Are Dutton Vocalion Surround Sound SACDs "Improperly Mastered"?

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
This guy is a lunatic, and the exchange that he's referring to happened nearly 18 months ago.

No threads were deleted here, posts were modded out of the thread we're posting in now because the mods felt that this guy's baseless assertions were off-topic for this thread, I guess.

I was the one that posted the frequency charts, and they weren't to show that he was correct, they were to show that he was INCORRECT. My recollection is that he still refused to believe the science and continued with his inflammatory remarks at which point the thread was cleaned out, my posts included.

Not sure why he's suddenly picking this up again now - or how much bass response he expects from a circa 1969 Henry Mancini album.

Just for the record, for anyone external reading this - QQ has no 'business relationship' with Dutton-Vocalion, they just support surround sound music - of which D-V's reissues are amongst the best, contrary to what this guy continues to say. I'm not sure what his vendetta is exactly - if he had a problem with the product he could have surely contacted the label himself to voice his concerns and/or ask for a refund if the products were defective.

Yep, it's the same guy. And unfortunately, he's doing the same thing over on Talk Classical as well.

http://www.talkclassical.com/50895-dutton-vocalion-sacds.html#post1295914
 
The comments he makes in the talkclassical thread to me sound like a classic case of someone with their system misconfigured placing the blame on the disc:


I just got the Stokowski Bach Transcriptions / Wagner Brunnhilde's Immolation. It's derived from a quad master, but when I play it the light for 5.1 lights up. The response is very band limited. There is almost nothing below 80Hz. I had bass management turned on and I tried boosting the level of my sub to +16dB.

All the D-V discs are authored as 4 channels of sound (FL, FR, SL, SR) in a 5.1 container, so the center and LFE are silent. If he hasn't got his speakers set to small, he can turn his LFE up to +100dB and no sound is going to come out of it. I'm not positive, but I believe the SACD spec doesn't allow for 4.0 so that's why the extra silent channels are present. All the AF quad SACDs are authored pretty similarly, except they're 5.0 (just a silent center) rather than 5.1 (silent center/silent LFE).

There also seems to be some rechannelling going on. Even though this is a quad recording, there's sound coming out of the center channel, and sometimes there are odd balances where something that should be front left or front right gets smeared to the rear channel along the side wall.

This sounds to me like something along the lines of the Audyssey feature from Denon's HT amps gone awry. All the D-V SACDs are 100% discrete quad with zero center channel content - if things sound smeared, rechanneled, or anything of that nature then there's something wrong with the playback setup.


I could post screenshots of all kinds of meters and graphs showing that the discs have full frequency range content, and that there's nothing in the center and LFE channels but should the onus really be on us to disprove the allegations of one internet crank? I think anyone with two ears and an IQ somewhere on the bell curve can hear that the D-V discs are excellent sounding representations of what exists on the master tapes.

It's also worth noting that his original complaint was about the Henry Mancini 'Six Hours Past Sunset/Warm Shade of Ivory' 2fer - two albums (and easy listening ones at that) recorded in 1969. As I posed the question to him at the time in the now-deleted exchange? What kind of bass response do you expect from this kind of music? The low end is generally represented by a jazz drummer with a pretty light touch, and a guy playing acoustic bass - this isn't Parliament/Funkadelic circa 1978! The music was recorded and engineered with the limitations of musical reproduction at the time in mind - remember Paul McCartney had to fight to get the bass turned up on Paperback Writer, and the original pressings of Led Zeppelin II was recalled (the legendary 'RL cut') and re-cut for vinyl for supposedly having too much bass. And those were edgy, gonzo rock and roll bands. I don't think ol' Hank was trying to blow out anyone's woofers in 1969.
 
Didn't anyone ever hear of boosting the bass on some of these older QUAD releases. What's the big deal? Who said one has to listen to all their albums flat [meaning no added EQ]?:yikes

Well, Brett, if he HAD A BRAIN he'd realize that QUAD [4.0] doesn't have a .1 LFE channel and the bass is folded in with the 4.0 channels. DUH!

Yes, the guy claimed to have tried to up the bass, yet none was there to up. Poor fool thought the sub channel was missing content when there never was anything at all assigned to it.
 
