Quatermass

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

fredblue

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
QQ Supporter
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
24,703
Location
London, England
Of course you are entitled to have your own opinion as I am entitled to mine. It is well establised that EMI in the UK only began making QUAD albums by 1974, long after Quatermass´ demise. If there had been a QUAD mix peter Robinson would have used them and stated this. I felt that the previous contributor who surmised a quad mix was off into a wrong direction.
just because an album predates 1974 doesn't mean EMI didn't/couldn't revisit it to make a Quad mix, they did just that on more than one occasion. I don't understand why Peter Robinson would necessarily have used a Quad mix, he seems perfectly chuffed with his semi-upmix 5.1 concoction. I surmised the Quad mix, how it can be entirely ruled out as a possibility, no matter how slim, I don't know unless there's hard facts. you're entitled to your opinion indeed but lets have some facts to back things up when necessary - a quad mix revisited by the record company after the fact was just conjecture on my part, we'd all rather facts but in the absence of facts anything anyone has to say is opinion and nothing more. a Quad mix is not entirely beyond the realms of possibility, however unlikely.
 

timbre4

Administrator
Staff member
Admin
Moderator
QQ Supporter
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Oct 18, 2002
Messages
7,523
Location
College Grove, TN
While that may be correct about EMI's entry into quad in1974, and i have no notion that a quad version of Quatermass was ever considered, remember that Pink Floyd -Atom Heart Mother (October 1970) was one of their first quad releases.
 

Bas

Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2005
Messages
21
Location
Amersfoort, Netherlands
Actually..........you´re right. Opinions are no subsitute for hard facts. I will re-state my case. It is my opinion that no quad mix was envisaged for the Quatermass album. Having said that, I ran a website for this band for a number of years before handing it over to Mick Underwood and Carol Hynson, and in that time I was fortunate enough to be in touch with all three band members from time to time. A quad mix never came up in any discussion.
But I accept your point.
 

Bas

Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2005
Messages
21
Location
Amersfoort, Netherlands
You are right about Atom Heart Mother being from 1970, however the point was that the quad mix of this was only made by Alan Parsons in 1974, as well as Dark Side of the Moon. In 1970 there was only one Quad rock LP in the world and it was called The Flame. It wasn´t even real quad.
 

fredblue

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
QQ Supporter
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
24,703
Location
London, England
Actually..........you´re right. Opinions are no subsitute for hard facts. I will re-state my case. It is my opinion that no quad mix was envisaged for the Quatermass album. Having said that, I ran a website for this band for a number of years before handing it over to Mick Underwood and Carol Hynson, and in that time I was fortunate enough to be in touch with all three band members from time to time. A quad mix never came up in any discussion.
But I accept your point.
Many Quad mixes were made without the involvement of the band.. take BJH's "Once Again", neither the band nor the producer Norman Smith nor any of the original engineers were involved.. and that was Harvest, with the label revisiting an album in 1973 to do the Quad where the band etc had nothing to do with it, so maybe a Quad mix or partial mix was made/started by EMI and never used.

I'm a never rule anything out kinda guy.. meantime maybe you Bas or someone here could answer for me how comes the multi's (8-tracks) for so much of this album went awol yet there are 3/4/6-tracks Peter Robinson was able to work from? Were these work in progress parts

I'm greatly intrigued by the genus of this release, I don't feel the liner notes on the 5.1 mix in this release are fulsome enough, maybe if someone could do a Q&A with Peter R. about it in more depth?
 

Bas

Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2005
Messages
21
Location
Amersfoort, Netherlands
Many Quad mixes were made without the involvement of the band.. take BJH's "Once Again", neither the band nor the producer Norman Smith nor any of the original engineers were involved.. and that was Harvest, with the label revisiting an album in 1973 to do the Quad where the band etc had nothing to do with it, so maybe a Quad mix or partial mix was made/started by EMI and never used.

I'm a never rule anything out kinda guy.. meantime maybe you Bas or someone here could answer for me how comes the multi's (8-tracks) for so much of this album went awol yet there are 3/4/6-tracks Peter Robinson was able to work from? Were these work in progress parts

I'm greatly intrigued by the genus of this release, I don't feel the liner notes on the 5.1 mix in this release are fulsome enough, maybe if someone could do a Q&A with Peter R. about it in more depth?

I have just received a reply from Peter Robinson and he doesn´t believe a quad mix of Quatermass was made at that time.
And now I am going to listen to the surround mix all over again and enjoy!!!
 

fredblue

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
QQ Supporter
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
24,703
Location
London, England
I have just received a reply from Peter Robinson and he doesn´t believe a quad mix of Quatermass was made at that time.
And now I am going to listen to the surround mix all over again and enjoy!!!
very cool :) thank you for that info, that's all I'm looking for. it's all very well us lot putting in our two'pennuth but from the horses' mouth is the only way to be sure!

meantime do you or anybody on here know how/why there would be 3, 4 and 6-track tapes available that Peter Robinson could work from when the 8-track multi's were missing? are these session reels? are they the same parts and performances as used on the stereo mixdown?
 

