:cool:

http://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6271

No Joke. Believe me -- it's the real thing: Alan Parson's original Quad mix. I've heard it and it's outstanding.

So how (or why) is it different from the SACD?

Mark

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

The other difference is that the the SACD is a legal product. The DVD-A is an underground bootleg being pirated amongst users.

Sanjay

This is not a pirate, since (a) The DVDA is not for sale (i.e. no money is being asked for it); and (b) there is no DSOTM quad "product" available as such. (This quad mix was commissioned by EMI, in 1973, but was then mothballed.)

The fact that a quad mix of DSotM is not available on DVD-A doesn't suddenly give you the right to trade stolen material. You can do it, but at least be honest about what you're doing and don't pretend it's legal or ethical.

Sanjay

I have this. I have yet to hear it though so I can't say if its better then the SACD - which is outstanding anyway.

Sanjay, for heaven's sake, lighten-up mate. Publication of this mix was deliberately snuffed-out over 30 years ago!! And then the way Sony hijacked the 5.1 remix for SACD was a disgrace (as was the way in which Alan Parsons' know-how was sidelined).

I say, about damn time this quad mix came out, one way or another. This is no second-rate remix. ;) This is what the DSOTM hirez surround-sound should have been in the first place. Be grateful that now Floyd fans can (and should) hear it in all its glory. :) Otherwise it would remain in the vaults forever.

Sanjay, for heaven's sake, lighten-up mate. Publication of this mix was deliberately snuffed-out over 30 years ago!! And then the way Sony hijacked the 5.1 remix for SACD was a disgrace (as was the way in which Alan Parsons' know-how was sidelined).

I say, about damn time this quad mix came out, one way or another. This is no second-rate remix. ;) This is what the DSOTM hirez surround-sound should have been in the first place. Be grateful that now Floyd fans can (and should) hear it in all its glory. :) Otherwise it would remain in the vaults forever.

I agree! A huge THANK YOU to whoever did this :D

Sanjay, for heaven's sake, lighten-up mate.What are you talking about mate? My previous post was filled with levity. Publication of this mix was deliberately snuffed-out over 30 years ago!! And then the way Sony hijacked the 5.1 remix for SACD was a disgrace (as was the way in which Alan Parsons' know-how was sidelined).The 5.1 re-mix was per Pink Floyd's wishes, which included having Guthrie finally do the mix that the band originally wanted (note that Parson' exclusion was at the band's request, not Sony's). That's not hijacking, it's just allowing the original artists their freedom.

You can justify theft any way you want, but the DVD-A is an illegal bootleg; a fact that is made obviously clear from the link you posted. For the record, I haven't told anyone not to get it or listen to it; just stated the facts. Sorry but I can't play the pretend game with you. I mean, if you're going to promote piracy, then for heaven's sake lighten up and be honest about it.

Sanjay

Does anyone have a copy they would be willing to B & P, to help assist me in determining if this is in fact an illegal mixed bootleg? Just sent me a PM...thanks!

It's the Parsons quad mix. It's not illegal.

The distro methods are another matter altogether.

Cheers,

So where can I get one of these discs? Please help a fella out.

It's the Parsons quad mix. It's not illegal.So the quad mix found its way onto DVD-A legally and/or with the permission of the content owner?

Sanjay

Sanjay:

The mix is perfectly legal. It was authorized at the time it was made, or it would not have been made.

That's a seperate issue from the distribution of the content.

John,

I wasn't talking about the mix itself but the disc. How did Parsons' mix find its way onto DVD-A?

Sanjay

Sanjay,

I have no idea. I'm interested in hearing it though.

Cheers,

I've always been disappointed by the Guthrie surround mix on the SACD compared to an unofficial DTS CD I've heard (which was based on the quad version, q8 I think). I heard about this last week and can't wait to hear this in "quad.1" DVD-A sourced from the original 1/2" master tapes this weekend...

The SACD was a 5.1 remix. The Quad mix on the DVDA is from the original quad master tapes.
Cool. Don't own it yet, but have heard that the SACD doesn't use a centre channel. So how is this different from quad, and what (if any) channel differences are there in the remaining four L R LS RS?

Mark

There is a long discussion and reviews here:
http://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3669

Actually, the SACD does use the center channel, just not a LOT. There are a few songs, such as Us and Them, make very good use of the center. On that track, the sax comes from the center. I'm curious to hear the DVD-A, but I'm more than happy with the SACD, so I think I'll stick with it.

Graham

Sanjay,

I have no idea. I'm interested in hearing it though.

Cheers,

John and Sanjay,
It IS a nicer mix than the SACD IMO. Not sure how it got out there, but no fees are associated with it, which is a good thing. No one seems to be getting rich off it. Not sure what I feel about this on the whole, though.

Not sure how it got out there, but no fees are associated with it, which is a good thing."Good thing" for whom Ted? You or the owners of that content? Like I said earlier, I'm not discouraging anyone from copying and listening to this bootleg. However, I am amazed at the lengths some will go to to pretend they are doing something else and/or justify their actions.

Sanjay

"Good thing" for whom Ted? You or the owners of that content? Like I said earlier, I'm not discouraging anyone from copying and listening to this bootleg. However, I am amazed at the lengths some will go to to pretend they are doing something else and/or justify their actions.

Sanjay

?? Good thing for the true owners of the content, of course. My point is that although these tapes got out into circulation in a questionable manner, there is at least a feeling that no one is trying to make money on it. That doesn't justify it.....never said it did.

Good thing for the true owners of the content, of course.How? (Not being argumentative, just curious how circulating this disc benefits the content owners.)

Sanjay

hmm where does one find this?

I talked to David Gilmour last night and he said, "Yosh, its ok if you wanna listen to this mix....its truly outstanding and I know you DVD-A owners unfortunately missed out when we decided to release this only on SACD."

Or was it Roger Waters?......not too sure, half asleep at the time.

Scooterdog, check ur PM.

I talked to David Gilmour last night and he said, "Yosh, its ok if you wanna listen to this mix....its truly outstanding and I know you DVD-A owners unfortunately missed out when we decided to release this only on SACD."

Or was it Roger Waters?......not too sure, half asleep at the time.

Scooterdog, check ur PM.

For a minute I thought you were serious lol. I wonder what Alan Parsons would say about this... Does he even know?

How? (Not being argumentative, just curious how circulating this disc benefits the content owners.)

Sanjay

Sorry , you misunderstood. Didn't say that, simply said it's a good thing no one is making a killing here on property that is not likely theirs. If that's a good thing, it's to the owners, not me. Inflection and sarcasm don't come across well in a forum.

So I downloaded this beauty and burnt it. Must say it sounds very good. Only problem is about 4:23 into Us and Them it cuts out until the end of the song. Don't know if it's the disc or what. Will try burning another.

So I downloaded this beauty and burnt it. Must say it sounds very good. Only problem is about 4:23 into Us and Them it cuts out until the end of the song. Don't know if it's the disc or what. Will try burning another.

Try playing the disc in another DVD-player or try the DTS/Dolby Digital tracks and see if the problem persists... is anyone else experiencing this?

Try playing the disc in another DVD-player or try the DTS/Dolby Digital tracks and see if the problem persists... is anyone else experiencing this?

Mine works fine.

Mine sounds wonderfully fine, too! :)

Has anyone burned this on a mac? I've downloaded it and tried burning three different ways and none of them play in either of my three DVD players (one of which is a DVD-A player).

If anyone has can you tell me what program you burned it with and in what format (HFS+, iso9660, etc.)

I'm using DVD-R not DVD+R

Thanks

Has anyone burned this on a mac? I've downloaded it and tried burning three different ways and none of them play in either of my three DVD players (one of which is a DVD-A player).

If anyone has can you tell me what program you burned it with and in what format (HFS+, iso9660, etc.)

I'm using DVD-R not DVD+R

Thanks

Are you using Toast? Try this:

- Go to the "Copy" tab.
- Select "Image File" from the choices listed in the left drawer.
- Click the Select button.
- A dialog box should pop-up. Navigate to the disc image and select it.
- Hit Burn.

If this doesn't work for you, download DiscBlaze. DiscBlaze can burn ISO images. Hope this helps, post back your results. :)

Has anyone burned this on a mac? I've downloaded it and tried burning three different ways and none of them play in either of my three DVD players (one of which is a DVD-A player).

If anyone has can you tell me what program you burned it with and in what format (HFS+, iso9660, etc.)

I'm using DVD-R not DVD+R

Thanks

I burned this on a Mac successfully. I'm running Mac OS 10.4.5 and used Disk Utility (v. 10.5.3) to burn. Burner is NEC ND-3540A, media was DVD-R Fujifilm 8x, playback on a Denon DVD-1920.
With this setup, I launched Disk Utility, dragged the ISO into the pane on the left hand side of Disk Utility. Selected the image, clicked on the Burn button, inserted blank disk when prompted and clicked on the Burn button.
HTH...

My version of Toast wouldn't recognize some parts of the .iso file I downloaded. I used DiscBlaze for the three attempts I've made so far. I think I'll try downloading the DSOTM files again just to make sure I don't have a corrupt one.

Thanks for the help so far I'll let you know how it goes.

My version of Toast wouldn't recognize some parts of the .iso file I downloaded.

What parts? :confused: There should be just one ISO file...

Also, insert the discs you burned in your Mac and see what folders it has. There should be a AUDIO_TS and a VIDEO_TS folder.

If there is more than one file, they might be rar files. This is a compression format and the files have to be decompressed.

There is an .iso file. Along with that is a .txt file explaining what the album is as well as 2 jpegs which I think are there to print as cd covers. I only drag the .iso file to the burner.

The .iso file is the one though. It is only an .iso file unless I double click on it and it turns into Audio_TS and Video_TS. I've tried burning it as an .iso file and also as the Audio_TS and Video_TS files, neither work for me.

I can get it to mount on my G4 desktop and the initial menu with the DD or DTS option comes up. It then goes to the song list, but from there nothing happens. When I try the disc in either of my two DVD players, one spits it out and the other just freezes up on it after getting to the song list.

There is an .iso file. Along with that is a .txt file explaining what the album is as well as 2 jpegs which I think are there to print as cd covers. I only drag the .iso file to the burner.

The .iso file is the one though. It is only an .iso file unless I double click on it and it turns into Audio_TS and Video_TS. I've tried burning it as an .iso file and also as the Audio_TS and Video_TS files, neither work for me.

I can get it to mount on my G4 desktop and the initial menu with the DD or DTS option comes up. It then goes to the song list, but from there nothing happens. When I try the disc in either of my two DVD players, one spits it out and the other just freezes up on it after getting to the song list.

Thats odd. If the ISO image mounts then I don't think anything is corrupted. Try this, mount the ISO image. Launch the DVD-player application and choose "Open VIDEO_TS folder" from the File menu. Navigate to the VIDEO_TS folder on the disc-image and click choose. If this works then you're download is perfectly fine and something is up with the burning process.

Also describe how did you try to burn the ISO image? Write the exact steps.

Now that I DL it is there special software I need to be able to burn it? I know I sound dumb on this but never DL a torrent before. I have a DVD burner on my pc do I just use the dvd burner software?

Thanks

Now that I DL it is there special software I need to be able to burn it? I know I sound dumb on this but never DL a torrent before. I have a DVD burner on my pc do I just use the dvd burner software?

Thanks

Just use NERO. It should have something like "Burn DVD from image". Choose that, navigate to the .iso file in your download folder. Make sure that "File Type" is set to "All Files" otherwise you won't see the .iso image. After choosing, just burn normally. Hope this helps.

Also describe how did you try to burn the ISO image? Write the exact steps.

I've opened DiscBlaze and dragged the .iso file onto it and hit burn. I also tried double clikcing the .iso and making the Video_TS and Audio_TS folders, then dragging them to DiscBlaze and hitting burn.

Whether in Toast or DiscBlaze by doing it the way I've described you have to choose what kind of DVD you are burning (iso9660, HFS+, etc). I'll try it by the methods you've described and see what happens.

Are you using Toast? Try this:

- Go to the "Copy" tab.
- Select "Image File" from the choices listed in the left drawer.
- Click the Select button.
- A dialog box should pop-up. Navigate to the disc image and select it.
- Hit Burn.



That did it. Works perfect now. Thanks for your help.

Pink Anderson

I got this disc this morning and I have to say, I wasn't as blown away as most seem to be. It is good yes, but I think the SACD is much better. A lot of the instruments sound veiled in this and dynamic range seems compressed. There are some really nice surround effects, but I think the SACD is still the better mix. Oh well. I am not disappointed in it, but I think I will stick to the SACD for my DSOTM fix.

This mix is unbelievable. I can't believe they never released it before :mad:

IMHO craps all over the SACD version. The dynamics are a bit compressed but meh...the surround effects more than makes up for that! :p :D

They shouldn't have added an LFE track to this, though.

