• 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!

Quad version of Pink Floyd Meddle

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

ssully

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Jul 2, 2003
Messages
2,686
Location
in your face
I'm thinking it's easy to say that because what else can it be. But upmix from stereo does it give you true 5.1 because I'm experiencing true 5.1 in the song echoes. Anyways who ever did this up did a amazing job..
If it's the entire album, it's an upmix. Otherwise it might be the Pompeii soundtrack. Either way, it is not an actual surround mix of the Meddle album.

That doesn't mean it's bad. Some upmixes sound very good...as do some DPLIIx on-the-fly upmixes.
 

Wildman

Well-known Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2014
Messages
134
Location
Jeffersonville, IN USA
I ran my old Meddle CD through spec and it pulled out a great surround mix. It was the first album I tried and still one of my favorites of the ones I've upmixed. Echoes really does come alive in surround. Chances are that the surround master should do well with it.
 

Fourplay

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
QQ Supporter
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
1,282
Location
Denver
Just to throw a little gasoline on this old fire:

http://www.pinkfloydonline.com/faq/question37/

17 October 1971 — A quad mix album of “Echoes” is played for press at the Roundhouse, but the quad mix is never released.

End of quote from the link. The Shine On box set quotes dates for mixing in quad, and I suspect this track at least was the result of those sessions. The dates are quoted earlier in this thread.

I met James Guthrie at the Rocky Mountain Audio Fest in 2011 and gave him this information. I asked if he would be in a position to look for the mix, and he said he was in a position to do so. Whether he has ever made such an attempt I am unable to say. If anyone else comes across him personally, I suggest reinforcing the request. If an immersion box ever comes out for Meddle, this would be an obvious bonus track.
 

Watsy1958

Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2012
Messages
49
Upmix music i find is just a waste of time can't understand if someone has a 5.1 system why would they listen to what i call crap....
 

Fourplay

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
QQ Supporter
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
1,282
Location
Denver
Upmix music i find is just a waste of time can't understand if someone has a 5.1 system why would they listen to what i call crap....
To me an upmix is kinda like a movie based on a true story. Whether I enjoy it or not, I always wonder what it would have been like if everything were true and accurate.

Keep in mind that the mix I refer to above is an official quad mix from the original multitrack masters which was documented to have been created and presented in the fall of 1971. Therefore, this is indeed a grail of surround sound listening (certainly for me). What seems less clear is whether the entire album was mixed at that time, or just Echoes.
 

privateuniverse

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Joined
Feb 11, 2012
Messages
1,693
Location
Hartford, CT
Therefore, this is indeed a grail of surround sound listening (certainly for me). What seems less clear is whether the entire album was mixed at that time, or just Echoes.
The original quad mix is indeed a holy grail. The upmix is more of a grail-shaped beacon. :mad:@:
 

ssully

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Jul 2, 2003
Messages
2,686
Location
in your face
Upmix music i find is just a waste of time can't understand if someone has a 5.1 system why would they listen to what i call crap....

Sometimes I prefer the 'upmix' that plain old DPL II Music on my AVR creates from an old 2-channel mix, to the actual 5.1 remix of the same recording. And some fan-made upmixes are quite spectacular (PF's 'Animals' comes to mind).
 

EMB

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Feb 8, 2004
Messages
4,104
Location
The Top 40 Radio of My Mind
Upmix music i find is just a waste of time can't understand if someone has a 5.1 system why would they listen to what i call crap....
Obviously, because it may not be crap. Hell, I've heard lousy upmixes, but some very fine work, too, so I don't tend to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

As for a quad MEDDLE, if the whole album had been done, there was no reason not to issue it. Although not as popular in 1972 as they would be after DSOTM, by '73 or '74 their audience was large enough that even non-quaddies would have checked it out just because it was PF. Pity we didn't get it, woulda been a killer.

ED :)
 

timbre4

Super Moderator
Staff member
QQ Supporter
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Oct 18, 2002
Messages
6,908
Location
College Grove, TN
To each his own I suppose, but that remark is a generalization only.

I literally have hundreds of upmixes and the results do vary. (yet to still get to a lot of them - it was drinking from a firehose there for a while) Results will depend on 1) original source material, 2) tools / method employed and 3) mixer skill, taste and expectations. Given that, generalizations simply don't work.
 

atrocity

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Jun 14, 2002
Messages
1,527
Location
Sacramento, California
Obviously, because it may not be crap. Hell, I've heard lousy upmixes, but some very fine work, too, so I don't tend to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

As for a quad MEDDLE, if the whole album had been done, there was no reason not to issue it. Although not as popular in 1972 as they would be after DSOTM, by '73 or '74 their audience was large enough that even non-quaddies would have checked it out just because it was PF. Pity we didn't get it, woulda been a killer.
It's always seemed odd to me that "Atom Heart Mother" got the quad treatment but "Meddle" didn't. I love AHM, but I assume it wasn't as popular (and didn't have as many discrete tracks to work with) as the follow-up.
 

privateuniverse

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Joined
Feb 11, 2012
Messages
1,693
Location
Hartford, CT
It's always seemed odd to me that "Atom Heart Mother" got the quad treatment but "Meddle" didn't. I love AHM, but I assume it wasn't as popular (and didn't have as many discrete tracks to work with) as the follow-up.
Actually, in the UK, Atom Heart Mother was the Floyd's first #1 album so it was popular there at the time. (Oddly enough, Meddle, Dark Side and The Wall never got to #1 in the UK.) The fact that it had been a #1 probably played into the decision to mix it into quad.
 

fizzywiggs41

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Joined
Feb 15, 2015
Messages
4,055
Location
wpg, mb
FWIWW

Back when the two Immersion Quads of DSOTM & WYWH were released, UNCUT MAG reported that in addition to these two quads, Floyds Meddle was mixed and released.Not true of course.They were most likely referring to Atom Heart Mom.
 