Ranasakawa

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Joined
May 19, 2012
Messages
1,065
Location
Australia
I finally received my CD/DVD set today ! Sure has been a long time coming.
Has anyone noticed a sharp digital noise on the DVD in DTS at the start of track 2 ?
It took so long for the bloody thing to turn up i'm not keen to return it for another just yet.
So far I really like this album. The 5.1 mix is not going to set the world on fire but it's enjoyable.
 

timbre4

Administrator
Staff member
Admin
Moderator
QQ Supporter
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Oct 18, 2002
Messages
7,523
Location
College Grove, TN
No such flaws heard on DTS DVD for track 2 (Entropy) and this is the 5th playback for me.
 

timbre4

Administrator
Staff member
Admin
Moderator
QQ Supporter
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Oct 18, 2002
Messages
7,523
Location
College Grove, TN
First of all a big thank you to Peter Robinson for just putting this re-issue together. It is clear from the liner notes that PR was keen to release a full 5.1 mix of this album only to learn of the missing multi-tracks. Given that, it's amazing we even got this version. Using my 1990 Repertoire CD as reference, I can say that the new version is brighter either by 21st century design or as a by-product of some clean up work that is spelled out in the excellent booklet. Love the rare photos in the booklet and those that do appear on screen.

The DVD contains DTS, DD 5.1 or stereo options; since there is a CD in the package I find it odd to have the DVD default to stereo. As for the menu and audio snippet, it could have been better design. The white on white titles (initial menu before song stills) and the "outer limits" audio take points off IMHO. But once you start playing the album none of this really matters.

I have always thought this album was sadly overlooked as it has some very strong material on it. Both the reissue CD and DVD starts off with a bonus track (that was to be a single), then the album proper followed by 1 bonus track on DVD that I knew from CD before and the CD includes that same (Punting) track plus two previously unheard tracks that I didn't hear until this evening. Both are worthwhile and welcome additions.

The band itself was quite unusual; given the trio instrumentation, it would be obvious to peg them as an ELP type band and this would not be accurate! They sounded closer to Harvest label mates Pink Floyd in mowents and a precurser to Triumvirat perhaps, but mostly they were just ahaed of their time as themselves. John Gustafson's role here is so large I find it odd to think about him being in Roxy Music behind Bryan Ferry, wish I would've seen that version of the band. Now I need to track down Hard Stuff (Purple Records) where JG had a larger role in between these two bands.

Since Peter Robinson already had a 5. studiio setup for film scoring it was not far-fetched for him to consider mixing a surround version of Quatermass. It had to be hearbreaking to learn their mastertapes were missing or recorded over, thus limiting the source materials. I will always treasure the stereo versions and where I can have surround versions well that's just extra nice.

If I had to vote, I'd have to give this an honest 7 overall. The music is 9.5 for me and the surround aspect is reduced to 5 for quantity not quality. The packaging just has the soon forgettable nags I mentioned above. (see you already forgot them) Should the true master tapes ever surface somehow, I think PR would certainly be within his rights to do this again. Until then, this makes me very happy to have.
 

artwwweb

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2010
Messages
257
I was re-reading a Record Collector mag from a couple of years ago (the time this disc was released) and it's sad to read what happened to the tapes: I assumed they got lost a long time ago, but apparently it was only a few years ago :( . Here's a quote from Pete Robinson:
Unfortunately all the original multitracks were lost. Repertoire, a German label, had wanted the masters to do a CD a few years ago and the record company sent them everything, which got put on a shelf, forgotten about, and lost. What was left were some stereos, some four tracks, safety copies of overdub stuff we did; it was all in a really bad condition so Michael came to my studio in LA and it took us nine weeks to reconstruct these tracks to a mixable condition. So it all took nearly five months. But it’s done and I’m really pleased. Even the stereo sounds night and day from the original.
 

artwwweb

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2010
Messages
257
As we know, some tracks are upmixed or are stereo plus a few overdubs, so the surround mix is a bit simple at times, but they've done their best given the limited resources, and the results are a lot better than some artists manage when they have the full multis :)

It’s very good sound quality and good music, too. Reminiscent of Deep Purple – heavy rock with Hammond organ and powerful vocals.

7/10
 

beerking

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
QQ Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2015
Messages
3,954
Location
Wantage, Oxfordshire ..UK
Very late to the Quatermass party.
Mine arrived today.
I have read the various comments in this thread and I can understand the frustrations with it being a DTS mix. But I like what Peter has achieved with minimal multi tracks at his disposal.
His studio:
I completely agree with artwweb comments.
What surprises me is that they only stayed together long enough to make this one, fine album.
I'm thoroughly enjoying this release.
A lot of talent in it's infancy here.
This is the kind of music that I listened to a lot, in the early 70's
I would score it an 8

Bought it here:


And just to compare, I've up mixed the ripped stereo flac, via Specweb.
Ooh if Pete had this up-mixing tool to use, think what he could have achieved.
It is very clear and has rocking separation!!
 
Last edited:

mixfo

Member
QQ Supporter
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
23
Location
Maui
I also did the SpecWeb upmix on this album, and IMO the result is much better than the official surround release. In fact, I listen to the upmixed version only these days. Pete Robinson did what he could with the material he had available, and this release is interesting from the perspective that it is also a partial remix.

But SpecWeb did an excellent job with this one.
 
Top