They should have left it 4.0 and let people bass manage it themselves. Hirez players will NOT reroute the LFE channel (they drop it altogether) when set up with NO SUB, so it's impossible to listen to this in true hirez 4.0 (speakers set to LARGE and NO SUB) unless you have a connection that will pass hirez to your receiver/pre/pro for processing.

Unless of course the LFE track they "created" is simply redundant bass info (as you would expect) and not in any way made to be discreet. However, if this is the case, I would expect the bass to sound weak if you dropped the LFE channel from the mix, as they would have had to reduce the bass level in the other channels a corresponding amount when they added the "LFE channel".

Does anyone know how the LFE track was done?

Q: >> Does anyone know how the LFE track was done? <<

A: Sivadselim, the four main speaker channels are full-range. They are not high-pass filtered. So the LFE channel is additional info. (Or to use your words: "is simply redundant bass info ") Actually, it certainly adds a nice bit of oomph to my system, even though my fronts are large floorstanders. So I would not call it "redundant".

Kris Deering wrote: >> A lot of the instruments sound veiled in this and dynamic range seems compressed. <<

Funny that, I would say the reverse. i.e. It's the SACD which I would say is more compressed and veiled. I just did an A-B comparison of the track "Money" and everything from the bass to the instruments seems more fullsome on the quad mix. But with the SACD, it all just seems to 'float' in a more ambient and less defined manner than the DVD-A.

I agree with you Martin. The AP quad mix, while "not as refined" in it's mixing approach, sounds cleaner to my ears and utilizes the 4 channel sound field better. The high end sounds more natural on the quad mix, as does the low end. (IMHO of course.)

Q: >> Does anyone know how the LFE track was done? <<

A: Sivadselim, the four main speaker channels are full-range. They are not high-pass filtered. So the LFE channel is additional info. (Or to use your words: "is simply redundant bass info ") Actually, it certainly adds a nice bit of oomph to my system, even though my fronts are large floorstanders. So I would not call it "redundant".
So I'd still like to know exactly how it was done as far as balancing the bass level for a properly calibrated system, then.

Because if the pseudo-LFE channel overlaps the frequencies covered by the rest of the speakers then it is certainly duplicating the low-end bass below a certain frequency. Whether that duplicated bass is "redundant" depends upon whether they correctly reduced the bass level correspondingly in the other channels when they created the pseudo-LFE channel. If they did not, then the result of the added pseudo-LFE channel would be redundancy in the low-end. If they did reduce the bass levels appropriately in the other channels, then the bass will sound reduced if you try to set a hirez player up for 5.0(4.0) playback (because hirez players' BM won't reroute LFE).

For the lorez tracks, or if you are one of the lucky ones able to bass manage your hirez connection at your receiver/pre/pro, there are implications, too, when the receiver/pre/pro is set up with NO SUB.

Again, I don't really understand why they added a pseudo-LFE channel. It's an absolutely unnecessary manipulation that should not have been done, IMO. They should have just left it 4.0. If it's not broken, don't fix it. Peoples' players (and receivers) will do their bass-managing for them. One of the cardinal rules of multichannel music mixing is that you do NOT simply create, from thin air, a pseudo-LFE channel from the low-end info present in the other channels. That sort of bass management should be done by the end-user, not the mixing engineer.

sivadselim,

Technically you are correct. However, in practicality, the approach taken on the DSOTM disc does actually cover as many bases as possible. That doesn’t mean it covers ALL bases. In fact, no 5.1 disc, regardless of how it is authored, will ever cover all bases. With this DSTOM 4.1 DVDA, it WILL sound OK on many systems (probably the majority) which have a sub, but which do NOT have full-range speakers all round. Moreover, it will also sound OK on systems which DO have full-range speakers all round, and where there is either no sub, OR sub turned off.

It also sounds OK on my system where the front L/Rs are "large", rears & centre are "small", and while my two REL subs are turned down a little (easily done with sub’s remote). I also turn the bass on the mains down a little for the fronts using my pre-pro’s remote. Then I get a really nice seamless "blend" of low freqs into the mains and surrounds. Honest.

Now you may be thinking: "why should I have to jump through all these hoops?"
Well let me say this: If you honestly think that one can ever actually "calibrate" your BM and then leave it set, then you are deluding yourself! I find that EVERY one of my 110 DVD-As (plus all my DVD-V films) needs some sort of individual bass adjustment to sound "right".

Moreover I use my ears, and not those stupid calibration mics and SPL meters that some folks think are necessary. I am not tone deaf. I never needed SPL meters when I calibrated my trumpet in the orchestra before a concert, and I sure don’t need them for my hi-fi either! ;-)

Anyway — that’s all part of the fun of this hobby. In short, there is NO SUCH THING as one perfect BM setting. That’s why some folks get themselves a fully channel-by-channel adjustable Outlaw ICBM analog bass manager running in series with the hirez six analog-outs. Coming back to DSOTM, with an ICBM you CAN discard the LFE if you want, and STILL route the bass from the mains to your sub, using any crossover freq you like, for any speaker. Or you can mix the speaker sub-bass with the sub/LFE — to suit all "palettes".

I conclude by stressing that the DSOTM quad DVD-A has retained all the bass info in the mains intact. That's the most important thing!

Meantime, the many folks with low-cost sub-sat systems and no BM, will still enjoy a fullsome DSOTM MLP mix, as intended.

This is not a pirate, since (a) The DVDA is not for sale (i.e. no money is being asked for it); and (b) there is no DSOTM quad "product" available as such. (This quad mix was commissioned by EMI, in 1973, but was then mothballed.)
I was NOT mothballed. It came out. I have it on UK SQ LP. It also came out on 8-track in the UK & US (the US one, however was not the discrete mix that the UK one used. Capitol decoded the SQ version & put THAT on 8-track). The DVD-A, however is actually off of the discrete master tape, making it the best version of this to ever come out. I dowloaded it today, & it destroys my LP. I like this mix much better than the SACD.

Having just listened to this DVD-A I have a couple observations. The sound is incredible on most tracks but a few tracks seem to have muted and or missing vocals and instruments. Anyone else notice this?

For example, track #1 (Speak To Me) near the end, starting at approx. the 1:07 mark, Clare Torry's screaming-yelling is muted and absent in part.

Having just listened to this DVD-A I have a couple observations. The sound is incredible on most tracks but a few tracks seem to have muted and or missing vocals and instruments. Anyone else notice this?

For example, track #1 (Speak To Me) near the end, starting at approx. the 1:07 mark, Clare Torry's screaming-yelling is muted and absent in part.That's why they didn't use it for the SACD. Parsons' mix left out some things from the stereo mix & also had some stuff that wasn't in the stereo mix.

That's why they didn't use it for the SACD. Parsons' mix left out some things from the stereo mix & also had some stuff that wasn't in the stereo mix.

Not being a sound engineer I don't understand why the DVDA turned out this way. It's really obvious on track 8 (Us And Them) which is missing one channel for both lead guitar and keyboard-synthesizer.

Not being a sound engineer I don't understand why the DVDA turned out this way. It's really obvious on track 8 (Us And Them) which is missing one channel for both lead guitar and keyboard-synthesizer.Because Parsons left it out. He said the mix was hurried & experimental. I STILL like it better than the SACD mix.

I have heard the new DVD-A 4.1 DSOTM, and I own the 5.1 SA-CD.

Alan Parsons' mix is very good. The sound character is lush, and the soundstage is very dimensional. I had previously heard this mix in DD and DTS, and the MLP delivery is far better. I wish I wish I wish that they hadn't concocted a .1 channel, there is absolutely no reason for this - the main channels contain all of the low frequency information already.

I like both mixes, and I disagree with the treatment chosen for both mixes to some extent. Center Channel is a great tool if used right in a music mix, and to ignore or under-use it can be a shame. I don't know if AP should have been allowed to finish his 4.0 mix, but I can't argue that Guthrie wasn't qualified for the job, either.

The DVD-A is most certainly, undeniably copyright infringement in the U.S. EMI/PF own the Quad mix, and this has nothing, in relation to today's intellectual property law, to do with whether profit was or was not made with this distribution or with Fair Use. OTOH I felt absolutely no ill effect from holding the DVD-A in my hand!

Did anyone else notice that in the Parsons interview he said he put the opening heartbeat on the right side, where someone's heart would be if they were facing you, yet on the quad-mix DVD-A the heartbeat is clearly on the left.

Did anyone else notice that in the Parsons interview he said he put the opening heartbeat on the right side, where someone's heart would be if they were facing you, yet on the quad-mix DVD-A the heartbeat is clearly on the left.

I noticed that too and thought perhaps the transfer had swapped the LF and RF channels, but the cash register sounds at the beginning of "Money" start in the LF which is where they should according to that same Parsons interview.

Re-read the interview. He put the heartbeat on the right side of the STEREO mix, not the quad.

I said the same thing in the Quad Forum, but Larry is on the money.

Maybe Parsons wanted to put us in the first person in the quad mix...? ;)

I said the same thing in the Quad Forum, but Larry is on the money.

Maybe Parsons wanted to put us in the first person in the quad mix...? ;)

:) :) :) :) :) :)

I have a problem with the surround left rear channel on the lossless audio track. It doesn't play on my samsung ht-p38. the other 3 channels sound superb but that channel is barely there. The dts track sounds incredible and I hear all four channels.

Listening closely, the level on that channels is very low so it sounds like 3.1 instead of 4.1. DD5.1 and dts tracks are fine, just the lossless tracks.

Listening closely, the level on that channels is very low so it sounds like 3.1 instead of 4.1. DD5.1 and dts tracks are fine, just the lossless tracks.
You're the only one with this problem, telemike, so it's something on your end.

I'll need to get another DVD-A title to see if it's the samsung HTIB. I burned the iso with nero onto a dvd +r.

Anyways, the dts track is pretty darn good. The surround mix is stunning.

I don't know why some people are complaining about the LFE channel on this title. I am thankful for it and I think it sounds fantastic! I do not utilize bass management or any other digital signal processing that will muck with the signal. In my opinion, BM and DSP can be bypassed entirely with proper speaker selection, placement and subwoofer blending.

My speakers are full range, but they certainly don't dip down to the low levels offered by my subwoofer. As a 4.0 title, with four full range channels on four full range speakers, there is still missing bass information! In fact, I have never heard Roger Water's bass sound so good on DSOTM as it does on this DVD-A (well, his bass sounds pretty darn good on the SACD as well).

Someone mentioned before that there is no LFE mixing approach that will work for all systems/configurations. The LFE channel, along with the center channel, have always been the ugly stepchildren of surround mixing: what the heck do you do with them? No matter what you do, someone is bound to complain.

A finely crafted LFE targeting systems that are properly configured is the best way to go, IMHO, and this DVD-A hits a home run as far as I'm concerned! For those that don't like the LFE: DISCCONECT THE LFE CHANNEL OR TURN YOUR FRIGGIN' SUBWOOFER OFF!!!

Did anyone else notice that in the Parsons interview he said he put the opening heartbeat on the right side, where someone's heart would be if they were facing you, yet on the quad-mix DVD-A the heartbeat is clearly on the left.

With a quad mix, maybe it's more aiming for YOUR heart beating?

Captain...

I think that we all agree that this mix, on its own merits, sounds great!

---

The reason why the LFE channel is unneeded in music mixes is that each of the other channels is already full-range. There is low-frequency response and dynamic range enough to satisfy the full range of any sound we can hear available on any of these main channels. The standard practices and common equipment used for commercial cinema audio are very different than home systems.

My speakers are full range, but they certainly don't dip down to the low levels offered by my subwoofer

Well then...your speakers are not full range.

You have every right to live with them. If you want their respective channels to be reproduced full-range, you will have to integrate the subwoofer with them. The integrator is called Bass Management.

No one can turn off the subwoofer when playing this mix because it was mixed with the delivery of this LFE channel in mind - the mix would have been different if the LFE channel hadn't been used.

The only safe treatment, for many, many reasons, of bass in a music mix is to mix the bass content to one or more of the main speakers. Your system without bass management and mine with bass management both will present this mix differently than how it was heard in the mastering facility (of course all systems will be different...but this one starts out with a handicap, which the originators probably considered an advantage), and with the inclusion of a manufactured LFE channel, there is never a chance of consistency outside the mastering facility. No LFE content gives a mix a fighting chance at consistency.

---

Again, I'm not criticizing your choice of system integration (I'm sure it sounds great). I just need to point out the facts with why this LFE content is not appropriate (as good as the mix does sound).

The reason why the LFE channel is unneeded in music mixes is that each of the other channels is already full-range.This is a NON-reason.

Well then...your speakers are not full range.How many "full range" speakers are really full range? Very friggin' few! Otherwise, there would be a much smaller market for subwoofers!