The comments he makes in the talkclassical thread to me sound like a classic case of someone with their system misconfigured placing the blame on the disc:




All the D-V discs are authored as 4 channels of sound (FL, FR, SL, SR) in a 5.1 container, so the center and LFE are silent. If he hasn't got his speakers set to small, he can turn his LFE up to +100dB and no sound is going to come out of it. I'm not positive, but I believe the SACD spec doesn't allow for 4.0 so that's why the extra silent channels are present. All the AF quad SACDs are authored pretty similarly, except they're 5.0 (just a silent center) rather than 5.1 (silent center/silent LFE).



This sounds to me like something along the lines of the Audyssey feature from Denon's HT amps gone awry. All the D-V SACDs are 100% discrete quad with zero center channel content - if things sound smeared, rechanneled, or anything of that nature then there's something wrong with the playback setup.


I could post screenshots of all kinds of meters and graphs showing that the discs have full frequency range content, and that there's nothing in the center and LFE channels but should the onus really be on us to disprove the allegations of one internet crank? I think anyone with two ears and an IQ somewhere on the bell curve can hear that the D-V discs are excellent sounding representations of what exists on the master tapes.

It's also worth noting that his original complaint was about the Henry Mancini 'Six Hours Past Sunset/Warm Shade of Ivory' 2fer - two albums (and easy listening ones at that) recorded in 1969. As I posed the question to him at the time in the now-deleted exchange? What kind of bass response do you expect from this kind of music? The low end is generally represented by a jazz drummer with a pretty light touch, and a guy playing acoustic bass - this isn't Parliament/Funkadelic circa 1978! The music was recorded and engineered with the limitations of musical reproduction at the time in mind - remember Paul McCartney had to fight to get the bass turned up on Paperback Writer, and the original pressings of Led Zeppelin II was recalled (the legendary 'RL cut') and re-cut for vinyl for supposedly having too much bass. And those were edgy, gonzo rock and roll bands. I don't think ol' Hank was trying to blow out anyone's woofers in 1969.

I agree. I really don't know what else one can say to someone who has already been given the facts and yet refuses to believe them. In a different thread he mentioned that he thinks compression can help recordings, so maybe he was hoping for these remasterings to give the recordings more bang for the buck. That's only speculation, though.

Anyway, most members over on Talk Classical are 2-ch stereo listeners and thus aren't very interested in Quad or Surround recordings. So, I don't see the point of repeating the same debate with him.
 
WTF!!??

I have to read this at AVS Forum?

I posted about it to Quadraphonic Quad and another person replied posting a frequency spectrum chart showing one of the songs with almost no content below 80Hz. The moderators deleted both of our posts and sent me a PM saying that I wasn't allowed to post on the subject. I think they have some sort of business relationship with the label. That's why I'm posting here, not there.

Can someone explain to me WHY threads are being deleted? Have they been deleted? What is going on here. Someone better have a good explanation or the shit is going to hit the fan. I am totally pissed.

Jon, FWIW, I've had several go rounds with sworth\bigshot on other forums in the past.
Tends to shoot from the hip and is one of the internet types that post total BS like the bolded portion above as "I think" when he clearly has no clue.
I vowed some time back to quit internet "arguing" with his type.

I'm glad you called him out on AVS. Notice he never responded directly to your post or apologized.
It's an old story but the best way to deal with him short of when he makes a personal assault on your integrity, is to just ignore him and not waste your time.
 
Jon, FWIW, I've had several go rounds with sworth\bigshot on other forums in the past.
Tends to shoot from the hip and is one of the internet types that post total BS like the bolded portion above as "I think" when he clearly has no clue.
I vowed some time back to quit internet "arguing" with his type.

I'm glad you called him out on AVS. Notice he never responded directly to your post or apologized.
It's an old story but the best way to deal with him short of when he makes a personal assault on your integrity, is to just ignore him and not waste your time.

I probably (!) over reacted and jumped to a hasty conclusions when I should have investigated before I railed. Sorry. I get very touchy about the whole money issue. I have never asked for "donations" like AVS or SHF or membership fees to get special privileges, that's not like me. As long as I still have a job QQ will stay as-is. One day, when I give it up, if I decide to "pass it along", then the next guy might have different designs but as long as I can afford the money it takes to keep us up and running, it's strictly on me.

So, sorry to the group for over reacting. My bad. I should learn not to respond to internet whiners. You would think I would have learned that by now! :phones
 
I probably (!) over reacted and jumped to a hasty conclusions when I should have investigated before I railed. Sorry. I get very touchy about the whole money issue. I have never asked for "donations" like AVS or SHF or membership fees to get special privileges, that's not like me. As long as I still have a job QQ will stay as-is. One day, when I give it up, if I decide to "pass it along", then the next guy might have different designs but as long as I can afford the money it takes to keep us up and running, it's strictly on me.

