DSOTM Aust Quad pressing, weird mix?

[FR DRew]

Aside from CD, the only versions of Pink Floyd's DSOTM I have heard have been Australian Quad pressings.  It has taken a long time to get my vinyl rig to a point where it is, and often, by the time I get to the last track, I'm not concentrating terribly hard.

 

A few months back, my wife and I took the chance to have a proper listen all the way through, and noticed something odd on the last track.

 

The male vocal and the backing singers are recorded in two very very different acoustics, one with a good degree of audible space and reverb, and one which is acoustically dead and sounds more like a point source.

 

The result (on the quad pressing at least) is that the studio acoustic space seems to pop in and out of existence, depending on the swap from lead vocal to backing singers.

 

Given the care taken sound wise with Floyd albums, acoustics, background effects and environment, it seems very odd to me that they would have let such an odd effect through to the keeper.

 

Is this same thing evident on non quad (mfsl, early UK harvest etc) versions?

[Hergest]

It's years since I listened to my UK Quad pressing of DSOTM. Can't remember now all my reasons why I thought it was an abomination but I do remember the mix was horrible so I haven't bothered to listen again and pick out the faults.

 

The stereo mix of the album has always been a joy to behold I think.

 

Mike Oldfield took on quad with a passion and remixed his early albums in that format. Being a lover of Oldfield's music I've collected all the quad copies I can get just for the sake of it. They are shite.

[Janjuggler]

1 hour ago, Hergest said:

It's years since I listened to my UK Quad pressing of DSOTM. Can't remember now all my reasons why I thought it was an abomination but I do remember the mix was horrible so I haven't bothered to listen again and pick out the faults.

 

The stereo mix of the album has always been a joy to behold I think.

 

Mike Oldfield took on quad with a passion and remixed his early albums in that format. Being a lover of Oldfield's music I've collected all the quad copies I can get just for the sake of it. They are shite.

Hi @FR DRew @Hergest

 

You had to have a special TT , cartridge and amp from memory to play the Quad pressing, as well as 4 speakers, very unusual for the time and fairly expensive for a decent setup for maybe a few hundred releases.

 

Think Betamax 4 Quad and VHS for Stereo

 

JJ

Edited July 3, 2018 by Janjuc

[audiofeline]

The quad LP is mixed/pressed for quad playback.  The mix will be different when reproduced on a stereo system.  Some people collect quad LPs who don't have quad playback systems, and enjoy looking for the different stereo playback to gain more insight into the performance and recording.  This, and the small number of existing disks, makes quad pressings collectable.  I believe that some people are able to play the four channels through their 5.1 home theatre systems with appropriate hardware, but I'm not an expert in this. 

 

I do have a friend who uses the quad DSOTM as his preferred stereo mix and as a demo disk, he feels it has better imaging and soundstaging.  In my years of record crate diving there have been a few quad disks of favourite records I've been interested in acquiring, but never found (and I don't want to pay crazy money for either).  Who knows what I may find in an op shop.

[FR DRew]

My understanding was that Australia only got the quad version.

 

I don't really care about the quad side of things, what I'm wanting to know is if this phenomenon of the audible space in the studio popping in and out of existence is there in the regular stereo pressings as well...   Or is it just a quirk of the quad mix we got here in Australia?

[FR DRew]

Q4 SHVLA 804

[Willco]

Yes funny you should bring this up--I was at RMAF Show when James Guthrie and Chad Kassem demoed the Master tape edit 

 

Quad version in the venue Concert hall with multi amps/etc with the BIG ATCs placed around the room. Frankly it was Bl**dy awful!

 

--I left after two tracks--nothing seemed to be coherent 

 

the sound was all over the place--damn strange for a Launch Demo-- I wouldn't buy it on that score

 

I agree something is wrong with that YVMV.

 

My old 74 UK Harvest still rules--ha!

