What would it take to get the quad version of DSOTM released?

And if it can't be released, why?

* Because the sacd version is still being sold?

* Some contractual thing with the members of Pink Floyd?

* PF doesn't like the quad mix so they won't allow it to be sold?

* Capitol and/or EMI forgot there WAS a quad mix, one that is already mixed (no 5.1 engineer to pay!!) and waiting to be transferred to a surround format?

And: I'll be blunt--issuing this on either dvd-audio, or even DTS-CD, will make it much easier for non-audiophile music fans to deal with. And including a separate CD version will make the package that much more attractive (no DualDisc!!!).

Thanks.

 

It'll never happen. PF doesn't like it, PF and Parsons are obviously not good buddies, and the SACD is out.

 

Thanks Dave.

I don't usualy like it when labels throw their weight around but could Capitol or whoever just issue it without PF's approval? Because I've read of such things happening over & over in the music business. Or does PF themselves own the master tapes? Most people who have heard the quad mix & who I talked to personally about it liked the quad mix, so despite what PF thinks, wouldn't a label take that into account?

 

Not sure about the actual ownership of the tapes, but the members of Floyd have some clout and I can't see anything being done without their consent.

It pretty much boils down to this.....how many people would actually buy it? I'm guessing maybe a few thousand? Not worth the energy for any record company.

 

Lance,

Have you HEARD the (4.0) Alan Parsons quad mix of DSOTM?

:-jon

 

I'm not so convinced this 4.0 would sound better than Guthrie's 5.1.

In any event, a 4.0 release would probably not have great economics from a financial standpoint for the label.

 

I have it and must say this....while the Parsons mix is a better multichannel mix, I find the Guthrie mix more "musical" for lack of a better term. It seems more cohesive.

 

The sonics of the 4.0 mix do not come close to those of the SACD, which is natural since the original 1970's Quad Mix was done without the modern technology of today, plus the storage and transport facility of the original mix (SQ LP and 8 track tape) are not prone to audio acuracy!

However, the SURROUND mix on I'd say half of the tunes is far superior and more agressive, especially the track "Us & Them".

However, if you have never heard the Parsons version and only heard the Guthrie version, it is understood that you would be impressed with the Guthrie. It is not a BAD mix, it is just not the ORIGINAL mix.

Much like "stereo folk" here howl when a John Lennon album is remixed and rereleased. The mulitchannel fan prefers the ORIGNIAL mix as it was released at the time, not a re-mix done some 25 years later - which in this case replaces the original.

 

1) I continue to read of people asking about & acquiring DTS-encoded CD-Rs of this album made from the original quad tapes/vinyl (and many other titles too).

2) Don't take this the wrong way Dave, but I am still wondering how many people truly bought the sacd version for ITS surround mix & not because they accidently bought this title not knowing it was a hybrid sacd but because it was a) an anniversary edition with new cover art; or b) it was stuck in with the other "regular" PF CDs and a Pink Floyd fan just unknowingly grabbed it.

 

Not gonna happen, but I wouldn't mind a bit if that old 4.0 mix found light of day again. As Jon says, there are some tracks that are just better, more active mixes, they really work better. That said, the 5.1 remix is not crap by any means, just different.

 

I can understand this Jon, but it is possible later mixes may actually improve on the work sonically due to advances in recording technology.

 

No, I'm just going on what others have said about it. And, I like Alan Parsons' engineering style, so...........

 

Yes, like Jon Astley did with Who's Next!

 

I like the Parsons mix over the Guthrie one for different reasons. Jon's right. It was made to Quad, and deserves that spotlight.

 

Do I detect sarcasm?

 

Who is Jon Astley and what did he do with Who's Next?

 

Some years ago, I got a Quad cd of dark side of the moon, it was a 2 disc set made in Japan, the second disc contained a lot of outakes and alternate versions, even an acoustic version of Money. I sold it without even trying to figure out how to be able to listen to it in Quad mode, it sounded pretty good on my regular stereo.
I kept cdr copies of it.

 

Dave Gilmour just played guitar on Parsons' new album.

 

Not gonna happen. If Pink Floyd had the slightest interest in releasing the original Parsons quad mix, it would have been issued instead of the new 5.1 mix. The quad mix wouldn't sell all that much if made available, and the additional royalties available to Pink Floyd would hardly make a ripple.

Presumably reissue of the quad mix would require the OK of Pink Floyd, not just the blessing of EMI. I would guess that when DSOTM was issued, EMI probably had near complete control of what was released, but when PF resigned with EMI, they negotiated additional control of their masters. If EMI had complete control, then it would be possible for someone to do a "Criterion" type issue of DSOTM: Original mix, original quad mix, new 5.1 mix, etc. But that's obviously not going to happen.

I would be curious to hear why PF and Parsons are at odds...Or, given Gilmour's participation with the latest Parsons album, I guess I should say Waters and Parsons.

Kwad

 

That bootleg disc is merely a needle drop of the SQ LP, a far cry from the discrete version of the mix.

 

It's a long story!

 

Then it must be our good friend Roger. Why else would they NOT use him for the 5.1 mix?

 

Only a thousand?

I'd say given that it IS DSOTM, it would sell a mountian more than that, just to satisfy the casual collector out there.

I would guess another reason to not release it, would be to avoid confusion with the Guthrie mix already out.

 

Because they have used James Guthrie for almost all of their work since THE WALL. Alan Parsons hasn't engineered a Floyd album since 1973, albeit a particularly famous album. Any dispute they've had with him over the years has tended to be about "how much" he contributed to the final album. Their view is less, his view is more.

 

Thanks Oblio, I learned something new, so the additional material is also a needle drop??
The paper and the cds looked factory made and it had the same seal "SQ" as on the LP.
I sold it for a lot of money.
So, what do you need to get the quad sound out of it??, will a regular multichannel receiver
do the trick??