Rufus – Rufusized

4 Jul

Rufus - Rufusized DS278f front

Release: DS278f

Source: QS LP

Process: QS/II

Format: DVD-A/V  MLP/DTS/DD

Advertisements

25 Responses to “Rufus – Rufusized”

  1. Gul Dukat March 9, 2015 at 11:39 #

    Hello, there are some seeders out?m Please help me……
    Greetings

  2. pvdmword October 20, 2013 at 18:30 #

    @oxforddickie nothing. I added Stereotomy purely to have another sample to compare.

    Boy, I would like to have been a recording engineer in those days…..

    • pvdmword October 20, 2013 at 18:36 #

      @owen: “I think he was saying that the Stereotomy rears are an example of good sounding rears ie. for comparsion against the poor sound Rufusized rears”
      That’s right. There is a lot of pumping going on in the Rufus sample.

  3. pvdmword October 20, 2013 at 15:17 #

    @owen
    Thanks for the info, I did not know that about the AUDIO_TS dir. I like lossless. As the size of those (ATS_01_1.AOB) files usually amounts to only around two-thirds of the total size of the .ISO, that means a reduction in storage if I keep those instead of the .ISO. So I might do that.

    Have you had the time to listen to the 3 samples yet? I’m anxious to know what you think, and if yours sound the same. It’s ok for me if dematrixed rears always sound like this. I was just wondering.

    OT: Today listened a bit to the Harry Roche issue. Surprising. I love this blog/forum!

    • Owen Smith October 20, 2013 at 16:29 #

      Listening to your samples is more OD’s area, I don’t know much about how the matrix systems work and they are his decodes. However I note that you say the fronts sound good it is only the rears you have a problem with. Well the front and rear are decoded from a single stereo source so if it’s anything it’s the matrix decoding, but OD would be the one to comment.

      • oxforddickie October 20, 2013 at 16:44 #

        I’m not really sure what problem your having with the rears. Perhaps a clear explanation of what your hearing would help, although personally i wouldn’t just listen to the rears on their own. This makes me wonder if your hearing this issue when all four channels are playing?

        A matrix decoded album will never be as good as a discreet version when listening so closely, it’s impossible to remove all the unwanted elements.

    • Owen Smith October 20, 2013 at 16:43 #

      OK I’ve listened and I see what you mean. I used my B&W MM-1 active monitors on my laptop, they’re very revealing. I don’t think it’s MP3 like though, it just sounds thin.

      Dropping it into Audacity and plotting a spectrum shows a dip in volume around 5.5KHz and then a rise of around 7db (which is a lot) up to 15KHz and then quite a sharp roll off down to nothing at about 20KHz as expected.

      If I plot the same spectrum for Alan Parsons it’s almost a 45 degree slope down to a drop off at 20KHz, and the ZZ Top is similar but the slope is more like 30 degrees.

      So the Rufussized has more high frequency content in the rears. Maybe they were mastered that way? Maybe that’s what QS rears look like (I’ve never checked the spectrum before). I would also point out the Rufussized came from LP, the others you gave came off CD and discrete 4 channel tape so it’s hardly a valid comparison.

      Also no-one in the 1970s will have been bothered by what the rears sound like in isolation, either in headphones or through speakers. You’re meant to play them together with the fronts.

      • oxforddickie October 20, 2013 at 16:57 #

        I agree with Owens remarks. Not sure why the rears would be brighter than the fronts, it must have been like that when mixed, i performed no eq-ing on it.

        Sometimes these quad mixes can disappoint, did one the other day that didn’t live up to what i was expecting, but Hey Ho!

        In respect of Stereotomy, because of the way Ambisonics works it’s not advisable to compare the rears separately. What is the issue you have with that album?

      • Owen Smith October 20, 2013 at 17:41 #

        I think he was saying that the Stereotomy rears are an example of good sounding rears ie. for comparsion against the poor sound Rufusized rears. But it would be more valid to find some good sounding rears from a QS LP then the matrix type and source material would be the same.

      • Owen Smith October 20, 2013 at 17:42 #

        By “source material the same” above I mean vinyl as a material, vs. CD or 4 track tape etc.

  4. Owen Smith August 4, 2013 at 12:39 #

    Cool and funky, a good listen. Not a type or era of music I’m familiar with so I don’t have much to say, but in quadwetrust’s review is pretty spot on.

    • pvdmword October 17, 2013 at 22:12 #

      I find the sound very compressed, (not like with a compressor but like mp3 with low bitrate) or is it just me?
      Good music though. Tanx for sharing.

    • Owen Smith October 18, 2013 at 09:36 #

      Which stream are you listening to on the DVD? There is lossless MLP in the DVD-Audio section, and then DTS and Dolby Digital in the DVD-Video section. If you’re listening to the Dolby Digital then it may sound MP3 compressed since Dolby Digital works in a similar way and is quite low bit rate. Try the DTS since the bit rate is quite a lot higher, or if you can play DVD-Audios play the MLP.

      • pvdmword October 18, 2013 at 17:45 #

        I should probably tell you a little bit about my setup. It is a bit unconventional, but there should be nothing wrong with it and it should not be the reason for my question, I hope.

        I have a quad amp, a JVC from the 70’s, still working perfectly hooked up to 4 speakers.