 

Willco

[michaelw]

i've got a funny nz pressing.

all indications are that it is a regular stereo pressing but the deadwax reads ...  SQ QUAD

it sounds rather harsh compared with other versions - uk, emi 100, emi 30

so another vote for the early uk pressing, beats all comers including the $$$$ mofi uhqr.

 

Edited July 4, 2018 by michaelw

[LuzArt]

The quad mix can't be accurately judged from listening to it in stereo only. But I certainly remember being thrilled to hear different elements throughout Dark Side as a teenager when I discovered dad had a quad pressing.

Not sure a different acoustic space was used for the vocals you mention. What I do know is that Alan Parsons was left to his own devices to create the quad mix in either '74 or '75. No members of the band were involved. There's every chance Parsons decided to play around with different reverbs/delays in his quad mix.

When the 5.1 surround mix was released on SACD to celebrate the 30th Anniversary in 2003, Parsons was pretty perturbed that he wasn't approached to do the mix himself. He consequently leaked his 4.0 mix on the net via files designed to be burnt onto DVD. He feels his mix is superior.

In around 2011/2012 (?) when the Immersion box sets were released, the Dark Side set included the original 4.0 quad mix on the BD and DVD discs. This allowed you to hear Parson's quad mix direct from the tapes - without the vagaries of the encoding/decoding of the SQ Quadraphonic system for the vinyl. Furthermore, the different mixes are able to be A/B'd on these discs (Wish You Were Here included) similar to commentary on films. You can switch between 5.1, 4.0 and 2.0. Pretty cool as you can also discover that the quad mixes often have different durations. For example, the jam in the second half of Shine On You Crazy Diamond has an extra 20-30 seconds.

The original quad mix of Echoes is available in the Early Years set and on one of those discs, a whole new 5.1 mix of Meddle was left on, even after Waters insisted it be removed. They removed the text on the packaging but the data remains as somewhat of an easter egg! 

I feel the 5.1 Guthrie mix is the best way to enjoy this album. He was able to go right back to the original multitracks and pull every bit of Mason's drums to the mix. The original stereo mix is at least 2nd generation tape as they had to bounce down so many parts for the final mix. That said, there's a pretty amazing sounding youtube clip of a master tape copy of the stereo master, better than any stereo release I've heard before and that's filtered through YouTube compression!

See you on the dark side of the moon

Edited July 16, 2018 by LuzArt
Typo

[MattyW]

I've a Quad first press.... Far far prefer my repress from JB Hi-Fi 

[hlov]

I believe you need a quadraphonic rig for enjoy it I have the OZ quad press and like it a lot, I have an Ortofon black which has a Shibata Stylus so not sure if that makes a difference tough, the article http://www.hi-fiworld.co.uk/av-receivers/40-av-knowledge/126-quadraphonics.html  mentions that kind of stylus.

 

There's a review of that version in :

 

https://binged.it/2mDe30c 

 

 

 

 

 

[Richard Tremain]

I bought my DSM in 1973 the first Aust releases (which also sold in NZ.) were all Quad. i dont know about mix subtleties but some believe the Quad has superior sound quality (mostly in the treble) to Stereo versions, you need a good T.T. with a expertly aligned cartridge (from memory the HF is better or extended in the cutting) this may have a bearing on how you hear the mix.  Either way i do not think a re-issue from JB hi fi  would even be playable in my system.  

[Jaykobe]

On 25/07/2018 at 6:57 PM, Richard Tremain said:

I bought my DSM in 1973 the first Aust releases (which also sold in NZ.) were all Quad. i dont know about mix subtleties but some believe the Quad has superior sound quality (mostly in the treble) to Stereo versions, you need a good T.T. with a expertly aligned cartridge (from memory the HF is better or extended in the cutting) this may have a bearing on how you hear the mix.  Either way i do not think a re-issue from JB hi fi  would even be playable in my system.  

