Santana - Abraxas (Japanese)

[Relayer]

I'm just giving my Japanese SQ Abraxas a first spin and it's really... odd. The guitar, of all things, is rather distant, as are the vocals at times. Also, there are some strange cat-like sounds during Black Magic Woman that I'd never noticed on the stereo version.

The separation between the four channels is actually quite remarkable, all told, but the mix is quite strange.

Does anyone know if the US version is the same? I'm finding it really odd and would love to compare the two.

Relayer

 

[winopener]

I'm just giving my Japanese SQ Abraxas a first spin and it's really... odd.
Does anyone know if the US version is the same? I'm finding it really odd and would love to compare the two.

The best answer to that: find out the original DTS CD of Abraxas - it's the single Santana quad that surfaced officially on the market, and compare by yourself.

I agree with you, it's really odd. The difference between the stereo and the quad version is tremendous, seems a different album at all. IMHO, since Abraxas has been one of the first titles mixed for SQ quad, and the very first SQ decoder had a very faint separation, at the mixing desk they pushed the separation in excess to compensate for the poor decoders. Unfortunately, this lead to a discrete mix which is... odd, at best.

 

[QuadBob]

The "quad" mix is the same throughout the Q8, American and Japanese SQ. However it is a completely different recording session than the "stereo" release.

This followed Columbia's decision (made by Ben Bauer) not to do remixes from the original multi-tracks.......but to instead do completely new recording sessions specifically for the Columbia SQ releases.

For those of us who "cut our teeth" on the quad titles.......its the stereo releases that seem "odd". I think Relayer's mention of the "strange cat like sounds" during Black Magic Woman might better be described as Carlo's "Aaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeee" panning around.

Everytime I hear it on the radio I notice that it is missing! Again, its just a matter of which version you're "used to"!

Abraxas was just one of the early titles that both Columbia and Carlo's wanted to really push the envelope in Quad! Early on I became addicted to blasting this album at max volume just to feel the sound pressure sweep through my ears.........music that really "blows your mind"!!

 

[ss9001]

For those of us who "cut our teeth" on the quad titles.......its the stereo releases that seem "odd". I think Relayer's mention of the "strange cat like sounds" during Black Magic Woman might better be described as Carlo's "Aaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeee" panning around.

Everytime I hear it on the radio I notice that it is missing!

Yeah Baby!!
Bob's right on the mark. The Yelp makes the song quite unique. Bob and I have discussed the swirl of Carlos' guitar around one's head, too.

Several weeks ago I got the DTS DVD-A version. Very nice. Took the mix to discrete-ville. It was a nice deja-vu to sit down and listen.

 

[tcdriver]

Yeah Baby!!
Bob's right on the mark. The Yelp makes the song quite unique. Bob and I have discussed the swirl of Carlos' guitar around one's head, too.

Several weeks ago I got the DTS DVD-A version. Very nice. Took the mix to discrete-ville. It was a nice deja-vu to sit down and listen.

I finally bought a copy of the DTS version of Abraxas. I have never been more disappointed with a multichannel recording.

It really does depend on which version one heard first as to which will sound right. The DTS version sounds to me like a bad garage band trying to imitate the classic Santana recording. I could not even play the album all the way through. Discrete yes, music no!

tcdriver

 

[surroundophile]

Yeah Baby!!
Bob's right on the mark. The Yelp makes the song quite unique. Bob and I have discussed the swirl of Carlos' guitar around one's head, too.

Several weeks ago I got the DTS DVD-A version. Very nice. Took the mix to discrete-ville. It was a nice deja-vu to sit down and listen.

DTS DVD-A version? I wasn't aware they had re-released Santana in a DVD-A version yet, like they are some of their albums. I've only seen the DTS CD.

 

[winopener]

I finally bought a copy of the DTS version of Abraxas. I have never been more disappointed with a multichannel recording.

