Wind Up (Quad Version)
WMitch2610
While listening to my 25th anniversary "Aqualung" the other day, it got me
wondering about the quad version of "Wind Up". I hope some of you can help me
with the following:
1. Was this song recorded at the time of the original "Aqualung" sessions?
Stylistically, it sounds as if it were although the copyright is 1974.
2. Was there a quadrophonic release of "Aqualung", and was this the version of
"Wind Up" on that release? It sounds rough around the edges to me, and I can't
imagine it being released as it sounds on the anniversary "Aqualung".
3. If the above release existed, has anybody owned it/ heard it, and how did it
sound?
Thanks,
Bill
ga...@starnetinc.com
Actually my *first* Tull "album" was the Quad-Aqualung on eight-track
(weren't the 70's great<g>). Then when my sister broke the tape, it was
replaced with the vinal (still Quad). I even still have the vinal, but
can no longer listen to it, as my turn-table hasn't worked for years. I
don't remember anything sounding too different.
GADS
Patrick Alexander
Michael Frasca <fra...@uic.edu> wrote:
: >2. Was there a quadrophonic release of "Aqualung", and was this the version of
: >"Wind Up" on that release? It sounds rough around the edges to me, and I can't
: >imagine it being released as it sounds on the anniversary "Aqualung".
: >3. If the above release existed, has anybody owned it/ heard it, and how did it
: >sound?
: I 'dabbled' with quad sound back in the seventies and still have a few original
: quad vinyl albums, including the quad Aqualung. The Wind-Up on the 25th
: Anniversary album sounded very similar to the quad vinyl version.
: Unfortunately, I don't have enough energy and desire to fire up the ol'
: turntable and make a head to head comparision.
What exactly is quadrophonic sound? Is it basically stereo using
four speakers as the name would suggest? Sounds pretty nifty if it is.
Patrick Alexander
Steven Davies-Morris
Patrick Alexander wrote in message ...
No it's not. I have stereo using 12 speakers and a Niles separator fed by
the "A" channel of my living room amplifier, and it is really neat. But it
definitely isn't quad. Quad was -- as it's name implies -- 4 separate
channels, though a quad phono cartridge would play stereo and give you
2 channels of each. Maybe there's a quadophile hanging around who can
shed more light on the subject.
Cheers
Steven Davies-Morris dav...@deltanet.com
Michael Frasca
wmitc...@aol.com (WMitch2610) wrote:
>1. Was this song recorded at the time of the original "Aqualung" sessions?
>Stylistically, it sounds as if it were although the copyright is 1974.
According to AND, no one knows where it came from. The best guess is that it
was a demo version that a Chrysalis enigineer stuck on the quad vinyl album
after grabbing the wrong tape.
This would be similar to the mix up with the original CD release of Aqualung
which was missing the last minute or so of Wind Up. This occured when an
engineer thought the song was over after the 'hard rock' section in the middle
of the tune.
>2. Was there a quadrophonic release of "Aqualung", and was this the version of
>"Wind Up" on that release? It sounds rough around the edges to me, and I can't
>imagine it being released as it sounds on the anniversary "Aqualung".
>3. If the above release existed, has anybody owned it/ heard it, and how did it
>sound?
I 'dabbled' with quad sound back in the seventies and still have a few original
quad vinyl albums, including the quad Aqualung. The Wind-Up on the 25th
Anniversary album sounded very similar to the quad vinyl version.
Unfortunately, I don't have enough energy and desire to fire up the ol'
turntable and make a head to head comparision.
Michael Frasca [fra...@uic.edu]
"Counting Stars by Candlelight..."
WMitch2610
>Thanks for the info, Michael. I'd always wondered what happened to that final
verse on "Wind Up".
Bill
>
>
>
>
Reinder Dijkhuis
In article <34aa9044...@news.cc.uic.edu>,
fra...@uic.edu (Michael Frasca) wrote:
>wmitc...@aol.com (WMitch2610) wrote:
>
>>1. Was this song recorded at the time of the original "Aqualung" sessions?
>>Stylistically, it sounds as if it were although the copyright is 1974.
>
>was a demo version that a Chrysalis enigineer stuck on the quad vinyl album
>after grabbing the wrong tape.
>
>This would be similar to the mix up with the original CD release of Aqualung
>which was missing the last minute or so of Wind Up. This occured when an
>engineer thought the song was over after the 'hard rock' section in the
middle
>of the tune.
.which would also be similar to the mix up on the EMI 100 vinyl reissue of
Stand Up, where the real ending (with a fade-out) of For a Thousand Mothers is
missing.
