any Pink Floyd fan in the world would not be happy to add this to their collection (if they had a timbre matched surround sound system)!

Corrected: "if they had the time to allow the file to download..." :)

Corrected: "if they had the time to allow the file to download..." :)

What's this time?

Start the download and go do something else. Come back in a few hours (or days) and it's done.

You don't have to sit there and watch it download. And you can do other things on your computer while it's downloading.

Only if you're stuck on dial up is it impossible.

Not only did the download grind my Mac to a halt, it slowed other computers on my wireless to a crawl. Something about the software eats up all the bandwidth. With 4 other people in my house (not to mention anybody freeloading on my wireless) it was barely worth it.

And it was me that was downmixing the 4.1 DTS to stereo. I wasn't wondering why it didn't sound right, just commenting that it didn't. I wasn't expecting it to sound perfect. I've resolved all my setup issues, played it through multiple times now, have "perfect" surround on large floorstanding fronts, with matching bookshelf rears, a subwoofer fed by a 200wpc amp, the fronts fed by a 6B4G push-pull tube amp (speakers and amp built by myself), all controlled by my Outlaw 5.1 receiver, and I STILL DON'T LIKE IT! I've played it for friends and they aren't all that impressed either.

If you like it great. If you think it is the best surround disk out there, great. Only you have to like how it sounds. I would encourage everyone to try it themselves.

Not only did the download grind my Mac to a halt, it slowed other computers on my wireless to a crawl. Something about the software eats up all the bandwidth. With 4 other people in my house (not to mention anybody freeloading on my wireless) it was barely worth it.

And it was me that was downmixing the 4.1 DTS to stereo. I wasn't wondering why it didn't sound right, just commenting that it didn't. I wasn't expecting it to sound perfect. I've resolved all my setup issues, played it through multiple times now, have "perfect" surround on large floorstanding fronts, with matching bookshelf rears, a subwoofer fed by a 200wpc amp, the fronts fed by a 6B4G push-pull tube amp (speakers and amp built by myself), all controlled by my Outlaw 5.1 receiver, and I STILL DON'T LIKE IT! I've played it for friends and they aren't all that impressed either.

If you like it great. If you think it is the best surround disk out there, great. Only you have to like how it sounds. I would encourage everyone to try it themselves.

I knew it was you, I was only being difficult...my only real point I was trying to make is that only 1 person on this forum didn't like it and we are on page 17 now of this thread.

Just curious, did any of your friends like it? Did any of your friends try it on their own systems? Maybe they were just being nice to you by agreeing to your conclusions?

But I can't say that I like the surround experience at all. It just sounds gimmicky. Maybe that's why I never went past the first 2 DVD-As that I bought.

Quad died, and DVD-A and SACD are also dead. Surround music just isn't going to happen.


I'm sorry, but after the above statements, I'll take your critique on this title with a grain of salt.

So... any chance a handful of you could seed the BT for the next day or two? :)

I'm sorry, but after the above statements, I'll take your critique on this title with a grain of salt.
He's entitled to his opinions, so at least make it fleur de sel. ;) :)

So... any chance a handful of you could seed the BT for the next day or two? :)

Sure! :)

I listen to a lot of different music and wouldn't want surround on any of it.

Seriously, if that is the case then why enter the "surround music" forum here to discuss this title in the first place.

One of the most significant MC releases of all time.

Available, essentially as "shareware".

Is it worth it?

:rolleyes:

I certainly agree it is great bootleg, but don't see how it is significant in the slightest since no artists benefit and nobody that can do anything about future legitimate releases benefits. The Beatles "Love" is a big seller and I am hopeful it will be a significant release and spur further releases, maybe the record companies and artists will notice.

Chris

I certainly agree it is great bootleg, but don't see how it is significant in the slightest since no artists benefit and nobody that can do anything about future legitimate releases benefits. The Beatles "Love" is a big seller and I am hopeful it will be a significant release and spur further releases, maybe the record companies and artists will notice.

Chris
I am talking about the content of the disc itself...in terms of "significance".

I am not referring to financial "benefits" in the least.

In the same vein, I find the Beatles "Love", to be gimmicky and insignificant (as well as a bastardization of sorts).

After a few listens, the novelty of the disc is over for me.

However, if it spurs some advanced resolution Beatles releases in the future (the actual albums), then I'm certainly all for it.

I certainly agree it is great bootleg, but don't see how it is significant in the slightest since no artists benefit and nobody that can do anything about future legitimate releases benefits. The Beatles "Love" is a big seller and I am hopeful it will be a significant release and spur further releases, maybe the record companies and artists will notice.

Chris


CHRIS!! If it isn't significant, that would make it insignificant. I'm sure that's not what you meant. I personally do believe it is significant to us here in this forum. With the future of any new releases uncertain (for two years I've held my breath for the next release), the fact that something so polished, fresh, and unexpected, serendipitously fell into our laps from nowhere is significant. I like it.

Sure! :)

Thank you!

I can't wait to judge the significance for myself! :)

Seriously though, I'm pretty much an audio n00b. I have decent enough equipment, mid-fi I guess you'd call it (some old but awesome Platinum Audio PT808's, a Klipsch 12" sub, and Axiom surrounds and center). I'm wondering what "timber matched" means. Sorry, don't want to derail this thread, but I saw the term and just wanted to ask. Is it an adjustable thing, or is it something you plan at purchase?

Just curious, did any of your friends like it? Did any of your friends try it on their own systems? Maybe they were just being nice to you by agreeing to your conclusions?

None of them are really into the audio thing, so are basically unimpressed by it all. So maybe, yes, they are just agreeing with me.

Seriously, if that is the case then why enter the "surround music" forum here to discuss this title in the first place.

I'm sorry, but after the above statements, I'll take your critique on this title with a grain of salt.

This thread about DSOTM was the "last post" item, so it was on the main forum page. I probably wouldn't have otherwise looked at it. Once I got started, I had to follow up with my own opinion. And really, if you like it, that's great. I'm just a dissenting opinion, and there are a lot of opinions on the internet. There are certainly no absolutes in audio.

Thank you!

I can't wait to judge the significance for myself! :)

Seriously though, I'm pretty much an audio n00b. I have decent enough equipment, mid-fi I guess you'd call it (some old but awesome Platinum Audio PT808's, a Klipsch 12" sub, and Axiom surrounds and center). I'm wondering what "timber matched" means. Sorry, don't want to derail this thread, but I saw the term and just wanted to ask. Is it an adjustable thing, or is it something you plan at purchase?

Timbre matched means that all the speakers will sound the same, at least in the high end. Speakers can emphasis different frequencies, so they don't all sound the same. This is especially true with the less expensive, less accurate ones. If you have timbre matched speakers, usually done by at least using the same tweeters in all the speakers, there will be smooth transitions between speakers during pans.

OTOH, if speakers are designed properly, why should one speaker sound different from another. Frequency response should be perfectly flat across the range. That's not so easy.

Thank you.

I am talking about the content of the disc itself...in terms of "significance".

I am not referring to financial "benefits" in the least.

In the same vein, I find the Beatles "Love", to be gimmicky and insignificant (as well as a bastardization of sorts).

After a few listens, the novelty of the disc is over for me.

However, if it spurs some advanced resolution Beatles releases in the future (the actual albums), then I'm certainly all for it.
It is the first I have ever obtained "that way" and probably the last based on the amount of time it took; my time is more valuable and most of the other "stuff" seems not different than anything I can obtain through more normal channels. Again, the time vs money thing.

Having said that, I am a long time Floyd fan and extremely glad to have it.

I just received the Beatles Love and hope that it's not gimmicky. I am a longtime Beatles fan, too.

I just received the Beatles Love and hope that it's not gimmicky. I am a longtime Beatles fan, too.

Well, I can't predict how you will respond, but I love it. The surround mix is a lively, refreshing way to listen to the same Beatles songs I've heard a thousand times (and still love by the way). And in my own estimation, I would say from reading all of the feedback on this and other forums, that the feedback is roughly 90% positive, 10% negative. So hopefully you'll enjoy it.

What torrent is everyone using? I've tried 3 different ones and the fastest DL time is ETA 1 week! (and I got 15mbs DL speed BTW) I just got a new SR-604 and speakers hooked up yesterday and I'm dying to listen to this. Can someone send me a PM? Thanks Brian

Just as a reminder, this thread is for discussing Surround Music Formats and content. An example of what NOT to be discussed has been provided by RedBull808 just above. I could cite the relevant forum rule(s) if someone wants to make an issue out of it. I do not want to see this thread closed by management.

It is the first I have ever obtained "that way" and probably the last based on the amount of time it took; my time is more valuable...


When I first obtained the files many months ago, I think the whole process took less than 48 hours, and ran in the background while I worked on other stuff.

Perhaps I'm a bit more patient, and/or perhaps my time isn't as "valuable" as some.

:rolleyes:

I laughed. I cried. I dedicated a machine to seeding this forever. It really is great.

I should note that on my Oppo 970HD, I do hear a sort of hiccup between tracks in a few places (three, to be specific), and the version I have burned does lock up my DVD player hard midway through track 7 (Any Colour You Like) to the point that On/Off doesn't work, but based on what I've read here that's probably a download problem (on my first run-through I didn't know to block certain IP ranges -- which incidentally also seems to have improved download speed by a factor of about 20).

I admit I did find some of the channel-shifting a bit "gimmicky" in a couple places, but overall it was incredible. I have to compare the vocal parts, particularly in sections like Great Gig and Eclipse, with the live shows. And hell, Floyd saw fit to surround the stadiums with stack of speakers, so they clearly don't have an issue with multi-channel. :)

Here's hoping that 3 hours from now the next download results in a clean copy.

Anybody else listening through an Oppo? (I do have the latest firmware.)

I should note that on my Oppo 970HD, I do hear a sort of hiccup between tracks in a few places (three, to be specific), and the version I have burned does lock up my DVD player hard midway through track 7 (Any Colour You Like) to the point that On/Off doesn't work, but based on what I've read here that's probably a download problem...

...Here's hoping that 3 hours from now the next download results in a clean copy.


Either a problem with the files you grabbed themselves, a physical problem with the disc you burned, an issue with your player and gapless playback, and/or a combination of these.

I do not want to see this thread closed by management.
Funny. :rolleyes: It seems that that is exactly what you want.

Regarding the forum rules, as far as I know, no one in this thread has specifically linked anyone to the download in question.

Ooops, I said it was a "download". :D

Either a problem with the files you grabbed themselves, a physical problem with the disc you burned, an issue with your player and gapless playback, and/or a combination of these.

My guess would be the player. I doubt it is the file (not files because it's an iso). Maybe could be the media but I doubt that the only glitches would be in between tracks, too coincidental.

I just bought a cheap DVD player for my bedroom and it pauses between tracks on DTS CD's yet my nice yamaha DVD/DVD Audio player plays the same DTS CD's gapless (as well as the DSOTM DVD-audio disc).

This is odd.

This second one doesn't lock up the DVD player, but it does exhibit SERIOUS audio glitches at the end of each track (thumping, clicks, and other things that usually indicate bad data) which weren't present in the initial copy. Also, now many of the tracks won't continue into the following track -- instead, the track repeats, although I can skip ahead manually. So overall this is probably a step backwards.

I'm not entirely sure I blame the Oppo 970HD. I own about 20 DVD-Audio discs and they all play through perfectly, and the extreme differences between these two copies would seem to suggest the problem lies elsewhere.

Although a bad burn would seem to be the most likely explanation, I would be surprised if this was the case -- I backup every DVD and CD that I purchase, so I have burned around 1200 DVDs over the years and have only made one coaster in all that time, spanning about five burners and going back to the days that a single-layer blank cost $20 and the burner cost $500 or more. (My wife's multimedia business requires burning large numbers of DVDs so I had the hardware handy, which is why I did it in those early days when it wouldn't have otherwise been cost-effective.) Anyway, as I understand it, a DVD-Audio disc differs only at the data level -- there are no differences in formatting or directory structure or other areas that might warrant extra suspicion for DVD-A burns. I'd have thought BT's hash-checksumming should assure that each ISO was identical, but I don't pretend to have dug into BT all that deeply, so perhaps not.

I suppose first I'll try to create an absolutely "quiet" condition on my machine and try to burn another copy, probably a minimum speed, and see if that fixes (or changes) anything. Then maybe I'll re-rip the ISO image off the first one I burned (since I accidentally deleted the BT ISO) and try re-burning that. Then I'll go back to BT and see if I can pull a clean copy (or maybe even one that behaves differently).

Weird and frustrating stuff, to be sure.

I sure as hell wish I could just BUY a copy of this stupid thing. LOL

Then maybe I'll re-rip the ISO image off the first one I burned (since I accidentally deleted the BT ISO) and try re-burning that.

Probably better off just starting over again with a clean slate.

Apologies if this is a lame-brained question, but I finally bought a DVD burner for my iBook. I'm interested in burning a couple of bin & cue files a buddy sent me to make a DTS music DVD.

At least he tells me I can do that. I have never used bin & cue files before.

I've been trying to use Toast 7 to burn the DVD, but thus far I haven't had any luck. I keep getting a message something like "CD-ROM XA files cannot be burned to DVD" (I'm at work now and I can't remember the exact wording).

Is anyone out there a Toast expert? Is there an easy way to create a DTS music disc from bin and cue files using Toast?

Apologies if this is a lame-brained question, but I finally bought a DVD burner for my iBook. I'm interested in burning a couple of bin & cue files a buddy sent me to make a DTS music DVD.

At least he tells me I can do that. I have never used bin & cue files before.

I've been trying to use Toast 7 to burn the DVD, but thus far I haven't had any luck. I keep getting a message something like "CD-ROM XA files cannot be burned to DVD" (I'm at work now and I can't remember the exact wording).

Is anyone out there a Toast expert? Is there an easy way to create a DTS music disc from bin and cue files using Toast?

The question is completely out of place in this thread -- I'll PM you some info that might help clarify the situation, though it probably won't help you burn what you want.

I think my problems must be related to burning the image.

A file-compare of the second ISO to a rip of the ISO from the first disc shows that the files are 100% identical, so that means both discs should be 100% identical, data-wise. Hence I have to conclude something is going wrong during the burn.

The Oppo's playback issues are consistent -- the first disc locks up in track 7, and the second disc has the weird noises and stutters -- every single time. I suppose it could still be that the Oppo itself is having problems, but I've watched about 300 hours (judging from my projector's lamp meter) of backed-up DVDs without any playback problems at all prior to this, so I'm unconvinced the Oppo is the problem. It isn't impossible, but it seems unlikely given that the ISOs are identical yet the playback problems are disc-specific.

I've skimmed through discussions about "burning strategies" and other weird stuff in DVD burner firmware, but I confess I haven't spent much time trying to understand it, let alone figure out how changes might help in this specific instance, so I guess I'll try to burn a few more times and hope I get lucky. :rolleyes:

Without getting too detail-oriented, what program are you using to burn the DVD?

Have you burned from DVD iso-images before without issues?

DVD Decrypter, which is what I always use for burning. It only burns from ISOs. Even when I rip to files for backup purposes, I re-encode to an ISO before burning. I suspect throttling back the speed might help a lot. (I wound up reading more than I cared to about how burners work when my burner refused to write to a new package of Verbatim blanks. Apparently the manufacturer, in that case Ritek, impresses some kind of code on each disc and the burners have hard-coded "burn strategies" for every single manufacturer code in the world -- so when a new code shows up, you have to flash your burner's firmware. In the process of tracking down this odd detail, I saw discussions about how burn speed would alter the quality of the write, which is why I say I'll try low-speed burning.)

Sorry, didn't mean to sidetrack the thread.

And for anyone who might be hand-wringing over "risky" discussions of taboo subjects, I'll throw you a bone: previously I had zero interest in SACD, as I have very serious disagreements with many of Sony's business practicies. However, this DVD-A has convinced me that I need to purchase the SACD version for comparison purposes. So the net result of all this borderline-underground activity has been to actually increase the sales figures by at least one copy. :)

I use Decrypter as well, and also plenty of Ritek blank media, so I really don't know what the problem might be.

...this DVD-A has convinced me that I need to purchase the SACD version for comparison purposes. So the net result of all this borderline-underground activity has been to actually increase the sales figures by at least one copy. :)

FWIW, I haven't listened to the SACD since I first compared it to the DVD-A.

It is certainly worth picking up nonetheless, IMHO. :rolleyes:

I didn't mean to imply that Ritek media was a problem -- far from it, I only use Verbatim which is manufactured by Ritek -- just that Ritek had started a new manufacturing run and started digitally stamping their discs with F1 (I think that was the code) instead of the old G1 code. Basically the "strategy" controls some internal speed settings which ultimately translate into a maximum burn-speed, it's just a lookup table, and it just needed a firmware flash to create a cross-reference for the new stamped code.

And the good news is, the third time is the charm. I shut down everything that was shut-downable (heh), jacked up DVD Decrypter's buffer to maximum (256MB), and set the burn speed to 1X, and this disc plays through perfectly.

Well -- there is still a very, very small hesitation between tracks -- I'm talking the tiniest fraction of a second, just enough to notice it if you're giving it a very close listening -- but I'm guessing that's the player.