That's why i called it "odd". I had the sensation of a different album at all, going from the stereo OMR release to the Quad dts.
I was wondering to do a frankestein remix 5.1 using both versions, but now that i know the quad isn't mixed from the same tapes as the stereo... it becomes quite hard.
Maybe i'll try Samba pa ti at first, then i'll decide if it's worthy to going with the other tracks.

 

[ss9001]

" finally bought a copy of the DTS version of Abraxas. I have never been more disappointed with a multichannel recording. "

I have the "original" SQ recording too on LP from years ago. And am a long time fan of that record. Abraxas is one of my personal favorites in quad. Yes, the DTS version is different & yes it has more ping pong effects for lack of a better analogy. But unlistenable? Bad garage band?I dont understand. It's still Santana, just a different mix. Maybe you dont like it the way some dont like the DSOTM mix. On DSOTHM, I prefer the quad version on Side 2, but dont mind the SACD mix on Side 1. But it's still Pink Floyd.

 

[tcdriver]

Maybe I was a little too harsh. A better than average garage band is more like it. It is easy to understand why the SACD version is only in stereo. If Sony/Columbia was to use the same mix that the dts folks used it would set back SACD a couple of years if not kill off the format.

In terms of musical satisfaction the stereo version is a much better performance. I enjoy listening to the stereo version very much. The recording imparts a sense of space that is deep and wide extending beyond the boundaries of the speakers.

The dts 5.1 version although demonstrating very discrete placement of instruments and vocals sounds poorly recorded and lacks the soul of the original. I could not listen to it all the way trough. It is truly unlistenable.

Those who have not purchased this disc yet may be interested to know that it is on sale at Fry's this weekend for $9.99. Be warned, the cassette at half the price sounds a much better.

Sincerely yours,

tcdriver.

 

[ss9001]

In terms of musical satisfaction the stereo version is a much better performance. I enjoy listening to the stereo version very much. The recording imparts a sense of space that is deep and wide extending beyond the boundaries of the speakers.

Have you heard the SQ quad version? That may be more to your liking. A very immersive soundfield and engaging. It probably takes the sense of space to which you refer and extends it all around. Very well recorded IMO.

Have you listened to Peter Gabriel's Up? One of the best SACD's Ive listened to for multichannel sound.

 

[tcdriver]

Have you heard the SQ quad version? That may be more to your liking. A very immersive soundfield and engaging. It probably takes the sense of space to which you refer and extends it all around. Very well recorded IMO.

Have you listened to Peter Gabriel's Up? One of the best SACD's Ive listened to for multichannel sound.

I have not heard the SQ version. One of these days I may pick it up on ebay since you recommend it. It is good to know that has a very immersive soundfield and is engaging and not the dts version. I wonder why the SACD did not use the SQ mix to make a multi-channel SACD. Did they lose the tapes or did they license the muti-channel rights to dts?

I have not heard Peter Gabriel's Up but I will pick it up on your recommendation after I acquire a SACD player.

Thanks for the information and recommendations.

Sincerely yours,

tcdriver

 

[Larry Geller]

I have not heard the SQ version. One of these days I may pick it up on ebay since you recommend it. It is good to know that has a very immersive soundfield and is engaging and not the dts version. I wonder why the SACD did not use the SQ mix to make a multi-channel SACD. Did they lose the tapes or did they license the muti-channel rights to dts?tcdriver

This is getting WAY out of hand here!! The DTS IS the SQ mix! I have both, and, just like Crazy Eyes or Stills, it is the exact same mix, just finally totally discrete rather than SQ separation-compromised. Also, CBD DID NOT re-record ANYTHING for SQ. Abraxas used the same multi-tracks that were originally recorded for the LP, they just used portions of the mix that did not make it onto the original stereo mix (like the yelps). The REAL problem with the DTS (and SQ) version is the almost total lack of bass, whereas the stereo mix has MASSIVE bass. This totally vitiates the recording.

"This followed Columbia's decision (made by Ben Bauer) not to do remixes from the original multi-tracks.......but to instead do completely new recording sessions specifically for the Columbia SQ releases."

