Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
"hidden" SQ Quad encoded LPs
578 views
Skip to first unread message
wade
Nov 14, 2012, 2:15:16 PM11/14/12
to
I recently found that the 1970s Karajan - Heldenleben recording has an SQ matrix number even though the LP jacket otherwise has no indication of this (no SQ in the text and no Angel-in-the-circle logo. I know that Italian EMI issued this recording marked as Quad on the record cover. Has anyone here compiled a list of quad encoded records that bear no other indication of this characteristic other than possibly the matrix numbers identified on the dead space of the LP? I believe that the Jochum Bruckner 8 was actually given an SQ matrix in the US but was actually not encoded as such, at least in the US.
Matthew B. Tepper
Nov 14, 2012, 3:58:52 PM11/14/12
to
wade <wade...@hotmail.com> appears to have caused the following letters
to be typed in news:c35f35c3-277a-42a4...@googlegroups.com:
Supposedly, promo copies of Bernstein's Berlioz Requiem were so encoded,
something mentioned by the contemporaneous review in either High Fidelity or
Stereo Review. I examined a few copies of this at used record stores over
the years, and never saw one which had the tell-tale SQ stamped in.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers.
to be typed in news:c35f35c3-277a-42a4...@googlegroups.com:
something mentioned by the contemporaneous review in either High Fidelity or
Stereo Review. I examined a few copies of this at used record stores over
the years, and never saw one which had the tell-tale SQ stamped in.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers.
William Sommerwerck
Nov 17, 2012, 10:36:43 AM11/17/12
to
There used to be such lists, but I can't find one.
Note that you can't play these recordings "properly" without an advanced SQ
decoder. My Tate II seems to have "bit the dust", and can't be repaired.
This is unfortunate, because some Columbia SQ LPs have excellent sound.
Note that you can't play these recordings "properly" without an advanced SQ
decoder. My Tate II seems to have "bit the dust", and can't be repaired.
This is unfortunate, because some Columbia SQ LPs have excellent sound.
operafan
Nov 19, 2012, 5:16:47 PM11/19/12
to
On Nov 17, 10:36 am, "William Sommerwerck"
The Dolby Prologic II Cinema setting isn't a bad way to decode them...
wade
Nov 19, 2012, 6:12:04 PM11/19/12
to
William Sommerwerck
Nov 20, 2012, 4:00:53 PM11/20/12
to
>> Note that you can't play these recordings "properly" without an advanced
>> SQ
>> decoder. My Tate II seems to have "bit the dust", and can't be repaired.
>> This is unfortunate, because some Columbia SQ LPs have excellent sound.
> The Dolby Pro-Logic II Cinema setting isn't a bad way to decode them...
>> SQ
>> decoder. My Tate II seems to have "bit the dust", and can't be repaired.
>> This is unfortunate, because some Columbia SQ LPs have excellent sound.
SQ shows "certain similarities" to Dolby encoding. I tried regular Dolby
about a year ago, but the result was a confused mess. (When working
correctly, a Tate II decoder produces clear and precise results.) I'll give
your suggestion a try.
I also have an Ambisonic decoder with an SQ position. I never gave it much
of a chance, because SQ is theoretically undecodeable with an Ambisonically
based decoder.
wade
Nov 20, 2012, 5:47:43 PM11/20/12
to
M forever
Nov 21, 2012, 11:37:22 AM11/21/12
to
decoder. They are fairly simple devices. Circuit diagrams can easily
be found on the net. It shouldn't be too difficult to build one either.
William Sommerwerck
Nov 21, 2012, 3:10:03 PM11/21/12
to
>> Note that you can't play these recordings "properly" without an advanced
>> SQ decoder. My Tate II seems to have "bit the dust", and can't be
>> repaired.
>> This is unfortunate, because some Columbia SQ LPs have excellent sound.
> Surely an universal genius like you should be able to repair the
> decoder. They are fairly simple devices. Circuit diagrams can easily
> be found on the net. It shouldn't be too difficult to build one, either.
>> SQ decoder. My Tate II seems to have "bit the dust", and can't be
>> repaired.
>> This is unfortunate, because some Columbia SQ LPs have excellent sound.
> Surely an universal genius like you should be able to repair the
> decoder. They are fairly simple devices. Circuit diagrams can easily
On the assumption that, despite your sarcasm about my intellect, this is a
sincere remark, I'll give it a proper answer.