I sure am glad blank DVD's don't cost $25 apiece these days. :)

DVD Decrypter, which is what I always use for burning. It only burns from ISOs. Even when I rip to files for backup purposes, I re-encode to an ISO before burning. I suspect throttling back the speed might help a lot. (I wound up reading more than I cared to about how burners work when my burner refused to write to a new package of Verbatim blanks. Apparently the manufacturer, in that case Ritek, impresses some kind of code on each disc and the burners have hard-coded "burn strategies" for every single manufacturer code in the world -- so when a new code shows up, you have to flash your burner's firmware. In the process of tracking down this odd detail, I saw discussions about how burn speed would alter the quality of the write, which is why I say I'll try low-speed burning.)

Sorry, didn't mean to sidetrack the thread.

And for anyone who might be hand-wringing over "risky" discussions of taboo subjects, I'll throw you a bone: previously I had zero interest in SACD, as I have very serious disagreements with many of Sony's business practicies. However, this DVD-A has convinced me that I need to purchase the SACD version for comparison purposes. So the net result of all this borderline-underground activity has been to actually increase the sales figures by at least one copy. :)

I suspect this DVD-A resulted in many selling their SACD and many not buying the SACD, but I am sure the record company and artists will be delighted it resulted in your consideration of purchasing the SACD. I have both and like both. I actually believe the SACD was one of the best selling SACD's in history, but apparently sales weren't good enough for Pink Floyd to release more SACD's while the market was developing, it might have helped. Two different approaches to this great album that was far from one of my favorites before owning the SACD, this music really works in surround.

Chris

I suspect this DVD-A resulted in many selling their SACD and many not buying the SACD, but I am sure the record company and artists will be delighted it resulted in your consideration of purchasing the SACD. I have both and like both. I actually believe the SACD was one of the best selling SACD's in history, but apparently sales weren't good enough for Pink Floyd to release more SACD's while the market was developing, it might have helped. Two different approaches to this great album that was far from one of my favorites before owning the SACD, this music really works in surround.
Chris

I have both the SACD and the DVD-A, and have no intention of getting rid of either.

I don't think anyone with a surround setup, a universal disc player, and also a love for Pink Floyd music decided to forgo the SACD because they already owned the DVD-A.

IMO, they are different enough (and good enough) to coexist together.

Your posts in this thread continually address the record companies, the musical artists, and the royalties involved in commercial music releases.

What do any of those topics have to do with the content of the DSOTM DVD-A?

Your posts in this thread continually address the record companies, the musical artists, and the royalties involved in commercial music releases.

What do any of those topics have to do with the content of the DSOTM DVD-A?

If nothing else, those issues delayed getting this material into our hands by some 30 years... I'd call that related. :)

If nothing else, those issues delayed getting this material into our hands by some 30 years... I'd call that related. :)

Well yeah, but that's not really what I meant.

Some people just do not know what "off topic" means and will toss out heartfelt but irrelevant rationalizations when called on it. :rolleyes:

I have both the SACD and the DVD-A, and have no intention of getting rid of either.

I don't think anyone with a surround setup, a universal disc player, and also a love for Pink Floyd music decided to forgo the SACD because they already owned the DVD-A.

IMO, they are different enough (and good enough) to coexist together.

Your posts in this thread continually address the record companies, the musical artists, and the royalties involved in commercial music releases.

What do any of those topics have to do with the content of the DSOTM DVD-A?

My comment was in response to the post regarding a purchase of the legitimate artist approved release on SACD resulting from having the bootleg DVD-A, nothing more, nothing less. My interest is in further surround releases, preferably SACD but I can sure live with DVD-A. If this bootleg helps in that regard, great although I couldn't come to that conclusion on my own.

Chris

My interest is in further surround releases

In that sense, we are certainly on the same page.

So... any chance a handful of you could seed the BT for the next day or two? :)

I know it's a little late, but if anyone is still looking for this, I may seed it for a little while the next few days (I do that every once in a while anyway, as I like to give back to the community from which I got this wonderful gem!).
I do think it's interesting how long some people have had to wait to get this thing I was able to download it in a matter of hours. I just set it to go and as I recall it only took around 4-6 hours both times I tried it.

Yes DrOct, please seed it..I'm on day 3 and it's crawling at about 80% done.
Thanks very much!

Got it! IP blocking sped things up alot. Now on to the tunes... For now, I can only listen in DTS, but wow it sounds awesome. May need to find me a DVD-A player to listen on :D Thanks for all the info in this thread.

Thanks too for seeding, it went from a crawl over the past few days to finishing up over 4 hrs last night.

My friends I'm new on this forum, so please enlight me: I have downloaded a DTS (wav) file with DSOTM. I have burnt it to a CD and listen to my 5.1 system. This has no video. It says that this is taken from Q8 version. Sounds great, but I have nothing to compare except 2chCD.

I read also here about AUDIO_TS and VIDEO_TS, and 3.43 GB file/folder. I have other material (Bjorn Lynne for instance) as AC3 files that I use convert to DVD-audio and burn it to DVD - this has video menus.

On the other hand I do not have any SACD player/receiver.

So...what version do I have?
I am confused, please help.

The version being discussed here is distributed as an ISO file -- a binary image of the complete DVD. There isn't any reason to pull the ISO apart into the individual files -- just burn the ISO directly to a blank DVD.

The true DVD-Audio portion is recorded in lossless MPL compression format, which requires a DVD-Audio-compatible DVD player to replay. The disc also includes DVD-Video tracks which include DTS and Dolby Digital versions.

SACD is not required or involved.

Not sure what version you have, but if you're not listening to the MPL version, you're not listening to the version being discussed.

So...what version do I have?

The wrong version.

Cool!

The wrong version.

Bad news for you, my friend: my version is the 4.1 DTS, the same Alan Parsons' DVD-A that some consider to be more realistic in terms of surround mix. The original master tape has been used. So it looks that it is THE version.

Incorrect. DTS uses a lossy compression format. Data is discarded during compression. Merdian Lossless Packing (I've seen people write MLP and MPL) is, of course, lossless. Hence it is considered superior.

If you're listening to DTS, you aren't listening to the version being discussed. You're listening to the audio track of a DVD-Video disc with a lower-quality rendition of the version being discussed. I suppose it might be an open question as to whether you or someone else can tell, but they are two different things.

Considering the DTS people are the ones responsible for MLP, it's probably a safe bet to assume that it actually is superior.

Bad news for you, my friend: my version is the 4.1 DTS, the same Alan Parsons' DVD-A that some consider to be more realistic in terms of surround mix. The original master tape has been used. So it looks that it is THE version.

Incorrect.

As has already been stated, if you aren't listening to the MLP lossless tracks in 24/96, you aren't listening to the version of DSOTM being discussed in this thread.

MLP Lossless vs. DTS = night and day

Considering the DTS people are the ones responsible for MLP...MLP was invented by Bob Stuart (co-owner of Meridian Audio) and is licensed by Dolby Labs.

Sanjay

I like it. Haven't A/B'd it to my newest reference disc though, the 30th Anniv vinyl I just got and adore.


As for getting the file, you MUST use IP blocking or you will take forever as there is a range giving bad hashes. Get the freeware "Peerguardian" and add the IP range. I grabbed a random torrent of this and it took less than 1 day.

My suggestion for everyone with burning questions, finding file questions, etc is to A) search this thread - it has been hashed repeatedly and B) use the power of the internet.

this torrent stuff blows does anybody have the file for animals on a more reliable server?

Don't waste your time with the Animals "upmix". The Atom Heart Mother and Wish You Were Here recordings were Quad. None of the other albums were released in 4.0. Please delete all posts asking for these recordings. This is not the place for that. This thread is for discussing the music not finding it!

this torrent stuff blows does anybody have the file for animals on a more reliable server?
WTF do you want for FREE? :rolleyes: :mad:

this torrent stuff blows

I think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Still not as cool as the DSOTM DVD-A itself, though.

:rolleyes:

this was my first use of torrent and the download speeds are awful im sure if there were more peers to connect too for this file it would be much faster but as of last night there were only 2 so download was almost down to a crawl.
so i guess ill just let it run its course till it is done. :D

Sorry didnt mean to get everybodies panties in a bunch!

So my cheapo DVD player doesn't handle DVD-A discs - which is the "better" the DTS or DD track? Or are they the same?

So my cheapo DVD player doesn't handle DVD-A discs - which is the "better" the DTS or DD track? Or are they the same?

You get to decide for yourself. I sometimes prefer DTS and sometimes prefer Dolby Digital, but I think both are great when done well. For music, DTS is often my favorite of the two.

Chris

As I mentioned a few posts back I hadn't A/B'd this to my 30th Anniv vinyl, over the weekend I had a chance to listen to them back-to-back and have to say for this album the DVD-A is the more enjoyable, to me, version. I guess the novelty of 4.1 for this kind of music works for me. Putting on the vinyl version just sounds so "flat" now - arg, I loved that record for a week! SQ between the two is close enough that I can't pick a winner from my casual listening session.

I also got WYWH and pffft I'm not impressed. The quad mix is very tame with little information in the rear just some ambiance unlike DSotM where there is a lot going on. It does have decent SQ though.

I am intrigued to hear (albeit at first listening) that a vinyl version can sound (quality wise) about the same as digital source that comes directly from the original 4 track quadraphonic masters. You must have a very high end LP listening system

Hi guys and gals, this is my first post. I just discovered this post tonight. I haven't had time to read all of the entries to find out how to download the DVD-Audio Dark Side of the Moon. I am a novice computer downloader, so if someone could PLEASE give me detailed instructions on how and where to download this DVD-Audio, I would be very grateful.

Just go to the very first post in this thread and follow the link to the page that describes the link without actually linking. Then wait a week.

Or PM me.

Hi guys and gals, this is my first post. I just discovered this post tonight. I haven't had time to read all of the entries to find out how to download the DVD-Audio Dark Side of the Moon. I am a novice computer downloader, so if someone could PLEASE give me detailed instructions on how and where to download this DVD-Audio, I would be very grateful.

I'd recommend at least taking the time to read the contents of the thread.

lchui7, my gear is decidedly low-fi on the player end - just a cheap Philips DVD and a Denon turntable with integrated phono stage. The playing end is better with HK AVR 635 and Wharfdale EVO speakers. Both DTSotM discs have me wanting to upgrade though :D

I'm not sitting there trying to critique every little bit as far as SQ goes - I'm just trying to hear any noise, hiss, bottom-of-a-well, etc. On my equipment both versions sound equally clean to me and I notice no difference in this area of sonics. I think the DVD-A sounds better but that is the mix and not SQ.

Hi guys and girls,

This is my first post here. I had to join after discovering this post when searching for some information on the Alan Parsons surround mix of DSOTM. It seems there are as many varied and sometimes strongly defended opinions about the DVDa as there are formats and releases of the album itself!!

I feel compelled to contribute my personal opinions about the DVDa and SACD versions of this fine album but first, since I am new here, here's a brief little intro -

I am a strongwoman and multi record holding female powerlifter from Australia. I work as a professional sound engineer and have a passion for surround audio. I specialise in audio post production and mastering and have my own Protools based studio which also doubles as my hifi and home theatre. I have recently expanded my facilities to include MLP and DVDa authoring and production in both stereo and multi-channel.
I am also a musician with keyboards and piano being my main instruments. I play guitar, bass guitar, trumpet, drums and percussion as well. I have just started writing a musical and am aiming to release it in 5.1 on DVDa so the music will be specifically written and recorded with 5.1 in mind.

Anyway, my system consists of a 5.2 set up (stereo subs) with the front mains being bi-amped. My subs are American Crown with 2 x 10 inch drivers in each sealed enclosure. In my room, they have a -6dB point of around 15 Hz and usable response to 10 Hz so they can really make things move!! They are driven by a custom power amp of my own design and construction. The front mains are my own design and have undergone various tweaks to optimise their performance in the nearly 20 years that I have had them.
I have an analog bass management system which is also my own design. I can individually control crossover points for all speakers and all sub information is sent as a stereo mix to the subs. Each output can be switched on and off for fault finding or channel balancing in mastering.
My main amp is a Yamaha RX-V690 with many modifications including discreet 5.1 balanced analog inputs to the power amps (bypassing the pre's) and various tweaks to the power amp circuits to improve transient response and bandwidth. The rear channels are driven by another Yamaha amp (actually a bit of overkill at 300 W RMS per channel!!).
My surround speakers can be switched between an ITU configuration and a multi speaker configuration similar to a commercial cinema. The selection depends what I am mastering and the intended audience.

Anyway, enough about that and on to the mixes.
I am going to go against popular opinion here and say that I prefer James Guthries mix on the SACD over Alan Parsons original 4 channel mix on the DVDa.
To me, the SACD is far more consistent, especially in the low frequency area and the upper mids (particularly between 3.15K and 6.3K). The low end on the SACD mix os tight and punchy on a consistent basis while the DVDa is all over the place. From Us and Them onwards, the DVDa is quite good though.
I do like the surround use of Alan's mix and feel it is certainly more discreet and adventurous than James' mix. However, I think James' mix is much fuller and more 'mature'. It is, after all, 30 years later and represents a 'growing up' of the surround format. Although, both surround versions are awesome in respect to the album IMHO.
I really DON'T like the mix of Money on the DVDa. The guitar parts in particular cut my head off at a volume that barely makes my subs work. In contrast, the same track on the SACD sounds fat, punchy and smooth at a volume that cracks concrete!!

The bottom line for me is with some mastering treatment, the DVDa could sound a whole lot better whereas the SACD already does. Of course, there is a difference in the technology used for these mixes of 30 years so I would fully expect a brand new mix to sound MUCH better and it does.
None of this takes away from the talent of Floyd, Guthrie or Parsons. They are all extremely good at what they do. What I am hearing is the difference in technology.
As a footnote, the extra '.1' channel on the DVDa actually improves it IMHO and brings the bottom end a little closer to the SACD mix.
...and finally, I must say I truly hope DVDa wins the hi res format war over SACD. It is superior as a format technically in a number of ways including bandwidth and dynamic range. It is also a much easier format to use to create a master for clients.

could someone please PM me as to how to burn this once it's downloaded. I find it less than intuitive...plus there seems to be video files included?...thanks!

All you need is the "Pink Floyd - Ultimate DSOTM 4_1.iso" file. Load that into a CD burning program like Nero Express and select "Disk Image or Saved Project". Once you load that file, simply select a SLOW burn speed and click "burn".

I've only played it back on a normal DVD player, no DVD-A player. It has a slide show but no video for me. I doubt there would be any video.

It has a slide show but no video for me. I doubt there would be any video.

There is no moving video on the disc, just the slideshow.

could someone please PM me as to how to burn this once it's downloaded. I find it less than intuitive...plus there seems to be video files included?...thanks!
If you have video files, you do not have the file being discussed in this thread. As Quank posted, it is just an ISO file.

but there is no .iso file...do you have to somehow create one?

but there is no .iso file...do you have to somehow create one?

You grabbed the wrong DSOTM torrent.

The one you are looking for contains a 3.43GB .ISO file.

Anything other than that is not the DVD-A being discussed in this thread (although now it just seems to be a rehashing of the same info over-and-over again).

Finally got to listen to DSOTM in true DVD-A! I can only describe it in one word ... INCREDIBLE! Not sure if I've got a better sounding DVD-A in my library (and I've got almost everything that has been released in DVD-A). Great graphics, too, although I did notice the graphic for "Time" shows Gilmour and Waters playing their instruments left-handed! (negative image?!?)

I have deleted the image files I had for the dvda version of Dark side of the Moon, Could anybody help by E-mailing me both the disc label and the dvd case image so I can re-save the content? Heres hoping!

Once you've downloaded the iso use ISOBurn to burn it. Very simple to use.

I am in the process of downloading,is it possible for those of you that have dsotm on dvd-a to seed this.
I'm 24 hours into it and only at 30%.Also could someone shed some light on the ip blocking
as I am getting "failed hash check"comments and "banned" comments.
Feel free to pm me. Since I am new to this all help is much welcomed.
I've read the whole thread and still a little lost... just want make sure I'm doing everything right.
Can't wait to hear this...all of your post about how good this dvd-a is has me chomping at the bit

I am in the process of downloading,is it possible for those of you that have dsotm on dvd-a to seed this.
I'm 24 hours into it and only at 30%.Also could someone shed some light on the ip blocking
as I am getting "failed hash check"comments and "banned" comments.
Feel free to pm me. Since I am new to this all help is much welcomed.
I've read the whole thread and still a little lost... just want make sure I'm doing everything right.
Can't wait to hear this...all of your post about how good this dvd-a is has me chomping at the bit

Your problem isn't enough seeds, it's bad data by any P2P folks. What's happening is there are fake seeds out there putting false data on the net to try to currupt the torrent. The torrent software you are using is smart enough to find the problem, but it is wasting time downloading the bad stuff before it can find out it's bad. While I side with the anti-P2P folks who are doing this, I downloaded DSOTM guilt free because I can't buy this version anywhere and I currently own DSOTM in 4 formats already.

I don't want to get this site in trouble, so I wont share any links, but find and download the program "uTorrent" (a free torrent software) and then do a Google on "uTorrent and ipfilter.dat" and you'll be able to figure it out from there.