Richard, I feel you're onto something here. I don't have an early UK pressing so I can't speak for those, but I do have a  Japanese 1st cut, Japanese 3rd press, the 30th Anniversary Kevin Gray cut and an aussie quad cut. I prioritise clarity and an open sound more than other attributes, and in this sense, the aussie quad cut i own is superior to the other 3. I have heard some mention that the quad cuts sound weird, but I wonder if that's because they're running a spherical or elliptical stylus. No doubt the shibata would be the ideal choice, but I run a fine line contact stylus and it sounds fine on that. Just thinking that may be a factor in deciding.

[Candyflip]

11 hours ago, Jaykobe said:

Richard, I feel you're onto something here. I don't have an early UK pressing so I can't speak for those, but I do have a  Japanese 1st cut, Japanese 3rd press, the 30th Anniversary Kevin Gray cut and an aussie quad cut. I prioritise clarity and an open sound more than other attributes, and in this sense, the aussie quad cut i own is superior to the other 3. I have heard some mention that the quad cuts sound weird, but I wonder if that's because they're running a spherical or elliptical stylus. No doubt the shibata would be the ideal choice, but I run a fine line contact stylus and it sounds fine on that. Just thinking that may be a factor in deciding.

Here's quite a few of those pressings you mentioned, plus others, AND the aussie Quad, to hear back to back.

 

for me, the Quad is clearly the worst - without a Quad setup, it's just...strange.

should not be a surprise - it's crippled without the supprt system.

 

 

[Jaykobe]

9 hours ago, Candyflip said:

Here's quite a few of those pressings you mentioned, plus others, AND the aussie Quad, to hear back to back.

 

for me, the Quad is clearly the worst - without a Quad setup, it's just...strange.

should not be a surprise - it's crippled without the supprt system.

 

 

Funny that I was recently at someone else's place, listening to different DSOTM pressings on their system. They mentioned the same thing several weeks ago, that the quad pressing sounded weird. He had 2 of the quad presses when I turned up, we listened to one of them and a few others such as the mofi, 3rd japanese press, etc and he said this time, it actually sounds pretty good. Didn't hear the 2nd quad cut he had so no idea if there are variations in the Aussie quad cut. The one I have, has the best clarity of all, less muffled. For example, the ticking of the secondhand right at the beginning is much more noticeable than the other pressings. Also on the track Time, the female vocals are more impactful on the quad. Another difference is the placement of Sid's voice at the beginning, it's more to the left than other pressings. The placement doesn't bother me at all. And ppl say the 30th anniversary was cut hot, trust me my copy of the aussie quad was cut hotter.

[Candyflip]

2 hours ago, Jaykobe said:

Funny that I was recently at someone else's place, listening to different DSOTM pressings on their system. They mentioned the same thing several weeks ago, that the quad pressing sounded weird. He had 2 of the quad presses when I turned up, we listened to one of them and a few others such as the mofi, 3rd japanese press, etc and he said this time, it actually sounds pretty good. Didn't hear the 2nd quad cut he had so no idea if there are variations in the Aussie quad cut. The one I have, has the best clarity of all, less muffled. For example, the ticking of the secondhand right at the beginning is much more noticeable than the other pressings. Also on the track Time, the female vocals are more impactful on the quad. Another difference is the placement of Sid's voice at the beginning, it's more to the left than other pressings. The placement doesn't bother me at all. And ppl say the 30th anniversary was cut hot, trust me my copy of the aussie quad was cut hotter.

I'd agree mainly with this: the Quad is super trebly in some areas, and entirely missing whole musical pieces in others.

I assume the missing pieces are where the Quad channels go?

 

Either way, I doubt it is 'as the maker intended' or even close to the studio tape sound, and for that, it is an utter failure for me.

YMMV.

[Richard Tremain]

On 23/05/2023 at 8:14 PM, Candyflip said:

I'd agree mainly with this: the Quad is super trebly in some areas, and entirely missing whole musical pieces in others.

I assume the missing pieces are where the Quad channels go?

 

Either way, I doubt it is 'as the maker intended' or even close to the studio tape sound, and for that, it is an utter failure for me.

YMMV.

Your technical assumptions are just that a non understanding of the medium to decry the medium.

I have a very very good CD player and 2 samples of DSM one being the original release the other a later remaster which is less good. Taking the original likely not Quad but the closest available it plays really good  how ever it is clearly beaten by the Quad LP it would not be possible for this referencing

to be so if Quad had deficencies  you describe to it. Not saying that your listen experience is not as you say it is but i would not chisel it in Granite just yet.

[TelePhil]

I can't add much to this discussion other than to say that I recently picked up a Q4 SHVLA 804 version of DSOTM on FB Marketplace and, when played in stereo on my old Thorens TD160 (Garrott P77),  sounds very fairly different to my CD version. A lot more treble for sure. More clarity?  Possibly. Better or worse? I cannot yet say.

[David.M]

On 25/05/2023 at 5:34 PM, Richard Tremain said:

Your technical assumptions are just that a non understanding of the medium to decry the medium.

I have a very very good CD player and 2 samples of DSM one being the original release the other a later remaster which is less good. Taking the original likely not Quad but the closest available it plays really good  how ever it is clearly beaten by the Quad LP it would not be possible for this referencing

to be so if Quad had deficencies  you describe to it. Not saying that your listen experience is not as you say it is but i would not chisel it in Granite just yet.

Have to say I'm with @Candyflipregarding the Quad.  Until I bought the MFSL in 1980-81 I'd only ever heard the AU Quad, I'll confess up to that time I don't think I had paid any attention to the Quad 'SQ" logo or what it meant but clearly the MFSL sounded like a different mix, I've since assumed the main issue is hearing the Quad on a stereo system.

I still have the MFSL but have since bought UK 1st, 2nd & 3rd (now sold) pressings, the A2/B2 1st is imo the best and what I play.  A few yrs ago I gave the Quad a spin after playing the UK 1st, I didn't finish listening to the Quad as it was so thin & weak in comparison, just had no bottom end and while gave the feeling of more midrange/treble I wouldn't say it had more detail.  The Quad is certainly missing some bits.

I've had 2 or 3 CD versions from around the 1990's but the original SACD (stereo DSD layer) is imo closest to the UK 1st LP, I've not heard any of the more recent re-issues.

Edited June 5, 2023 by David.M

[Richard Tremain]

On 05/06/2023 at 12:00 PM, David.M said:

Have to say I'm with @Candyflipregarding the Quad.  Until I bought the MFSL in 1980-81 I'd only ever heard the AU Quad, I'll confess up to that time I don't think I had paid any attention to the Quad 'SQ" logo or what it meant but clearly the MFSL sounded like a different mix, I've since assumed the main issue is hearing the Quad on a stereo system.

I still have the MFSL but have since bought UK 1st, 2nd & 3rd (now sold) pressings, the A2/B2 1st is imo the best and what I play.  A few yrs ago I gave the Quad a spin after playing the UK 1st, I didn't finish listening to the Quad as it was so thin & weak in comparison, just had no bottom end and while gave the feeling of more midrange/treble I wouldn't say it had more detail.  The Quad is certainly missing some bits.

I've had 2 or 3 CD versions from around the 1990's but the original SACD (stereo DSD layer) is imo closest to the UK 1st LP, I've not heard any of the more recent re-issues.

I think this subject goes into the who knows what basket of different views but if you find MFSL different to Quad i would expect it to be different to the UK. pressings as well else there would be no point to it! Also i think the Quad System was more focused on the higher freq distribution than the bass which people dont seem to comment one way or the other as you are aware of the HF it may point to a balance issue in your system as in my set up Bass is definately not an issue.

[David.M]

12 hours ago, Richard Tremain said:

I think this subject goes into the who knows what basket of different views but if you find MFSL different to Quad i would expect it to be different to the UK. pressings as well else there would be no point to it! Also i think the Quad System was more focused on the higher freq distribution than the bass which people dont seem to comment one way or the other as you are aware of the HF it may point to a balance issue in your system as in my set up Bass is definately not an issue.

