• QuadraphonicQuad welcomes you and encourages your participation! Treat all members with respect. Please keep all discussions civil, even when you have a strong opinion on a particular topic.

    Do not offer for free, offer for sale, offer for trade, or request copies or files of copyrighted material - no matter how rare or unavailable to the public they might be. We do not condone the illegal sharing of music. There are many places on the internet where you can participate in such transactions, but QuadraphonicQuad is not one of them. We are here to encourage and support new multichannel releases from those companies that still provide them and as such the distribution of illegal copies of recordings is counter-productive to that effort. Any posts of this sort will be deleted without notification.

    Please try to avoid discussions that pit one format against another. Hint for new users: make liberal use of the search facilities here at QuadraphonicQuad. Our message base is an incredibly rich resource of detailed information on virtually all topics pertaining to surround-sound. You will be surprised at what you can find with a little digging!

"Home Made" DTS and DVD-A Conversions of 1970's Quadraphonic releases

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

Cai Campbell

In Remembrance
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Mar 4, 2002
Messages
2,970
Location
Seattle, WA
I can understand wanting to have "bragging rights" for performing a conversion, which is why new releases are ripped and repackaged as downloads almost immediately. It's a race to see who gets the credit.

I'm guessing these are done by guys wanting to "get in the game" but don't have the necessary resources to work on the out-of-print stuff. Of the out-of-print stuff, most of the low-hanging fruit has already been plucked, making conversions of new material all the more attractive.

But I agree, pirating and distributing newly released product is just plain wrong. It really hurts our hobby. I may understand why people might want to do this but I still get mad as hell when I see it.

On the other hand, I see nothing wrong with making out-of-print material available to a wider audience. If the music industry won't give us what we want then we'll have to make due ourselves. The expectation is that if product is reissued commercially then we'll all run out to buy it in support of our hobby. I'm sure this is true for most of us but there will always be those who plunder for the sake of plunder with no inention of ever trying to support our hobby. These are the people downloading the Ringo 5.1 torrents...
 

JonUrban

Forum Curmudgeon
Staff member
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Mar 2, 2002
Messages
15,796
Location
Connecticut
I agree with Cai. Does anyone really think that a current label or artist gives a crap about one of their old quad 8 tracks from 1974? Most of them have forgotten about them, or never even knew they existed! You can search here at QQ and find posts about members asking Jackson Browne about "Late for the Sky", and Kraftwerk about "Autobahn", and the artists themselves don't even know about the existence of their Q8's.

So, I would suggest that as a group, QQ may frown on "heavily" the sharing of in print items. And for these out of print titles, well, every conversion done is more of a preservation than an attempt to steal something.
 

ndiamone

600 Club - QQ All-Star
Joined
Jun 13, 2008
Messages
637
Location
Silicon Valley (but I don't own it)
Question for you - do you work for free, and if not - why not?
I might as well. Restoration and preservation arts and sciences is nothing that, in itself standing on its own is commercially viable. We fall into the same net of museums, art galleries, research venues and the like as most of the rest of the restoration/preservation trade.

And---guess what----most Big Music and Big Movies have NO funding for or tolerance of preservation/restoration. The few staff that do it on their own time and with the resources available to them are often reassigned or disciplined for `unauthorized use of company time, facilities and equipment' as more and more companies are swallowed up into big multinational corporations run by accountants and MBA's with zero knowledge interest or care about valuable materials.

Case in point:

A few years ago, we rented a stage on the Warner lot for a few days to shoot a cable drama. Right in the middle of where our set was to go was a beautiful 12-foot tall mahogany and walnut cabinet. We opened it up and inside were thousands of one-of-a-kind playback-on-set acetates for some of the most famous movie musicals of all time.

But we needed it moved over a few yards so we could put up our set and lighting. We call Plant Facilities and ask that it be moved. We come in the next day and it's GONE. What happened to it? We found out over lunch: The entire cabinet and all its contents were unceremoniously dumped into a construction dumpster from high atop a forklift.

