Yeah I'm sure you would make the sound field more precise..with better envelopment...more depth..yadda yadda


Well, 'better envelopment' would come from the surround synthesis, not center channel.

Try CC or BB..thanks in advance!You claimed "the sweet spot will vary from recording to recording". Why are you being so evasive when I ask for examples? You must have based your claims on personal experience, right? So what recordings are mixed for larger sweet spots or mixed for off-axis listeners? Yeah I'm sure you would make the sound field more precise..with better envelopment...more depth..yadda yaddaYou challenged me to apply PLIIx to a specific type of panning, but won't provide a recording with that type of panning so that I can do what you asked me to do. Do you have a link to a recording that has that type of pan? Do you have an example of a CD that I can buy that uses that type of panning? Let me know and I'll apply PLIIx to it.

Sanjay

Any chance I'll get an apology from you.. regarding your ignorance on the subject of Dolby Dialogue normalization? In the following thread you accused me of using a flase premise for pages.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=951321
Well, after Team Dolby (Sanjay) talking us into circles, I do believe tbrunet is the winner.Then maybe Sanjay I may explain how my request was rhetorical. The concatenation of circumstances (VSP>PLIIx) would be illogical. Although I’m sure your subjective prowess would indeed perceive vast improvement.

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?PLIIx always processes a 2-channel signal. If you feed it stereo content, it will see 2 main channels and convert it to 7 outputs. If you feed it multi-channel content, it will only see the 2 surround channels and convert them to 4 surround outputs. This means that the discrete surround-back channel of DTS 6.1 tracks is ignored (not a problem since the entire contents of that channel is duplicated in the L/R surround channels).

You've probably guessed that we're talking about two very different surround processing algorithms, depending on whether it detects a stereo or multi-channel signal. In either case, only 2 channels are being processed.

A 3.0 mix will be detected as multi-channel, so PLIIx will attempt to steer the empty surround channels to all 4 speakers. The front channels will be left alone; no processing, no surround extraction. With or without PLIIx, you'll end up with the same result: only the front 3 speakers active, nothing from the surrounds.

As for centre channel content: that stuff should be directly in front of you, with none of the sounds steered to the surrounds. Same for any centre imaged content in a stereo mix; it's correlated mono and all of it should be in the middle of the front soundstage. The only sounds steered to the surrounds should be decorrelated info in the L/R channels, which typically wouldn't have image in the front soundstage anyway.

Sanjay

Bugger. I go away for a couple hours and look what happens. I really wanted to get post #1000 in this thread, but the argument blew right past it with no fanfare of any kind.

No. You're confusing channels with speakers.
No, I'm not. Read how Parsons describes mixing a quad mix.

These are the many different speaker interactions that someone mixing specifically for quad sound can mix for:

1. front right channel/front left channel (front wall stereo)
2. front right channel/ rear right channel (right wall stereo)
3. front left channel/rear left channel (left wall stereo)
4. rear right channel/rear left channel (rear wall stereo)
5. front right channel/rear left channel (diagonal stereo#1)
6. front left channel/rear right channel (diagonal stereo#2)

Now, how can adding a contrived/derived center channel help with anything when transferring a mix that was intended to be a quad mix? How would you derive the center channel? From only the front 2 channels? You'd f@ck the balance of the quad mix royally if you did that.

I understand the use of a center channel to anchor an image that is menat to be anchored between the front speakers, particularly with dialogue, but in the case of a transfer of a quad mix it would be a major no-no.

The Moody Blues hirez quad transfers are done properly, too, btw, with only 4 original channels as they were intended to be heard.

SACRILEGE, I say!

Now ya'll take the discussion somewhere else. This is the "DSoTM Quad Mix DVD-A" thread. :mad:

A DPLIIx discussion belongs in this thread about like a priest belongs in a brothel. No one in their right mind would apply ANY DSPs to this recording.

In the following thread you accused me of using a flase premise for pages.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=951321You did start from the false premise that there are separate Dolby and DTS mixes. In reality, it's the same mix, just encoded for consumer delivery media using two compression algorithms. Then maybe Sanjay I may explain how my request was rhetorical.Ah, so you have absolutely no real world examples of the type of recordings you were talking about.

Sanjay

Now, how can adding a contrived/derived center channel help with anything when transferring a mix that was intended to be a quad mix?It can help by stabilizing whatever sounds Parsons intended to image in the middle of the front soundstage. So if you sit in the sweet spot, you'll hear those sounds exactly in between your front L/R speakers. And if you're listening from outside the sweet spot, you'll still hear those sounds exactly in between the front L/R speakers. You make that sound like a bad thing. How would you derive the center channel? From only the front 2 channels?Any pair of channels has correlated (in-phase) mono content that would normally phantom image between them. To extract a centre channel, you sum the mono info in the L/R channels and send it to a centre speaker. You then send an out of phase version back to the L/R channels to cancel that mono information. End result: any sounds that would have imaged in the centre of the soundstage will now come from the centre speaker and not from the L/R speakers. Stereo content still continues to be reproduced by the L/R speakers. I understand the use of a center channel to anchor an image that is menat to be anchored between the front speakers, particularly with dialogue, but in the case of a transfer of a quad mix it would be a major no-no.Why? If someone says words, it's OK coming from the centre speaker. But if someone sings words, it's a "major no-no" coming from the centre speaker? Now ya'll take the discussion somewhere else. This is the "DSoTM Quad Mix DVD-A" thread.If you don't want to participate in a completely valid discussion about playing back the DSotM quad mix using more than 4 speakers, you can: a) put me on your ignore list, and/or b) report my posts to the moderator. Seriously. No one is forcing you to read (let alone reply to) my posts.

Sanjay

It can help by stabilizing whatever sounds Parsons intended to image in the middle of the front soundstage. So if you sit in the sweet spot, you'll hear those sounds exactly in between your front L/R speakers. And if you're listening from outside the sweet spot, you'll still hear those sounds exactly in between the front L/R speakers. You make that sound like a bad thing. Any pair of channels has correlated (in-phase) mono content that would normally phantom image between them. To extract a centre channel, you sum the mono info in the L/R channels and send it to a centre speaker. You then send an out of phase version back to the L/R channels to cancel that mono information. End result: any sounds that would have imaged in the centre of the soundstage will now come from the centre speaker and not from the L/R speakers. Stereo content still continues to be reproduced by the L/R speakers. Why? If someone says words, it's OK coming from the centre speaker. But if someone sings words, it's a "major no-no" coming from the centre speaker? If you don't want to participate in a completely valid discussion about playing back the DSotM quad mix using more than 4 speakers, you can: a) put me on your ignore list, and/or b) report my posts to the moderator. Seriously. No one is forcing you to read (let alone reply to) my posts.
LOL, I like you sanjay, but I have to call "BS" here. Are you proposing that a "middle" speaker would be "useful" along each of the 4 walls when listening to a true quad mix? Garbage. ;)

There is a very good reason that the center channel isn't utilized when true, original quad mixes are tranferred to a current multichannel format. Are you proposing that some sort of DSP should be applied to utilize a fake center channel with a quad mix recording or are you proposing that the transfer of an original quad mix recording to a current multichannel format should utilize the center channel. Because there is a difference. But either way, both are terrible options. The former would really be an awful way to playback what was intended to be played back as a quad mix. The latter could (maybe) be argued for, but it's a very weak argument.

I don't think that anchoring any image in the center of any single wall is desirable with a quad mix. And as I said, any of the quad mix transfers that I know of do NOT utilize the center channel. Can you name an example of one that does?

Utilizing a center channel is no more valid in this instance than it is when listening to a stereo recording. In fact, it may be less so. You don't advocate using a center channel when listening to 2-channel material, do you?

Now, what's not valid about my discussion? :confused:

Oooops, I gotta eat some crow here. I just checked my On the Threshold of a Dream disc, and it is a 5.1 mix. I wouldn't have done it that way, though. But the center channel isn't really used to anchor anything. It's actually sort of a "quint mix".

But pass the salt and pepper. And you got any ketchup?

Are you proposing that a "middle" speaker would be "useful" along each of the 4 walls when listening to a true quad mix?The more speakers you use, the less you rely on phantom imaging. The less you rely on phantom imaging, the more stable your sound field. For a quad mix, I would use at minimum 3 speakers to reproduce the front soundstage and 4 speakers to reproduce the surround information. Are you proposing that some sort of DSP should be applied to utilize a fake center channel with a quad mix recording or are you proposing that the transfer of an original quad mix recording to a current multichannel format should utilize the center channel.Again, you're confusing channels with speakers. The artist and recording engineer can use as many or few channels as they want for their mix. That has no bearing on how many speakers I use for playback. I'll scale the recording to my set-up, whether it is more or fewer speakers than there are channels in the recording. I don't think that anchoring any image in the center of any single wall is desirable with a quad mix.Can you explain why not? And as I said, any of the quad mix transfers that I know of do NOT utilize the center channel.If they did, they wouldn't be "quad" mixes any more. By that logic, I don't know any 5.1 mixes that have a discrete surround-back channel. You don't advocate using a center channel when listening to 2-channel material, do you?All the time. It's been over 15 years since I've listened to 2-channel music using only 2 speakers. And I have no desire to go back to hearing lead vocals reproduced as dual-mono, comb-filtering, phantom images. We never (ever) hear the human voice that way in real life, why would I want to reproduce it that way at home?

BTW, you keep posting emotional responses like "sacrilege", "BS" and "garbage". But you don't explain why you feel that way. So I'll ask you directly: if you have a soundstage created by information in 2 channels, why is it so bad to reproduce that soundstage using 3 or 5 or more speakers?

Sanjay

Is there a Moderator for this thread?

-t

Sure, there are 3 moderators. They are listed at the bottom of the forum page. I don't think any of them have posted here in months.

I haven't really been following this multi-channel discussion, but, it really is not the focus of this thread, which is the DVD-A version of DSotM.

This thread is straddling the the line already due to the source of the content, so any more activity like the above - other than discussion of DSotM - will probably get the thread closed.

If you folks could start another thread and carry the MC discussion over there the rest of here would appreciate it.

Thanks. :)

Just to get back on topic I think the DVD-A mix of DSOTM is the best one out there. I don't find the LFE channel annoying in the least (which seems to be a bug bear of current posters), not the lack of a centre channel. If I didn't like the LFE channel it's easy enough for me to turn the level down for my sub so I can't hear it. But since I don't have full range surrounds I do need to have the sub on to be able to hear normal sub output.

As for the lack of a centre channel - that's never bothered me. The mix is truly enveloping and so the absence of a centre channel (which is often used to anchor dialogue or the main singer) is hardly a major omission. Of course Parson't was working in quad so he had no choice. For those who have been able to compare the DVD-A with the SACD you can judge whether or not the centre channel contributes to or detracts from the mix.

Utilizing a center channel is no more valid in this instance than it is when listening to a stereo recording. In fact, it may be less so. You don't advocate using a center channel when listening to 2-channel material, do you?

I do. It's called Dolby Pro Logic II. I do believe you've heard of it.

:p

For those who have been able to compare the DVD-A with the SACD you can judge whether or not the centre channel contributes to or detracts from the mix.Guthrie didn't mix a whole lot in the centre channel of the SACD version, keeping the front soundstage somewhat consistent with the quad and stereo mixes. The bigger difference is in the surrounds, where Parsons' mix is noticeably more agressive. For the first part of the album, I prefer the Guthrie mix; everything from 'Us and Them' onward, I prefer the Parsons mix.

Sanjay

I use an Outlaw ICBM for analog bass management of DVD-A and SACD, and it has an "LFE mix" control on the front panel. So, I am able to 100% attenuate the LFE feed while still passing the bass-managed subwoofer signal to my receiver's MC inputs. I haven't tried that yet on the 4.1 version but I will soon.

If you folks could start another thread and carry the MC discussion over there the rest of here would appreciate it.


Agreed.

The MC pissing contest above isn't germane to the thread.

You don't advocate using a center channel when listening to 2-channel material, do you?All the time. It's been over 15 years since I've listened to 2-channel music using only 2 speakers. And I have no desire to go back to hearing lead vocals reproduced as dual-mono, comb-filtering, phantom images. We never (ever) hear the human voice that way in real life, why would I want to reproduce it that way at home?I do. It's called Dolby Pro Logic II. I do believe you've heard of it.
I think you should listen to music and movies exactly how you please. That is ALL that is important. :)


I haven't really been following this multi-channel discussion, but, it really is not the focus of this thread, which is the DVD-A version of DSotM.

This thread is straddling the the line already due to the source of the content, so any more activity like the above - other than discussion of DSotM - will probably get the thread closed.Agreed.

The MC pissing contest above isn't germane to the thread.
I agree and apologize for my role in the discussion having drifted completely away from the original thread topic. :o

Those who know me know that this thread is very important to me. Let's not get it closed down, that would be tragic. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/NickBuckeye/Smiley4/flyingpig.gif

Where should I start a thread discussing use (or not) of a Center Front channel or derived "Center-Side" channels, etc...? I, for one, MUCH prefer a 'hard' center - and I HATE DVD-Audio discs where the front vocal is mixed into the surrounds too, to 'bring it into the room' - it just sounds, to me, like a bad, non-logic, SQ matrix decoder!

Where should I start a thread discussing use (or not) of a Center Front channel or derived "Center-Side" channels, etc...? I, for one, MUCH prefer a 'hard' center - and I HATE DVD-Audio discs where the front vocal is mixed into the surrounds too, to 'bring it into the room' - it just sounds, to me, like a bad, non-logic, SQ matrix decoder!
I'd start it in this forum, although that is not really what we were discussing, here. How an engineer mixes a multichannel disc is his and the artists' personal preference and there isn't much you can do about that..............except complain.

>>How an engineer mixes a multichannel disc is his and the artists' personal preference and there isn't much you can do about that..............except complain.<<

No, but in many cases, you can apply additional processing to derive speaker feeds that will greatly increase imaging capability - such as Left or Right Side-Center. It's a fact that phantom imaging does NOT work for sources at our sides, such as a Center Left Side between Lf and Lb. Using matrix decoding/vector cancellation to derive a hard speaker feed signal can greatly increase imaging precision and lead to an overall better presentation in such cases.

>>How an engineer mixes a multichannel disc is his and the artists' personal preference and there isn't much you can do about that..............except complain.<<

No, but in many cases, you can apply additional processing to derive speaker feeds that will greatly increase imaging capability - such as Left or Right Side-Center. It's a fact that phantom imaging does NOT work for sources at our sides, such as a Center Left Side between Lf and Lb. Using matrix decoding/vector cancellation to derive a hard speaker feed signal can greatly increase imaging precision and lead to an overall better presentation in such cases.
As I pointed out a few posts up, you can listen to it however you wish. What's important is that you are happy.

But I, and many others I suspect, prefer to listen to the music/movie as closely as is possible, with our simple setups, to that which is intended by the artist/engineer.

But a whole new thread regarding this is definitely a good idea. What you wish to discuss is not relevant to this thread. Thanks.

Hey All,
Wondering How I May Acquire A Copy Of This Dvd-a?
If Anyone Could Pm Me That Would Be Great.
Thanks,fran

Info sent, good luck.

Where should I start a thread discussing use (or not) of a Center Front channel or derived "Center-Side" channels, etc...? I, for one, MUCH prefer a 'hard' center - and I HATE DVD-Audio discs where the front vocal is mixed into the surrounds too, to 'bring it into the room' - it just sounds, to me, like a bad, non-logic, SQ matrix decoder!

I'd start it in this forum, although that is not really what we were discussing, here. How an engineer mixes a multichannel disc is his and the artists' personal preference and there isn't much you can do about that..............except complain.

>>How an engineer mixes a multichannel disc is his and the artists' personal preference and there isn't much you can do about that..............except complain.<<

No, but in many cases, you can apply additional processing to derive speaker feeds that will greatly increase imaging capability - such as Left or Right Side-Center. It's a fact that phantom imaging does NOT work for sources at our sides, such as a Center Left Side between Lf and Lb. Using matrix decoding/vector cancellation to derive a hard speaker feed signal can greatly increase imaging precision and lead to an overall better presentation in such cases.

