Just most of them that I buy commercially.

Some of the stuff I've purchased commercially is in the same league.

The DSOTM DVD-A is amazing on a bunch of levels - it is by no means the only great surround music that is floating around out there in the gray area.

And I certainly don't mean music that you can purchase commercially, either.

;)

Life is too short to listen to digital copies of LP's or 8-track tapes. :)

If you dig surround sound music you are way off with this comment. With the advent of high quality hi rez sound cards and DVD-Audio authoring software the quality of these recording can in some cases blow commercial releases out of the water.

I've read that WYWH is not up to the same quality level as DSOTM. What's your opinion?

I am so happy to have this is in quad that I am not even going to compare them.
This music was created for multuchannel, sounds so natural it is hard for me to believe that I listened to the stereo version for so many years. BTW. You can easily get it on the donkey network.

I don't know where WYWH came from, I have read both Quad LP an Q8 claimed. I bailed on my Q8 equipment and tapes decades ago but based on the prices I have seen Q8 tapes sell for on eBay, I sure wish I had kept them. I never dreamed anybody would care about that format after it died. I did think at the time, it was good for the auto, but not worth much for the home. I had Quad open reel for the home and thought is actually quite good, but it really didn't gain much market acceptance either. I did at least manage to sell my open reel tapes, but again didn't wait for eBay to get a good price, wish I had though.

Chris

If you dig surround sound music you are way off with this comment. With the advent of high quality hi rez sound cards and DVD-Audio authoring software the quality of these recording can in some cases blow commercial releases out of the water.
Oh, I do dig surround music, but I dig sound quality, too. If I am not "taken away" by the atmosphere created by the artist/engineer/producer, then I do not enjoy it. Tape hiss, clicks/pops and general haziness destroy the illusion. As sound quality has advanced, I've found that I cannot go back to a previous generation. When I discovered Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs and high quality Japanese virgin vinyl records, that was the end of regular LPs. When I first heard CD's, there went the MFSL-type records. When DVD's hit, that was pretty much the end of me watching any of my laserdisc collection. Sure, I kept my Pio Elite even buying a pre/pro with an AC-3 RF input, I didn't watch a single one. Now the hi-res audio of DVD-A/SACD is the culprit.

Once I've heard/seen something better, I find it difficult to enjoy the previous "better." And I left LP's a while ago and 8-tracks *long* before that. A faithful recording of an inferior format still produces an inferior result. Sorry, I calls 'em as I sees 'em. :)

I don't know where WYWH came from, I have read both Quad LP an Q8 claimed. I bailed on my Q8 equipment and tapes decades ago but based on the prices I have seen Q8 tapes sell for on eBay, I sure wish I had kept them. I never dreamed anybody would care about that format after it died. I did think at the time, it was good for the auto, but not worth much for the home. I had Quad open reel for the home and thought is actually quite good, but it really didn't gain much market acceptance either. I did at least manage to sell my open reel tapes, but again didn't wait for eBay to get a good price, wish I had though.
The people buying these things are collectors and are driven by an entirely different set of motives. I moved on because of sound quality improvements. Not even an obscure, but primitive recording of one of my favorite bands interests me when it sounds like it's been phoned in.

When I first heard CD's, there went the MFSL-type records. Thats funny because the first CDs released pale in comparison to their vinyl (LP) equivalent, that is unless you prefer pathetic low and high freq detail :)

Thats funny because the first CDs released pale in comparison to their vinyl (LP) equivalent, that is unless you prefer pathetic low and high freq detail :)
I remember that; it was referred to as shovelware. And no, I passed on them as well.

Somewhat related, about a month ago I logged onto BMG Music and searched for "remastered." I ended my session with an order that replaced about 10% of my CD collection. Every Billy Joel, Santana, Dire Straits, Moody Blues, ELO, Traffic, early Yes, early Steely Dan and some stuff I didn't have on CD like Nilsson Schmillson, In-A-Gada-Da-Vida and Manassas. I have A/B'd a few and so far, I am very happy with my purchase. Is it hi-res audio? No, but it is vastly better than what I already had. And better than the best vinyl versions that I had way back when.

I ended my session with an order that replaced about 10% of my CD collection. I replaced 100% of my CD collection, and I agree the digitally remastered CD's are exceptional.

BTW the recording industry laughed at Sony's first demo for the "CD format". They were truly concerned about releasing product on a format with such marginal quality, and how it would negatively effect their industry.

I replaced 100% of my CD collection, and I agree the digitally remastered CD's are exceptional.

BTW the recording industry laughed at Sony's first demo for the "CD format". They were truly concerned about releasing product on a format with such marginal quality, and how it would negatively effect their industry.
There are still vinyl purists/fanatics who hear a difference and prefer vinyl. I agree completely that one needs top notch gear to avoid a harsh, grainy sound from CD's compared to vinyl, but if one has that gear, there's no comparison (to my ears). I'm sure that there will still be those vinyl purists when hi-res audio becomes more accessible (DVD-A/SACD never reached critical mass), but I imagine their ranks will be decimated. True collectors won't care; it is the items themselves they ooh and ahh over, not (so much) the sound.

Nothing beats the convenience of having 1100 cd's available by 1 remote control, owning 3 Sony 400 disc cd changers

There are still vinyl purists/fanatics who hear a difference and prefer vinyl.

It doesn't take a purist to hear a difference -- usually the mastering is quite different. And too there's things like vinyl's poorer channel separation , higher noise floor, and its phase inaccuracies, that can actually make LP sound 'better' to some.

In any case, once there's real a difference to be heard, there usually will be preference for one or the other.

I agree completely that one needs top notch gear to avoid a harsh, grainy sound from CD's compared to vinyl

I don't agree at all. Most CD players are 'top notch' in this regard already -- they can output whatever they're fed with a high degree of accuracy. If a CD sounds harsh, then it's probably been mastered that way. And if you make a good CDR of an LP, that will sound like the LP.

Nothing beats the convenience of having 1100 cd's available by 1 remote control, owning 3 Sony 400 disc cd changers


I can carry all ~1000 of my CDs as lossless files + album art (with lots of room to spare) in a paperback-sized 500 GB hard drive, and listen to it wherever there's a computer -- and I can back the whole thing up in case of disaster. No pause between tracks either. :D

I don't agree at all. Most CD players are 'top notch' in this regard already -- they can output whatever they're fed with a high degree of accuracy. If a CD sounds harsh, then it's probably been mastered that way. And if you make a good CDR of an LP, that will sound like the LP.
I guess we'll just have to disagree on this. It's mostly in the DACs. And, to my knowledge, even today only really good CD, DVD/CD and/or universal players have the really good DACs. If one is using a digital connection, then it's the DACs in one's AVR/pre-pro.

I've always placed the music before the technology...not the other way around.

I've always placed the music before the technology...not the other way around.
I said "Oh, I do dig surround music, but I dig sound quality, too" and that means I put them both on equal footing. I find neither a crappy recording of a fabulous performance or a fabulous recording of a crappy performance worth my time.

Life is too short to listen to digital copies of LP's or 8-track tapes. :)

I guess it was comments like that which might have thrown me off.

Cheers.

Life is too short to listen to digital copies of LP's or 8-track tapes. :)

Spoken like a true............................." :rolleyes:

Spoken like a true............................." :rolleyes:
............ person with an opinion that differs from yours? :rolleyes:

Life is too short...

I love great music, and I love immersive, lush, and enveloping recordings of great music.

Perhaps I'm just cavalier with the way I spend my time.

You are certainly correct...life is indeed too short.

You are certainly correct...life is indeed too short:
To argue. Let's just enjoy the music in whatever way makes us . . . enjoy the music! :)

Deal

BTW, not arguing...just some playful banter.

:D

Deal

BTW, not arguing...just some playful banter.

:D
Well, I'm almost always up for some playful banter. ;)

Well, I'm almost always up for some playful banter. ;)

Analog tape can sound very good. I can't stand pops and clicks of vinyl. 8 tracks and reel to reel can sound awsome without the pops. So add to that high quality A/D converters built into sound cards and a HI REZ dub of original QUAD material that does not exist on DVD-Audio/SACD and I don't think it is a great compromise.

I can also enjoy DTS CD's in QUAD which is also a compromise over Uncompressed stuff...

Analog tape can sound very good. I can't stand pops and clicks of vinyl. 8 tracks and reel to reel can sound awsome without the pops. So add to that high quality A/D converters built into sound cards and a HI REZ dub of original QUAD material that does not exist on DVD-Audio/SACD and I don't think it is a great compromise.

I can also enjoy DTS CD's in QUAD which is also a compromise over Uncompressed stuff...
Yes indeed, analog tape, especially the 2" multi-track masters, can sound fabulous. All recordings done before a certain date are "A" and going DD beyond that preserves the original sound. I was under the impression, though, that the WYWH DVD-A was from an AAA mass-produced, commercially sold 8-track, and that's a mare of a different hue.

I've no doubt that WYWH will be remixed/remastered and (officially) released in surround format. I can wait while I'm enjoying the wealth of material available that *does* meet my audiophile sensibilities.

Actually, the "best" DVD-A out there of WYWH was sourced from a "just opened - first play" EMI (UK) SQ LP. It was not decoded/recorded in a "home" studio, and is about as close as one can get to the original intent of the mix.

There are about 15 WYWH Q8 conversions out there that range from horrible to "pretty good for an 8-track". The WYWH 8 track, USA only - never released in the UK - was Dolby Encoded, and is very "hissy". I have tried to convert one myself, and it has never been a satisfying ordeal. The first minute of the album where the sound fades up from the bed of hiss is most difficult to get a grip on.

Frankly, it's a crime that the WYWH SACD did not closely follow the DSOTM SACD.

However, I would put some quad reel conversions up against some commercial surround releases, and they would stand pretty close together. Not all, but some.

Frankly, it's a crime that the WYWH SACD did not closely follow the DSOTM SACD.




Oblio,

What WYWH SACD??????

What WYWH SACD??????
The one we're all wishing for, that we assume will one day (who knows when) be made.

Yeah, it still hasn't appeared - rumor only. It SHOULD have appeared already.........

Actually, the "best" DVD-A out there of WYWH was sourced from a "just opened - first play" EMI (UK) SQ LP. It was not decoded/recorded in a "home" studio, and is about as close as one can get to the original intent of the mix.

There are about 15 WYWH Q8 conversions out there that range from horrible to "pretty good for an 8-track". The WYWH 8 track, USA only - never released in the UK - was Dolby Encoded, and is very "hissy". I have tried to convert one myself, and it has never been a satisfying ordeal. The first minute of the album where the sound fades up from the bed of hiss is most difficult to get a grip on.
Just looking at file sizes and whatever other info is given, is there a way for one to discern which is the "best" one?

Yeah, it still hasn't appeared - rumor only. It SHOULD have appeared already.........

I believe I first saw that rumor around 2003, supposedly it was nearing completion at that time.

Chris

Have read that it was a project they wanted to pursue.

After the SACD of DSOTM came out, I read that WYWH was a possible SACD release in the future at some point.

Never read or heard that it was actually being undertaken as an SACD release.

The first rumor I heard was that the WYWH SACD would show up in 2005 for its 30th anniversary. Then I heard that it got pushed back to 2007. That's the last I've heard of it.

THANKS for this thread.

I saw it quite a while ago, and basically ignored all the claims of how good the DVD-A was. I already owned the SACD, and it's fantastic as we all know, so I assumed this wouldn't be anything earth shattering.

Recently, for some reason I decided to go ahead and download this and try it out. AMAZING. I have only listened to about half of it so far, and I LOVE THIS.

Thanks again for getting the word out.

I'm into my 7th day of this download,40% complete. I sure wish I knew more about computers as I cant believe it should take this long. If anyone can help me with this I would appreciate it. Thanks, jeff

I'm into my 7th day of this download,40% complete. I sure wish I knew more about computers as I cant believe it should take this long. If anyone can help me with this I would appreciate it. Thanks, jeff
Don't watch it. It will go faster. :D

As long as you are making progress, there's really not much to do.

thanks for the reply, in a month or so I'll be back asking NOW what do i do with this? thanks for responding.

thanks for the reply, in a month or so I'll be back asking NOW what do i do with this? thanks for responding.
"It" consists of an ISO image that you will burn to a DVD-R and an image (or two?) which can be turned into cover art.

I'm into my 7th day of this download,40% complete. I sure wish I knew more about computers as I cant believe it should take this long. If anyone can help me with this I would appreciate it. Thanks, jeff

It took me about 7 days over a year ago when I first heard of it. Be grateful that it's still available - it's worth the wait.

As others have noted, a watched pot never boils :-) Just consider it a slow mail order house delivery!


Larry

It took me about 4 or 5 days to complete the download. I just did it last week. I have only listened to about half the songs but definitely well worth it. The sound is incredible!

61% Woo Hoo!!!

61% Woo Hoo!!!
You looked. :mad: :D

LOL just a quick peek :)

It took me about 10 days to download this, but it was worth the wait! Just played it today and can't believe how amazing it sounds. Actually played it three times through the course of the day. This is definitely a better mix than the SACD.

One thing is that I don't have a DVD-A player so I played it on DTS. How big of a difference is there really? I mean, the DTS already sounds incredible for a 35 year-old album, so wondering really how much better would it sound in high resolution?

Also, knowing this is a bootleg, do you think this could be even better audio quality if it was released commercially? Or do you think this is the apex of what can be achieved with these masters for DVD-A?

One thing is that I don't have a DVD-A player so I played it on DTS. How big of a difference is there really? I mean, the DTS already sounds incredible for a 35 year-old album, so wondering really how much better would it sound in high resolution?
The DTS sounds very good, but on a really good and revealing system the DVD-A sounds noticeably better. To me anyway.

on a really good and revealing system the DVD-A sounds noticeably better. To me anyway.