A "basic" decoder for any matrix surround system is fairly easy to build. It
requires all-pass phase-shift circuits, plus a matrix to generate the
speaker feeds, all of which are easily put together with inexpensive op
amps. The problem is that subjective separation is poor, * and further
enhancement is required.
This enhancement is provided by dynamic crosstalk cancellation. QS used
VarioMatrix. The comparable system for SQ is Tate. These are not simple.
Circuitry is needed to determine the intended direction of the loudest sound
(this can change many times each second), and variable decoding that
positions the loudest sound correctly (even if it results in the wrong
directionality for all other sounds). The attack and release times of the
variable decoding have to be adjusted to minimize IM distortion.
The patents explain how this is done. But the Tate System implements the
process as ICs, which are no longer made. (At the time I purchased my
Fosgate Tate II decoder more than 25 years ago, the source was drying up,
and Fosgate could no longer get the chips. Not surprisingly, a working
decoder goes for over $1000.)
The logical solution would be to implement SQ decoding in software, but
there are probably no more than 100 people in the world interested in
playing SQ LPs, so no one is willing to do it.
* The exception is Ambisonic decoding, which provides stable imaging over a
wide listening area without additional enhancement.
M forever
Nov 21, 2012, 3:25:01 PM11/21/12
to
On Nov 21, 3:10 pm, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
wrote:
I seem to dimly recall somebody told me there was a plugin for one of
the more popular audio editors. I think it was Adobe Audition.
wrote:
the more popular audio editors. I think it was Adobe Audition.
wade
Nov 21, 2012, 4:33:27 PM11/21/12
to
M forever
Nov 21, 2012, 6:04:11 PM11/21/12
to
wade
Nov 22, 2012, 2:40:00 PM11/22/12
to
wade
Mar 19, 2013, 8:12:45 PM3/19/13
to
Message has been deleted
William Sommerwerck
Mar 19, 2013, 8:56:39 PM3/19/13
to
CBS originally had dual inventory, and SQ disks had a matrix number that
included Q. CBS later went to single inventory for their last SQ disks (which
were marked as such in fine print on the back of the cover). I don't remember
whether the matrix number included Q, but I think it did.
In the US, EMI SQ recordings had the Angel or Seraphim logo within a circle,
rather than a rectangle. I don't know whether the matrix numbers included a Q.
I can look tomorrow.
included Q. CBS later went to single inventory for their last SQ disks (which
were marked as such in fine print on the back of the cover). I don't remember
whether the matrix number included Q, but I think it did.
In the US, EMI SQ recordings had the Angel or Seraphim logo within a circle,
rather than a rectangle. I don't know whether the matrix numbers included a Q.
I can look tomorrow.
William Sommerwerck
Mar 20, 2013, 8:03:18 AM3/20/13
to
I checked the Angel release of "The Pearl Fishers". Its matrix number starts
with SQ.
with SQ.
wade
Mar 20, 2013, 9:35:37 AM3/20/13
to
William Sommerwerck
Mar 20, 2013, 9:56:34 AM3/20/13
to
> The US issue of the Ozawa Firebird had the rectangular logo not the circle.
> Haven't seen a hard copy to know whether the inscribed matrix has an S
> others had circles. The first 4 of the 5 Martinon Debussy LPs had circular
the BBC Music CDs sometimes have the wrong issue number on the booklet?
Regardless, EMI has a big stack of surround recordings which it ought to
reissue. Doing so would perhaps encourage Sony to reissue Columbia and RCA
surround recordings.
> Haven't seen a hard copy to know whether the inscribed matrix has an S
> or SQ prefix. The Karajan Richard Strauss (3) LPS all were SQ matrices even
> though the cover of the Heldenleben had a rectangular logo, whereas the
> others had circles. The first 4 of the 5 Martinon Debussy LPs had circular
> logos on the US issues but the last one did not, yet all 5 were issued in
> Germany as a quad box set. The French equivalent set is NOT quad, nor
> is the British box. I never understood that policy.
Why assume a "policy" when you can blame carelessness? Have you noticed that
the BBC Music CDs sometimes have the wrong issue number on the booklet?