You have every right to live with them.I do and I love them. Do you have "full range" speakers that have a flat frequency response down to 20 Hz and below? I don't know of ANY speakers that are truly "full range". When I use the term "full range", I use it to differentiate from sattelite/sub systems. I don't think anyone uses "full range" to literally mean perfectly flat frequency response across the audible spectrum. Even the most high-end "full range" speakers might benefit from the addition of a subwoofer.

If you want their respective channels to be reproduced full-range, you will have to integrate the subwoofer with them. The integrator is called Bass Management.Quite right. In my system, the "integrator" is me and "Bass Management" is proper blending of the subwoofer using its low-pass filter and volume control (which I have done using a spectrum analyzer and pink tones). This approach lends to the perfect mains/sub blend on probably 90% of commercial discs AND this particular DSOTM DVD-A – no digital signal processing needed – pure, 100% analog stream from player through preamp through amp to speakers – BLISS!)

No one can turn off the subwoofer when playing this mix because it was mixed with the delivery of this LFE channel in mind - the mix would have been different if the LFE channel hadn't been used. Oh really now. Sounds like you know something that I don't! As a matter of fact, the mains are straight on, full, unaltered transfers from the original quad master tape. There is no "mix" (beyond the original). The LFE is provided simply to fill out the bottom end that virtually no "full range" speaker can truly offer.

The only safe treatment, for many, many reasons, of bass in a music mix is to mix the bass content to one or more of the main speakers. Your system without bass management and mine with bass management both will present this mix differently than how it was heard in the mastering facility (of course all systems will be different...but this one starts out with a handicap, which the originators probably considered an advantage), and with the inclusion of a manufactured LFE channel, there is never a chance of consistency outside the mastering facility. No LFE content gives a mix a fighting chance at consistency. Dude, you are way, way, WAY overanalyzing this and on top of that your assumptions are completely wrong. This disc is simply a 4.0 transfer from the original quadraphonic master tape. All four channels are complete, unaltered, from the 1973 mix LONG before subwoofers were a consideration, ergo the term QUADRAPHONIC and not 4.1 or some variation. The LFE channel is completely redundant to the extent that your main speakers are really, truly “full range”, but in most cases the LFE will allow people with “real world” “full range” speakers to blend in the missing very bottom end. Additionally, it allow boneheads like me, who abhor any additional and/or unnecessary DSP, to have an attractive option.

And you know, it really is about having that option. If there were no LFE, I would have no option other than DSP-based bass management. For people like you who demand the DSP-based management, you have the option as well: disconnect the LFE input from your pre-amp! It’s the old “tea too strong vs. tea too weak” dilemma. It is easier to water down the tea than it is to strengthen it, so it makes sense to produce stronger tea to most easily satisfy both camps. The same is true with this particular LFE channel.

Thus, this particular title would be handicapped if it did NOT have an LFE!

I applaud the authors of this disc for their EXCELLENT choice in the LFE presentation. It really does offer the widest range of choices...

...even if it does mean you have to water down your tea. :D

...

How many "full range" speakers are really full range? Very friggin' few! Otherwise, there would be a much smaller market for subwoofers!

...

Many. Dynaudio, Quested, and PMC are a start.

Our full-range of hearing is 20 Hz to 20k Hz, and CD, DVD-A, and most media are designed to carry that range. A speaker isn't full-range unless it covers this (or nearly this).

I said nothing about flat.

...

Quite right. In my system, the "integrator" is me and "Bass Management" is proper blending of the subwoofer using its low-pass filter and volume control (which I have done using a spectrum analyzer and pink tones). This approach lends to the perfect mains/sub blend on probably 90% of commercial discs AND this particular DSOTM DVD-A – no digital signal processing needed – pure, 100% analog stream from player through preamp through amp to speakers – BLISS!)

My speaker system is full-range. My main speakers are not. They are properly integrated with the subwoofer: all channels are summed to the subwoofer with an appropriate low-pass filter, and all mains are all high-passed at their -3 dB point (all this with no DSP, all analog, probably the best thing in my audio chain!), and calibrated with a time-based measurement system.

As a matter of fact, the mains are straight on, full, unaltered transfers from the original quad master tape. There is no "mix" (beyond the original). The LFE is provided simply to fill out the bottom end that virtually no "full range" speaker can truly offer.

Dude, you are way, way, WAY overanalyzing this and on top of that your assumptions are completely wrong. This disc is simply a 4.0 transfer from the original quadraphonic master tape. All four channels are complete, unaltered, from the 1973 mix LONG before subwoofers were a consideration, ergo the term QUADRAPHONIC and not 4.1 or some variation. The LFE channel is completely redundant to the extent that your main speakers are really, truly “full range”, but in most cases the LFE will allow people with “real world” “full range” speakers to blend in the missing very bottom end. Additionally, it allow boneheads like me, who abhor any type of DSP, to have an attractive option.

And you know, it really is about having that option. If there were no LFE, I would have no option other than DSP-based bass management. For people like you who demand the DSP-based management, you have the option as well: disconnect the LFE input from your pre-amp! It’s the old “tea too strong vs. tea too weak” dilemma. It is easier to water down the tea than it is to strengthen it, so it makes sense to produce stronger tea to most easily satisfy both camps. The same is true with this particular LFE channel.
...


mmmmmmmmmm Trust me, it's a mix when they add a faux .1 channel to an existing mix. This would mean all channels are re-balanced to acommodate the ill-advised LFE tack-on. This additional channel, that Mr. Parsons couldn't have imagined when he did the Quad mix, by definition alters the mix.

And it alters the way we have to play this mix in our living rooms. An LFE channel which duplicates content in the mains, especially in a situation like yours where (as I can best understand from your post) you have no high-pass filter on your mains, these common sounds are adding in unpredictable ways because of room modes, and causing phase anomolies (I supose you have ripped the passive crossovers out of your main speakers so you could hear the tweeters and woofers with less coloration... :p )

Adding an LFE channel like this mix does leaves none of us with the ability to hear it properly. Delivering the Quad mix un-altered gives all of us the choice to implement our speaker system in our own way, according to our needs and taste. This discussion, while thread-drift to some extent, is on-topic since we all have different approches to our systems and we will each hear this differently because of an unfortunate choice on the part of the distributor.

So, um, like... you don't know how to disconnect the LFE channel from your pre-amp?

Mmmmmmmmmmm Trust me, it's a mix when they add a faux .1 channel to an existing mix. Ah, semantics. The disc offers two mixes, if you want to get techincal. 4.0 (unaltered) and 4.1 (altered). Disconnect the LFE channel from your preamp, set all speakers to large, and turn off bass management to get the "unaltered" quadraphonic 4.0 mix.


This would mean all channels are re-balanced to acommodate the ill-advised LFE tack-on.Gotta love those unfounded assumptions and leading qualifiers. :rolleyes:


This additional channel, that Mr. Parsons couldn't have imagined when he did the Quad mix, by definition alters the mix.The original quad mix remains unaltered. Refer to first comment in this reply.


And it alters the way we have to play this mix in our living rooms.Of course it does. If we continue to unwind your logic, the only way to listen to this legitimately is to go back to 1973 and sit in Parson's mixing chair, listening to the exact equipment he monitored the mix on. Come on!


An LFE channel which duplicates content in the mains, especially in a situation like yours where (as I can best understand from your post)The only "duplication" is where low frequency response of my mains cross over the low-pass setting of my subwoofer (between 36 Hz and 40 Hz, if you're really curious).


you have no high-pass filter on your mains, these common sounds are adding in unpredictable waysHave you even listened to the sub channel through a "full range" speaker? Check it out and get back to me on your statement. Not that it would matter considering the low-pass filter... and the fact that I'm using NO BASS MANAGEMENT!


because of room modes, and causing phase anomolies (I supose you have ripped the passive crossovers out of your main speakers so you could hear the tweeters and woofers with less coloration... :p )Yer a funny guy. I think I mentioned a spectrum analyzer...

So, um, like... you don't know how to disconnect the LFE channel from your pre-amp?
Disconnecting the sub is definitely not the solution, especially for someone who prefers to listen to their music with a subwoofer. Bass management is the solution. Faux LFE tracks are not.

None of my redbook CDs have a subwoofer track, do they? Correct me if I'm wrong, but an LFE track was not recorded when DSOTM was recorded, was it?

If you understand bass management you understand what's wrong with the added LFE channel (as it's described in this thread, anyway). And that's all that really needs to be said.

Disconnecting the sub is definitely not the solution, especially for someone who prefers to listen to their music with a subwoofer. Bass management is the solution. Faux LFE tracks are not.

None of my redbook CDs have a subwoofer track, do they? Correct me if I'm wrong, but an LFE track was not recorded when DSOTM was recorded, was it?

If you understand bass management you understand what's wrong with the added LFE channel (as it's described in this thread, ahyway). And that's all that really needs to be said.

[sigh]

I did not mean disconnect your subwoofer, I meant disconnect the LFE input from the pre-amp. I should have been more specific.

I mean, your DVD-A player has six analog outputs: the mains, center and LFE. If you remove the LFE connection between the DVD-A player and the pre-amp, the reciever will "see" only four channels, and then your bass managment can work its wild and wooley magic.

But then, this is not how the original mix was meant to be heard, right? I mean, we gots to get rid of that there subwoofer since it wasn't invented way back in 1973. No prob, just turn off bass management and set all speakers to large.

The bottom line is that this disc can be enjoyed in a variety of ways:

- 4.1 with bass management
- 4.1 without bass management
- 4.0 with bass management
- 4.0 without bass management

Granted, the "4.0" options requires some equipment reconfiguration, but it is possible. That's all I'm sayin'!

I gave one to a dealer/friend of mine and tried it on a Denon 955S (2910) with an AVM30 and for some reason just the Dolby Digital and DTS options showed up. We checked all the settings in the DVD player but couldnt figure it out...any ideas?

Listened to a couple tracks in DTS anyways, sounds pretty sweet with Paradigm Signatures.

Seriousfun wrote:-

>> This would mean all channels are re-balanced to acommodate the ill-advised LFE tack-on. <<

Look -- I know for a fact that statement is totally wrong. Trust me. i.e. The main four channels are NOT bass-filtered in any way!

b.t.w., an Outlaw ICBM will solve your 'dilemma' by discarding (or supressing) the incoming LFE to the preamp, and then applying analog BM just on the four main channels. But I still think that's unneccessary with this particular disc. It sounds fine to me. And I do like the extra low-end grunt in the 20Hz region that the LFE provides.

I note you mentioned PMC speakers. Now, my mains (with dual-woofers each) are made by TDL -- a now deceased English company -- and are based on the same "transmission-line" technology as used by PMC. But even these don't go anywhere near as low as my REL Storm 5 sub (15Hz in-room response!).

If you understand bass management you understand what's wrong with the added LFE channel (as it's described in this thread, anyway). And that's all that really needs to be said.
:rolleyes:

If you understand that there is often absolutley no need for bass management you understand what's NOT wrong with the added LFE channel (as it's described in this thread, anyway). And that's all that really needs to be said.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

If you understand that there is often absolutley no need for bass management you understand what's NOT wrong with the added LFE channel (as it's described in this thread, anyway). And that's all that really needs to be said.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
As described in the thread, the LFE track is redundant bass information, Captain. Do you understand that? The low-end has been, admittedly, purposefully bloated. It's not really defensible.

It is basically a recording that mimics what your system would do if you bass managed it with an LFE+Main or Subwoofer PLUS setting. It cannot be UNbass-managed away; not with any conventional setup. Most people bass-manage their hirez at their player. Very few people can bass manage their analog multichannel inputs.

How do you playback this recording, btw? How do you normally playback your hirez?

The LFE+Main or Subwoofer PLUS setting is shunned by most, but for those poor souls who actually have their system setup with this setting already, when they listen to this recording, they'll get doubly redundant bass!

And for the fellow who has no subwoofer and has no hirez player, yet wants to listen to the DD tracks, and has his receiver set up with NO sub, he'll now be sending the redundant bass info to his mains. Probably not a good idea.

We can break down all the bass-managed or unbass-managed scenarios you get when you playback with this recording, if you'd like. The bottom line is that you can't easily undo what's been done to it.

If "they" had simply left the recording well-enough alone this would all be moot.

I gave one to a dealer/friend of mine and tried it on a Denon 955S (2910) with an AVM30 and for some reason just the Dolby Digital and DTS options showed up. We checked all the settings in the DVD player but couldnt figure it out...any ideas?

Listened to a couple tracks in DTS anyways, sounds pretty sweet with Paradigm Signatures.

In the Setup mode, on the last category, is it set to "Video" or "Audio"? If set to Video, you won't see the option for MLP, and it will only show DTS and DD. You need to set it to "Audio" to show MLP.