I'm still irritated at that, but a lot of these transfers are apparently done
as routine jobs by people who don't know the recording well.
Reinder Dijkhuis
http://www.noord.bart.nl/~samizdat/rovers.htm (news and updates on Reinder
Dijkhuis comics including De Rovers van Clwyd-Rhan and Tips for Lazy Buggers)
Steven Sullivan
Steven Davies-Morris (dav...@deltanet.com) wrote:
: Patrick Alexander wrote in message ...
: >Michael Frasca <fra...@uic.edu> wrote:
: >: >2. Was there a quadrophonic release of "Aqualung", and was this the
: version of
: >: >"Wind Up" on that release? It sounds rough around the edges to me, and I
: can't
: >: >imagine it being released as it sounds on the anniversary "Aqualung".
: >: >3. If the above release existed, has anybody owned it/ heard it, and how
: did it
: >: >sound?
: >
: >: I 'dabbled' with quad sound back in the seventies and still have a few
: original
: >: quad vinyl albums, including the quad Aqualung. The Wind-Up on the 25th
: >: Anniversary album sounded very similar to the quad vinyl version.
: >: Unfortunately, I don't have enough energy and desire to fire up the ol'
: >: turntable and make a head to head comparision.
: > What exactly is quadrophonic sound? Is it basically stereo using
: >four speakers as the name would suggest? Sounds pretty nifty if it is.
: >
: > Patrick Alexander
: >
: No it's not. I have stereo using 12 speakers and a Niles separator fed by
: the "A" channel of my living room amplifier, and it is really neat. But it
: definitely isn't quad. Quad was -- as it's name implies -- 4 separate
: channels, though a quad phono cartridge would play stereo and give you
: 2 channels of each. Maybe there's a quadophile hanging around who can
: shed more light on the subject.
Quad = 4 channel sound, like he said; stereo is two-channel. If, for
exmaple, you were a recording engineer mixing a 4-piece band's music, in
quad you could direct the guitar to one speaker, the bass to a second, the
drums to the third, and the vocals to the fourth. This would sound like
crap, but you get the idea. In two-channel, you'd always have to have at
least two instruments in the same channel.
Patrick Alexander
: >four speakers as the name would suggest? Sounds pretty nifty if it is.
: >
: > Patrick Alexander
: >
: No it's not. I have stereo using 12 speakers and a Niles separator fed by
: the "A" channel of my living room amplifier, and it is really neat. But it
: definitely isn't quad. Quad was -- as it's name implies -- 4 separate
: channels, though a quad phono cartridge would play stereo and give you
: 2 channels of each. Maybe there's a quadophile hanging around who can
: shed more light on the subject.
Actually, that's what I meant. Thanks for clearing things
up anyways. I think the same kind of thing exists currently, except for
three speakers. I seem to remember some amps having the option, but I
don't know exactly how it would work. Right now in my room I have four
speakers hooked up to stereo, which is still pretty nifty sounding.
Patrick Alexander
the muse
So ... I presume the reason quad is not a wide spread thing is the
discomfort the quad head phones cause.
http://www.geocities.com/soho/cafe/3604/
the muse
Matthew Thallmayer
the muse wrote:
>
> So ... I presume the reason quad is not a wide spread thing is the
> discomfort the quad head phones cause.
No, it more because many didn't want to buy twice as much
equipment (cost) and because as it's hard enough to properly
place two speakers, four is much more difficult. Unless, you have a
purpose built room. Plus, the "sweet spot" for quad is smaller.
Then, there were the competing formats. I think there 3 for
vinyl and one need a special cartridge.
Today, the stage is set for the return of quad. Cost of good equipment
has dropped, people are used to Surround Sound from theaters
and many pieces of equipment have some type built into them
(although this isn't true quad in that it's a single rear channel
with about 90/10 front to back ratio). It's part of the CD spec (at
half the play time).
I have also heard of other types of quad.
One was arranged in a tetrahedron: two front, one rear, and one
on the ceiling pointing downwards.
The other, IIRC, was Wendy Carlos' who used four front speakers
for more accurate stereo positioning.
--
Mathias
Michael Frasca
Patrick Alexander <yaro...@sietch.sietch.bloomington.in.us> wrote:
> What exactly is quadrophonic sound? Is it basically stereo using
>four speakers as the name would suggest? Sounds pretty nifty if it is.
A quad album had four separate channels.
I think this is the way I remembered that they did it (experts, please correct
me if I am wrong!):
The special quad phono stylus picked up two signals, A and B. This was sent
onto the special quad amplifier. The amplifier sends out four separate
channels; Channel One= signal A, Channel Two= signal B
Channel Three= (signal A)-(signal B); Channel Four= (Signal A)+(Signal B).