Regardless, EMI has a big stack of surround recordings which it ought to
reissue. Doing so would perhaps encourage Sony to reissue Columbia and RCA
surround recordings.
wade
Mar 20, 2013, 10:03:37 AM3/20/13
to
William Sommerwerck
Mar 20, 2013, 10:17:01 AM3/20/13
to
>> Regardless, EMI has a big stack of surround recordings which
>> it ought to reissue. Doing so would perhaps encourage Sony to
>> reissue Columbia and RCA surround recordings.
> I totally agree. I remember reading that there was at least an anti-quad
>> it ought to reissue. Doing so would perhaps encourage Sony to
>> reissue Columbia and RCA surround recordings.
> leaning in Japan, and I think also in France from what issues I have seen.
It seems that the introduction of SACD caused Sony to "get religion" and
decide that anything other than two-channel stereo was "impure". This is true
of many audiophiles, as well, even though (all other things being equal)
surround is demonstrably superior to two-channel, in terms of both listening
enjoyment and accuracy.
> Germany seems to have been the most aggressively pro-quad releasing
> country in Europe with GB second.
SACDs are stereo-only.
Sol L. Siegel
Mar 21, 2013, 1:54:39 AM3/21/13
to
"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in
news:kicg9d$o21$1...@dont-email.me:
> If that's true... then were are the EMI surround recordings? All their
> listed SACDs are stereo-only.
>
Has anyone here explained the point of an SACD release of a one- or two-
channel recording?
- Sol L. Siegel, Philadelphia, PA USA
news:kicg9d$o21$1...@dont-email.me:
> If that's true... then were are the EMI surround recordings? All their
> listed SACDs are stereo-only.
>
channel recording?
- Sol L. Siegel, Philadelphia, PA USA
William Sommerwerck
Mar 21, 2013, 9:11:14 AM3/21/13
to
> Has anyone here explained the point of an SACD release
> of a one- or two-channel recording?
Not that I recall.
> of a one- or two-channel recording?
Some people consider RCA's Living Stereo and Mercury's Living Presence
recordings to be /absolute/ standards. (I don't. But they were far better than
the multi-miked "acoustic perversions" that became commonplace in the late
'60s.) This justified reissuing them in DSD format.
I've heard only one or two really great pre-stereo mono recordings. Few mono
recordings are good enough to justify a DSD transfer. (One of the reasons
SACDs are (generally) so life-like is that mics and electronics have improved
a great deal in the past half-century.)
I bought all the RCAs (including a couple of turkeys), as they were reasonably
priced. The Mercurys were so overpriced that I bought only a few.
It isn't clear why RCA stopped their reissue program. The bean-counters
probably felt the profits weren't high enough.
MiNe 109
Mar 21, 2013, 9:27:00 AM3/21/13
to
In article <XnsA18A13707A9...@130.133.4.11>,
Stephen
"Sol L. Siegel" <vod...@aol.com> wrote:
> "William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:kicg9d$o21$1...@dont-email.me:
>
> > If that's true... then were are the EMI surround recordings? All their
> > listed SACDs are stereo-only.
> >
>
> Has anyone here explained the point of an SACD release of a one- or two-
> channel recording?
BIS bargain boxes!
> "William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:kicg9d$o21$1...@dont-email.me:
>
> > If that's true... then were are the EMI surround recordings? All their
> > listed SACDs are stereo-only.
> >
>
> Has anyone here explained the point of an SACD release of a one- or two-
> channel recording?
Stephen
William Sommerwerck
Mar 21, 2013, 10:23:56 AM3/21/13
to
>> Has anyone here explained the point of an SACD release
>> of a one- or two- channel recording?
> BIS bargain boxes!
Actually, it's the other way around. Most BIS bargain boxes are CD-only (the
>> of a one- or two- channel recording?
> BIS bargain boxes!
Vanska Beethoven Symphonies being the obvious exception).
In the case of the "complete" Bach organ works, the SACDs are SACD-only,
stereo-only, to permit getting everything on a few disks.
wade
Mar 21, 2013, 11:03:39 AM3/21/13
to
On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 5:03:18 AM UTC-7, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> I checked the Angel release of "The Pearl Fishers". Its matrix number starts
>
> with SQ.
it also has the circular logo. What i am focussing on are the SQ matrixed items which have the rectangular Angel logo so that they are not obviously quad unless you can look at the LP runin area where the matrix number is inscribed.