I am in the process of downloading,is it possible for those of you that have dsotm on dvd-a to seed this.
I'm 24 hours into it and only at 30%.Also could someone shed some light on the ip blocking
as I am getting "failed hash check"comments and "banned" comments.
Feel free to pm me. Since I am new to this all help is much welcomed.
I've read the whole thread and still a little lost... just want make sure I'm doing everything right.
Can't wait to hear this...all of your post about how good this dvd-a is has me chomping at the bit

If this:
38.0.0.0-39.0.0.0
208.10.20.0-208.10.20.255
was in your Doc&Settings\logonid\Application Data\uTorrect\ipfilter.dat file it may work better. ;)

You can also get "Peerguardian" which is freeware, if you use that app you'll need to add the 38.0.0.x range in though manually to its settings. Once you do that it should DL a lot faster.

Thanks all. Just burned it and gave a quick listen...everything sounds great.

thank you all, fixed my crap download speed. Sounds awesome

Has anyone actually determined if the LFE is just a duplicate of, say, all the signal below 80 Hz on the other channels -- the equivalent of bass-managing a 4.0 mix and capturing the sub output digitally to a new .1 channel -- or whether it's actually got low frequency content that isn't in any of the other channels (which is what LFE is supposed to be used for)?

Almost without exception, there shouldn't be any LFE in a music recording. Putting it in is just pandering to people with inadequate/misconfigured systems while messing the sound quality for everyone else.

Has anyone actually determined if the LFE is just a duplicate of, say, all the signal below 80 Hz on the other channels -- the equivalent of bass-managing a 4.0 mix and capturing the sub output digitally to a new .1 channel -- or whether it's actually got low frequency content that isn't in any of the other channels (which is what LFE is supposed to be used for)?
To me, it seems derived from the 4.0 channels. I believe I read as much somewhere. If ever there was a band that *would* have used LFE, it was the Floyd. But .1 and LFE didn't exist 30 years ago.

Almost without exception, there shouldn't be any LFE in a music recording. Putting it in is just pandering to people with inadequate/misconfigured systems while messing the sound quality for everyone else.

I still think Waiting For The Sun sounds inferior to the other 5 releases after they forgot to include the .1 channel.

I know it it has nothing to do with my setup being inadequate and/or misconfigured.

Each to his own...

(sorry for the off-topic content).

But that statement doesn't really make sense - it's like complaining about "too many notes".

If you're saying the bass is weak, then that's a reasonable criticism. But that can be fixed without resorting to the LFE channel. How on earth do you think they manage to include bass on CDs?

It's doubly heinous in this case where they're just doing a transfer of a 4.0 source. Inventing an LFE channel is even more damaging than inventing a centre channel. By all means, do whatever it takes to EQ the transfer, but don't start inventing new channels.

It's doubly heinous in this case where they're just doing a transfer of a 4.0 source. Inventing an LFE channel is even more damaging than inventing a centre channel. By all means, do whatever it takes to EQ the transfer, but don't start inventing new channels.
Not sure I understand why it's heinous. It's not like they mated 1812 Overture with it! And it gives us an easy way to punch up the bass without tone controls.

Not sure I understand why it's heinous.

That makes two of us.

:rolleyes:

Not sure I understand why it's heinous. It's not like they mated 1812 Overture with it! And it gives us an easy way to punch up the bass without tone controls.
You can always turn up the bass with the subwoofer level, if you're using a subwoofer. That's nothing to do with having an LFE track.

The problem with use of LFE in music is what do you put in it? There aren't any discrete earthquakes or explosions. The only thing you can usefully do is attempt to perform bass management at the mixing desk. But that doesn't really achieve anything - how does the mixing engineer know what crossover frequency the end user wants, or indeed whether they have a subwoofer at all? If the end user doesn't have a subwoofer, or is listening over headphones, then the bass filtered off to the LFE channel needs to be summed back in. And that doesn't work well at all, because of the way the filters work - you get all sorts of nasty cancellation problems.

And of course, one other advantage to avoiding the LFE track is you avoid all the horrible problems to do with LFE level - this causes grief on DVD-Audio and SACD as much as HD DVD and Blu-ray.

Let me turn this around - why do you think there should be an LFE track? What should be in it, and what does it achieve?

Let me turn this around - why do you think there should be an LFE track? What should be in it, and what does it achieve?

I don't think about sound in terms of what "should" or "shouldn't" be.

I form my opinions based on what my ears hear, and my ears hear Waiting For the Sun as bass-deficient compared to the other Doors remasters no matter how much I turn up the sub or play with the controls on my AVR-3806.

In terms of the LFE track on the DSOTM DVD-A, it was an addition by the author as stated in the text that accompanied the torrent.

"The only "liberty" we have taken here is an additional .1 track. You can make up your own mind as to whether or not it is a worthwhile addition."

Meaning, if you don't like the addition of the LFE track, then turn off your sub.

Let me turn this around - why do you think there should be an LFE track? What should be in it, and what does it achieve?
The presence of a .1 channel does NOT (necessarily) mean the source has Low Frequency Effects. Obviously, LFE is in the .1 channel when it exists, but the presence of a .1 channel says absolutely nothing about the presence of LFE. I said that Pink Floyd strikes me as a band who could have used LFE, not that they did.

Has anyone actually determined if the LFE is just a duplicate of, say, all the signal below 80 Hz on the other channels -- the equivalent of bass-managing a 4.0 mix and capturing the sub output digitally to a new .1 channel -- or whether it's actually got low frequency content that isn't in any of the other channels (which is what LFE is supposed to be used for)?
The LFE track is redundant info.

Meaning, if you don't like the addition of the LFE track, then turn off your sub.
That works fine if your front speakers are set to LARGE, but if your front speakers are set to SMALL, turning off the sub will eliminate not only the redundant LFE track, but all the properly rerouted bass, as well.

The LFE track is redundant info.
There is no LFE channel. It is a .1 channel.

There is no LFE channel. It is a .1 channel.
The .1 channel IS the LFE channel.

The redundant bass info in that track was engineered as an LFE track. It's decoded by the receiver/pre/pro identically to the way the LFE or .1 channel on any DVD would be decoded and, if your system is setup as having a sub, is sent to the subwoofer only.

I don't think about sound in terms of what "should" or "shouldn't" be.

I form my opinions based on what my ears hear, and my ears hear Waiting For the Sun as bass-deficient compared to the other Doors remasters no matter how much I turn up the sub or play with the controls on my AVR-3806.

And you then, by bad reasoning, come to some conclusion about LFE per se, that isn't warranted. An LFE channel wouldn't necessarily 'fix' your problem with the Doors disc

Meaning, if you don't like the addition of the LFE track, then turn off your sub.

And thus lose bass managment. Bad idea. Much smarter would be to have NO LFE information in the surround music mix in the first place. It's an unnecessary gimmick.

Not sure I understand why it's heinous. It's not like they mated 1812 Overture with it! And it gives us an easy way to punch up the bass without tone controls.

So, let me get this straight.

you either need to 'punch up the bass' because you can't reach the level intended by the mastering/mixing engineer in your environment, without it -- and this problem with your setup, is best fixed by adding LFE to the mix that everyone buys.

or

you want to 'punch up the bass' BEYOND what the mastering/mixing engineer intended, because, well, you just like more bass. And this preference of yours is best achieved by adding LFE to the mix that everyone buys.

:rolleyes:

So, are these the only reasons people think there should be an LFE channel in music mixes?

The LFE track is redundant info.

So, I have to wonder how the 'authors' really intend this thing to be listened to, or if they thought this through at all.

In a typical 5.1 bass managed system with 'small' speakers + sub, the bass from the sub is 'doubled up' in such a mix, which is not a good idea. Even worse if the setup doesn't properly level-adjust the LFE before bass management. Fixable if one uses 6 analog connections, by disconnecting the .1 cable. With a digital connection, one would have to turn the LFE off in the player -- which might or might not route it to the other channels (best if it didn't, in this case)

So, let me get this straight.

you either need to 'punch up the bass' because you can't reach the level intended by the mastering/mixing engineer in your environment, without it -- and this problem with your setup, is best fixed by adding LFE to the mix that everyone buys.

or

you want to 'punch up the bass' BEYOND what the mastering/mixing engineer intended, because, well, you just like more bass. And this preference of yours is best achieved by adding LFE to the mix that everyone buys.

:rolleyes:

krabapple's right on this - LFE content on a 5.1 is generally redundant, unnecessary, and renders the mix un-translatable on most systems. Problems range from subtle to deal-breaker, but wouldn't be there if there was no LFE channel.

If the mixing engineer wanted more bass content, they would have mixed the bass sounds louder (this wasn't available to the people who distributed this, since the 4.0 mix had been done by Alan Parsons many years ago). If the mastering engineer determined that there wasn't enough bass content, he or she may or may not have used EQ to boost the bass to an appropriate level, the same as has been done for nearly a century - the LFE channel is the wrong tool for the job in every way.

I have a way to turn off the LFE channel without turning off the subwoofer when I play DVD-As in my computer (most systems don't), and the quad mix actually has a little more robust bass than my MFSL gold cd of DSOTM played through the same system (it should - it has twice as many channels with potentially twice as much headroom for bass content). The Doors WFTS DVD-A is the the only one of the recent Doors 5.1 mixes that sound just plain right to me, and this will be the case with any properly calibrated system (every system setup is a compromise, the modern trend in mixing and mastering is to have a lot of bass, so YMMV).

So, I have to wonder how the 'authors' really intend this thing to be listened to, or if they thought this through at all...

The authors thought this through very carefully, and came to a different conclusion than I would have. Still, turning off the LFE channel leaves you with AP's original Quad mix in a pristine transfer, without extra equalization and compression - not bad at all.

And this preference of yours is best achieved by adding LFE to the mix that everyone buys.
You bought yours? :rolleyes:

So, I have to wonder how the 'authors' really intend this thing to be listened to, or if they thought this through at all.

In a typical 5.1 bass managed system with 'small' speakers + sub, the bass from the sub is 'doubled up' in such a mix, which is not a good idea.
Exactly. It's "doubled up" if you run your speakers as LARGE, too. If the speakers are set to LARGE, the mix is still played back with redundant bass similarly to the way a system works if setup using an "LFE+Main" type setting.

The authors should have transfered this simply as a 4.0 soundtrack and let everyone's system do the bass managing for them as they please.

As it stands now, no one's system can "un-bass-manage" this mix properly.

I "complained" about this earlier in this thread and was resoundingly over-ruled. Most people like the redundant LFE channel. Go figure. :rolleyes:

Still, turning off the LFE channel leaves you with AP's original Quad mix in a pristine transfer, without extra equalization and compression - not bad at all.
IF your speakers are set to LARGE. And if you mean disconnecting your sub. Because with this DSOTM mix, if you tell your receiver that you have NO SUB, then that redundant LFE info is routed to your LARGE front speakers. With the DVD-A mix and analog connected players, the player will not reroute the LFE channel, so if you set the player up as havng NO SUB, then the mix IS played back properly a s a4.0 mix.

Of course, if you like running your speakers as SMALL, unplugging the sub is not at all an option with this mix.

To be fair, some receivers do have a specific option to turn off the LFE. Not at all common, but mine does (although it's only for DD and DTS, as it doesn't have multichannel digital input).

In the end, it is all down to personal preference. The original mix is over 30 years old and it sounds like it is over 30 years old. The SACD mix sounds like it was mixed a couple of years ago on FAR superior equipment (much newer technology).
Also, the AP DVDa mix is not a final mix and has inconsistencies which reflect that such as the harshness in some of the tracks, particularly in the surrounds.

IMHO, the extra .1 channel, although not created by Alan, fattens up what is otherwise a rather lacking mix as far as low end is concerned.

I am actually going to have a go at remastering this mix myself when I have some spare time. :)

In the end, it is all down to personal preference. The original mix is over 30 years old and it sounds like it is over 30 years old. The SACD mix sounds like it was mixed a couple of years ago on FAR superior equipment (much newer technology).
Also, the AP DVDa mix is not a final mix and has inconsistencies which reflect that such as the harshness in some of the tracks, particularly in the surrounds.

IMHO, the extra .1 channel, although not created by Alan, fattens up what is otherwise a rather lacking mix as far as low end is concerned.

I am actually going to have a go at remastering this mix myself when I have some spare time. :)


IMHO 5.1 setup with center channel and LFE is good for soundtracks but not music. Music should be in four channels leaving base management to the listener and center channel to dialogues in movies.

Agree totally about LFE, but disagree about the centre channel. Having three channels up front makes the soundstage much more concrete, and it gives a whole new palette of mixing choices, as you can alter the width of different components of the mix.

Many of the earliest stereo pioneers recognised the merit of 3-channel stereo. But 2-channel was forced by the technical limitations of fitting stereo onto vinyl. Many 3-channel classical recordings from the 50s and 60s are now being released on SACD, as part of RCA's "Living Stereo" range.

I have a few discs that omit the centre channel altogether, and I can't say I'm particularly fond of the result.

I guess if your centre speaker is not of the same calibre as your left+right, you might be less keen on its use for anything other than dialogue. All 5 of my speakers are identical, so I'm not currently bothered on that score.

I read an interview with Alan Parson regarding the SACD mix by James Guthrie (yu can goggle for it) and was dissapointed by Alan's comments. Parson complained that there is not enough center channel in the mix??? I do not think he knows what he is talking about.

I think DSOTM new mix is outstanding and breathes new life to this 30 years old recording. Excellent job, perfect choice not to use the center (Guthries reason were that the did not want to be limited where vocal should be positioned), great separation, clarity and good enough reason to buy SACD equipment....

IMHO 5.1 setup with center channel and LFE is good for soundtracks but not music. Music should be in four channels leaving base management to the listener and center channel to dialogues in movies.

I concur with KMO's opinion.

The LFE channel isn't needed for music mixes, and the Center channel should be embraced. Not as a dialog channel (no need for this in a music mix), but as part of LCR stereo.

Alan Parsons has done many surround mixes, and they are all 4.x. (I haven't found the specific interview you mentioned) I can't imagine he would criticize Guthrie for not using the Center Channel. When Guthrie uses C in his DSOTM mix, he places the female vocal and a sax solo squarely in C. The lead vocal throughout the rest of the album is not placed anywhere but Phantom C - equally in L & R - there was no creative placement of the lead vocal.

Perhaps he felt that this would better-replicate the experience we have grown to know and love from decades of listening to the original mix, but someone would have to ask him. IMO Phantom C is almost always less-desireable than discrete C.

Agree totally about LFE, but disagree about the centre channel. Having three channels up front makes the soundstage much more concrete, and it gives a whole new palette of mixing choices, as you can alter the width of different components of the mix.

Many of the earliest stereo pioneers recognised the merit of 3-channel stereo. But 2-channel was forced by the technical limitations of fitting stereo onto vinyl. Many 3-channel classical recordings from the 50s and 60s are now being released on SACD, as part of RCA's "Living Stereo" range.

I have a few discs that omit the centre channel altogether, and I can't say I'm particularly fond of the result.

I guess if your centre speaker is not of the same calibre as your left+right, you might be less keen on its use for anything other than dialogue. All 5 of my speakers are identical, so I'm not currently bothered on that score.


KMO,

Great point on the speaker quality as most HT systems utilize really "specialized" center and LR/LF speakers. (most HT systems were not designed to handle music at all). That's good for soundtrack and unacceptable for MCH music. I disagree however on the center channel use. Two front channels are enough for perfect positioning and separation. Thousand of perfect, audiophile stereo recordings can attest to that. Early stereo needed the third channel, as channel separation at that time was very low. I do not think this is an issue today and it was not in the 70s when true quadrophonic recordings were released...

I think we disagree because I look at MCH from the audio perspective, being used to two channels and recordings that took perfect advantage of having just two to define the soundstage. It's just a matter of proper engineering.

..

Alan Parsons has done many surround mixes, and they are all 4.x. (I haven't found the specific interview you mentioned) ..C.

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/interviews/444/another-phase-of-the-moon.html

Alan Parsons has done many surround mixes, and they are all 4.x. (I haven't found the specific interview you mentioned) I can't imagine he would criticize Guthrie for not using the Center Channel. .


And you are right, he did not. My memory failed me.

Anyways, in my mind the lack of center separates the movie world from audio world. With discrete center you have to worry about the speaker placement, balance and not everyone has a TV in the middle of the room. All the technicalities aside, center just complicates things too much and I haven't heard anyone in the industry complaining about the lack of descrete center in sterereo mixes so far so I do not think it matters that much in MCH as well...

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/interviews/444/another-phase-of-the-moon.html
wow thanks.

btw, alan is married to a local york, pa girl.

That article by AP is a great read. I actually agree with him on almost all points BUT, I also still prefer the audio quality of the Guthrie mix.
IMHO, if the best points of the AP mix (the excitement of the surround placement) were combined with the best points of the Guthrie mix (sound quality and consistency) THAT would be the ultimate DSOTM experience. :)


I agree with other posters here about the quality difference between typical HT systems and properly designed and aligned hi res MC audio systems.
It is my belief and experience that a very well designed MC audio system will sound awesome for movies as well as MC audio whereas a system designed primarily for HT will often have significant compromises when it comes to music only listening.
I often cringe when I hear my carefully constructed mixes messed up on someone's compromised HT setup!!! They are often very impressed though!!!!!