As described in the thread, the LFE track is redundant bass information, Captain. Do you understand that? The low-end has been, admittedly, purposefully bloated. It's not really defensible.There is no bloat if you don't use bass management. It is bass management will cause "bloat", not the simple inclusion of an LFE! And the information is redundant only to the extent that there is a crossover between LF performance of mains and subwoofer, which can easily be managed through the subwoofers controls (that is what they are there for). Hmm, I'm easily defending it... :rolleyes:

There is no bloat if you don't use bass management. It is bass management will cause "bloat", not the simple inclusion of an LFE! And the information is redundant only to the extent that there is a crossover between LF performance of mains and subwoofer, which can easily be managed through the subwoofers controls (that is what they are there for). Hmm, I'm easily defending it... :rolleyes:
Yes there is "bloat", Captain. C'mon, it's in the recording, bass-managed or not. Granted, we're going on what's posted here, but as described, the LFE track is neither crossed-over nor blended properly with the bass in the other channels. It is simply added redundant bass info below a certain crossover point.

This recording MUST be UNbass-managed to playback properly with a subwoofer, whether using a LARGE or SMALL speaker setting.

And very few people have a system capable of UNbassmanaging this recording properly.

Out of curiosity, how do you playback this recording? And is that any different than the way you listen to your other hirez recordings? How do you listen to redbook CDs?

And very few people have a system capable of UNbassmanaging this recording properly.A-ha! By George, I think you've got it! This DVD-A is not catering to the lowest common denominator but to those with capable systems! Imagine that! Bass management is and always has been a band-aid solution for sattelite/sub systems and "full range" speakers with less than desirable performance.

BUT, as I keep saying, all users CAN play this back correctly with a little tweaking. And really, for those that are going to experience "bass bloat", do you think they will even realize it? If they realize it, will they care? Anyone who cares will be able to do something about it.

Look, there is a HUGE amount of variance in LFE channel delivery. At this stage in the game I think it is pointless to expect there to be anything resembling standardization. Virtually every aspect of surround-sound music production is frought with variablity. I've learned to live with it and appreciate those times when everything seems to come together. In this case (the DSOTM DVD-A) I believe it is one of those times when everything has come together. But that's just me and my own subjective interpretation based on my system and how I choose to configure it. Your mileage may vary. But should we really fault the author for not catering to the lowest common denominator?


Out of curiosity, how do you playback this recording?I've pretty much laid this out already in my earlier posts.

A-ha! By George, I think you've got it! This DVD-A is not catering to the lowest common denominator but to those with capable systems! Imagine that! Bass management is and always has been a band-aid solution for sattelite/sub systems and "full range" speakers with less than desirable performance.

BUT, as I keep saying, all users CAN play this back correctly with a little tweaking. And really, for those that are going to experience "bass bloat", do you think they will even realize it? If they realize it, will they care? Anyone who cares will be able to do something about it.

Look, there is a HUGE amount of variance in LFE channel delivery. At this stage in the game I think it is pointless to expect there to be anything resembling standardization. Virtually every aspect of surround-sound music production is frought with variablity. I've learned to live with it and appreciate those times when everything seems to come together. In this case (the DSOTM DVD-A) I believe it is one of those times when everything has come together. But that's just me and my own subjective interpretation based on my system and how I choose to configure it. Your mileage may vary. But should we really fault the author for not catering to the lowest common denominator?


I've pretty much laid this out already in my earlier posts.
I ask about your setup because the way you're describing it, you ARE listening to the recording the way it was intended to be heard; with bloated bass.

Please, if you could be more specific about your setup, I could perhaps see the light. How do you normally listen to hirez discs? Redbook CDs? This DSOTM mix? Explain it to me.

Basically, your bass management scheme doesn't matter; the recording is flawed out of the gate. The LFE track contains bass information that is already present, in full-measure, in the other 4 channels. There is no way around that.

I don't know why some people are complaining about the LFE channel on this title. I am thankful for it and I think it sounds fantastic! I do not utilize bass management or any other digital signal processing that will muck with the signal. In my opinion, BM and DSP can be bypassed entirely with proper speaker selection, placement and subwoofer blending.

My speakers are full range, but they certainly don't dip down to the low levels offered by my subwoofer. As a 4.0 title, with four full range channels on four full range speakers, there is still missing bass information! In fact, I have never heard Roger Water's bass sound so good on DSOTM as it does on this DVD-A (well, his bass sounds pretty darn good on the SACD as well).

Someone mentioned before that there is no LFE mixing approach that will work for all systems/configurations. The LFE channel, along with the center channel, have always been the ugly stepchildren of surround mixing: what the heck do you do with them? No matter what you do, someone is bound to complain.

A finely crafted LFE targeting systems that are properly configured is the best way to go, IMHO, and this DVD-A hits a home run as far as I'm concerned! For those that don't like the LFE: DISCCONECT THE LFE CHANNEL OR TURN YOUR FRIGGIN' SUBWOOFER OFF!!!
If you run your speakers as LARGE, that's fine. But then you don't want an LFE channel at all. If you like an LFE+Main type setting, where the subwoofer receives and reinforces some of the bass info that is also sent to the LARGE fronts, that's your listening preference, but the engineer shouldn't enginneer a recording to sound that way, which is exactly what the recording represents.

The LFE approach that would have worked best here would have been to have left it out completely. Then, if someone wants to playback the recording with LARGE speakers and still have a subwoofer channel in the mix, most players and receiver/pre/pros have a setting to accomodate this; the LFE+Main or Subwoofer PLUS setting. If someone wanted to playback the recording with a SMALL speaker setting, an LFE-less recording would be bass managed perfectly correctly by their player or receiver/pre/pro.

As it stands now, the recording is flat-out INCORRECT. Very few people will understand how to, much less be able to, or even care to, listen to it properly. They'll think that, as evidenced here, that the added "oomph" sounds good. The reality is it's just that; added "oomph". Your speakers' natural roll-off notwithstanding, I seriously doubt that you are listening to it, Captain, without the bloated bass that is most definitely included in the mix. Although I am open to hearing exactly how you decode and play it back.

That your feelings toward bass management, in general, seem negative, yet you seem to be able to support the sort of "gross" manipulation that was done to this recording, is contradictory.

I applaud the authors of this disc for their EXCELLENT choice in the LFE presentation. It really does offer the widest range of choices...

It offers NO CHOICES. You get bloated, duplicate bass in the LFE channel.

If you truly have full-range front speakers (who does?), then the LFE track will definitely be redundant. What you seem to be arguing is that no speakers are truly full-range and that what this added LFE track does is take over the low-end where most full-range speakers will naturally be rolling off anyway. Depending upon your speakers, this may indeed be true. But mixing music this way is usually NOT how this is achieved. This manipulation is best left to the end-user. Most of our player and/or receiver/pre/pros have a setting which will allow duplicate bass information below a certain crossover to be directed to the subwoofer as well as the mains that are already set to LARGE; an LFE+Main or SubwooferPLUS setting. Some people DO indeed prefer to listen to their music this way, with the subwoofer reinforcing the LARGE mains, and that's fine if that's your preference. But mixing a recording this way is incorrect.

[sigh]

I give up. The Bass Management Militia has spoken.

I will close by saying that I completely and utterly disagree in both factual and subjective context to virtually everything you (Miles Davis and Serious Fun) have to say on the topic of bass management.

As for the rest of you folks, please ignore all this LFE nonsense and enjoy the friggin' music!

[sigh]

I give up. The Bass Management Militia has spoken.

I will close by saying that I completely and utterly disagree in both factual and subjective context to virtually everything you (Miles Davis and Serious Fun) have to say on the topic of bass management.

As for the rest of you folks, please ignore all this LFE nonsense and enjoy the friggin' music!
That's funny because there is nothing to disagree with, really.

As it's presented here, the LFE track that's included represents redundant bass information that is present in the other 4 channels. That's plain wrong.

If some effort had been made to roll-off the bass info that's being sent to mains below some frequency where the LFE track takes over the low-end, I'd be less inclined to b!tch, but that would still represent a totally unnecessary manipulation of the source material.

When I listen to this recording with all my speakers set to SMALL, the same setup that a vast majority of HT users are using, my properly integrated and calibrated subwoofer is receiving and playing back the bass information at a level that is beyond that which was originally intended by the authors of the music.

The text file that accompanies the quad mix in question states:

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

Stop bickering, sit back, and enjoy what is arguably one of the most significant things to come down the pike in a very long while.

FWIW I think it sounds absolutely amazing.

Where do you find this?

Seriousfun wrote:-

>> This would mean all channels are re-balanced to acommodate the ill-advised LFE tack-on. <<

Look -- I know for a fact that statement is totally wrong. Trust me. i.e. The main four channels are NOT bass-filtered in any way!

...

As a matter of fact (I must apologize to you and CB), you are correct, sir! The Quad mix is delivered flat from the four main channels.

I fully stand with my position that the extra LFE information is a bad choice.

I can (and will) tonight evaluate this by unplugging the connection from my player's LFE output to my hardware bass manager (not an Outlaw - they are no longer available). The bass manager will still work to make my system full-range. Most people do not have this luxury, and only a few of us will be silly enough to actually unplug a cable to listen to this one disc...

I just don't get it. I have a Yamaha DSP-A1 amp, set to large & the sub set to both. I am using a Definitive Technology surround speaker system with dual, stereo subs, and I don't find it bass-heavy AT ALL. You want bass-heavy, try the DTS conversion (in 4.0) for Wish You Were Here off of the UK Q8. That sucker is goosed to the max and there is NO .1 channel. The DVD-A also plays fine in my Acura TL, whereas WYWH has way too much bass there also. The DVD-A is the best way I have ever heard this (and I have owned the UK SQ LP since 1976)! If you don't like it, just go into the amp's controls & reduce the LFE signal to zero. Sheesh!

(not an Outlaw - they are no longer available).
I wonder why they discontinued it.

I wonder why they discontinued it.

I'd like to know, too. I'd like to hear from them.

My research tells me that Bass Management is still a controversial issue (that is, until it is properly implemented - everyone understands it then).

Most surround receivers, processors, and players have some form of bass management built-in, so external units are not needed by most. Many receivers don't have the appropriate connections (six RCA inputs and outputs) to acommodate this (I have my hardware bass manager connected only on the outputs of my universal player - every other source is bass managed by the receiver, because the receiver does not have inputs for the surround and LFE channels, only the mains), so they can't use external units.

Good quality external bass managers cost more than many peoples' receivers!

I just don't get it. I have a Yamaha DSP-A1 amp, set to large & the sub set to both. I am using a Definitive Technology surround speaker system with dual, stereo subs, and I don't find it bass-heavy AT ALL. You want bass-heavy, try the DTS conversion (in 4.0) for Wish You Were Here off of the UK Q8. That sucker is goosed to the max and there is NO .1 channel. The DVD-A also plays fine in my Acura TL, whereas WYWH has way too much bass there also. The DVD-A is the best way I have ever heard this (and I have owned the UK SQ LP since 1976)! If you don't like it, just go into the amp's controls & reduce the LFE signal to zero. Sheesh!

If you don't have your main speakers set to small, no wonder you don't find this bass heavy (not that all listeners would).

And again, the only way I, for example, can remove LFE content without turning off the subwoofer is to physically unplug the cable from my player's output that goes to the LFE input on my hardware bass manager.

I'd like to know, too. I'd like to hear from them.



You know, it may have something to do with the abysmal market for SACD and DVD-A audio, neither of which really went anywhere or became more than a footnote when compared to overall audio sales.

Mine as been useful since the day I got it, depending on what equipment I have changed out over time, I have used all of it to just using it for a few channels. Very handy device.

I'm not aware of very many receivers that can apply BM on the analog-multi-channel inputs so I would think it's a matter of low sales of the media than takes advantage of the ICBM.

If you don't have your main speakers set to small, no wonder you don't find this bass heavy (not that all listeners would).

And again, the only way I, for example, can remove LFE content without turning off the subwoofer is to physically unplug the cable from my player's output that goes to the LFE input on my hardware bass manager.
But I have full-range bass all around AND the LFE on AND regular bass being routed to the 2 subs. If anything, it should be worse in my case.

But I have full-range bass all around AND the LFE on AND regular bass being routed to the 2 subs. If anything, it should be worse in my case.

(I'm not trying to criticise your system) Do your main speakers and your subwoofers all have equal low frequency response down near 20 Hz?

You know, it may have something to do with the abysmal market for SACD and DVD-A audio, neither of which really went anywhere or became more than a footnote when compared to overall audio sales.

Mine as been useful since the day I got it, depending on what equipment I have changed out over time, I have used all of it to just using it for a few channels. Very handy device.

I'm not aware of very many receivers that can apply BM on the analog-multi-channel inputs so I would think it's a matter of low sales of the media than takes advantage of the ICBM.

