PDA

View Full Version : VAN HALEN on quadrophonic?



Cato
01-20-2006, 08:51 AM
a few years ago I heard the rumour that the Warner Bros. pressed the quadrophonic version of their 1st album as a limited edition of 50 copies in 1979 (not 1978). according to a guy who told me that, the audio mix is very different from the normal version. I have been looking for it for long but can't find it even now. does anyone know about this?

Diamondjimi
01-23-2006, 07:43 PM
This is news to me . Love to hear it !

ELVIS
01-23-2006, 08:17 PM
Do you have a quadrophonic stereo ??

The quadrophonic systems of the mid 70's were a poor early attempt at surround sound...

Nothing spectacular...

BrownSound1
01-27-2006, 10:06 PM
If done right they could surpass the quality of the original Pro-Logic surround, because you could actually have stereo rear channels.

DavidLeeNatra
01-29-2006, 06:15 AM
Originally posted by ELVIS
Do you have a quadrophonic stereo ??

The quadrophonic systems of the mid 70's were a poor early attempt at surround sound...

Nothing spectacular...

I remember my grandfather (who was a freak in thoses things) having that system...never heard any difference (while I had to pretend I do :D)

Jérôme Frenchise
01-29-2006, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by DavidLeeNatra
...never heard any difference (while I had to pretend I do :D)

I see what you mean... So comical! :D

Nickdfresh
01-29-2006, 10:36 AM
I wish WARNER would release the six-pack as 5.1 DVD-Audio, but I'm not holding my breath...

Warner was a big proponent of DVD-Audio actually, but it seems that it's fading... Of course, "no Van Halen for you!"

bru87tr
01-29-2006, 10:58 AM
its too bad cause surround music is a nice and different flavor.

I have an ok system with about $5k between my speakers and receiver. I have alot of SACD and DVD-A discs and I love them. Pink Floyds DSOTM in SACD is a good example of surround sound done right! its too bad there has been no marketing when it comes to this format as I think its really great! marketing is a big reason these formats have failed.


I have heard of quadrophonic and you could prob find some stuff on e bay. I know I have before.


its too bad the VH sisters hate their fans so much. it boggles my mind.

Nickdfresh
01-29-2006, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by bru87tr
its too bad cause surround music is a nice and different flavor.

I have an ok system with about $5k between my speakers and receiver. I have alot of SACD and DVD-A discs and I love them. Pink Floyds DSOTM in SACD is a good example of surround sound done right! its too bad there has been no marketing when it comes to this format as I think its really great! marketing is a big reason these formats have failed.


I have heard of quadrophonic and you could prob find some stuff on e bay. I know I have before.


its too bad the VH sisters hate their fans so much. it boggles my mind.

All very true. They put out these formats, but little thought or marketing was put into them. I know SACDs are done basically, due to the quality control issues that have a "duel-track" so they can be played on a regular CD player as well as the special track for SACD players...

I have DVD-Audio, and it's great, but a lot of the discs available (which are getting harder to find), aren't even really DVD-A, but are actually the sound from a DVD which has half the play rate (True DVD-Audio is 96khz/24bits while a standard DVD sound is like a really good CD at 48khz/16bits...)

I'm still holding out hope that the coming "Blu-Ray" tech., will also be applied to audio and make a new CD that is far more interactive. We'll see...

I just read that CD's were invented in 1972!

Cato
01-30-2006, 06:45 AM
Hummm......

ELVIS
01-30-2006, 10:15 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I wish WARNER would release the six-pack as 5.1 DVD-Audio, but I'm not holding my breath...



Dude, the shit was recorded in 2 channel stereo...

You don't know what you're talking about...:rolleyes:

ELVIS
01-30-2006, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
All very true. They put out these formats, but little thought or marketing was put into them. I know SACDs are done basically, due to the quality control issues that have a "duel-track" so they can be played on a regular CD player as well as the special track for SACD players...

"duel-track" ??

I have DVD-Audio, and it's great, but a lot of the discs available (which are getting harder to find), aren't even really DVD-A, but are actually the sound from a DVD which has half the play rate (True DVD-Audio is 96khz/24bits while a standard DVD sound is like a really good CD at 48khz/16bits...)

..and there is no way in hell you can tell the difference with human ears...

I'm still holding out hope that the coming "Blu-Ray" tech., will also be applied to audio and make a new CD that is far more interactive. We'll see...

To do what ??

I just read that CD's were invented in 1972!




LMAO !!


:elvis:

Nickdfresh
01-30-2006, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by ELVIS
Dude, the shit was recorded in 2 channel stereo...

You don't know what you're talking about...:rolleyes:

No. Actually, I believe it's mixed into 2 channel stereo, but it can be remixed into Dolby 5.1 using the source tapes. "I don't know what I'm talking about?" Um, do you own a DVD-Audio capable system? Have you even heard one?

ELVIS
01-30-2006, 03:51 PM
Yes I do, and yes I have, Idiot...

I also have a home recording studio...

Mixing audio (especially classic audio) in 5.1 is a bad idea...

