[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Quad vs Quad



Okay kids,

Being an honored receipient of one of Bernd's Polydor Quads (thanks again,
Bernd!), I finally got around to A/B'ing the MCA reissue and Polydor Quads.

Anyone need a MCA Quad?  Only used once!

I'm not going to get anal about listing every spot that's different/better.
 Overall, the Polydor is >significantly< richer in tone in at every level.
 The cymbals sound like cymbals, not tin cans; the bass is louder and richer
(at the same settings, the Polydor rattled stuff on the shelves, while the
MCA just laid on the floor).  There even seems to be more definition in the
vocal enuciations.  The only criticism I can make is the abrupt transition
from "Dr. Jimmy" to "The Rock." (For anyone who hasn't heard these albums, it
sounds like "oops, ran out of tape, boys, hold up a sec.") But then, that's a
source problem, not Polydor's.

I honestly didn't expect to find an across-the-board improvement (after all,
they're supposed to be from the same source material), but there is.  And I
don't think my MCA copy is "defective."  There are no spots that are bad; in
fact I thought it sounded fine until I listened to the Polydor.  There really
is THAT much difference.

[In fact, it's so clear, you can tell that Rog couldn't quite hit all those
highs even in '73.  Makes his Monday night performance even more incredible.
Yeah, yeah, I know you're all dying to hear my comments on MSG.  They're
coming.]

If you're half deaf already, or have a cheap system and/or lousy speakers, it
may not matter.  But if you've got rock'n'roll hearing damage making you
sensitive to high, tinny frequencies, get yourself a Polydor copy. Someone(s)
at MCA should be burned at the stake.  This is strictly a quality control
issue--no excuse for it.

Mick