As I pointed out a few posts up, you can listen to it however you wish. What's important is that you are happy.

But I, and many others I suspect, prefer to listen to the music/movie as closely as is possible, with our simple setups, to that which is intended by the artist/engineer.

But a whole new thread regarding this is definitely a good idea. What you wish to discuss is not relevant to this thread. Thanks.

New thread, new thread! This could be lively!

My copy of the DSOTM DVD-A sounds great in DD and DTS, but the MLP has strange artifacts in four places which cause great honking distortion for a few seconds. It sounds tweeter-frying bad in a couple of cases, so I'm not going to play the MLP in the main system anymore. Anyone else experience this?

I will try another DVD-A player (at super low volume) before giving up.

New thread, new thread! This could be lively!

My copy of the DSOTM DVD-A sounds great in DD and DTS, but the MLP has strange artifacts in four places which cause great honking distortion for a few seconds. It sounds tweeter-frying bad in a couple of cases, so I'm not going to play the MLP in the main system anymore. Anyone else experience this?

I will try another DVD-A player (at super low volume) before giving up.

No experience at all. Could be a bad disk - CRC errors etc. A good way to confirm this is to try to copy the DVD to a hard drive and make another copy. While the player will be reasonably forgiving of lost data, the OS you use to copy the disk will not. It just won't copy the data at all.

My copy of the DSOTM DVD-A sounds great in DD and DTS, but the MLP has strange artifacts in four places which cause great honking distortion for a few seconds. It sounds tweeter-frying bad in a couple of cases, so I'm not going to play the MLP in the main system anymore. Anyone else experience this?

That's odd - MLP will stop decoding if it gets any uncorrectable errors - it's supposed to anyway because that indicates that the decoding is not happening in a lossless manner. Can you provide a time and track number listing of the noises? And are you listening to it in 4-channel or are you listening to the MLP 2-channel downmix? I ask because if the downmix settings are not set carefully, there can be clipping and overload when playing the 2-channel MLP stream. I've listened to it both ways - in 4-channel over speakers and in 2-channel via headphones from my DVD-Audio portable - in fact, I fell asleep listening to it last night... it's such an incredibly relaxing album to me.

Been waiting about 5 days for this to finish downloading... burnt on some high quality media and popped it in... I'm only 25, with barely the system to do this album justice I'm sure... but I don't think I've ever listened to an album without moving (I was sitting on my coffee table.) I can say it showed me how my system lacks mids. Damn, I just bought a 40" lcd... I guess I'm back to saving for some good towers. AVS you frustrate me to no end :-p

Where should I start a thread discussing use (or not) of a Center Front channel or derived "Center-Side" channels, etc...? I, for one, MUCH prefer a 'hard' center - and I HATE DVD-Audio discs where the front vocal is mixed into the surrounds too, to 'bring it into the room' - it just sounds, to me, like a bad, non-logic, SQ matrix decoder!

Right here is my guess.
Could be a lively debate, as there are definite strong feelings on this.
Personally, I think the centre channel should not be used just for isolated dry vocals - it leaves them almost naked & doesn't always sit right.
The way I prefer to mix is with the front 3 working with each other - with the Centre channel being used instead of the awful Phantom Centre so beloved by Stereoheads. For me, the problem is that the image will shift alarmingly with Phantom.

Having just said this, it is heavily dependant on the material. What works on one mix may well not sit right on another one, so the rule is - if it sounds right, it is right.
The main thing with 5.1 mixing is to get the basics right.
This means a properly calibrated mix station - set the electrical calibration first, then the levels. Get this right & the rest will flow nicely.
ANother thing to watch is monitoring levels. Most people get this badly wrong at first - I know I certainly did - as monitoring too loud will result in the vocals & top end being turned down too much & monitoring too quietly results in the bass being too muddy.
I find that after calibration, I tend to have the control room at around -20dBFS - not much above background. I will only crank it up when checking the bottom end - drums & bass groups - and to frighten A&R men or impress small children (did I get that the right way around? Never too sure what the right order is there). Seriously though, any fool can make anything sound good at 105dB on the Far Fields. It will sound like crap when you take it home though - ask anyone who has ever been disappointed with their mixes from a studio when it sounded banging in the CR, but thin & reedy (or muddy) when they got home.

The only other real "rules" are to treat all 5 channels as full range. Always use the same make & model of monitors too - and never - under any circumstances - mix with Bass Management turned in. You don't need it except to check how it will sound on consumer boom-box sub/satellite setups.
The LFE is just that - a Low Frequency Effect channel, not the primary bass carrier.

Right here is my guess.
Could be a lively debate, as there are definite strong feelings on this.
Personally, I think the centre channel should not be used just for isolated dry vocals - it leaves them almost naked & doesn't always sit right.
The way I prefer to mix is with the front 3 working with each other - with the Centre channel being used instead of the awful Phantom Centre so beloved by Stereoheads. For me, the problem is that the image will shift alarmingly with Phantom.

Having just said this, it is heavily dependant on the material. What works on one mix may well not sit right on another one, so the rule is - if it sounds right, it is right.
The main thing with 5.1 mixing is to get the basics right.
This means a properly calibrated mix station - set the electrical calibration first, then the levels. Get this right & the rest will flow nicely.
ANother thing to watch is monitoring levels. Most people get this badly wrong at first - I know I certainly did - as monitoring too loud will result in the vocals & top end being turned down too much & monitoring too quietly results in the bass being too muddy.
I find that after calibration, I tend to have the control room at around -20dBFS - not much above background. I will only crank it up when checking the bottom end - drums & bass groups - and to frighten A&R men or impress small children (did I get that the right way around? Never too sure what the right order is there). Seriously though, any fool can make anything sound good at 105dB on the Far Fields. It will sound like crap when you take it home though - ask anyone who has ever been disappointed with their mixes from a studio when it sounded banging in the CR, but thin & reedy (or muddy) when they got home.

The only other real "rules" are to treat all 5 channels as full range. Always use the same make & model of monitors too - and never - under any circumstances - mix with Bass Management turned in. You don't need it except to check how it will sound on consumer boom-box sub/satellite setups.
The LFE is just that - a Low Frequency Effect channel, not the primary bass carrier.

Now you're talking. If 5.1 remix engineers followed this form, there would be far fewer crappy surround mixes for those who want their 5.1 to be impressive and done well. I especially concur with the LFE part.

I also hate it when a remix guy "assumes" that the playback system will have "crappy rear speakers" and doesn't do anything back there because of this assumption.

I haven't really been following this multi-channel discussion, but, it really is not the focus of this thread, which is the DVD-A version of DSotM.

This thread is straddling the the line already due to the source of the content, so any more activity like the above - other than discussion of DSotM - will probably get the thread closed.

If you folks could start another thread and carry the MC discussion over there the rest of here would appreciate it.

Thanks.Agreed.

The MC pissing contest above isn't germane to the thread.Where should I start a thread discussing use (or not) of a Center Front channel or derived "Center-Side" channels, etc...?Right here is my guess.Now you're talking.
NO! Please take it elsewhere. If you have read the last few pages of the thread, this discussion became a bit contentious and IS NOT RELEVANT TO THIS THREAD.

Please start another thread topic in this forum if you want to discuss/debate this. This thread does NOT need to be shut down for an argument that is tangential (at best) to the DSoTM DVD-A. Thanks.

Ditto

NO! Please take it elsewhere. If you have read the last few pages of the thread, this discussion became a bit contentious and IS NOT RELEVANT TO THIS THREAD.Let me get this straight. If you want to discuss playing DSotM using 4.1 speakers, then that's OK in this thread. If I want to discuss suppressing the added .1/LFE channel in order to play back DSotM on a 4.0 set-up, then that's OK in this thread. But if anyone want to talk about playing back DSotM on more than 4 speakers, that discussion is so offensive to your sensibilities that it's not enough to simply ignore those posts, you actually want that information physically out of this thread so that no one can read it. This thread does NOT need to be shut down for an argument that is tangential (at best) to the DSoTM DVD-A.The discussion, about playing back DSotM on more than 4 speakers, has been civil and educational. It's certainly not tangential to those of us who don't subscribe to the 1 channel = 1 speaker mindset and want to scale DSotM to their speaker set-up. Why would a legitimate discussion like that cause this thread to be shut down?

Sanjay

Let me get this straight. If you want to discuss playing DSotM using 4.1 speakers, then that's OK in this thread. If I want to discuss suppressing the added .1/LFE channel in order to play back DSotM on a 4.0 set-up, then that's OK in this thread. But if anyone want to talk about playing back DSotM on more than 4 speakers, that discussion is so offensive to your sensibilities that it's not enough to simply ignore those posts, you actually want that information physically out of this thread so that no one can read it.No, sanjay. C'mon. Nothing has been said that offended my sensibilities. I never said I wanted any information out of the thread. But as was pointed out several posts back by several people, the discussion had drifted away from the DSoTM DVD-A and had also become contentious. Someone had even asked for a moderator. So, please, what was being discussed, which was not entirely relevant to this DVD-A alone, DESERVES it's own thread.

I haven't really been following this multi-channel discussion, but, it really is not the focus of this thread, which is the DVD-A version of DSotM.

This thread is straddling the the line already due to the source of the content, so any more activity like the above - other than discussion of DSotM - will probably get the thread closed.

If you folks could start another thread and carry the MC discussion over there the rest of here would appreciate it.

Thanks. :)Agreed.

The MC pissing contest above isn't germane to the thread.Is there a Moderator for this thread?I think you should listen to music and movies exactly how you please. That is ALL that is important. :)

I agree and apologize for my role in the discussion having drifted completely away from the original thread topic. :o

Those who know me know that this thread is very important to me. Let's not get it closed down, that would be tragic.




The discussion, about playing back DSotM on more than 4 speakers, has been civil and educational. It's certainly not tangential to those of us who don't subscribe to the 1 channel = 1 speaker mindset and want to scale DSotM to their speaker set-up. Why would a legitimate discussion like that cause this thread to be shut down?I don't really care how anyone listens to their media. That's a personal choice. I shut up when people became annoyed by the, yes, tangential discussion, and everything was fine until it was resurrected by Disclord who asked where he should "start a thread discussing use (or not) of a Center Front channel or derived "Center-Side" channels, etc...?" The answer is here in this forum. But the discussion of that general subject DESERVES its own separate thread.

+1

But the discussion of that general subject DESERVES its own separate thread.The reason the discussion has come up in this thread is because of the nature of the mix. Parsons starts from a mistaken belief that he can treat a quad mix like multiple stereo pairs, without compensating for the fact that we hear very differently up front than at our sides. Unfortunately, his symmetrical speaker layout, with the listener in the middle of a big "X", doesn't take our human hearing into account.

He's attempting to create phantom sidewall imaging between each front speaker and its respective surround speaker. But the problem is that our brain's ability to create phantom images is weakest directly at our sides, where we're primarily listening with one ear (the other ear is in acoustical shadow and not helping much with localization). So it's not unreasonable for some listeners to consider ways to stabilize lateral imaging. For example: extract mono information that is common to each front and surround channel, and then play it back from a speaker placed between them (at the side of the listener).

While it doesn't change where the sounds image, it does allow you to move your head or seating location without collapsing lateral imaging. So if Parsons wants a particular sound to image in between the front and surround speakers, it will always come from that location, no matter where you sit. Since it's no longer a phantom image, the localization is stable. Same applies to the centre of the front soundstage.

Keep in mind that this isn't a discussion we'd be having in a thread about Guthrie's 5.1 version of DSotM on SACD, which was mixed with speakers more to the sides than behind and uses a centre channel. Many of the points brought up by Disclord have to do with Parsons' mix on this recording, making them quite relevant to this thread. All that's being discussed is how to play back the DSotM DVD-A with greater imaging stability than 4 speakes allow. Nothing more sinister than that. You always have the option of ignoring those posts.

Sanjay

Where will it end... No, when will it end?

-t

It would FAR more useful to AVSForum readers interested in surround mixing practice and philosophy, to have a separate thread about that topic, rather than burying an interesting discussion about it in a thread about ONE PARTICULAR surround release.

The reason the discussion has come up in this thread is because of the nature of the mix. Parsons starts from a mistaken belief that he can treat a quad mix like multiple stereo pairs, without compensating for the fact that we hear very differently up front than at our sides. Unfortunately, his symmetrical speaker layout, with the listener in the middle of a big "X", doesn't take our human hearing into account.
...

Sanjay

Remember he was mixing for quad. So he had no center speaker to work with and therefore adopted the approach we hear. I think it would have been great had he been given the chance to mix the album again in 5.1. I think he would make different choices to take advantage of the added sound stage.

I guess he could have mixed a phantom center channel (applying the same audio to both front channels) but that perhaps wasn't the style of the time. The idea of quad at the time was to wow people - perhaps realism was of a secondary nature

Remember he was mixing for quad. So he had no center speaker to work with and therefore adopted the approach we hear.From what I've read about Parsons, he doesn't like to use a centre channel anyway, preferring instead to work with stereo pairs of channels. I don't think he needs to change his approach to mixing. The DSotM quad mix sounds really good to me just the way it is.

However, if he wants to have certain sounds image from the middle of the front soundstage or the middle of the side wall, I would prefer those sounds come from actual speakers at those locations rather than be reproduced as phantom images. But that should be handled as a playback option on my system, not something that Parsons needs to mix for (or even be aware of).

Sanjay

From what I've read about Parsons, he doesn't like to use a centre channel anyway, preferring instead to work with stereo pairs of channels. I don't think he needs to change his approach to mixing. The DSotM quad mix sounds really good to me just the way it is.

However, if he wants to have certain sounds image from the middle of the front soundstage or the middle of the side wall, I would prefer those sounds come from actual speakers at those locations rather than be reproduced as phantom images. But that should be handled as a playback option on my system, not something that Parsons needs to mix for (or even be aware of).

Sanjay

I just wish someone would make a decoder that derived these channels for us - right now, you gotta use a whole bunch of the cheap Circle Surround boxes or something like that to do it well - non-logic speaker feeds just don't work all that well.

I want a box that derives FLc and FRc so I could have 5 across the front, SLc and SRc for the sides, then the regular back (and Center Back) channels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10.2

Why would you want this "box"? From the link above:

Very few or no mixing consoles support the format.
No studio has adopted it as a release format.
No feature films have been mixed in it.

Why would you want this "box"? From the link above:

Very few or no mixing consoles support the format.
No studio has adopted it as a release format.
No feature films have been mixed in it.

Signals don't have to be specifically encoded to derive speaker feeds via a logic decoder.

To me the SACD is cleaner while the DVD-A MLP sounds a little fuller . I do not even like PF but this is some of the better 'rock' surround out there so I listen to it once in a while and demo it for friends .

--- Jason

I do not even like PF --- Jason

:eek:
Dang southern WA staters! J/K.
(near Seattle)

To me the SACD is cleaner while the DVD-A MLP sounds a little fuller . I do not even like PF but this is some of the better 'rock' surround out there so I listen to it once in a while and demo it for friends .

--- Jason

Don't even like them????

Blasphemy!!!!!!!
And to say that in a PF thread too!!
"What b***s he has Ladies and Gentlemen!":D

-t

Hehe , sorry ;) . It just irritates me that we don't have a better selection of music to pick from with DVD-A/SACD . I know the formats never really took off but for the luv of the rock gods can we please have a bit less jazz/classical and get some mainstream stuff . I mean did it ever occur to the powers that be that maybe the format(s) would have done better if there were a wider variety of 'popular' music available .

--- Jason

Like SACD Rap music??? Head to MusicDirect and check out their catalog of SACD and DVD-A titles. Yes, plenty of jazz and classical, but also plenty of Pop and Rock stuff. I think they show about 1,400 SACD titles there.

The trouble I've had with them is that few of them sound appreciably different compared to CD. Compared to the cost-difference, the quality improvement is incremental at best, in my opinion. That's one of the great things about this DVD-A ... it does a great job of showing what's possible.