> I checked the Angel release of "The Pearl Fishers". Its matrix number starts
>
> with SQ.
William Sommerwerck
Mar 21, 2013, 12:47:12 PM3/21/13
to
> What I am focussing on are the SQ matrixed items which
That would be a lot of work, because you'd have to check every LP from 1971
(or thereabouts) on.
I used to write for "4 Quad". I think it had a listing of quad LPs. You might
Google for such lists.
> have the rectangular Angel logo so that they are not
> obviously quad unless you can look at the LP run-in area
> where the matrix number is inscribed.
I missed that.
That would be a lot of work, because you'd have to check every LP from 1971
(or thereabouts) on.
I used to write for "4 Quad". I think it had a listing of quad LPs. You might
Google for such lists.
Steve de Mena
Mar 21, 2013, 2:55:36 PM3/21/13
to
Steve
operafan
Mar 21, 2013, 8:45:44 PM3/21/13
to
On Thursday, March 21, 2013 1:54:39 AM UTC-4, Sol L. Siegel wrote:
> Has anyone here explained the point of an SACD release of a one- or two-
>
> channel recording?
Are we talking about something from the 78 rpm days? If so, I see no point. However, the SACD has a higher resolution potential than the CD, and the SACD reissues of early stereo recordings have the potential of bringing out more detail in the sound that a CD reissue. There is more resolution on the analog master tapes than you can get into a 44.1 kHz CD. I think the improvements are obvious on many of the 2-channel RCA SACD reissues.
> Has anyone here explained the point of an SACD release of a one- or two-
>
> channel recording?
Gerard
Mar 22, 2013, 3:58:06 AM3/22/13
to
operafan <peter....@gmail.com> typed:
> There is more resolution on the analog master tapes than you can get
> into a 44.1 kHz CD. I think the improvements are obvious on many of
> the 2-channel RCA SACD reissues.
In theory this can be caused by remastering those tapes.
> On Thursday, March 21, 2013 1:54:39 AM UTC-4, Sol L. Siegel wrote:
> > Has anyone here explained the point of an SACD release of a one- or
> > two-
> >
> > channel recording?
>
> Are we talking about something from the 78 rpm days? If so, I see no
> point. However, the SACD has a higher resolution potential than the
> CD, and the SACD reissues of early stereo recordings have the
> potential of bringing out more detail in the sound that a CD reissue.
Is that something people really can hear?
> > Has anyone here explained the point of an SACD release of a one- or
> > two-
> >
> > channel recording?
>
> Are we talking about something from the 78 rpm days? If so, I see no
> point. However, the SACD has a higher resolution potential than the
> CD, and the SACD reissues of early stereo recordings have the
> potential of bringing out more detail in the sound that a CD reissue.
> There is more resolution on the analog master tapes than you can get
> into a 44.1 kHz CD. I think the improvements are obvious on many of
> the 2-channel RCA SACD reissues.
Roger Kulp
Mar 22, 2013, 5:39:28 AM3/22/13
to
I am aware of one or two quadraphonic Elvis Presley records,RCA only put out in Japan,titles escape me right now.Given their extreme rarity,they didn't sell well.They may have been enticements to get people to buy quad records.
Roger
William Sommerwerck
Mar 22, 2013, 11:00:46 AM3/22/13
to
> ...the SACD has a higher resolution potential than the CD,
abandoned -- your statement is objectively untrue. A properly dithered
analog-to-digital conversion does not lose information.
I have never sat down and carefully compared the Red Book layers of SACDs with
the DSD layers. It's about time I did.
> and the SACD reissues of early stereo recordings have the
> potential of bringing out more detail in the sound that a CD
> reissue. There is more resolution on the analog master tapes
> than you can get into a 44.1 kHz CD.
Though I am a huge fan of SACD -- and would like to see Red Book CD format
> potential of bringing out more detail in the sound that a CD
> reissue. There is more resolution on the analog master tapes
> than you can get into a 44.1 kHz CD.
abandoned -- your statement is objectively untrue. A properly dithered
analog-to-digital conversion does not lose information.
I have never sat down and carefully compared the Red Book layers of SACDs with
the DSD layers. It's about time I did.
O
Mar 22, 2013, 11:21:43 AM3/22/13
to
In article <kihrja$t48$1...@dont-email.me>, William Sommerwerck
vice versa. In fact, the very act of "dithering" loses information,
whether you do it "properly" or not.