....foot note.....this forum is starting to bug me with its timeouts for being logged in! Note to admins - vBulletin 3.5.4 onwards fixed this problem but I understand the reluctancy to upgrade with a highly customised install. I recently upgraded (after hesitating for ages due to mods, plugins, hacks and other customisations I have set up) from 3.5.3 to 3.6.4 and it actually went very smoothly without any need to reinstall my customisations. I was very pleasantly surprised :)

Early stereo needed the third channel, as channel separation at that time was very low.Those were discrete 3-channel analogue recordings, so channel separation wasn't a problem nor the reason for using a centre channel.

Sanjay

That article by AP is a great read. I actually agree with him on almost all points BUT, I also still prefer the audio quality of the Guthrie mix.
IMHO, if the best points of the AP mix (the excitement of the surround placement) were combined with the best points of the Guthrie mix (sound quality and consistency) THAT would be the ultimate DSOTM experience. :)...

Could that because AP worked with a number of analogue tape machines in his day and if he had to overdub etc, there would be the inevitable generational loss. But Guthrie I would imagine would have dubbed all the original stubs to some high res high sampling rate digital format and worked in the digital domain all the time.

So one might prefer the mixing choices that AP made, it's likely that Guthrie's mix (which I haven't heard) might have better SQ.

Still when I listen to the AP mix I find the SQ excellent, hardly any discernible tape hiss, distortion etc. and a very involving presentation of the music, irrespective whether approved it or not.

Could that because AP worked with a number of analogue tape machines in his day and if he had to overdub etc, there would be the inevitable generational loss. But Guthrie I would imagine would have dubbed all the original stubs to some high res high sampling rate digital format and worked in the digital domain all the time.

Absolutely. That, and the fact that cleaning up noises, hiss, hums and other things is FAR easier in the digital domain off hard drive :)

So one might prefer the mixing choices that AP made, it's likely that Guthrie's mix (which I haven't heard) might have better SQ.

The Guthrie mix is clearly a much better mix as far a pure sound quality and consistency goes. Along with the much newer technology Guthrie had at his disposal, he also had significantly more time than AP had. AP's mix was a rushed and unfinished one which he himself admits in the article.

Still when I listen to the AP mix I find the SQ excellent, hardly any discernible tape hiss, distortion etc. and a very involving presentation of the music, irrespective whether approved it or not.
I agree there too. While I prefer the SQ of the Guthrie mix, there's something special about having the AP 70's quad mix in it's original form to listen to :)

The Guthrie mix is clearly a much better mix as far a pure sound quality and consistency goes. Along with the much newer technology Guthrie had at his disposal, he also had significantly more time than AP had. AP's mix was a rushed and unfinished one which he himself admits in the article.


True, which makes me wonder how Guthrie managed to miss those moog bass notes in 'Any Colour You Like'.

I may get some argument here, but I believe AP's artistry is showing, while Guthrie is only an engineer. (No slur meant by that; I don't know how else to say it.) Familiarity with the material is probably a part of it as well. Certain touches lead me to that observation, among them the echo on "with" and the absence of it on "without", and the echo of only "bout" after "what the fighting's all about." An engineer would repeat the whole word, while an artist/engineer would play with it a bit and only do "bout."

No flames, please.

Hey guys, I just have a quick question about this.

I recently burned off a copy and I'm having issues playing it. I've tried using my X-Fi DVD-A player, WinDVD, and even PowerDVD. For some reason the MLP lossless stream refuses to play at all.

Is there a reason this won't work with the above players? When I try PowerDVD I get "waiting for CPPM key" before it crashes.

I've tried multiple burned copies, and I don't have any DVD-As laying around to try out (this is the first time I really considered trying the format and then maybe investing in it).

Any thoughts as to what's wrong?

I don't think the Parsons disc should have a CPPM key -- that's one of DVD-A's copy protection methods. I've had no problem playing my copy (as DVD-A).

It sounds like for some reason your players think your disc is copy-protected, without an 'unlock' key. Players interpret that as an illegal copy, and refuse to play.

I may get some argument here, but I believe AP's artistry is showing, while Guthrie is only an engineer. (No slur meant by that; I don't know how else to say it.) Familiarity with the material is probably a part of it as well. Certain touches lead me to that observation, among them the echo on "with" and the absence of it on "without", and the echo of only "bout" after "what the fighting's all about." An engineer would repeat the whole word, while an artist/engineer would play with it a bit and only do "bout."

No flames, please.
Actually, I agree with you. I would have loved to hear AP do the SACD mix on the equipment Guthrie had at his disposal. I am not meaning to take anything away from Guthrie's skill as an engineer but AP is intimately familiar with the mix since he recorded it and he is a well known musician too. :)

Actually, I agree with you. I would have loved to hear AP do the SACD mix on the equipment Guthrie had at his disposal. I am not meaning to take anything away from Guthrie's skill as an engineer but AP is intimately familiar with the mix since he recorded it and he is a well known musician too. :)
I recently wrote an email from/to the AP website about APP being released in hi-res MC. The entire catalog has been remastered for re-release on CD. I believe there was a pre-order which sold out for a special edition. The gist of my thinking was that, in the 21st century, AP would not re-master his catalog without remixing in 5.1 as well, if he hadn't mixed for surround way back when. The reply that came back was something to the effect that it's been discussed, but the decision lies with Sony.

Hey guys, I just have a quick question about this.

I recently burned off a copy and I'm having issues playing it. I've tried using my X-Fi DVD-A player, WinDVD, and even PowerDVD. For some reason the MLP lossless stream refuses to play at all.

Is there a reason this won't work with the above players? When I try PowerDVD I get "waiting for CPPM key" before it crashes.

I've tried multiple burned copies, and I don't have any DVD-As laying around to try out (this is the first time I really considered trying the format and then maybe investing in it).

Any thoughts as to what's wrong?

It's not "compliant" with the DVDA standard. It's actually a "hybrid" DVD, so to speak.
It's a PITA on both my players, and I have burned multiple copies to DVD - R,
DVD + R, and DL as well.
Try different media (DVD - R, DVD + R) and see if your player likes one better.
Screw the software players, except for the Creative DVDA player.
It plays fine (with the Audigy 2ZS) except for a pause on track changes.
Despite all that, I'm damned glad to have it.

Oh my, just realised that I have been listening to the DTS and not the full version.
Off to do some fiddling and then really enjoy it!

I recently wrote an email from/to the AP website about APP being released in hi-res MC. The entire catalog has been remastered for re-release on CD. I believe there was a pre-order which sold out for a special edition. The gist of my thinking was that, in the 21st century, AP would not re-master his catalog without remixing in 5.1 as well, if he hadn't mixed for surround way back when. The reply that came back was something to the effect that it's been discussed, but the decision lies with Sony.
Hmmm... interesting.

I recently wrote an email from/to the AP website about APP being released in hi-res MC. The entire catalog has been remastered for re-release on CD. I believe there was a pre-order which sold out for a special edition. The gist of my thinking was that, in the 21st century, AP would not re-master his catalog without remixing in 5.1 as well, if he hadn't mixed for surround way back when. The reply that came back was something to the effect that it's been discussed, but the decision lies with Sony.

Sony isn't likely to release any Alan Parsons surround sound. "A Valid Path" is available from 5.1 Entertainment Group's Immergent label as a DualDisc with 96kHz/24-Bit DTS and is excellent, but no DVD-A.

http://music.barnesandnoble.com/search/product.asp?z=y&EAN=676628411124&itm=3

Chris

Sony isn't likely to release any Alan Parsons surround sound. "A Valid Path" is available from 5.1 Entertainment Group's Immergent label as a DualDisc with 96kHz/24-Bit DTS and is excellent, but no DVD-A.

http://music.barnesandnoble.com/search/product.asp?z=y&EAN=676628411124&itm=3

Chris
Alan's been ready for hi-res surround sound for decades. His involvement with the artist of this thread topic is demonstration of that. If not on SACD, Sony will - sooner or later - release it on BD. Why would they not?

Alan's been ready for hi-res surround sound for decades. His involvement with the artist of this thread topic is demonstration of that. If not on SACD, Sony will - sooner or later - release it on BD. Why would they not?

I don't think Alan Parson's agreement with Sony will be long term and I don't believe Sony is releasing much music in surround. Will Alan sign with a new label that will have interest in releasing the albums in surround? I hope so. The Alan Parson albums aren't big sellers, the cost including duplicate and triplicate royalties if released as hybrid SACD means it can't possibly make business sense for Sony to do it on SACD. I don't recall the last popular music SACD or surround DualDisc released by Sony in this country. Will Blu-ray see a lot of releases as SACD did? I doubt it considering the beating Sony took with SACD.

Chris

I don't think Alan Parson's agreement with Sony will be long term and I don't believe Sony is releasing much music in surround. Will Alan sign with a new label that will have interest in releasing the albums in surround? I hope so. The Alan Parson albums aren't big sellers, the cost including duplicate and triplicate royalties if released as hybrid SACD means it can't possibly make business sense for Sony to do it on SACD. I don't recall the last popular music SACD or surround DualDisc released by Sony in this country. Will Blu-ray see a lot of releases as SACD did? I doubt it considering the beating Sony took with SACD.
That's an interesting opinion, Chris. But my understanding is that Sony OWNS the APP catalog, so signing with a new label would only cover new material going forward. Could someone, including AP, license the catalog from Sony? Definitely.

Genesis is now releasing their catalog in 5.1 on SACD, so it's not a dead format yet. Granted, Genesis a much bigger seller than AP - Top 10 even - and they're in the middle of a world tour. I see the remastering/re-release of the APP albums as sort of a trial balloon. If sales go well, that makes it more likely hi-res 5.1 will see the light of day. If he puts a tour together, that will be another toe in the water.

BD is a new ballgame and should not be compared to SACD. Sony hasn't bet the farm on it, maybe the farmette. Not to get OT for this thread - or start a fanboy exchange - BD looks like it might have reached critical mass while HD-DVD looks like it might have plateaued.

Just my $.02. :)

I don't think Alan Parson's agreement with Sony will be long term and I don't believe Sony is releasing much music in surround. Will Alan sign with a new label that will have interest in releasing the albums in surround? I hope so. The Alan Parson albums aren't big sellers, the cost including duplicate and triplicate royalties if released as hybrid SACD means it can't possibly make business sense for Sony to do it on SACD. I don't recall the last popular music SACD or surround DualDisc released by Sony in this country. Will Blu-ray see a lot of releases as SACD did? I doubt it considering the beating Sony took with SACD.

Chris

Geez, Chris. Why do you have to answer every post about a future release with something stating how much money this company or that company lost with DVD-A, SACD, etc. Who cares. They put the stuff out, it's their freaking fault the formats failed.

You can't create a format, get hardware manufacturers to make players, then release a literal handfull of titles and expect large sales.

Your assumptions about what Sony or WB or Rhino are thinking and/or are going to do is total speculation. You had already pronounced DVD-A dead and we got some good titles at the end of last year, so what did that prove?

FCOL............................................. :mad:

:-jon

Heeeey, can we disagree without being disrespectful? ;)

That's an interesting opinion, Chris. But my understanding is that Sony OWNS the APP catalog, so signing with a new label would only cover new material going forward. Could someone, including AP, license the catalog from Sony? Definitely.

Genesis is now releasing their catalog in 5.1 on SACD, so it's not a dead format yet. Granted, Genesis a much bigger seller than AP - Top 10 even - and they're in the middle of a world tour. I see the remastering/re-release of the APP albums as sort of a trial balloon. If sales go well, that makes it more likely hi-res 5.1 will see the light of day. If he puts a tour together, that will be another toe in the water.

BD is a new ballgame and should not be compared to SACD. Sony hasn't bet the farm on it, maybe the farmette. Not to get OT for this thread - or start a fanboy exchange - BD looks like it might have reached critical mass while HD-DVD looks like it might have plateaued.

Just my $.02. :)

The Genesis releases are not going to be here in the US, although I am sure many will import them. I haven't read the Parsons/Sony contracts, but I would hope there is a requirement to either release the music or allow a licensing agreement with a label that will. I understand from reading online that Sony is likely going to allow Alan to do something at some point. If you have any links indicating sales of Alan's music in recent years, I would like to see that but I have assumed the sales volume has been absolutely minuscule, certainly not anything Sony would try in surround. The surround versions would obviously sell a tiny fraction of the volume the CD releases sell.

Chris

The Genesis releases are not going to be here in the US, although I am sure many will import them. I haven't read the Parsons/Sony contracts, but I would hope there is a requirement to either release the music or allow a licensing agreement with a label that will. I understand from reading online that Sony is likely going to allow Alan to do something at some point. If you have any links indicating sales of Alan's music in recent years, I would like to see that but I have assumed the sales volume has been absolutely minuscule, certainly not anything Sony would try in surround. The surround versions would obviously sell a tiny fraction of the volume the CD releases sell.
As pointed out by others on other forums, Genesis in the US is in the WEA family and WEA is a DVD-A supporter. So you're probably right about no Genesis SACD soup for us. I couldn't find the referenced (in 2003) thread (anymore), but the post read like SACD now, and maybe DVD-A later. Another post pointed out that the studio used to remix/remaster was outfitted for both SACD and DVD-A.

If I could get on that billionaires list, I'd buy the damn APP catalog myself for hi-res 5.1 release and worry about sales (or NOT!) later. :D

As pointed out by others on other forums, Genesis in the US is in the WEA family and WEA is a DVD-A supporter. So you're probably right about no Genesis SACD soup for us. I couldn't find the referenced (in 2003) thread (anymore), but the post read like SACD now, and maybe DVD-A later. Another post pointed out that the studio used to remix/remaster was outfitted for both SACD and DVD-A.

And FWIW (and I don't think it matters), according to Nick Davis, the analog multitracks were transferred to digital as hi-rez PCM anyway, not DSD.

IIRC the US releases will have DTS 24/96 multitrack versions on them.

As pointed out by others on other forums, Genesis in the US is in the WEA family and WEA is a DVD-A supporter. So you're probably right about no Genesis SACD soup for us. I couldn't find the referenced (in 2003) thread (anymore), but the post read like SACD now, and maybe DVD-A later. Another post pointed out that the studio used to remix/remaster was outfitted for both SACD and DVD-A.

If I could get on that billionaires list, I'd buy the damn APP catalog myself for hi-res 5.1 release and worry about sales (or NOT!) later. :D

It may be the Genesis releases will be 5.1 DVD-V here, I just haven't been following that story but the determination has likely been made by now so you should be able to find out exactly what is coming and it should be available for pre-order.

Chris

It may be the Genesis releases will be 5.1 DVD-V here
:(

The SACD was a 5.1 remix. The Quad mix on the DVDA is from the original quad master tapes.


I wish I had a DVD-A player, it would be nice to hear DSOTM as it was meant to be heard not some autopsy 5.1 mix....

I posted the list in this forum with some quad releases. I ahev a few but I wish there were more available... How about Wish You Were here? It WAS done in quad...

I wish I had a DVD-A player, it would be nice to hear DSOTM as it was meant to be heard not some autopsy 5.1 mix....

I posted the list in this forum with some quad releases. I ahev a few but I wish there were more available... How about Wish You Were here? It WAS done in quad...
The quad mix of Wish You Were here was given the same treatment as dsotm and put out as a dvd-a as well.

I wish I had a DVD-A player, it would be nice to hear DSOTM as it was meant to be heard not some autopsy 5.1 mix....
That doesn't seem fair. Can't we just call it a re-interpretation? And a valid one at that. Technology has advanced tremendously between the two mixes and I'd also add that surround mixing "philosophy" has developed and even matured in the industry. Guthrie did a fine job.

As opined here some posts back though, it would be nice to experience an AP re-interpretation with today's gear.

I wish I had a DVD-A player, it would be nice to hear DSOTM as it was meant to be heard not some autopsy 5.1 mix....



Meant by who? When?

In 1973, the band gave no blessing to Parsons' quad mix, as it was a lark of his own.

In 2003, when the Guthrie SACD was released, the band chose specifically not to use the Parsons quad mix. Instead, with input from every band member, the 5.1 SACD mix became the only surround mix to which the band ever provided any approval.

So, if your'e talking about what Pink Floyd meant for you to hear, the answer is this:

In 1973, they wanted you to hear the two-channel mix by Parsons.

In 2003, they wanted you to hear the 5.1 SACD by Guthrie.

At no time, did the band ever "mean" for you to hear the Parsons quad mix.

None of the above means that the Guthrie mix is "better" than the Parsons mix (I can find moments in each that I prefer over the other). But if we're talking original intent of the artists (in this case, the band itself), the Guthrie SACD can claim something that the Parsons mix can't.

Nick :cool:

I wish I had a DVD-A player, it would be nice to hear DSOTM as it was meant to be heard not some autopsy 5.1 mix....

The DVDA features the same mix in DTS on it too, so you can hear it even if your player doesn't do DVD-Audio.

The quad mix of Wish You Were here was given the same treatment as dsotm and put out as a dvd-a as well.


Not sure that was from the original tapes, though -- I thought it was done from
either the quad LP or 8-track. I could be wrong.

Meant by who? When?

In 1973, the band gave no blessing to Parsons' quad mix, as it was a lark of his own.

In 2003, when the Guthrie SACD was released, the band chose specifically not to use the Parsons quad mix. Instead, with input from every band member, the 5.1 SACD mix became the only surround mix to which the band ever provided any approval.