Like SACD Rap music??? Head to MusicDirect and check out their catalog of SACD and DVD-A titles. Yes, plenty of jazz and classical, but also plenty of Pop and Rock stuff. I think they show about 1,400 SACD titles there.


Well I never mentioned Rap (and I would prefer some good rock) but there would be nothing wrong with it as it sells very well and both of these formats need all the sales help they can get .

My point was that there should have been more variety to entice consumers .

I have spent hours looking through releases and there is just so little to pick from that is not jazz/classical , yeah there is some pop/rock but let's be honest here ... the selection is pretty sad .

The DVD-A MLP of DSOTM sounds excellent but after you get used to hearing the SACD the DVD-A feels more like a live performance (even though it's studio) . Funny thing is I cannot decide which version I like better ;) .

--- Jason

The trouble I've had with them is that few of them sound appreciably different compared to CD. Compared to the cost-difference, the quality improvement is incremental at best, in my opinion. That's one of the great things about this DVD-A ... it does a great job of showing what's possible.The "trouble you've had" with what?

I wanted Madonna's stuff on DVD-Audio - Warner had a 5.1 mix of her album MUSIC prepared - in fact, most all of her stuff has been remixed in 5.1 because Madonna really likes the format - she even requested that her vocals during the end credits of the film "Dick Tracy" on the song MORE - be totally centered and not phantom'ed or bled to the other channels! She totally 'understands' the limitations of phantom center vocals and the comb-filtering that takes place. And most of Madonna's Warner concert releases (except for The Girlie Show, but DTS wasn't on DVD yet, and the film "I'm Going To Tell You A Secret") have had DTS because she likes the format better than AC-3 and requested the DVD's be DTS encoded - and Warner isn't really a 'fan' of DTS.

Cher's albums would have been great in 5.1 on DVD-A too. Another great thing - not messing up older quad recordings like Sony did with Bartok's Concerto For Orchestra 'surround sound spectacular' - that was a classic meant-for-quad recording that Sony destroyed on the multi-channel SACD - yet they kept the cover graphics, which showed the instrument's surround-sound positions in relation to the listener, intact!

There was too much 2-channel only stuff too - there were lots of European SACD releases I wanted, The Human League's DARE, for example, but lack of a surround sound version turned me off from buying them; and I don't feel that DSD via SACD is a format that is (was) good enough for 2-channel only considering the cost. DVD-Audio, with its transparent, better-than-we-will-ever-need, Linear PCM storage, yes, I'd pay a bit more even if it was only 2-channel, but not for SACD's flawed 1-bit format.

The "trouble you've had" with what?

I think that by 'them' he meant the high-res formats DVD-Audio and SACD.

The "trouble you've had" with what?

"What troubles me about them"

"My concern about them is"

"As long as we're wasting time chit-chatting in a discussion forum, allow me to relate an opinion about my experiences"

etc. etc. etc.

"What troubles me about them"

"My concern about them is"

"As long as we're wasting time chit-chatting in a discussion forum, allow me to relate an opinion about my experiences"

etc. etc. etc."What is THEM?" is what I am asking. SACDs? DVD-As? Both?

Yeah, I figured that out after I replied. :)
Jim Hef sneaked a response in there while I was typing mine.
Originally I intended to respond to DaGamePimp's comments.

But Disclord got it -- I meant the hi-def multi-channel formats in general.

Well I never mentioned Rap (and I would prefer some good rock) but there would be nothing wrong with it as it sells very well and both of these formats need all the sales help they can get .

My point was that there should have been more variety to entice consumers .

I have spent hours looking through releases and there is just so little to pick from that is not jazz/classical , yeah there is some pop/rock but let's be honest here ... the selection is pretty sad .

The DVD-A MLP of DSOTM sounds excellent but after you get used to hearing the SACD the DVD-A feels more like a live performance (even though it's studio) . Funny thing is I cannot decide which version I like better ;) .

--- Jason

Off topic but...
Have you checked out Porcupine Tree in DVD-A?
There's a thread on them around here somewhere....

-t

..

There was too much 2-channel only stuff too - there were lots of European SACD releases I wanted, The Human League's DARE, for example, but lack of a surround sound version turned me off from buying them; and I don't feel that DSD via SACD is a format that is (was) good enough for 2-channel only considering the cost. DVD-Audio, with its transparent, better-than-we-will-ever-need, Linear PCM storage, yes, I'd pay a bit more even if it was only 2-channel, but not for SACD's flawed 1-bit format.

I am particularly annoyed with the SACD titles I bought that are 2 channel only. Not so much the difference between the DSD format versus MLP but the fact that while DSD is better than CD quality, I bought into the MCH audio formats for surround sound. If a title is in 5.1 then I don't care if it's SACD or DVD-A - if I like the music I will get it.

As an aside looking at the current titles available, there seems to be more SACD out there (including 2 channel I guess) than DVD-A and lots more classical than pop as another poster has noted. Maybe pop is for the iPod generation while classical folks want better quality sound :)

Funny thing is I cannot decide which version I like better ;) .Why decide? I listen to both. For the first half, I prefer Guthrie's 5.1 mix. From 'Us and Them' forward, I prefer Parsons' quad mix.

Sanjay

I am particularly annoyed with the SACD titles I bought that are 2 channel only. Not so much the difference between the DSD format versus MLP but the fact that while DSD is better than CD quality, I bought into the MCH audio formats for surround sound. If a title is in 5.1 then I don't care if it's SACD or DVD-A - if I like the music I will get it.

As an aside looking at the current titles available, there seems to be more SACD out there (including 2 channel I guess) than DVD-A and lots more classical than pop as another poster has noted. Maybe pop is for the iPod generation while classical folks want better quality sound :)

That's the way I feel too - 5.1 is worth a little bit more - even 2-channel 24/96 DVD-A (or DVD) is - SACD 2-channel isn't. Of course, I mean 'real' 5.1 mixes, not the icky 'unwrapped' things that are slapped onto pop DVD's like "The Cure" video's or the Michael Jackson video's DVD.

I get annoyed reading in the pro magazines how good the various stereo-to-5.1 systems are and, from the results I've heard via commercial DVD releases (and playing around with some first-hand), I just can't agree - the Fosgate Tate 101A Surround mode synthesizes a much, much more believeable soundfield - in fact, I doubt that most people, without being told, would even know it was synthesized and wasn't a true surround mix. And certain albums, via the Tate DES synthesizer, like The Beatles Sgt. Pepper's..., are just jaw dropping in their surround quality and imaging - Sgt. Pepper's... sounds like a 'real' quad mix. I've never heard another decoder do a better job of synthesis - not even the Pro*Logic-II Music mode (which provides a maximum of 180 enhancement with the Panorama mode set to ON and Dimension control set to full back). The Fosgate 101A's Tate DES gives a full 360 sound field during Surround synthesis - if a 'stereo-up-front' with ambience from the back is desired, the SQ decoding mode provides it - since standard stereo mixes don't have signals with high-precision 90-degree phase shifts, primary sounds are never displaced to the surround speakers. The Cinema mode on the Tate still decodes in the SQ mode but phase-shifts anything at Center Back and diffuses it to create the effect of multiple speakers - like in the theater. So, it provides a great variety of effects to suit any program - with 2 channel music, I'm almost always using the Tate.

.., like The Beatles Sgt. Pepper's..., are just jaw dropping in their surround quality and imaging - Sgt. Pepper's... sounds like a 'real' quad mix...

But listening to the Love album and some of the Sgt Peppers tracks from that (albeit different mixes than were on the original album) just shows you what a real 5.1 mix could be like.

But listening to the Love album and some of the Sgt Peppers tracks from that (albeit different mixes than were on the original album) just shows you what a real 5.1 mix could be like.

Yes - you've made me want to cry because we aren't allowed to have them in 'real' 5.1!

I always hoped that ABBA would release their stuff remixed into 5.1 - I think it would particularly benefit from 5.1 - like Queen's music did. Honestly, I'm surprised that ABBA never had any quad releases back in the day - Benny and Bjorn are really 'into' technology and you'd think they would have wanted to get some quad stuff out there. ABBA's "Take A Chance On Me" just SCREAMS for a true surround mix!

Back in the day Starland Vocal Band (anyone remember them?) would have been a great candidate for Quad LP release. For the acapella "American Tune" I'd put each solo voice in a corner and spread the chorus between the channels.

I miss a time when this thread actually pertained to the DSOTM DVD-A.

Abba, the Anti-Pink Floyd

Anyway back to the thread,
I think the bass lacks depth on the SACD.

I am particularly annoyed with the SACD titles I bought that are 2 channel only. ..................I bought into the MCH audio formats for surround sound.Why'd you just drop this into the thread. This has been discussed ad nauseum in other threads, threads that I think you participated in, no?

That said, I strongly disagree. There is still a lot to be offered from 2-channel SACDs, depending upon which titles are being considered. I don't want to hear Coltrane or Monk in surround. I often CHOOSE to specifically listen to the 2-channel tracks of both my multichannel SACDs and my DVD-As (often with no sub, either). High resolution music is NOT all about the surround experience.

You say you "bought into the MCH formats for surround". They're not "the MCH formats". DD and DTS are also MCH formats. They are high resolution formats. I bought into the hirez formats for the improved SQ. I would have bought into the hirez formats even if it was ALL only 2-channel music. Many people, apparently, wouldn't have, and the record companies know this. So, expect surround music in the future, but don't expect it to be hirez.

Now, start a new thread if you want to discuss this.


I miss a time when this thread actually pertained to the DSOTM DVD-A.Yeah, I do too. But I must respond to posts such as that one, particularly because it WAS posted where it didn't belong.

Why'd you just drop this into the thread. This has been discussed ad nauseum in other threads, threads that I think you participated in, no?
.

I didn't drop it in. I was commenting on another post.

And to get back to the original thread. DVD-A DSOTM was the first multichannel title I heard and it was the impact of that which got me into upgrading the rest of the system to be able to take advantage of the format. And as an ancillary benefit I also gained the capability to listen to SACD.

As an aside, one could argue the ethics of this but since I own DSOTM on LP and CD I didn't feel the need to purchase the SACD also.

Anyway I guess (and this is perhaps where you have an issue), having experienced the great multi channel sound of DSOTM and a number of other titles, I was just somewhat disappointed to inadvertently purchase SACD's that are stereo only. While DSD is undeniably a great audio format, for me anyway it was multichannel sound that made me upgrade, not the potential superior sound quality.

Clearly that wasn't your entire reason and I guess like most things in AVS, we can agree to differ

Just to comment on what lchiu7 said about the Beatles "Love" 5.1 DVD-A.
I played the 5.1 mix and the regular cd mix it for my brother who has been a true audiophile for 35 years. I thought the 5.1 would have knocked him out.
To my amazement, he preferred the 2 channel mix more because he felt it had way better midrange and that the 5.1 mix sounded too processed.

Just to comment on what lchiu7 said about the Beatles "Love" 5.1 DVD-A.
I played the 5.1 mix and the regular cd mix it for my brother who has been a true audiophile for 35 years. I thought the 5.1 would have knocked him out.
To my amazement, he preferred the 2 channel mix more because he felt it had way better midrange and that the 5.1 mix sounded too processed.I've listened to all my multichannel discs enough to be over the initial surround sound "ooo, aahh". Sure, I still like it, but it's sorta like, "eh, big deal" now for me. What a good engineer can do with 2 channels is still where the magic is. Extra channels is "cheating". ;)

Just to comment on what lchiu7 said about the Beatles "Love" 5.1 DVD-A.
I played the 5.1 mix and the regular cd mix it for my brother who has been a true audiophile for 35 years. I thought the 5.1 would have knocked him out.
To my amazement, he preferred the 2 channel mix more because he felt it had way better midrange and that the 5.1 mix sounded too processed.

Was that the two channel MLP mix or the CD version? Putting aside the difference between 5.1 and 2 channel stereo, I would think somebody who has been a true audiophile for 35 years could hear the difference between CD Redbook audio and the 96/24 downmixed stereo version. Perhaps your brother doesn't like 5.1 but really appreciates the high res stereo?

Larry

I've listened to all my multichannel discs enough to be over the initial surround sound "ooo, aahh". Sure, I still like it, but it's sorta like, "eh, big deal" now for me. What a good engineer can do with 2 channels is still where the magic is. Extra channels is "cheating". ;)

Back to what this thread is supposed to be about....Parson's DSOTM quad shows the "magic" in multichannel mixes. Not all multichannel mixes are created equally. Like everything else, they range from great to terrible. The idea that it's somehow "cheating" in general to create an amazing mix like this one is discounting why this mix is so revered and the very reason this thread exists at all.

The idea that it's somehow "cheating" in general to create an amazing mix like this one is discounting why this mix is so revered and the very reason this thread exists at all.I did say it with some seriousness, but I ;)'d also.

Was that the two channel MLP mix or the CD version? Putting aside the difference between 5.1 and 2 channel stereo, I would think somebody who has been a true audiophile for 35 years could hear the difference between CD Redbook audio and the 96/24 downmixed stereo version. Perhaps your brother doesn't like 5.1 but really appreciates the high res stereo?
I don't know if he dislikes 5.1. I just remember him saying while listening to it that it sounded too processed. I was watching his face as he was listening and it had a troubled look (during some cuts) and he said it did not sound right. He mentioned a lack of midrange. I only played him the hi-res 5.1 mix and the regular cd mix.
Again, he preferred the regular cd. On the other hand, he said there were some cuts that were better than others in 5.1. I remember him saying that
"While My Guitar Gently Weeps" sounded fine. But I think it was because it had little processing done to it. That version was basically mono in the center channel with the orchestra around it.

Was that the two channel MLP mix or the CD version? Putting aside the difference between 5.1 and 2 channel stereo, I would think somebody who has been a true audiophile for 35 years could hear the difference between CD Redbook audio and the 96/24 downmixed stereo version. Perhaps your brother doesn't like 5.1 but really appreciates the high res stereo?

Larry

I don't know if he dislikes 5.1. I just remember him saying while listening to it that it sounded too processed. I was watching his face as he was listening and it had a troubled look (during some cuts) and he said it did not sound right. He mentioned a lack of midrange. I only played him the hi-res 5.1 mix and the regular cd mix.
Again, he preferred the regular cd. On the other hand, he said there were some cuts that were better than others in 5.1. I remember him saying that
"While My Guitar Gently Weeps" sounded fine. But I think it was because it had little processing done to it. That version was basically mono in the center channel with the orchestra around it.

I don't know if he dislikes 5.1. I just remember him saying while listening to it that it sounded too processed. I was watching his face as he was listening and it had a troubled look (during some cuts) and he said it did not sound right. He mentioned a lack of midrange. I only played him the hi-res 5.1 mix and the regular cd mix.
Again, he preferred the regular cd. On the other hand, he said there were some cuts that were better than others in 5.1. I remember him saying that
"While My Guitar Gently Weeps" sounded fine. But I think it was because it had little processing done to it. That version was basically mono in the center channel with the orchestra around it.

Interesting - the regular CD release (including the SACD layer) of DSOTM is heavily clipped in some places - the mastering engineer didn't know how to set levels for digital apparently!

Interesting - the regular CD release (including the SACD layer) of DSOTM is heavily clipped in some places - the mastering engineer didn't know how to set levels for digital apparently!

A review from an audiophile magazine:


For those wanting to compare the CD and SACD stereo layers to gain some insight into what DSD offers, things are more complicated. I used the new Philips DVD963SA with 192kHz upsampling on for the CD layer, and both the CD and SACD signals were sent out through the player's analog L/R jacks into a Lexicon MC12 in analog bypass mode, so as to not to "PCM" the DSD track that had now been converted back to analog.