To you and me both.

It took me about 10 days to download this, but it was worth the wait! Just played it today and can't believe how amazing it sounds. Actually played it three times through the course of the day. This is definitely a better mix than the SACD.

One thing is that I don't have a DVD-A player so I played it on DTS. How big of a difference is there really? I mean, the DTS already sounds incredible for a 35 year-old album, so wondering really how much better would it sound in high resolution?

Also, knowing this is a bootleg, do you think this could be even better audio quality if it was released commercially? Or do you think this is the apex of what can be achieved with these masters for DVD-A?

1. I think others have noted with really good gear you will hear the difference between DTS and DVD-A. I went from DD to DVD-A on the disc and the difference was very noticeable

2. As for an official MCH release, the SACD is that. There was some talk earlier about whether using modern technology if a MCH release should sound better than the AP mix and the consensus was probably. This is because AP would have done all his mixing in analogue and in inevitable generational loss and hiss caused by each dub would degrade the audio. These days each of the individual tracks would be sampled to some very high resolution and most of the mixing etc done in something like ProTools etc. This is basically what George Martin and son did with the Beatles Love DVD-A which is why it sounds so great now

Larry

Can someone PM me about this... I would greatly compen$ate...cough... I mean appreciate it!!

Thanks

Nick

I finally bought a DVD-A player in the Oppo DV-981HD, partly because I want to hear this disc in full resolution and not just in DTS, and also to compare it to my DSOTM SACD.

However, I'm not sure what software I'm supposed to use to burn the DVD-A. Nero doesn't seem to have a DVD-A feature, and I purchased DVD-Audio Solo, but it doesn't seem have to an existing DVD-A burn function. Seems like that software is more about creating your own DVD-As with your own source material.

In anycase, any help and suggestions on software would be greatly appreciated!

If you have an .iso file of the disc, all you need to do is burn it with NERO. It will know what to do. The fact that it's a DVD-a does not matter. What you have is a disc image.

Just burn it like you would any other iso image to dvd. Strange to pop on and see this thread, as I'm listening to this as we speak. It really is a great mix, there are a few songs on the dvd-a that I like quite a bit more than the sacd.

any help and suggestions on software would be greatly appreciated!

How were you able to listen to the DTS tracks if you were not able to burn the .ISO image?

How were you able to listen to the DTS tracks if you were not able to burn the .ISO image?
Touché.

Mine wasn't an ISO image; rather it was two separate directories of VIDEO_TS and AUDIO_TS. Nero wouldn't handle the AUDIO_TS folder, but would accept the VIDEO_TS folder, which is what I burned. So my previous disc had only the DVD video files on it, which included the DD and DTS soundtracks.

Mine wasn't an ISO image; rather it was two separate directories of VIDEO_TS and AUDIO_TS. Nero wouldn't handle the AUDIO_TS folder, but would accept the VIDEO_TS folder, which is what I burned. So my previous disc had only the DVD video files on it, which included the DD and DTS soundtracks.
You do know, then, that that is not the DVD-A file?

You do know, then, that that is not the DVD-A file?

No I'm not aware of that. The AUDIO_TS folder contained 11 files, the largest being ATS_01_1.AOB (1,048,574 KB) and ATS_01_2.AOB (610,074 KB) which I assume contains the music.

If these aren't the DVD-A files, then what are they?

No I'm not aware of that. The AUDIO_TS folder contained 11 files, the largest being ATS_01_1.AOB (1,048,574 KB) and ATS_01_2.AOB (610,074 KB) which I assume contains the music.

If these aren't the DVD-A files, then what are they?
Dunno, menuing perhaps? But the DVD-A is in ONE file with an .iso extension that is 3,599,808KB. Mere mortals cannot look "inside" the ISO and see individual files.

The DVD -A files are in the Audio TS folder. You need to burn both directories as one disc image.
I've never used Nero so I don't know what the problem is.

THat said, whether there will be an audible difference between the DVD-A dn 96/24 DTS is arguable. If there is, I'd put it down more to level/bass management diffs than 'resolution' difference.

Dunno, menuing perhaps? But the DVD-A is in ONE file with an .iso extension that is 3,599,808KB. Mere mortals cannot look "inside" the ISO and see individual files.

Again, what I have IS NOT the ISO file. What I have are the actual VIDEO_TS and AUDIO_TS folders and files within, which together, are 3,684,777,984 bytes or 3.43 GB. I assume you, being a mere mortal or not, could peer inside your burned DVD-A disc and see exactly the same folder and file structure that I have on my HDD.

Hopefully, I suppose someone with actual knowledge beyond the obvious can help here?

The DVD -A files are in the Audio TS folder. You need to burn both directories as one disc image.
I've never used Nero so I don't know what the problem is.

Yes, exactly, for some reason Nero wouldn't burn the AUDIO_TS folder, but only the VIDEO_TS folder (which is why I can access the DD and DTS soundtracks, but not the DVD-A).

Has anyone burned their DVD-A from the raw files and folders, and NOT the ISO image? If so, which software did you use?

Mere mortals cannot look "inside" the ISO and see individual files.
I assume you, being a mere mortal or not, could peer inside your burned DVD-A disc and see exactly the same folder and file structure that I have on my HDD.

Exactly.

I don't know how you need to burn it, KyaDawn. But the AUDIO_TS files are, indeed, the DVD-A files. I'd recommend trying to get the ISO.

I suppose someone with actual knowledge beyond the obvious can help here?

The execution of the DVD-A from the original .ISO file has already been discussed ad nauseum in this thread.

The execution of the DVD-A from the original .ISO file has already been discussed ad nauseum in this thread.
He said he has no ISO. He has the DVD-A AUDIO_TS files.

Maybe THIS (http://www.winiso.com/) would be useful. Or THIS (http://www.digital-digest.com/~blutach/pgcedit_guide/burning_with_pgcedit/burning_with_pgcedit_v2.htm). OR THIS (http://www.magiciso.com/).

If you have the Audio_TS and Video_TS folders (and all related files), then I see no reason why you wouldn't be able to burn the DVD-A with a variety of different programs.

Maybe it would be helpful to obtain the original .ISO and start over again.

If you have the Audio_TS and Video_TS folders (and all related files), then I see no reason why you wouldn't be able to burn the DVD-A with a variety of different programs.

He said he used Nero to burn the VIDEO_TS files with no problem. He said Nero would not accept the AUDIO_TS files.

Beats me. :confused:

Maybe someone will kindly mail him the burned DVD-A, free-of-charge. ;)

He said he used Nero to burn the VIDEO_TS files with no problem. He said Nero would not accept the AUDIO_TS files.


If he succesfully burned the Video_TS folder using some version of NERO, then I see no reason why he does not have a working copy of the DSOTM DVD-A.

If he succesfully burned the Video_TS folder using some version of NERO, then I see no reason why he does not have a working copy of the DSOTM DVD-A.
The VIDEO_TS folder only contains the DD/DTS tracks, which he said he has burned to DVD and listened to prior to buying a DVD-A capable player.

If you're asking why he can burn the VIDEO_TS folder and not the AUDIO_TS folder, I don't know the answer.

He said he used Nero to burn the VIDEO_TS files with no problem. He said Nero would not accept the AUDIO_TS files.

Beats me. :confused:

Maybe someone will kindly mail him the burned DVD-A, free-of-charge. ;)
I believe I used one of those programs, IIRC, I had trouble trying to get Nero to do it.

Try burning the AUDIO_TS folder and it's contents and the VIDEO_TS folder with it's contents as a data disc in Nero. Just make sure you check the "XBOX compatable" mode checkbox. This should work.

Thanks sivadselim for all the help and suggestions. Seems like you and a handful of others were the only ones that understood the situation! Nero does have an issue buring the AUDIO_TS folder if you use Nero Vision, which is what I used before. You can also use Nero Burning Rom or Nero Express and burn it as a data disc, but if you don't have the correct settings, it simply does not work in a DVD-A player.

These were the settings I wanted to get, but it seems everyone burned theirs with the ISO. In anycase, I'll just get the ISO file and burn it that way. Thanks anyway for everyone's input.

I "received" the ISO file and burned the DVD-A successfully. Thanks to everyone that responded, in any case, as previously I didn't even know an ISO was available.

Upon first listen it sounds excellent, but I would probably have to do an A/B test to hear the difference between the DTS version. They both sound excellent to me.

I've been downloading this file (DSOTM DVDA) using utorrent for about 4 days now. Does anyone know how long it takes? The file size is 3.43 and I'm using comcast.

Does anyone know how long it takes?
It can take quite a while.

It depends on your ISP. I have to say the DVD-A sounds "warmer" than the SACD. Some of the mixes on the SACD are pretty good, like "Money", but in generally I prefer the DVD-A. The SACD sounds a little too "cleaned up" to me.

I was just looking through usenet for this. Kind of surprised it's not there.

Actually it does exist on giganews it's about 100 days old.

Thanks to the person who sent me a torrent link. I'm getting pretty good speeds. For those getting slow speeds, it may be because you are blocking uploads. My understanding is that you will get much better speeds if you allow uploads.

On a related topic, in my search for this I came across Sgt Peppers Lonely Hearts Club DVD-A. What is this?

Thanks

Adam

Thanks to the person who sent me a torrent link. I'm getting pretty good speeds. For those getting slow speeds, it may be because you are blocking uploads. My understanding is that you will get much better speeds if you allow uploads.

On a related topic, in my search for this I came across Sgt Peppers Lonely Hearts Club DVD-A. What is this?

Thanks

Adam
On torrent sites you'll find both official surround releases and upmixes. The Sgt Peppers is an upmix from a stereo 2-channel mix. Some of the upmixes are fairly good, but lack the fidelity you'd find from a mix done from the master in true high resolution.

If your first experience with this alternate delivery vehicle is DSOTM, you will probably be sorely disappointed with most of the other things available. The backstory is so unique, and generally 5.1 hi-res audio mixes are not sneaking out of the studio.

Thanks David and Pepar. That's what I figured with the Sgt Pepper album. I'm not one to download something if it's for sale anyway, was just curious.

Looks like my download rate has dropped significantly btw :). In the meantime I'm enjoying my Zappa - Quaudiophilliac DVD-A and Miles Davis - Kind of Blue SACD (really didn't think I'd like this in anything other then stero but the center channel really blends nicely)

Adam

In the meantime I'm enjoying ......................Miles Davis - Kind of Blue SACD (really didn't think I'd like this in anything other then stero but the center channel really blends nicely)

Very tastefully done multichannel mix.

i never have luck with torrent programs and files

anyone know the best way to do this and to find the file? (which program, what to search for?)

also, how large is the file?

thanks

i never have luck with torrent programs and files

anyone know the best way to do this and to find the file? (which program, what to search for?)

also, how large is the file?

thanks

I'm not at home right now, but my recollection was that it was something like 3.43 GB's.

I'm not at home right now, but my recollection was that it was something like 3.43 GB's.

Sounds about right. I know it took me several days to get it (but it was worth it). No idea if the torrent is still available and in the interests of keeping this forum out of the discussions about torrents etc., I would suggest google is your friend :-)

I just want to give you all a heads up that MediaSentry RIAA is helping to distribute the files. If you use peerguardian or ipfilter.dat for Utorrent you will notice this and can keep them from connecting to you.

Sounds about right. I know it took me several days to get it (but it was worth it). No idea if the torrent is still available and in the interests of keeping this forum out of the discussions about torrents etc., I would suggest google is your friend :-)
Yes, that is the correct size. There may be other 'friends' that can possibly help you get it, too.

right now, yousendit.com is offering their "business plan" free for 30 days with no credit card info needed

you can up load 2 gig files with unlimited downloads

you could also use a program like HJ Split to break a file into 2 smaller parts and use the same program to put them back together

HJ Split is a cool program that just runs off your computer without having to install anything, you just double click the file and the program opens up and it's a very small file

i have an out-of-print 1997 dolby demo dvd uploaded right now at yousendit.com called DVD Spectacular (only a 1 gig dvd image file)

Dloading Now.

needs a Turbo though...lol

Days to dload good grief.

It was great live and on 8 track and vynl cassett and cd...this will be better.it will sound like it did in my car ,Surround sound was great !!!

Could not have been the booze and drugs ,i suppose...NOPE.ah the '60's and '70's:eek::D:cool:

Dloading Now.

needs a Turbo though...lol

Days to dload good grief.

It was great live and on 8 track and vynl cassett and cd...this will be better.it will sound like it did in my car ,Surround sound was great !!!

Could not have been the booze and drugs ,i suppose...NOPE.ah the '60's and '70's:eek::D:cool:


Took me 10 days or so but worth the wait!

well looks like it is getting close,thesize 3.43 gb shows ok but the amount uploaded shows 6.21 gb at 99.4 %....?in about 42 minutes,if i get off line maybe a few minutes sooner...lol:cool::)

hmm i guess i will have two.

the post a couple up from here showed software method of breaking file in two and putting it back together...hmmm wonder if this will work on my 6.86gb file?

really anxious to hear this!!:D:eek:

The uploaded amount is how much you've sent back to other people looking for the same file. With the BT protocol, you're not downloading from any single source, you're grabbing bits and pieces from a whole bunch of other people. At the same time, you're also sharing out the parts you already have with everybody else. That's the uploaded figure. (In theory, at least.)

3.43GB is the correct size for the downloaded file.

Does bt have spyware or adware?

I just wanted to give a shout out to the person that mailed me the disc(DVDA), they know who they are.

This is/was my first foray into Hi Rez music and this is my first disc. I am so glad I got my perverbial cherry popped with this disc. The heavens have opened up and the angels..errr. Pink Floyd has played. This disc showed me things in the audio realm that I had never heard before. Instruments, voices, subtle nuances that shout from the rafters, HEAR ME!!!

