Pink Floyd - Wish You Were Here Surround Sound SACD

[DKA]

very nice of you to mention AL's upmix on here, Floyd. I indeed am the owner of both that and the Q8 to 4.0 mix. something excellent for all tastes indeed.

 

[Bob Romano]

I still don't get the point of doing an upmix of something that has such a wonderful 4.0 mix. Not just this title but any title (except maybe Springsteen's Devils & Dust)

 

[DKA]

I still don't get the point of doing an upmix of something that has such a wonderful 4.0 mix. Not just this title but any title (except maybe Springsteen's Devils & Dust)

I can only speak for myself, but I think both are two completely different things and, frankly, Bob, am a bit dissapointed that you would not see that, and would comment without even listening to that mix.

Quad preservation is exactly that: preservation of a format which a group of individuals have an appreciation for and do not want to lose access to. Creation of a 5.1 mix from stereo is about creation of a mix and seeing how good a mix you can get. It's absolute apples and oranges. There's no reason why a person can't have appreciation for both.

I've heard the 4.0 mix of WYWH and have zero connection to it. Why? That's not the way I experience that album in my head in surround. The placement feels all wrong to me in the same way that it feels exactly right on the newer upmix. Why is that? Because I didn't grow up with the quad mix. I grew up with the stereo mix. I was one year old when WYWH came out. "Welcome to the Machine" is a perfect example of that. The buildup of that song absolutely lost all of its power to me when listening to the quad. Beyond that, I like a crisper mix, which the Q8 to 4.0 is most certainly not. Why would someone in my position, then, settle for a 35 year-old mix as the "be all and end all" of surround on that album, especially when stereo-to-surround technology is currently at the point where people on this forum often now confuse newer upmixes with retail titles?

Now.....will I gladly defend the preservation of quad recordings as a worthwhile venture? Absolutely. Will I listen to the occasional quad mix? Yes. What you all do is wonderful, and I hope you continue to discover new recordings and get them out there. I learn a lot from the group and enjoy my time on it. My heart simply is not in preservation of that sound only, though, and there's nothing really wrong with that.

 

[beached]

especially when stereo-to-surround technology is currently at the point where people on this forum often now confuse newer upmixes with retail titles?

Hey, I resemble that remark. Keep up the good work DKA.

 

[floydflush]

When I was new to the "upmix cirle" the same question came up to me: Why do an upmix in case where an original quad mix exists already.
That time I do not understand that at all.
But now as I know "a bit" more about the whole stuff I understand the "right" to do that:
Since the technology of upmixing has reached such a level and the one who do it takes the challenge
to go far beyond those "dolby-like" surround sound then I'll take it with open arms.
As DKA said, it is everyone's own experience and preference how listen to it.
If I hang on an upmix I try to get a "classic" quadraphonic mix with much separation as possible without destroying the soundfield.
So I mixed e.g. original quad mixes with upmixes on my Jethro Tull samplers - and the feedback came out well. So everyone has its own preferences.
And - please keep in mind - there are original quad mixes out there which add nothing but a bit reverb to the stereo mix on some tracks.
BUT the balance between a full soundfield and a well placed separation is what most of us want to listen - and that's exactly what you'll find on AL's WYWH upmix!

 

[BlarJotunn]

I still don't get the point of doing an upmix of something that has such a wonderful 4.0 mix. Not just this title but any title (except maybe Springsteen's Devils & Dust)

I agree completely. It's not that the original mix is the "be all end all", but why not put time and effort into an album that has no surround mix at all? I personally hope WYWH is NOT reissued in 5.1; I would rather see them release an SACD of the original quad mix and mix Animals in 5.1. Of course, a new surround mix of WYWH is better than nothing a all, but which would be better to have, WYWH quad and 5.1, or WYWH quad and Animals 5.1? The same goes for Mike Oldfield's myriad remixes of Tubular Bells and now supposedly Hergest Ridge. Those quad mixes are fantastic, so give us a later release in 5.1. I also choose mix over sonics any day, which is why I always pick the SQ DSOTM over the SACD for surround.