I'd figured this would be a good way to see how lo-rez PCM stacks up to DSD, but I was stumped. The CD layer doesn't only sound less detailed and more congested than the SACD layer, as I've come to expect from these shoot-outs—it also sounds altered. The CD layer is clearly more forward than the SACD layer, and much louder than my original Harvest/EMI (Japan) CD. However, it also substantially cleans up the haze of the earlier CD release, adds impact to the bottom end, and breaks out the first two titles as separate tracks. And yes, you can still hear an orchestra faintly playing the Beatles' "Ticket to Ride" at the very end of the stereo SACD track, under the fading heartbeats, and to a lesser extent on the CD layer.

But as John Atkinson and others have found (see this issue's "As We See It"), it appears that, although they were likely sourced from the same analog tape, the new CD layer was processed differently during mastering from the stereo SACD layer. JA's graphs and analysis indicate that the CD layer was compressed and peak-limited a bit to make it sound more aggressive. Did they muck up the CD layer to make it sound inferior to the SACD, or were they just trying to make it "pop" more on CD-only systems and radio stations? Who knows?

For now, we'll have to assume that the wonderful-sounding SACD stereo tracks are the closest we'll ever get to the original two-channel master tape—unless you've got a decent vinyl setup. I also got hold of the new vinyl edition, mastered in February by Doug Sax and Kevin Gray at Chad Kassem's Acoustech Mastering. The new pressing easily gives the stereo SACD track a run for its digits.

If you count the various imports, anniversary editions, and audiophile pressings, DSotM has been reissued dozens of times. I've got six versions myself, and I'm sure most readers own at least one copy. Should you consider adding the new SACD/CD hybrid and/or vinyl as well? I recommend the hybrid for its brilliant multichannel mix and the two-channel SACD layer, but if you're analog-endowed, the new LP might be the ticket. Either way, Floyd fans will uncover new details and meaning in this landmark album from rock's college days.—

You say you "bought into the MCH formats for surround". They're not "the MCH formats". DD and DTS are also MCH formats. They are high resolution formats. I bought into the hirez formats for the improved SQ.

..which is not guaranteed.

It's all in the mastering, really. SACD does have a mastering spec that discourages clipping and extreme compression, but that could have (and should have been) implemented for CD too. DVD-A , like CD, has no such spec, and I have seen and heard DVD-As that have been compressed to a fare-thee-well (e.g.: Yes 'Fragile', Al Green "Greatest Hits")

I bought into SACD and DVD-A because they 1) offered surround mixes not available on other formats and 2) new remasterings, which may or may not be 'high quality'.

I've listened to all my multichannel discs enough to be over the initial surround sound "ooo, aahh". Sure, I still like it, but it's sorta like, "eh, big deal" now for me. What a good engineer can do with 2 channels is still where the magic is. Extra channels is "cheating". ;)


actually, as was shown back in the early part of the last century, to give the maximum available sense of 'realism' , extra channels are
a necessity -- both for rock-solid front-stage imaging, and to reproduce surround ambience *. Two-channel, for all its virtues, is inherently limited in this regard.

(* which of course isn't how mch is used in most pop/rock releases)

Interesting - the regular CD release (including the SACD layer) of DSOTM is heavily clipped in some places - the mastering engineer didn't know how to set levels for digital apparently!

I seriously doubt that's the reason.:rolleyes:

For now, we'll have to assume that the wonderful-sounding SACD stereo tracks are the closest we'll ever get to the original two-channel master tape—unless you've got a decent vinyl setup.

Typical audiophile myth-making. :rolleyes: COnsider just for a moment how many analog 'copying' steps take place during production of an LP, from master tape to final pressing in the store, then factor in the inacuracy of LP playback, and the claim collapses. The level of error-induced non-fidelity to the master tape is almost certainly higher than a decent CD mastering. (And for digital media it really is all in the mastering)

It's OK if vinylphiles love the 'special' sound their euphonically distorted LPs, but I'm soooo tired of reading claims like the above.

......................extra channels are a necessityapparently NOT :)

Typical audiophile myth-making. :rolleyes: COnsider just for a moment how many analog 'copying' steps take place during production of an LP, from master tape to final pressing in the store, then factor in the inacuracy of LP playback, and the claim collapses. The level of error-induced non-fidelity to the master tape is almost certainly higher than a decent CD mastering. (And for digital media it really is all in the mastering)

It's OK if vinylphiles love the 'special' sound their euphonically distorted LPs, but I'm soooo tired of reading claims like the above.


AMEN! LP is simply NOT an accurate medium - and even if it was for the first play, after 20 plays, it's not even close to the original anymore. The LP lovers talk about how "accurate" it is, but I have to ask "accurate to what?" Certainly not the original master tape, which is what we are trying to duplicate. Of course, the LP introduces all kinds of phase errors and I really think that's what they like - but it's not accurate in any sense of the term. LP served the world well for quite a long time and it has nothing to be ashamed of, but time and technology has passed it by. LP should be blamed though for getting us 'stuck' with two-channel reproduction - its inability to easily hold more than two channels is why 'stereo' for the public were limited to two channels - the vast majority of early experimenters with stereo recording recognized the need for more than two channels... RCA's recordings in the 50's that used 3-tracks across the front should have been the norm - they weren't recorded with the intention of mixing them down to two channels.. the LP just made that a requirement. Didn't Klipsch try to market a 'center channel' speaker at one point in the 50's?

It's interesting that LP lovers seemed to flock to SACD - itself another medium with inherent and non-fixable problems.

BTW, my comment about the engineer not setting the levels correctly on the 16-bit PCM DSOTM - it was meant to be flippant, not serious.

apparently NOT :)

For accuracy, it IS a necessity - phantom center reproduction creates comb-filtering (worst around 400 Hz if I remember correctly) that is simply inaccurate. A dedicated center with correct recording is more accurate in fidelity and is required for the highest-fi. Also, localizing a phantom center image is a totally 'learned' response - a lot of people can't do it. True accuracy in reproduction wouldn't require 'learning' how to hear something correctly.

As I said in the previous post, two channel was standardized for stereo only because the mass-market audio carrier of the time, the LP, couldn't hold anything more - not because it was in any way superior to 3 or 4 channel... two-channel was "adequate" with the limitations imposed upon stereo.

................it IS a necessity

As I said in the previous post, two channel was standardized for stereo only because the mass-market audio carrier of the time, the LP, couldn't hold anything more - not because it was in any way superior to 3 or 4 channel... two-channel was "adequate" with the limitations imposed upon stereo.A necessity, huh? Why do most people still listen to their music in stereo? Why have almost all the new recordings in the last 10 years been stereo recordings and why are any new recordings being made today, still, stereo recordings?

It has nothing to do with the mass-market anymore. If multichannel music was significantly better, people would want it, and the market would provide it. DVD-A and SACD have been failures. Very few artists record specifically for ANY multichannel formats and, unfortunately, we won't see that changing anytime soon.

A necessity, huh? Why do most people still listen to their music in stereo? Why have almost all the new recordings in the last 10 years been stereo recordings and why are any new recordings being made today, still, stereo recordings?

It has nothing to do with the mass-market anymore. If multichannel music was significantly better, people would want it, and the market would provide it. DVD-A and SACD have been failures. Very few artists record specifically for ANY multichannel formats and, unfortunately, we won't see that changing anytime soon.

I mean a necessity for the most accurate reproduction - not convienece or anything like that. Heck, most people don't even set up a 2-channel system correctly and that is a necessity. People simply don't 'sit still' to listen to music anymore - that's why the formats failed - if it's not portable and easily transfered to other mediums, like iPod's and such, it's not gonna go over well - I think that's the reality of today's market, not accuracy anymore.

If multichannel music was significantly better, people would want it, and the market would provide it.

Multichannel music is significantly better. Since when do marketers know about anything but $$$$. Put it away already.

apparently NOT :)

If you have to snip away all the context to make your point seem credible, the point probably wasn't worth making.

A necessity, huh?

STOP QUOTING OUT OF CONTEXT. It's intellectually dishonest and does you no credit.

I didn't write that multichannel was 'a necessity' for enjoyment of home audio -- decades of two-channel consumer audio would render that claim laughable.

HERE is what I wrote (emphasis added):

"As was shown back in the early part of the last century, to give the maximum available sense of 'realism' , extra channels are a necessity -- both for rock-solid front-stage imaging, and to reproduce surround ambience *. Two-channel, for all its virtues, is inherently limited in this regard."

It has nothing to do with the mass-market anymore. If multichannel music was significantly better, people would want it, and the market would provide it. DVD-A and SACD have been failures.

Sound is one factor; convenience is another. Have you noticed that downloaded music is eating into the CD market share? Is that because mp3s are significantly better *sounding*?

Multichannel is much less convenient than stereo -- 5/6 speakers instead of two, lower WAF, new AVR setup routines to learn. SACD/DVD-A add further inconvenience by requiring new players (and , inititally requiring analog -only setup). But multichannel is *demonstrably* better at 'realism' -- assuming the surrounds are used for ambience, and not panning. So please stop confusing various arguments. When surround channels are used for panning, multichannel is objectively neither better nor worse than stereo...it's just different. (Three-channel with a LCR, is superior to two-channel for reasons cited, and that's been known since the days of Fletcher and Munson)

Nor am I claiming AT ALL that SACD or DVD-A are necessarily better-sounding than other mch formats. Far from it; I have never drunk the 'hi rez' kool-aid. Again, the important thing about the new formats, to me, was that they offered mch at all (and also the chance of a better mastering). I would wager that most people could not tell the same tracks apart, if mastered identically in DTS 24/96 vs DVD-A or SACD. I'd would be (and have been) happy to purchase mch mixes that aren't in either of the doomed 'hi rez' formats (e.g., most of Bjork's catalog).

Lastly, you claim the market hasn't embraced multichannel; yet virtually every DVD video offered these days includes multichannel mixes. Home theater is the only real growth area of hardware-based consumer home audio. Where the industry has fallen down in in multichannel music-only releases. Doubtless an important factor in this failure was the introduction of two new, incompatible, and inconvenient formats, rather than riding the home theater wave and exploiting the DTS and DD decoders already present in HT listeners' setups. (Yes, DVD-A included DTS or DD versions, but the message was diluted by the product).

you people really need to chill out

Ah, the old, "Hmm, I got caught making a straw man, and my defense tanked -- time to accuse the other side of taking it all too seriously". An Internet classic, that.

I'll assume you were having a bad day instead, OK? ;)

STOP QUOTING OUT OF CONTEXT. It's intellectually dishonest and does you no credit.

I didn't write that multichannel was 'a necessity' for enjoyment of home audio -- decades of two-channel consumer audio would render that claim laughable.

HERE is what I wrote (emphasis added):

"As was shown back in the early part of the last century, to give the maximum available sense of 'realism' , extra channels are a necessity -- both for rock-solid front-stage imaging, and to reproduce surround ambience *. Two-channel, for all its virtues, is inherently limited in this regard."



Sound is one factor; convenience is another. Have you noticed that downloaded music is eating into the CD market share? Is that because mp3s are significantly better *sounding*?

Multichannel is much less convenient than stereo -- 5/6 speakers instead of two, lower WAF, new AVR setup routines to learn. SACD/DVD-A add further inconvenience by requiring new players (and , inititally requiring analog -only setup). But multichannel is *demonstrably* better at 'realism' -- assuming the surrounds are used for ambience, and not panning. So please stop confusing various arguments. When surround channels are used for panning, multichannel is objectively neither better nor worse than stereo...it's just different. (Three-channel with a LCR, is superior to two-channel for reasons cited, and that's been known since the days of Fletcher and Munson)

Nor am I claiming AT ALL that SACD or DVD-A are necessarily better-sounding than other mch formats. Far from it; I have never drunk the 'hi rez' kool-aid. Again, the important thing about the new formats, to me, was that they offered mch at all (and also the chance of a better mastering). I would wager that most people could not tell the same tracks apart, if mastered identically in DTS 24/96 vs DVD-A or SACD. I'd would be (and have been) happy to purchase mch mixes that aren't in either of the doomed 'hi rez' formats (e.g., most of Bjork's catalog).

Lastly, you claim the market hasn't embraced multichannel; yet virtually every DVD video offered these days includes multichannel mixes. Home theater is the only real growth area of hardware-based consumer home audio. Where the industry has fallen down in in multichannel music-only releases. Doubtless an important factor in this failure was the introduction of two new, incompatible, and inconvenient formats, rather than riding the home theater wave and exploiting the DTS and DD decoders already present in HT listeners' setups. (Yes, DVD-A included DTS or DD versions, but the message was diluted by the product).

I also believe that while full 'surround' mixes are certainly not 'accurate' to any real-life situation, unless you were surrounded by musicians or something like some antiphonal classical works where organs are in each corner of a cathedral, it opens up a level of artistic creativity that simply can't be matched by two channel reproduction - and that it is more involving and 'stimulating' to listen to - I really think the human brain LOVES complex soundfields (NOT confused soundfields where the cues are so messed up as to make it hard to localize stuff). An "opening up" takes place that allows one to hear individual instruments better - their tonal and musical qualities, not volume or placement in the mix - and helps the brain to better 'hear past' the limitations of the recording technology. The more, correctly derived, speaker feeds you have, the more the limitations of the recording seem to fade away.

I don't know if I'm getting this across clearly because I've never really read anything about this in print and I have no technical sources to back me up - it's basically my conclusions from listening to a hell of a lot of surround sound since 1984 and talking to others who were or are 'into' surround sound for years and years, like the late Brad Miller, Bill Sommerwerck and others.

Ah, the old, "Hmm, I got caught making a straw man, and my defense tanked -- time to accuse the other side of taking it all too seriously". An Internet classic, that.

I'll assume you were having a bad day instead, OK? ;)

At least we all seem to be enjoying ourselves - I haven't found many people here on AVS Forum that I don't like chatting with, even if they don't agree with me. That was NOT the case back in the mid 1990's when I was on the alt.video.laserdisc newgroups - there was one poster who was the most ignorant thing and, Lord help me, I simply couldn't tolerate him - nor could I ignore him - in misunderstandings of what people wrote, selective quoting, quoting out of context, etc... just pushed every 'button' I had and I would go after him with wild abandon - my boss at DTS at the time would tell me to back off and I would try - then he'd set me off again and BAM! I'd take the bait and go after him! UGH! He was a pro-dts person, totally anti-Dolby and felt that Widescreen Review/Gary Reber could do wrong - that he, personally, was not subject to unconscious bias and even if he was, he could control it - yadda, yadda, yadda. And the thing was, he WASN'T a troll! He was dead serious. I wish I could remember his name.

There was another guy like that on one of the audio newgroups - Steve Zisper, I think his name was - he was a high-end audio dealer and just the foulest, ugliest personality you could ever encounter. After going back and forth with him on the newsgroup I would actually feel 'dirty' sometimes. Then, with no warning, he dropped dead. Kinda sad too because absolutely no one mourned him - he was THAT nasty of a person. Writer Tom Nousaine had the worst run-in with him via an ABX double-blind test that Steve failed miserably.

Steve Zipser was his name. The tale of his DBT with Tom Nousaine and Steve Maki...and Zip's attempts to rewrite history afterwards -- is infamous in certain online audio circles.

Steve Zipser was his name. The tale of his DBT with Tom Nousaine and Steve Maki...and Zip's attempts to rewrite history afterwards -- is infamous in certain online audio circles.

Glad you remember it! That evil man drove me crazy - he was so damn nasty to me on rec.audio.high-end. And he wouldn't leave it to the newsgroups - no, he would email my AOL account and when I blocked his email he knew I worked for DTS so he contacted them to DEMAND that I take his emails... Oh, how I hated that man. I would try to be nice and have reasoned arguments - he'd write back with personal attacks and look up my other posts on other NG's and quote something I wrote - taking it out of context, of course - to try and make it look like I either didn't know what I was talking about or that I was telling people different things depending on my mood. GRRRRR. J.J. Johnson seemed to always deal with Zip well - do you know who he is? And if so, is he still around? He emailed me so much good info on perceptual coding and helped me to really understand it.