Just thinking about this for a second would show how ludicrous this statement is. Does anybody here REALLY think that Chicago, for instance, was required to go back into the studio & TOTALLY RE-RECORD 9 whole albums (I-III, & V-X)? ALL SQ LPs were REMIXES from the multis, NOT re-recordings, and they almost always used the exact same takes as the original LPs (the only exception to this that I can think of is Poco Deliverin', which played out the entire concert without the edits that were on the stereo version). It was CD-4 that regularly used alternate takes (like on Aqualung & Volunteers), and even these were not newly-recorded, but were just already recorded alternate versions. NOTHING was EVER totally re-recorded for quad. If so, please provide the session notes, or SOME evidence.

 

[ss9001]

This is getting WAY out of hand here!! The DTS IS the SQ mix! I have both, and, just like Crazy Eyes or Stills, it is the exact same mix, just finally totally discrete rather than SQ separation-compromised.

Yeah, I know!!

Quad Bob told me some of the history behind dts and the use of the quad mixes for their releases of older material.

tcdriver's point was that he thought the dts version sounded like crap, and I couldnt disagree with him more. The difference as you explained is the discreteness compared to SQ. I thought maybe that was what he was objecting to. Maybe my post added to the confusion in that I said the two versions were different. They are different sounding due to the discrete channels, but I agree not really different mixes.

I have not owned nor really listened to the stereo version, except for the 2 cuts that made it to FM, Black Magic Woman and Oye Como Va. And I couldnt tell you much let alone remember what comparison to make based on FM except that the yelps arent there. If the stereo version had more bass, mayeb that would underpin the music more, but his comment that it sounded like a garage band is a mystery to me. I thought maybe he should try an old SQ LP and see if he still felt the same. To me Santana sounds like as they should, like Santana.

Bottom line, tcdriver does not like the dts recording. I happen to like both: SQ for the immersive soundfield and dts for its discrete localization.

Thanks for the info.

 

[KevinD9052]

The DTS IS the SQ mix! I have both, and, just like Crazy Eyes or Stills, it is the exact same mix, just finally totally discrete rather than SQ separation-compromised.

Are you referring to Poco's Crazy Eyes? In DTS? I have never seen it in the DTS section of Sam Goody. I have the SQ album and would love to have a discrete version.

 

[tcdriver]

Dear ss9001,

Larry Geller’s response seems to clear up some of the confusion about the SQ and dts versions of Abraxas. If they are from the same recording sessions and from the same master tape that was used to make the two channel version, the only explanation as to why the two channel version sounds much better to me than the dts version is due solely to the different balances and polishing used in the final mix.

My impression of the dts version was that it sounded like the engineer or producer had taken the multi-track master in a fairly raw form and distributed the instruments among the four (or 5.1) channels. Missing was the careful polish and balancing of the multiple tracks and levels that made the two channel version such an outstanding sonic experience as well as an outstanding musical experience.

I do not object to discrete placement of instruments in multi-channel music if it complements and enhances the performance. I do not object to the fact that the instruments were discretely placed in the dts Abraxas. What bothers me is that the production values in the multi-channel mix significantly detract from the performance compared to the two-channel version of the same recording, if indeed it is the same recording.

If you have not had the chance to really listen to the stereo (two-channel) version of Abraxas then you will not be able understand what I am talking about. If as you say you enjoy the SQ and dts versions of Abraxas then you may find that if you acquired and listened to the stereo (two-channel) version that your enjoyment may rise to a whole new level.

Sincerely yours,

tcdriver

 

[Quadro-Action]