I feel like I have missed out on some much over the years, but now it is time to catch up. OH my neighbors are not going to like me..ooh noooo.

Thank you, Thank you I have seen the light, the glory of truly wonderful digital high resolution audio. I am hooked! I need more drugs!!

-Greg

Pink Floyd has played.
Yeah, even today that music completely defies categorization. Rock-n-roll it ain't.

You may enjoy THIS (http://www.amazon.com/Classic-Albums-Making-Dark-Side/dp/B0000AOV85) DVD (it's a 'video'). You may have even seen it on VH1. It's a really great DVD. Very insightful interviews about the inspiration for the album and how parts of it were made. They really were 'cutting edge'.

Still one of the most impressive advanced-resolution "releases" of all-time IMHO.

Still one of the most impressive advanced-resolution "releases" of all-time IMHO.

qft

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/NickBuckeye/Smiley4/flyingpig.gif

Does bt have spyware or adware?

That's not the correct question :)

BT is a way to transfer files between users, meaning spyware/adware/viruses cannot be an inherent part of BT. You just need to watch out what you download, but that's true for any download.

If you're asking about the software you need to download off BT, I use µTorrent (http://www.utorrent.com/) and I can assure you it's perfectly clean.

If you're asking about the bogus/infected files - genuine files ratio, I think you'll find that BT is a much more reliable way to get the files you want the way you want them than, say, eMule or Ares, though vigilance is always important.

The Pink Floyd DVDA, though, is perfectly clean :)

well looks like it is getting close,thesize 3.43 gb shows ok but the amount uploaded shows 6.21 gb at 99.4 %....?in about 42 minutes,if i get off line maybe a few minutes sooner...lol:cool::)

hmm i guess i will have two.

the post a couple up from here showed software method of breaking file in two and putting it back together...hmmm wonder if this will work on my 6.86gb file?

really anxious to hear this!!:D:eek:

You won't have a 6Gb file.
That figure will refer to the amount you have uploaded - this means you have a good ratio now.
The downloaded ISO image should not be larger than 3.43Gb.

I just wanted to give a shout out to the person that mailed me the disc(DVDA), they know who they are.

This is/was my first foray into Hi Rez music and this is my first disc. I am so glad I got my perverbial cherry popped with this disc. The heavens have opened up and the angels..errr. Pink Floyd has played. This disc showed me things in the audio realm that I had never heard before. Instruments, voices, subtle nuances that shout from the rafters, HEAR ME!!!

I feel like I have missed out on some much over the years, but now it is time to catch up. OH my neighbors are not going to like me..ooh noooo.

Thank you, Thank you I have seen the light, the glory of truly wonderful digital high resolution audio. I am hooked! I need more drugs!!

-Greg


can someone send me a copy? i'll pay

thanks

can someone send me a copy? i'll pay

thanks

Hi.
I would love one as well!
Thanks

IMO, buying/selling the disc would seem to go against everything that was intended by its release.

IMO, buying/selling the disc would seem to go against everything that was intended by its release.
What if someone sends it to someone else completely 'free of charge'?

What if someone sends it to someone else completely 'free of charge'?

That seems to go along with the original intent of the release...at least from my own perspective.

That's what I have done. Provided a few free copies to friends to impress them and mailed one to a poster on AVS Forums who asked for assistance because he didn't have decent broadband access. The one I posted I sent internationally but I never asked for any money including defraying my postal costs.

Just spreading the good news :-)

Larry

Perhaps we could start up a weed....Anyone???

Perhaps we could start up a weed....Anyone???

What's a "weed"?
(I just know I'm gonna regret asking this........)

A "weed"...as opposed to a "tree", "vine" or "chain".

These are all various methods used to manually disseminate recordings.

A weed is a method of show distribution in which a show is spread rapidly by people continuing the weed in exchange for receiving the show. First somebody decides they have a show that they wish to weed out. Then they decide how many copies they wish to make available. A reasonable amount is 5 copies for a single disc and 3 for a double disc set. An announcement is made on a bulletin board or mailing list that he/she would like to make this show available to the first 5/3 persons to respond. If this is a mailing list the replies must be offlist. They may wish to reserve a place or two for digesters and maybe, if they are generous, also reserve a place for a newbie or burnerless folks. Other than the burnerless, the people receiving the weed must agree to weed the show to a further 5/3 people. Eventually, after several alliterations of the announcement, the weeders will not be receiving 5/3 responses at which time the weed is saturated and everybody is happy. The weed then ends. This system does not require a B&P or a trade from respondents.

Perhaps we could start up a weed....Anyone???
What's a "weed"?
(I just know I'm gonna regret asking this........)
A "weed"...as opposed to a "tree", "vine" or "chain".

These are all various methods used to manually disseminate recordings.
"A weed is a method of show distribution in which a show is spread rapidly by people continuing the weed in exchange for receiving the show. First somebody decides they have a show that they wish to weed out. Then they decide how many copies they wish to make available. A reasonable amount is 5 copies for a single disc and 3 for a double disc set. An announcement is made on a bulletin board or mailing list that he/she would like to make this show available to the first 5/3 persons to respond. If this is a mailing list the replies must be offlist. They may wish to reserve a place or two for digesters and maybe, if they are generous, also reserve a place for a newbie or burnerless folks. Other than the burnerless, the people receiving the weed must agree to weed the show to a further 5/3 people. Eventually, after several alliterations of the announcement, the weeders will not be receiving 5/3 responses at which time the weed is saturated and everybody is happy. The weed then ends. This system does not require a B&P or a trade from respondents."


So what's a 'seed', then?

So what's a 'seed', then?

A "seed" as it relates to BT protocol:

A computer that has a complete copy of a certain torrent. Once your client finishes downloading, it will remain open until you click the Finish button (or otherwise close it.) This is known as being a seed or seeding. You can also start a BT client with a complete file, and once BT has checked the file it will connect and seed the file to others. Generally, it's considered good manners to continue seeding a file after you have finished downloading, to help out others. Also, when a new torrent is posted to a tracker, someone must seed it in order for it to be available to others. Remember, the tracker doesn't know anything of the actual contents of a file, so it's important to follow through and seed a file if you upload the torrent to a tracker.

The "weed" mentioned above is for trading music the "old-fashioned way"...manually, as opposed to using BT.

The "weed" mentioned above is for trading music the "old-fashioned way"...manually, as opposed to using BT.
Hmm. I think we just used to call that a "tree", then. As in www.etree.org.


Perhaps we could start up a weed....Anyone???
To get back to this suggestion, I don't really think there is enough interest unless we somehow 'sparked' that interest. And honestly, even though free distribution is encouraged in the .txt file that comes with the download, I don't know how 'legal' distributing it truly is.

Well, I can return the favor as was bestowed apon me.. I can mail or someone can create a private iso torrent and we can seed among ourselves for some time.

Tree or Weed, get out of the bushes and go torrent!!

It is a complete shame that this is not available for sale, otherwise this would be a great "must have" for all PF fans and sales would probably out do the SACD.

::Edit::
I am researching to create torrent and making my own and submitting to torrent site. :D

::Edit:: again..
Just reading some of this thread looks like other taken care of torrent side. Oh well. ALways have mail!!

I think I'm getting throttled horribly by Comcast because I've been downloading this for over a week and I'm just now halfway. Anyone else having issues? Anyone local to Colorado have this yet? If I ever get it, I'd have no problem mailing out copies to whoever needed them.

I think I'm getting throttled horribly by Comcast..............
It's not Comcast. It just takes forever.

I think I'm getting throttled horribly by Comcast because I've been downloading this for over a week and I'm just now halfway. Anyone else having issues? Anyone local to Colorado have this yet? If I ever get it, I'd have no problem mailing out copies to whoever needed them.

I have heard of this occurring with some ISPs. I couldn't say if Comcast is one of them. At least one BT client I am aware of has implemented an encryption option that is supposed to help if an ISP is intentionally throttling BT. I think we all know that BT stands for. Check out "u" + T (I think it was mentioned by name a few messages above). There are some other options and tips with that client that may also help optimize performance.

I think I'm getting throttled horribly by Comcast because I've been downloading this for over a week and I'm just now halfway. Anyone else having issues? Anyone local to Colorado have this yet? If I ever get it, I'd have no problem mailing out copies to whoever needed them.

Yes, Comcast is well known for restricting torrent bandwidth. Search the web and you can find details.

On the original topic, the DVD-A is awesome. I like it much better than the SACD. The SACD vocals sound much more clear (on my system), but overall the DVD-A has much fuller sound and I enjoy it much more despite the muted vocals.

I'm using a mac and transmission right now, so no u + T. I've downloaded many torrents in the past and none have taken this long. My upload speed tends to run way faster than my download speed for some reason. I highly suspect that some throttling is going on.

I would like one.

Thanks

Keep in mind this seed is heavily log-jammed by incomplete pieces resulting in incomplete pieces from specific IP address. Your torrent will start fast, then crawl to a slow trickle, bit by bit, then the piece will fail at 95% to 99%. You need to block certain IP address that are seeding incomplete files so that you can the correct download. The IP's change from time to time, so look through your history and see what your total download has been, and how many pieces failed, and then block those IP's that result in failures.
Last year, after never getting a complete download after almost four full weeks, I blocked the offending IP sources and started a new download and got it in a few days. I think the first download had almost 10 GB of dowloaded incomplete data and that had less than 1GB of completed usable pieces. Blocking the offending pieces resulted in 100& usuable pieces.

vegggas

Very intriguing -- I think I would like one as well.

I would like one.

Thanks,
Gixx

After 10 hours I was finally able to get this downloaded and burned. I have listened to it once. It is very clean and detailed, a little waek in the bass, full sound out of all 4 speakers. This is much better than redbook and sacd versions.

.................a little waek in the bass........
A "little weak in the bass" it is NOT. The added LFE track is actually redundant bass info. There are 4 full range channels with a derived LFE channel on top of that. If anything, the bass output is artificially augmented. This is discussed quite a bit at some point earlier in this thread.

*Edit* Thanks to the anonymous member here......

Thanks.

-JD-

I would kill for a copy of this.

It's not so much that I am an audiophile, as a Pink Floyd fan.

I have the Hybrid SACD, but this sounds as if it is far superior.

I would be happy to buy one, but am stuck trying to get it via torrent, since sadly, it is not commercially available. Not so much luck after 2 downloads, since what I am getting is corrupted, even after I have blocked the 38.100.xxx.xxx ranges.

It's a lot to ask, but... Does anybody feel like passing along a copy?

For anybody who is curious, I have the Pink Floyd in Concert Pulse 1994 Earls Court DVD. Considering it was taken in a concert, it's pretty good, and I can easily recommend it.

I'd also like one and have had no luck downloading it. If anyone feels gracious during this holiday season, I'd be eternally (within limits) grateful. :)

My download just finished today, after 28 hours. I just got done listening to it, and I have to say....wow. I have a 7.1 setup with two very powerful subs in a dedicated screening room, and I almost wish they had left the .1 channel out. Almost. A couple more comments:

1. Compared to the SACD, this is definitely WARMER. In fact, it sounds so......well, so....vinyl! So warm and creamy! I'm not a vinyl guy, but this has a very analog feel to it compared to any other DVD-A or SACD that I have. It just makes you sink down into your chair and relax. Most of my hi-rez stuff makes me sit up and constantly analyze the sound (I'm usually thinking, "boy that sure sounds good") but this makes you just zone out to the music, like I used to do. What fun! Now, what ever happened to that bong....

2. The bass drum on a couple of the early tracks is noticeably behind the music by about half a beat in several sections. I wonder if the bass drum whacks are in the .1 channel and the channels aren't synched very well. I haven't listened to the SACD to compare yet...getting past my bedtime. In any event, turning down the subs a little bit makes for a better mix imho.

3. I can't access the MLP/dts/DD menu by using the remote. The only way to get to it is to let the last track play out and then the menu is presented. I can select the formats once it is displayed, but I wish it would display when first inserting the disc. The MLP tracks play automatically with no way for me to select the others. Anyone else have this problem?

4. To my ears, the dts and DD tracks sound even warmer than the MLP. Also, Gilmour's vocals on Breathe are fuller and more forward on the dts/DD tracks. I haven't had time to do a comparison on the other songs yet, but at this early juncture I'd have to give the nod to the dts/DD over the MLP. Clarity and channel separation seem about the same as the MLP.

5. The SACD is cleaner and a tad more detailed, but more sterile sounding. A good example of this is at the beginning of Time when the clocks all start going off. The other thing is the tape hiss, which is annoyingly loud during the quiet parts. Couldn't they have cleaned that up?? Simple Dolby C noise reduction would have worked wonders. However, this mix is extremely involving nonetheless! Nice and rich and full and warm. Makes me wish I had some tube amps and my old turntable again.

6. I didn't miss the center channel at all. Not one bit. Keeping the quad mix was absolutely the right thing to do.

Whoever did this deserves high praise. I hope Parsons was involved, or at least approved of the project. I've been an APP fan since 7th grade. I wish he'd put out his whole back catalog with mixes like this one.

...
Whoever did this deserves high praise. I hope Parsons was involved, or at least approved of the project. I've been an APP fan since 7th grade. I wish he'd put out his whole back catalog with mixes like this one.

Note that this is the Parson's mix. But apparently since it was done in a hurry and PF didn't approve of it, it was never released. But the masters have been floating around in the recording industry circles for a while and somebody turned the 4 channel mix (adding a .1 LFE channel) into a DVD-Audio track, created the ISO files and released them to the Internet.

Compared to the SACD, this is definitely WARMER. In fact, it sounds so......well, so....vinyl! So warm and creamy! I'm not a vinyl guy, but this has a very analog feel to it compared to any other DVD-A or SACD that I have. It just makes you sink down into your chair and relax. Most of my hi-rez stuff makes me sit up and constantly analyze the sound (I'm usually thinking, "boy that sure sounds good") but this makes you just zone out to the music, like I used to do.