So, sorry to the group for over reacting. My bad. I should learn not to respond to internet whiners. You would think I would have learned that by now! :phones

Hey, I don't blame you honestly. I mean, this site really has your name all over it and your pride makes you react. It's human nature, especially when you are associated as you are. (y)
 
This is the only Forum I'm on because of its integrity, the great bunch of people here, the undercurrent of humour, and because its knowledgeable. Yes there are the odd spats here and there but its generally diffused quickly. The moderation is first rate. So I think you did the right thing defending your forum. I would imagine its because of your integrity that we have a lot of people from the industry on QQ. So :upthumb

I probably (!) over reacted and jumped to a hasty conclusions when I should have investigated before I railed. Sorry. I get very touchy about the whole money issue. I have never asked for "donations" like AVS or SHF or membership fees to get special privileges, that's not like me. As long as I still have a job QQ will stay as-is. One day, when I give it up, if I decide to "pass it along", then the next guy might have different designs but as long as I can afford the money it takes to keep us up and running, it's strictly on me.

So, sorry to the group for over reacting. My bad. I should learn not to respond to internet whiners. You would think I would have learned that by now! :phones
 
Quite informative about DV quad SACDs and their sound quality, which is good. Now I am looking forward to the RTF Musicmagic disc.
 
Last edited:
If sworth and Bigs**t are one and the same, all I can say is ..... ughh, "What a maroon!" As a famous rabbit used to say. The Big one made me want to punch him through the Ether.:smack:

Yes, sworth and bigshot are the same person. He has spread quite a bit of authoritative misinformation around various sites for years now. Check out his comparison of the wonderfully discrete Elliot Scheiner mix of Roy Orbison - Black & White Night to the new 'all in the front with reverb in the rears' superlative filled review in this thread. Of course he much prefers the new one. Most especially check out post #29: :confused:

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=65688&page=2
 
It sounds like DV have been mastering their SACDs as 5.1, not 5.0. That actually is a mistake if there's no LFE content, but it's a pretty harmless one.

One other observation - the track they keep talking about on the TalkClassical thread is not a vintage quad mix. For the Stokowski disc Michael Dutton transferred the Bach recordings from the quad master, but then made his own quad mix from the original multitracks of the excerpt from Wagner's opera Gotterdamerung - Brunhilde's immolation scene. This track is unique in that regard among the DV quad SACDs. I'll give the track a listen myself tonight to see if there's any center channel content. The reference to Decca is a strange one, presumably he means the RCA Disc of Gotterdamerung Highlights. As an aside, there's (way too much) information about these recording sessions here, including a mention of a quadraphonic master that I guess wasn't used, in favor of creating a new one: http://www.stokowski.org/Stokowski_Returns_To_Britain.htm

Regardless, DV's classical quad reissues range in quality from good (the Rubinstein/Ormandy/Philadelphia recordings, which just never sounded superb but are landmark performances) to outstanding (thinking especially of the disc of Zukerman playing Vivaldi).
 
This is the only Forum I'm on because of its integrity, the great bunch of people here, the undercurrent of humour, and because its knowledgeable. Yes there are the odd spats here and there but its generally diffused quickly.

To be brutally honest, I had chosen to stop coming over here altogether because of a few individuals who were taking away the fun out of coming here from me. Well, after I decided to use the extremely underrated ignore function, I'm actually enjoying this Quad haven even more.

Thanks always to Jon for being the generous stand up guy that he is and to Michael Dutton and his gang of merry Quad renegades for releasing all this crazy and beautiful music.

That's all from me right now. I believe i just got the goodbye look...
 
To be brutally honest, I had chosen to stop coming over here altogether because of a few individuals who were taking away the fun out of coming here from me. Well, after I decided to use the extremely underrated ignore function, I'm actually enjoying this Quad haven even more.

Thanks always to Jon for being the generous stand up guy that he is and to Michael Dutton and his gang of merry Quad renegades for releasing all this crazy and beautiful music.

That's all from me right now. I believe i just got the goodbye look...

Well, welcome back Simon A of Quebec City:)...you WERE missed. And come September, Michael Dutton will have four more newly minted QUAD SACDs for our perusal. Tonight I will have the pleasure of finally hearing the August SACDs in full multichannel [listened ONLY in stereo on my secondary system this afternoon....all GREAT, IMO].

And whenever the forum gets you down, take a :chill pill and it'll all go away!

QQ is still the best forum around, IM humble O! (y)(y)
 
It sounds like DV have been mastering their SACDs as 5.1, not 5.0. That actually is a mistake if there's no LFE content, but it's a pretty harmless one.

One other observation - the track they keep talking about on the TalkClassical thread is not a vintage quad mix. For the Stokowski disc Michael Dutton transferred the Bach recordings from the quad master, but then made his own quad mix from the original multitracks of the excerpt from Wagner's opera Gotterdamerung - Brunhilde's immolation scene. This track is unique in that regard among the DV quad SACDs. I'll give the track a listen myself tonight to see if there's any center channel content. The reference to Decca is a strange one, presumably he means the RCA Disc of Gotterdamerung Highlights. As an aside, there's (way too much) information about these recording sessions here, including a mention of a quadraphonic master that I guess wasn't used, in favor of creating a new one: http://www.stokowski.org/Stokowski_Returns_To_Britain.htm

Regardless, DV's classical quad reissues range in quality from good (the Rubinstein/Ormandy/Philadelphia recordings, which just never sounded superb but are landmark performances) to outstanding (thinking especially of the disc of Zukerman playing Vivaldi).

I popped in the Stokowski SACD on my (mid-fi 7.1) system, and meant to jump to the final track (the Wagner), but once the first track of the Bach Chaconne came on, I had to listen to the whole thing - divine music.

Anyhow, listening to the Wagner, a few observations: (1) it sounds fantastic; (2) I don't believe the center channel has any information - I didn't feel or hear anything coming from the center channel, although I can't be completely sure, and (3) it's a great mix for listening. I don't know for sure if it's free of technical defects, but I didn't notice anyway while enjoying the music.
 
I popped in the Stokowski SACD on my (mid-fi 7.1) system, and meant to jump to the final track (the Wagner), but once the first track of the Bach Chaconne came on, I had to listen to the whole thing - divine music.

Anyhow, listening to the Wagner, a few observations: (1) it sounds fantastic; (2) I don't believe the center channel has any information - I didn't feel or hear anything coming from the center channel, although I can't be completely sure, and (3) it's a great mix for listening. I don't know for sure if it's free of technical defects, but I didn't notice anyway while enjoying the music.

After I listened to my four new August 2017 D~V releases [more on that later] I listened to Rubinstein's Rachmaninoff/Saint Saens and de Falla's Nights in the Garden of Spain. I thought it was utterly spectacular....[D~V QUAD two~fer]

LOVED the Santana/Coltrane collaboration Illuminations. I think it's a magnificent album. And the RTF Musicmagic was a revelation as well but I really enjoyed Prue Prairie League and to a lesser degree the Jimmy Castor Group [I do like five tracks but it sounds like Bridge Over Troubled Water which sounds audiophile on my system was recorded by a different engineer and doesn't mesh sonically with the other cuts.]

A pretty full evening of Dutton Vocalion QUAD and there's more on the way.
 
4-earredwonder and ubertrout do you find that low bass is lacking in either of the DV quad SACDs that you played? In other words is there much output from your subs if bass management is used?

Bill
 
4-earredwonder and ubertrout do you find that low bass is lacking in either of the DV quad SACDs that you played? In other words is there much output from your subs if bass management is used?

Bill

It's hard to tell, to be honest. There's (naturally) much more treble than bass in the Wagner, and I didn't check if the sub was active.

Presumably someone has ripped this and can answer conclusively.

I listened to the Bream recording of the Concierto de Aranjuez afterwards,and I was struck at the beauty of the guitar in the second movement, the the bassy elements in the slow movement standing out. So that's a datapoint.
 
Yes, sworth and bigshot are the same person. He has spread quite a bit of authoritative misinformation around various sites for years now. Check out his comparison of the wonderfully discrete Elliot Scheiner mix of Roy Orbison - Black & White Night to the new 'all in the front with reverb in the rears' superlative filled review in this thread. Of course he much prefers the new one. Most especially check out post #29: :confused:

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=65688&page=2

To be fair he justifies why he likes it, and seems to with some inteligence - like being able to hear who's playing, for instance.
 
Back
Top