J.J. Johnson seemed to always deal with Zip well - do you know who he is?The father of perceptual coding and one of the inventors of MP3 and AAC. He also designed the room correction system in the Windows Vista media centre. And if so, is he still around?Still around...

http://home.comcast.net/~retired_old_jj/

...and posting here at AVS:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/search.php?searchid=9341720

Sanjay

AMEN! LP is simply NOT an accurate medium - and even if it was for the first play, after 20 plays, it's not even close to the original anymore. The LP lovers talk about how "accurate" it is, but I have to ask "accurate to what?" Certainly not the original master tape, which is what we are trying to duplicate. Of course, the LP introduces all kinds of phase errors and I really think that's what they like - but it's not accurate in any sense of the term. LP served the world well for quite a long time and it has nothing to be ashamed of, but time and technology has passed it by. LP should be blamed though for getting us 'stuck' with two-channel reproduction - its inability to easily hold more than two channels is why 'stereo' for the public were limited to two channels - the vast majority of early experimenters with stereo recording recognized the need for more than two channels... RCA's recordings in the 50's that used 3-tracks across the front should have been the norm - they weren't recorded with the intention of mixing them down to two channels.. the LP just made that a requirement. Didn't Klipsch try to market a 'center channel' speaker at one point in the 50's?

It's interesting that LP lovers seemed to flock to SACD - itself another medium with inherent and non-fixable problems.

BTW, my comment about the engineer not setting the levels correctly on the 16-bit PCM DSOTM - it was meant to be flippant, not serious.

Vinyl has far less dynamic range & a much lower S/N ratio than even the humble CD has. This is a fact, and no amount of banging on from the vinyl fans will ever change this.
Also, as pointed out above, vinyl degrades with every play.
What I honestly believe vinyl fans like over CD is the way the things are mastered. With Vinyl, the ridiculous amount of overcompression & savage brickwall limiting simply cannot be done - you would burn out the cutting head, and even if you could cut the record it would never track.
CD generally sounds like **** because it is brutally overcompressed with crap like Waves L2 & TC Finalizers. How can you even begin to trust a system that claims - in it's own preset for "High Resolution CD Master" to trim -5dB from the transients & add +5dB to the overall levels?
That is a change of 10dB in the dynamics. Most vinyl is not any hotter than around - at most - -18dBFS equivalent. Yet modern CD are slammed to around -5dB. You cannot do this & seriously expect to preserve quality. You rip these files & you end up with a waveform that looks like toothpaste on a brush. Certainly no dynamics left in the mix at all, and now we have a mess on our hands.

DVD-A/SACD failed in the main because of the greed of Sony.
They own DVD-A patents, yet because they wanted to own the entire format
they crashed into production a fundamentally flawed system (DSD) that was never meant to be a playable format - it was designed as an Archival medium - by adding the heroic noise shaping required to make it even close to listenable. Result? Confusion, wars, and rows between labels.
Sony refuse to handle DVD-A, Warners refused to handle SACD. Result was titles were completed and never released. Thank you Sony.

Phantom Centre is a shocking compromise. 3-stereo is far superior.

DVD-A/SACD failed in the main because of the greed of Sony.
They own DVD-A patents, yet because they wanted to own the entire format
they crashed into production a fundamentally flawed system (DSD) that was never meant to be a playable format - it was designed as an Archival medium - by adding the heroic noise shaping required to make it even close to listenable. Result? Confusion, wars, and rows between labels.
Sony refuse to handle DVD-A, Warners refused to handle SACD. Result was titles were completed and never released. Thank you Sony.

It's good to see a post like this. Some days I feel like I'm the only person on AVS who wouldn't trust Sony as far as I could throw them. (Whatever that means, in the context of a giant corporation.)

The father of perceptual coding and one of the inventors of MP3 and AAC. He also designed the room correction system in the Windows Vista media centre. Still around...

http://home.comcast.net/~retired_old_jj/ (http://home.comcast.net/%7Eretired_old_jj/)

...and posting here at AVS:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/search.php?searchid=9341720

Sanjay

Thanks for the link to his info! He is absolutely brilliant in both his knowledge and in his ability to communicate with others - If I posted something that was wrong, he would correct my mistake without making me feel like an idiot or embarrassed.

The AVS link you listed doesn't work though - what's his AVS name so I can do a search for his posts?

It's good to see a post like this. Some days I feel like I'm the only person on AVS who wouldn't trust Sony as far as I could throw them. (Whatever that means, in the context of a giant corporation.)

Although Sony is a Japanese company, they have never been "Japanese" in their way of doing business and getting along well with others... they are the Beetlejuice of Japanese electronics companies! They never seem to learn from their mistakes either - other companies, like JVC, have always been humble in offering their technology as proposed standards - they're willing to compromise where necessary as they know, in the long term, what's good for the industry is good for them. Sony has never learned this and I don't think they ever will.

Back in the 70's and early 80's even though Sony did things their own way you could always count on them to make an excellently built and engineered product and to take care of the end customer - they would always do the 'right' thing when it came to customer service. Not anymore. Their quality and engineering is sometimes shockingly low and their regard for the consumer is non-existent.

Back in the 1970's, when Sony made the decision to make Betamax a 2-hour machine, they developed the Betastack changer as a 'sorry about that' for their initial Betamax X1 customers - and, they let them have the Betastack unit for, initially $50 and then, later, gave it to them outright for free. I can't even imagine the Sony of today doing something like that.

Also, localizing a phantom center image is a totally 'learned' response - a lot of people can't do it. True accuracy in reproduction wouldn't require 'learning' how to hear something correctly.Summing localization has been well characterized in humans.

http://www.moultonlabs.com/more/principles_of_multitrack_mixing_the_phantom_image/P2/
"Delays have a very powerful impact on the phantom’s location, and we can exert some rather powerful control (much more so than with a pan-pot) over where the phantom is localized and the stability of that localization (the phantom doesn’t even have to be between the speakers - a fact which has led to the development of systems like Q-Sound and the Roland RSS space simulator!)"

Bolded text is for Sanjay:)

Bolded text is for SanjayDid you want me to translate those specific words so you could comprehend them?

Sanjay

what's his AVS name so I can do a search for his posts?He posts under the handle jj_0001 (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/member.php?u=7641556).

Sanjay

Glad you remember it! That evil man drove me crazy - he was so damn nasty to me on rec.audio.high-end.

I doubt it was r.a.h-e. That's a moderated forum. I don't recall Zipser ever being allowed to post there while I've been reading it (years now). I suspect it was rec.audio.opinion instead, where Zipser flourished along with a hard core of similar a-holes.

Did you want me to translate those specific words No.. just revisiting your earlier confusing regarding i.e. a "middle of the soundfield" concept you seem to have great difficulty grasping.
With film, you have focused panning, where panning to the center sends the sound to the center channel rather than to the middle of the soundfield

Bobby Owsinski
Sanjay for pages and pages on this subject you repeatedly suggested simply that sending content to the center channel was the same as perceptually placing it in the middle of the soundfield. Looks like Roland engineered a device to prove your conjecture false.

Vinyl has far less dynamic range & a much lower S/N ratio than even the humble CD has. This is a fact, and no amount of banging on from the vinyl fans will ever change this.
Also, as pointed out above, vinyl degrades with every play.
What I honestly believe vinyl fans like over CD is the way the things are mastered.

That may be a factor now, but vinylphiles were touting the magical properties of LP sound over CDs almost since the beginning of CD. That's long before the 'loudness war' began. If they didn't have overcompression to blame, it would be 'inadequate sample rates' or 'digital coldness' or another chimera. (The only legit beef they had was that non-master, LP production source tapes were being used...but then again, that should have resulted in CDs that sounded mainly like LPs!)


CD generally sounds like **** because it is brutally overcompressed with crap like Waves L2 & TC Finalizers. How can you even begin to trust a system that claims - in it's own preset for "High Resolution CD Master" to trim -5dB from the transients & add +5dB to the overall levels?

That's just sick. Is that the Finalizer or the L2?


DVD-A/SACD failed in the main because of the greed of Sony.
They own DVD-A patents, yet because they wanted to own the entire format
they crashed into production a fundamentally flawed system (DSD) that was never meant to be a playable format - it was designed as an Archival medium - by adding the heroic noise shaping required to make it even close to listenable. Result? Confusion, wars, and rows between labels.
Sony refuse to handle DVD-A, Warners refused to handle SACD. Result was titles were completed and never released. Thank you Sony.

One can hope that eventually, with some transcoding to more commercially viable formats, these 'unpublished' mch mixes will see light of day.


Phantom Centre is a shocking compromise. 3-stereo is far superior.

I've known people to forego a center because they just don't like staring at a speaker when they listen. That's the market that mch has to work with. Audio quality is often not the overriding concern.

Anyway, nice to see you here as well as quadquad, neil.

I suspect it was rec.audio.opinion instead, where Zipser flourished along with a hard core of similar a-holes.I was rec.audio.opinion. In fact, below is the famous thread (see fifth post for the Zipser/Nousaine event). After all these years, still a good read:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/browse_thread/thread/664b8681ab141263/3fd91bcb6a1522a0?hl=enfd91bcb6a1522a0

Sanjay

No.. just revisiting your earlier confusing regarding i.e. a "middle of the soundfield" concept you seem to have great difficulty grasping.You kept saying I was wrong but could never provide a correct answer. I continue to ask: what is the "middle of the soundfield"? Can you describe the location in your own words? Sanjay for pages and pages on this subject you repeatedly suggested simply that sending content to the center channel was the same as perceptually placing it in the middle of the soundfield. Looks like Roland engineered a device to prove your conjecture false.How does the RSS device prove me wrong?

Sanjay

Can you describe the location in your own words?No need, we have experts in the industry that have "real world" experience mixing different paradigms.

"With film, you have focused panning, where panning to the center sends the sound to the center channel rather than to the middle of the soundfield. That usually doesn’t work too well for music, which usually requires divergence panning to do what most mixers want to do. Film-style placement of the surrounds doesn’t lend itself very well to music either. After all, they’re restricted by the screen and we aren’t. We don’t mix music in stereo using film techniques so why should we do that in surround?"


Bobby Owsinski

I doubt it was r.a.h-e. That's a moderated forum. I don't recall Zipser ever being allowed to post there while I've been reading it (years now). I suspect it was rec.audio.opinion instead, where Zipser flourished along with a hard core of similar a-holes.

You are 100% correct - I had totally spaced off the R.A.O group and lumped it into R.A.H-E in my memories. Thanks for correcting that. It's amazing how fake most of our memories are - I recall reading a study that showed that around 80% of our memories are false or distorted in some way. And about 10% are outright wrong and didn't even happen! Other studies have pretty much confirmed those figures. Or is my memory playing tricks on me about those studies and I didn't really read anything like that at all but just 'think' I did???

I was rec.audio.opinion. In fact, below is the famous thread (see fifth post for the Zipser/Nousaine event). After all these years, still a good read:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/browse_thread/thread/664b8681ab141263/3fd91bcb6a1522a0?hl=enfd91bcb6a1522a0 (http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/browse_thread/thread/664b8681ab141263/3fd91bcb6a1522a0?hl=en%03fd91bcb6a1522a0)

Sanjay

Thanks for the link! Have you read Tom's letter in The Audio Critic about it too? SOOOOO funny!

Does Tom post on AVS or anywhere else now? If so, do you know screen names and links? Back in the 90's Tom was going to be my sponsor for AES membership but I got sick and was hospitalized and never got around to doing it. This month, like a dummy, I forgot to renew my IEEE membership... gotta remember to do that!

No need...Translation: you cannot actually give me the location of the "middle of the soundfield". Same as always: you claim I'm wrong but there's "no need" to give me the right answer. How convenient. Now that that's been established for all to see, let me know when you can describe where the middle of the soundfield is.

Sanjay

First Sanjay is appears you need to look up the word (adjective) 'middle' in a dictionary! After you have done this, apply this adjective to a virtual slice of 3D space...the middle of a soundfield is its approximate center:)

LOL, I like you sanjay, but I have to call "BS" here. Are you proposing that a "middle" speaker would be "useful" along each of the 4 walls when listening to a true quad mix? Garbage. ;)That is a fact! Contriving a center channel would destroy the very complex perceptual soundfield Alan Parsons engineered.

the middle of a soundfield is its approximate centerAnd centre speakers located between stereo pairs can't project sound into the centre of the soundfield? Contriving a center channel would destroy the very complex perceptual soundfield Alan Parsons engineered.How would it destroy the soundfield?

Sanjay

LOL, I like you sanjay, but I have to call "BS" here. Are you proposing that a "middle" speaker would be "useful" along each of the 4 walls when listening to a true quad mix? Garbage. ;)That is a fact! Contriving a center channel would destroy the very complex perceptual soundfield Alan Parsons engineered.How would it destroy the soundfield?
Maaan............... c'mon. Don't bring me back in here! :eek: :p :D

"Just when I thought I was out...they pull me back in" -- Michael Corleone

I'll take the Monet over the photograph.

This thread has gone way OT. And to think it was very quiet for a while.

Out of interest how many folks on this thread have played DSOTM for their friends and they have been wowed? I have played it for a few friends, all of whom are wowed and one upgraded his system to play DVD-A and SACD. He already had a HT system but just using optical but since his player was DVD-A and SACD capable, once I gave him a copy and he played it on his system, he was motivated to upgrade.

Have also burnt a few copies for anonymous folks on AVS who had problems downloading them and have charged nothing for the favour. All the responses I have received from those folks when they play it, has been very enthusiastic.

I've played it for quite a few people.

I have to admit that while the response was always positive, it didn't appear to have the same huge impact that it did for me. This includes several friends who were every bit as much a Floyd fan as I was back in the day. I'm not really sure why that might be.

I've helped numerous people with the BT process, but I've steered clear of actually making copies available. It's really a shame that you can't simply run down to the store and pick up a copy of this (or more accurately, go to a website and have the FedEx guy bring it to you... who goes to stores any more? LOL).

This thread has gone way OT.

But all this OT back-and-forth is SO riveting...

This is weird, my old amplifier blew up awhile back, so I swapped in a spare Pioneer VSX-517 I had in another room. Normally it's a pretty good amp, but after reading this thread this morning, I decided to throw the disc in, as I hadn't listened to it in quite awhile.

For some reason the MPL version comes out in two-channel, but the DD and DTS versions still come through in surround. My player is an Oppo 970HD.

Hmm... as I typed that, now that I think about it, I half-remember that maybe I had to change a setting on the Oppo to get MPL to play 4.1...

(In my opinion, more than anything else, THIS is the kind of nonsense that creates a high entry barrier for the average consumer...)

People I've played it for have been wowed by it - and not just the quad mix but the music too - even my parents have liked the music and my mom is 81 and my dad 78! Dark Side is, on all levels, a truly brilliant piece of work.

In terms of the quad mix those I have played it for had never really heard discrete multichannel music except in movies and via Pro-Logic II so they were amazed at how much it improved their listening experience. I've played the SACD mix too and none of them have preferred it - all expressed the opinion that it sounded like a good mix played through Pro-Logic II or similar matrix surround circuit - but the Parsons' mix really grabbed them - the usual response was "Why isn't everything done like this? Why don't they make recordings available like this now?" This has lead me to play stuff like the Queen DVD-A's and the Greatest Hit's mixes - and when I tell them DVD-A is dead, disappointment is the reaction. See, these are people who have a 'home theater' set up but do NOT actively participate in the hobby - they learn about technology from Best Buy or stuff they might catch on CNN or something. And we all know how well Best Buy did with promoting multichannel high-rez audio - and mainstream press reports were basically "there are two formats, don't buy either" or "DVD-A and SACD are for audiophiles - if you don't have a five thousand dollar system you won't hear a difference." or "You can't burn your DVD-Audio or SACD's to iPod because they have six channels." All stuff that turned people off from even investigating the technology or releases... and if they did happen to stumble across the DVD-A/SACD section at Best Buy, what would they find? Junk like Frampton Comes Alive for $24! Not stuff with the kind of prices that make a 'regular' person rush to the cash register.