        Connected to that amplifier I have a mixer, the TASCAM M1516, with 16 inputs and 4 busses/outputs, each output connected to a channel in the amp.
        I can connect each mixer input to one of these outputs. This flexibility allows me to listen to a variety of sources.
        Also, on the headphone jack on the mixer, I can choose between channels 1-2 or 3-4 to listen to. So that would be skipping between the fronts and the rears.

        As input for the mixer I can use my quad tape deck, or (stereo)pickup, radio, cassette, or whatever. But most of the times I use my computer’s sound card to play 4 discrete channels.
        This setup works perfectly for me. I use VLC player, which plays everything I throw at it and outputs in 4.0 format.
        I have a lot (>90) of 4 channel quad stuff in .WAV files and .ISO’s, that I play straight from the hard drive. I stopped burning CDs/DVD’s many many years ago. Don’t have the need to.
        Anyway, the sound from most quad files is very good. When the source was discreet, the separation is perfect.

        I admit that I have not many dematrixed sources, therefore I have not much experience with it, so maybe the sound from the Rufus disc is considered normal. I have only recently found this website.

        I have extracted a sample from the first 10 or so seconds of the rear channels (3-4) while playing the Rufus ISO and they sound like this:
        [audio src="http://pvdm.xs4all.nl/muziek/rufus.wav" /]

        While for instance Alan Parson’s Stereotomy rear channels sound like this: (10 s. sample from about a minute into the 1st song)
        [audio src="http://pvdm.xs4all.nl/muziek/alanp.wav" /]

        The rear channel from a discrete source (ZZ Top – Tres Hombres) sounds like this:
        [audio src="http://pvdm.xs4all.nl/muziek/zztop.wav" /]
        I have included this for reference.

        Now I know the source for ZZ Top was discrete 4channel tape, and Rufus’ was a matrixed record, and AP was UHJ CD. But anyway I thought Rufus should sound better. The front channels are good, by the way.
        So my question is if my sample from Rufus sounds the same as your rear channels sound. But please listen with headphones as it will be much more obvious to hear.

        Oh, and I forgot to mention that it doesn’t matter if I choose DTS or DD from the DVD menu.
        And to be able to try your suggestion from the DVD-Audio section I played the file from the AUDIO_TS directory on the ISO and it still sounds mufled, the same as the other 2 options.

        Thanks from a quad fan,

        -Philip

      • Owen Smith October 19, 2013 at 02:38 #

        Wow, a DIgital Compact Cassette machine lurking under the amp in the picture. There aren’t many of those around.

        If you can play the files from AUDIO_TS then you should always do that for the releases on this blog. The files in AUDIO_TS are lossless compressed (using Meridian Lossless Packing) a bit like FLAC. Whereas the files in VIDEO_TS are either DTS or Dolby Digital, both of which are lossy like MP3 (DTS is the better of the two as it runs at 3 times the bit rate).

        As to why you hear this release as very like MP3 lossy compression I don’t know. At least you’ve posted clips of what you hear. I’d try a few more of the matrix releases on this blog if I were you, either SQ/II or QS/II decoded. This release is QS so other QS/II decoded should be the closest comparison.

        With matrix sources there is limited channel seperation, it will never sound like a true 100% discrete source. But I’ve downloaded matrix releases from here and compared them against discrete releases of the same thing for a couple of titles (eg. Tubular Bells SACD) and the matrix decodes a very good. Hence my surprise at your issue.

  5. lupineassassin July 15, 2013 at 23:11 #

    I’m happy I was able to supply this album for you, too. ^^

  6. birdycat19 July 6, 2013 at 04:03 #

    I find the mix pretty “meh” but who cares–it’s Chaka Khan! I’d LOVE to hear RAGS TO RUFUS though–one of my favorite 70’s r&b albums.

    • inquadwetrust July 9, 2013 at 13:51 #

      A sonic delight. It’s not a particularly showy mix but it maintains a full and rich quad-field throughout. Lovely mid range to the toms and piano with a crisp sizzle in the highs. Listen out for Chaka’s lead vocal tight in the front left whilst she tracks a different line alongside the backing singers in the rears. Gentle strings sweep fluidly to underpin squelchy moog whilst the bass struts all over like a horny rooster. Lots of lovely reverb that for some may initially blur the imaging but sit in the sweet spot and get comfy and you’ll soon find the placement is really nice and solid. Syncopated percussion spreads out to all four corners and the wahs lick from the diagonals like bullwhips.

      If you’re going out then you’re going out on a high. Lovely work.

  7. capt2muchclutter July 6, 2013 at 03:03 #

    It is good. I cranked up the rears and it was very solid then. Another overlooked gem.

  8. birdycat19 July 4, 2013 at 22:37 #

    Nice–always wondered how this sounded…hope it’s a good ‘un!

  9. matsarnelindgren July 4, 2013 at 19:46 #

    Thank you so very much for this. I’ve been looking forward to it and now I am able to hear it in all it’s glory for the first time ever in Quad. Thank you once again.

  10. joeerand July 4, 2013 at 18:39 #

    Fantastic. I have a quad LP of “Rags to Rufus” if you ever need it.

  11. lupineassassin July 4, 2013 at 14:12 #

    Sweet! Thanks so much.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: