trevorspiro
Member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2010
- Messages
- 33
Linda, i knew that the WB Japan SACD is a re-release of the 5.1 mix done in 2000 for the DVD-Audio launch, not the original US WB CD4 mix. Will love to be wrong...WB CD-4 is a different mix from UK SQ. It was also released (US WB surround mix) on WB Japan SACD.
Actually, you are correct. It IS the DVD-A mix, not the earlier CD-4 mix.Linda, i knew that the WB Japan SACD is a re-release of the 5.1 mix done in 2000 for the DVD-Audio launch, not the original US WB CD4 mix. Will love to be wrong...
The CD-4 version sounds more like my kind of mix!They are very different. The European quad mix has the drums & bass upfront and the rhythm guitar & organ hard-panned in the back corners. The US quad mix has the bass in the back and drum kit filling up all the speakers, with the rhythm guitar & organ usually in the front corners. I would love to hear a professional remaster of the US quad mix, every conversion of the CD-4 LP and quad reel I've heard sounds very muddy.
EMI (Purple Records) did the UK mix. It was their recording to begin with.
WB (US label) was likely working off a later generation copy. That might account for SOME, not all of the added mud.
Are we sure that the UK mix was done first? If not - I could understand EMI wanting a unique quad remix tailored for matrix playback, as the US version is definitely not optimized for SQ (the bass guitar in 'rear center' would cancel out on mono playback of the LP). But if the UK quad was indeed created first, you'd think EMI would have just sent their 1/2-inch 4-track master over to WB in the US to cut the CD-4 LP (similar to how some of CTI's 'mixed for SQ' discrete quad masters were sent to King Records in Japan for CD-4 replication) rather than run off copies of the entire multitrack for another remix. It is definitely one of the weird oddities of the quad era, I think this and Tubular Bells are the only titles that received unique quad mixes for different territories.WB (US label) was likely working off a later generation copy. That might account for SOME, not all of the added mud.
I owned UK SQ a year or more before CD-4 was released. I'm assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that was mixed first.
WB could have begun theirs first, though it's more likely they began at the same time. Possibly UK mix was begun first, though not completed when WB began theirs. Or, WB heard EMI mix and decided they could do better...
Likely I missed a few scenarios.
IMHO, I prefer DVD-A overall.
The Machine Head SACD has the rear channels swapped left/right compared to the SQ. The correction undid that.(IIRC was there also some issue with the channel assignment of the digital UK? -- my folder is called 'SACD 4.0 corrected' for some reason, I'm sure )
Thanks!The Machine Head SACD has the rear channels swapped left/right compared to the SQ. The correction undid that.