The Quad is a different mix compared to the stereo,  I assume this is more to do with mastering as a stereo cartridge is still going to recover & play back all the groove info (I did some reading, SQ Quad LP playback is a 4 channel mix folded down to 2 channel to go onto the LP then processed back to 4 channels by a suitably equiped amp).

The MFSL & UK press (& probably most/all stereo presses) are the same mix but the MFSL seems to have different EQ applied, it still plays without a click/pop but I prefer the original.  imo the MFSL isn't worth today's prices, a n/m UK 3rd press is better for a lot less $.

My comment about the Quad's lack of bass are how it compares to early UK presses/MFSL,  I'm certain it's either the Quad mix or source tapes used to cut the AU Quad.  My system/room's bass measures reasonably well  https://www.stereonet.com/forums/topic/543830-rew-measurements-for-speakerlp-positioning/?do=findComment&comment=6023459 

 

[Richard Tremain]

I am rather amazed at the number of people who have some sort of difficulty with the playing of DSM regardless of what version they have. I have allways found DSM more than any other LP i know of, rather immune to freq balance or freq response errors.

One of the first times i heard it was at a Dealer evening in Melbourne via an extreamly bright system running Gale Chrome end speakers. The Clock strike and Cash registrars had a good 10db Treble boost which gave them a blazing attention getting quality yet few people or the Dealer made comment the system was bright.

I have also played it on Bass heavy systems which made another area of the recording a stand out.

DSM seems to play as DSM with out there being an accuracy requirement or even a clue to what the Studio Tape balance was.

One way to tell is on the striking of Big Ben one of the few non Studio created sounds. The Strike should have a mid to low depth to it and a full range of frequencys but none being predominant.

The fact it is a Studio Creation absolves it from needing to be correct on replay.

[Jaykobe]

Everyone's opinion will vary and I'm totally ok with that. Everyone has different systems, different personal preferences, etc. 

For myself, i prioritise clarity over more pronounced bass. The 30th cut by Kevin Gray had more bass, but to me (despite Kevin's attempts and he is my favourite mastering engineer) the tape he used to cut the lacquer sounded tired, like it had been played to death and started to lose some clarity and some of the higher frequencies. If correct, it's probably why you'll never see another DSOTM release cut directly from the master tapes. 

Out of the DSOTM copies I own, Jap 1st press, 3rd press, 30th anniv, the Quad sounds the clearest and most revealing.

[Richard Tremain]

On 09/06/2023 at 9:51 PM, Jaykobe said:

Everyone's opinion will vary and I'm totally ok with that. Everyone has different systems, different personal preferences, etc. 

For myself, i prioritise clarity over more pronounced bass. The 30th cut by Kevin Gray had more bass, but to me (despite Kevin's attempts and he is my favourite mastering engineer) the tape he used to cut the lacquer sounded tired, like it had been played to death and started to lose some clarity and some of the higher frequencies. If correct, it's probably why you'll never see another DSOTM release cut directly from the master tapes. 

Out of the DSOTM copies I own, Jap 1st press, 3rd press, 30th anniv, the Quad sounds the clearest and most revealing.

Interesting information. Regarding bass when i reference CD (and bass is one of the areas less effected by digital) i do not recall any real difference between that and the Quad. I know there was more care taken in production of all Quad LPs than normal recordings, that you would think would be of benefit.

[David.M]

On 11/06/2023 at 1:08 PM, Richard Tremain said:

Interesting information. Regarding bass when i reference CD (and bass is one of the areas less effected by digital) i do not recall any real difference between that and the Quad. I know there was more care taken in production of all Quad LPs than normal recordings, that you would think would be of benefit.

an old thread but this may be of interest to you, Alan Parsons in an interview with Rick Beato explains briefly that the Quad mix is missing some parts of the stereo mix simply because it was just he (AP) aided by a tape operator who did that mix and he couldn't physically handle all inputs/find all the tapes that made up the stereo mix (says this at 15:30 in the interview)