add to wish list | library


17 of 22 recommend this,
would you recommend it?

yes | no

Support this site by purchasing from these vendors using the paid links below. As an Amazon Associate SA-CD.net earns from qualifying purchases.
 
amazon.ca
amazon.co.uk
 
amazon.de
 
 
amazon.it
 
jpc

Discussion: The Doors: The Best of the Doors

Posts: 25
Page: 1 2 3 next

Post by Marpow May 26, 2015 (1 of 25)
Audio Fidelity/Acoustic Sounds in there "For Sale" description says:

"For the first time in 40 years the Quadrophonic 4.0 masters are being released."

I have the complete Doors set, Analogue Productions, in 5.1 Hybrid SACD. Wonderful, good enough, for me.

That said, what would be the advantage to this new soon to be released 4.0 disc. Sound Quality only, I already understand "The Best Of" part.

Post by rammiepie May 26, 2015 (2 of 25)
Marpow said:

Audio Fidelity/Acoustic Sounds in there "For Sale" description says:

"For the first time in 40 years the Quadrophonic 4.0 masters are being released."

I have the complete Doors set, Analogue Productions, in 5.1 Hybrid SACD. Wonderful, good enough, for me.

That said, what would be the advantage to this new soon to be released 4.0 disc. Sound Quality only, I already understand "The Best Of" part.

For completists, only, I suppose, Mark.

I have the six disc perception DVD~A 5.1 box but ordered it anyway.

I understand that especially on the early cuts (like Light My Fire) the surrounds are MORE aggressive than on either the AP or Perception Box sets to show off what was then the new format (CD~4 Quadradisc/Quad Open Reel).....even though that album was recorded on a four track analogue tape recorder.

It's also to bolster sales of QUAD SACDs from Audio Fidelity, which, let's face it, is the ONLY reissue company releasing in that format (save for a scant few AP titles)!

A relatively 'small' investment for the future?

Post by Lute May 26, 2015 (3 of 25)
Well, at least it is a different mix than the RBCD or LP version of The Best of the Doors. I mean many audiophiles/enthusiasts (including myself) buy different reissues of the exact same recording. Talk about completists! LOL! ;-)

Anyway, the buzz over on QQ is as Ralph mentioned, the 4.0 mix is more discrete in the rear channels...especially with songs from the first Album, which are basically 3.0 on the DVDA and SACD versions. And...there is also the historic aspect to consider. Many people want to listen to a piece of history along with some great music. Also... The tapes are in good condition and the mix supposedly sounds fantastic.

Mark, generally speaking many of the old Quad recordings seem to have a more aggressive, discrete use of the rear channels compared to 5.1. Pink Floyd's DSOTM and WYWH and Chicago's early albums were more immersive in the original 4.0 mix. Many QQ members prefer the original Quad mixes to the newer 5.1 mixes. The newer 5.1 mixes might have a more natural balance, but some of the excitement of the original 4.0 mixes has been lost. I don't have all the original Quad recordings and equipment, but this is the impression I get.

Post by rammiepie May 26, 2015 (4 of 25)
Lute said:



Anyway, the buzz over on QQ is as Ralph mentioned, the 4.0 mix is more discrete in the rear channels...especially with songs from the first Album, which is basically 3.0 on the DVDA and SACD versions. And...there is also the historic aspect to consider. Many people want to listen to a piece of history along with some great music. Also... The tapes are in good condition and the mix supposedly sounds fantastic.

Mark, generally speaking the many of the old Quad recordings seem to have a more aggressive, discrete use of the rear channels compared to 5.1. Pink Floyd's DSOTM and WYWH and Chicago's early albums were more immersive mix in the original 4.0. Many QQ members prefer the original Quad mixes to the newer 5.1 mixes. The newer 5.1 mixes might have a more natural balance, but some of the excitement of the original 4.0 mixes has been lost. I don't have all the original Quad recordings and equipment, but this is the impression I get.

Trust me, Brett: I did have all the CD~4, SQ paraphernalia of "the time" and it sucked big time. No wonder the format failed. Until QUAD Open Reel came along there was NO way to decode those vinyl encoded discs due to the poor decoders and receivers of the time.

Audio Fidelity, IMHO, is doing a STELLAR service for our small niche QUAD community and the expedience in which they release these titles is EXEMPLARY. No 'interminable' two year waits from announcement to release (AP, MoFi????).

Support your local Audio Fidelity enterprise. Marshall Blonstein (CEO of AF) and Company are superstars....on the QUAD Walk of Fame!

Post by Marpow May 26, 2015 (5 of 25)
Lute said:

Mark, generally speaking the many of the old Quad recordings seem to have a more aggressive, discrete use of the rear channels compared to 5.1. Pink Floyd's DSOTM and WYWH and Chicago's early albums were more immersive mix in the original 4.0. Many QQ members prefer the original Quad mixes to the newer 5.1 mixes. The newer 5.1 mixes might have a more natural balance, but some of the excitement of the original 4.0 mixes has been lost. I don't have all the original Quad recordings and equipment, but this is the impression I get.

Speaking of LOL, Brett.

"Discrete" is not in my Sterophile Audio Glossary.

http://www.stereophile.com/content/sounds-audio-glossary-glossary-d-e

Do you mean????????????? Definition of "Discrete" ?

Post by Lute May 26, 2015 (6 of 25)
rammiepie said:

Audio Fidelity, IMHO, is doing a STELLAR service for our small niche QUAD community and the expedience in which they release these titles is EXEMPLARY. No 'interminable' two year waits from announcement to release (AP, MoFi????).