 

[grill]

Hello Quad heroes!
I've just dropped in on this thread to inform you about our project on the google SurroundSound group. Here are some details:
http://groups.google.com/group/surr...1ec37/49af3476eb3935a5?hl=hu#49af3476eb3935a5

A status report

Target No.1: to commemorate and celebrate the 35th anniversary of WYWH by compiling its all the available and valuable surround transfers on a BD-audio disc.

Target No.2: to illustrate and prove to EMI/Capitol our great demand for an official release of this album in a high resolution digital surround format.

The compilation:
Creator l Source l Format l Album info l Album art by the creator/releaser l Release size l dtshd size

SQ-LP Matrix:
Quadumvirate l Columbia Quad Vinyl USA First 100 Pressings l 4.0 - 24/96 l Yes l Yes l 3.59 GB l 1.39 GB
Tom M. l Originak quadraphonic vinyl edition (Q4SHVL814) UK 1975 l 4.0 - 24/48 l Yes l Yes l 2.63 GB l 1.16 GB
Kap'n Krunch l UK Harvest pressing l 4.0 - 24/96 l Yes l Yes l 2.97 GB l 2.08 GB
zzayyazz l Harvest (Q4SHVL814) pressing l 4.0 - 24/96 (SQ-mix restoration) l Yes l Yes l 3.07 GB l 2.08 GB
britre l U.K. SQ Quadraphonic (Q4SHVL814) l 4.0 - 16/44.1 (48) l Yes l No l 3.60 GB l 0.68 GB
britre l USA SQ Quadraphonic l encoding in progress

Q8 Discrete:
QuadG/QpS l US Columbia l 4.0 - 24/48 l Unknown l Yes l 2.46 GB l 1.05 GB
ArmyOfQuad l US Columbia (Foxcub1950 copy) l conversion reported in progress

Upmix:
Area51 l Unknown l 5.0 - 24/96 l Yes l No l 1.80 GB l 1.80 GB
SBU_001 l TOCP-65549 Toshiba-EMI 2000 Japan 7 mini-LP l 5.0 - 24/44.1 (48) l Yes l No l 1.18 GB l 1.36 GB
insania2040 l CBS Mastersound HC 33453 24/96 vinyl rip by Dr. Robert l 5.0 - 24/96 l No l No l 2.08 GB l 2.15 GB

Do you think anything is missing? I appreciate any comments and useful info about the albums. Cheers!

 

[kap'n krunch]

Cool! Can't wait to hear this...all the other conversions AND the upmixes (I ain't got no beef with 'em)
Noww, as a side note..why does the link open in ..Rumanian???

 

[grill]

Cool! Can't wait to hear this...all the other conversions AND the upmixes (I ain't got no beef with 'em)
Noww, as a side note..why does the link open in ..Rumanian???

Perhaps due to my regional (Hungarian) settings. Sorry for that. I hope the following link works better:
http://groups.google.com/group/surroundsound/browse_thread/thread/9e764ec35621ec37

 

[DKA]

Grill.....I think you're doing a wonderful job with this and commend your efforts. That's an awful lot of interpretations and will give the WYWH junkie an awful lot to think about, which is your point, I'm sure.

on BlarJotunn's comments, I think it's very hard to really get the scope of the entire surround world sometimes. I think any album in the PF catalog has probably been upmixed 100 times over, both by experienced upmixers and newbies (actually, this is exactly why I've never done a PF album myself......I have everyone else to cover those bases, although no one's ever really nailed the Gilmour-only era albums that I've heard) I understand the frustration some who don't follow upmixes closely have with trying to tell the good from the bad in advance, as there's too many variables out there. People are trying to both offer versions that differ from older quad (or sometimes-inferior retail 5.1) mixes AND applying their time to albums which both were never released in quad or retail mixes.

Anyways....I don't mean to co-opt this thread to talk that topic and am just addressing questions and misconceptions as I see them. Carry on.

 

[georgeshannon]

Good point about concentrating on classics that never had a quad mix. Love to hear a DynamiteKid version of Carly Simon - Anticipation (the blue album). I believe that's her best album and it was never offered in surround sound.

And how about The Band - Rock Of Ages or Before The Flood? Or put both on a 2fer and make my day.

We need an excellent upmixer's skills to provide surround versions of these. Maybe they're in the works, who knows.

 

[wanners]

Under the Q8 category, for a long time there has been a DTS-CD 4.1 conversion of the Q8 floating around that was done by an unkown converter with no information or artwork. It was originally mislabeled as the British Q8. Of course everyone is now aware that there was no British Q8, so it remains a mystery how or why it was labeled as such. Nonetheless, it was a real Q8 conversion, a very good on at that; my only complaint was that is was in DTS. Some complained about the addition of the .1, but it made for a very powerful intro to WTTM--it didn't bother me and you can always turn off the SW.

 

[wanners]

Under the Q8 category, for a long time there has been a DTS-CD 4.1 conversion of the Q8 floating around that was done by an unkown converter with no information or artwork. It was originally mislabeled as the British Q8. Of course everyone is now aware that there was no British Q8, so it remains a mystery how or why it was labeled as such. Nonetheless, it was a real Q8 conversion, a very good on at that; my only complaint was that is was in DTS. Some complained about the addition of the .1, but it made for a very powerful intro to WTTM--it didn't bother me and you can always turn off the SW.

OK, was partially wrong, there was info with the conversion. It says it was done by Tab, but the stuff about the british Q8 is obviously wrong--below is the text of the .txt file that came with the download. I also think he was wrong about the 4.0--I think it was 4.1. Maybe Tab could comment about this. Whodunnit and howdydooit????


Pink Floyd
Wish You Were Here
British Q8 converted to DTS, supposedly by Tab. Quad God.
©1975 Harvest Records/EMI Ltd.

**YOU!! YES YOU!! STAND STILL LADDIE!! This is a DTS CD image. If you
don't have a DTS conversion at playback (we're talking NOT your
computer, we're talking your stereo/Home Theatre playback system) then
don't download this. All you'll hear is static if you don't have a bona
fide DTS playback chain, happy and working!**

This is (as I received it) a Nero CD Image (.nrg). I tried extracting FLAC or WAV tracks from it and
posting it that way, but the resulting disc always had problems (drop-outs) so I'm posting it like this. Let me know if you want the WAVs.

This is a DTS image of the highly rare Q8 British version of Wish You Were Here by Pink Floyd. The band originally intended for their audience to hear the album THIS way, but unfortunately QUAD playback didn\'t take off like people thought it would. So, this Q8 was definitely an obscure item; in the UK, 8-Track cartridge technology was not a sought-after mainstay of playback like it was in the US circa the 1970\'s.

The 1970\'s British Q8 was an 8-channel, 2 program cartridge. In the US we had 4 programs of stereo; the British cartridge had two programs of Quadrophonic. Given the source, you can expect that the sound quality will be less than most versions of this album on CD or vinyl. Why post? Because it\'s TRUE QUADROPHONIC and really must be experienced to be believed, and especially because it is the rare original mix of a landmark album and, as far as I know, the only surround-sound version available.

Supposedly this CD/DTS was encoded by Tab Patterson, although I can't be
totally sure. Here's what I DO know. PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU COMPLAIN
ABOUT THE POST:
=============================================================
1. This is a Q8. Technically, a rip from a 8-channel, 2 program
cartridge (yep! just like an 8-track). It was recorded using fairly
mediocre 1/2 track technology. Don't expect that this disc will sound
absolutely kick ass sonically over a MFSL or Capitol CD; you might find
that it....uh.. doesn't. Still, it's the authentic Quad presentation with
sound quality about as good as you could expect from a Q8 source of this age.

2. Since the program material is from Q8, please remove use of your
subwoofer and center channel, as in some instances, your preamp or DTS
playback might downmix into these channels. Being only 4-channels of
sound, only 4 of the 6 DTS channels were utilized at encode. Wanna use
the woof anyway? Fine. But the mix was intended for 4 identical
full-range speakers, even at birth back in the early 70's. I'd suggest
you at least try to listen to it that way, if you can. Most preamps have
a feature to turn off certain 'accessory' channels using the remote and
on-screen menus.
=============================================================

Re-packaged and re-posted by bhobson333 several years after I first stumbled across it
somewhere on the WWW.