Yep. One cable from player to receiver/processor, and speaker management for any and all sources applied at the end of the chain before the speakers might have made a world of difference. Let's see how BRD/HD-DVD players with HDMI or other simplified connectors might help with the next format.

In the Setup mode, on the last category, is it set to "Video" or "Audio"? If set to Video, you won't see the option for MLP, and it will only show DTS and DD. You need to set it to "Audio" to show MLP.

Thats what I thought but unfortunately when I went to that section, it was grayed out. Wonder why.......

One other question I have for all, is it not my understanding that when playing DVD-A dont your speakers automatically go to "large" and there isnt a choice in the matter? All this talk about setting them to large and small....didnt think there was this option.

Where do you find this?

go to google and type dsotm dvd-a. It will take you the site you need to download it from. you need a ********** software to download it, which may take a day or 2 but its worth it.

Thats what I thought but unfortunately when I went to that section, it was grayed out. Wonder why.......

If you are playing something, and hit Setup, the options will be greyed out. You need to stop what you are playing, then go into Setup. This option should not be greyed out then. At that point, you set this to Audio.

... is it not my understanding that when playing DVD-A dont your speakers automatically go to "large" and there isnt a choice in the matter? All this talk about setting them to large and small....didnt think there was this option.

This is not content-dependent.

This is speaker system dependent. The consumer electronics (and pro electronics) manufacturers do not make this easy, but the concept is simple: you have five full-range channels and one limited range (LFE) channel to play. You can either have five truely full-range speakers (costly, large, and difficult to place, but possible) or five limited-range speakers integrated with a subwoofer to play each channel full-range. This speaker management is called Bass Management. Bass Management is simplified in most units by giving the choice to set speakers to large or small - large meaning full-range and small, which integrates the subwoofer using a crossover.

Your receiver probably doesn't applythis bass management at its line inputs, so you will have to implement it in the player or in an external hardware bass manager.

Seriousfun, you never said whether you actually enjoyed the DSOTM DVD-A?

Having listened to, (and greatly enjoyed I might add) the DSOTM DVD-A on my system, I know the actual intensity of bass coming out of the four mains is accurate and with the same "flat" response of the original quad master. However, I feel that it is nevertheless less intense than what I’m used to on modern recordings. This is probably due to the fact that it was not made with domestic large bass speaker drivers in mind (we're talking 1970s -- whereas today we have much more headroom).

In those days most people’s amps would just have clipped/distorted if heavy bass was put through them. The other fact is that it was produced with low-dynamic vinyl in mind, and bass was minimised to keep the groove width to a minimum.

Now, what this DVD-A does, is effectively correct that, and let the subwoofer do what it does best, while still leaving the bass info in the mains ‘untouched’ from the original. i.e. Best of both worlds.

For this reason, I feel the addition of the LFE track is most welcome indeed. In short, in actual listening, it does NOT make the album sound "bloated". It just gives me a level of bass that I would have wanted in the first place. Purists may like a vanilla 4.0 quad playback, with no LFE track authored. However, from listening to the mix with the sub turned off, I do find it rather bland in the bass department! My front speakers are larger than most, and I know that modern digital recordings can really make these drivers shake the room on their own (i.e. with no subwoofer engaged).
However, due to the original DSOTM being optimised for the meagre bass reproduction capability of 1970s hi-fi in general, the four quad channels hardly make my full-range fronts move at all! Even when I play it loud on my 150W per-ch (5-channels driven) power amp.

So I conclude, this revision still allows purists to hear it in the 4.0 with the original ‘bland’ bass, while the LFE gives me the amount of bass that I’m used to on my modern system, and without having to ‘color’ the sound of the main channels by turning the EQ up on my preamp. In short, I think the DVD-A has "corrected" and optimised DSOTM to get the best out of my modern hi-fi system.

To be honest, if it did NOT have an LFE track, I would definitely have to set my system to LFE+ (or front+LFE etc. +10dB boost etc. ). But I’m glad this disc has spared me the hassle of having to do that (I would have had to go deep into my Denon DVD-5900’s BM menus etc.)

Seriousfun, you never said whether you actually enjoyed the DSOTM DVD-A?

:p

Yes I did (in post #59):

I like both mixes

I've heard the AP Quad mix before, in DTS, so it was no surprise to me.

I just don't get it. I have a Yamaha DSP-A1 amp, set to large & the sub set to both. I am using a Definitive Technology surround speaker system with dual, stereo subs, and I don't find it bass-heavy AT ALL. You want bass-heavy, try the DTS conversion (in 4.0) for Wish You Were Here off of the UK Q8. That sucker is goosed to the max and there is NO .1 channel. The DVD-A also plays fine in my Acura TL, whereas WYWH has way too much bass there also. The DVD-A is the best way I have ever heard this (and I have owned the UK SQ LP since 1976)! If you don't like it, just go into the amp's controls & reduce the LFE signal to zero. Sheesh!
You might experience some bass-cancelling in this configuration.
Try setting your speakers to small (I know, sounds like a "waste", but just try it), and listen again.
I also have Yamaha DSP-A1. I set all my speakers to small (Definitive Technology BP-30 are hardly "small"). The sub does all the job (SVS B4 Plus).

I sure wish the lossless track would play for me but the dts track is fine and the MUSIC is enjoyable to listen to in quad.

(I'm not trying to criticise your system) Do your main speakers and your subwoofers all have equal low frequency response down near 20 Hz?
They are Def Tech BP-2002 towers. Ihe powered subs are part of the speakers. And, yes.

You might experience some bass-cancelling in this configuration.
Try setting your speakers to small (I know, sounds like a "waste", but just try it), and listen again.
I also have Yamaha DSP-A1. I set all my speakers to small (Definitive Technology BP-30 are hardly "small"). The sub does all the job (SVS B4 Plus).I've tried it all ways over the years. The "both" setting is by far the best (remember, the DSP-A1 is one of the rare amps with STEREO sub outputs, they are NOT summed) This is why it's such a great match with the Def Tech's stereo sub setup. When you set it to "both" the normal bass is in stereo & the LFE gets summed. Also each speaker has separate sub & LFE controls, as does the DSP-A1, so there hasn't been cancelling going on. Besides, the DTS conversion of WYWH IS heavily bloated, so I know what THAT sounds like.

PEOPLE STAY ON TOPIC! IF I HAVE TO READ ONE MORE STATEMENT ON BASS MANAGEMENT, I WILL HAVE TO SCREAM!!!!!

Who the hell cares about your bass management issue. Turn off you damn sub and set up your speaker to large. Please, lets just talk about how this quad disc sounds.

PEOPLE STAY ON TOPIC! IF I HAVE TO READ ONE MORE STATEMENT ON BASS MANAGEMENT, I WILL HAVE TO SCREAM!!!!!

Who the hell cares about your bass management issue. Turn off you damn sub and set up your speaker to large. Please, lets just talk about how this quad disc sounds.
It sounds too bassy. :D

Now thats better. :rolleyes:

It does NOT sound too bassy, it sounds just right! :D

Please, lets just talk about how this quad disc sounds.

It sounds fantastic...otherworldly.

Such a breath of fresh air to "see" so much depth and newness in something you've probably taken for granted all these years after countless listens.

Memories of playing the vinyl on some sort of "fisher-price" level turntable and now 30+ years later playing the MLP track through my current setup.

"and then one day you find
ten years have got behind you..."

I've owned many CD versions of this over the years (most recently the SACD), and can say without any doubt that I find the DVD-A to be the definitive statement on DSOTM.

I can't stop listening to it...mesmerizing.

Regardless this is not the true '73 4 channel surround mix

Regardless this is not the true '73 4 channel surround mix

It sounds "truer" to my ears than any other incarnation of the recording to date.

I'll take it.

:rolleyes:

Gonna have to bust out the hooka and invite some friends over to listen to this. :cool:

Gonna have to bust out the hooka and invite some friends over to listen to this. :cool:

When I did that we cranked it so loud that the love-beads in the doorway started rattling. At first it was really heavy, but after awhile, it completely harshed our buzz.

When I did that we cranked it so loud that the love-beads in the doorway started rattling. At first it was really heavy, but after awhile, it completely harshed our buzz.
bummer, dude :D

Sure be glad when I can add to this arg - er, discussion! :)
UL/DL speeds on my sattelite dish are about 1-6 kbps with **********. :(

I must try this,were might a Guy find it.

I must try this,were might a Guy find it.YEESHKUL!

Sorry Larry ,me not smart could you please translate YEESHKUL for me .Thanks

Sorry Larry ,me not smart could you please translate YEESHKUL for me .Thanks
Just go there.

Found it,Thanks muchly.

Dang it. I d/l this for around 5 days and only got 40%. Dadburn satellite router.
Anyone know a way to enable torrent files quicker d/l via broadband satellite connection? It sucks I can d/l 300 mB in a few minutes but can't get this file any faster than (usually) 1-5 kBps. :(

B/T wants you to share (upload) while you download, so the more you share the more bandwidth it gives you. But it's still slow. Overall, in my home, B/t is very slow and cumbersome, IMO. I too have a great broadband link but B/T does not download very quickly at all....and uses HUGE resources due to the heavy uploading; it was bringing my kids online gaming to its knees......

The idea of B/T is a good one, and it load levels nicely across the network, but each individual cell or whatever can be very slow.

Took me around 24 hrs on a dsl line.

Dang it. I d/l this for around 5 days and only got 40%. Dadburn satellite router.
Anyone know a way to enable torrent files quicker d/l via broadband satellite connection? It sucks I can d/l 300 mB in a few minutes but can't get this file any faster than (usually) 1-5 kBps. :(
If your behind a router make sure you've got port forwarding turned on. Some companies call this 'virtual server'. Without this setup and configured you aren't really sharing what you receive and so the clients on other folks machines will only 'leak' you a very little data. Try the test here: http://btfaq.com/natcheck.pl

Bit Torrent and I have a mutual disdain for one another. Newsgroups (http://www.slyck.com/ng.php) are the best way to go. Once you get the hang of it you will never look back. Downloads are at the full broadband speeds that your ISP promises.

I don't know which of the two is cooler.

Bit Torrent, or the DSOTM DVD-A.

If your behind a router make sure you've got port forwarding turned on. Some companies call this 'virtual server'. Without this setup and configured you aren't really sharing what you receive and so the clients on other folks machines will only 'leak' you a very little data. Try the test here: http://btfaq.com/natcheck.pl
Thanks, I misspoke. I'm not behind a router, but I wonder if the NAT that Hughes uses is screwing things up? I've given ********** full priveledges through the firewall. 1-6 kbps is not gonna cut it.
However, I will re-install BT and try the link. Had to do a system restore and wiped it out.

Mine downloaded in 7 hours, dsl.

My dvd buring software doesn't seem to be able to handle an .iso image, only TS_ files.

Any cheap or freeware solutions for this?

TIA

Mine downloaded in 7 hours, dsl.

My dvd buring software doesn't seem to be able to handle an .iso image, only TS_ files.

Any cheap or freeware solutions for this?

TIA

DVD Decrypter if you can still locate an active download.

... However, due to the original DSOTM being optimised for the meagre bass reproduction capability of 1970s hi-fi in general, the four quad channels hardly make my full-range fronts move at all! Even when I play it loud on my 150W per-ch (5-channels driven) power amp.

So I conclude, this revision still allows purists to hear it in the 4.0 with the original ‘bland’ bass, while the LFE gives me the amount of bass that I’m used to on my modern system, and without having to ‘color’ the sound of the main channels by turning the EQ up on my preamp. In short, I think the DVD-A has "corrected" and optimised DSOTM to get the best out of my modern hi-fi system.




I have to say I totally agree with you, Martinf! The purists can switch off their 0.1, I'll keep the 4.1 thanks! I also have to agree that the mix seems more in touch (or more authentic) with the spirit of this recording, than the SACD IMHO.

The SACD may sound techically better, but I think the DVD-A gives you a taste of the real thing. With the jacket cover, the DVD label and the video stills, this makes a great package! :) :)

Benefactor,
Thanks.
Found a still live link.
Worked great.
Now for the comparison.

Got it! Burned it last night after work.
By the time "U&T" started to play I was a little teary-eyed.
First time I've heard DSOTM in quad in over 30 years.
I found that I could remove/leave the sub in the sound and was happy
either way.
Really nice to have the video stills included.
Anyway, a fantastic experience, and I thank all who made this possible.
It really means a lot to me.
Will be interesting to compare with the SACD over time.
Thanks to those that offered to help me out if my d/l failed!

I just finished download this, it took me 2 days. I am listening now, and just finished with what would be consided the first side.

This is much better than the 5.1 SACD mix, IMO. Much appreciation to whoever made this version.

You're luckier than I am...