I really can't wait to get this.

Note that this is the Parson's mix. But apparently since it was done in a hurry and PF didn't approve of it, it was never released.

Was a different one used for the quad LP?

But the masters have been floating around in the recording industry circles for a while and somebody turned the 4 channel mix (adding a .1 LFE channel) into a DVD-Audio track, created the ISO files and released them to the Internet.
I'd love to hear the full story behind that.

Finally...

At the behest of an I.T. guy from work, I installed Peer Guardian. This little software gem eliminated all the crap I was getting from certain ratbag sites, and now, after 3 days...

Ta dah!, I gots it.

Playing it now, for the 3rd time. I am hearing stuff I don't even remember having heard before, even from the SACD.

This version is a bit more raw as compared to the SACD, but unbelievably good. Whoever is originally responsible for putting this out, please know that I want to have your babies...

My girlfriend, also a PF nut, and who purchased me the Pulse DVD, is sitting in the next room listening with an expression of disbelief.

This has got to the the ultimate example in hi-rez sound.

Thanx to the seeders who jumped back on the bandwagon.

:D

I'd like a copy if someone could send me one. PM me for details.

Thanks

Bill3508

It's been almost 2 years since this disc "appeared".

Nice to read new impressions...glad to know it is still blowing peoples minds.

If anyone wants one pm me and send a dvd-r disc and a self addressed envelope and I will burn it.

Was a different one used for the quad LP?No, it's the same Alan Parsons quad mix as on the LP. The difference is in the delivery method.

Back in the 70s, those 4 channels had to be delivered in a stereo matrix, due to the 2-channel limitation of popular consumer technology (LP, cassette tape, etc). The technology now allows it to be delivered as 4 discrete channels. A good matrix decoder would allow you to recover the original 4 channels, but you can never unscramble an egg perfectly. Discrete will always have the advantage of greater channel separation.

Plus it sounds like they did some clean-up and restoration to the analogue masters. So, for a variety of reasons, the fidelity on the DVD-A is likely better than has ever been for this title, even when the actual mix hasn't changed.

Sanjay

No, it's the same Alan Parsons quad mix as on the LP. The difference is in the delivery method.

Back in the 70s, those 4 channels had to be delivered in a stereo matrix, due to the 2-channel limitation of popular consumer technology (LP, cassette tape, etc). The technology now allows it to be delivered as 4 discrete channels. A good matrix decoder would allow you to recover the original 4 channels, but you can never unscramble an egg perfectly. Discrete will always have the advantage of greater channel separation. ..

Sanjay

This article descibes pretty well how the 4 track was mixed

http://www.stereosociety.com/FourSides.html

And this article( which I think is referenced in this thread already but since there seems to be a revival!) provides AP's view on the SACD mix

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

From what I read on various places, the DVD-A originates from that 4 track mix, possibly a direct copy of the final 4 track master, converted to digital and then re-mastered for DVD-A.

The SACD version would have gone back to the 16(?) track original tapes, each track converted to digital (196Khz sampling possibly?) and then all the mixing done in the digital domain. That could explain why the SACD could sound cleaner - reduction of analog dubs across generations.

Larry

It's been almost 2 years since this disc "appeared".

Nice to read new impressions...glad to know it is still blowing peoples minds.

Indeed, I think this freely distributed disc will have some real staying power, probably for at least the next couple of decades.

What would also be sweet is if the recent Genesis SA-CD releases received this treatment from some enterprising soul as they are some of the worst sounding hirez MC discs I've ever heard, it's a crying shame what was done to those.

The Floyd disc is a re-release of a quad mix that was done decades ago. There are no corresponding Genesis remixes from that era.

Indeed, I think this freely distributed disc will have some real staying power, probably for at least the next couple of decades.

What would also be sweet is if the recent Genesis SA-CD releases received this treatment from some enterprising soul as they are some of the worst sounding hirez MC discs I've ever heard, it's a crying shame what was done to those.

What happened on the Genesis re-masters? I thought extra care was being taken on these? I don't have SACD so I was bummed out at not having an opportunity to hear these.

-t

The Floyd disc is a re-release of a quad mix that was done decades ago. There are no corresponding Genesis remixes from that era.
I realize that, I was thinking more along the lines that the DSOTM piece was the result of some care taken in the sonic attributes of the recording, whereas the Genesis releases really border on being just "loud is better" era CDs with a bit more detail.


What happened on the Genesis re-masters? I thought extra care was being taken on these? I don't have SACD so I was bummed out at not having an opportunity to hear these.

-t

Basically they were mixed overly compressed for more mass market(mp3) appeal resulting in a pretty strident high end and a real lack of dynamic range, the soft/quiet sections are darn near as loud as the loud/crescendo-type sections.

The below link has quite a bit of discussion about the releases.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=745375&page=13

If anyone wants one pm me and send a dvd-r disc and a self addressed envelope and I will burn it.
Gee, I know someone who'll send out copies completely free of charge to anyone who provides a mailing address; no disc or self addressed envelope necessary.

The SACD version would have gone back to the 16(?) track original tapes, each track converted to digital (196Khz sampling possibly?) and then all the mixing done in the digital domain. That could explain why the SACD could sound cleaner - reduction of analog dubs across generations.I actually prefer the 5.1 mix on the SACD for the first part of the album. But from 'Us and Them' onwards, I prefer the mix on the DVD-A.

Sanjay

Gee, I know someone who'll send out copies completely free of charge to anyone who provides a mailing address; no disc or self addressed envelope necessary.

Ge, by all means contact them a**hole

Plus it sounds like they did some clean-up and restoration to the analogue masters. So, for a variety of reasons, the fidelity on the DVD-A is likely better than has ever been for this title, even when the actual mix hasn't changed.

Very cool.


This article descibes pretty well how the 4 track was mixed

http://www.stereosociety.com/FourSides.html

And this article( which I think is referenced in this thread already but since there seems to be a revival!) provides AP's view on the SACD mix

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

From what I read on various places, the DVD-A originates from that 4 track mix, possibly a direct copy of the final 4 track master, converted to digital and then re-mastered for DVD-A.

The SACD version would have gone back to the 16(?) track original tapes, each track converted to digital (196Khz sampling possibly?) and then all the mixing done in the digital domain. That could explain why the SACD could sound cleaner - reduction of analog dubs across generations.

Larry

Incredible articles, thanks. Parsons' comments on the SACD mix are fascinating, can't wait to compare them myself.

“The surround experience shouldn’t be a stereo experience with ambience. It should be four stereo sound fields. I tend to work on the outsides when I mix for surround. A lot of people choose to go into the room, but that’s asking for clarity problems—it clouds things up. In my quad mix of Dark Side, I liked the idea of action happening in all four channels. I wasn’t particularly interested in it sounding like a band onstage.”

I'd agree with him whole-heartedly for rock discs, especially this album. Love the concept of "four stereo sound fields".

I actually prefer the 5.1 mix on the SACD for the first part of the album. But from 'Us and Them' onwards, I prefer the mix on the DVD-A.

Sanjay

I have never heard the SACD - my only references is the LP :-)

But for in your face surround, the opening sequences of the DVD-A are pretty amazing.

If anyone wants one pm me and send a dvd-r disc and a self addressed envelope and I will burn it.
Gee, I know someone who'll send out copies completely free of charge to anyone who provides a mailing address; no disc or self addressed envelope necessary.
Ge, by all means contact them a**hole
nice :)

nice :)

As long as that nice person doesn't get inundated with requests that costs or time become a factor. I burnt a copy for somebody and mailed it them (internationally) and didn't ask for any reimbursement. Happy to spread the audio I guess. But if I got 100 requests then I would have to rethink my model :-)

Freebies are great and all...I think anyone who is fired up about this disc should obtain it in the same way most of us did.

In a thread with 54K views/900 posts, "How do I get one of these?" seems to sort of miss the mark.

Obviously, YMMV.

As long as that nice person doesn't get inundated with requests that costs or time become a factor. I burnt a copy for somebody and mailed it them (internationally) and didn't ask for any reimbursement. Happy to spread the audio I guess. But if I got 100 requests then I would have to rethink my model :-)
Agreed. I don't think that blatantly and publicly 'advertising' in a post that you have provided or, more importantly, that you WILL provide copies is very wise for a number of reasons. No one here is really so certain about the legality (or illegality) of doing so. I'd exercise a bit of discretion.

Agreed. I don't think that blatantly and publicly 'advertising' in a post that you have provided or, more importantly, that you WILL provide copies is very wise for a number of reasons. No one here is really so certain about the legality (or illegality) of doing so. I'd exercise a bit of discretion.

Agreed. For those who are keen there is enough information in this thread to find out how to get a copy. And for those who are struggling, well....

I have never heard the SACD - my only references is the LP :-)If you like the music, then you should consider getting the hybrid-SACD. It's worth hearing the mix that was intended and approved by the band members.

Sanjay

If you like the music, then you should consider getting the hybrid-SACD. It's worth hearing the mix that was intended and approved by the band members.

Sanjay


I agree,
I have the SACD and 3 different LP’s and now (thanks to a Coloradoan) the
DVD-A, it has a good 5.1 sound mix. I’m very happy with it.

I seen somewhere a DVD-A "Wish You Were Here", has anyone heard this one.

When I found DSOTM I also downloaded DVD-A's of "Wish you were here" and Animals. While not as dynamic as DSOTM, they were worth the time to download and are most enjoyable!

I seen somewhere a DVD-A "Wish You Were Here", has anyone heard this one.


Yes and it is supposed to be done by the same person Who released DSOTM (parsons)??

I have it but I think the DSOTM sounds better but WYWH DVD-A isn't Bad ;)

I seen somewhere a DVD-A "Wish You Were Here", has anyone heard this one.
When I found DSOTM I also downloaded DVD-A's of "Wish you were here" and Animals. While not as dynamic as DSOTM, they were worth the time to download and are most enjoyable!
Yes and it is supposed to be done by the same person Who released DSOTM (parsons)??

I have it but I think the DSOTM sounds better but WYWH DVD-A isn't Bad.
WYWH was not done by the same person who did the DSoTM DVD-A. Nor was Animals. The "surround" mixes of those albums were either done artificially from the CDs with 'pseudo' 5.1 authoring software or, when quad vinyl was available, by direct recording from the quad vinyl. The DSoTM DVD-A was truly made in hirez directly from the original master tapes of Parsons' quad mix and as such is a whole other animal altogether. The quality of the "surround" mixes of the other albums is nowhere near that of the DSoTM DVD-A.

WYWH was not done by the same person who did the DSoTM DVD-A. Nor was Animals. The "surround" mixes of those albums were either done artificially from the CDs with 'pseudo' 5.1 authoring software or, when quad vinyl was available, by direct recording from the quad vinyl. The DSoTM DVD-A was truly made in hirez directly from the original master tapes of Parsons' quad mix and as such is a whole other animal altogether. The quality of the "surround" mixes of the other albums is nowhere near that of the DSoTM DVD-A.


That's too bad.

There was no quad version of Animals. The version floating around is an upmix. The W.Y.W.H. is from the quad LP or 8 track. There is also a quad recording of Atom Heart Mother from the LP or 8 track that is also very good. But nothing is as good as this version of D. S. O. T. M. we are discussing here which is from the master quad release...

:)

Yes and it is supposed to be done by the same person Who released DSOTM (parsons)??
WYWH was not done by the same person who did the DSoTM DVD-A.
well I am just quoting what was said in the Info TXT. I had Both versions B4 and this one just sounded better as that one was from a Quad LP to DTS??

maybe you are thinking of the other DTS versions as I am not.
You said "it is supposed to be done by the same person who released DSOTM (parsons)". I presumed that you were talking about the DVD-A of DSoTM. As far as we know, the DVD-A wasn't done or released by Parsons. And, as far as I know, the WYWH multichannel downloads weren't done and released by the same person who DID do and release the DSoTM DVD-A.

Parsons mixed the original quad mix of DSoTM in the 70s. I'm not sure if he did the original quad mix of WYWH then, too, but it's very possible he did. Maybe someone else can shed some light on this.

Sorry for the confusion I just ment the Parsons Version of the DSOTM I didn't mean Parsons Released it ;)

But the WYWH DVD-A is from a Mint Quad Pressing, supposodly done by the same Person that released DSOTM?? I know it is Not as the master tapes like DSOTM but is as good as we will ever hear WYWH Probally.

I am Not saying this is Fact but that what was in the Info TXT of the DL I got from ....



-Gerald

But the WYWH DVD-A is from a Mint Quad Pressing, supposodly done by the same Guy that released DSOTM??
-Gerald

I have seen two different ones floating around. One is ~3.6 GB from an Alcohol mdf/mds image and the other is a 1.8 GB iso. I assume the 3.6 GB version is from the quad pressing and the 1.8 GB version is an upmix. Can anyone confirm?

I have seen two different ones floating around. One is ~3.6 GB from an Alcohol mdf/mds image and the other is a 1.8 GB iso. I assume the 3.6 GB version is from the quad pressing and the 1.8 GB version is an upmix. Can anyone confirm?

That is correct.

Where can I find the 3.6GB at.

Where can I find the 3.6GB at.

Google is your friend.

I had the brilliant idea yesterday of checking Usenet since I didn't want to mess with the "other" program to obtain it....I found it and was able to download it in less than two hours. PM for info...

I had the brilliant idea yesterday of checking Usenet since I didn't want to mess with the "other" program to obtain it....I found it and was able to download it in less than two hours. PM for info...

I was able to download the 3.8 gb version of WYWH. Sorry to ask a naive question, but how do I burn the mdf/mds file to a DVD?
Thanks for any help you can give me.:)

I was able to download the 3.8 gb version of WYWH. Sorry to ask a naive question, but how do I burn the mdf/mds file to a DVD?
Thanks for any help you can give me.:)

I haven't downloaded that one yet...did you get it from Usenet as well?

I have no idea how to burn a mdf file...I'm sure it can be mounted somehow (maybe with Alcohol?) or burnt with Nero.

Anyone know of a good place to get it now?

It doesn't seem to be on Usenet. I tried google that came up with different torrents, but that's too slow (running now and will take 4 weeks!).

Just got a DVD-A player, so I'm anxious to try DSOTM on it. Have the SACD, but want to see the difference.

Any help will be greatly appreciated.

With ONE post to your name, hang around a bit. Many of us here have had to wait months for the privelege of hearing this in DVD-A. My opinion of the SACD has degraded since hearing the DVDA of this. Suck up a bit more for someone to send you a copy.

8]

With ONE post to your name, hang around a bit. Many of us here have had to wait months for the privelege of hearing this in DVD-A.

Suck up a bit more for someone to send you a copy.
What does his post count have to do with anything? And what would you have him do to "suck up a bit more"? Post again and again, asking the same thing? Say "please"?

I haven't downloaded that one yet...did you get it from Usenet as well?

I have no idea how to burn a mdf file...I'm sure it can be mounted somehow (maybe with Alcohol?) or burnt with Nero.

www.imgburn.com

Probably the best image writer in the world.....and it's donationware too.

There was no quad version of Animals. The version floating around is an upmix. The W.Y.W.H. is from the quad LP or 8 track. There is also a quad recording of Atom Heart Mother from the LP or 8 track that is also very good. But nothing is as good as this version of D. S. O. T. M. we are discussing here which is from the master quad release...

Yes, there is a Quad animals.
It was never released though. Keep your fingers crossed and who knows what Santa might bring in the new year........

What does his post count have to do with anything? And what would you have him do to "suck up a bit more"? Post again and again, asking the same thing? Say "please"?

Are you saying YOU immediately mailed off a copy of this disc to the man with ONE post to his name? I didn't think so. I know others here have mailed a copy out, but only after the needy party grovels a bit. :p I was also hinting at a PM in my follow-up post. So there.

Yes, there is a Quad animals.
It was never released though. Keep your fingers crossed and who knows what Santa might bring in the new year........

Fingers crossed here. Neil knows something and he's not telling.

Are you saying YOU immediately mailed off a copy of this disc to the man with ONE post to his name?
mebbe

mebbe


You're better than I. I don't need a blank disc or a SASE like some, but I do need the grovel.;)

Yes, there is a Quad animals.

*drool*
God, I love Animals! Play it more than DSOTM (but maybe not as much as WYWH).

With ONE post to your name, hang around a bit. Many of us here have had to wait months for the privelege of hearing this in DVD-A. My opinion of the SACD has degraded since hearing the DVDA of this. Suck up a bit more for someone to send you a copy.

Hmm, not sure what my post count has to do with anything. I may have just created an account, but I have been lurking for a while.

I'm more of a lurker than a poster.

FYI, someone was nice enough to PM me and offer to send me a copy!

:eek:

Hmm, not sure what my post count has to do with anything. I may have just created an account, but I have been lurking for a while.

I'm more of a lurker than a poster.

FYI, someone was nice enough to PM me and offer to send me a copy!

:eek:
I am guessing post count is a surrogate for trust in this forum. So if you have a higher post count with perhaps meaning contributions to subjects under discussion, then you can be trusted to be sent the disk.

OTOH whether or not you can be "trusted" assuming the sender is not asking for any monentary compensation, the potential loss for the sender is the cost of one blank DVD-R/+R, their time and minimal postage. I m not sure grovelling, as one other poster mentioned, is something that is useful or spendable :-)

I myself sent a copy to somebody. They had a few posts already but I got pleasure from their response when they received the disc, played it and relayed to me their reaction.

Wow, I just listened to the "directors cut" (DVD-A) of DSotM and it is almost a totally different recording than the SACD version. I think I prefer the directors cut to the SACD. It sounds more analog and blended, where the SACD version sounds more sterile and digital. The plan crash before the bells, happens in the middle of my floor instead of far away front. So much so I wanted to check for a crater or survivors in front of me. The sax in Us and Them, I was able to hear more subtleties than in the SACD version. Things seem to happen more in the area between your speakers than at your speakers. Oh, the bells at the start of time, the initial ticking sound is spread out on the floor in front of me, then the bells are in front and all around. The SACD version they just seem all around with nothing much in the middle.

Anyway, thanks all for letting me discover that version, it's a great addition, very different (better) than any other version I've heard. If you haven't downloaded it yet do it it's well worth the three days of torrent.

Wow, I just listened to the "directors cut" (DVD-A) of DSotM...........................
Why is it now "the director's cut"? :confused:

Why is it now "the director's cut"? :confused:

I'm now waiting for the Final Cut like we got with Blade Runner :D. Actually this could happen as Parson's said the Quad mix never got finished...

They're clocks, not bells. You know...ticking....alarm clocks going off, that sort of thing.

I'm now waiting for the Final Cut like we got with Blade Runner :D. Actually this could happen as Parson's said the Quad mix never got finished...

It'll never happen. Parsons can't lay a finger on a fader without permission from Floyd, and Floyd isn't too warm and cozy with Parsons these days. A pity.

Never say never,

From WiKipedia,
As of 2006, Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon has been on the charts for over 1,500 weeks, or just about twenty-eight years. The album spent 741 of those weeks on the Billboard 200. The other weeks were spent on the Top Pop Catalog Albums chart. Its closest rival is Bob Marley's Legend, checking in at over 800 weeks (Billboard 200 and Top Pop Catalog Albums combined).

With staying power like that, if there's money to be made it could happen. The No.2 entry on the overall album chart is at 490 weeks, Johnny's Greatest Hits — Johnny Mathis.

They're clocks, not bells. You know...ticking....alarm clocks going off, that sort of thing.
__________________

Right, when the alarm clocks goes off, bells ring, not clocks. I've yet to here a clock ring.

Right, when the alarm clocks goes off, bells ring, not clocks. I've yet to here a clock ring.

okay, ya got me.:D

This one's no DVD-A (256kbps .mp3, actually), it's a clean board feed of a DSOTM performance from '74. You can really hear some of the taped effects/spoken word stuff very well (much higher in the mix than the album), and you get to hear the band go away from the recorded versions a little bit (wasn't a "classic" yet, guess they felt free). I saw Waters do Dark Side in it's entirety this summer, and it was amazing yet absolutely faithful to the record...this one's fun in a different way.

http://www.glidemagazine.com/hiddentrack/grousing-the-aisles-dales-picks//

This one's no DVD-A (256kbps .mp3, actually), it's a clean board feed of a DSOTM performance from '74. You can really hear some of the taped effects/spoken word stuff very well (much higher in the mix than the album), and you get to hear the band go away from the recorded versions a little bit (wasn't a "classic" yet, guess they felt free). I saw Waters do Dark Side in it's entirety this summer, and it was amazing yet absolutely faithful to the record...this one's fun in a different way.

http://www.glidemagazine.com/hiddentrack/grousing-the-aisles-dales-picks//

Interesting, first time I've ever come across a bitrate of 416/kbps for an mp3 file...

Weird, Winamp reports 256 to me.

Weird, Winamp reports 256 to me.

Yeah, it's a little weird. The first image is for "Speak To Me" and the second is for "Breath", notice the different tag info, and both say encoded at 256, yet "Breath" and the 8 of the other 9 tracks left say 416 as well. I only noticed it as iTunes wouldn't recognize 9 of the 11 tracks. Must be bad tag data that iTunes is reading, they all work fine in other players, WMP, Foobar2000, etc.

Plus, there's all that extra tag info, check out the album name...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v637/keenanj/SP32-20071231-110117.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v637/keenanj/SP32-20071231-110149.jpg

This one is Mr Questionman readout and it shows 256 as well although notice the different encoder info for the 2 tracks. also notice the different compression ratio readings.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v637/keenanj/SP32-20071231-111418.jpg

It all came through @ 256kbps into iTunes for me and was recognized instantly. Weird.

Same here. You guys dig it? I'm relegated to my laptop speakers at present, no idea how the real quality is.

FWIW, there is a 3-source mix of the 11/16/74 show floating around authored as a 5.1 (6ch x 24/96) DVD-A.

The DVD-A was created from the BBC pre-FM soundboard master, and also two pristine audience recordings.

It's a pretty phenomenal piece of work, and sounds fantastic - definitely an upgrade to all existing sources I've heard of this classic live show.

FWIW, there is a 3-source mix of the 11/16/74 show floating around authored as a 5.1 (6ch x 24/96) DVD-A.

The DVD-A was created from the BBC pre-FM soundboard master, and also two pristine audience recordings.

It's a pretty phenomenal piece of work, and sounds fantastic - definitely an upgrade to all existing sources I've heard of this classic live show.

Must be what the author of that page is referring to when he states: "Now, even if you already have this recording in your collection, you’ll probably want to download this new version. All of the processing applied to previous versions has been eliminated through the use of a source closer to the original BBC tapes..."

I'd like to know how they compare to your ears.

Must be what the author of that page is referring to when he states: "Now, even if you already have this recording in your collection, you’ll probably want to download this new version. All of the processing applied to previous versions has been eliminated through the use of a source closer to the original BBC tapes..."


The recording I am referring to isn't just "a source closer to the original BBC tapes", it is three complete sources mixed together and realized in MLP 24/96 6-channel audio.

I've owned several incarnations of this concert over the years, and this new recording takes this show to a higher level.

As someone interested in multi-channel music, I find this release an essential addition to the surround collection, and also a must-have for any Floyd fan.

It all came through @ 256kbps into iTunes for me and was recognized instantly. Weird.

Just re-did all the tags and it works fine now, a lot of bad tag info in these files.

FWIW, there is a 3-source mix of the 11/16/74 show floating around authored as a 5.1 (6ch x 24/96) DVD-A.

The DVD-A was created from the BBC pre-FM soundboard master, and also two pristine audience recordings.

It's a pretty phenomenal piece of work, and sounds fantastic - definitely an upgrade to all existing sources I've heard of this classic live show.

This one? It's in a flac format as well. :)

Pink Floyd
Empire Pool
Wembley, London, UK
"We Meet Again"
November 16, 1974

- 3 Source Mix -
SBD + AUD1 + AUD2 Matrix Mix
(60%/SBD + 25%/AUD1 + 15%/AUD2)

01 [02:29] Speak To Me
02 [03:00] Breathe
03 [05:03] On the Run
04 [06:32] Time
05 [06:42] The Great Gig In The Sky
06 [08:05] Money
07 [07:50] Us And Them
08 [07:31] Any Colour You Like
09 [03:39] Brain Damage
10 [01:49] Eclipse
Encore
11 [23:13] Echoes
TT [75:52]

---------------------------------------------------------

Source Info

Source Info

SBD
Pre FM Master Reel (SBD) > DAT > ? > SHN
Title: Harvested HRV CDR 033
Recorded by BBC Radio One broadcasted on the Alan Freeman
Show on 11th January 1975. This is taken from the original
pre-broadcast master Reel to Reel tapes.

AUD1 (a.k.a - Recorder 1)
Unknown AUD Recording > cass[M] > DAT[1] > CDR[2]
Title: Black Holes In The Sky - This derives from the same
boot source (no label) but is slightly less hissy but also
less amplified. This recorder is missing Echoes.

AUD2 (a.k.a - Recorder 2)
Unknown AUD Recording > Cassette Master
Title: No Room Upon the Hill
1st Generation copy of the master discs > SHN
This is sourced from the cassette masters. No sound
alteration, noise reduction or speed correction preformed.

---------------------------------------------------------

Tech Notes

SHNs decoded to wave and Wavmerge was used to reassemble the
tracks back to 1 long wave. CEP2.0 was used to align & synch
all three sources (time compress and expand). CEP2.0 was
used to preform the multitrack mixdown of all three sources.
This is a 60% SBD, 25% AUD1, 15% AUD2 mix.
- Mixed by
- FLAC conversion 01-DEC-2007
- Artwork by 300dpi - For best results
print at the highest resolution onto glossy photo paper.
Design for use with a clear slim single DVD case.
- Special thanks to unknown artists that helped with lots
of the images used for this artwork and the slide show.

---------------------------------------------------------

Multitrack Mixdown Settings

Stereo Matrix
SBD -1.5db
AUD1 -8db
AUD2 -11db

---------------------------------------------------------

Notes

A relatively dry PreFM (SBD) and two nice sounding AUD sources
were all recorded on this magical night. The result is an
excellent mix, justifying the blending of the three sources to
breathe some life back into this very famous show.

All three sources were pitched differently, the SBD being the
sharpest while both AUDs where somewhat flat. I used the SBD
as my master timeline and synched both AUDs to it. AUD1 on
average had to be pitched up about .24 (24 cents) to achieve
pitch correction. AUD2 on average had to be pitched up about
.21 (21 cents) to achieve pitch correction - 1.00 being 100
cents which is a semitone. I did not reference A=440 as I
wanted to leave the speed of the SBD alone. It is very close
to A=440 though.

d1t05 The PreFM (SBD) source was missing 3.875 seconds between
The Great Gig In The Sky and Money. Both AUDs were trimmed
accordingly to match. Some volume adjustments and quick cross
fades were preformed making these edits completely smooth and
most likely totally undetectable. What was missing was one
cha-ching of the cash register sound effect.

d1t08 The AUD2 source cuts at 41:07.515 and is missing 1:36.330
of Any Colour You Like. I used the AUD1 source to fill this
hole. The patch source was EQed, volume adjusted with a small
amount of limiting. All in an effort to try and closely match
the sonic properties of the missing AUD2 source. These edits
are smooth and most likely undetectable.

d1t10 The PreFM (SBD) has a long portion of cheering and
tuning prior to the encore Echoes. Unfortunately this was
missing from both AUD sources. The SBD was trimmed to match
and all 3 sources have multiple edits, mixing and crossfades
to keep the flow between the last song and the encore sounding
as natural as possible. The result was good and this is smooth
and natural sounding edit. Although it is left sounding like
Echoes was preformed very soon after the DSOTM potion instead
of as the encore.