Suffice it to say not only was there not much left of the beautiful prewar cabinet, but over half of the discs inside were precious wartime one of a kind glassetates which had a glass core rather than a steel or aluminum core. Those were irretreivably lost. The rest of us took turns keeping an eye on the dumpster for the rest of the day and rescued what we could. Those are now all in the Sapphire Club archives in Hollywood.

So you'll forgive me if I have a less-than-stellar opinion of Big Music and Big Movies.
 

Q-Eight

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Sep 30, 2003
Messages
3,078
Location
Castlegar, BC, Canada
A lot of companies could care less about the archives until it's worth something.

I'm sure if "the biz" found out that there are thousands of people out there trading these "dinosaur" quad mixes, the companies would seriously try to capitalize on the phenomena.

I suppose they think we're just a bunch of whackos with four ears.
 

ArmyOfQuad

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Apr 22, 2002
Messages
2,014
Location
Attleboro, MA
All I can say is keep speaking up, keep telling the companies and artists and anyone you can contact what you want. Every now and then you'll hear back. And there's no telling what that can lead to.
 

0tto

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
2,033
Location
Canada
you know i missed the era of quadraphonic.
first quad system in my life i saw in 1996 at house of my relatives.
and i'm very thankful to those people (won't name them but they know who's i'm talking about) for their effort to bring to us treasures of 70th. i thank you guys, you're doing great job.
thanks God we do have now internet and peer2peer network.
without this we'll never get a chance to heard such masterpieces from the past.
and i don't give a shit what opinions has RIAA or Hollywood about file sharing . if in my hands fall the piece of the musical art, which big labels refuse to reprint, i will do everything in my power to pass this peace to the maximum possible amount of the other people.

and i wouldn't feel like i'm robbing the artists or any other copyright holders, as they do have already source, money and the means to produce those items in the mass but they throwing away this opportunity and gave to their potential consumers no other choice.
 

Q-Eight

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Sep 30, 2003
Messages
3,078
Location
Castlegar, BC, Canada
All I can say is keep speaking up, keep telling the companies and artists and anyone you can contact what you want. Every now and then you'll hear back. And there's no telling what that can lead to.
I have, and I too have gotten some interesting replies. Steve Miller has said they "Might" remix The Joker and Book of Dreams to modern 5.1, but he has other projects to finish up first (like his new album).

Members of the Grass Roots whom I have had indirect contact with have stated "We had a Quadraphonic Album?". Dennis Provisor has actually stated he has no recollection of recording an alternate organ solo for Temptation Eyes.
None of them have any idea who possesses the multitrack tapes to their hits/albums, if they even still exist. None of them own the rights to them. Even the Anthology CD set from a few years back was culled from existing Stereo Masters. Though I am up to six differing mixes of Sooner or Later, all from different dates.

Ditto with the Guess Who & Randy Bachman. Well, Randy was aware he had the Quad albums - he produced them! With any luck, whoever owns the rights to the Mercury catalog might still have the multitracks there.

Lips are sealed as to the location(s) of the Guess Who multi's, though rumors abound that they Do in fact exist. Specifically Jack Richardson, who went back to some multi's for the Guess Who's "Anthology" from a few years back. Nothing was re-mixed, just re-engineered as some Stereo Masters are dubs of dubs of dubs and sound horrible.

In closing, there's a way. There's just very little will.
 

winopener

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Mar 2, 2002
Messages
3,689
In closing, there's a way. There's just very little will.
Sorry to say that, but IMHO there is ZERO will.
The most disappointing story happened some months ago, whne Universal did the reissue of Diana Ross "last time i saw him".
They located and found the japanese quad mix only to release it in folded-down stereo cd.
(n)(n)(n)(n)(n)
 

Disclord

900 Club - QQ All-Star
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
944
Location
Plattsburg, MO (just outside Kansas City)
I agree with Cai. Does anyone really think that a current label or artist gives a crap about one of their old quad 8 tracks from 1974? Most of them have forgotten about them, or never even knew they existed! You can search here at QQ and find posts about members asking Jackson Browne about "Late for the Sky", and Kraftwerk about "Autobahn", and the artists themselves don't even know about the existence of their Q8's.

So, I would suggest that as a group, QQ may frown on "heavily" the sharing of in print items. And for these out of print titles, well, every conversion done is more of a preservation than an attempt to steal something.
CBS released many SQ Encoded LP's and the artist never even knew about it - that's why Wendy Carlos had her SQ LP removed from the market, because CBS had done it without her permission or involvement. It happened that way in most cases - at least at CBS/Columbia.
 

jaybird100

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
QQ Supporter
Joined
Apr 27, 2006
Messages
1,054
Location
Pembroke Pines, FL
I was under the impression that Wendy Carlos had no authority to have the SQ version pulled, which is why it still appeared in dealers' racks until SQ records went away. I knew she was not happy with the way they sounded, and that the quad mix actually masked some of what she wanted to be heard. If the record company owns the masters, they can do with them what they want, whether or not the artist approves. I remember reading something about Wendy wanting to get the album deleted, but Columbia said no.
 

Disclord

900 Club - QQ All-Star
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
944
Location
Plattsburg, MO (just outside Kansas City)
I have a Stereo Review around here somewhere that has info on Wendys SQ LP being deleted from the catalog at her request. Although she (or any artist) might not have owned the physical masters, they do often have a clause in their contract that requires their approval for any and all releases or repackages.

It's interesting how many SQ mixes, done without the original artist's input, for example Barbra Streisand's "Where You Lead", or Lynn Anderson's "Rose Garden," sound much better, and are MUCH better mixes, when played in STEREO than the original stereo release - you don't even need an SQ decoder to hear the improvement. The entire SQ LP of "Jesus Was A Capricorn" (Kris Kristofferson) is better, both the mix and basic sound quality, than the regular stereo edition. It's too bad Sony didn't use the SQ masters for their "Super Bit Mapping" CD releases back in the day (or for the 2-channel SACD layer!) Many SQ releases will never be heard in quad again because CBS mixed directly to 2 channel SQ from the original 16+ track master via the SQ Position Encoder - so no 4-track quad master exists.

There were some masters made in CBS' Universal SQ (USQ) format, but I don't know what titles were done that way... it wasn't many - one Neil Diamond album was mastered in USQ - the one with a side-view of his face on the cover.

Oh, one thing about Wendy Carlos - it's too bad that CBS didn't have the SQ Position Encoder and SQ London Box available when she was trying to mix in SQ - or the Paramatrix decoder so she could hear correctly what was mixed. If she had had the Position Encoder and London Box available, I'll bet she would have come up with some STUNNING SQ mixes. (I have the 'preliminary' instruction manual for the CBS Paramatrix decoder - now if I could just find one of the actual decoders!!!)
 

winopener

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Mar 2, 2002
Messages
3,689
Many SQ releases will never be heard in quad again because CBS mixed directly to 2 channel SQ from the original 16+ track master via the SQ Position Encoder - so no 4-track quad master exists.
Seems to me very few Columbia/CBS has been SQ-only releases without a discrete Q8 counterpart... so the 4-track masters do exist. A few late SQ lp, for example Santana Amigos or Dylan Desire, were SQ-only, and in any case for these ones the quad mix is not so thrilling.
 

StarTrek1701

Active Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
98
Regarding US copywrite laws (my information comes from a phone call with a gentleman in the Copywrite Office of the Library of Congress some years ago), contrary to all of the warnings put out by the media companies, you are permitted to make a copy of anything you want as long as it is only one copy (in whole or in part) for your own personal use. You do not have to own the original. However, you cannot rent it, sell it, give it, or make multiple copies since these interfere with the owner's right for royalties. It is also how libraries are able share (Interlibrary Loans) information without having to lend items that are a part of their reserved collection.