I can't seem to get the mechanisim to work in getting a download. Pretty frustrating especially after reading the reports in this thread. :(

Any chance this will ever see the light of day in a store? :o

Any chance this will ever see the light of day in a store? :o
no

check your PMs

Where do I find this on Yeeshkul

I have tried to download to much frustration using my satellite
connection and am giving up. Can anybody send me a copy
of their DVD-A DSoTM?
Pm if you are willing.

Thanks

You're luckier than I am...

I can't seem to get the mechanisim to work in getting a download. Pretty frustrating especially after reading the reports in this thread. :(

Any chance this will ever see the light of day in a store? :o

This mix isn't preferred by Pink Floyd or by the majority of the people that have heard both the SACD and DVD-A based on what I have read. I would say there is zero chance it will ever see the light of day in a traditional retail setting. The SACD is readily available and I have purchased it and think it is excellent. I have never heard this bootleg DVD-A since I couldn't figure out how to download it either having never used the Torrent download method. Still I would like to hear it as well and make up my own mind but it isn't very important now and more trouble than it is worth to me.

Chris

I just finished download this, it took me 2 days. I am listening now, and just finished with what would be consided the first side.

This is much better than the 5.1 SACD mix, IMO. Much appreciation to whoever made this version.

Me, too. The torrent took 5 days to d/l for me, and when it did I had to figure out what to do with it - Nero burned the .iso file to the correct disc image with no trouble.

I find the clarity and separation of this version to be an improvement over the SACD, but I can say that about just about every SACD vs DVD-A that I've played on my Denon 2910.

I was totally unprepared for some of the audio "surprises" in this version, and found myself saying "who put that there?" a couple of times. I do think I will prefer this version to the SACD one, but it'll take some time to decide. I, for one, appreciate the .1 addition, too.

This mix isn't preferred by Pink Floyd or by the majority of the people that have heard both the SACD and DVD-A based on what I have read. ChrisHuh? I have seen very few posts on this or any other board that prefer the SACD mix.

Huh? I have seen very few posts on this or any other board that prefer the SACD mix.


The SACD's dynamic range is better, clearer, and has more depth.

The DVD-A mix is a nice alternative and seems to be preferred by Floyd fans that believe this is the mix that should have been released.

But if you compare fidelity and sound reproduction, I think most will agree the SACD version, the official multichannel release, is the better of the two.

I prefer both versions for different reasons, and I would recommend getting the SACD version and judging for yourself.

Huh? I have seen very few posts on this or any other board that prefer the SACD mix.

I think most of what you have seen comes from people that don't own the SACD. I haven't heard both but I can't imagine the DVD-A would be preferred by me. I have seen many posts of individuals having both that prefer the SACD. Surely you don't dispute Pink Floyd didn't like the Alan Parsons mix which is why it isn't the current release. I don't dispute many prefer a free mix to a $15 mix.

Chris

The SACD's dynamic range is better, clearer, and has more depth.
.

Absolutely not. I know a recording expert who has analysed the waveform data of both, and the SACD uses a lot of compression, whereas the DVD-A quadmix was done without any compression or waveform peak dynamic limiting.

Moreover, the SACD is a "wide stereo" presentation, whereas the DVD-A is truly discrete surround.

I listened to both versions again last night (my neighbor must be tired of it by now) and I still prefer the DVD-A version. I fully recognize that this may be due to my player (Denon 2910) as I seem to prefer all DVD-A discs to SACDs. The sound from the DVD-A version has more "life", the separation seems to be cleaner, and I prefer the .1 addition over the SACD. I'm no purist, I just appreciate good sound.

What I'd really like, no - LOVE, would be to have "Animals" remastered!!! I'd pay a lot of money for that one.

I think most of what you have seen comes from people that don't own the SACD. I haven't heard both but I can't imagine the DVD-A would be preferred by me. I have seen many posts of individuals having both that prefer the SACD. Surely you don't dispute Pink Floyd didn't like the Alan Parsons mix which is why it isn't the current release. I don't dispute many prefer a free mix to a $15 mix.

ChrisNot true. Most posters I'm referring to have heard BOTH & prefer the DVD-A (or DTS or 8-track, or LP.....) of the original mix. I have both & it is no contest. It being free has nothing to do with it.

Chris,
Not sure how you can say you wouldn't like the DVD-A if you have not heard it.... I have both and will categorically state that IMHO the DVD-A is much better. Price does not matter, I would have paid more for the DVD-A than I paid for the SACD would it have been a marketed item.

Chris,
Not sure how you can say you wouldn't like the DVD-A if you have not heard it.... I have both and will categorically state that IMHO the DVD-A is much better. Price does not matter, I would have paid more for the DVD-A than I paid for the SACD would it have been a marketed item.

I don't know for a fact as I have indicated. What I do know is that I love the SACD version and I am 54 and have heard the 70's version of this album and always thought it was over rated, not bad but certainly not worthy of high praise. The SACD is far and away the best version I have heard.

Chris

I think most of what you have seen comes from people that don't own the SACD. I haven't heard both but I can't imagine the DVD-A would be preferred by me. I have seen many posts of individuals having both that prefer the SACD. Surely you don't dispute Pink Floyd didn't like the Alan Parsons mix which is why it isn't the current release. I don't dispute many prefer a free mix to a $15 mix.

Why are you even commenting when you haven't even heard the DVD-A! Give me a break. Most of us have both the SACD and the DVD-A. They are different enough to make it worth having both. Some songs i prefer one over the other. It really a tossup for me. For example, on the DVD-A i like "Money" much better better than the SACD. They fudged up the last guitar solo on the SACD where it seems too low in the mix.

Absolutely not. I know a recording expert who has analysed the waveform data of both, and the SACD uses a lot of compression, whereas the DVD-A quadmix was done without any compression or waveform peak dynamic limiting.

Moreover, the SACD is a "wide stereo" presentation, whereas the DVD-A is truly discrete surround.

I start with the assumption that the artists know how they intend their music to be presented. Of course this doesn't mean I will always agree with the artists, but that is absolutely the mix I want to listen to thoroughly before deciding the artists don't know how to present their own music. I have no idea how to dispute your "recording expert" and his analysis of the music but doubt he has a better understanding than James Guthrie and Pink Floyd of how to present this 30 year old music.

Chris

Why are you even commenting when you haven't even heard the DVD-A! Give me a break. Most of us have both the SACD and the DVD-A. They are different enough to make it worth having both. Some songs i prefer one over the other. It really a tossup for me. For example, on the DVD-A i like "Money" much better better than the SACD. They fudged up the last guitar solo on the SACD where it seems too low in the mix.

How are you concluding "most of us have both the SACD and DVD-A"? I only heard the 70's quad version in the 70's, I refused to buy it since I didn't like it. I did waste lots of money on quad in the 70's and there wasn't much available then and I only bought the SACD based on reviews of the new mix. I have a pretty good basis for my opinion, but I would like to get my hands on the DVD-A. I asked my son to download it since he knows how to do it, but 70's music isn't of much interest to him and I will get it if he goes to the trouble.

Chris

I have no idea how to dispute your "recording expert" and his analysis of the music but doubt he has a better understanding than James Guthrie and Pink Floyd of how to present this 30 year old music.

Chris


Chris, John Haghighi made a statement about the DSOTM SACD having more dynamic range than the DVD-A. That's plain wrong.

I was just stating fact.

b.t.w. Guthrie can add compression and present the mix as 'wide-stereo' if he wants to (and has done). It's a known fact that compression makes a recording sound more palatable on systems (and radio broadcast) with poor dynamic range, and thus brings it line with a wider audience (most folks have systems with poor dynamic range).

But if you have large power-amp(s) like I do, then compression and peak limiting are certainly not what I want to hear.

I think most of what you have seen comes from people that don't own the SACD. I haven't heard both but I can't imagine the DVD-A would be preferred by me. I have seen many posts of individuals having both that prefer the SACD. Surely you don't dispute Pink Floyd didn't like the Alan Parsons mix which is why it isn't the current release. I don't dispute many prefer a free mix to a $15 mix.
Chris

I have them both, and I think the DVD-A blows the SACD out of the water.

I honestly don't understand how you can have an adamant opinion on a piece of recorded music that you've never listened to.

The DVD-A being "free" has nothing at all to do with my opinion of its sound quality.

I have them both, and I think the DVD-A blows the SACD out of the water.

I honestly don't understand how you can have an adamant opinion on a piece of recorded music that you've never listened to.

The DVD-A being "free" has nothing at all to do with my opinion of its sound quality.

I don't believe I have indicated I am adamant, just that I have heard the 70's incarnation of this mix and the SACD. I haven't seen you but I have seen millions of human beings including Jessica Alba, and I feel it is safe to say even if I see you, I will find Jessica Alba more attractive. I am not adamant she is more attractive than you are, just pretty damn sure about it.

Chris

I haven't seen you but I have seen millions of human beings including Jessica Alba, and I feel it is safe to say even if I see you, I will find Jessica Alba more attractive. I am not adamant she is more attractive than you are, just pretty damn sure about it.
Chris

I dunno man, I think I'm a "looker", if I do say so myself.

:rolleyes:

I dunno man, I think I'm a "looker", if I do say so myself.

:rolleyes:

Now it seems your eyesight and your hearing may not be very good :rolleyes: .

Chris

I don't believe I have indicated I am adamant, just that I have heard the 70's incarnation of this mix and the SACD. I haven't seen you but I have seen millions of human beings including Jessica Alba, and I feel it is safe to say even if I see you, I will find Jessica Alba more attractive. I am not adamant she is more attractive than you are, just pretty damn sure about it.

Chris
You come off more as a troll than anything else.

A better example would be you saying that you are certain that Jessica Alba's sister (if she had one) would be no where near as attractive as she is, even though you have never seen her (or you seen a picture of her when she was 9 years old).

You come off more as a troll than anything else.

A better example would be you saying that you are certain that Jessica Alba's sister (if she had one) would be no where near as attractive as she is, even though you have never seen her (or you seen a picture of her when she was 9 years old).

That makes no sense to me at all. Without seeing Jessica Alba's sister, I would give her a reasonable chance to be more attractive, although I would certainly put the odds at less than even. A troll with 4,350 posts would be something of a surprise to most.

Chris

Sorry, but I feel that the SACD's sound quality is FAR superior to that of the DVD-A. And that is immediately obvious to me, on my system.

If you prefer the mix of the DVD-A to that of the SACD, that's great, but to claim it has better sound quality than the professionally produced SACD is silly.

I prefer the DVD-A mix, and overall prefer its warmer, more analog-like sound (compared to the SACD). The SACD is no slouch, of course; it is a stellar performer and clearly has a better s/n and fr than the DVD-A. Just a preference for the DVD-A (and I can play it in my car DVD-A player, which counts for points). Dunno, maybe also cuz it's so bootleg, who knows. I will not enter into an SACD vs DVD-A thing here, though; 1) it's irrelevant (two different mixes entirely), and 2) both formats are wonderful and bring me much joy.

Jessica Alba has no sister; she is one of a kind. A droid, in fact.

A troll with 4,350 posts would be something of a surprise to most.

Chris

Word. I'm shocked you would make such a judgement without comparison. Must be a Republican... :D

FWIW, I have both, and the DVD-A absolutely smokes the SACD in sound quality on my system. I don't see the majority preferring the SACD, either.

Must be a Republican...

Yikes! Bringing politics into a conversation- Now that's a sure way to to nose dive a thread into the ground!



But for what it's worth, I also find the DVD-A mix superior to the newer 5.1 SACD mix.

Wow, you guys are really beating up on me, even accusing me of being a Republican. This all started because somebody asked if this would likely ever see a commercial release since some of us can't figure out how to download it. I said it was unlikely because Pink Floyd didn't want it released and from what I have read, the SACD mix is better. In addition, I have read an Alan Parsons apology for the mix, citing lack of resources and time to do better but that he did the best he could with what he had. I will concede the Quad 8 version is likely inferior to any DVD-A version and of all the formats I have spent money on, Quad 8 was probably the silliest although I actually thought that format would be around a while at the time. I think Hybrid SACD is a great format, my all-time favorite audio format. I have read of technical complaints about SACD and DSD, but I can't hear any problems with the format and don't understand the technical issues. I think DVD-A is great also. I am sorry to hear Jessica Alba doesn't have a sister, after one like her, her parents should have had several more.

Chris

Chris, it sounds like you heard the quad mix in the 70's on 70's quad equipment. That alone is enough to nullify your comparison, but there is another huge problem. Capitol in the US only issued a Q8 of the quad mix, but it was made from a poorly SQ decoded source! It truly sucks, and in no way represents the true discrete quad mix. I'd highly suggest getting a copy and listening before judging. It certainly could be that you will continue to like the SACD version, that's fine. I had a copy of the quad version made from a laser turntable decoded through a Tate 101a, the best ever SQ decoder, and thought that the SACD mix, while cleaner, didn't reflect the type of material well in a surround environment. This new DVD-A is incredible. The SACD is better, but not by a lot than the stereo mix sent through a Dolby PLII processor. You definitely don't get that impression listening to the Parsons mix. Some prefer a modest surround mix, and that is what Guthrie did, and for them, great! Others who like more aggressive presentation, which I think Pink Floyd material begs for, will probably give the nod to Parson's mix. Personally I'm very grateful both are available.

All kidding (and DVD-A vs. SACD arguments) aside, I can honestly say that the DSOTM DVD-A is perhaps the most significant file I've come across on the net in the last decade or so.

I enjoy both of them: Jessica Alba and her sister, I'll take them both :) .
Honestly, I've listened to them both and enjoy them both. Very good mixes, both of them. I prefer the DVD-A, just like the mix better. I wouldn't argue with anyone who thinks the sacd is better, that's their opinion...it's very subjective. To say the sacd is better without hearing the DVD-A is like saying Budweiser is better without ever trying Sierra Nevada.

Chris, John Haghighi made a statement about the DSOTM SACD having more dynamic range than the DVD-A. That's plain wrong.

I was just stating fact.

b.t.w. Guthrie can add compression and present the mix as 'wide-stereo' if he wants to (and has done). It's a known fact that compression makes a recording sound more palatable on systems (and radio broadcast) with poor dynamic range, and thus brings it line with a wider audience (most folks have systems with poor dynamic range).

But if you have large power-amp(s) like I do, then compression and peak limiting are certainly not what I want to hear.

Without getting into a debate about dynamic range (maybe that wasn't the correct term from an engineer's perspective), SACD vs. DVD-A, let's assume that the the recording engineer is correct.

Not sure how this translates into sound perception. Listening to both versions, my ears hear better fidelity with SACD.

Could be my equipment (doubt it), could be the recording, who knows. Like I said I prefer both versions for different reasons. But the DVD-A version for DSOTM does not "sound" better to me, and I prefer MLP over SACD for most recordings.

I agree that compressed formats and what a recording engineer can do with it can significantly affect what one hears, there are sereral DTS 96/24 recordings that sound better than the MLP counterparts. Perhaps the SACD version od DSTOM is sweetened up for the effect, and the MLP version is true to the orginal recording. I can believe that, isn't that the point of the release? It still doesn't sound better to me.

I think the main take home message is that the DVD-A is not just some random bootleg available on the internet. Its a very real and professional production that deserves praise or, in the least, a listen before passing jugement. I am very thankful to have both.

Chris, if you actually get to listen to it THEN let us know how you feel about it.

I think the main take home message is that the DVD-A is not just some random bootleg available on the internet. Its a very real and professional production that deserves praise or, in the least, a listen before passing jugement. I am very thankful to have both.

Chris, if you actually get to listen to it THEN let us know how you feel about it.

I should have it in a few days and will listen to it. I am aware it is a really cool bootleg.

Chris

I just listened to this recording last night for the first time and am very impressed! I haven't re listened to the SACD version yet but from memory this version is much more aggressive! I think the way it was meant to be. Many of the "noises" come from the fronts and then blends to the back. The SACD does the opposite. The "noise effects" mostly come from the rears. The SACD has that remastered quality. More dynamic range and cleaner...I still liked this version as much. Eric

As someone stated, I like both.
The cool factor here is having both to listen to, and that I still like this
recording after all these years so very much.
I guess it's just burned indelibly in my brain, somehow co-existing along with
the uncool stuff from the early 70s like getting married/drafted/divorced/Nixon/war, etc.
Yeah, there's some memories there.

I do have the DVD-A now and I do like it. It plays fine in my Samsung DVD-HD841. Both SACD and DVD-A are great, I would never have thought a bootleg DVD-A could be this good. My preference for the SACD stands, but I would have been happy with this surround presentation as well. I would rate the SACD 9/10 and DVD-A 8/10 at this point. Time will tell which one gets the most play over the years. I have maybe 50 commercially available DVD-A's of lower quality than this bootleg. Lots of wow factor for the only Pink Floyd album I like when playing the DVD-A. My preference for less showy surround effects when listening to music could account for my SACD preference. I can find no fidelity shortcomings with either disc considering the source recordings. Listening to the music in the presentation Pink Floyd prefers also means I begin with a bias. How anybody could state this blows the SACD out of the water isn't clear, but if some serious Pink Floyd fans find the DVD-A far better so be it.

Chris

Chris, glad you got a copy and finally get to enjoy it. Thanks for your follow up after all the grief we've been giving you :)

How can I get a copy or listen of this DVD-A? Is it possible?

How can I get a copy or listen of this DVD-A? Is it possible?
Have you tried downloading it from the **********?

How can I get a copy or listen of this DVD-A? Is it possible?

Reading this thread, as well as following the link at the beginning of this thread should provide you with all the information you need to find this DVD-A.

Chris, glad you got a copy and finally get to enjoy it. Thanks for your follow up after all the grief we've been giving you :)

Still no luck finding Jessica Alba's sister though, apparently she doesn't exist. I can vouch for this bootleg DVD-A, it is real.

Chris

How anybody could state this blows the SACD out of the water isn't clear, but if some serious Pink Floyd fans find the DVD-A far better so be it.
Chris

I just find the DVD-A a more "realistic" and accurate representation of the album.

I hear the SACD as overly bright and "artificial" in certain respects. It sounds more like a reinterpretation of DSOTM as opposed to an upgraded multichannel version.

I just find the DVD-A a more "realistic" and accurate representation of the album.

I hear the SACD as overly bright and "artificial" in certain respects. It sounds more like a reinterpretation of DSOTM as opposed to an upgraded multichannel version.


yep these are all personal preferences, it's what sounds good to you. But I am not sure I understand what you mean by an accurate representation of the album? Similar to the orginal quadrophonic release? I thought the SACD version was approved by PF themselves after many back and forth requests for changes, so I would think this is how the band wanted it sound.

Do we even know who made the DVD-A version? Does it represent how it was performed live?

Whatever the case the SACD version is the one they wanted the public to have so I'd have to say it's an accurate representation of what the band wanted, the DVD-A is a nice bonus disc with a different mix.

yep these are all personal preferences, it's what sounds good to you. But I am not sure I understand what you mean by an accurate representation of the album? Similar to the orginal quadrophonic release? I thought the SACD version was approved by PF themselves after many back and forth requests for changes, so I would think this is how the band wanted it sound.

Do we even know who made the DVD-A version? Does it represent how it was performed live?

Whatever the case the SACD version is the one they wanted the public to have so I'd have to say it's an accurate representation of what the band wanted, the DVD-A is a nice bonus disc with a different mix.

I haven't read anything about back and forth requests for changes, I thought the SACD was pretty much Guthrie's baby and Gilmour might have had a little input. They approved it before release, but given more choices in the mix (options from other engineers and not just Guthrie, for example), it wouldn't surprise me they would've opted for something different. US AND THEM, for example, to me is perfect on the DVD-A, but lacking in the SACD. The feel of the song is different and I like it more now than I ever have. But that is just my opinion, I'm not bashing anyone, OK? :)

How they performed it live depended on the period. It was still very much a work in progress from 72 - 73, and by the time they were into their '75 tour it sounded just like the album and I think they were bored with it. I guess it really started mirroring the album in 74, though I'd have to have a comparative listen to state that definitively. I like the way it sounded from '72 to 74...there was just enough improvisation in the playing to keep it exciting. But that's just me...my own favorites are 1) Sapporo, Japan March '72 2) "FM-Remaster" from 11-16-74, and the bootleg entitled 3) The Great Gig in Boeblingen (I forget the date, but it's from 72). Don't look for these expecting pristine sound (the 11-74 concert sounds best), but it's the performances that count to me. WE NEED HI REZ RELEASES OF THESE EARLY CONCERTS!!

Chris, I'm glad you got the chance to listen to it!

yep these are all personal preferences, it's what sounds good to you. But I am not sure I understand what you mean by an accurate representation of the album?

I mean that the DVD-A sounds closer to the way the album sounded in my head a long time ago.

Do we even know who made the DVD-A version?

I don't know for sure ;)

I just find the DVD-A a more "realistic" and accurate representation of the album.

I hear the SACD as overly bright and "artificial" in certain respects. It sounds more like a reinterpretation of DSOTM as opposed to an upgraded multichannel version.

I agree, I like the dvd-a better, as it's what imagined(for the most part) what the album could sound like in quad. I'm 29, so I wasn't around for the original release, but I've bought and heard several releases of DSOTM, and this one moved me much more than the SACD.

I'm not saying the SACD is bad by any stretch, and I think certain tracks on the SACD are better. The tracks that really pushed the DVD-A into a much better mix for me personally was On the Run and Time. These two tracks are done masterfully on the quad mix to me. I like the more agressive use of all 4 channels in these tracks. I also like the hiss in the background, giving it more of an analog feel.

I finally purchased a turntable this week(Pro-ject Debut III), so I'm anxious to get a copy on vinyl for comparison(in stereo unless I can get ahold of a quad mix and decode).

Hard to put in words, for me anyhow, but I like the DVD-A over the SACD because, for me, the DVD-A has a warmer, closer, physical "feel" to it, it's more "organic" sounding than the SACD, which sounds a bit sterile and distant in comparison.

.... US AND THEM, for example, to me is perfect on the DVD-A, but lacking in the SACD. The feel of the song is different and I like it more now than I ever have. But that is just my opinion, I'm not bashing anyone, OK? .....

This track, to me, is the essence of the comparison. The echo of the verse through the four corners of the listening area are a highlight of the quad mix of the entire album. I'm not sure if Guthrie did not do this as well because he did not want to "copy" what AP did, or if he felt it was too "gimmicky", too '70s; but for this particular piece I think it's perfect.

There is no question that the SACD is a gem, and is sonically superior, however, just as when an original stereo mix is redone to our displeasure, the same can be said about redoing an original surround mix as well.

The DVD-A of the AP mix is truely worthy of standing alongside the SACD, IMHO.

....yes. All most of us have are "memories" of the original quad sound, maybe
that is what strikes a chord with some of us, as intangible as that is. :)
I agree with observations of Us and Them, that stood out right away for me.
Not being a wordsmith, it's hard to define, although some love of the
DVD-A is probably pure sentiment. :shrug:

Alright guys, don't make fun of me : P. I'm somewhat of a newb. As much as I have studied into speakers, cabinets, veneers, drivers, crossovers etc. I failed to do one thing... receivers. With the X-LS in mind, I never thought of a receiver. Now I am currently *sighs* using a Logitech z-680 system. If I were to try and attempt to listen to this in 4-channel... I don't think that would work. The logitech can either do stereo, stereo x2 or prologic II which is obviously... 5.1. This cancels out my ability to listen to 4-channel, or... is there a way around it? And while I'm asking this, I'll ask the more important question, do independent receivers such as say the VSX-1015TX run in 4-chan mode? Or do you have to select stereo, or prologic. Because I'm not sure how it would operate in 4-channel unless there's a specific Dolby or DTS track or something. Err... help? lol

Because I'm not sure how it would operate in 4-channel unless there's a specific Dolby or DTS track or something. Err... help? lol
There are both DD and dts tracks on this 'release'.

From the Readme file:

The disc will play on all DVD players, as it is a DVD-Audio/Video "hybrid" containing the following:
Audio_TS
MLP Lossless at 24/96 Resolution in 4.1

Video_TS
DTS from 24/48 Source files
Dolby Digital from 24/48 Source files

Additionally, it is possible to play both the lossy streams from DVD-Audio players.
Each type has it's own menus. What you can access is dependant entirely on your player.

Alright guys, don't make fun of me : P. I'm somewhat of a newb. As much as I have studied into speakers, cabinets, veneers, drivers, crossovers etc. I failed to do one thing... receivers. With the X-LS in mind, I never thought of a receiver. Now I am currently *sighs* using a Logitech z-680 system. If I were to try and attempt to listen to this in 4-channel... I don't think that would work. The logitech can either do stereo, stereo x2 or prologic II which is obviously... 5.1. This cancels out my ability to listen to 4-channel, or... is there a way around it? And while I'm asking this, I'll ask the more important question, do independent receivers such as say the VSX-1015TX run in 4-chan mode? Or do you have to select stereo, or prologic. Because I'm not sure how it would operate in 4-channel unless there's a specific Dolby or DTS track or something. Err... help? lol

The 4 channels play fine on the Logitech Z-680 (that is what I have and use). Cyberlink's PowerDVD will play the DVD-A version just fine. The speakers and receivers will play whatever is pumped into them: when only four channels are sent, they will play. You do not need anything QUAD-specific. And as Paul_T says above, there are dts and dolby versions, too.

Hooray...