Support your local Audio Fidelity enterprise. Marshall Blonstein (CEO of AF) and Company are superstars....on the QUAD Walk of Fame!

+ 4.0

To borrow one from Jackie Gleason... How sweet it is!!

Post by rammiepie May 26, 2015 (7 of 25)
Marpow said:

Speaking of LOL, Brett.

"Discrete" is not in my Sterophile Audio Glossary.

http://www.stereophile.com/content/sounds-audio-glossary-glossary-d-e

Do you mean????????????? Definition of "Discrete" ?

Discreet or discrete......hmmmmm!

Are you being discreet, Markie or is VG yelling at you from the back of the room (TURN that SH*T DOWN) being discrete....or, lacking discretion?

Discretion.......now, I'm sure that ain't included in your Stereophile Audio Glossary?

LOL!

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/discreet

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discrete

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discretion

Post by Lute May 26, 2015 (8 of 25)
Marpow said:

Speaking of LOL, Brett.

"Discrete" is not in my Sterophile Audio Glossary.

http://www.stereophile.com/content/sounds-audio-glossary-glossary-d-e

Do you mean????????????? Definition of "Discrete" ?

When I say "discrete", I mean the rear channels have separate or distinct parts (vocals, instruments, etc...) of a song that are different from the front speakers. (I am sure Kal Rubinson, Tailspin, or AmonRa could explain this more precisely.) But, multi-track recordings allow individual voices or instruments to be arranged in different speakers by sound engineers in 4.0 or 5.1 recordings.

As you already know and have experienced, there are many types of "surround" recordings. Some simply copy the information in the front speakers and put the same info (music) in the rear channels. It's like double stereo. These type of recordings are not discrete. It's fake surround.

And...even with true discrete mixes, there are varying degrees. Some have a few discrete parts and a lot of reverb of the music of the front speakers in the rear channels. On the other end of the spectrum, some "surround" recordings are very discrete (aggressive) and have completely different or "discrete" parts in each speaker.

I hope my explanation makes sense.

If anyone wants to add or correct this definition, please feel free.

Post by rammiepie May 26, 2015 (9 of 25)
Lute said:

If anyone wants to add or correct this definition, please feel free.

Brett, I would amplify on your explanation to state that discrete would mean not only rears but fronts and sub (LFE) and center channels, as well....and then of course height and side channels.

Each channel is discrete (in a proper 5.1 configuaration) and now with 7.1, 9.1 Auro and Dolby Atmos (up to 62:2 channels in movie theaters) we have to UP THE ANTE as to what discrete really encompasses.

And as you ascertained......not ALL channels are discrete at all times and allowances must be made for silence in the rears or center, et alia, as dictated by individual choices created by the mixing engineer.

As I stated before, some mixing engineers have NO idea what to do with a center channel and choose for it to remain almost a phantom center......which as you know enrages a lot of 'diehard' 5.1ers!

And least we forget......Even QUAD done right is 5.0 as the l/r fronts create a phantom center if one's speakers are properly imaged (and actually, the rears too can create a center, as well if all the stars are in perfect alignment)!

Oh, the possibilities!

Post by bmoura May 26, 2015 (10 of 25)
Marpow said:

Speaking of LOL, Brett.

"Discrete" is not in my Sterophile Audio Glossary.

http://www.stereophile.com/content/sounds-audio-glossary-glossary-d-e

Do you mean????????????? Definition of "Discrete" ?

Try Wikiopedia on Discrete vs. Matrix:


Discrete (4-4-4) formats
========================
Discrete reproduction is the only true Quadraphonic system. As its name suggests, with discrete formats the original four audio channels are passed through a four-channel transmission medium and presented to a four-channel reproduction system and fed to four speakers. This is defined as a 4𣯖 system.

UD-4 / UMX / BMX (1973)
CD-4 (Compatible Discrete 4) / Quadradisc (1972)
Quad-8 (Q8) / Quadraphonic 8-Track (1970)
Q4 / Quadraphonic Reel to Reel (1969)



Matrix (4-2-4) formats
======================
With Matrix formats, the four channels are converted (encoded) down to two channels. These are then passed through a two-channel transmission medium (usually an LP record) before being decoded back to four channels and presented to four speakers. To transmit 4 individual audio signals in a stereo compatible manner, there must be four simultaneous linear equations to reproduce the original 4 audio signals at the output. The term 'compatible' indicates that:

A single channel (mono) system will reproduce all four audio signals in its one speaker.
A two-channel (stereo) system will reproduce the Left Front & Left Back audio signals in the Left speaker and the Right Front & Right Back signals in the Right Speaker.

The original systems (DY & EV-4) were basic and suffered from low front L/R separation (around 12db) and a poor rear L/R separation of 2db. The decoders were designed more to give an effect rather than accurate decoding, which was mainly due to limitations in both systems, although as both systems were very closely related mathematically,users only needed one decoder of either system to play back albums of both systems.

The poor decode performance was the main reason for their disappearance once the improved matrix systems arrived based on the work by Peter Scheiber. His basic formula utilized 90 degree phase shift circuitry to enable enhanced 4-2-4 matrix systems to be developed, of which the two main leaders were Columbia's SQ and Sansui's QS Systems.

The differences between the original systems and the new were so large that it made it impossible to decode DY/EV-4 with either SQ or QS decoders with any accuracy, the results being just a form of artificial quad.

This 4:2:4 process could not be accomplished without some information loss. That is to say, the four channels produced at the final stage were not truly identical to those with which the process had begun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadraphonic_sound

Page: 1 2 3 next

Closed