A quad album was backward compatible with a stereo system. The four channnels
simply played as two. How? I'm not sure...
kingnothing
WMitch2610 <wmitc...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19971230192...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
> While listening to my 25th anniversary "Aqualung" the other day, it got
me
> wondering about the quad version of "Wind Up". I hope some of you can
help me
> with the following:
> 1. Was this song recorded at the time of the original "Aqualung"
sessions?
> Stylistically, it sounds as if it were although the copyright is 1974.
stylistically, it sounds like a weak imitation of Jethro Tull.
Ian's voice strains and the song's dramatic moment ...isn't. Sometimes I
like one version over another, simply, because I heard one first and it
becomes the "right" one. Don't think this is the case here.
Does anyone prefer the quad version?
WMitch2610
>From: "kingnothing"
><wmitc...@aol.com> wrote in article
><19971230192...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
>
>> 1. Was this song recorded at the time of the original "Aqualung"
>sessions?
>> Stylistically, it sounds as if it were although the copyright is 1974.
>
>stylistically, it sounds like a weak imitation of Jethro Tull.
>Ian's voice strains and the song's dramatic moment ...isn't. Sometimes I
>like one version over another, simply, because I heard one first and it
>becomes the "right" one. Don't think this is the case here.
>Does anyone prefer the quad version?
>
---I concur with with your opinion. That's why I can't imagineTull would
release it at all, and also why I had wondered if it sounded any better in a
quad format (hoping for a miracle)! I think that the band had little to do with
this version at all in terms of it's release. Another NG member had indicated
that it was possibly a case of an engineer's scrapings from the editing room
floor. People have also informed the that AND had nothing to write concerning
it's origins.
Thanks,
Bill
jimi
Hi,
I thought someone should attempt to answer your question.
There were two types of Quad in the 70's (discreet and matrix).
Of these two types, discreet was actually "real" and the other type simulated the
effect.
In discreet quad, sounds are not just assigned to a range of left and right as in
stereo but also to front to back. Therefore, a guitar could sweep from left rear all
the way around to right rear or to any position on the "xy" axis.( You also had a "z"
but we won't go there) And speaking of Z's, let's finish this before everyone is
asleep. There was an lp where the guitar bounced from right rear to left front to
right front to left rear etc. (I think it was Led Zeppelin) I really wish they
would revive the idea and try it with digital. I think it would really work!
Jimi.
Patrick Alexander wrote:
> Michael Frasca <fra...@uic.edu> wrote:
> : >2. Was there a quadrophonic release of "Aqualung", and was this the version of
> : >"Wind Up" on that release? It sounds rough around the edges to me, and I can't
> : >imagine it being released as it sounds on the anniversary "Aqualung".
> : >3. If the above release existed, has anybody owned it/ heard it, and how did it
> : >sound?
>
> : I 'dabbled' with quad sound back in the seventies and still have a few original
> : quad vinyl albums, including the quad Aqualung. The Wind-Up on the 25th
> : Anniversary album sounded very similar to the quad vinyl version.
> : Unfortunately, I don't have enough energy and desire to fire up the ol'
> : turntable and make a head to head comparision.
>
> What exactly is quadrophonic sound? Is it basically stereo using
> four speakers as the name would suggest? Sounds pretty nifty if it is.
>
> Patrick Alexander
Catf...@concentric.net
OK, this is my first submission to this newsgroup. Did not know it
existed! Quadraphonic AND Tuull are my favorite things (along with
collecting pinball machines) so I thought I would reply. I have a very
extensive quadraphonic collection with the highlight being my Jethro
Tull recordings. I have AND still listen to the quad version of Aqualung
AND War Child. I pride my collection on having both titles in all QUAD
4-channel formats. That is CD-4 record, quad 8-track tape, and Quad Reel
tape. In fact, although I have just about everything Tull recorded,
including rare items, I have never purchased the stereo CD of those two
titles, so it will always seem special when listening to the quad
versions. My brother owned the stero version of Aqualung and I always
knew ther difference of Wind-Up but was always surprised that it appeared
on the quad album/tape without a mention that it was different. Those
that bought it might be dissapointed . (I later heard why it appeared
that way) Jethro Tull sound engineers used the quad format to its best
advantage. They used the rear channels for both ambiance AND special
effects. Chrysalis also chose the best format, discreet (as another
person mentioned) This may have come out before but the version of
Locomotive Breath on the MU Best Of album/CD is the Quad version mixed in
stereo. There are significant differences and if you thought the guitar
sounds bolder in the MU version, you are right. Martin's guitar is
panned to one channel and boosted, thus making it stand out. There are
other differences I can elaborate on if anyone is interested and if it
hasn't been said all before. Anybody ever notice the difference in
Cross-Eyed Mary? Also, on the quad version of the SONG Aqualung there is
an additional opening guitar bar. . If you are a Locomotive Breath
lover, it is well worth having the MU Best OF CD for the improvements.