-Owen
<grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > ...the SACD has a higher resolution potential than the CD,
> > and the SACD reissues of early stereo recordings have the
> > potential of bringing out more detail in the sound that a CD
> > reissue. There is more resolution on the analog master tapes
> > than you can get into a 44.1 kHz CD.
>
> Though I am a huge fan of SACD -- and would like to see Red Book CD format
> abandoned -- your statement is objectively untrue. A properly dithered
> analog-to-digital conversion does not lose information.
Of course it does, otherwise a SACD would sound exactly like a CD, and
> > ...the SACD has a higher resolution potential than the CD,
> > and the SACD reissues of early stereo recordings have the
> > potential of bringing out more detail in the sound that a CD
> > reissue. There is more resolution on the analog master tapes
> > than you can get into a 44.1 kHz CD.
>
> Though I am a huge fan of SACD -- and would like to see Red Book CD format
> abandoned -- your statement is objectively untrue. A properly dithered
> analog-to-digital conversion does not lose information.
vice versa. In fact, the very act of "dithering" loses information,
whether you do it "properly" or not.
-Owen
William Sommerwerck
Mar 22, 2013, 12:12:59 PM3/22/13
to
"O" wrote in message news:220320131121438932%ow...@denofinequityx.com...
signal randomizes quantization errors so that they're uncorrelated with the
signal, and "look like" noise.
The reason(s) SACDs often "sound different" from CDs have not been
established. I have theories -- but anyone can have a theory.
I'll put aside the time to compare the CD and DSD layers of various
recordings, then report back. Matching levels will be a problem.
In article <kihrja$t48$1...@dont-email.me>, William Sommerwerck
<grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> ...the SACD has a higher resolution potential than the CD,
>>> and the SACD reissues of early stereo recordings have the
>>> potential of bringing out more detail in the sound that a CD
>>> reissue. There is more resolution on the analog master tapes
>>> than you can get into a 44.1 kHz CD.
>> Though I'm a huge fan of SACD -- and would like to see Red Book CD
<grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> ...the SACD has a higher resolution potential than the CD,
>>> and the SACD reissues of early stereo recordings have the
>>> potential of bringing out more detail in the sound that a CD
>>> reissue. There is more resolution on the analog master tapes
>>> than you can get into a 44.1 kHz CD.
>> format abandoned -- your statement is objectively untrue. A properly
>> dithered analog-to-digital conversion does not lose information.
> Of course it does, otherwise a SACD would sound exactly like a CD,
> and vice versa. In fact, the very act of "dithering" loses information,
> whether you do it "properly" or not.
You're confusing dithering with quantization error. Properly dithering the
>> dithered analog-to-digital conversion does not lose information.
> Of course it does, otherwise a SACD would sound exactly like a CD,
> and vice versa. In fact, the very act of "dithering" loses information,
> whether you do it "properly" or not.
signal randomizes quantization errors so that they're uncorrelated with the
signal, and "look like" noise.
The reason(s) SACDs often "sound different" from CDs have not been
established. I have theories -- but anyone can have a theory.
I'll put aside the time to compare the CD and DSD layers of various
recordings, then report back. Matching levels will be a problem.
wade
Mar 25, 2013, 2:42:07 PM3/25/13
to
back in the 1970s Columbia issued several quadrophonic composer "Greatest Hits" albums. I always wondered about these as it appeared some of the items included had to be pre-quad, so were these cases of early pseudo-quad simulations? I have never had one of them to see what they sounded like, as I feared they would be worse than rechanneled stereo.
William Sommerwerck
Mar 25, 2013, 3:28:35 PM3/25/13
to
would have been easy to remix them for surround. "The World of Harry Partch"
is one example.
wade
Mar 25, 2013, 3:38:39 PM3/25/13
to
William Sommerwerck
Mar 25, 2013, 6:13:19 PM3/25/13
to
> Columbia had been making multi-track recordings since
> the early 60s, so it would have been easy to remix them
>> for surround. "The World of Harry Partch" is one example.
> Have to see what i can find and see what they did to it.
> the early 60s, so it would have been easy to remix them
>> for surround. "The World of Harry Partch" is one example.
Columbia almost always mixed the original tracks into a submersive mix, with
sounds coming from all around you.
0 new messages