---------------------------------------------------------

Notes on the Source Material

I love the fact that all 3 sources were raw. It doesn't
sound or look like any noise reduction, EQing or any other
DSP (digital sound processing) was done. It was an honor
and a privilege to work on this project. It was also very
very cool to be sitting at my workstation, working on 3
impressive recordings, in such beautiful condition, 33 years
after the fact. Incredible.

SBD
Very clear, well balanced and a clean PreFM source. However,
this is much more like a straight SBD feed than a PreFM.
Many PreFM sources I have heard have some element of a live
feel. Either b/c there is a "live mic" feed (a microphone
used to capture the sound of the room) or a similar technique
where a microphone is used to capture the crowd, i.e. cheers,
etc. On this recording the only way the room or crowd is
heard at all is b/c it is being picked up thru the mics set
up for the vocals. The result is an extremely dry and flat
sound making this an ideal source to use in a mix with an
AUD recording(s).

AUD1
I find this to be the better of the two AUD recordings used
in this mix. Without a doubt this recording is made much
closer to the PA stacks than the AUD2 recording. This
recording is very well balanced with good dynamic range
and little to no hiss. The low hiss and limited speed
fluctuations tells me that this is indeed a digital recording
made off the masters. A very interesting note is I could not
find any evidence of a tape flip. Was a quick flip done and
a small patch used from AUD2? Maybe. Was this recording on
a 120 min cassette or possible a 60 min Reel? Maybe. The
only disappointment with the AUD1 recording is that it is
missing the encore, Echoes.

AUD2
Although not as punchy and clear an audience recording as
the AUD1 source, this is still a very good recording. Made
from further back in the venue this recording also has low
hiss and limited speed fluctuations and tells me that this
is digital transcription made off the masters. A long tape
flip lasting 1 min and 36.33 seconds in Any Colour You Like
is the only missing portion.

---------------------------------------------------------

Notes on the Sound

The PreFM (or SBD) source sounds great. Conceptually all I
was trying to do here is to add some dimension to the SBD,
which is dry but very crisp, by using the ambience of the AUDs.

The PreFM sounds much more like a studio recording than a live
recording. I have a hunch that a completely different feed was
setup for the BBC recording than the mix that was sent over the
PA. Evidence for that is found on sound "Sample_6". On that
sample you can clearly hear that reverb has been added to the
vocals on the PA mix but is not present on the BBC recording.
Not just reverb but other effects are lacking throughout, leaving
an unnatural tone to Gilmour's guitar among other shortcomings.
His sound is noticeably flat and completely lacking that warm,
wonderful tone that is the trademark of Gilmour. This is a huge
reason why I find this matrix mix to not only be a much better
representation of this live show but also a more pleasant
listening experience than the dry BBC mix. Your mileage may vary.

---------------------------------------------------------

Notes on the Sound Samples

Sample_1

This is just a clip of the matrix mix to give you an idea of
what to expect. Note the subtle changes in sound over the
straight SBD. The extra warmth and lingering notes from the
guitar and the additional "thump" to the bass.

Sample_2

This sample gives you a quick A/B comparison to the straight
SBD. You'll hear a 10 second clip of the SBD followed by a
10 second clip of the Matrix. 10 seconds SBD, 10 seconds Matrix
and so on. Four 10 second clips of each for a total 80 second
clip. I gave you a portion that gives the most drastic sound
difference btwn the 2 sources. This quiet portion allows for
more of the AUD to get into the mix. This is also a spot
where the crowd gets into the song and has a "clap along"
going. (There are no crossfades and transitions are abrupt.)

Again, this clip was used b/c the sound difference is the
most apparent during this particular portion. The majority
of the recording you will only hear more subtle sound
differences btwn the SBD and the Matrix. The difference in
tone and the overall "size" of the recording being the most
noticeable differences to the PreFM (SBD) source. The Matrix
has a much bigger feel to it. This is even more obvious
on the 5.1 Surround Sound version.

Sample_3

Here you will find the 3 second edit I made between The
Great Gig In The Sky and Money. The original PreFM master
edit was so transparent and seamless on the SBD source that
I opted to duplicate the edit on the AUD sources rather
than patch the 3 seconds missing on the SBD source with
one or both AUD recordings. That patch could only result
in a jarring source change and be very distracting in my
opinion. So what we have here is the pleasurable listening
version versus the 3 second longer, complete version. I
would bet that I am the first person in 33 years to even
know that 3.875 seconds is missing from the SBD.

Sample_4

Here you will find the edit preformed to patch the 1:36.33
missing from Any Colour You Like in the AUD2 recording.
What you have here is a SBD+AUD1, 2 source matrix mix.
Unlike the majority of this Matrix which is a 3 source
SBD+AUD1+AUD2 mix.

Sample_5

This sample was provided to give you an idea of what the
Matrix mix will sound like as a SBD+AUD2, 2 source mix.
What's cool is between the patch on Any Colour and the
entire Echoes the listener really ends up hearing 3
different Matrix mixes. You get the main body of the
matrix as a 3 source SBD+AUD1+AUD2 mix. Plus you get
the 1:36.33 during Any Colour as a 2 source SBD+AUD1 mix.
And finally you get all of Echoes as another 2 source
SBD+AUD2 mix. There is really 3 uniquely different
Matrix mixes found in this one recording. However quiet
a bit of editing was done to make sure all 3 mixes
sound damn close to the same.

Sample_6

The 30 second clip of the SBD is followed by the same 30
second clip of the AUD1 source. Listen to the reverb on
Roger Water's vocals and how it is missing on the SBD
source. This is easily identified on the vocals but is
true throughout the recording. The BBC recording is much
different in how the vocals from the female backup singers
sounded live too. This is a big factor in why the tone is
so different on Gilmour's guitar on the SBD versus how he
sounds on the Matrix mix or both of the AUD recordings.

---------------------------------------------------------

Notes on the Artwork

Included you will find a folder with 58 different pieces of
CD covert art that was made over the years. The artwork
for this Matrix version are the separate JPEGs found in the
main folder and not with the 58 JPEGs in the folder that is
marked "misc artwork". I would like to thank floydart.org
for their wonderful database of Pink Floyd CD covers. I
would also like to thank the "Time In London" version for
the artwork that is the basis for what is included with
this release.

Both DVD-Audio versions (the 5.1 Surround Sound and the
24/96 Stereo) utilize a slide show of all the different
artwork made for this same show over the years. I love
all the old artwork, some with the wrongs dates and funny
bootleg names. Please note that the DVD-Audio slide show
may or may not be functional with your DVD-A player. This
is the case with my Dennon, which does the slide show for
about 10 mins and the stops. This has no effect on the
playback or the sound, only the visual portion.

---------------------------------------------------------

Lineup

David Gilmour (guitar, vocals)
Roger Waters (bass, vocals)
Richard Wright (keyboards, vocals)
Nick Mason (drums, percussions)
Dick Perry (saxophone)
Vanetta Fields (backing vocals)
Carlena Williams (backing vocals)

---------------------------------------------------------

This one? It's in a flac format as well. :)


Yes..but it should be an .ISO image ~4GB.

Yes..but it should be an .ISO image ~4GB.

Yeah, been looking, haven't found it yet...

The recording I am referring to isn't just "a source closer to the original BBC tapes", it is three complete sources mixed together and realized in MLP 24/96 6-channel audio.
It's called a "matrix" mix and is intended to provide the combined pristine audio of a soundboard tape with the crowd and arena ambience of an audience tape.

It's called a "matrix" mix and is intended to provide the combined pristine audio of a soundboard tape with the crowd and arena ambience of an audience tape.

For those without DVD-A capability, this 3-source matrix recording is also floating around in FLAC form for CDR playback (I assume that the MTX-CDR source of this recording is what was used to produce the MP3 tracks above). There is also a DTS 5.1 version circulating for those so inclined.

The recording I am referring to isn't just "a source closer to the original BBC tapes", it is three complete sources mixed together and realized in MLP 24/96 6-channel audio.

I've owned several incarnations of this concert over the years, and this new recording takes this show to a higher level.

As someone interested in multi-channel music, I find this release an essential addition to the surround collection, and also a must-have for any Floyd fan.

Damn, sounds like another I need, especially after reading Keenan's text above. Thanks! :)

anyone know where one might find something like the dsotm DVDA these days? no one seems to be seeding these days. PMs make me happy

:-D

The recording I am referring to isn't just "a source closer to the original BBC tapes", it is three complete sources mixed together and realized in MLP 24/96 6-channel audio.

I've owned several incarnations of this concert over the years, and this new recording takes this show to a higher level.

As someone interested in multi-channel music, I find this release an essential addition to the surround collection, and also a must-have for any Floyd fan.

I think I got it...is the 4020MB "WE_MEET_AGAIN.ISO" the correct one?

is the 4020MB "WE_MEET_AGAIN.ISO" the correct one?

yes

Interesting bit from the matrix MLP text:

Notes on High Resolution

A fair question can and should be asked - "How do you get a
multichannel 24/96 high resolution DVD-A derived from three
16/44 sources?"

I am in the habit of archiving all multitrack mixdown matrix
mixes in 24 bit even though the source material was 16 bit. I
do hear a difference and I know all 24 bits are being used
(unlike a 16 bit that is upsampled to 24 bit, that only adds
0000's to the end of the data stream).

I have a real hard time figuring out - A 16/44 recording in
a multitrack mixdown with another 16/44 source, the resulting
24 bit file is where in the terms of resolution?

Two things I know for sure.

1. The entire data stream is in fact utilized.
2. The resulting 24 bit file does have an increased dynamic
range (frequency range stays the same) and allows me to juice
the levels and utilize the full headroom 24 bit offers. This
in turn also means I am utilizing more of bits.

This represents the 24 bit files that are the result of all
my editing and the multitrack mixdown. It is unclear exactly
what we have in the way of high resolution. However it seems
there is agreement that what we have will not be represented
accurately downsampled to 16/44. Data (resolution) will in
fact be discarded. What you are getting is the full result
of the matrix mix process. How much different does this sound?
is this better? A little and yes. This is more accurate and
has more dynamic range. 24/96 resolution versus a 16/44 of
the same material will usually result in very subtle but
important differences. Most of it relying on the quality of
the DVD-A player and the D to A conversion. With that in
mind, this 24 bit copy is no different. Small but important
gains over the same material in 16/44. This is just one
man's take. Take it or leave it.

...I'd like to know how they compare to your ears.
I own this album in just about every incarnation available...vinyl, CD, remastered CD, SACD, and this version played as a DVD-A seems much cleaner with all vocals clearly presented. The chorus of Us and Them, which I always thought was overmiked or overamped, is on this version nicely presented, and the lyrics are easily heard. The 4.1 mix is entertaining!

I'd like to know how they compare to your ears.
I own this album in just about every incarnation available...vinyl, CD, remastered CD, SACD, and this version played as a DVD-A seems much cleaner with all vocals clearly presented. The chorus of Us and Them, which I always thought was overmiked or overamped, is on this version nicely presented, and the lyrics are easily heard. The 4.1 mix is entertaining!
He's wasn't asking about DSoTM. ;)

What did I miss with that???:confused:

What did I miss with that???:confused:
They're discussing this:

Pink Floyd
Empire Pool
Wembley, London, UK
"We Meet Again"
November 16, 1974

Do you have that in all those formats you listed? I don't think so.

Post #939 is where the discussion starts, maybe even earlier.

Ah, missed that...sorry!

Do they make DVD-A's from other vinyls besides these Pink Floyd albums? Are there any that sound as good as Dark Side?

Do they make DVD-A's from other vinyls besides these Pink Floyd albums? Are there any that sound as good as Dark Side?

Dark Side isn't made from vinyl but from the original 4 track tapes that Alan Parsons mixed way back. Whoever did it added a LFE track to the mix. Anything from vinyl won't be anywhere as good quality as this.

I just picked up an Oppo 980H and I'm having trouble getting this title to play correctly uncompressed. In the 980, if I have the Down-mix set to 5.1, I get 96 kHz audio into my Yamaha 1800 via HDMI. I think 96 kHz is what I should expect from DVD-A. Is that right?

However, when I play this title with the settings above, I only get 2.1 output. If I move the Down-mix setting in the 980 up to 7.1, the 4.1 mix starts working. However, in that mode, the 980 seems to revert all of my DVD-A's (commercial and homemade) to 48 kHz.

I don't see why the 980 would have to be set to 7.1 to see a 4.1 mix. And further, I don't get why setting the 980 to 7.1 would force the audio sampling down to 48 kHz. As understand from the manual, 7.1 down-mix simply passes whatever the unit sees without additional processing.

Any input from other Oppo owners would be appreciated.

I just picked up an Oppo 980H and I'm having trouble getting this title to play correctly uncompressed. In the 980, if I have the Down-mix set to 5.1, I get 96 kHz audio into my Yamaha 1800 via HDMI. I think 96 kHz is what I should expect from DVD-A. Is that right?
For multichannel DVD-A, yes.


However, when I play this title with the settings above, I only get 2.1 output. If I move the Down-mix setting in the 980 up to 7.1, the 4.1 mix starts working. However, in that mode, the 980 seems to revert all of my DVD-A's (commercial and homemade) to 48 kHz.

I don't see why the 980 would have to be set to 7.1 to see a 4.1 mix. And further, I don't get why setting the 980 to 7.1 would force the audio sampling down to 48 kHz. As understand from the manual, 7.1 down-mix simply passes whatever the unit sees without additional processing.
Do you have a 5.1 setup? To what channels of the receiver have you connected your surround speakers?

Can you not send a digital bitstream via HDMI? Set the digital output to "RAW".

Have you tried other 5.1 DVD-As and how do they behave with each of the 5.1 and 7.1 down-mix settings?

For multichannel DVD-A, yes.



Do you have a 5.1 setup? To what channels of the receiver have you connected your surround speakers?

Can you not send a digital bitstream via HDMI? Set the digital output to "RAW".

Have you tried other 5.1 DVD-As and how do they behave with each of the 5.1 and 7.1 down-mix settings?

I have a 5.1 setup and and I get the 4.1 mix for DD or DTS (which I assume are compressed). I do have the 980 set for "RAW", HDMI Audio set to "Auto", and LPCM Rate set to 192K. My commerical DVD-A tiles provide 5.1 @ 96 kHz audio via HDMI while the 980 is set to 5.1 down-mix but revert to 48k when set to 7.1 down-mix.

The DSOTM DVD-A only sends 2.1 channels using the same settings as above. The 2.1 mix is indeed 96 kHz. To get the 4.1 mix, I have to change the down-mix setting to 7.1, which makes no sense. I also have the quad DVD-A 4.0 of WYWH and it acts the same way. I get 2.0 @ 96kHz with down-mix set to 5.1 and 4.0 @ 48kHz with down-mix set to 7.1.

You may want to post some questions in THIS (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=957339) thread, etzeppy.

I have an Oppo 970HD and it worked fine, but none of my audio equipment shows me the bitrate details (and I don't use HDMI either) so I can't comment on that part. I certainly didn't hear any changes in other audio.

Hey Lchiu7:

Dark Side of the Moon was at Abbey Road Studios in 1972 using Studer 16 track recorders. One session, the vocals for "Us & Them" being was by Alan Parson's on a 3M 8 track machine because it was able to generate a long tape delay on those vocals. He used the long gap and multiple tracks of the 8 track 3M as an extra long tape delay. It was mixed down to 4 tracks for "quad" when it was in vogue but never really took off. I havn't heard the DVD-A version of it. I cannot imagine it sounding better than the SACD version (newly remixed from the 16 track tapes) if it's a straight copy from the quad remix.

DTS also has Paul McCartney's "Band on the Run" and "Venus & Mars" in surround.

I use the Oppo 971 strictly for video while using my Denon DVD 2200 for suround music only.
I just ordered the Oppo 980 to be used in a 2 channel system in my office for audio purposes because it received such glowing reviews for its audio qualities while also using it for 2 channel video on a Panasonic TC-26LX70.

I cannot imagine it sounding better than the SACD version (newly remixed from the 16 track tapes) if it's a straight copy from the quad remix.

It's not better, it's not worse, it's a different mix. I sort of prefer it to the SACD for two reasons, 1 is the novelty of having something that is close or the same as the original artists (Parsons included) intended. You can argue that the band signed off on the SACD version but it was a different time and a different mindset. 2nd, to me the DVD-a sounds warmer, more analog (maybe it's the tape hiss) than the "pristine" SACD version does. In general though I find SACD's "colder" than DVD-A's.

So to me if I'm showing off my system I'll put in the SACD version, if I want to listen to DSotM, I'll put in the DVD-A version.

I haven't heard the DVD-A version of it. I cannot imagine it sounding better than the SACD version (newly remixed from the 16 track tapes) if it's a straight copy from the quad remix.
No, it doesn't "sound" as good, quality-wise. But the DVD-A quad mix, which sounds pretty damn good, is almost universally preferred, mix-wise. Why do you not have it?

Hey Lchiu7:

Dark Side of the Moon was at Abbey Road Studios in 1972 using Studer 16 track recorders. One session, the vocals for "Us & Them" being was by Alan Parson's on a 3M 8 track machine because it was able to generate a long tape delay on those vocals. He used the long gap and multiple tracks of the 8 track 3M as an extra long tape delay. It was mixed down to 4 tracks for "quad" when it was in vogue but never really took off. I havn't heard the DVD-A version of it. I cannot imagine it sounding better than the SACD version (newly remixed from the 16 track tapes) if it's a straight copy from the quad remix.

DTS also has Paul McCartney's "Band on the Run" and "Venus & Mars" in surround.

I use the Oppo 971 strictly for video while using my Denon DVD 2200 for suround music only.
I just ordered the Oppo 980 to be used in a 2 channel system in my office for audio purposes because it received such glowing reviews for its audio qualities while also using it for 2 channel video on a Panasonic TC-26LX70.

I am not sure which of my posts you are referring to but...

I was aware of how the 4 track mix was made. In fact I might have posted this link in a earlier post

http://www.stereosociety.com/body_foursides.html

I find it to be an immensely satisfying mix with very little or any tape hiss and a pristine quality that is amazing given the age of the recordings.

I have only listened to the SACD briefly and from what I recall it was less expansive and more clinical. Perhaps because the original 16 tracks masters were digitized and then processed in the digital domain.

I don't have the best DVD-A or SACD player (Samsung HD841) but it does the job and allows me to experience MCH audio.

Larry

I did not know it was released on DVD-A until I read this thread. I once read a review of it but the way it was written that it a bootleg. I used to collect Beatles bootlegs years ago (I still do once in a while) but I wouldn't know where to have picked this up.

http://www.highfidelityreview.com/reviews/review.asp?reviewnumber=12583627

I have enough versions of this album from the Mobile Fidelity album, the original Japanese pressed CD to the current SACD.

I did not know it was released on DVD-A until I read this thread.
It isn't, officially.

I once read a review of it but the way it was written that it a bootleg.
It is.

I have enough versions of this album from the Mobile Fidelity album, the original Japanese pressed CD to the current SACD.
Might be worth a listen even so, it's apparently quite different from the SACD mix.

I have enough versions of this album from the Mobile Fidelity album, the original Japanese pressed CD to the current SACD.
But you don't have the DVD-A version which, as you can see from the length of this thread, has created quite a buzz.

But you don't have the DVD-A version which, as you can see from the length of this thread, has created quite a buzz.

There is a strong view that the DVD-A is the best version out there - better than the SACD. I guess it's personal preference but the DVD-A is one of my demo titles.

I did not know it was released on DVD-A until I read this thread. I once read a review of it but the way it was written that it a bootleg.

It is certainly not an official release. It is a rather amazing digital transfer of the old quad master tapes that Alan Parsons mixed long ago (with some modern jiggery-pokery to turn it from 4.0 to 5.1). Someone who was close to the inside at some point in the band's career, has to have been the 'facilitator'.

Contrary to what many probably believe here, I believe you're just as well off-- perhaps even better off, given the 'LFE bug' many AVR/players have -- grabbing the DTS 24/96 version of the same mix, i fyou can't find the DVD-A version per se. (Though it's packaged with most torrents of the DVD-A version). It sounds just as good, you can play it on ANY 5.1 setup that handles DTS, and you are more certain of getting the intended LFE mix.

It is a rather amazing digital transfer of the old quad master tapes that Alan Parsons mixed long ago (with some modern jiggery-pokery to turn it from 4.0 to 5.1).
4.1 actually, no center.

The review a few posts up recommends just turning the sub off for 4.0, but I'm not sure that'd do it.

Contrary to what many probably believe here, I believe you're just as well off-- perhaps even better off, given the 'LFE bug' many AVR/players have -- grabbing the DTS 24/96 version of the same mix, i fyou can't find the DVD-A version per se. (Though it's packaged with most torrents of the DVD-A version). It sounds just as good, you can play it on ANY 5.1 setup that handles DTS, and you are more certain of getting the intended LFE mix.
Just to be clear, Krabapple is making the distinction, here, between utilizing a digital connection to a receiver versus utilizing a multichannel analog connection to enjoy the DTS or DD tracks with the assumption being that the "LFE bug" for DVD-A, DD, and DTS may be present via your multichannel analog connection and will not be present with DD or DTS tracks when you utilize a digital connection to the receiver to play them back. If, however, you have conquered the LFE bug or do not find it to be a problem, the DVD-A track should play back appropriately, albeit with the added and redundant LFE track.


The review a few posts up recommends just turning the sub off for 4.0, but I'm not sure that'd do it.
The LFE track was added and represents redundant bass info.

If you are listening to the DVD-A via your multichannel analog inputs, and you wish to hear the 4.0 mix (only) through all LARGE speakers with no redundant LFE track, then all you need to do is set your speakers to LARGE in your player, and turn off, unplug, or disconnect your subwoofer. Since universal players do not reroute the LFE channel to the LARGE front channels when set up as having no sub and they, instead, drop it altogether, it doesn't matter how you set the player up in this respect. So it is just as well to simply leave it set up as having a subwoofer.

If you are listening to the DVD-A, DD, or DTS mix via a digital connection (HDMI, toslink, or coax), and you wish to hear it as a 4.0 mix with no redundant LFE track, then set all your speakers to LARGE, leave the receiver set up as having a subwoofer, then play back the disc with your subwoofer turned off, unplugged, or disconnected.

Unless you have one of the very rare processors which allows you to independently turn off the LFE channel, there is no way to eliminate the redundant LFE track while listening to the disc in ANY mode (DVD-A, DD, or DTS) digitally or analog, while leaving your speakers set to SMALL.

sivadselim is correct, it's 4.1, not 5.1 (though am I wrong to recall that the center channel shows as 'active', albeit with no content?).

Unless you have one of the very rare processors which allows you to independently turn off the LFE channel, there is no way to eliminate the redundant LFE track while listening to the disc in ANY mode (DVD-A, DD, or DTS) digitally or analog, while leaving your speakers set to SMALL.

Yes. Conceivably, if one could turn off the LFE output in the DVD player, but leave bass management on in the AVR, then one could get a non-redundant, yet bass managed, playback including the sub. Wouldn't "SUB OFF", Surrounds ON, and speakers LARGE in the player, sent to an AVR that could bass manage that input (presumably analog, but perhaps digital PCM?), work? I'll give it a try with the digital PCM-via-HDMI option at least...my receiver doesn't do BM on multichannel analog.

Alternately, you could run just speaker-level connections from speakers to the sub, and run the speakers LARGE. This would work from front L/R, at least.

Yes. Conceivably, if one could turn off the LFE output in the DVD player, but leave bass management on in the AVR, then one could get a non-redundant, yet bass managed, playback including the sub. Wouldn't "SUB OFF", Surrounds ON, and speakers LARGE in the player, sent to an AVR that could bass manage that input (presumably analog, but perhaps digital PCM?), work? I'll give it a try with the digital PCM-via-HDMI option at least...my receiver doesn't do BM on multichannel analog
Very few receiver's can bass manage their multichannel analog inputs.


But my point was that if you set any of your speakers to SMALL (ie utilize bass management) at either your universal player or at your receiver, and then turn off, disconnect, or unplug your sub, then you'll completely miss the bass managed bass from any channels set to SMALL. Sure, you'll get rid of the redundant LFE channel, but you'll lose all of your bass managed bass, too!


This has always been a criticism of mine regarding the very unnecessarily added redundant LFE channel info in this DSoTM release. If they had simply mixed it as 4.0, with no redundant LFE track, then those of us who run any speakers as SMALL could easily bass manage the content with no worries about their being a redundant LFE track. As it now stands, you have to set all your speakers to LARGE and turn off, disconnect, or unplug your sub to get rid of the redundant LFE channel. This IS possible with my system, as my front speakers can probably be run as LARGE, but my surround speakers are not truly LARGE and need to be bass managed.


If I may add, regarding the "LFE bug", for those of you with universal players, if you are able to calibrate your system's digital connection AND multichannel analog connnection IDENTICALLY with a DD calibration disc such as AVIA, no matter the means necessary to do so, then you have successfully squashed the "LFE bug".

The LFE track was added and represents redundant bass info.
Ahh, ok.

Very few receiver's can bass manage their multichannel analog inputs.

Yes, but a few can, and with these , once could get eliminate the redundant sub content. It is also possible *IF* LFE could be selectively omitted at the player side, in a digital connection (HDMI). Then you're only passing digital 4.0 (at full frequency) to the AVR, which does bass management on it. I know I can adjust levels of each channel of 6-channel PCM content in my Oppo 970HD, with all channels set to LARGE and sub ON, and pass it digitally via HDMI *with* those level changes intact, to my AVR (which of course then does bass management on the digital input; indeed, this is how I get around the LFE bug currently, by playing with the 'sub' channel level); my only question now is whether the sub channel can actually be turned OFF in the player, and do the same trick. It seems feasible.

But my point was that if you set any of your speakers to SMALL (ie utilize bass management) at either your universal player or at your receiver, and then turn off, disconnect, or unplug your sub, then you'll completely miss the bass managed bass from any channels set to SMALL. Sure, you'll get rid of the redundant LFE channel, but you'll lose all of your bass managed bass, too!

Yes, but I'm not proposing to disconnect or turn off the sub. However, I'm fully with you as regards redundant LFE. There shouldn't be any LFE content on music releases AT ALL, by my way of thinking. The only sub output should be from redirected bass. It's particularly silly in this case as the mixers felt it OK not to create center channel content, but decided they HAD to have something coming out of the sub.
So despite what I said before about DTS bitstream playback being advantageous 'cos it's immune from the LFE bug, thus allowing playback 'as intended', in the case of DSoTM DTS 4.1 we have the perverse situation where 'as intended' means TOO MUCH BASS. :(

Yes, but a few can, and with these , once could get eliminate the redundant sub content.
If you want to utilize all LARGE speakers, eliminating the redundant LFE track from the DD or DTS tracks when utilizing a digital connection to the receiver is simple enough to do. You'd set your speakers to LARGE, leave your receiver set up as having a subwoofer, but upon playback, you'd simply disconnect, unplug, or turn off your subwoofer. In this situation, the disc would play as 4.0 with 4 full-range channels and no redundant LFE track. Unfortunately, running your speakers as SMALL, allowing them to be bass managed, yet eliminating the redundant LFE track, is not possible.

When using a universal player's multichannel analog connection for the DD, DTS, and DVD-A tracks, if you're running all your speakers as LARGE, then eliminating the redundant LFE track is also just as simple. You simply unplug the analog subwoofer connection from the player to the receiver's analog subwoofer input, or unplug the subwoofer, or disconnect the subwoofer from the receiver, or simply turn the subwoofer off, upon playback.

Running your speakers as SMALL but eliminating the redundant LFE track is much more problematic, but it can be done if your receiver bass manages its multichannel analog inputs. What you would have to do is set your speakers to LARGE in your player and set the player up as having no subwoofer. Unlike receivers, universal players do NOT reroute the LFE to the LARGE front channels when set up as having no subwoofer; instead, they drop the LFE channel altogether. If you have questions or doubts about this, then you could leave the player set up as having a subwoofer and simply disconnect the analog subwoofer connection between the player and receiver. Then, provided the receiver can do it, you would set the receiver up to bass manage it's analog multichannel speaker inputs and any bass info below the receiver's crossover setting from the 4 LARGE main channels would be rerouted to the subwoofer. The LFE channel, of course, would be absent in this situation. I would love to be able to do this, but my receiver, like most, unfortunately does not bass manage its multichannel analog inputs.


It is also possible *IF* LFE could be selectively omitted at the player side, in a digital connection (HDMI). Then you're only passing digital 4.0 (at full frequency) to the AVR, which does bass management on it.

I know I can adjust levels of each channel of 6-channel PCM content in my Oppo 970HD, with all channels set to LARGE and sub ON, and pass it digitally via HDMI *with* those level changes intact, to my AVR (which of course then does bass management on the digital input; indeed, this is how I get around the LFE bug currently, by playing with the 'sub' channel level); my only question now is whether the sub channel can actually be turned OFF in the player, and do the same trick. It seems feasible.
I'm not sure how HDMI connections work. If you wanted to listen to the disc using 4 SMALL bass managed speakers, but wanted to eliminate the redundant LFE track, if you were passing PCM via the HDMI connection, could turn off the LFE track in the player, and IF the player didn't reroute the LFE channel to the LARGE front channels, then you could send a 4.0 signal (all LARGE channels) from the player to the receiver for bass management. If you were sending a bitstream to the receiver from the player via an HDMI connection, you would still have the same problem "teasing" out the LFE channel from the soundtrack as one would have if utilizing a toslink or coax connection with the DD/DTS tracks. It would not be possible unless the receiver had very specific accommodations for turning off the LFE yet still maintaining the bass management at the subwoofer output.


There shouldn't be any LFE content on music releases AT ALL, by my way of thinking.
Well, for newly mixed multichannel soundtracks, it doesn't bother me that a "virgin" LFE track is utilized. And I don't mind there being one created from the low-end info of an existing soundtrack provided it is not redundant; i.e., the bass that is "created" in an LFE track is "stripped" from the main channels.

But the fact that, when utilizing the multichannel analog outputs, the LFE channel is not rerouted to the LARGE front channels when a universal player is set up as not having a subwoofer is very problematic (and unfortunate) with ANY LFE track, music OR movies. What this does is completely prevent someone form setting up a hirez (SACD or DVD-A) with 5 LARGE speakers and NO subwoofer. Fortunately, an HDMI connection can eliminate this issue as receivers DO rroute this LFE info appropriately. But for those of us who utilize a universal player's multichannel analog connections, a 5.0 setup that retains the LFE channel is NOT possible. So, this is a great argument against LFE tracks on hirez (SACD or DVD-A) music discs. Of course, for those of use with no HDMI-capability, with movies (DD/DTS) a digital connection (toslink or coax) to the receiver CAN still be utilized and the LFE track WILL be properly rerouted to the LARGE front channels by the receiver's processor, and a proper 5.0 set up is possible in that situation.


It's particularly silly in this case as the mixers felt it OK not to create center channel content, but decided they HAD to have something coming out of the sub.
I definitely agree that the redundant LFE track should not have been added as it completely ruins the ability to properly listen to the soundtrack, sans LFE, with 4 SMALL bass-managed speakers. At least we CAN be glad that they did NOT add a center channel track (which would have been sacrilege!). I must say though, in their defense, that the redundant LFE track that was added is fairly subtle and not TOO distracting.


.................in the case of DSoTM DTS 4.1 we have the perverse situation where 'as intended' means TOO MUCH BASS.
Yes, but interestingly I have heard people complain that the bass on the DVD-A is lacking! Beats me! :confused:

If you want to utilize all LARGE speakers, eliminating the redundant LFE track from the DD or DTS tracks when utilizing a digital connection to the receiver is simple enough to do. You'd set your speakers to LARGE, leave your receiver set up as having a subwoofer, but upon playback, you'd simply disconnect, unplug, or turn off your subwoofer. In this situation, the disc would play as 4.0 with 4 full-range channels and no redundant LFE track. Unfortunately, running your speakers as SMALL, allowing them to be bass managed, yet eliminating the redundant LFE track, is not possible.

When using a universal player's multichannel analog connection for the DD, DTS, and DVD-A tracks, if you're running all your speakers as LARGE, then eliminating the redundant LFE track is also just as simple. You simply unplug the analog subwoofer connection from the player to the receiver's analog subwoofer input, or unplug the subwoofer, or disconnect the subwoofer from the receiver, or simply turn the subwoofer off, upon playback.


We seem to be going a bit round and round on this. I do get what you're saying here. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm saying: if you have one of the relatively rare AVRs that do bass management on multichannel analog input, simply run the DVD player with all speakers set LARGE, SUB ON, but port just the L/C/R/SurL/SurR (not the sub channel) to the AVR via analog , and set speakers to SMALL in the AVR. All the AVR's sub output will be redirected bass, no LFE, because it never got the LFE from the DVDP in the first place. Et voila, no redundancy. Which is an option you eventually get to below.

Running your speakers as SMALL but eliminating the redundant LFE track is much more problematic, but it can be done if your receiver bass manages its multichannel analog inputs. What you would have to do is set your speakers to LARGE in your player and set the player up as having no subwoofer.

OR, you can just set SUB ON, with speakers LARGE. And then not connect the sub RCA out to the AVR sub in. Easy peasy. As you note below.

Unlike receivers, universal players do NOT reroute the LFE to the LARGE front channels when set up as having no subwoofer; instead, they drop the LFE channel altogether. If you have questions or doubts about this, then you could leave the player set up as having a subwoofer and simply disconnect the analog subwoofer connection between the player and receiver. Then, provided the receiver can do it, you would set the receiver up to bass manage it's analog multichannel speaker inputs and any bass info below the receiver's crossover setting from the 4 LARGE main channels would be rerouted to the subwoofer. The LFE channel, of course, would be absent in this situation. I would love to be able to do this, but my receiver, like most, unfortunately does not bass manage its multichannel analog inputs.

Whew! I think we're on the same page now. ;)

I'm not sure how HDMI connections work. If you wanted to listen to the disc using 4 SMALL bass managed speakers, but wanted to eliminate the redundant LFE track, if you were passing PCM via the HDMI connection, could turn off the LFE track in the player, and IF the player didn't reroute the LFE channel to the LARGE front channels, then you could send a 4.0 signal (all LARGE channels) from the player to the receiver for bass management. If you were sending a bitstream to the receiver from the player via an HDMI connection, you would still have the same problem "teasing" out the LFE channel from the soundtrack as one would have if utilizing a toslink or coax connection with the DD/DTS tracks. It would not be possible unless the receiver had very specific accommodations for turning off the LFE yet still maintaining the bass management at the subwoofer output.

Haven't taken a shot at testing the Oppo HDMI sub on/off thing yet, while passing the DSotM music as PCM (either DVD-A or decoded DTS) ; I'll report here when I do. Like I said, one thing I *do* know for sure is that I can vary the level of sub channel +/- 10dB from the '0' setting, in the Oppo, and it affects the HDMI output of mcPCM sources as desired.

(snip of stuff I agree with)

I definitely agree that the redundant LFE track should not have been added as it completely ruins the ability to properly listen to the soundtrack, sans LFE, with 4 SMALL bass-managed speakers. At least we CAN be glad that they did NOT add a center channel track (which would have been sacrilege!). I must say though, in their defense, that the redundant LFE track that was added is fairly subtle and not TOO distracting.

Center isn't necessarily sacrilege; in a room where L/R are spaced far apart, center really does help anchor the sonic imaging, for those not glued to the sweet spot. Hmm.. I wonder if I run DSotM through DPLII....

Yes, but interestingly I have heard people complain that the bass on the DVD-A is lacking! Beats me! :confused:

Peoples is crazy! ;)

Or , is it possible that the mixers calibrate the bass levels so that 'half' level goes to the sub, and 'half' to other speakers? That would be evil.

We seem to be going a bit round and round on this.
Was never trying to "quibble" with you k'apple. Just trying to clarify things for others who might be interested (doubtful, huh?:D)


Center isn't necessarily sacrilege; in a room where L/R are spaced far apart, center really does help anchor the sonic imaging, for those not glued to the sweet spot.
Well, in this case, since it is supposed to be a recreation of the actual quad mix, I think that adding a center channel would definitely have been sacrilege.

Center isn't necessarily sacrilege; in a room where L/R are spaced far apart, center really does help anchor the sonic imaging, for those not glued to the sweet spot.Indeed, the imaging remains the same (i.e., sounds intended to come from the middle of the soundstage still come from that location), just stabilized for off-axis listeners. Mapping that same soundstage to 5 speakers across the front would provide even greater imaging stability. I wonder if I run DSotM through DPLII....PLII can only be applied to 2-channel signals. For multi-channel, you'd need PLIIx. However, since PLIIx doesn't touch the front channels, you still wouldn't get an extracted centre.

Sanjay

Indeed, the imaging remains the same (i.e., sounds intended to come from the middle of the soundstage still come from that location), just stabilized for off-axis listeners. Mapping that same soundstage to 5 speakers across the front would provide even greater imaging stability
In this case it most definitely would be sacrilege! :mad: It's the original quad mix that is faithfully (except for that dadburned LFE track) transferred as a 4.1 soundtrack. If a center channel had been "added" it would have completely ruined the quad mix. Completely. End of discussion. :D

In this case it most definitely would be sacrilege! :mad: It's the original quad mix that is faithfully (except for that dadburned LFE track) transferred as a 4.1 soundtrack. If a center channel had been "added" it would have completely ruined the quad mix. Completely. End of discussion. :D

+1. The Parsons quad mix is too historically important to be messed with.

It's the original quad mix that is faithfully (except for that dadburned LFE track) transferred as a 4.1 soundtrack. If a center channel had been "added" it would have completely ruined the quad mix. Completely. End of discussion. :D+1:)
Mapping that same soundstage to 5 speakers...Is NOT the same as a mix thats contrived on four discrete channels.The same for MIXING 5.1 discrete channels then in turn deriving (mapping/ generating) more components will NOT make it more accurate or transparent..in fact the opposite.

*Note to self: He comes the old "avoiding potential rear image reversal" argument.

In this case it most definitely would be sacrilege!No. You're confusing channels with speakers. They aren't the same thing. The same for MIXING 5.1 discrete channels then in turn deriving (mapping/ generating) more components will NOT make it more accurate or transparent..in fact the opposite.More accurate or transparent than what? The point of playing back 2 channels over more that 2 speakers is for imaging stability, since listeners are relying less on phantom imaging. This doesn't, for example, make centre imaged sounds "more accurate or transparent", but it does allow listeners outside the sweet spot to continue to localize those sounds in the centre of the soundstage.

Sanjay

The sweet spot will vary from recording to recording. The recording process will determine the sweet spot as much as the number of speakers and layout.

The sweet spot will vary from recording to recording.Any examples of recordings that are mixed for larger sweet spots or mixed for off-axis listeners?

Sanjay

Sounds like people are going to start discussing, UGH, Ambisonics!

PLII can only be applied to 2-channel signals. For multi-channel, you'd need PLIIx. Try implementing your beloved PLIIx to the following panning algorithm:

Studer's VSP (Virtual Surround Panning), which is different from amplitude-based panning, employing onboard DSP to also calculate appropriate frequency and time-based changes as a sound is panned. VSP incorporates algorithms that replicate head related transfer functions, those spatial and frequency clues to source localization.

Good luck with that:)

Try implementing your beloved PLIIx to the following panning algorithm:Provide a link to the recording. I'll download it and apply PLIIx to it.

I'm still waiting for any examples of recordings that are mixed for larger sweet spots or mixed for off-axis listeners.

Sanjay

Provide a link to the recording. I'll download it and apply PLIIx to it. Yeah I'm sure you would make the sound field more precise..with better envelopment...more depth..yadda yadda

I get that a derived center from a four-track master would not be the same as starting from multitracks and doing a remix. And I also know, from using DPLII, the beneficial (to me) effect of synthesizing a CTR for a two channel mix, with widely-spaced front speakers. As a compromise I propose that it would be nice to have the DPLII-like OPTION of synthesizing a CTR for the 4.0 mix. Something I could turn on, and sivadselim could leave off (and revile). Now let's all hug it out.


sanjay, regarding
PLII can only be applied to 2-channel signals. For multi-channel, you'd need PLIIx. However, since PLIIx doesn't touch the front channels, you still wouldn't get an extracted centre.

I do mean DPLIIx btw. Is it true that surround channels are only derived from front L/R? If you feed a 3.0 mix (e.g., mercury living presence SACDs) , does it 'use' anything from the center channel, to derive the synthetic surround?