Does anyone know anything about how this is being produced? Specifically, I'm curious about the mixes... are they remixing or are they just taking a stock 70s quad mix off the shelf? I have heard a dozen or so old 70s quad mixes on various legacy releases, and the quality of the mixing is very inconsistent. Has anyone heard Chicago's quad mixes?
You are correct, the quad mixes I've heard are inconsistent. The best quad mix I've heard is Earth Wind and Fire's, "Head to the Sky." It has killer bass. However, since it is a 4.0 mix, there is no sub so you will need full range left and right speakers to hear the bass.
I'm seeing quite a few Chicago DVD-A quad discs up for sale since this set has been announced. I'd be curious as well if the new set will be remixed or will the old mixes be used. I'm not a big fan of Chicago but if the cost goes below $100 I might grab the set.
Edit:
Just found this over at Blu-ray.com. It states that "To ensure optimal sound quality, Rhino has remastered each album in both its original quadrophonic and stereo mix on each disc, and so that the quadrophonic mix will play on surround sound systems".
That didn't happen until after Chicago VII, so you are pretty safe with this set. CTA, Chicago II, III, V, VI and VII are some of their strongest albums (way before Peter Cetera started dominating - that really started with X).
I'm just happy that something other than self important art rock noodling is being released in multichannel! It's as if the people deciding what to remix for surround are 17 years old and high as a kite.
Art Rock Noodling = Yes, Anthony Philips, Jethro Tull, Pink Floyd, King Crimson, etc.
I would love to see multichannel Stevie Wonder or Prince or Michael Jackson or just about anything with real strings and real horn sections, not cheesy 70s synths. Stuff that was recorded live and direct without a bunch of overdubbing and psychedelic phase shifts and ping pong stereo. Maybe even some (gasp!) jazz or soul for a change.
Art Rock Noodling = Yes, Anthony Philips, Jethro Tull, Pink Floyd, King Crimson, etc.
I would love to see multichannel Stevie Wonder or Prince or Michael Jackson or just about anything with real strings and real horn sections, not cheesy 70s synths. Stuff that was recorded live and direct without a bunch of overdubbing and psychedelic phase shifts and ping pong stereo. Maybe even some (gasp!) jazz or soul for a change.
Thanks for your explanation . I have to admit that I never knew I was a big fan of "Art Rock Noodling" . Multichannel music from Stevie Wonder, Prince or Michael Jackson would be cool. Although I'm not big fans of any of those artists I'd still be interested.
Not a whole lot of jazz and soul multichannel music available. Although I do have some great multichannel jazz SACDs from Dave Brubeck, Miles Davis, Gene Harris, Ray Brown, Jimmy Cobb and Stan Getz. There are some from the DMP label as well. Unfortunately most of these are OOP and hard to find at decent prices.
Check out Nickel Creek - Self-Titled and Nickel Creek - This Side.
These are both stereo/multichannel SACDs and sound excellent. Some may not consider it all "traditional" bluegrass, but there is plenty there, and other material that is more a blend of styles. Regardless, the musicians are top-notch.
And if you can find it at a price you're willing to pay, there's always Alison Krauss & Union Station - Live. Or just get the much cheaper DVD and enjoy watching her perform along with multichannel sound (but not lossless).
...sorry for the interruption ....I'll now take you back to Chicago
I like Las Vegas lounge bands. I would love to hear multichannel big band and pop vocal too. I bet there's Reprise era Sinatra or later Ella that could be remixed. I went to see Ray Price and he had a western swing band backing him and the sound was incredible- like nothing I've every heard on records. Western swing would be great too.
The one thing I found in my own system is that bass is the hardest thing to balance. I used the automatic EQ on my AVR and it completely shut off my Sunfire sub because it was capable of going lower and louder than the AVR wanted. So I tuned it by ear, which requires a lot of work because spikes in the sub bass are very hard to detect since they only exist in certain recordings. I finally used a tone sweep and nailed it. Once I balanced it, most everything sounded fine, but before bass was all over the map with somethings sounding thin and others sounding tubby and thick.
The big reason to use a sub is to take the heavy lifting off the mains so they can produce the 80Hz and up cleaner and more efficiently. If balanced properly adding a sub is an improvement over just using full range mains.
I use a sub on everything but 2 channel music or 4.0 or 5.0 sources which are few indeed. I don't use auto eq because I don't think they are accurate in that every time you run them, you get different results even though the room has not changed.
Auto EQ didn't work for me either. I spent a few weeks adjusting by ear to get the rough levels slugged in, then ran tone sweeps to fine tune a little. I really prefer having a center channel for vocals and filling in the phantom center, but 4 channel is OK.
Also, the point of a sub isn't to produce louder bass, it's to produce frequencies below what a full range speaker can produce without struggling. My Sunfire goes well below 20Hz. Even though my mains are as good as you could possibly hope for, they still can't get that low. The thing is, not all recordings contain those sub bass frequencies. When I did a first EQ pass on my system, it sounded fine with music on CD, but then I stumbled across a movie (Cabin in the Woods) that had a whole sequence drenched in super low frequency rumble. Suddenly balanced wasn't balanced any more and the plaster was shaking off my walls.
CTA was released on DVD-A years ago I believe, why not just re-issue it? I'm sure many would pick it up now. Having said that I'm not crazy about old quad mixes. What was the "verdict" on that subject when it was released?
Do you mean the Rhino quad that's taken on mythical proportions? There's a thread over at QQ that rates it. I think it was out for about 15 minutes before it sold out.
I have the CTA Quad that Rhino released. Even though I enjoy it from time to time, I think the way the mix was originally recorded for Quad systems don't necessarily transfer well for those with 5.1 systems. My back speakers are not full range speakers, like my fronts are. Yet, the quad mixes from those days (I'm assuming) were mixed for 4 full range speakers.Sometime you get some tracks with the bass (or brass) sitting in one of your rear speakers.
Given that, the first CTA (imho) is a classic. And, I'm glad to have the Quad Mix. Kind of makes me want to go our and spend my hard earned money on some full range back speakers, though. The remainder of their catalog is a bit of hit and miss. I do like the second one, but the stereo mix that I've heard is kind of so so. If they were able to clean up the sound, and have a nice sound field from the quad, I wouldn't mind owning that. But the rest of the catalog, I could take it or leave it.
The set arrived today. I have to admit, although I was peripherally aware of Chicago back in the day, I was never a fan and I didn't really follow them except on the radio. This box set has me re-evaluating them.
I've only had time to listen to Chicago Transit Authority and iX Greatest Hits. It appears that when it comes to sound quality, the first couple of albums aren't up to snuff. When I think of Chicago, I think of the brass section, but on Transit Authority, most of the time, the horns were tinny and all in the left rear channel. Even worse, the vocals were completely swallowed up by Quad. That center channel has a real purpose. Musically, aside from two fake Zappa noise tracks that were unendurable, I liked the album. But the drums were very dully recorded and the focus was on electric guitars, which don't really say "Chicago" to me.
The Greatest hits sounded much better, although it still had the signature Rhino sound with boosted upper mids and rolled off top end. At least the horns were recorded properly on the later songs. The four channel was nicely arranged on the later tracks, with occasional instances of the sound being placed in the middle of the room. I'm looking forward to hearing some of the later albums. But the vocals are a real problem on this set. Quad really makes me appreciate the Steely Dan and Elton John 5.1 SACDs.
Overall, I'd recommend this set. But I really wish it had a center channel and didn't have the Rhino top end roll off. Could be better, but it's still head and shoulders above crappy Quad like George Benson.
By the way, the liner notes say if you have your speakers set for bass management, it will sum the bass from all four channels. I can verify that is true. The bass on this is always full and it never is isolated in the small speakers in the back.
One last thing... If you are buying this for a hires 2 channel mix, don't waste your time. The stereo mix sounds deliberately hobbled to make the quad sound better. I've found this on SACDs too. Just a regular CD sounds better than the 2 channel layer.
"Deliberately hobbled" wow. That's a new one. Are you being serious or are you just making light on what you think of the two channel sound quality. Wouldn't it make more sense for them to please both the multichannel enthusiasts as well as the stereo ones so they sell more copies?
@sworth ,
Thanks for taking time to review. I am on the fence about buying this set? I was really moving forward on buying after the wife and I have recently seen Chicago and Earth Wind and Fire. Will have to dwell on this some more.
Thanks again,
Russ
I'll let you know after I get a chance to listen to more of the set, Russ. It's definitely one of the best quad mixes I own, and it sounds better than the two channel mix, but I suspect there may be some monkey business with the two channel tracks on this release.
Back when I first started buying SACDs, I wanted to determine if there was an audible difference, since the specs seemed to indicate otherwise. I had to get two players, because my SACD player couldn't switch quickly enough to do a line level matched A/B comparison between the SACD layer and the redbook layer. I discovered that there was a difference... in general, the redbook layer was more compressed and sometimes had a rolled off high end. But I found that the difference disappeared when I compared some SACDs against the standard issue remastered CD released at the same time. In fact, I found in several cases that the redbook layer was an entirely different mix than the SACD layer. I think that the CD layer in quite a few audiophile releases are deliberately hobbled to make the hires sound better.
In the case of Chicago Transit Authority, the CD layer sounds like an old radio shack cassette deck. I can't imagine that the 2 channel master would sound that awful. Rhino is known for monkey business in mastering. I wouldn't put it past them at all. I don't think anyone would buy a pricey quad box set to listen to 2 channel mixes that can be had for super bargain prices on CD. I would bet most people buying this box already have the CDs anyway. There really is no downside to hobbling the 2 channel.
If your talking about the MFSL sacd redbook layer, none of the reviews echo your criticism. The redbook layer of CTA sacd get good marks and is comparable to the gold cd version. I personally don't care about the two channel mix because the quad sounds so nice but both your posts here seem a bit paranoid. Buying two of the same cd players just so you can make comparisons seems a bit over the top. You don't trust your memory after multiple listening sessions? If it sounds like a "old radio shack cassette" as you put it, why would you need an A/B direct comparison? It should be obvious after a few notes.
Auditory memory for comparing two similar sounds lasts only a few seconds. Our memory for sound is much poorer than for visuals. Direct line level matched A/B switching is the only way to detect subtle differences. I'm pretty serious about my equipment. I want it to perform properly. I do line level matched A/B comparisons with every new piece of equipment before I add it to my system. I do the same for formats.
A lot of people don't bother, but that can make them worry that perhaps they aren't using the best format or codec. I know people who have spent weeks encoding MP3s just to go back and do them all over again because they thought they might have been losing some of the sound due to low bitrate. Other people go out and buy expensive SACDs even though the difference in specs between SACD and CD all lie outside of the range of human hearing. My music collection consists of tens of thousands of albums. It really isn't all that much trouble to do a controlled test so I know for sure.
I did a comparison between Little Feat's Waiting For Columbus. I compared the super discount regular CD against the MFSL. They were identical. I think the quality of the mixing and mastering of the source element matters more than the record label or whether it's SACD or CD. And I haven't found any correlation between the quality of source elements and the brand or format of the disc.
We can agree on your last point, the mix and mastering is king. I still think you are paranoid about companies going out of their way to make the redbook layer sound worse than the sacd layer intentionally. Yes they will sometimes put a different mix on the redbook but this is not very common, and I doubt it's to make the sacd sound superior, it is more about quality control and laziness.
AF and AP-produced SACDs are both statistical anomalies, Bill. The vast majority of SACDs that are out there on the market (new and used) have pretty sloppy redbook implementations. The fact that we just happen to currently be purchasing predominantly from organizations that are (A) still producing SACDs at all and (B) doing a great job with the redbook layer makes us smart for insulating ourselves to some degree from the other stuff that is out there, but it does not negate the vast presence of the crap work from which we try to insulate ourselves.
That said, I agree that AF and AP generally produce excellent discs all-around - and I would add Pentatone to the mix as well.
AF and AP-produced SACDs are both statistical anomalies, Bill. The vast majority of SACDs that are out there on the market (new and used) have pretty sloppy redbook implementations. The fact that we just happen to currently be purchasing predominantly from organizations that are (A) still producing SACDs at all and (B) doing a great job with the redbook layer makes us smart for insulating ourselves to some degree from the other stuff that is out there, but it does not negate the vast presence of the crap work from which we try to insulate ourselves.
That said, I agree that AF and AP generally produce excellent discs all-around - and I would add Pentatone to the mix as well.
This could be true but why the concern about the quality of the CD layer on an SACD? If the objective is to play the SACD layer and it's better SQ (mix and mastering dependent of course) then who cares about the CD layer. If one is concerned about the CD playback seek out the best version of any and all titles one is interested in on CD and forget about SACDs. One can get lousy SQ on SACDs without a doubt. That's why it's best to do ones homework and research all titles one is buying no matter what the audio format is.
We should start a thread on good and bad surround mixes. For every excellent Elton John or Steely Dan multichannel release, there are even more lousy repurposed 70s ping pong quad mixes from twice baked tapes, needle drops off distorted quad LPs, balances that bury vocals, or mushy digital reverbs replacing distinctive 60s wire reverbs. The problem is, most reviewers online don't seem to be able to tell a good multichannel mix from a bad one. A lot of people review as if, "Hey! It's got a massive sampling rate! It's GOTTA be good!"
Another of my conspiracy theories is that most people with surround systems in their homes have them implemented wrong... either their wife forced them to make horrible acoustic compromises to keep the living room tidy, they never figured out how to EQ and balance levels on each channel, or they have their system tweaked for boom boom bass in modern action movies, not music. I wonder what percentage of people listening to a multichannel SACD are actually hearing it properly.
You should go pay a visit to quadraphonicquad.com, which seems to be the place for all things surround-music-wise. There are polls and even a database of rated surround titles based on the polls.
I would venture that most folks surround systems are very poorly set up for music. I went out of my way, when building my system, to put perfectly-matched speakers in all 5 main positions. My fronts and surrounds are exactly the same speaker make and model (towers), and my center is horizontal but otherwise identical (drivers, crossover). I have two 8" subs rather than one large sub so the mid-bass frequencies are more accurately rendered without the speakers having to fight the inertia of a heavy magnet. (My AVR can independently delay the subs, so I don't get phase issues). I bought an AVR with DSP algorithms that actually compensate (to some degree) for the phase distortion created by the passive crossovers in my speakers. NONE of this was all that expensive - but the emphasis was on music and movies came second.
I think most folks are putting in tiny surrounds and big subs, which work great when you want Marvin's "earth shattering kaboom" and the rears are mostly just FX - which describes movie usage to a tee. Or they have a satellite/sub system where all the non-LFE speakers match but they are so severely compromised SQ-wise that music is noticeably inferior playing through them.
I've said this a ton of times here and in other places. Folks like us, the ones for whom listening to music IS an activity in and of itself, are anachronisms. Most folks don't actually sit down and listen to recorded music any more. Music for the masses is the backing track for some other activity - anything from vacuuming the rug to working out to shouting at your friends in a bar or restaurant (shouting because you have to compete with the music you are not listening to anyway). I think it is awful - but that seems to be the stark reality.
Side note because I have to vent after this weekend and this is at least tangentially related to what I wrote above - I LOVE music and I HATE music piped into bars and restaurants (live bands can be a different story). Let us talk and eat and drink please. The clanking of silverware and glassware and the murmur of conversation from the surrounding tables has a musical beauty of its own. Hearing the music that exists naturally in your environment was kind of Cage's point when he "wrote" 4' 33" It is REALLY hard to get that kind of experience any more - much less actually socialize with the people who you meet or who came with you. )
I've recently become aware of these Quad mix titles out there (through "Music Direct"), including this Chicago release. Was very curious of the mix quality, and how it adapts to conventional 5.1 configuration? Also what type of players read these disc's?
Thught I saw a Billy Cobham "Spectrum" quad release as well
The Chicago Quadio box set is all blu ray, so they'll play in any BD player. I find most original quad from back in the day (like the Chicago set) was meant for 4 full range speakers. I think you'll find this set to be quite active in the rears. Many 5.1 set ups today I find rely heavily on the front stage with the sides/rears being a little more ambient than back in the quad days, and therefore a lot of folks don't have side/rear speakers that match up with the fronts. This Chicago set is very impressive and sounds great (I'm set up for 7.1) on my stuff. It's no doubt a pricey set, but if you're a fan and have the coin, I don't think you'll regret the purchase.
The first couple of albums seem to have more instruments isolated in one of the rear channels than the later ones do. I am doing 5.1 with smaller rear channels, and once I got to the third album, the mixes were much more suited to a typical 5.1 setup. I'm not a big fan of horns when they're all in one rear channel- especially with Chicago. The first two albums did that and it annoyed me. My only complaint about quad mixes is that the vocals aren't as present as in true 5.1 where the vocals are in the center channel.
I've experimented using my Yamaha AVR's DSPs to process Quad to add a center channel, and I've found that often the Stereo to 7.1 DSP does a great job of synthesizing a real center out of the phantom center without affecting the separation in the rear channels. It's good to experiment with DSPs when you aren't totally happy with the way it sounds.
Small rears don't do this release justice. Lots of low end in the rears along with horns.I will listen to see if the horns are coming from one speaker. I don't remember that being the case. Some songs do have lead vocals in front right only and backup vocals in the front left. If you have access to your front and rear outputs, temporarily switch them to see how much music your missing in the rears. You will be surprised...
The problem isn't so much the size of the speakers, but the isolation to just one speaker. Having a little fill in another speaker fleshes out the sound considerably. Putting an element only in one channel is bad mixing in my opinion (which isn't uncommon in Quad mixes). Thankfully, the later albums don't squish the whole horn section into one channel, and those sound fine... not as good as true 5.1, but good. The big problem with quad is the missing center channel. In a large room with a wide space between mains the phantom center is bound to dip. That is more of a problem between the fronts than it is between the rears or fronts and rears. Quad really needs to have the speakers closer together in a pretty much empty room. Not lifestyle friendly unless you can dedicate a bedroom to being a listening room.
By the way, when I say "small speakers", that is only in comparison to my mains which are 15 inch 6 way studio monitors that were custom made for my brother back in the mid-70s. There's no way I'm ever going to be able to match those today, so I use good bookshelf speakers in the rear, and they can keep up with the mains fine. I've EQed them so they mesh tonally with the rest of the system.
The sub handles everything below 80Hz, but that doesn't mean I'm using dinky mains. The advantage of a subwoofer is that it takes a lot of the load off the mains, allowing them to render the 80Hz and up better. My Sunfire sub has power to spare. I'd never be able to get the same depth and balance of response using just mains.
I think it makes a big difference having the frequencies below 80hz coming from every corner in the room and every channel in a multichannel mix. 30+ years I didn't have it that way, now that I do, I wouldn't go back. Center channel discussion is for another thread, I run a full range center too and wouldn't change that because of all the great 5.1 mixes but a quality 4.0 mix with four timbre matched full range speakers, like the mixers recommend, will get you there too. I really love the mix and music of the CTA album, and I wouldn't chane a thing, but if Steven Wilson remixed it, I am sure I would buy that too and love that one also. The more multichannel mixes, the better. Both of our opinions are valid although we don't agree.
Sound down at 80Hz and below isn't directional. If you have decent room acoustics and a powerful enough sub, it will flow across the floor and fill the room like water. If you have lots of couches and chairs blocking the floor, you do probably need multiple subs. Cabinet speakers are not really a substitute for subs. I don't know any cabinet speakers that can put out a relatively flat response as low as my Sunfire sub can.
The other problem is power. In order to produce frequencies down around 20Hz and below, it takes a lot of watts. It isn't practical to pump that much power out to four separate speakers. My sub has an amp with something like 2500 watts of power. It doesn't actually deliver that much to the driver, but even if with normal music at normal volume it rarely gets above 1/10th that amount, that would still take multiple power amps to deliver to that much to five separate speakers.
As for timbre matched speakers, that will get you to your destination faster, but as long as a speaker can put out a full range of frequencies loud enough, you can equalize it to match the response of any other speaker that can do the same. You need to equalize for the room anyway, so it isn't a big deal. Flat response is the ideal and no speaker can do that without EQ in a real world room.
Sound down at 80Hz and below isn't directional. If you have decent room acoustics and a powerful enough sub, it will flow across the floor and fill the room like water. If you have lots of couches and chairs blocking the floor, you do probably need multiple subs. Cabinet speakers are not really a substitute for subs. I don't know any cabinet speakers that can put out a relatively flat response as low as my Sunfire sub can.
The other problem is power. In order to produce frequencies down around 20Hz and below, it takes a lot of watts. It isn't practical to pump that much power out to four separate speakers. My sub has an amp with something like 2500 watts of power. It doesn't actually deliver that much to the driver, but even if with normal music at normal volume it rarely gets above 1/10th that amount, that would still take multiple power amps to deliver to that much to five separate speakers.
As for timbre matched speakers, that will get you to your destination faster, but as long as a speaker can put out a full range of frequencies loud enough, you can equalize it to match the response of any other speaker that can do the same. You need to equalize for the room anyway, so it isn't a big deal. Flat response is the ideal and no speaker can do that without EQ in a real world room.
We just don't agree on your first sentence. No big deal. I can tell where a sub is. Four or five speakers jamming and only one channel of bass sitting somewhere, it sticks out to me, rather than blend. A full range of sound, from the direction it was mixed to for me.
The wavelength at 80Hz is about 14 feet. That is probably pretty close to the size of your room. When that starts bouncing around, there is no way for human ears to pinpoint it. Subs put out frequencies as low as 15Hz, which has a wavelength of about 70 feet. http://www.soundoctor.com/freq.htm
Unless your room has some major acoustic defects like dead spots or massive reflection points (which I doubt it does) there is no way you can hear directionality of sub bass. You are probably being fooled by the directionality of the frequencies you can hear that are present in the music at the same time. You could easily do a blindfolded test using test tones to confirm this if you want.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
AVS Forum
34M posts
1.5M members
Since 1999
A forum community dedicated to home theater owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about home audio/video, TVs, projectors, screens, receivers, speakers, projects, DIY’s, product reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!