Raleigh, North Carolina, USA
[email protected]
12/23/2007

 

[Bob Romano]

I don't see EMI doing anything special anytime soon... I point to a Wall Street Journal article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...372742938.html?mod=WSJ_Deals_RIGHTTopCarousel

Wall Street Journal:

EMI Group Ltd. has held preliminary talks to license its music in North America to rival record labels, a move that comes as private-equity owners seek to avoid debt default that could soon put the troubled music company in the hands of lender Citigroup Inc., people close to the matter said.
EMI, which was purchased by private-equity group Terra Firma Capital Partners Ltd. in 2007, has been shopping a five-year licensing deal of its catalogue to rival music companies, including Warner Music Group Corp., Vivendi SA’s Universal Music Group and Sony Corp.‘s Sony Music, these people said.
Under such an agreement, sales and distribution of music by artists such as the Beatles and Pink Floyd would be handled by a rival music company. A deal could bring in up to £100 million ($150.1 million) per year for EMI, one person close to the matter said Sunday.​

 

[wanners]

I personally hope WYWH is NOT reissued in 5.1; I would rather see them release an SACD of the original quad mix and mix Animals in 5.1. Of course, a new surround mix of WYWH is better than nothing a all, but which would be better to have, WYWH quad and 5.1, or WYWH quad and Animals 5.1?

I agree because, I'm afraid we'd have a repeat of the DSOTM tragedy (is that too strong a word?) PF has never been too concerned about pleasing the fans, and this has not improved as they age. The only reason we got the Wall live is because Roger's son told him that him and his friends were big Phish fans and that people love to hear their favorite bands live. So, it would appear that unless his son tells him to release 5.1 because him and his friends all want it, we may be out of luck. Let's try a new stragety--contact Roger Water's son and lobby him on the wonders of 5.1.

 

[wanners]

I don't see EMI doing anything special anytime soon... I point to a Wall Street Journal article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...372742938.html?mod=WSJ_Deals_RIGHTTopCarousel

Another sad chapter in the history of the financial industry's attempt put all people and businesses into debt peonage. Makes me sick to think of this. In case anyone didn't know, private equity is the new millenium's version of the 80's leveraged buyout. They're greedy pigs who don't care about the core business-except to the extent they can extract money from it (at whatever cost).

 

[wanners]

Sorry about all the lengthy posts, but I think I know how the nasty British Q8 WYWH confusion may have started. The below text is the .txt file from a conversion of the DSOTM british Q8 conversion, supposedly also by Tab. Now, notice how that is the same exact language from the WYWH .txt file. Conclusion: It looks like someone took the text file from the DSOTM Q8 conversion and simply substituted WYWH for DSOTM, and put that incorreclty text file into the WYWH Q8 conversion. This would explain the incorrect labeling. So this calls into question again who really did the WYWH conversion. Too bad that someone didn't care enough to preserve the integrity of the information.




Pink Floyd
The Dark Side Of The Moon
British Q8 converted to DTS, supposedly by Tab. Quad God.
©1973 Harvest Records/EMI Ltd.

UnRAR then straight to EAC or CDRwin. Then:

**HEY YOU!! YES YOU!! STAND STILL LADDIE!! This is a DTS CD image. If you don't have a DTS conversion at playback (we're talking NOT your computer, we're talking your stereo/Home Theatre playback system) then don't download this. All you'll hear is static if you don't have a bonified DTS playback chain, happy and working!**

Ok, now that that's out of the way, for the rest of you, yes, this is the highly rare Q8 British version of Dark Side Of The Moon by Pink Floyd. For most purposes, the band had aimed for their audience to hear the album THIS way, but unfortunately QUAD playback didn't take off like people thought it would, and this Q8 was definately an obsure item, concidering in the UK, 8-Track cartridge technology was not a saught-after mainstay of playback like it was in the US circa the 1970's.

Supposedly this CD/DTS was encoded by Tab Patterson, although I can't be totally sure. Here's what I DO know, and you BETTER READ THIS BEFORE YOU COME OUT TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THE POST:
=============================================================
1. This is a Q8. Technically, a rip from a 8-channel, 2 program cartridge (yep! just like an 8-track). It was recorded using fairly mediocre 1/2 track technology, therefore, the sound will be less than most versions of this albums on CD. Why post? Because it's QUAD and you may have a lot of fun. So, before you have dillusions of grandure that this disc will sound absolutely kick ass sonically over a MFSL or Capitol CD, you might find that it....uh.. doesn't. Still, it's the authentic ol'Quad presentation in about the sincerety of most Q8's as you'd expect. I'm sure you understand (or I'd HOPE so).