So, anyway - people have LOVED Dark Side in quad on the DVD-A. I demo it for pretty much everyone who comes around. All want to know where to go to buy it - I end up making copies for them since there is no other way to get it. Too bad it didn't get an 'official' release - I really think it would still be selling well and leave the SACD sales in the dust since everyone with a DVD player could play it in full discrete surround, unlike the SACD where you are limited to clipped and normalized stereo from the CD layer.

I want a copy of the Mobile Fidelity digital Dark Side that was released on VHS and Beta in the Sony PCM-F1 VTR-adapter format. I've never found anyone with a copy so they could make me a copy. One-generation or so on the VTR-based formats typically worked well I've heard. I wonder how it would survive MPEG-2 on DVD-R?

For some reason the MPL version comes out in two-channel, but the DD and DTS versions still come through in surround. My player is an Oppo 970HD.

Hmm... as I typed that, now that I think about it, I half-remember that maybe I had to change a setting on the Oppo to get MPL to play 4.1...IIRC, the OPPO has "issues" playing the multichannel hirez tracks of this disc properly. I think there is some discussion here in this thread several pages back regarding this.

What sort of connection are you using for the MLP? And the DD/DTS?

- but the Parsons' mix really grabbed them - the usual response was "Why isn't everything done like this? Why don't they make recordings available like this now?" This has lead me to play stuff like the Queen DVD-A's and the Greatest Hit's mixes - and when I tell them DVD-A is dead, disappointment is the reaction. See, these are people who have a 'home theater' set up but do NOT actively participate in the hobby - Even though it is too late, now, to stimulate the hirez market, you should emphasize to them that they can still enjoy the surround music on DVD-As without a hirez player.

IIRC, the OPPO has "issues" playing the multichannel hirez tracks of this disc properly. I think there is some discussion here in this thread several pages back regarding this.

What sort of connection are you using for the MLP? And the DD/DTS?

I've played the MPL version before with this same Oppo, only the receiver has changed (and maybe Oppo settings, that's the part I don't recall). Really all I did was swap all the plugs over from my old receiver -- the Oppo is connected to both the digital and analog surround inputs, as it was previously. The receiver was just set to auto-select the surround format (it picks digital if a signal is coming through, otherwise it goes to analog). Since it's hidden away in a dedicated AV closet, I didn't look to see what inputs it picked (my wife is watching a DVD right now, so I can't load it up and check).

IIRC, the OPPO has "issues" playing the multichannel hirez tracks of this disc properly. I think there is some discussion here in this thread several pages back regarding this.


AFAIK, the DVD-A mch version can only be passed digitally from the HDMI connection of the Oppo (though actually I've never attempted to pass it via toslink or coax). As with all hirez discs played on Oppos via HDMI, the Oppos HDMI resolution needs to be set to 720 or above to allow enough bandwidth for all channels of hirez multichannel to 'come through'. That will fix the poster's problem. All it takes is a button press on the remote.

The only other issue would be the common LFE bug during mch PCM playback, which can be compensated for separately in the Oppo using its channel level 'sliders'.

With these taken care of, playback of this disc on my Oppo 970 has been flawless.

This thread has gone way OT. And to think it was very quiet for a while.

Out of interest how many folks on this thread have played DSOTM for their friends and they have been wowed? I have played it for a few friends, all of whom are wowed and one upgraded his system to play DVD-A and SACD. He already had a HT system but just using optical but since his player was DVD-A and SACD capable, once I gave him a copy and he played it on his system, he was motivated to upgrade.

I've played it for a few and they liked it. They liked it even better when I told them they didn't need to buy a new player -- they could just play the DTS 24/96 versionon the disc, which sounds essentially identical to the DVD-A version (once LFE level was matched)

AFAIK, the DVD-A mch version can only be passed digitally from the HDMI connection of the Oppo (though actually I've never attempted to pass it via toslink or coax). As with all hirez discs played on Oppos via HDMI, the Oppos HDMI resolution needs to be set to 720 or above to allow enough bandwidth for all channels of hirez multichannel to 'come through'. That will fix the poster's problem. All it takes is a button press on the remote.

The only other issue would be the common LFE bug during mch PCM playback, which can be compensated for separately in the Oppo using its channel level 'sliders'.

With these taken care of, playback of this disc on my Oppo 970 has been flawless.I've seen some discussion within this thread (I think) about an OPPO player not playing back the multichannel MLP tracks of this disc correctly. This may have been when utilizing a multichannel analog connection. Yes, it seemed weird to me, too, but several people were reporting/confirming this issue.

It can't be that it only works over HDMI -- I don't even own an HDMI cable. All my HD video runs over component (some of my cable runs are over 100 feet, where HDMI won't cut it). My digital out runs through a switcher to TOSlink (the switcher uses TOSlink or coax interchangeably), and then to the amp via TOSlink.

Even though it is too late, now, to stimulate the hirez market, you should emphasize to them that they can still enjoy the surround music on DVD-As without a hirez player.

Since my demo of Dark Side and other discs, one person has bought the DVD-A of Fleetwood Mac Rumors and bought my extra copies of the DTS CD's of Band On The Run and the Titanic soundtrack. So, one has started their surround "library"!

How many of you ended up with both DVD-A versions of Queen's A Night At The Opera? Although DTS never officially issued the first pressing that was mixed without Brian May's input, an awful lot of them ended up at Best Buy and stuff. I just wish more of Queen's albums had been released on DVD-A. At least the two DVD's are available with discrete surround mixes.

I've looked for Pink Floyd's Atom Heart Mother quad mix on Torrent but can't find it - I have the DTS Q8 CD version and the DTS Tate DES SQ CD version too, but the DVD-A sound quality on Dark Side has made me want Atom Heart with good quality that much more. While not in DVD-A form, a good version of Atom Heart is 'out there', isn't it? Alan Parsons should make sure it gets released to DVD-A fans too, like he did Dark Side.

It can't be that it only works over HDMI -- I don't even own an HDMI cable. All my HD video runs over component (some of my cable runs are over 100 feet, where HDMI won't cut it). My digital out runs through a switcher to TOSlink (the switcher uses TOSlink or coax interchangeably), and then to the amp via TOSlink.So, how do you listen to hirez audio (DVD-A and SACD) tracks, exactly?

It can't be that it only works over HDMI -- I don't even own an HDMI cable. All my HD video runs over component (some of my cable runs are over 100 feet, where HDMI won't cut it). My digital out runs through a switcher to TOSlink (the switcher uses TOSlink or coax interchangeably), and then to the amp via TOSlink.

If all you are using is Toslink then you can't hear the MLP mix in anything but two channel. MLP multichannel can't be sent over Toslink - only DTS and AC-3.

For some reason the MPL version comes out in two-channel, but the DD and DTS versions still come through in surround. My player is an Oppo 970HD.


I can't speak for the 970 but I can for the 980. After several discussions with Oppo support, they confirmed a bug that causes 4.1 and 4.0 MLP mixes to play 2.1 or 2.0 via HDMI. According to support, I was the first to report this. So if it's happening with the 970, you really need to contact them. They may not be aware. On the 980, the work around is to set the down-mix to 7.1. This will allow all channels to play but only at 48 kHz. I don't think the 970 has a 7.1 down-mix so that probably doesn't help you. I talked to several 970 owners who do not have this problem so I do not know if it's the same issue.

If MLP only plays through HDMI, then I guess I remembered incorrectly, and I haven't heard it. As I said, I don't use HDMI, I've never had it. I think my Oppo came with an HDMI cable, so I'll dig out the box -- this Pioneer receiver does actually have an HDMI input, so I guess I could use it for audio (again, illustrative of how ridiculous some of these hoops the consumer has to jump through).

However, I'm also going to mess around with the Oppo menus. I could swear I managed to get MLP to work in surround back when I first burned the disc.

If MLP only plays through HDMI, then I guess I remembered incorrectly, and I haven't heard it. As I said, I don't use HDMI, I've never had it. I think my Oppo came with an HDMI cable, so I'll dig out the box -- this Pioneer receiver does actually have an HDMI input, so I guess I could use it for audio (again, illustrative of how ridiculous some of these hoops the consumer has to jump through).

However, I'm also going to mess around with the Oppo menus. I could swear I managed to get MLP to work in surround back when I first burned the disc.

Not from Toslink you didn't. Toslink doesn't have the bandwidth to carry MLP and even if it could, MLP digital output isn't allowed over un-encrypted connections. If you don't have HDMI or 5.1 analog connections then you have only heard MLP in 2 channel or DTS/AC-3 multichannel via Toslink.
There is NOTHING you can do in the Oppo menu's to change that.

Ah. Well, I *do* also have 5.1 analog connections, as I mentioned previously.

Ah. Well, I *do* also have 5.1 analog connections, as I mentioned previously.

That's how you must have been listening to it in surround then.

Ah. Well, I *do* also have 5.1 analog connections, as I mentioned previously.That's how you must have been listening to it in surround then.Well, make certain. Because if not, this may be a contributing reason as to why the disc only played back as 2-channel.

From what I remember of my Oppo 970, the menu is not very intuitive. I do remember something about having to change the player's video output to 1080i from 480i so it could pass the hirez mc audio stream. Apparently, because of the way the video is transmitted in those 2 formats, 1080i affords more room on the HDMI link. I think you also have to change it manually to play the 2 different formats, DVD-A and SA-CD, it won't do it on the the fly.

Probably not McGuireV10's problem, just something I recall though.

You don't need to manually change between DVD-A and SACD, ever. It will never have to do that 'on the fly' , as there are no discs that contain DVD-A and SACD together.

You do need to manually change between DVD-A and DD/DTS, on the same disc, unless the disc itself gives you that option.

I can't speak for the 970 but I can for the 980. After several discussions with Oppo support, they confirmed a bug that causes 4.1 and 4.0 MLP mixes to play 2.1 or 2.0 via HDMI. According to support, I was the first to report this. So if it's happening with the 970, you really need to contact them.

It's not. Again, I have no problem playing the MLP version of the DSotM disc, with all channels working, on the Oppo 970, via HDMI.

You don't need to manually change between DVD-A and SACD, ever. It will never have to do that 'on the fly' , as there are no discs that contain DVD-A and SACD together.

You do need to manually change between DVD-A and DD/DTS, on the same disc, unless the disc itself gives you that option.
No, what I meant was, when you swapped discs, DVD-A, and then put in an SA-CD, you had to change something in the menu. For example, when I put a disc in my Denon 5900, it recognizes the format and acts accordingly, I don't recall the Oppo doing that "on the fly".

It's been awhile though since I had my Oppo, so I could very well be mistaken.

If MLP only plays through HDMI, then I guess I remembered incorrectly, and I haven't heard it. As I said, I don't use HDMI, I've never had it. I think my Oppo came with an HDMI cable, so I'll dig out the box -- this Pioneer receiver does actually have an HDMI input, so I guess I could use it for audio (again, illustrative of how ridiculous some of these hoops the consumer has to jump through).

If you have HDMI 1.1 capability, you might want to use it, as it will eliminate the need for all the other input cables (audio and video, analog and digital).

No, what I meant was, when you swapped discs, DVD-A, and then put in an SA-CD, you had to change something in the menu. For example, when I put a disc in my Denon 5900, it recognizes the format and acts accordingly, I don't recall the Oppo doing that "on the fly".

Actually, it does.

I'm assuming in all this that 970 users installed the firmware upgrades that came out after the model was released...Oppo let you download them from it website.

As with any player, there are optimum settings for different formats. Oppo and 'Secrets of Home Theater' put together a guide for setting up the 970 for DVD-A and SACD output.
It was included as a 'second manual' with the player, and is also available online.

My settings are optimize for HDMI output to an AVR that will do all the bass management and digital processing. So the 970 settings are:

Down-Mix: 5.1 CH
all speakers LARGE
subwoofer ON
Digital output: Raw
HDMI output: Auto
HDMI resolution: at least 720p
LFE channel level boosted ~10dB to account for LFE bug in the AVR. (This only affects multichannel PCM output, i.e, DVD-A and SACD in the Oppo)

Excellent, as I said, it's been awhile since I had the Oppo, gave it to my mother so she could watch her R2 UK TV shows she loves so much. Plus, my Denon 5900 performs spectacularly for all things audio and SD-DVD. :)

My Oppo box is in the attic, so it'll be awhile... but when I do dig out the HDMI cable, I'll post up what happens. Many teenaged years of Judas Priest concerts have left my ears in no condition to discern between analog or digital, though, so this is purely a mental exercise. If the Oppo outputs MLP over analog, I'm a happy camper. :)

No, what I meant was, when you swapped discs, DVD-A, and then put in an SA-CD, you had to change something in the menu. For example, when I put a disc in my Denon 5900, it recognizes the format and acts accordingly, I don't recall the Oppo doing that "on the fly".The OPPO will obviously "recognize the format", as any universal player would. Switching between the multichannel and 2-channel tracks (and the CD track in the case of a hybrid) of an SACD is what requires a "manual adjustment". I think that in some instances, choosing between the DVD-V and DVD-A portions of a DVD-A may require a "manual adjustment", too.

The OPPO will obviously "recognize the format", as any universal player would. Switching between the multichannel and 2-channel tracks (and the CD track in the case of a hybrid) of an SACD is what requires a "manual adjustment". I think that in some instances, choosing between the DVD-V and DVD-A portions of a DVD-A may require a "manual adjustment", too.

Maybe that's what it was, I remember having to do something, just not what and why and apparently recent FW has fixed that.

If MLP only plays through HDMI, then I guess I remembered incorrectly, and I haven't heard it. As I said, I don't use HDMI, I've never had it. I think my Oppo came with an HDMI cable, so I'll dig out the box -- this Pioneer receiver does actually have an HDMI input, so I guess I could use it for audio (again, illustrative of how ridiculous some of these hoops the consumer has to jump through).If you have HDMI 1.1 capability, you might want to use it, as it will eliminate the need for all the other input cables (audio and video, analog and digital).My Oppo box is in the attic, so it'll be awhile... but when I do dig out the HDMI cable, I'll post up what happens. Many teenaged years of Judas Priest concerts have left my ears in no condition to discern between analog or digital, though, so this is purely a mental exercise. If the Oppo outputs MLP over analog, I'm a happy camper. :)You'll need HDMI 1.2 capability at the receiver for SACD. But even if you only have HDMI 1.1 capabilty there, you still may want to utilize an HDMI connection for your DVD-As.

And of course your player outputs MLP via it's analog outputs. But it also will output MLP via the HDMI output. Discerning between MLP via analog connection (the player's DAC) or digital connection (HDMI to the receiver's DAC) is not important, here. You should probably pass DVD-A (MLP) and SACD from the player to the receiver via an HDMI connection, if you can. This will, as krabapple points out, significantly reduce your cabling and it will very most likely provide you with better bass and time management capabilities than those available in the player (particularly for DVD-A as the player has an analog bass management bug with DVD-A tracks 96kHz and higher, btw).

Maybe that's what it was, I remember having to do something, just not what and why and apparently recent FW has fixed that.I'm only familiar with the 980, but you can't switch between SACD layers "on the fly". Very few players allow this.

I'm only familiar with the 980, but you can't switch between SACD layers "on the fly". Very few players allow this.

lol...we're getting way OT here, but, I wasn't talking about different layers but different format discs - play the DVD-A, take it out, put the SA-CD in, change a setting, then play the SA-CD. That's the way I remember it anyhow, it's way over a year or so since I had the player. :)

lol...we're getting way OT here, but, I wasn't talking about different layers but different format discs - play the DVD-A, take it out, put the SA-CD in, change a setting, then play the SA-CD. That's the way I remember it anyhow, it's way over a year or so since I had the player. :)

The funny part (to me) is that I think the Floyd DVD-A thread has gone through this discussion at least once in the past...

Could be. :D

Oh. Is this the DSoTM DVD-A thread? ;)

Someone needs to post something about the Dark Side DVD-A to get the thread back on-topic, otherwise it will just kinda wander around and back - as long as a thread doesn't turn totally into something completely different, like the quality of VHS video or something, I think going off-topic isn't a bad thing always - otherwise, threads can just die out. With "related" discussions, a thread can go 'off' then back 'on' again, over and over and keep up interest for everyone.