For one thing, In ten years, 5.1 will be a thing of the past...

Two channel stereo is the preferred audio medium, and it sounds better...

ELVIS
01-30-2006, 03:59 PM
And, classic Van Halen, being recorded live in the studio was RECORDED IN TWO CHANNEL STEREO!

The board used had a left and a right channel as it's output source...

As I recall, the drums were miked up with only 4 or 5 mikes on the first album, and bass is all over the place...

I know it's possible to decode it to 5.1, but the results would be less than impressive...

Ted Templeman and Don Landee were two channel audio experts...


:elvis:

Nickdfresh
01-30-2006, 06:34 PM
Originally posted by ELVIS
Yes I do, and yes I have, Idiot...

I also have a home recording studio...

Mixing audio (especially classic audio) in 5.1 is a bad idea...

Why is it a "bad idea"? Because ELVIS, the frustrated, bitchy guitar player thinks so? If it is mixed well, nothing beats hearing the full recording coming out of all of your speakers...

That's a matter of opinion. In fact, my DVD-Audio sounds great.

I sure don't know know what DVD-Audio you actually have, but there is no comparison...



For one thing, In ten years, 5.1 will be a thing of the past...

LMAO, uh dude, you don't know what you are talking about...

They're up to going to 7.1 now. Again, so sayth ELVIS, so it must be so...

Idiot!


Two channel stereo is the preferred audio medium, and it sounds better...

"Preferred" by you? Is that why it's the "preferred audio medium?" Actually, I just thought it's because the record industry was lazy and lacked vision. Sounds like you share much with them...

ELVIS
01-30-2006, 06:37 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh

They're up to going to 7.1 now.

My point exactly...

Nickdfresh
01-30-2006, 06:40 PM
Originally posted by ELVIS
And, classic Van Halen, being recorded live in the studio was RECORDED IN TWO CHANNEL STEREO!

Really? I thought I've heard various anecdotes of those guys laying down tracks (like ALEX's drum take on "Hot For Teacher"). So I guess EDDIE played both rhythm AND lead guitar at the same time. Whatever dude....


The board used had a left and a right channel as it's output source...

As I recall, the drums were miked up with only 4 or 5 mikes on the first album, and bass is all over the place...

I know it's possible to decode it to 5.1, but the results would be less than impressive...

Ted Templeman and Don Landee were two channel audio experts...


:elvis:

Well, check this out...

Besides, if they do make "BDs", you have enough space to make numerous audio formats on each disc, along with videos, pics, info displays, alternate takes, bonus material, etc....

I'm downloading this "DTS" boot now:


DTS-Audio-CD Info Front Left Channel Pre FM (SBD) Reel Right Channel Pre FM (SBD) Reel Center Mixed to mono -6db SBD+AUD Matrix Surround Left Channel -2db Unknown AUD Right Channel -2db Unknown AUD Sub/LFE Mixed to mono -4db Pre FM (SBD) Reel --------------------------------------------------------- Notes The quieter portions AUD recording were quite a bit louder than The Pre FM (SBD). I reduced the AUD by -2db in the rear channels. In my experience louder rear channels is an undesirable effect. d1t01 The line "I've been mad for fucking years" in Speak To Me was removed from the Pre FM (SBD) source. This was not cut out as the length of the song was still the same as the AUD. I tried a number of edits to mix that line from the AUD into the SBD source. I could not come up with an edit I considered smooth. I was able to perform the same edit of this line on the AUD source with a smooth and natural result. So this line has been removed from both the SBD and the AUD source. This is smooth and most likely undetectable. d1t05 The Pre FM (SBD) source was missing 3.875 seconds between The Great Gig In The Sky and Money. The AUD was the trimmed accordingly to match. Being at the repetitive portion on the end of the song, this is smooth and most likely undetectable. d1t08 The AUD source cuts at 41:07.515 and is missing 1:36.33 of Any Colour You Like. I used the Pre FM (SBD) source mixed with a repeating crowd cheer portion from the AUD recording to add depth. I then applied a 1:46.333 patch with 5 second crossfades on each end. The result is good but as this is a source change it is still somewhat noticeable. d1t09 You can get a good feel for the effect of sound travel during the line "The lunatic is on the grass.". The sound travel results in a small echo on the AUD source and can be heard in the rear channels on the 5.1 and the matrix mix. This is very interesting. d1t10 The Pre FM (SBD) has a long portion of cheering and tuning prior to the encore Echoes. Unfortunately this was missing from the AUD source. The SBD was trimmed to match and both sources has multiple edits, mixing and crossfades were performed to keep the flow btwn the last song and the encore sounding as natural as possible. The result was good and this is smooth and most likely undetectable. If you play this DTS-Audio-CD and hear static it is b/c you didn't really read the text file, did you? --------------------------------------------------------- More On DTS Today's audio standards are moving towards multi-channel sound, like DTS and Dolby Digital. While the Audio-CD standard (Red Book) hasn't changed to accommodate these new sound formats, it is still possible to go around the specification and to put a 5.1 surround recording on a regular Audio-CD. To play a DTS-Audio-CD you must connect your DVD/CD player via a digital cable (optical or coaxial) to your DTS Dolby-Digital receiver. It is not 100% sure that your receiver will recognize a DTS-Audio CD, so the first time you're trying to playback a DTS-Audio-CD you must do a test to determine if it can. Begin with the volume very low, start the disc and raise the volume gradually. NEVER listen to a DTS-Audio-CD through the analog audio outputs of your CD/DVD player. Burning Instructions Burn them the absolute same way as you would burn any normal Audio-CD from .shn files.