2. There is noise reduction at a -10db to -16db noise level (say "OUCH" with me!). This cart supposedly had some prevelant tape hiss, which was removed at the cost of some 'soundstage' presence. Again, this is something you'll have to put up with for the experience. You'll notice the disc has noise reduction slathered on it. It's not really that bad, but I'm warning you.

3. Oh, since the program material is from Q8, please remove use of your subwoofer and center channel, as in some instances, your preamp or DTS playback might downmix into these channels. Being only 4-channels of sound, only 4 of the 6 DTS channels were utilized at encode. Wanna use the woof anyway? Fine. But the mix was intened for 4 identical full-range speakers, even at birth back in the early 70's. I'd suggest you at least try to listen to it that way, if you can. Most preamps have a feature to turn off certain 'accessory' channels using the remote and on-screen menus.

4. Really stupid (but cost saving) method EMI used in producing this little miracle, instead of taking Program 1 & 2 (to duplicate the sides of the album 1 & 2) they let "Money" run at the end of Program 1, then fade back up at program 2. The crossfade was not overlapping, so during the 1st 1-2 minutes of "Money", the sound quality might take a dump, okay? This was when the author (not moi) tried as hard as he could to pair the program breaks together without interrupting the music. You'll hear it, trust me.

Cost effectiveness, means they could save ~23 shillings per tape, if you get my drift. Instead of using 2 minutes of blank space run out at Program 1, as Side 2 of the album is definately longer, they broke "Money" up (ironic!) between the channel change. Yes, it sucks, but whatcha gonna do??

5. You will notice some things left in the mix that was not originally left in for the album as YOU know it. This might excite you or annoy you. What's the difference??? Just have fun with it. Besides the theme of the album is about confusion and madness.
=============================================================


Disclaimer (Stuff you may have heard before):
Reposts will not be made by me. Once I see it on my server as complete, you may ask politely for fills from other people, openly. Please do not "honk" repeatedly for a repost by laying down 3-4 lines begging over and over. I delete posts once posted perfectly.

If you want to help (and you can't post whole posts) repost for the needy who ask. They, in-tern, should help out others if they can as well. Just be polite and you'll get 'elp.

If you see the post coming out very poorly at your helm, it's because your news server is horrible, your a bit late to get all the parts, or you didn't sample enough of the group. Chances are, it's not the latter two. Please note that getting a premium paid news service can easilly pay for itself in less than 3 days time, potentially. There's also FREE subscriptions to Terranews, which can yeild good coverage of bad parts for about 50 megs a day. Otherwize, use Newscene.

-Sckott

 

[grill]

Sorry about all the lengthy posts, but I think I know how the nasty British Q8 WYWH confusion may have started. The below text is the .txt file from a conversion of the DSOTM british Q8 conversion, supposedly also by Tab. Now, notice how that is the same exact language from the WYWH .txt file. Conclusion: It looks like someone took the text file from the DSOTM Q8 conversion and simply substituted WYWH for DSOTM, and put that incorreclty text file into the WYWH Q8 conversion. This would explain the incorrect labeling. So this calls into question again who really did the WYWH conversion. Too bad that someone didn't care enough to preserve the integrity of the information.

I've heard on the SurroundSound group that this Q8 DTS-CD is supposed to had originated from the QuadG/QpS Q8 conversion. However, I've had yet no time to check this hypothesis.

 

[ArmyOfQuad]

That's not quite right, the Q8 dvd-a is the one that originated from QpS done by QuadG. I'm not sure what DTS is floating around, but I do know that Tab did do a DTS-CD of WYWH using his Fostex reel deck.

 

[JonUrban]

Tab did Wish You Were Here, US Q8 to DTS CD, way before most people even knew that you could do Q8 to DTS CD. Many many people got copies of Tab's conversions, so it's quite possiible that this is his. However, as I recall, Tab never put any text files on his conversions, or sent anything out with his conversions other than a plain disc with a sticker on it or a brief title written with a CD Marker on the disc.

I will say that once the DTS software started making it's rounds, both through people who bought it and people who "found" it, the WYWH Q8 was one of the titles that most people did right away.

I would bet there are quite a few different early conversions of WYWH. I know I did one as well.