If anyone is near Herndon, Virginia USA and would like a demo of the quad
versions, I might be able to accommodate you.. (I hope the above long
line was formatted properly)
In article <34AF390C...@nc5.infi.net>,
med...@nc5.infi.net wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I thought someone should attempt to answer your question.
> There were two types of Quad in the 70's (discreet and matrix).
> Of these two types, discreet was actually "real" and the other type simulated the
> effect.
> In discreet quad, sounds are not just assigned to a range of left and right as in
> stereo but also to front to back. Therefore, a guitar could sweep from left rear all
> the way around to right rear or to any position on the "xy" axis.( You also had a "z"
> but we won't go there) And speaking of Z's, let's finish this before everyone is
> asleep. There was an lp where the guitar bounced from right rear to left front to
> right front to left rear etc. (I think it was Led Zeppelin) I really wish they
> would revive the idea and try it with digital. I think it would really work!
> Jimi.
>
> Patrick Alexander wrote:
>
> > Michael Frasca <fra...@uic.edu> wrote:
> > : >2. Was there a quadrophonic release of "Aqualung", and was this the version of
> > : >"Wind Up" on that release? It sounds rough around the edges to me, and I can't
> > : >imagine it being released as it sounds on the anniversary "Aqualung".
> > : >3. If the above release existed, has anybody owned it/ heard it, and how did it
> > : >sound?
> >
> > : I 'dabbled' with quad sound back in the
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
da...@agora.rdrop.com
In article <68cle5$2rr$1...@news01.deltanet.com>,
>
> No it's not. I have stereo using 12 speakers and a Niles separator fed by
> the "A" channel of my living room amplifier, and it is really neat. But it
> definitely isn't quad. Quad was -- as it's name implies -- 4 separate
> channels, though a quad phono cartridge would play stereo and give you
> 2 channels of each. Maybe there's a quadophile hanging around who can
> shed more light on the subject.
Okay, here it goes. Tape, being reel and 8-track, was really straight
forward, the number of programs was halved and the number of channels
doubled and the track width and everything else stayed the same. The lp
was a little more confusing. First of all, there were 3 major formats,
all of which were stereo compatable, so if they were played on 2 channel
equipment you would still hear everything from all 4 channels mixed down
to two. Two of the formats were matrixed, SQ and QS, very much like
dolby surround, which is actually a run off of SQ, where rear channel
information is out of phase on the record. These were played with a
plain stereo turntable/cartridge and run though decoder, but the problem
being there was a loss of seperation when they were decoder. CD-4 (aka
quadradisc) uses a 30,000 Hz carrier, and so you needed a "special"
cartridge and stylus that worked up to about 40,000 Hz in order to play
back the carrier off the record. This was then decoded back into 4
descrete channels. Aparently all the Tull quad lps use this format, I
hope this helps clear things up a little. I'd be glad to answer any
questions I didn't cover. Also, I decided not too long ago that I realy
liked Locomotive Breath, and that I had to have the quad version of
Aqualung, so far I just have the 2 channel 8 track. If anyone's got a
copy to spair, on lp or tape, that they don't want a fortune for, let me
know, I'd even take a 4 channel dub if someone has the means to make one.
Dan
Biffyshrew
Catf...@concentric.net wrote:
>This may have come out before but the version of Locomotive Breath
>on the MU Best Of album/CD is the Quad version mixed in
>stereo. There are significant differences and if you thought the guitar
>sounds bolder in the MU version, you are right. Martin's guitar is
>panned to one channel and boosted, thus making it stand out.
Are you sure you're not referring to the electric guitar part that *Ian*
played on this track--and that he admitted he turned way up when he
remixed the album for quad? :-)
>Also, on the quad version of the SONG Aqualung there is
>an additional opening guitar bar.
More precisely, the quad version restores the opening two bars that are
missing from other U.S. pressings. British pressings of the _Aqualung_
LP always included the "extra" opening riff.
Your pal,
Biffy the Elephant Shrew @}-`--}----
Visit me at http://members.aol.com/biffyshrew/biffy.html
Did you ever iver over in your lefe life lofe
see the devil divil dovil kiss his wefe wife wofe?