So, if your'e talking about what Pink Floyd meant for you to hear, the answer is this:

In 1973, they wanted you to hear the two-channel mix by Parsons.

In 2003, they wanted you to hear the 5.1 SACD by Guthrie.

At no time, did the band ever "mean" for you to hear the Parsons quad mix.

None of the above means that the Guthrie mix is "better" than the Parsons mix (I can find moments in each that I prefer over the other). But if we're talking original intent of the artists (in this case, the band itself), the Guthrie SACD can claim something that the Parsons mix can't.

Nick :cool:
I'm entirely with you on this; the artist's intent is paramount. This is at the root of true home theater aficionados loathing for pan-and-scan 4:3 versions of a widescreen movie. Having said that, I'd be surprised if AP's artistry played ZERO role in the original album - right down to the "arrangement" level - turning out the way it did.

I'm entirely with you on this; the artist's intent is paramount. This is at the root of true home theater aficionados loathing for pan-and-scan 4:3 versions of a widescreen movie. Having said that, I'd be surprised if AP's artistry played ZERO role in the original album - right down to the "arrangement" level - turning out the way it did.

Thanks, but that's not really what I'm saying. The post I was referring to suggested that we were "meant" to hear Parsons' quad mix, but apparently not "meant" to hear the Guthrie 5.1 mix. From the standpoint of what the artists actually intended--since, in the case of DSOTM, Pink Floyd are on the record as to their intent--it really could not be said that the quad mix was more favored over the 5.1 mix.

Nonetheless, there is a lot of material originally recorded in two-channel that lends itself quite well to a surround remix (such as the Guthrie 5.1 mix), and I don't see the sin in such remixes, primarily because multichannel mixing simply wasn't available when those two channel mixes were made. What often gets asserted as artistic intent is really the technical limitations of the time during which the recording was made. While some music certainly lends itself better to remixing than others, I don't like to see artistic intent being urged as the reason for avoiding remixes.

To the extent the original artist can be involved in a remix of his or her work, that is certainly preferable. But each mix can and should stand on its own merits. Again, the Parsons' quad mix is perhaps the best example--it was not the original intent of Pink Floyd, and didn't become so even for a remix three decades later. But the enthusiasm on this thread alone suggests that a remix can have value whether the original artist participates or not.

Thanks,

Nick :cool:

The quad mix of Wish You Were here was given the same treatment as dsotm and put out as a dvd-a as well.
Not anywhere near the same quality as the DSOTM transfer which WAS done from the original master tapes.

Thanks, but that's not really what I'm saying. The post I was referring to suggested that we were "meant" to hear Parsons' quad mix, but apparently not "meant" to hear the Guthrie 5.1 mix. From the standpoint of what the artists actually intended--since, in the case of DSOTM, Pink Floyd are on the record as to their intent--it really could not be said that the quad mix was more favored over the 5.1 mix.
10-4. I was trying to be non-confrontational and avoid addressing that head-on.

Nonetheless, there is a lot of material originally recorded in two-channel that lends itself quite well to a surround remix (such as the Guthrie 5.1 mix), and I don't see the sin in such remixes, primarily because multichannel mixing simply wasn't available when those two channel mixes were made. What often gets asserted as artistic intent is really the technical limitations of the time during which the recording was made. While some music certainly lends itself better to remixing than others, I don't like to see artistic intent being urged as the reason for avoiding remixes.

To the extent the original artist can be involved in a remix of his or her work, that is certainly preferable. But each mix can and should stand on its own merits. Again, the Parsons' quad mix is perhaps the best example--it was not the original intent of Pink Floyd, and didn't become so even for a remix three decades later. But the enthusiasm on this thread alone suggests that a remix can have value whether the original artist participates or not.
I not only have no problem with artists re-visiting their back catalog with today's technologies and trends in mind, I look forward to it. :)

Meant by who? When?

In 1973, the band gave no blessing to Parsons' quad mix, as it was a lark of his own.

In 2003, when the Guthrie SACD was released, the band chose specifically not to use the Parsons quad mix. Instead, with input from every band member, the 5.1 SACD mix became the only surround mix to which the band ever provided any approval.

So, if your'e talking about what Pink Floyd meant for you to hear, the answer is this:

In 1973, they wanted you to hear the two-channel mix by Parsons.

In 2003, they wanted you to hear the 5.1 SACD by Guthrie.

At no time, did the band ever "mean" for you to hear the Parsons quad mix.

None of the above means that the Guthrie mix is "better" than the Parsons mix (I can find moments in each that I prefer over the other). But if we're talking original intent of the artists (in this case, the band itself), the Guthrie SACD can claim something that the Parsons mix can't.

Nick :cool:

Yeah, we all know the details surrunding both mixes. For me however, Guthrie's mix, no matter how good is an "autopsy", it was done post mortem, based on some thirty years of DSOTM being analyzed by every homebred music critic... C'mon, it's not fair to even compare those two mixes! Parson's stereo and quadro mixes were done "then and there", results of an incredible outburst of creativity, absolutely fresh approach to recording technology and use of multitrack. It was done when technology did not offfer that much so you had be creative twice; the second time to achieve the desired effect using very limited audio technology available then. Parson's stereo is a brilliant mix, one of the best ever done and possibly the most creative and succesfull in the history of audio...
Parson is one of those engineers who are able to reinvent and define a band's sound for the rest of their carreer's... Trevor Horn comes to my mind as another who has done exactly the same...


Let's be honest, whatever we say most poeple while listening to DSOTM focus not on Gilmour's guitar skills but on a sheer genius of an engineer who put the mix together. I remember reading one review of DSOTM where someone wrote about a so-so or even boring boring material brough into the studio that was turned into a megahit. I would agree, take away Parson's console skils and you are left with very little in terms of artistic quality...

That's why I think PF owed Parson realease of the quad mix on SACD (it was released on LP and 8-track I believe): because of his part in DSOTM's success...
I think PF got scared that someone may realize again what DSOTM is all about...
Very sad...

OK, you're up, Nick! ;) And you've got a lot to swing at.

Yeah, we all know the details surrunding both mixes. For me however, Guthrie's mix, no matter how good is an "autopsy", it was done post mortem, based on some thirty years of DSOTM being analyzed by every homebred music critic...

Well, you're free to use words like "autopsy" and "post mortem" in any way you choose, but I don't think they make sense in this context. The job of each engineer was to mix the tracks in the way that seemed best to them. Both worked on tracks already recorded, so it's a little strange to say that one was working on a corpse, while the other worked on something alive. If your point is that, to your ears, you'd describe one as an autopsy and the other as (what? an operation on a live body?), well, I can certainly see where one might prefer the Parsons mix to Guthrie's. But if you feel it at all relevant which mix the band preferred, the answer is already here: Guthrie's mix.

C'mon, it's not fair to even compare those two mixes! Parson's stereo and quadro mixes were done "then and there", results of an incredible outburst of creativity, absolutely fresh approach to recording technology and use of multitrack. It was done when technology did not offfer that much so you had be creative twice; the second time to achieve the desired effect using very limited audio technology available then.

So I guess that Pink Floyd should not have permitted Guthrie to remix DSOTM in 5.1 SACD in 2003? Or are you just saying that anyone who prefers the Guthrie mix is ignorant? If so, count the band members among those ignorant listeners.

Let's be honest, whatever we say most poeple while listening to DSOTM focus not on Gilmour's guitar skills but on a sheer genius of an engineer who put the mix together. I remember reading one review of DSOTM where someone wrote about a so-so or even boring boring material brough into the studio that was turned into a megahit. I would agree, take away Parson's console skils and you are left with very little in terms of artistic quality...

That's why I think PF owed Parson realease of the quad mix on SACD (it was released on LP and 8-track I believe): because of his part in DSOTM's success...
I think PF got scared that someone may realize again what DSOTM is all about...
Very sad...

I see . . . the album is all about the mix the sound engineer imparted to it. Sorry, that's just ridiculous. If the music is not there to begin with, there's nothing a sound engineer can do to fix that. And, in case you're forgetting, DSOTM was released in the early 1970s, and it received a lot of . . . oh, what is that called? . . . radio play. Most of those listening to it when it was first released heard it on the single speaker of a car-radio, and got addicted to it ever since. That's because the music was there, not the quadrophonic (or even stereo) placement of the sound.

Or, maybe you're right . . . maybe "PF got scared that someone may realize again what DSOTM is all about . . . Very sad." :eek:

Nick :cool:

Well, you're free to use words like "autopsy" and "post mortem" in any way you choose, but I don't think they make sense in this context. The job of each engineer was to mix the tracks in the way that seemed best to them. Both worked on tracks already recorded, so it's a little strange to say that one was working on a corpse, while the other worked on something alive. If your point is that, to your ears, you'd describe one as an autopsy and the other as (what? an operation on a live body?), well, I can certainly see where one might prefer the Parsons mix to Guthrie's. But if you feel it at all relevant which mix the band preferred, the answer is already here: Guthrie's mix.



So I guess that Pink Floyd should not have permitted Guthrie to remix DSOTM in 5.1 SACD in 2003? Or are you just saying that anyone who prefers the Guthrie mix is ignorant? If so, count the band members among those ignorant listeners.



I see . . . the album is all about the mix the sound engineer imparted to it. Sorry, that's just ridiculous. If the music is not there to begin with, there's nothing a sound engineer can do to fix that. And, in case you're forgetting, DSOTM was released in the early 1970s, and it received a lot of . . . oh, what is that called? . . . radio play. Most of those listening to it when it was first released heard it on the single speaker of a car-radio, and got addicted to it ever since. That's because the music was there, not the quadrophonic (or even stereo) placement of the sound.

Or, maybe you're right . . . maybe "PF got scared that someone may realize again what DSOTM is all about . . . Very sad." ;)

Nick :cool:

Nice post and I am a fan of both mixes.

Chris

Nice discussion in this thread.

Keep up the good work.

Cheers,

- Jake

Ah, but PF did play their material live in Quad. So perhaps the AP version is closer to what they were doing at the time, live. The material certainly lends itself to surround of some sort IMO.

No matter what I totally dig the DVD-A but I have not heard the SACD so I can't comment on how it sounds.

Ah, but PF did play their material live in Quad. So perhaps the AP version is closer to what they were doing at the time, live. The material certainly lends itself to surround of some sort IMO.

No matter what I totally dig the DVD-A but I have not heard the SACD so I can't comment on how it sounds.

PF's live Quad setup was different than home setups, or AP's mixing setup.

Live Quad was C, S, L, and R, instead of L, R, Ls, Rs. This is not truly relevant to a mix intended for a home, but a 5.1 mix can do C, S, L, R better than Quad.

PF's live Quad setup was different than home setups, or AP's mixing setup.

Live Quad was C, S, L, and R, instead of L, R, Ls, Rs. This is not truly relevant to a mix intended for a home, but a 5.1 mix can do C, S, L, R better than Quad.
Are you sure (you seem like you should know)? My multiple stadium concert memories over the decades may be slightly faded, but there were always four speaker stacks, one in each corner of the stadium they played. The mix was usually soft until there was hard panning around the stadium, and I swear the rear speakers were not just surround, but directional.

Venues:
April 24 1977 Tampa Stadium, Tampa, Florida
October 30 1987 Tampa Stadium, Tampa, Florida, USA
April 30 1988 Citrus Bowl, Orlando, Florida
May 6, 1994 Tampa, Florida

vegggas

Are you sure (you seem like you should know)? My multiple stadium concert memories over the decades may be slightly faded, but there were always four speaker stacks, one in each corner of the stadium they played. The mix was usually soft until there was hard panning around the stadium, and I swear the rear speakers were not just surround, but directional.

Venues:
April 24 1977 Tampa Stadium, Tampa, Florida
October 30 1987 Tampa Stadium, Tampa, Florida, USA
April 30 1988 Citrus Bowl, Orlando, Florida
May 6, 1994 Tampa, Florida

vegggas

I was at 3 out of the 4 shows...Didn't it rain the entire Citrus Bowl show?

The surround sound at the 1987 Tampa Stadium show was amazing from where I sat. I can remember thinking at the time how many rows of seats the added speakers took up...

The Roger Waters Pro's and Con's had some sweet surround also at the Lakeland Civic Center.

Yes, it rained most of the day and night in Orlando. I couldn't get floor tickets and wound up near the stage left rear speaker. As the show started we noticed how many empty seats there were on the floor due to no-show wusses. Security didn't care and I think I was on the floor, center, around the 15th row by the end of the second song. And yes, from there the surround was awesome. The cris-crosssed lasers over the audience during Money looked amazing hitting falling raindrops :p They did a complete show in the rain, complete with the plane and pigs coming from the back of the stadium and flying overhead.

Overall, I liked the Orlando show better than the earlier Tampa show. This was one of their 2nd stadium tour dates where they had more time between shows and they went all out and them some for the fans in the rain.

Ahhh, memories :cool:

vegggas

Are you sure (you seem like you should know)? My multiple stadium concert memories over the decades may be slightly faded, but there were always four speaker stacks, one in each corner of the stadium they played. The mix was usually soft until there was hard panning around the stadium, and I swear the rear speakers were not just surround, but directional.

Of course they were directional. Dipole hadn't entered even the most cutting edge audiophile's vocabulary back then. And you're right about their usage as well; hard panning - in a bow to our (possible) states of mind then: head effects - was pretty much all that ever happened in the rear corners. The Floyd used them much more than anyone had before, but even they did not statically place instruments and vocals there in the style used in today's 5.1 MC audio.

What is the "C, S," mentioned by seriousfun? Center and Sides? I do not ever remember a center speaker . . .

My memory is definitely of discrete surrounds when they played live. I saw the DSOTM tour with a midnight show at Radio City Music Hall in NY in March 1973. It was, of course, an amazing show. When I listen to the DVDA mix, a lot of the placement of voices and effects is more like what I remember hearing live than the SACD mix.

So my take is if you want to replicate the live Pink Floyd experience, listen to the Parson's mix.

mberk

So, if your'e talking about what Pink Floyd meant for you to hear, the answer is this:

In 1973, they wanted you to hear the two-channel mix by Parsons.


Nick :cool:

In 1975 when I saw them they definitely had a 4 channel mix.
The speakers in the upper part of the stadium were FR, FL, RR, RL.
I don't remember if it was all Parsons, but things like the cash register going around your head at the beginning of Money was pretty much the same.

In 1975 when I saw them they definitely had a 4 channel mix.
The speakers in the upper part of the stadium were FR, FL, RR, RL.
I don't remember if it was all Parsons, but things like the cash register going around your head at the beginning of Money was pretty much the same.

I was referring to the studio recording that was released. What's clear is that the band never got behind Parsons' quad mix, when it was released, or thirty years later when the time came to authorize a surround sound mix for one of the new high-rez formats (ultimately choosing SACD). What they were doing at concerts is a different thing.

Nick :cool:

I was referring to the studio recording that was released. What's clear is that the band never got behind Parsons' quad mix, when it was released, or thirty years later when the time came to authorize a surround sound mix . . .
It's purely speculation, but I wonder if the decision to NOT use AP had anything AT ALL to do with his abilities or results, or more to do with band "politics" from back in the day? Perhaps, AP was more associated with Gilmour than with Waters, or vice versa, and the odd man out felt that by giving the nod to AP he was giving quarter to the other?

:)

Along with a couple of other AVS forum members, I had the distinct pleasure of experiencing this disc at a GTG at Jeff (pepar)'s house last Thursday night. Absolutely jaw-dropping sound! (Thank you, Jeff, for hosting the GTG and opening our ears to the world of high-resolution audio, and this disc in particular). DSotM is one of those albums I grew up with. I've heard all the songs a thousand times at all kinds of quality levels, from AM radio to vinyl record to CD with extracted surround sound using PLIIx processing. I thought I knew every note, every vocal, every clock and every cash register. So, imagine my surprise when I heard these songs in high-resolution audio on Jeff's excellent system. All I can say is that it was a revelation. There were details and nuances I had never heard before; instruments I'd never heard; reverb mixed into vocals I'd never heard, surround images I'd never heard. It was, to say the least, quite an expereince.

Jeff described it as "another veil being lifted from the listening experience". I would go beyond that to describe it as a leap in resolution on an order-of-magnitude similar to going from standard definition, 480i DVD-video to high-definition video. With hi-def video, the picture comes more precisely into focus and the details are much more easily appreciated. So to with high-resolution audio. The imaging tightens up with more precise localization of point sources. The impact of percussion instruments improves significantly, almost like the leading edge of the sound is "faster." The bass is tighter and better resolved. When multiple instruments are playing together, it is easier to discern each individual instrument. There is a 3-dimensionality to the sound that I've never heard before.

Prior to going to Jeff's house, I ordered an Oppo 970, based on Jeff's enthusiastic recommendation of this technology. I also acquired a copy of AP's DVD-A of DSotM from another forum member (who will remain nameless at his request). The player arrived Friday and I hooked it up yesterday. The first thing I played was DSotM. It was a revelation to hear this on Jeff's system, and it was even more of a revelation to hear how good my own system could sound when fed a high-resolution signal. I am intimitely familiar with the sound of my system, having spent many hours tweaking and enjoying it, watching movies and listening to music. However, it has *never* sounded like this. To think that, as good as my system has sounded in the past, it has been held back by the quality of the input signal. I will definitely be expanding my DVD-A/SACD collection and I would encourage anyone who has not heard this disc in it's full DVD-A glory to seek out and find a copy. The Oppo player is only $150 direct from the manufacturer. It's a small investment for a huge improvement in SQ.

