- Joined
- Jan 9, 2013
- Messages
- 19,288
By fake, do you mean double stereo or subpar UPMIXES. In any event, I wonder if this would preclude Sony Japan from releasing them as QUAD SACDs?Only Amigos and Festival are fake.
By fake, do you mean double stereo or subpar UPMIXES. In any event, I wonder if this would preclude Sony Japan from releasing them as QUAD SACDs?Only Amigos and Festival are fake.
My fun has been with UPS. Their delivery estimates are terrible, especially when signature required.
Exactly! That's why I quit using them as a carrier.
I'd quote someone a price, then when I actually went to ship it, it was way more..
Fuel surcharges, & other variables...
I would wind up losing money..
Don't quite get that (and I had twin daughters, now 37, who had early 1970s prog. rock blasted at them while still in the womb). You should've put it on andOK- I couldn't really play it this weekend- as my 4 y old grandson stayed with me for the weekend.
Attention span of this grandson is 45 and half seconds. Trying to get him to sit for music...ain't gonna happen!!!Don't quite get that (and I had twin daughters, now 37, who had early 1970s prog. rock blasted at them while still in the womb). You should've put it on andintroduce,educate,condition, indoctrinate him into such music. Once he's old enough to discover what supposedly passes for "music" these days, he'll fondly remember bopping around with his grandad to 1970s Santana, recall some very happy memories, and ask grandad if he could please borrow that Santana III disc.
My 4 yo is good for about one song. If he's allowed to "dance".Attention span of this grandson is 45 and half seconds. Trying to get him to sit for music...ain't gonna happen!!!![]()
Attention span of this grandson is 45 and half seconds. Trying to get him to sit for music...ain't gonna happen!!!![]()
By fake, do you mean double stereo or subpar UPMIXES. In any event, I wonder if this would preclude Sony Japan from releasing them as QUAD SACDs?
The Q8 tape of Festival has the original stereo mix in the front speakers and artificially-generated echo in the rear speakers. It almost certainly wasn't remixed from a multitrack source. Amigos in decoded SQ has a similar sound, but there is no discrete tape to compare it to.I don't think I'd use the term fake . Maybe just a poor quad mix and subsequent SQ encode .
The Q8 tape of Festival has the original stereo mix in the front speakers and artificially-generated echo in the rear speakers. It almost certainly wasn't remixed from a multitrack source. Amigos in decoded SQ has a similar sound, but there is no discrete tape to compare it to.
Obviously, Jeffie, SOMEONE was ASLEEP at the mixing console.......and I'm sure it wasn't CARLOS!Does anyone know why these two Santana quads after a superb run of great mixes were put out as fake quad? I just dont get it.
Does anyone know why these two Santana quads after a superb run of great mixes were put out as fake quad? I just dont get it.
One theory I've heard (I think it was @steelydave who originally posted this a few years ago?) is that CBS didn't want to pay for the studio time needed to do the remix. Steven Wilson mentioned in an interview recently that some of his 5.1 remix projects can take weeks to complete, and he's working entirely in the digital domain. I can only imagine how much more time-consuming/difficult it would be to create a surround mix entirely in the analog domain. Quad LPs were never a big money-maker, but by 1976-77 there was barely anyone buying them - so it's sort of understandable why they'd put the minimal cost/effort into creating something that wasn't going to sell many copies to begin with.Does anyone know why these two Santana quads after a superb run of great mixes were put out as fake quad? I just dont get it.
A plausible theory, Jonathan, but the same can be said today for modern Surround remixes ..... catering STILL to a smallish niche market and with inflation, etc., those $8~10 QUAD LPs in the mid to late 70's translate into $60+ in today's market. And those 70's multi tracks were as fresh as daisies in those days while the search for the absolute multi tracks today in itself sometimes represents great expense and super sleuthing!One theory I've heard (I think it was @steelydave who originally posted this a few years ago?) is that CBS didn't want to pay for the studio time needed to do the remix. Steven Wilson mentioned in an interview recently that some of his 5.1 remix projects can take weeks to complete, and he's working entirely in the digital domain. I can only imagine how much more time-consuming/difficult it would be to create a surround mix entirely in the analog domain. Quad LPs were never a big money-maker, but by 1976-77 there was barely anyone buying them - so it's sort of understandable why they'd put the minimal cost/effort into creating something that wasn't going to sell many copies to begin with.
By the end of 1975 CBS realized that quad wasn't going to achieve mass market adoption, and moved from trying to get everything they put out also mixed in quad to a more selective approach, where only big sellers and marquee names would get the quad treatment. Who can blame them for the change of tack too, how many copies of stuff like Lee Michaels Nice Day for Something or the two Buddy Miles quads made their way to the cutout bins, along with a lot of early CBS quad releases? I think Stan Kavan may have said explicitly that they were moving to this more selective approach on one of those WNYC Men of Hi-Fi shows from 1975, in fact. RCA did exactly the same thing in 1975, the only difference being that they released far fewer quads in '75 and '76, and none in 1977 whereas CBS did a fair few.One theory I've heard (I think it was @steelydave who originally posted this a few years ago?) is that CBS didn't want to pay for the studio time needed to do the remix. Steven Wilson mentioned in an interview recently that some of his 5.1 remix projects can take weeks to complete, and he's working entirely in the digital domain. I can only imagine how much more time-consuming/difficult it would be to create a surround mix entirely in the analog domain. Quad LPs were never a big money-maker, but by 1976-77 there was barely anyone buying them - so it's sort of understandable why they'd put the minimal cost/effort into creating something that wasn't going to sell many copies to begin with.
Fizzy, there's no doubt that you love quad and that you've brought a ton of interesting information here, but your continued insistence in this thread (and many others like it) on ignoring overwhelming, often incontrovertible evidence in favour of continuing to propagate thoroughly-debunked rumors and baseless hearsay (often from outdated print publications) about the existence of supposed quad mixes does the hobby a great disservice. Not just in terms of muddying the waters intellectually, but also by encouraging people to spend their hard-earned money chasing quad El Dorados (not the ELO album) that never existed in the first place. You can't simply wish this stuff into existence - this album never had a real "bad quad mix", the Tommy soundtrack never had a QS release, and Captiol Records never released a dozen QS stealth quads in 1974 - no matter how many times you repeat the story.Again not fake quad, does a bad quad mix . And subsequent SQ Encode .
Its arrived! Along with the Chick Corea - Return To Forever SACD.In transit![]()
Enter your email address to join:
Register today and take advantage of membership benefits.
Enter your email address to join: