling does not belong in a poll thread - so I moved it. You may ramble on in perpetuity right here in this thread if you like.

 

[par4ken]

Michael Dutton will sell no quad SACD before it's time!



Yes you're right, I should've specified that I meant studio recordings from the post-1975 era. Lotus was never going to present any stereo playback difficulties because it's essentially a stereo mix in the front speakers with some crowd noise/venue ambiance in the rears. I think there was a feeling (and I'm in agreement with it) amongst pop producers that SQ quad LPs played back in stereo weren't as sonically satisfying as a dedicated stereo mix. Unlike CD-4, where the quad to stereo fold-down was pretty much transparent (aside from the reduced frequency response, which made a lot of CD-4 LPs sound pretty bad) there was always something slightly wonky about SQ records played back in stereo that's hard to put your finger on. I suppose it's true that the records live up to their SQ acronym in being "stereo compatible quadraphonic" but they're definitely not stereo-identical quadraphonic.

I understand what you are saying regarding SQ stereo compatibility, some do have what is best described as a foggy sound. However for the encoded music that I like the best I think that the SQ versions far outshine the stereo in stereo playback. I'm talking about the likes of Johnny and Edgar Winter, Aerosmith,Rick Derringer, Poco ect. ect. Most QS records on the other hand tend to fall flat in stereo, with a few exceptions like Carol King Music which also sounds fantastic. CD-4's always sounded a bit flat or compressed even. If I must listen in stereo only give me the SQ encoded version, please!