My feelings as well. It's a great album and the mix isn't bad but there's definitely room for improvement (particularly on the studio tracks). I'd be curious to hear the original quad. It would appear most folks prefer that mix over the SACD. An 8 for me.An "8".
I've never heard the Quad mix but I imagine it's more defined and discrete than this, which I'd love.
Meantime I'm more than happy with this, it sounds great, the mix isn't all bells and whistles but stuff is happening all around me. oh and thankfully the music is just my cup of tea too!
I agree mountain jam jams im voting an 8I just voted a 10. Why, a classic, a must have. A super fine surround mix on all tracks except track 1. Dickey always right, Duane always left, Butch right , Jaimo left, Barry and Gregg, mostly center. Center channel is weak, more fitting for a quad sound. Mostly guitars rear, but sometimes front. Mountain Jam is the standout track. Quite a different mix than the At Fillmore East Blu Ray, I like this better, more discrete with the instruments. When the new Blu Ray set is released it will be fun to compare, but I have no problem with this disc that I know so intimately from my youth. I am not new to surround discs, but I am new to QQ and all the Polls. I try to be objective on discs that I love, but this still gets a big surround sound 10.
I feel the same way about this one Adam, a big disappointment, but a 4 may be a little harsh don't ya thinks or maybe nothad recourse to revisit this one after a good few years of it sitting on the shelf, after QQ member Bill Mac posted about it over on SHTV, saying the Surround SACD wasn't very good. well, in a nutshell he is right! it isn't!
i've been pulling this mix apart for the last wee while this afternoon and frankly i'm ready to eat my hat as i used to defend this disc, the truth is; it is room ambience double stereo balls!!
sound quality is good and the mix craftily fools you into thinking stuff is popping up "back there" but its not. all that same Rear channel content is in the Front channels only its all 'louder' upfront and with the lead vocals mixed more prominently in the Front pair than the Rears.
ugh. downgraded from a generous "8" to a begrudging "4".
is that "progress"..? well its disappointing in a way because musically and with regard to sound quality i like this disc but i guess i learned a thing or two about what makes a good multichannel mix the last few years!
yeah, possibly Mister Pupster.., i was going to revise it to a "5" or "6".. but then i got a bit miffed at the feeling of having been hoodwinked into thinking this was decent 5.1 all those years, when its really half-assed. it may even be a lousy / unsuccessful attempt at a "Kind Of Blue" kind of concoction from the Stereo, scrutinizing the individual channels its got a room ambiencey feel to the Rears.. only i can't be so forgiving to a 1973 album as i can to a Surround-y representation of a Miles Davis record derived from a 3-channel 1959 recording. maybe multitracks were missing and they had to fudge it? in which case they shouldn't have bothered imho (or at least mentioned it somewhere). forewarned is forearmed and all thatI feel the same way about this one Adam, a big disappointment, but a 4 may be a little harsh don't ya thinks or maybe not
Have you heard the quad mix? It's more interesting than this, but still not exactly jaw-dropping.i've been pulling this mix apart for the last wee while this afternoon and frankly i'm ready to eat my hat as i used to defend this disc, the truth is; it is room ambience double stereo balls!!
I bet the Quad Reel sounds nice; and the thought of Bob cuttin' the rug... well Priceless!I have the original quad from Reel and I really like it a lot. Though the mixes are not the same between SACD and the DTS conversion, I find the SACD to be really nice and I like both the mix and the excellent sound quality. It's a keeper for me...I give it an 8 cuz it's got a good beat and its easy to dance to.