Indeed, also I and other fans find, hat the CD DTS-Version of "Abraxas" will sound not with the optimal level.But that may have had the reason, that only 4-channel mastertapes with lower quality ( some rere-sordings) was available at the time of this DTS producing. By general and of course, a multichannel-version must have the same hifi-quality as the (very well "Abraxas") stereo-version.What to do? I have restored for me the Q8 of "Abraxas" for a self-made DTS-CD. So there is heard further a wanted big channel separation, but without a disturbing noise and by equalization you can produce also a higher level of bass. That is the real way for receiving a satisfying true quadraphonic original sound with well hifi quality on "modern" level. Especially, when a surround rerealizing of quadraphonic productions with SA-CD and DVD-Audio can not satisfy us - for example, when there is made a new mixdown with sound-places different from the quadraphonic original.
Also CD-4 will sound absolute well by a restoration. And so many from us will have hundreds of satisfying quadraphonic titles with different mediums. But at the moment the working by a restoration will by very difficult and will take many time. So I hope, that for the next year(s) there will by a computer technic, which is more easy as today. Then many surround-freaks can bring back the quadraphonic-sound with best results and an easy handling of the CD and - may be further - DVD.

 

[ss9001]

Dear ss9001,

I do not object to discrete placement of instruments in multi-channel music if it complements and enhances the performance. I do not object to the fact that the instruments were discretely placed in the dts Abraxas. What bothers me is that the production values in the multi-channel mix significantly detract from the performance compared to the two-channel version of the same recording, if indeed it is the same recording.

tc -
Good to hear back from you. Your comment above is why I suggested trying to find the SQ "version". To my ears, due to being more front to rear separation limited as all SQ recordings are, the soundfield seems more immersive and less distracting than the very discrete localizations may be. I wasnt sure what you were objecting to.

I probably should get the strictly stereo SACD and then I'll have all 3. :sun

One thing I did notice on the dts recording was that the vocals on some songs, such as Mother's Daughter, were so center channel fixed as to be somewhat point source compared to the left and right. The same effect is one of the things I didnt like about the SACD DSOTM on some songs. The SQ LP of DSOTM is more stereo-like (as it would be with SQ) for vocals and seems more balanced across the front soundstage. The vocals on Us and Them "floated" between the fronts , instead of being beamed at you which was a more pleasing effect.

I think I understand better your comments on the dts recording, that it sounded on the "rough" side, engineering-wise.

One comment on Larry Geller's post: for the dts recording, the engineers would have had to "separate" out the center and LFE channels so to say it's exactly the same as the quad may be a bit misleading.

Sincerely,
ss9001

 

[Larry Geller]

tc -
I probably should get the strictly stereo SACD and then I'll have all 3. :sun One comment on Larry Geller's post: for the dts recording, the engineers would have had to "separate" out the center and LFE channels so to say it's exactly the same as the quad may be a bit misleading.Sincerely,ss9001

The SACD sounds so good that it almost siounds like surround without any rear speakers, the sounstage is THAT wide (goes WAY past the left & right speakers)! I still wish that they included the strange quad mix also, like on Blow By Blow. as being on SACD rather than DTS might ameliorate some of its' flaws (no bass, non-coherent soundfield).

You are right about the center & LFE. DTS explains the re-purposing in their generic liner notes, but all placements are exactly the same as CBS' original quad mixes on all CBS-sourced DTS discs.

"Are you referring to Poco's Crazy Eyes? In DTS? I have never seen it in the DTS section of Sam Goody. I have the SQ album and would love to have a discrete version"

It's been out for years. Sounds amazing. I-A-B'd it with the SQ LP, and it's the same, but more of everything.

 

[KevinD9052]

"Are you referring to Poco's Crazy Eyes? In DTS? I have never seen it in the DTS section of Sam Goody. I have the SQ album and would love to have a discrete version"

It's been out for years. Sounds amazing. I-A-B'd it with the SQ LP, and it's the same, but more of everything.

Jeez, I've been buying DTS disks for about 2 years now and I never ran across it! I usually check Sam Goody and Best Buy. Maybe i should check the online stores like Amazon.

 

[johmbolayaSQ]

For those of us who "cut our teeth" on the quad titles.......its the stereo releases that seem "odd". I think Relayer's mention of the "strange cat like sounds" during Black Magic Woman might better be described as Carlo's "Aaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeee" panning around.

Everytime I hear it on the radio I notice that it is missing! Again, its just a matter of which version you're "used to"!

I always assumed it was one of the percussionists getting into the music and letting out a yell as they're building up during "Gypsy Queen".