GOS

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
QQ Supporter
Joined
Apr 23, 2013
Messages
13,246
Location
Central Illinois
FWIWW

Back when the two Immersion Quads of DSOTM & WYWH were released, UNCUT MAG reported that in addition to these two quads, Floyds Meddle was mixed and released.Not true of course.They were most likely referring to Atom Heart Mom.
Which...would...be killer of course!!
 

jimfisheye

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
1,338
FWIWW

Back when the two Immersion Quads of DSOTM & WYWH were released, UNCUT MAG reported that in addition to these two quads, Floyds Meddle was mixed and released.Not true of course.They were most likely referring to Atom Heart Mom.
They made a quad mix for Meddle. You can read about them playing it at an album release party but there was never a commercial release.
I suspect they were in fact talking about the bluray release of Meddle ahead of AHM at the time. Meddle and Animals were surely going to be the next releases before they pulled the plug on the HD remaster project. Stuff's all in the can though (as evidenced by the CD reductions made from the stereo mixes that they DID put up for sale). They're hoarding the rest of the HD album masters at present.

The EMI UK Q8's are discrete mixes. If Meddle had a quad release, I'm sure that would have been a discrete mix in the UK too.

A_L
Yep. Your AHM Q8 is still sounding might fine to me too! :)
Considering the abundance of very low levels in places on this very dynamic, classical music style production, the fidelity is actually surprisingly high on this tape.

You can have somewhat the real thing with the Quad soundtrack of Pompeii, which someone capable surely has merged with the movie.
Somewhat? This one is absolutely the real thing (if I do say so myself :D)! It's not too often in life that a holy grail such as this gets uncovered and in such good quality too!

Upmix music i find is just a waste of time can't understand if someone has a 5.1 system why would they listen to what i call crap....
Agreed. Ultimately it takes you further away from the original sound. There might be some argument that mastering a stereo source into a 5.1 format could benefit on a smaller speaker system. But if you have a 'full size' stereo setup, you'll have better seats with the original stereo program vs. processing said stereo program into 5 channels. Especially if you're doing phase tricks to generate movement between speakers that was never actually intentionally mixed that way.

Hate to rain on anyone's parade with that. But if you're looking for the "best seats" to hear a recording - it's the most original master with the cleanest preservation. And sometimes you need a playback system with real life dynamics ability to play back some of these recordings - vs. the 'slammed right into your face' pop productions where you can hear the CD loud before you even remove it from the case.

Even the Steve Wilson upmixes (for the productions where the original multitracks were lost or didn't exist for some of the songs) sound like a generation loss compared to the original stereo flat transfer they were made from. They do in fact come across a little bigger on a small surround system vs a small stereo system, but the original stereo wins hands down on a full system. (That stereo board tape of the live "Clap" from The Yes Album comes to mind as an example.)
 

atrocity

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Jun 14, 2002
Messages
1,527
Location
Sacramento, California
Actually, in the UK, Atom Heart Mother was the Floyd's first #1 album so it was popular there at the time. (Oddly enough, Meddle, Dark Side and The Wall never got to #1 in the UK.) The fact that it had been a #1 probably played into the decision to mix it into quad.
There was probably a time when I knew that, but I've since forgotten. Thanks for the reminder!
 

ssully

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Jul 2, 2003
Messages
2,686
Location
in your face
Agreed. Ultimately it takes you further away from the original sound. There might be some argument that mastering a stereo source into a 5.1 format could benefit on a smaller speaker system. But if you have a 'full size' stereo setup, you'll have better seats with the original stereo program vs. processing said stereo program into 5 channels. Especially if you're doing phase tricks to generate movement between speakers that was never actually intentionally mixed that way.

Hate to rain on anyone's parade with that. But if you're looking for the "best seats" to hear a recording - it's the most original master with the cleanest preservation. And sometimes you need a playback system with real life dynamics ability to play back some of these recordings - vs. the 'slammed right into your face' pop productions where you can hear the CD loud before you even remove it from the case.

Even the Steve Wilson upmixes (for the productions where the original multitracks were lost or didn't exist for some of the songs) sound like a generation loss compared to the original stereo flat transfer they were made from. They do in fact come across a little bigger on a small surround system vs a small stereo system, but the original stereo wins hands down on a full system. (That stereo board tape of the live "Clap" from The Yes Album comes to mind as an example.)

It's really a matter of preference. And settings, I suppose. Certain to me, in most cases DPL II upmixed stereo tends to sound better -- more 'real', more engaging -- than stereo. It's actually more like nearfield stereo, in the degree of imaging and depth it achieves (and the occasional 'surround' motion is a bonus). And the imaging is rock-solid. (FWIW, my 5 speakers are all the same, a model with good on/off axis response, and I also use Audyssey MultiXT 32 'room correction'. In my setup the speakers 'disappear', as they should in any good configuration, 2 channel or more)

2 channel has always been a highly compromised delivery format, but a wonder for what it is. However, as for 'taking you further away from the origianl sound' -- if by taht you mean, the original sound of the 2-channel *recording*, not the live event (if there was one) -- certainly an DPLII type upmix is closer to that, than a brand new 5.1 remix, which tend to come compelte with re-EQ, digital reverb, etc....no?
 

TBur

New member
Joined
Feb 4, 2013
Messages
6
Hi,
I found an image of a quad Meddle version, but can't find anything with the given number.
CU, Tom

pfm0sfqyq.jpg
 
2
Top