Thanks again Jeff for hosting the GTG for myself and the other participants. I'm sure they enjoyed themselves as much as I did.

Craig

A technical question about the disc: when playing the DVD-A at 96K sampling rate, the disc pauses between chapters. Since the music is recorded virtually continuously, this causes some disconcerting breaks in the music. This didn't happen with pepar's disc, and it doesn't do it on the DD or DTS tracks, so is there some setting in the Oppo player that causes this? Is there any way to eliminate it?

TIA.

Craig

I will definitely be expanding my DVD-A/SACD collection ...........
I'd recommend you get the DSoTM SACD.


A technical question about the disc: when playing the DVD-A at 96K sampling rate, the disc pauses between chapters. Since the music is recorded virtually continuously, this causes some disconcerting breaks in the music. This didn't happen with pepar's disc, and it doesn't do it on the DD or DTS tracks, so is there some setting in the Oppo player that causes this? Is there any way to eliminate it?

It's something the Oppo player does. As far as I know, there is no way to eliminate it.

Along with a couple of other AVS forum members, I had the distinct pleasure of experiencing this disc at a GTG at Jeff (pepar)'s house last Thursday night. Absolutely jaw-dropping sound! (Thank you, Jeff, for hosting the GTG and opening our ears to the world of high-resolution audio, and this disc in particular).
Admittedly, we're very late to the party. But here we are! We now get to experience not only the extreme clarity of the format(s), but also get to hear old, familiar material in a completely new way. Of course, now I look at my CD collection and feel cheated that I can't enjoy my other favorites like this, too. :(

It was my pleasure, Craig. I look forward to the next GTG.

Jeff described it as "another veil being lifted from the listening experience". I would go beyond that...Agreed. There are two things at play here when comparing the hi-rez surround version (DVD-A or SACD) to the 2-channel version (CD, LP, etc). The first is the increased resolution, which indeed is like lifting a veil. The second is the surround experience, which is a paradigm shift from listening to the 2-channel version.

The first part is akin to what you described as going from standard def video to hi-def. Sure it's nice, but all we're talking about is increased resolution. The second part is like the image physically coming off the screen into the room and spreading beyond your peripheral vision. That goes beyond hearing details more clearly than before; it's like I'm inside the recording itself (rather than observing it in a soundstage in front of me). Fortunately, the hi-rez multi-channel versions have both qualities.

BTW, I'll second the recommendation to get the SACD, especially since you have the Oppo 970 (I *think* a recent software upgrade allowed for gapless playback). It's a worthwhile disc to get, either for the competest in you or just to compare & contrast to the DVD-A. Personally, I like the Parsons mix from 'Us and Them' forward, but prefer the Guthrie mix for the songs that come before.

Sanjay

Personally, I like the Parsons mix from 'Us and Them' forward, but prefer the Guthrie mix for the songs that come before.
As I've not heard the SACD, I can't compare, but I CAN say that Us and Them absolutely blew me away. And I was not only not sitting in the sweet spot, I wasn't even sitting; I was standing in the back of the room. And still the sense of spacious envelopment was incredible.

I *was* sitting in the sweet spot for that song, both at your house and at mine. Beforehand, I had heard the DD/DTS versions, so I was prepared for the 3-D nature of the surround mix. What I wasn't prepared for was the increased resolution. That's what literally made my jaw drop.

Craig

I got that disk when it first appeared and I think it blows away the SACD version as I have both, not that the SACD sounds bad but this thing is just in another league by itself, not just the sound quality but the way it's mixed and just the way it envelopes you with the music so nicely.
And yes the treatment of Us and Them was a really nice touch...

I *was* sitting in the sweet spot for that song, both at your house and at mine. Beforehand, I had heard the DD/DTS versions, so I was prepared for the 3-D nature of the surround mix. What I wasn't prepared for was the increased resolution. That's what literally made my jaw drop.
At one point, Ryan leaned back and asked me my opinion on how DTS compares to the hi-res audio on DVD-A. He was hearing what DVD-A sounded like on my system, but that was his first time and he had no real frame of reference. And he's heard DTS on his system (without the benefit of hearing DVD-A there) and was now trying to (impossibly) connect the two systems/experiences. I think I said something like "there's no comparison." I could see a hint of uncertainty or even disbelief on his face which suggests to me that he's pretty pleased with DTS on his system. That may easily be, but only when he plays a DVD-A/SACD on his system, will he understand - and believe - my answer. :)

Jeff,

As I've mentioned previously to Craig, 'Us and Them' has always been my favourite track on the album. Upon hearing the surround version, it just became my favouriter (favouritest?) track.

Seriously, that track is THE demo I use when someone wants to hear discrete multi-channel on my system. The fact that it's mellow makes it a good choice, even for those that aren't into rock. It never fails to floor people.

As good as the surround mix is, I wouldn't be using it as a demo if not for the great songwriting and musicianship. The real demonstration is how important it is for all those qualities to complement each other. We wouldn't be enjoying the mix if we didn't like the songs to begin with.

Sanjay

Jeff,

As I've mentioned previously to Craig, 'Us and Them' has always been my favourite track on the album. Upon hearing the surround version, it just became my favouriter (favouritest?) track.

Seriously, that track is THE demo I use when someone wants to hear discrete multi-channel on my system. The fact that it's mellow makes it a good choice, even for those that aren't into rock. It never fails to floor people.

As good as the surround mix is, I wouldn't be using it as a demo if not for the great songwriting and musicianship. The real demonstration is how important it is for all those qualities to complement each other. We wouldn't be enjoying the mix if we didn't like the songs to begin with.

Sanjay

Interesting that you prefer the Parsons' mix on this one, Sanjay. It's really the only track that a truly discrete use of the center channel is made on the SACD, and, of course, there is no use on the 4.0 (or later 4.1) quad mix. Interesting because of your preference for it as a surround demo.

Nick :cool:

Interesting that you prefer the Parsons' mix on this one, Sanjay. It's really the only track that a truly discrete use of the center channel is made on the SACD, and, of course, there is no use on the 4.0 (or later 4.1) quad mix. I must say that neither I nor any of the three others at the GTG felt that anything was/is missing by not having a center channel in this mix. I know this because it came up - Craig I think pointed it out - that Clare Tory's vocal was solid and stable. Most other vocals are so wet that there's almost no sense of presence anyway to be detracted from by no center channel.

...solid and stable???

She was literally standing before us, singing directly to us. :)

Her voice, although a phantom image, was more like a point source.

Craig

...solid and stable???

She was literally standing before us, singing directly to us. :)

Her voice, although a phantom image, was more like a point source.

Craig
Us? I thought she was singing to me. :D

Us? I thought she was singing to me. :D
She's singing to them. ;)

She's singing to them. ;)
I think she was singing to her dan. ;)

I must say that neither I nor any of the three others at the GTG felt that anything was/is missing by not having a center channel in this mix. I know this because it came up - Craig I think pointed it out - that Clare Tory's vocal was solid and stable. Most other vocals are so wet that there's almost no sense of presence anyway to be detracted from by no center channel.

Yeah, the soundstage was huge all the way around. I think all of us checked the center channel, and the other surround speakers to see if they were on.

I've always thought that 5.1 was a pretty nice setup for most any room. As it turns out 4.1 is pretty darn good too with the right source material.

Since I acquired this title, I've purchased many other DVD-A and SACD discs.

The DVD-A of DSOTM is hands-down still my favorite multi-channel disc of all-time...

Yep, the sound stage is just something to behold on that recording. And to think my lil sisters hubby probably never will hear it because he has gone totally anti digital and only listens to a VPI turntable and some mostly very spendy records.
I think the whole analog or nothing movement is silly, good sound is good sound and refusing to listen to a format or other because it's evil digital limits a lot of what your going to be able to hear.

Nick, It's really the only track that a truly discrete use of the center channel is made on the SACD, and, of course, there is no use on the 4.0 (or later 4.1) quad mix.The processing in your pre-pro (and mine) steers correlated mono content from the front L/R channels to the centre speaker, keeping only stereo information in the L/R speakers.

So it doesn't matter if the DVD-A is 4-channel; anything that would have phantom imaged in the middle of the soundstage ends up being reproduced by the centre speaker.

When I listen to the Parson's mix, I don't hear Clare Tory's voice as a dual-mono phantom image. And neither do the listeners I'm demoing to, irrespective of where they're sitting. Interesting because of your preference for it as a surround demo.It's got an aggressive surround mix that never fails to impress and, more importantly, I really like the song itself.

Sanjay

Nick, The processing in your pre-pro (and mine) steers correlated mono content from the front L/R channels to the centre speaker, keeping only stereo information in the L/R speakers.

So it doesn't matter if the DVD-A is 4-channel; anything that would have phantom imaged in the middle of the soundstage ends up being reproduced by the centre speaker.

When I listen to the Parson's mix, I don't hear Clare Tory's voice as a dual-mono phantom image. And neither do the listeners I'm demoing to, irrespective of where they're sitting. It's got an aggressive surround mix that never fails to impress and, more importantly, I really like the song itself.

Sanjay

Fair enough, but two points:

My comments on both mixes are using analog bypass (while, yes, I would normally apply L7, most of my critical listening of both were for reviews that, I felt, required a non-processed version).

And, the discrete use of center channel in Us and Them that I'm referring to is the saxaphone solo at the intro of the song. It's really the one moment in Guthrie's mix where anything like a discrete usage gets employed.

Nick :cool:

Just out of interest, what listening mode + receiver do you have that concocts a centre channel from a 4-channel source? Not seen this functionality before.

Nick, The processing in your pre-pro (and mine) steers correlated mono content from the front L/R channels to the centre speaker, keeping only stereo information in the L/R speakers.

So it doesn't matter if the DVD-A is 4-channel; anything that would have phantom imaged in the middle of the soundstage ends up being reproduced by the centre speaker.

When I listen to the Parson's mix, I don't hear Clare Tory's voice as a dual-mono phantom image. And neither do the listeners I'm demoing to, irrespective of where they're sitting. It's got an aggressive surround mix that never fails to impress and, more importantly, I really like the song itself.

Sanjay

Sanjay,

My receiver, (Yamaha RX-V4600) does not allow any processing of the multi-channel, analog inputs. Does your Lexicon allow this? If so, is there any benefit to processing the 4.1 AP mix, besides the extraction of a "hard" CC? Do you retain all the very precise localization cues?

If I understand the processing correctly, the rear surround signals are extracted from out of phase differences between the L/R side surrounds. Since they don't seem to share anything in the AP mix, what is sent to the rear speakers?

Thanks.

Craig

Fair enough, but two points:

My comments on both mixes are using analog bypass (while, yes, I would normally apply L7, most of my critical listening of both were for reviews that, I felt, required a non-processed version).

And, the discrete use of center channel in Us and Them that I'm referring to is the saxaphone solo at the intro of the song. It's really the one moment in Guthrie's mix where anything like a discrete usage gets employed.

Nick :cool:

I don't have the SACD yet, (ordered it last night, should be here in a few days). Does the Guthrie mix place the sax in Us and Them in the center? I think one of the coolest things about the AP mix is the placement of this sax in the right channel. (Actually, if I close my eyes, it images outside the right speaker). In my (limited) experience, it is rare for mixers to place instruments like this. If Guthrie placed it in the center, this is another example of the "artistic" choices made by AP that make it different from the SACD. Better? Worse? Or just, different? I'll know in a few days.

Craig

Just out of interest, what listening mode + receiver do you have that concocts a centre channel from a 4-channel source? Not seen this functionality before.

Sanjay and I have Lexicon MC-12s. The mode he's likely referring to is Logic 7, although I suppose DPLII would do the same.

Thanks,

Nick :cool:

I'd recommend you get the DSoTM SACD.



It's something the Oppo player does. As far as I know, there is no way to eliminate it.

Actually it only does it with certain firmware versions. My version -- which is not the latest -- doesn't pause between DVD-A tracks. The latest version does, from reports I've read.

Admittedly, we're very late to the party. But here we are! We now get to experience not only the extreme clarity of the format(s), but also get to hear old, familiar material in a completely new way. Of course, now I look at my CD collection and feel cheated that I can't enjoy my other favorites like this, too. :(

It was my pleasure, Craig. I look forward to the next GTG.


So, did you compare it to the DTS version on the same disc...blind?

Agreed. There are two things at play here when comparing the hi-rez surround version (DVD-A or SACD) to the 2-channel version (CD, LP, etc). The first is the increased resolution, which indeed is like lifting a veil.

Except, you don't know if that's due to format, or to the mixing/mastering. The latter are so VASTLY different from the 2-channel that I'd be skeptical that differences you are hearing are due to the 'high resolution' of DVD-A/SACD.


The first part is akin to what you described as going from standard def video to hi-def. Sure it's nice, but all we're talking about is increased resolution.


Yes, lots of people talk about it but I have to wonder how many are really hearing it, or simply hearing far more obvious changes in mastering/mixing. Visibility of increased resolution from standard def to high-def video in a home environment is not in question, because there really was that much more room for improvement in video (we haven't yet reached the limit of the eye's powers of resolution); audio is rather further along technologically and audibility of standard def resolution (16 bit, dithered from 24 or 32) digital to 'high def' (24 bit) is questionable listening to music in a typically aechoic environment.


BTW, I'll second the recommendation to get the SACD, especially since you have the Oppo 970 (I *think* a recent software upgrade allowed for gapless playback). It's a worthwhile disc to get, either for the competest in you or just to compare & contrast to the DVD-A. Personally, I like the Parsons mix from 'Us and Them' forward, but prefer the Guthrie mix for the songs that come before.

Sanjay

For DVD-A playback, the Oppo LFE channel may have to be adjusted to +10 (= +10 dB) , depending on whether one's AVR processes LFE levels correctly when it's PCM format.

At one point, Ryan leaned back and asked me my opinion on how DTS compares to the hi-res audio on DVD-A. He was hearing what DVD-A sounded like on my system, but that was his first time and he had no real frame of reference. And he's heard DTS on his system (without the benefit of hearing DVD-A there) and was now trying to (impossibly) connect the two systems/experiences. I think I said something like "there's no comparison." I could see a hint of uncertainty or even disbelief on his face which suggests to me that he's pretty pleased with DTS on his system. That may easily be, but only when he plays a DVD-A/SACD on his system, will he understand - and believe - my answer. :)

His room acoustics and loudspeakers are almost certainly different from yours, and such differences will vastly swamp a difference between DTS formattting and DVD-A formatting, so expecting a reliable comparison between yours and his is a quixotic hope at best. And when he compares DTS to DVD-A with his own system, there's bias to attend to (he's already been well-primed to expect DVD-A to sound 'better' whether it sounds different or not) as well as the possibility of different processing of the two in his system, e.g., an LFE bug that could quite significantly lower the bass output of the DVD-A versus the DTS. This is assuming the DTS and DVD-A mixes and mastering are the same (I have no reason to believe they aren't, but you never know....).


I'm sorry, folks, I'm not trying to be Joe Blackcloud, the music and mixes available for DSoTm are wonderful, but leaps of faith and logic about what causes the perceptions being reported, are so rampant in audiophile culture , I have to pipe up when I see them here .

...solid and stable???

She was literally standing before us, singing directly to us. :)

Her voice, although a phantom image, was more like a point source.

Craig

This suggests that pepar has done a great job of speaker positioning, calibration, and/or room treatment.

Nick, The processing in your pre-pro (and mine) steers correlated mono content from the front L/R channels to the centre speaker, keeping only stereo information in the L/R speakers.

So it doesn't matter if the DVD-A is 4-channel; anything that would have phantom imaged in the middle of the soundstage ends up being reproduced by the centre speaker.

When I listen to the Parson's mix, I don't hear Clare Tory's voice as a dual-mono phantom image. And neither do the listeners I'm demoing to, irrespective of where they're sitting. It's got an aggressive surround mix that never fails to impress and, more importantly, I really like the song itself.

Sanjay

Sanjay and I have Lexicon MC-12s. The mode he's likely referring to is Logic 7, although I suppose DPLII would do the same.

Thanks,

Nick
Then you guys are NOT listening to the AP mix, but instead, the Lexicon's version of the AP mix. The Lexicon makes some good gueses at mixing at average sources, but, IMO colors the image if used on something like this disk.
I agree with the other posters about the imaging and virtual sound sources from the 4.1 channel mix. Any processing using L7, or worse (gag), DPLII, would RUIN the imaging created naturally by this disk and source content. As it stands now, the speakers dissapear when handled naturally.

vegggas

This suggests that pepar has done a great job of speaker positioning, calibration, and/or room treatment.
Well, he has. He has laser sighted his speakers, (M&K THX Ultra's), calibrated in the usual fashion and deployed acoustic absorption at the important points, (front wall, 1st reflections, ceiling, back wall, etc.). His room is almost completely out of the equation, ("almost", because he has plans to build corner "superchunk" bass traps). Even without the bass traps, the bass in his room was excellent.

Craig

His room acoustics and loudspeakers are almost certainly different from yours, and such differences will vastly swamp a difference between DTS formattting and DVD-A formatting, so expecting a reliable comparison between yours and his is a quixotic hope at best. And when he compares DTS to DVD-A with his own system, there's bias to attend to (he's already been well-primed to expect DVD-A to sound 'better' whether it sounds different or not) as well as the possibility of different processing of the two in his system, e.g., an LFE bug that could quite significantly lower the bass output of the DVD-A versus the DTS. This is assuming the DTS and DVD-A mixes and mastering are the same (I have no reason to believe they aren't, but you never know....).


I'm sorry, folks, I'm not trying to be Joe Blackcloud, the music and mixes available for DSoTm are wonderful, but leaps of faith and logic about what causes the perceptions being reported, are so rampant in audiophile culture , I have to pipe up when I see them here .

We did not do the comparison at Jeff's. However, I have done it at home and the increased resolution in the DVD-A track is a *significant* improvement on the DTS/DD tracks. It is my understanding that all the "mixes" are the same, the only differences are in the codec's used.

Thanks for pointing out the LFE issue with the Oppo player. I realized that it sounded bass deficient, and added about 6 dB. I will add the other 4 when I get home. I've ordered a test DVD-A from AIX Records, so I'm hoping to be able to set levels and so forth once I get the disc.

Craig

So, did you compare it to the DTS version on the same disc...blind?
My configuration makes switching between DVD-A and DTS difficult. I added another pair of speakers - identical to my LCRs - just for hi-res MC audio and manually swap banana plugs at my wallplates to switch between the new monopoles and the THX Ultra2 ASA rear surrounds. The 5.1 system for DVD-A's (and SACD's if I buy any) is set up from my 3910's speaker configuration and the 7.1 system for movies is set up in my RDC-7. The speaker levels would not be correct if I drove the monopoles as part of my 7.1 system, nor would the ASA settings be correct.

I think the question put to me by one of the participants was a general question about DVD-A and DTS. When we go to Craig's we will be able to more easily do the comparison as he's using one configuration for all sources - 5.1 with dipole side/rear surrounds.

To go one step further, I do not think there is any comparison between lossy (standard) DTS and hi-res multichannel audio. Blind? A deaf person could hear it.

My comments on both mixes are using analog bypass (while, yes, I would normally apply L7, most of my critical listening of both were for reviews that, I felt, required a non-processed version).For your HFR reviews, it's understandable to review the content on the disc, not the processing that scales it to 7 speakers. When I did my SACD reviews for HFR, I always gave the albums at least one complete listen using analogue bypass. But when listening for pleasure, I'm not constrained by any review protocol and usually configure the playback to my personal tastes & system. The mode he's likely referring to is Logic 7, although I suppose DPLII would do the same.PLIIx can be applied to discrete multi-channel sources, but it only "sees" the 2 surround channels (steering the content over 3 or 4 speakers). The processing ignores the front channels.

L7 operates differently when applied to multi-channel sources. Correlated (in-phase) mono content in the L/R channels is steered to the centre output, where it is combined with discrete centre channel content (if any is present). So anthing that imaged in the centre of the front soundstage (phantom image or hard image) is reproduced by the centre speaker. Same with the surrounds, where decorrelated info is extracted from the L/R channels and steered to the surrounds. The centre and surround steering is user adjustable. And like any processing, you can turn it off at the touch of a button.

Sanjay

My receiver, (Yamaha RX-V4600) does not allow any processing of the multi-channel, analog inputs. Does your Lexicon allow this?Yes, there are two Lex models (MC-12 pre-pro and RV-8 receiver) that have the option to digitize the 6-channel analogue inputs, after which it becomes just another digital source. Of course you can switch to pure analogue bypass any time you want. If so, is there any benefit to processing the 4.1 AP mix, besides the extraction of a "hard" CC? Do you retain all the very precise localization cues?Same benefits as applying PLII to a 2-channel source, which some people like and some don't. If I understand the processing correctly, the rear surround signals are extracted from out of phase differences between the L/R side surrounds. Since they don't seem to share anything in the AP mix, what is sent to the rear speakers?There are times in Parsons' mix when content is shared between the L/R surround channels. The more equally the content is shared, the more those sounds are moved towards the rear speakers. Certain sounds, like the echoed "us, us, us" and "them, them, them", aren't mixed to image between the surrounds, so the processing doesn't send them to the rear speakers at any point.

I had suggested to Jeff that he try listening with both sets of surrounds, though he'd have to use the DD or DTS track in order to apply processing (EX, PLIIx or one of the THX modes). This way, you can hear for yourself what surround content (if any) is steered to the rear speakers.

Sanjay

Sanjay and I have Lexicon MC-12s. The mode he's likely referring to is Logic 7, although I suppose DPLII would do the same.

Ta. DPLII wouldn't be available for a 4.0 input. DPLIIx would add the rears, but it wouldn't touch the front 3.

Except, you don't know if that's due to format, or to the mixing/mastering. The latter are so VASTLY different from the 2-channel that I'd be skeptical that differences you are hearing are due to the 'high resolution' of DVD-A/SACD.True, those things could easily make for a bigger audible difference in sound compared to a straight increase in resolution. Suffice it to say that the same sounds on the DVD-A appear clearer on my system compared to previous CD versions, for whatever reason (or combination thereof). For DVD-A playback, the Oppo LFE channel may have to be adjusted to +10 (= +10 dB) , depending on whether one's AVR processes LFE levels correctly when it's PCM format.Thanx, I'll keep that in mind (currently have a Panasonic RP-82 for DVD-A playback but recently ordered an Oppo 970).

Sanjay

We did not do the comparison at Jeff's. However, I have done it at home and the increased resolution in the DVD-A track is a *significant* improvement on the DTS/DD tracks. It is my understanding that all the "mixes" are the same, the only differences are in the codec's used.


And again, are you sure your output is equivalent for DTS and DVD-A? Some gear, for example, omits a 10dB LFE boost for DVD-A but not DTS. That would leave the DVD-A perceptually 'bass shy' OR, if you're inclined to love DVD-A, you might decide it sounds 'more clear'. And that leaving aside, of course, the 800-pound gorilla in the room , which is subjective bias. (Alas no amount of room treatment can tame him. ;) )


Thanks for pointing out the LFE issue with the Oppo player. I realized that it sounded bass deficient, and added about 6 dB. I will add the other 4 when I get home. I've ordered a test DVD-A from AIX Records, so I'm hoping to be able to set levels and so forth once I get the disc.

Craig

The issue is not necessarily just with the Oppo, it's perhaps also with the AVR. Regardless of that, for any source that is output with the LFE at -10 dB wrt the rest of the channels (that includes DD, DTS, DVD-A but probably not SACD), there has to be a compensating +10dB boost somewhere in the playback chain, and it has to take place before any bass management. In my rig neither the AVR (Pioneer 74txvi, old firmware) nor the player (Oppo 970) is 'smart' enough to do that automatically for all those sources. It works correctly for bitstream (DD, DTS) but for DVD-A, boosting the user-adjustable Oppo LFE output specifically, by 10 dB, is a workaround. That also boosts SACD but it's still unclear whether this is 'wrong' or not (it may be that the Oppo automatically outputs SACD LFE at -10dB by default, so that adjusting the LFE upwards +10 in the user settings restores it -- but no one has confirmed this yet to me)

It's great to have LFE test tones in various formats (I use the Chesky Ultimate Surround disc myself) but conceivably a test for the LFE bug can be done with any DVD-V or DVD-A 5.1 mix, by comparing the PCM output to the bitstream output.

A final complicating factor is that the Parsons mix had no LFE to begin with. That was added by the 'authors' of the recent release (so much for 'post mortem' versus 'authentic' mixes, btw). Was that wise of them? Depends on how it was done. If done poorly, then it might be BETTER to leave the LFE at -10dB, especially if bass management is also used.

Any disc, such as the one this thread is about, that has both DD/DTS and DVD-A is perfect for a fair comparison as both are from the same remix/remaster session. Only the encoding differs.

My configuration makes switching between DVD-A and DTS difficult. I added another pair of speakers - identical to my LCRs - just for hi-res MC audio and manually swap banana plugs at my wallplates to switch between the new monopoles and the THX Ultra2 ASA rear surrounds. The 5.1 system for DVD-A's (and SACD's if I buy any) is set up from my 3910's speaker configuration and the 7.1 system for movies is set up in my RDC-7. The speaker levels would not be correct if I drove the monopoles as part of my 7.1 system, nor would the ASA settings be correct.

I doubt there's any need to switch speakers when comparing a DVD-A to DTS mix. These are music mixes, not movie soundtracks.

I think the question put to me by one of the participants was a general question about DVD-A and DTS. When we go to Craig's we will be able to more easily do the comparison as he's using one configuration for all sources - 5.1 with dipole side/rear surrounds.

To go one step further, I do not think there is any comparison between lossy (standard) DTS and hi-res multichannel audio. Blind? A deaf person could hear it.

The Parsons mix is DTS 24/96, if I'm not mistaken. And even if not, there are more than one ways to encode 'standard' DTS. Lastly, lossy doesn't necessarily mean 'audibly different'.

For your HFR reviews, it's understandable to review the content on the disc, not the processing that scales it to 7 speakers. When I did my SACD reviews for HFR, I always gave the albums at least one complete listen using analogue bypass. But when listening for pleasure, I'm not constrained by any review protocol and usually configure the playback to my personal tastes & system. PLIIx can be applied to discrete multi-channel sources, but it only "sees" the 2 surround channels (steering the content over 3 or 4 speakers). The processing ignores the front channels.

Wouldn't the 'PLII" part of DPLIIx synthesize a center channel from the front channels of a 4.0 mix?

The Lexicon makes some good gueses at mixing at average sources...What "guesses"? It's a dumb circuit looking at electrical values in the signal. Sounds that normally phantom image in the centre of the front soundstage are extracted and sent to the speaker located there. The processing doesn't have to guess; it just grabs any sounds that are identical in both channels.

Sanjay

Then you guys are NOT listening to the AP mix, but instead, the Lexicon's version of the AP mix. The Lexicon makes some good gueses at mixing at average sources, but, IMO colors the image if used on something like this disk.
I agree with the other posters about the imaging and virtual sound sources from the 4.1 channel mix. Any processing using L7, or worse (gag), DPLII, would RUIN the imaging created naturally by this disk and source content. As it stands now, the speakers dissapear when handled naturally.

vegggas

Veggas, you missed my post about referring to the analog bypass versions of both the SACD and the DVD-A.

Of course, you're entitled to your opinion about the relative merits of L7 or DPLII processing.

Nick :cool:

And again, are you sure your output is equivalent for DTS and DVD-A? Some gear, for example, omits a 10dB LFE boost for DVD-A but not DTS. That would leave the DVD-A perceptually 'bass shy' OR, if you're inclined to love DVD-A, you might decide it sounds 'more clear'. And that leaving aside, of course, the 800-pound gorilla in the room , which is subjective bias. (Alas no amount of room treatment can tame him. ;) )




The issue is not necessarily just with the Oppo, it's perhaps also with the AVR. Regardless of that, for any source that is output with the LFE at -10 dB wrt the rest of the channels (that includes DD, DTS, DVD-A but probably not SACD), there has to be a compensating +10dB boost somewhere in the playback chain, and it has to take place before any bass management. In my rig neither the AVR (Pioneer 74txvi, old firmware) nor the player (Oppo 970) is 'smart' enough to do that automatically for all those sources. It works correctly for bitstream (DD, DTS) but for DVD-A, boosting the user-adjustable Oppo LFE output specifically, by 10 dB, is a workaround. That also boosts SACD but it's still unclear whether this is 'wrong' or not (it may be that the Oppo automatically outputs SACD LFE at -10dB by default, so that adjusting the LFE upwards +10 in the user settings restores it -- but no one has confirmed this yet to me)

It's great to have LFE test tones in various formats (I use the Chesky Ultimate Surround disc myself) but conceivably a test for the LFE bug can be done with any DVD-V or DVD-A 5.1 mix, by comparing the PCM output to the bitstream output.

A final complicating factor is that the Parsons mix had no LFE to begin with. That was added by the 'authors' of the recent release (so much for 'post mortem' versus 'authentic' mixes, btw). Was that wise of them? Depends on how it was done. If done poorly, then it might be BETTER to leave the LFE at -10dB, especially if bass management is also used.

I will need to check this when I get home. I am using the analog outputs from the Oppo to the "Multi-channel" analog inputs in my receiver. I believe all processing in the receiver is bypassed in this mode, including the bass management. Therefore, I need to use the rudimentary BM in the Oppo to have any BM.

Previously, I was comparing the DD/DTS connected to my receiver via HDMI and using the receiver's signal processing and BM. I will listen to the DVD-A and compare to the DD/DTS with both outputs routed through the multi-channel connections.

Craig

In 1975 when I saw them they definitely had a 4 channel mix.
The speakers in the upper part of the stadium were FR, FL, RR, RL.
I don't remember if it was all Parsons, but things like the cash register going around your head at the beginning of Money was pretty much the same.
I only saw them once in 1994 at Texas Stadium. There were stacks to the immediate left and right of the stage (not sure if they were redoundant), one dead left of the mixing/lighting platform, one dead right, and one dead center in the rear. Roger Waters used the same method on his 2000 In the Flesh Tour. I distinctly remember this because 1) I wasn't tripping or smoking anything, and 2) It surprised me... it wasn't what I expected quad to be, coming from a Pro-Logic & 5.1 upbringing.

It's purely speculation, but I wonder if the decision to NOT use AP had anything AT ALL to do with his abilities or results, or more to do with band "politics" from back in the day? Perhaps, AP was more associated with Gilmour than with Waters, or vice versa, and the odd man out felt that by giving the nod to AP he was giving quarter to the other?

:)
Parsons was not involved in PF's "politics." DSOTM was the last project PF worked on harmoniously. I suppose that probably began to change during the Wish You Were Here sessions, where Parsons was also involved. However, Alan Parsons was not hired by Pink Floyd. He was hired by Abby Road and assigned to Pink Floyd during the DSOTM sessions. It seemed they all worked together just fine, but PF, perhaps out of ego, perhaps out of mystique, wanted to claim all creative credit for DSOTM. Alan Parsons has since gone on to become one of the most respected music producers in the industry, and his involvement may or may not have distracted from the fact that Pink Floyd produced DSOTM. Their trust in Guthrie is also well-justified. I don't think there is any animosity towards Parsons, but when given the freedom to choose their engineer or mixer as opposed to being assigned one by the studio, they picked Guthrie. I don't intend to snub Parsons' skills, which I admire, but I think the choice to go with Guthrie is probably a consensus of preference and is being over-analyzed here.

Wouldn't the 'PLII" part of DPLIIx synthesize a center channel from the front channels of a 4.0 mix?Sure, but PLII can't be applied to multi-channel sources. PLIIx can be applied to multi-channel material, but will only process the two surround channels.

Imagine applying the multi-channel version of PLIIx to a 4-channel source (so that surround information is steered between your side and rear speakers) AND simultaneously applying the 2-channel version of PLIIx to the front L/R channels of the same source (so that correlated info goes to the centre speaker and decorrelated info is steered away from the front soundstage). That's the easiest way to describe how L7 works when applied to multi-channel sources. The basic concept is pretty simple (thought the actual execution has a few pitfalls).

Keep in mind that this combined processing wouldn't have much to do in the front soundstage of 5.1-channel movie soundtracks, since central imaged sounds are usually in the centre channel already. However, for many multi-channel music titles, where central imaged sounds are often placed in the L/R channels, it can be helpful (assuming, in your experience, that PLII doesn't RUIN the imaging created naturally by this disk and source content).

Sanjay

I doubt there's any need to switch speakers when comparing a DVD-A to DTS mix. These are music mixes, not movie soundtracks.
I guess that if the 6-channel analog outs are active when I switch my 3910 from "AUDIO" TO "VIDE0" comparing would be doable. For some reason, I thought the 6-ch analog outs only carried DVD-A/SACD.

The Parsons mix is DTS 24/96, if I'm not mistaken. And even if not, there are more than one ways to encode 'standard' DTS. Lastly, lossy doesn't necessarily mean 'audibly different'.
Well, we will get to the bottom of it when we convene at Craig's.

I don't intend to snub Parsons' skills, which I admire, but I think the choice to go with Guthrie is probably a consensus of preference and is being over-analyzed here.
Well, HEY, that's what we do here. ;)

Thank you for your insight.

I guess that if the 6-channel analog outs are active when I switch my 3910 from "AUDIO" TO "VIDE0" comparing would be doable. For some reason, I thought the 6-ch analog outs only carried DVD-A/SACD.

Your player's DACs can decode DD/DTS sources just as well as DVD-A/SACD sources and send that via the 6-channel analog outs.

Your player's DACs can decode DD/DTS sources just as well as DVD-A/SACD sources and send that via the 6-channel analog outs.
Yeah, I felt stoopid for thinking otherwise . . . :o

As I said I would, I checked my system when I got home. Sure enough, the Yamaha receiver bypasses all processing, including BM, when set to "Multi-Channel Input". These are analog inputs and don't get converted to digital for any processing.

I therefore checked the Oppo's BM settings: all speakers to "Small", subwoofer to "on" and I added the additional 4 dB to the subwoofer channel. I don't know the crossover in the Oppo player, as it is not mentioned in the manual or the specifications. (I had previuosly set the speaker distances as closely as the Oppo player allows. It doesn't let you set any speakers as "further away" than the mains; you can only input distances for speakers that are closer than the mains).

I then inserted the DSotM disc and played the DVD-A track of Us and Them. It sounded very good, just like it did at Jeff's house and on my system previously, although the bass sounded in better balance with the rest of the range. I next played the DTS track. It sounded almost as good, but a little less loud. I thought, "Hmmm... maybe they're not level-matched". So I set up my RS meter at my LP. I again played Us and Them paying particular attention to three things, the loudest note in the first sax riff, the first "Us", and the first "Them". Comparing the DTS track to the DVD-A track, I found the DVD-A track to be 2 dB louder at all of these points. (BTW, the DD track seemed to be recorded at the same level as the DTS track).

So I went back and listened again, but this time with level-matching. In a previous post, Sanjay said:
Sure it's nice, but all we're talking about is increased resolution.
and krabapple said:
Lastly, lossy doesn't necessarily mean 'audibly different'.

With these two quotes in mind, I listened to Us and Them three times in each format. In all honesty, the DTS track and the DVD-A track, when level-matched, and all other parameters held constant, sounded more alike than different. There seemed to be a little more detail and "air" in the DVD-A track, but that could just be my bias to be pre-disposed to DVD-A. I'm not sure I could reliably pick the DVD-A in a blind test.

Jeff, I know this is counter-intuitive to your thinking, but the next time you're over here, I will repeat the exercise and you can judge for yourself.

It could be that the original DSotM mastertapes don't have the resolution to allow the DVD-A high-res format to really come through. They clearly have audible tape hiss. I've also read that they have speed and time-based errors. Guthrie himself points this out: http://www.pinkfloyd.co.uk/dsotm/content/setup.html
It may be that it takes more dynamic range and more recorded resolution to allow the hi-rez playback formats to really shine.

I have ordered some AIX recordings done in 36 track, 96 kHz, 24 bits resolution. http://www.aixrecords.com/techtalk/techtalk.html These higher resolution recordings may be what it takes to allow the hi-rez playback systems to rise above the "lossy" codec schemes. These recordings also have AC-3 and DTS versions on them. We can listen to them the next time you're here and decide if the improvements we are hearing are attributable to the increased resolution of the format, or to the fact that they are "surround" encoded.

Parsons was not involved in PF's "politics." DSOTM was the last project PF worked on harmoniously. I suppose that probably began to change during the Wish You Were Here sessions, where Parsons was also involved. However, Alan Parsons was not hired by Pink Floyd. He was hired by Abby Road and assigned to Pink Floyd during the DSOTM sessions.


Though he'd already assisted on 'Atom Heart Mother'

As I said I would, I checked my system when I got home. Sure enough, the Yamaha receiver bypasses all processing, including BM, when set to "Multi-Channel Input". These are analog inputs and don't get converted to digital for any processing.

If your Yamaha is HDMI 1.1 compliant, you can pass both the DTS and the DVD-A via HDMI (set Oppo HDMI output to AUTO,digital to RAW, HDMI resolution to 720 or higher), and your Yamaha might then be able to apply whatever processing you want. For a careful comparison of LFE, though, you'd want to leave all speakers large in both player and AVR, so that the only thing coming from the sub is LFE, not redirected bass. The Oppo will digitally output the DTS as bitstream, and the DVD-A as PCM.


I then inserted the DSotM disc and played the DVD-A track of Us and Them. It sounded very good, just like it did at Jeff's house and on my system previously, although the bass sounded in better balance with the rest of the range. I next played the DTS track. It sounded almost as good, but a little less loud. I thought, "Hmmm... maybe they're not level-matched". So I set up my RS meter at my LP. I again played Us and Them paying particular attention to three things, the loudest note in the first sax riff, the first "Us", and the first "Them". Comparing the DTS track to the DVD-A track, I found the DVD-A track to be 2 dB louder at all of these points. (BTW, the DD track seemed to be recorded at the same level as the DTS track).


Interesting, but I'm not clear whether your DTS is being output via a digital connection, or whether it going via analog, like the DVD-A.

If your Yamaha is HDMI 1.1 compliant, you can pass both the DTS and the DVD-A via HDMI (set Oppo HDMI output to AUTO,digital to RAW, HDMI resolution to 720 or higher), and your Yamaha might then be able to apply whatever processing you want. For a careful comparison of LFE, though, you'd want to leave all speakers large in both player and AVR, so that the only thing coming from the sub is LFE, not redirected bass. The Oppo will digitally output the DTS as bitstream, and the DVD-A as PCM..
I'll try that..tomorrow, no more tonight.

Interesting, but I'm not clear whether your DTS is being output via a digital connection, or whether it going via analog, like the DVD-A.The HDMI was not only turned off in the Oppo, it was literally disconnected. Therefore the only connection it could have had was the analog "multi-channel" connections. When I said "all other parameters held constant", this is what I meant. :)

Craig

The tape loop used for the cash register cha ching effect on the song 'Money' was about 20 feet long, and if you've ever seen a reel-to-reel tape machine, in order to get the right tension and continuously feed the machine, they set up the loop in a big circle using a microphone stand to hold it up. It was fed through the tape machine and played throughout the song.

http://www.amazon.com/Classic-Albums-Making-Dark-Side/dp/B0000AOV85
:rolleyes:
This DVD show Alan Parson demonstrating this, and overall this DVD is a pretty comprehensive documentary regarding the making of the original album.

With these two quotes in mind, I listened to Us and Them three times in each format. In all honesty, the DTS track and the DVD-A track, when level-matched, and all other parameters held constant, sounded more alike than different. There seemed to be a little more detail and "air" in the DVD-A track, but that could just be my bias to be pre-disposed to DVD-A. I'm not sure I could reliably pick the DVD-A in a blind test.

Jeff, I know this is counter-intuitive to your thinking, but the next time you're over here, I will repeat the exercise and you can judge for yourself.
Definitely! FWIW, "detail" and "air" are exactly where I'd expect to hear a difference. Punch as well.

It could be that the original DSotM mastertapes don't have the resolution to allow the DVD-A high-res format to really come through. They clearly have audible tape hiss. I've also read that they have speed and time-based errors.

I have ordered some AIX recordings done in 36 track, 96 kHz, 24 bits resolution. http://www.aixrecords.com/techtalk/techtalk.html These higher resolution recordings may be what it takes to allow the hi-rez playback systems to rise above the "lossy" codec schemes. These recordings also have AC-3 and DTS versions on them. We can listen to them the next time you're here and decide if the improvements we are hearing are attributable to the increased resolution of the format, or to the fact that they are "surround" encoded.
You might be onto something there. A present day recording would certainly go a long way to ensure that the source is not the limiting factor.

Definitely! FWIW, "detail" and "air" are exactly where I'd expect to hear a difference. Punch as well.

Those are also the sorts of 'improvements' reported when there's just a simple difference in level.

Those are also the sorts of 'improvements' reported when there's just a simple difference in level.
You are as constant as gravity. :)

I'll try that..tomorrow, no more tonight.

The HDMI was not only turned off in the Oppo, it was literally disconnected. Therefore the only connection it could have had was the analog "multi-channel" connections. When I said "all other parameters held constant", this is what I meant. :)

Craig

OK, then I assume your Yamaha AVR treats all 5.1 analog input the same. So any differences will likely be down to your player. Since the Oppo is doing all decoding, it's decoding DTS and converting it to PCM before output, as well as decoding MLP and outputting the PCM for DVD-A. Then comes D/A conversion. At that point from your AVR's point of view, it's all just voltages, the AVR doesn't know what the source was. The thing is I don't really know if the Oppo is 'smart' enough to adjust LFE for analog output; I've never used its 5-channel analog outs (I;ve only compared performance over HDMI, with DTS is output as bitstream and DVD-A as PCM). From what I see on KMO's LFE thread (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=748147) , he doesn't expect players to adjust LFE, he expects that to be done by the AVR. For a more rigorous comparison of DTS vs DVD-A as multichannel analog from the Oppo I'd turn all bass management off in the (just for this test) and keep all the channel levels at zero trim/boost. Then compare some steady tones -- maybe part of 'On the Run' or the opening bass notes of 'Time' -- and particularly check the subwoofer output.

You are as constant as gravity. :)

Isnt' that reassuring in these uncertain times? :D

Though he'd already assisted on 'Atom Heart Mother'
I don't have much info on that. I know "Allan's Psychadellic Breakfast" was not named after him, but another asst. engineer. I know Parsons was working at Abbey Road at the time, because he assisted The Beatles on both the Let it Be and Abbey Road sessions. You're probably right.

I don't have much info on that. I know "Allan's Psychadellic Breakfast" was not named after him, but another asst. engineer. I know Parsons was working at Abbey Road at the time, because he assisted The Beatles on both the Let it Be and Abbey Road sessions. You're probably right.

Well, he's credited as an engineer on the album, so I think so too. :D

This discussion reminds me that it's not infrequent to listen to a DVD-A, and be inclined to gush over the superlative resolution, only to find that the lower resolution versions in either DD or DTS aren't all that easy to distinguish.

For my money, it's the surround presentation that most distinguishes this disc, the SACD, and so many others from the real two-channel doldrums that have become, well, boring in so many ways.

Put the flame-throwers on check; I listen to and enjoy two channel music. But only when I have to.

;)

Nick :cool:

OK, then I assume your Yamaha AVR treats all 5.1 analog input the same. So any differences will likely be down to your player. Since the Oppo is doing all decoding, it's decoding DTS and converting it to PCM before output, as well as decoding MLP and outputting the PCM for DVD-A. Then comes D/A conversion. At that point from your AVR's point of view, it's all just voltages, the AVR doesn't know what the source was. The thing is I don't really know if the Oppo is 'smart' enough to adjust LFE for analog output; I've never used its 5-channel analog outs (I;ve only compared performance over HDMI, with DTS is output as bitstream and DVD-A as PCM). From what I see on KMO's LFE thread (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=748147) , he doesn't expect players to adjust LFE, he expects that to be done by the AVR. For a more rigorous comparison of DTS vs DVD-A as multichannel analog from the Oppo I'd turn all bass management off in the (just for this test) and keep all the channel levels at zero trim/boost. Then compare some steady tones -- maybe part of 'On the Run' or the opening bass notes of 'Time' -- and particularly check the subwoofer output.

I also run a Yamaha AVR and there is noticeably no bass output on DSOTM-DVDA when running the analog outputs to my "multi channel" input. Dolby digital and DTS soundtracks for DVDs, however, put out more than enough bass. I haven't tried boosting bass on either the Oppo or the AVR since I calibrated the entire system using an SPL but, like Craig, I suspect I need to b/c it's all but absent when playing the Floyd. I guess each time I play a DVD-A I need to push it up then pull it back down again when using the optical digital out on the oppo for regular dvds...a small pain but worth it since this DVD-A in particular sounds so sweet... :D

NO bass output? There's something seriously wrong, then. Even with the LFE bug, subwoofer output is only lowered by 10dB, not eliminated.

How does the LFE of the DTS version of DSotM sound in comparison to the DVD-A version, when played via the analog multi connection? There should be both versions on your disc.

Just wondering, how do people like the DTS and DD tracks of this compared to the actual DVD-A audio spec?

Just read that this can be played on other DVD players so it will be cool to bring this home and play it for my dad on his sound system (he's on old time Pink Floyd fan).

Thanks again,

Sam

Just wondering, how do people like the DTS and DD tracks of this compared to the actual DVD-A audio spec?

Just read that this can be played on other DVD players so it will be cool to bring this home and play it for my dad on his sound system (he's on old time Pink Floyd fan).

Thanks again,

Sam

Good enough to get stoned on music alone. While you at it find/borrow/steal/download quad version of Wish You Were Here. The same effect. I bow my head to sound engineers that put it all together some 30 years ago... It's simply delicious. No other way to listen to these two but in multichannel.

Good enough to get stoned on music alone. While you at it find/borrow/steal/download quad version of Wish You Were Here. The same effect. I bow my head to sound engineers that put it all together some 30 years ago... It's simply delicious. No other way to listen to these two but in multichannel.
I've read that WYWH is not up to the same quality level as DSOTM. What's your opinion?

Very mild Quad mix vs DSoTM.

Very mild Quad mix vs DSoTM.
I see if I can grab it. Thanks!

Can you comment on the sound quality? Does it sound digitally remastered or like they used an analog quad mix?

It's from either an old Quad LP or 8-track. Not from original masters.

It's from either an old Quad LP or 8-track. Not from original masters.
That's what I thought and why I hadn't grabbed it before. I guess I'll pass . . .

Just wondering, how do people like the DTS and DD tracks of this compared to the actual DVD-A audio spec?

I don't have a DVD-A player, but I did hear it on a very nice system. Playing it on mine with DTS isn't quite as good, but then again my system isn't quite as good as where I heard the DVD-A.

Obviously the DVD-A is higher resolution, but the DTS mix is still pretty nice.

That's what I thought and why I hadn't grabbed it before. I guess I'll pass . . .
Yeah, I threw it in the garbage. I'd much rather listen to the redbook CD of WYWH than this poor quality "multichannel" mix.

Yeah, I threw it in the garbage. I'd much rather listen to the redbook CD of WYWH than this poor quality "multichannel" mix.

There are more than 1 version going around. I have 3 different versions and 2 of them are crap, however 1 of them (I think it's from a Quad LP) kicks ass!

There are more than 1 version going around. I have 3 different versions and 2 of them are crap, however 1 of them (I think it's from a Quad LP) kicks ass!
Perhaps so, but the deal breaker for me is "LP."

I have a few different versions of WYWH - the most recent one floating around is a 3.4GB version supposedly realized from a pristine quad 8track cartridge.

The text which accompanied this version claimed it was assembled "by the same bloke what done the DSOTM DVD-A."

I truly find that hard to believe...the DSOTM quad DVD-A is truly in a class by itself.

The versions of WYHW I've come across pale in comparison.

I have a few different versions of WYWH - the most recent one floating around is a 3.4GB version supposedly realized from a pristine quad 8track cartridge.
Pristine 8-track cartridge? Where'd you hear that, Comedy Central? :rolleyes: ;) :)

Pristine 8-track cartridge? Where'd you hear that, Comedy Central? :rolleyes: ;) :)

There are actually some quad 8-track to DVD-A transfers that are quite stunning.

And yeah, the 3.4GB WYWH is derived from a quadraphonic 8-track cartridge from my understanding...I don't think I heard it on Comedy Central, although I suppose that's entirely possible.

:rolleyes:

There are actually some quad 8-track to DVD-A transfers that are quite stunning.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying; are the 8-tracks you're referring to the 8-tracks we used to play in our cars, or 8-track 1/2" magnetic tape from early multichannel studio tape recorders?

If it's the former, then I just don't see how they could be "stunning" as those things were noisy and severely bandwidth-limited. At both ends of the spectrum.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying; are the 8-tracks you're referring to the 8-tracks we used to play in our cars, or 8-track 1/2" magnetic tape from early multichannel studio tape recorders?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8-track_cartridge

Quadraphonic 8-track cartridges were introduced by RCA Records in September 1970 and known as Quad 8, or Q8, were also produced, with the major auto manufacturers being particularly eager to promote in-car quadraphonic players as a pricey option. The format enjoyed a moderate amount of success for a time but faded in the mid-1970s. These cartridges are prized by collectors since they provide 4 channels of discrete sound, unlike matrixed formats such as SQ. Most quadraphonic albums were specially mixed for the quad format.


If it's the former, then I just don't see how they could be "stunning" as those things were noisy and severely bandwidth-limited. At both ends of the spectrum.

I'm just telling you where that WYWH came from - I certainly don't think it was trashcan worthy :)

I have heard some other transfers that blew me away which were derived from quad8.

Obviously, YMMV.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8-track_cartridge
If you're comparing them to SQ or QS from "back in the day", then they may be better than those, but in my world, the making of a DVD-A doesn't include "LP" or any mass market consumer tape formats. At least not any DVD-A that I want to hear. :)

in my world, the making of a DVD-A doesn't include "LP" or any mass market consumer tape formats. At least not any DVD-A that I want to hear. :)

Then I guess collecting 'Frankenstein" surround mixes isn't for you.

:p

I doubt there will ever be anything which compares to the DSOTM DVD-A.

I have a few different versions of WYWH - the most recent one floating around is a 3.4GB version supposedly realized from a pristine quad 8track cartridge.

The text which accompanied this version claimed it was assembled "by the same bloke what done the DSOTM DVD-A."

I truly find that hard to believe...the DSOTM quad DVD-A is truly in a class by itself.

The versions of WYHW I've come across pale in comparison.

For DSOtM, the bloke apparently had access to the original quad master tapes (or digital copies of same). That's not the case for WYWH. You can only do so much with an 8 track cart or LP source, but the quad 8-track tape can be a very good place to start.

Then I guess collecting 'Frankenstein" surround mixes isn't for you.

:p

I doubt there will ever be anything which compares to the DSOTM DVD-A.
Just most of them that I buy commercially. DSOTM is exceptional for something "acquired" in that manner, but certainly not better than those acquired in the more standard way.

For DSOtM, the bloke apparently had access to the original quad master tapes (or digital copies of same). That's not the case for WYWH. You can only do so much with an 8 track cart or LP source, but the quad 8-track tape can be a very good place to start.
Life is too short to listen to digital copies of LP's or 8-track tapes. :)