You'll need HDMI 1.2 capability at the receiver for SACD.

You'll only need that if you want to pass SACD as DSD. With HDMI 1.1, you can pass SACD-DSD as PCM -- in the case of Oppo 970, 88.2kHz/24-bit PCM. (Which I defy anyone to tell from DSD in a blind test, with levels matched.)



You should probably pass DVD-A (MLP) and SACD from the player to the receiver via an HDMI connection, if you can. This will, as krabapple points out, significantly reduce your cabling and it will very most likely provide you with better bass and time management capabilities than those available in the player (particularly for DVD-A as the player has an analog bass management bug with DVD-A tracks 96kHz and higher, btw).

Exactly. Passing all formats digitally also 'normalizes' the signal chain -- they all get the same DSP in the AVR, rather than having some processes done in the player, and some in the AVR.

You'll only need that if you want to pass SACD as DSD. With HDMI 1.1, you can pass SACD-DSD as PCM -- in the case of Oppo 970, 88.2kHz/24-bit PCM. (Which I defy anyone to tell from DSD in a blind test, with levels matched.)Gotcha. Thanks. Yes, the 970 WILL convert DSD to PCM. Some 1.1 players won't. I was thinking the 970 was 1.2 for some reason.

I've played it for a few and they liked it. They liked it even better when I told them they didn't need to buy a new player -- they could just play the DTS 24/96 versionon the disc, which sounds essentially identical to the DVD-A version (once LFE level was matched)

Another cool thing about this release (and I am on somewhat of a slippery slope here :confused:) is that when folks are wowed, you can make a copy for them!

I'm having the same problem with my Oppo 980h outputting the MLP portion of DSotM as 2.1 channel when i have my downmix set to 5.1.

I am curious to see what Oppo support comes up with to fix this

I'm having the same problem with my Oppo 980h outputting the MLP portion of DSotM as 2.1 channel when i have my downmix set to 5.1.

Same problem here!
I have the Oppo DV-980H connected to a Pioneer VSX-92TXH receiver through HDMI.
With the Oppo recommended setting for Audio output, I only get 2.1 channel output in PCM96/24.
However, If I set the Dolby Pro Logic II settings to Auto, I now get 4.1 output but in regular PCM.
Is this a known bug of the Oppo-980? Does this happen with all DVD-A or only with DSOTM?

Same problem here!
I have the Oppo DV-980H connected to a Pioneer VSX-92TXH receiver through HDMI.
With the Oppo recommended setting for Audio output, I only get 2.1 channel output in PCM96/24.
However, If I set the Dolby Pro Logic II settings to Auto, I now get 4.1 output but in regular PCM.

what do you mean, 'regular' PCM?

Also, have you set the HDMI resolution to 720 or greater?

Same problem here!
I have the Oppo DV-980H connected to a Pioneer VSX-92TXH receiver through HDMI.
With the Oppo recommended setting for Audio output, I only get 2.1 channel output in PCM96/24.
However, If I set the Dolby Pro Logic II settings to Auto, I now get 4.1 output but in regular PCM.
Is this a known bug of the Oppo-980? Does this happen with all DVD-A or only with DSOTM?

I believe this is a known issue with the Oppo 980H and 4.0, 4.1 dvd-a discs. There's a long thread in the dvd section here on AVS regarding the Oppo 980H.

Same problem here!
I have the Oppo DV-980H connected to a Pioneer VSX-92TXH receiver through HDMI.
With the Oppo recommended setting for Audio output, I only get 2.1 channel output in PCM96/24.
However, If I set the Dolby Pro Logic II settings to Auto, I now get 4.1 output but in regular PCM.
Is this a known bug of the Oppo-980? Does this happen with all DVD-A or only with DSOTM?

It's a known issue with all 4.1/4.0 DVD-A discs. As a workaround, set your down-mix to 7.1. You will get 4.1 output from the MPL track at 48 kHz, but that's way better than using DPL II on a 2 channel source. See this thread (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=957339&page=4)for more info.

I haven't checked the input resolution to my receiver, but I run analog connections to my receiver for surround discs, DVD-A and SACD, and have no problem sending them from my 980. Have you tried all the setup options in HDMI Audio from the player? How do you have the DVD-Audio and SACD options setup?

I haven't checked the input resolution to my receiver, but I run analog connections to my receiver for surround discs, DVD-A and SACD, and have no problem sending them from my 980. Have you tried all the setup options in HDMI Audio from the player? How do you have the DVD-Audio and SACD options setup?

It's an HDMI problem and it has been confirmed with oppo. Analog output is not impacted.

Okay! With all the audio selections that are within the setup options, I thought there may be a way around the problem with a different setting. I guess that when I change receivers to one that has HDMI inputs, I'll still run the analog cables for multi-channel to use them when needed.

Can someone pm me and let me in on how to get the DVD-A version (on disc) of Dark Side of the Moon? Thanks in advance I can't wait to check this out!:)

GvilleDave, thanks for asking this excellent question.
I would also appreciate if someone PMs me too.
I am just itching to check this out.

Google is your friend...

Just got mine and it is fantastic!
:)

I too would very much appreciate a PM on how to make/obtain this DVD-A version of DSOTM on DVD-A.

Pretty much everthing you need to know is in this thread ... ;)

Pretty much everthing you need to know is in this thread ... ;)

... and a few things you don't need to know, too. :eek:

Not being argumentative, just curious how circulating this disc benefits the content owners.

It's called the "culture of entitlement." Some music consumers -- especially younger ones -- somehow think it's up to them to decide how other people's work is distributed, and it's amazing the lengths they'll go to rationalize what's otherwise known as copyright infringement.

I have a relatively large collection of music (more than 1,000 CDs and SACDs), but my friends and I pass around a small amount of music among ourselves via MP3. We do it out of convenience to check out new releases and new sounds, but we buy a lot more than we copy. That said, I'll be the first one to say that every one of those copies is "wrong" -- both legally and philosophically -- and I'm not about to defend the practice.

Good Christ!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This disc is made to be distributed. Take a nap everyone, (Brownstone you need it the most). This disc was made to be shared. Follow instructions included in this thread. My copy says specifically to share! This is the Parsons mix and it probably came from Parsons himself. Nobody is going to miss a single dollar from the sharing of this. Anal types don't have to download it if they don't want to, but it's not illegal.

... but it's not illegal.

Actually, technically it is in the U.S. (amongst other places), in accordance with the RIAA and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Neither the band nor the record company has licensed this particular instance of the recording.

The lack of funds exchanging hands is not relevant to the legality of obtaining a copy.

I'm not judging (I might have a copy of my own... ;) ), but just thought I'd clarify for those that might take your words to heart. And let's not dwell on this topic too much - it might arise the ire of the mods.

shinksma

Heard about this from a friend who heard from a friend...(you get the idea - lot's of people saying how cool it is without ever hearing it).

Anyone know if these torrents are still active? Not having much luck (not helped by a maximum speed of 180 kbps on my BROADBAND line!!!).

If anyone has any info would appreciate a gentle (but discrete) nudge in the right direction.

This is one of two releases that makes me regret not going the SACD route (War of the Worlds is the other).

Heard about this from a friend who heard from a friend...(you get the idea - lot's of people saying how cool it is without ever hearing it).

Anyone know if these torrents are still active? Not having much luck (not helped by a maximum speed of 180 kbps on my BROADBAND line!!!).

If anyone has any info would appreciate a gentle (but discrete) nudge in the right direction.

This is one of two releases that makes me regret not going the SACD route (War of the Worlds is the other).

Can't help your re the torrents but how does this DSOTM release make you regret not going SACD? The SACD release of DSOTM is quite different to the DVD-A one that's floating around - different times, different producers. If you can find a copy it's quite amazing as lots of people have undoubtedly told you.

As for WOTH well that's good also and if you wanted to hear that in MCH, then you do need a SACD player or better still, a combined player

lchiu7,
My regret is that I will not be able to hear this in all its glory. It seems the DVD-A version is nowhere to be found and funds will not allow another (SACD) player at this time.

I did look at a fully universal player at the time I bought mine (I got a Cambridge Audio Azur 540D in the end) but for standard CD playback the Azur blew everything else I listened too (at a comparable price) out of the water and that swung it for me.

My better half is quite supportive of my quest for my perfect all round AV system so long as it doesn't involve too many ugly boxes (although the Cambridge Audio stuff is pretty stylish) so quite aside from the financial constraints, I think adding a second player will be out of the question.

I typed "dsotm dvda" into google search and the first item listed was for sources of what you seek. I chose the first source and it was currently active. Its widely available.

If you really want a universal player watch the big box stores like Circuit City and Best Buy. I got a nice Denon HDMI 757 from CC for under 70 as a open box discontinued player, and if they had a new one at that time it would have been same price.
It really sounds nice and also does a great job upconverting and playing dvd's.
I'd bet it's about time to drop their newer version again for the latest thing, plus they aren't selling much anyways so a good time to look around.
Check out Slick deals and Fat Wallet as those guys post every deal they find no matter what it might be.
Also the Oppo players are great for small money.

lchiu7,
My regret is that I will not be able to hear this in all its glory. It seems the DVD-A version is nowhere to be found and funds will not allow another (SACD) player at this time.

I did look at a fully universal player at the time I bought mine (I got a Cambridge Audio Azur 540D in the end) but for standard CD playback the Azur blew everything else I listened too (at a comparable price) out of the water and that swung it for me.

My better half is quite supportive of my quest for my perfect all round AV system so long as it doesn't involve too many ugly boxes (although the Cambridge Audio stuff is pretty stylish) so quite aside from the financial constraints, I think adding a second player will be out of the question.

Actually it was DSOTM that got me into DVD-A/SACD. When this first came up as a discussion topic I only had a basic DD 5.1 setup. But I jumped on the link and got a copy (took me 2 days I recall). Then having my audio appetite piqued listening to the DD 5.1 track, I went out and purchased a refurbished Samsung HD841 DVD-A/SACD player for $50 (it also plays divx) and eventually a new AVR that has multi channel analogue input support.

DSOTM sounded incredible in DVD-A and that led me down the path of purchasing more hires audio titles.

As another poster has noted, Oppo make good units for reasonable prices ($169) and on ebay there are a bunch for < $150

Finally got it. Turns out my ISP was blocking those particular sites! This is my first hi-res multi-channel album and it takes a bit of getting used to. At times it completely envelopes you and is amazing. At others it just sounds a little wierd (to my stereo tuned brain).

I think my main problem is my rear speakers. When dealing with effects from movie sound tracks they are great but they are just not up to dealing with a full channel of audio. Time for a new pair of fronts I think and move my fronts to the back.

Now to persuade the better half that I need some floorstanders!

Cheers for the help guys.

Finally got it. Turns out my ISP was blocking those particular sites!

Why does this not surprise me? ISPs throttling back on bandwidth and now blocking specific sites that are sources of bandwidth usage, imagine that!

I think my main problem is my rear speakers. When dealing with effects from movie sound tracks they are great but they are just not up to dealing with a full channel of audio. Time for a new pair of fronts I think and move my fronts to the back.

Glad you found a copy. And yes, better surrounds (or better bass management to your sub if your surrounds are good from 100Hz up) will make the listening experience much more enjoyable.

shinksma

Sort of a necropost:

Am I losing out by listening to this on my 2.0 setup?

I am playing it in VLC on my Macbook connected to my Onkyo TX-SR504 via the laptop's integral toslink output. The Mac can output DTS but it seems to sound better to me when I have VLC output PCM (And handle the decoding of DTS itself while outputting stereo PCM).

Sort of a necropost:

Am I losing out by listening to this on my 2.0 setup?

I am playing it in VLC on my Macbook connected to my Onkyo TX-SR504 via the laptop's integral toslink output. The Mac can output DTS but it seems to sound better to me when I have VLC output PCM (And handle the decoding of DTS itself while outputting stereo PCM).

it depends - what bit depth/sampling rate are you getting on your PCM out? 24/96?

I think if your source is the lossy DTS mix -> decoded and downmixed -> PCM stereo, you might be better off just listening to the CD.

This particular disc is really meant to be heard in a multichannel rig but 24/96/2.0 (from the DVD-A mix) on the digital output would be decent.

Sort of a necropost:

Am I losing out by listening to this on my 2.0 setup?

I am playing it in VLC on my Macbook connected to my Onkyo TX-SR504 via the laptop's integral toslink output. The Mac can output DTS but it seems to sound better to me when I have VLC output PCM (And handle the decoding of DTS itself while outputting stereo PCM).Not clear what you are asking/saying. I think you are saying that it sounds better to you if you decode and downmix the soundtrack at the Mac and send it to the receiver as stereo PCM instead of sending a DTS bitstream for decoding and downmixing by your receiver. Whichever sounds best is how you should probably listen.

But unless you just want to hear the alternative mix, or have no other source, I really see no reason to not just simply listen to the standard 2.0 CD release of DSoTM, especially if you are currently listening to the downmixed DTS soundtrack of the quad mix. I do not think that the MLP soundtrack of the quad mix, downmixed to 2-channel, would be preferable to the CD, even.


(edit: Oops, sorry for the redundancy SiriuslyCold. You posted while I was composin'.)

The things he did with the 4 channels is just really nice and makes the experience even better, so if you can get it to do the 4 channel dvd-audio tracks that would be best. There have been quite a few very good and cheap multi players out now that can do it, might be OK to get one of them and give it a new listen.
My Pioneer 563a played it very well, and my newer Denon 757 does and even better job. Oppo makes a good multi format as well for not too much cash.

Sort of a necropost:

Am I losing out by listening to this on my 2.0 setup?

Certainly, if you are converting the 4.0 mix to 2.0.

There's no way you could get the same experience of it in 2.0.

Alan Parsons didn't get to spend as much time as he would have preferred to mix the quadraphonic mix, so as much as I like it, it's probably ideal to would listen to the two channel mix when *not* listening in surround.

Here's an interview with James Guthrie on the new SACD surround mix (top of the page) as well as Alan Parsons on the original quadraphonic mix (bottom of the page) http://www.pinkfloydz.com/darksidesandv.htm

(edit: Oops, sorry for the redundancy SiriuslyCold. You posted while I was composin'.)

thanks for validating my thoughts!

at least I wasn't up the creek on this, or if I were, at least not alone there... :D

The DVD-A and SACD versions are quite different. I've just been listening to both again on my new system, and I still prefer the DVD-A, though the SACD is not too shabby either. To sum it up, basically the SACD is more focused on the front channels and uses the two rear channels mostly for effects, though occassionally there is some unexpected and fantastic instrumentation coming from the surrounds.

The DVD-A, on the other hand, is mixed with discrete instrumentation in mind, and provides a more satisfying "surround" experience. It is also a "different mix" from the classic album, quite literally, as those familiar with the two-channel mix will hear things that are new on the DVD-A, as well as find things that are missing. Quite an experience. Best case scenario is to have and enjoy both! :D

Best case scenario is to have and enjoy both! :D

This is very true! I prefer the DVD-A, but the SACD is very nice. A bit "cleaner" sound to my ears, but less interesting.

Not to bring up old arguments, but just had to chime in on the earlier discussion about the legality/morality of this release.

It is certainly "illegal" in the most technical sense of the word. But it's also unlikely to be enforced in any meaningful way, and since it isn't being sold now in any form, there is really no moral argument against distributing and listening to it. At least until there is a version we can get that will actually compensate those involved in it's creation!