The law hasn't changed since before people would make cassette copies of records to play in their car or walkman. Once video came on the scene and later everything went digital, it became possible to copy a recording that would be identical to the original. The record and, more specifically, movie companies went crazy. What has changed is how some judges have given into political pressure by these companies to interpret the law that is favorable to these companies.
 

StarTrek1701

Active Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
98
It's interesting how many SQ mixes, done without the original artist's input, for example Barbra Streisand's "Where You Lead", or Lynn Anderson's "Rose Garden," sound much better, and are MUCH better mixes, when played in STEREO than the original stereo release - you don't even need an SQ decoder to hear the improvement.
Finally, someone who has experienced and understands what I have known for years.

Many years ago, I did not own any Quad equipment. So, everything Quad was heard through a standard stereo system. The final mixdown was performed by the stylus. What you ended up with was a clarity and separation that one NEVER experienced with a stereo pressing of the same performance. This was especially true of Columbia's classical records. One favorite example is Bernstein's recording of Holst's "The Planets". No where can the organ be heard during Mars (which was recorded separately at another location) but on an SQ pressing. It is, also, noticeable that de le Fuentes' SACD mix for the CD is taken from the stereo version. I would love to hear a Q8 of this recording to hear the discrete separation (anybody interested in selling their copy).
 

StarTrek1701

Active Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
98
Without "Big Movies" or "Big Music" there would be NO industry at all.
And this is a bad thing? Many symphony orchestras are having to release their own CDs because the "Big Music" people will no longer support their production. This may be a look at the future; artists being their own producers and using "Big Music" simply as a distributor.
 

StarTrek1701

Active Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
98
A lot of companies could care less about the archives until it's worth something.
There are some that have shown an interest and are being issued in 4.0 SACD hybrids. Pentatone's RQR series is one example. Unfortunately, their efforts have been solely on producing the Philips Classical Quad reels that were discovered some years ago. There was an early attempt at producing 4.0 DVD-As of some of EMI's classical catalog (I have 2 of them). But, I have not seen anything since.

It is going to take a small special interest company like Pentatone if we are going to have any hope of hearing our favorites from the 70's the way they were meant to be heard.
 

bmoura

Super Moderator
Staff member
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Mar 2, 2003
Messages
9,470
Location
Redwood City, CA
There are some that have shown an interest and are being issued in 4.0 SACD hybrids. Pentatone's RQR series is one example. Unfortunately, their efforts have been solely on producing the Philips Classical Quad reels that were discovered some years ago. There was an early attempt at producing 4.0 DVD-As of some of EMI's classical catalog (I have 2 of them). But, I have not seen anything since.

It is going to take a small special interest company like Pentatone if we are going to have any hope of hearing our favorites from the 70's the way they were meant to be heard.
That one was a natural - since the PentaTone staff came from Philips Classical and recorded many of the surround sound albums they later licensed and released on PentaTone RQR SACDs !
 

stoty50134

Active Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
58
Location
Iowa
I plan to run some SQ LPs through a decoder I purchased on eBay and then into my multi-track recording software using 24/96K recording parameters. Then burn to DVD-A using the software from Cirlinca. Does that sound like a workable plan?
 

JonUrban

Forum Curmudgeon
Staff member
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Mar 2, 2002
Messages
15,796
Location
Connecticut
I plan to run some SQ LPs through a decoder I purchased on eBay and then into my multi-track recording software using 24/96K recording parameters. Then burn to DVD-A using the software from Cirlinca. Does that sound like a workable plan?
Sounds like a good plan to me. I have never used Circlinca, but I understand it can do 24/96 4 channel but not 24/96 5.1.
 
2
Group builder
Top