DavidLeeNatra
01-31-2006, 09:49 AM
I got the "68 elvis comeback special" on DVD and it's mixed in 5.1 so I guess it could be possible to use the original (maybe 24 track) recordings and mix them in 5.1

I don't need that for music (except for live records where the audience could come from another direction) but I think it's great for movie DVD's. I got a projector in my appartement so I got my own cinema and if I want to make my friends jealous I put on the first battle scene of "gladiator" and make the arrows fly all through the room :D

Cato
02-01-2006, 04:14 AM
Hummm......

DavidLeeNatra
02-01-2006, 07:08 AM
Originally posted by Cato
Hummm......

no...it's KABUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUHUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUMMM!!!

Casemeister
02-03-2006, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by ELVIS
Dude, the shit was recorded in 2 channel stereo...

You don't know what you're talking about...:rolleyes:

HE doesn't know what he's talking about?

It wasn't RECORDED in stereo. It was MIXED in stereo. No matter what you may think of surround and how certain recordings may sound in surround, the CVH stuff wasn't recorded in stereo. There would have been no real reason for VH to have recorded in pure stereo when multitracking was the norm at the time (and, naturally, is still the norm).

Nickdfresh
02-03-2006, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by Casemeister
HE doesn't know what he's talking about?

It wasn't RECORDED in stereo. It was MIXED in stereo. No matter what you may think of surround and how certain recordings may sound in surround, the CVH stuff wasn't recorded in stereo. There would have been no real reason for VH to have recorded in pure stereo when multitracking was the norm at the time (and, naturally, is still the norm).

LOL, that's what I thought. I don't work in the recording industry, but I've read countless interviews with those guys. And I also am pretty sure that VAN HALEN stopped recording live after WACF, and they recorded additional tracks for Ed's guitar (rhythm tracks), and it's pretty difficult for DAVE to sing both lead, and background vocals at the same time...

Cato
02-03-2006, 06:21 PM
Hummm........

Loons The Great
02-28-2006, 07:21 PM
Kan pai!!

BrownSound1
03-05-2006, 01:36 AM
Hell look at the Led Zeppelin DVD. That shit from the Royal Albert Hall was recorded 36 years ago and sounds fucking awesome in 5.1. If I remember correctly it was recorded on an 8 track system originally (not the same as 8 track tape cartridges!). I've got no problem whatsoever with music being recorded or remixed in surround sound.

Now as far as the 96kHz versus 48kHz argument...I've done recordings in both formats, and the main difference I hear is on reverb tails and things of that nature. The 96kHz recording did have a slight bit more warmth to it as well. Orchestral recordings would probably be where you could tell the most difference...certainly not recordings of distorted guitars and bashing drums.

Hardrock69
03-05-2006, 03:41 AM
Could Elvis appear more ignorant than he has in this thread?

Who knows? It would be pretty difficult I would think....

As for Quad...back in the '70s when I had an 8-track tape player, I had an 8-track tape of Black Sabbath's Paranoid album, and it was a quadrophonic version. Said so right on the label.

The studio version of Electric Funeral was given a different ending than on the original vinyl album.

On one of them, the band plays at normal speed and just ends the song.

On the other, the song suddenly speeds up so it sounds like 78 speed gone mad.

However, I never had a real "quad" system.

I just happened to find that 8-track somewhere....

Nickdfresh
03-05-2006, 09:26 AM
The only genuine quadraphonic I've heard was while seeing PINK FLOYD live Toronto's CNE Stadium in '88. I remember the cash-register intro to "Money" being just incredible. Too bad it was the WATERS-less Fake Floyd version, but the concert sounded amazing for a bunch of dulled-down dudes whoring the Pink Floyd brand name, sort'a like another band I know:)...

Cato
03-05-2006, 10:54 PM
what the fook are you wankers talking about?:confused:

Hardrock69
03-06-2006, 01:59 AM
Well, ok but we were talking about RECORD ALBUMS, not live performances...
:D

Nickdfresh
03-06-2006, 09:00 AM
The concept is the same...

Quadraphonic was mostly a gimmick anyways.

katie
03-06-2006, 08:09 PM
Yet another thread hihjacked.

Nickdfresh
03-06-2006, 08:49 PM
Well by all means...

Have you ever heard of VHI in quadraphonic?

Cato
03-07-2006, 07:40 AM
it doesn't exist. fooled you wankers.

Nickdfresh
03-07-2006, 08:43 AM
CATO you dastardly Nipponese cunt!:D