The DVD-A, on the other hand, is mixed with discrete instrumentation in mind, and provides a more satisfying "surround" experience. It is also a "different mix" from the classic album, quite literally, as those familiar with the two-channel mix will hear things that are new on the DVD-A, as well as find things that are missing. Quite an experience. Best case scenario is to have and enjoy both! :D

There's a thing or two missing from the SACD multi mix as well. Like a recurring synth bass blurt on 'Any Colour You Like'

Legality aside...im just grateful at the chance to get a peak back into history. I think DSotM is one of the greatest albums created, probably the best in its genre. Its not often that you get to truly hear what an artist had inteded. (assuming all the hub bub surrounding this mix is legit.) Something like this is a chance to crawl inside someone elses head, which is what music is really all about...a chance to physically manifest ones soul for others to experience. (aside from money grubbing pop stars possibly...) I am peronally estatic to be able to experience this album in yet another format. A format that can more closely represent the original recordings than any other audio format to date (with the exception of SACD obviously) After all...thats really why we are all here isnt it? To try to touch acoustical perfection? So...could we all just take a minute to sit back, close our eyes, clear our minds, and enjoy the music.


stepsoffsoapbox


:)

As a bit of an aside,THIS (http://www.amazon.com/Classic-Albums-Making-Dark-Side/dp/B0000AOV85/) DVD is great. Highly recommended.

As a bit of an aside,THIS (http://www.amazon.com/Classic-Albums-Making-Dark-Side/dp/B0000AOV85/) DVD is great. Highly recommended.

I agree! Well worth a watch or two.

-t

I'm just grateful at the chance to get a peak back into history.

I think DSotM is one of the greatest albums created, probably the best in its genre. It's not often that you get to truly hear what an artist had intended. I am peronally estatic to be able to experience this album in yet another format. A format that can more closely represent the original recordings than any other audio format to date.

Best post in thread.

It really is a beautiful recording, and probably my very favorite disc.

Say what you want about false entitlement and be damned - when I listen to it, it does feel like a gift. :)

;)

I am peronally estatic to be able to experience this album in yet another format. A format that can more closely represent the original recordings than any other audio format to date (with the exception of SACD obviously)


The quad version reflects Alan Parsons' vision of the music, not PF's -- they reportedly weren't particularly interested in it at the time (though of course they had been using 'multichannel' in live performance for years). They had more input on the recent SACD multichannel mix.

But why would the SACD be 'the exception', much less 'obviously'? Neither one represents the original recording more closely; the original recording was 2-channel.

The quad version reflects Alan Parsons' vision of the music...............I think I had a vision of this music. In college. :D

Cool that people are still getting turned on to this thing three years later...

The quad version reflects Alan Parsons' vision of the music, not PF's -- they reportedly weren't particularly interested in it at the time (though of course they had been using 'multichannel' in live performance for years). They had more input on the recent SACD multichannel mix.

But why would the SACD be 'the exception', much less 'obviously'? Neither one represents the original recording more closely; the original recording was 2-channel.

I could be wrong but I thought a Quad release was issued on vinyl? Anyway a slight semantic issue here. The original recording wasn't 2-channel - it was probably 16 track but the original release was stereo of course.

As an aside I still take this title out for a spin every now and then, especially when I want to demo to friends the impact of multi channel audio

I could be wrong but I thought a Quad release was issued on vinyl?Nope. As Parsons has pointed out, the mix we have our hands on was never finished. I don't know why, exactly, but something put the stops on the quad project.

It was released in Quad on vinyl, and Quad 8track. There may even have been a reel to reel.

And when I saw them perform DSOTM in quad, it was much more like this mix than the SACD.

This article seems to indicate a quad release was planned - doesn't say it actually happened though

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

It was released in Quad on vinyl, and Quad 8track. There may even have been a reel to reel.That's not my understanding based upon the oft-cited Guthrie and Parsons interviews, HERE (http://www.pinkfloydz.com/darksidesandv.htm). Which is why this DVD-A release was such a "hit". I could be misunderstanding it, though. There is some discussion of this throughout the thread. I think that whoever "released" this even participated in the thread, early on. Maybe they released a different official quad version than Parsons's? Perhaps it was never available in the states?

This article seems to indicate a quad release was planned - doesn't say it actually happened though

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

Since I have it in my collection, it must have happened.:rolleyes:

since i have it in my collection, it must have happened.:rolleyes:

:);)

Out of interest have you compared it (sound stage wise) with the DVD-A?

Since I have it in my collection, it must have happened.:rolleyes:Wow. I stand corrected. This whole time I have assumed that the whole novelty of this DVD-A release was that it WAS never released. Thanks for setting me straight.

I think the DVD-A blows the SACD version away. The DVD-A envelops the listener in a 360 degree experience. By comparison, the SACD sounds very disconnected not only between channels but also up and down the frequency spectrum. The bass is tighter on the SACD (even after dropping its level to match the DVD-A), but it does sound connected to the mix like the DVD-A does. One of my new demo discs.

That's not my understanding based upon the oft-cited Guthrie and Parsons interviews, HERE (http://www.pinkfloydz.com/darksidesandv.htm). Which is why this DVD-A release was such a "hit". I could be misunderstanding it, though. There is some discussion of this throughout the thread. I think that whoever "released" this even participated in the thread, early on. Maybe they released a different official quad version than Parsons's? Perhaps it was never available in the states?

These interviews are talking about the then upcoming SACD release, not the original quad releases from 1975.

It's been many years since I had my quad vinyl playback setup, and my current HT/music setup does not lend itself to hooking up the required decoder, but from what I remember, I would say the DVDA betters what I could get off the record in every way. Separation is much more discrete, and I hear more of what is going on in the mix. To my ears, the DVDA also sounds more "analog" like than the SACD, and is therefore truer to the original 70s sound.

These interviews are talking about the then upcoming SACD release, not the original quad releases from 1975.

It's been many years since I had my quad vinyl playback setup, and my current HT/music setup does not lend itself to hooking up the required decoder, but from what I remember, I would say the DVDA betters what I could get off the record in every way. Separation is much more discrete, and I hear more of what is going on in the mix. To my ears, the DVDA also sounds more "analog" like than the SACD, and is therefore truer to the original 70s sound.

It's probably a bit hard since you can't do AB comparisons but I was wondering if the mix on the DVD-A is similar to the Quad (the AQ is obviously going to be far superior and separation clearer). I can understand after all these years how hard it would be to get a LP system going again! So many modern AVR's dont even have phono inputs now and of course with QUAD I am guessing you would need to resurrect a QUAD decoder or something?

This is definitely the same mix as was released in the 1970's. However, the discrete 4 channel mix was only ever officially available on a super rare British Quad 8Track. The US quad 8-track was decoded from a SQ album! It sounds like mud. It's too bad this never got a reel to reel release. This DVD-A is obviously from a discrete reel source, hence it's revelatory nature to even those who have heard it before.

This is definitely the same mix as was released in the 1970's. However, the discrete 4 channel mix was only ever officially available on a super rare British Quad 8Track. The US quad 8-track was decoded from a SQ album! It sounds like mud. It's too bad this never got a reel to reel release. This DVD-A is obviously from a discrete reel source, hence it's revelatory nature to even those who have heard it before.

Actually it' s a bit murky where it came from. Way earlier in this thread a person who says he had a copy of the original digital files notes

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8679053#post8679053

He doesn't know who did the A-D conversion to the AIFF files and also doesn't know who mastered the DVD-A but he is sure he provided the AIFF files.

I will have to go look for my origial download. I believe that those notes were included also.

I will have to go look for my origial download. I believe that those notes were included also.

They are not not in the original download txt file since that was writen by the guy(s) who authored the DVD-A. The person who provided the AIFF files said

the DVD-A was created by someone (I dont know who) using my original source material (which were four 24/44.8 AIFF files). I dont know who A/D'ed the master material, however this material has been foating around the west coast among recording engineer circles. that is how I came in contact with the source material. it seemed too good to NOT be distributed online, and until someone wants to market/sell this material, I dont see any problem with it. Ive hear that there once was a public release of this in the form of a quadrophonic LP however it is apparent that this material originated from tape. you can hear the tapes being stopped etc. as well as some sort of quantization/timecode blip right before "Money" (on the original source material). I havent heard this DVD-A bootleg although I am almost certain this is from my souce as its release time was shortly after I let the pcm files go.

below is some information regarding the copy that I have:
Sample Rate: 48,000Hz
Bit Depth: 24
File Format: AIFF
Track Seperation: 4 individual files
Running Time: 44m 04s (approx.)

We don't really know if this guy provided the files or not. What I was saying is that it obviously originated from a reel tape. The information I have on this is that someone closely connected with the original album's recording provided the files. They did not come from LP or Quad 8 Track. None the less, it is a great DVD-A and I am thankful it is available. I'm quite surprised Guthrie didn't reference this when he mixed the SACD. He seemed to just take the stereo mix and add effects to the surrounds.

I don't think there's any question it's from a reel to reel tape! And given the quality of the recording, it's possibly the quad master which is probably a mix down from the original 16 track. Whether it's the first generation mix down or one later is unknown. Still as far as I can tell, tape hiss is minimal and each generation of tape dubbing does add hiss.

Who knows what Guthrie was thinking when he mixed the album though I think there is an interview online somewhere. Presumably he was guided by PF when he did the mix.

He was. He we getting feedback from both Gilmour and Waters during the mixing process.

He was. He we getting feedback from both Gilmour and Waters during the mixing process.

There you are :)

So you either have the Guthrie engineered and PF approved version or the Parson's (presumbly no PF approval) version

I'm quite surprised Guthrie didn't reference this when he mixed the SACD. He seemed to just take the stereo mix and add effects to the surrounds.I disagree. The SACD may not be as surroundified (new word!) as the quad mix, but I think it is pretty immersive.

There you are :)

So you either have the Guthrie engineered and PF approved version or the Parson's (presumbly no PF approval) version

Since this is the 1975 Parson's mix, I would think the Floyd had to OK it when it was originally released. If you watch the making of DSOTM classic album video, it's pretty apparent they were very hands on, and Roger is a control freak, so I can't imagine something would get released without their approval.

Since this is the 1975 Parson's mix, I would think the Floyd had to OK it when it was originally released. If you watch the making of DSOTM classic album video, it's pretty apparent they were very hands on, and Roger is a control freak, so I can't imagine something would get released without their approval.According to THIS (http://www.pinkfloydz.com/darksidesandv.htm) link, they didn't OK it. EMI apparently released it anyway.

From that link:
In the early 1970s, Parsons engineered Pink Floyd’s Atom Heart Mother before doing Dark Side, and he then made quad mixes of both—commissioned by EMI but not okayed by the band.

According to THIS (http://www.pinkfloydz.com/darksidesandv.htm) link, they didn't OK it. EMI apparently released it anyway.

From that link:

Then I stand corrected. :o

Still prefer it overall to the SACD.

Then I stand corrected. :oWell, in all fairness, it is not entirely clear exactly how things may have unfolded. And, that is, of course, only a single and certainly non-definitive source for that info.

Well, in all fairness, it is not entirely clear exactly how things may have unfolded. And, that is, of course, only a single and certainly non-definitive source for that info.
It also seems that Roger has changed his opinions and recollections several times along the way. To hear him talk about it now, he implies that Parsons practically ruined an otherwise fine recording. I think he resents all of the credit that Parsons gets for the final product of DSOTM and looks for things to criticize about the production.

It also seems that Roger has changed his opinions and recollections several times along the way. To hear him talk about it now, he implies that Parsons practically ruined an otherwise fine recording. I think he resents all of the credit that Parsons gets for the final product of DSOTM and looks for things to criticize about the production.
DING DING DING, WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!!!:p

I'm interested in obtaining a copy of DSOTM on DVD-A, but can't burn it. If anybody is willing to help me out, please PM me.


Thanks,

Patrick

...Still prefer it overall to the SACD.
I have many various recording types of this album, and I too prefer the quad mix over the others, including the SACD. Several cuts on many of the albums seem to be overmiked causing distortion of the loud segments, but this mix doesn't do that. Thanks to LChiu7!!!

I have many various recording types of this album, and I too prefer the quad mix over the others, including the SACD. Several cuts on many of the albums seem to be overmiked causing distortion of the loud segments, but this mix doesn't do that. Thanks to LChiu7!!!

Hi Jim

Glad to see you are still enjoying the disc! It's the one I bring out when I want to demo surround sound to my friends :) It has the wow factor

Larry

I totally agree, and am now passing it along to another Forum member for him to enjoy, and to hear what we are discussing!

Well, it looks like I will have to give the DVD-A more of a listen now that I have the ability to play it on my HTPC. My first impression was that it sounded like a much older mix and I switched over to the version I downloaded from Music Giants which I understand is a 24/96 port of the SACD.

I found the newer mix to take better advantage of the modern surround format and it just sounded better with more detail and clarity. I only listened to the first track on the DVD-A however so I will have to give them both a try - in fact I have not really had a chance to sit down and listen to either one in full yet due to a variety of reasons.

With so many people saying they prefer the older one I have to wonder which I will end up liking when all is said and done.

The SACD sounds "cleaned up" more, and there is a slight hiss on the DVD-A during quiet moments, but I find the mix on the DVD-A to be generally superior. I still like the SACD, though to me it's under-utilizes the surround channels to be mostly "effects" (with some notable exceptions - the beginning of "Money" for example), while with the DVD-A, you get a full "discrete" surround experience.

Did any one had a chance to compare SACD the regular one and the Japan Import version. Both of them called 30th Anniversary Edition. The Japanese pressings was advertised as famous for their dynamic sound.

Do you think Rolling Stone will send a reporter the first time someone who is actually on the Dark Side of the Moon plays Dark Side of the
Moon?

Do you think Rolling Stone will send a reporter the first time someone who is actually on the Dark Side of the Moon plays Dark Side of the
Moon?

There is no dark side of the moon, really. Matter of fact, it's all dark.

Sorry, you left that one right out there,

shinksma

Do you think Rolling Stone will send a reporter the first time someone who is actually on the Dark Side of the Moon plays Dark Side of the
Moon?

Somewhat related...but during one of the last Apollo missions that did orbit the moon, a portion of DSotM was played while they went across the dsotm. I read this somewhere on a NASA website years ago and now I'm looking to find it. I thought it was really cool.

Of course, you know that NASA faked Pink FLoyd! :p

-t

And I really, really prefer the SACD. It is probably all in my head but the dvda version sounds almost like a glorified CD to my ears, especially right after listening to the sacd. It can fill up the room at loud volume but the sacd is enjoyable at all levels and just feels richer and warmer, and not sure how to put it, more continuous. I am listening on a reasonably well equipped 5.1 system, which although not very expensive is still highly accurate with a flat response.

The DVDA, on Us & Them at least, definitely does not sound like a glorified CD!

The DVDA, on Us & Them at least, definitely does not sound like a glorified CD!

Agreed, I was referring more to the overall presentation. Besides it is subjective, I just think it is important to express my personal opinion about what I feel is correct wrt this dvda (I was really upset and curious and couldn't sleep until I heard this, I wondered how could something sound better than the dsotm sacd). Great to have choices, ofcourse.

Gotcha!

And I really, really prefer the SACD. It is probably all in my head but the dvda version sounds almost like a glorified CD to my ears, especially right after listening to the sacd. It can fill up the room at loud volume but the sacd is enjoyable at all levels and just feels richer and warmer, and not sure how to put it, more continuous. I am listening on a reasonably well equipped 5.1 system, which although not very expensive is still highly accurate with a flat response.

I listened to the SACD yesterday, and I have to say there is way to many things going on in the mix. An example of this is in the guitar solo on Time. Way over produced. This is one of the greatest rock guitar solos of all time and this mix makes it sound way over processed. I used to think that this was one of the best SACDs out there, but I dont feel that way any more.

Would someone please let me know how to get a copy of this. It would be most appreciated!!

Take care,
-Dime

Would someone please let me know how to get a copy of this. It would be most appreciated!!

Take care,
-Dime

google is your friend...

Almost as much as this thread! ;)

Almost as much as this thread! ;)

True
I may have never known about this disc without this thread...

Would someone please let me know how to get a copy of this. It would be most appreciated!!

Take care,
-Dime

I apologize for the unhelpful comments, technically speaking it is not a legit copy and as such links to the torrent for this in ISO format while easily searchable using google cannot be posted on legit sites like avsforum. Try keywords dsotm dvda.