I am very proud to report that my left channel has just died on me. Not the speaker or the wire, I tried switching everything around and restripping the wire for a perfect connection, nada. Since you own the z-680, have you ever had this problem? (sorry to intrude in the floyd forum). I tried getting into the back of the amp, but it's blocked by the circuit board.

Hooray...

I am very proud to report that my left channel has just died on me. Not the speaker or the wire, I tried switching everything around and restripping the wire for a perfect connection, nada. Since you own the z-680, have you ever had this problem? (sorry to intrude in the floyd forum). I tried getting into the back of the amp, but it's blocked by the circuit board.
No, I've never had that problem...ouch. Sorry to hear that, m8. :(

Just got back after a short vacation.

I was sitting on the plane, actually looking forward to listening to this disc again.

I can't remember the last time I felt that way about music.

Same here. I prize this DVD like no other. :)

Hello everyone!

I just downloaded this and listened to it last night. WOW! This sounds good. I don't have the SACD and I don't have an SACD playback system. I do have a Meridian system with direct 5.1 channel dejittered PCM link to my Meridian processor from my Meridian DVDA player and this disk is on the top of my best sound/mix list. Its a breath of fresh air. I can crank this and talk to the person next to me and hear every word from the person and the sound track. Not compressed at all. Sweet! Analog sounding! Air between the notes! My system is adjusted for a flat response in my room and at first I thought where is the bass? However when I shut off the LFE low pass filter that was set to 80Hz the bass appeared. It seems the LFE has bass above 80Hz. I run my LFE channel at -10db for music since LFE is usually 10db higher. Although some mixing engineers get it wrong and record the LFE channel 10db to low and that just throws away resolution. I haven't heard the SACD mix but I really like this DVDA mix. I even have DSOTM on reel to reel tape. Haven't listened to it in about 10 years though.

Ron

I finally got this downloaded and I'm glad I had the patience too wait almost two days for it to finish!! I have the SACD too compare it directly with. I really enjoyed hearing the original quad mix! It is a very noticable difference especially on Us And Them. I like how Parsons did the echo of voices on this song much better than the SACD. Don't get me wrong, the SACD is very good, but I think I like the original mix better.

Charles

Two day d/l? I think I spent a total of 3 weeks d/l this excellent piece of music
counting stopping/starting/finding new seeds.
It was worth it.
After getting this, I found the DVD "Classic Albums:The making of Dark Side Of The Moon". Watched it today, finally. (Old news to most, I know)
If what I saw/heard was true, I have a lot more respect for Roger Waters than I
previously did. I also realize what a freaking amazing amount of luck/karma
whatever coincided with the making of this album.
And that piano/keyboard dude. :D :D :D "I just like this chord". ;)
It most likely is true that I love this album as much for the time it came out,
- Vietnam,Johnson, Nixon, et. al, and for what it represented to me, but damn,ain't it some fine music?

Hello everyone!

I even have DSOTM on reel to reel tape. Haven't listened to it in about 10 years though.

Ron
"Haven't listened to it in about 10 years though."
How 'bout now?
I know my wife could care less.
For me it's part of my personal history.
My (now ex-wife) had the Q8 waiting for me when I got off the
plane in Tampa after getting back to the World.
Edit: :D

I haven't listened to the reel to reel in 10 years but the CD I have. Although now the CD is shelved because this mix is just awesome! I'll use it to show off my system from now on. Way Cool!

Ron

Could somebody please PM me with info?

Thanks in advance...
Todd

Now that I have this recording and have listened to it several times, I'd like to do some editing on the computer to sync one of the audio tracks to Wizard of Oz (dark Side of the Rainbow) and burn the whole thing to a DVD-R. I've never done any sound or video editing, so can someone recommend decent software for doing this?

Chris

Now that I have this recording and have listened to it several times, I'd like to do some editing on the computer to sync one of the audio tracks to Wizard of Oz (dark Side of the Rainbow) and burn the whole thing to a DVD-R. I've never done any sound or video editing, so can someone recommend decent software for doing this?

ChrisWhy bother. A beautifully done DTS version with lots of extras is already out there at the same place we got the DVD-A. Just download it.

Why bother. A beautifully done DTS version with lots of extras is already out there at the same place we got the DVD-A. Just download it.

If you got the full .iso, there is a dts version on the DVD-A already. From the README:

The disc will play on all DVD players, as it is a DVD-Audio/Video "hybrid" containing the following:

Audio_TS
MLP Lossless at 24/96 Resolution in 4.1

Video_TS
DTS from 24/48 Source files
Dolby Digital from 24/48 Source files

Additionally, it is possible to play both the lossy streams from DVD-Audio players.
Each type has it's own menus. What you can access is dependant entirely on your player.

All Authoring, Encoding, Post Production and design is exclusive to this release.

FEEL FREE TO DISTRIBUTE THIS DISC TO OTHERS, BUT ALWAYS "AS IS" AND IN FULL.
PLEASE DO NOT RIP AND REPOST IN ANY OTHER FORMAT. THERE IS NO NEED AS ALL DVD PLAYERS CAN READ THIS DISC,
AND DOING SO WILL DEPRIVE OTHERS OF THE FULL HIGH RESOLUTION FORMATS USED.
ADDITIONALLY, RIPPING TO DTS-CD WILL INVOLVE QUALITY LOSS DUE TO DOWNSAMPLING, AND WILL REDUCE THE LISTENING PLEASURE FOR OTHERS.

Could someone PLEASE PM me about this disc.

Thanks much,

Cliff

If you got the full .iso, there is a dts version on the DVD-A already. I know this. What I am referring to is a boot DTS DVD that has ALREADY synched up DSOTM (off of the 8-track, because you can;t have full video with DVD-A) with the Wizard Of Oz on the disc itself.

I know this. What I am referring to is a boot DTS DVD that has ALREADY synched up DSOTM (off of the 8-track, because you can;t have full video with DVD-A) with the Wizard Of Oz on the disc itself.

Rog - my bad ;) must read posts before typing :)

Tag for home - I need to get this!

Somewhat of a noob, bit I have been trying for many hours now to download this - signed up for **********, using a free program, BitLord 1.1, and no dice.

Maybe I'm doing something wrong?

I go here:

http://www.torrentz.com/torrent_554608.html (http://)

And then when I click to download it keeps trying, and trying, but keeps saying :

Can't connect Tracker (10061)

The tracker URL is http://bigfoot1942.weedns.com:6969/announce

Am I doing it wrong, or is this just so damn popular that I have to wait "in line" for days?


I would be willing to pay someone to ship me a copy of this already burned - please, someone help and I will make it worth your while.

Thanks!

grey2112@tampabay.rr.com

PS - if what I am asking or posting here violates forum rules, someone please let me know.

PS - if what I am asking or posting here violates forum rules, someone please let me know.

According to my understanding of the rules, this is indeed a violation. As I mentioned I could not figure out how to download using the torrent method and won't mess with it again, but there are other sites to discuss how to download bootleg audio. This site is limited to a discussion of the music itself.

Chris

I think we can kiss this thread goodbuy, lol...

According to my understanding of the rules, this is indeed a violation. As I mentioned I could not figure out how to download using the torrent method and won't mess with it again, but there are other sites to discuss how to download bootleg audio. This site is limited to a discussion of the music itself.

Chris

I apologize - if need-be, I will delete my posts.

I just wish the studio would offer this for sale - I would gladly buy it. I don't have an SACD audio player, just DVD-A.

I think we can kiss this thread goodbuy, lol...

I think the same can be said of the DSOTM torrent.

As I mentioned I could not figure out how to download using the torrent method and won't mess with it again
Chris

You are missing out on some great music -- and certainly not just "bootleg audio" either.

I've burnt the file to a CD and play it on my LG-7832 DVD player. Amp shows it as a DTS signal. Sounds great but was wondering should I have burnt it in DVD format instead ?
Could somebody please advise. THanks.

I've burnt the file to a CD and play it on my LG-7832 DVD player. Amp shows it as a DTS signal. Sounds great but was wondering should I have burnt it in DVD format instead ?
Could somebody please advise. THanks.
It won't fit on a CD.

It won't fit on a CD.
There are/were some DTS conversions done from the CD and the quad album, but this particular Dark Side of the Moon is a DVD-Audio made from Alan Parson's quad mix. Like jhangler said, the DVDA will not fit on a CD. You may have gotten one of the CD-DTS conversions.

The torrent file for the DSOTM DVD-A is 3.4GB.

Obviously, there is no way the file could fit on one CD-R in its entirety.

There are/were some DTS conversions done from the CD and the quad album, but this particular Dark Side of the Moon is a DVD-Audio made from Alan Parson's quad mix. Like jhangler said, the DVDA will not fit on a CD. You may have gotten one of the CD-DTS conversions.
Why anyone would attempt to convert this DVD-A, I'd have no idea because this is probably the finest sounding disc I've ever listened to.

Why anyone would attempt to convert this DVD-A, I'd have no idea because this is probably the finest sounding disc I've ever listened to.
It wasn't converted. This was an earlier conversion, either off of the SQ LP, or the UK 8-Track (which was the superior version prior to the DVD-A's "release"). Both versions have been around for a couple of years (Wish You Were Here & Atom Heart Mother, too).

PS - if what I am asking or posting here violates forum rules, someone please let me know.
Paying for this does indeed most likely violate the forum rules (as well as some others, too, probably).

However, if you could get someone to send it to you, free of charge, out of the kindness of their heart, you (nor they) would be doing nothing "wrong".

:)

You are missing out on some great music -- and certainly not just "bootleg audio" either.
I may be mistaken, but if you read this whole thread (not really something you'd probably want to do), you'll see that Chris did indeed manage to get his hands on a copy of this DVD-A. ;)

I may be mistaken, but if you read this whole thread (not really something you'd probably want to do), you'll see that Chris did indeed manage to get his hands on a copy of this DVD-A. ;)

I was aware that he managed to pick up a copy.

My comment was referring to his statement that he wasn't able to figure out ********** protocol, and that he "won't mess with it again".

I finished downloading it yesterday..and listen to it today...all I can say is WOW.
I love this album in stereo....I really love it in Quad.
This thing is amazing...
Now I own a 5th copy of this album.

I feel that quad was way before its time.......thats why it disappeared.

Just my input.....later
RayJr

I may be mistaken, but if you read this whole thread (not really something you'd probably want to do), you'll see that Chris did indeed manage to get his hands on a copy of this DVD-A. ;)

Yes but I didn't download it because I couldn't figure out how so I still miss out on anything else that could be downloaded. I was given this cool bootleg but I wouldn't expect anybody to go to the trouble to get me other bootlegs. I haven't heard of any other that I would want in any event.

Chris

Hey all,

Just wanted to put in my $.02
I recently upgraded my system to an Anthem processor and new Anthem Amp.
This thing cranks out about 325 watts per channel.
Well I've never even heard of DVD-A before reading this thread but I wanted to experience the best music available with my new gear.
I went out and purchased a Samsung DVD-A player, 6 analog cables and downloaded DSOTM (which took over a week).

Yesterday I finally burned it to a DVD and popped it in the new Samsung.

HOLY SH*T!!!!!!!!!! I can't believe my frickin ears!
Even my wife, who is not a Pink Floyd fan, was blown away.
We cranked it up to about 90db and sat there in awe.

Maybe it's partly because I've finally gotten a great amp to drive my Diva speakers, but our Cary CD player doesn't sound like this.

I'm blown away by DVD-A and this Pink Floyd album in particular.

This is what music should sound like.

Thanks all,

Tony

Hey all,

Just wanted to put in my $.02
I recently upgraded my system to an Anthem processor and new Anthem Amp.
This thing cranks out about 325 watts per channel.
Well I've never even heard of DVD-A before reading this thread but I wanted to experience the best music available with my new gear.
I went out and purchased a Samsung DVD-A player, 6 analog cables and downloaded DSOTM (which took over a week).

Yesterday I finally burned it to a DVD and popped it in the new Samsung.

HOLY SH*T!!!!!!!!!! I can't believe my frickin ears!
Even my wife, who is not a Pink Floyd fan, was blown away.
We cranked it up to about 90db and sat there in awe.

Maybe it's partly because I've finally gotten a great amp to drive my Diva speakers, but our Cary CD player doesn't sound like this.

I'm blown away by DVD-A and this Pink Floyd album in particular.

This is what music should sound like.

Thanks all,

Tony

I'll second that! I haven't put it through its paces yet, but just listening to the first song blew me away. I'm going to really blow out the neighborhood tomorrow and crank up my AVR-240 and my 5.1 SVS speaker system and that killer subwoofer I have!

What software are you using to burn it? I can't seem to burn it with Nero...

What software are you using to burn it? I can't seem to burn it with Nero...Roxio 8 does it via Copy DVD Movie.

I think I used "Burn Image To Disc", but I'm not positive.

I think I used "Burn Image To Disc", but I'm not positive.
It's not an image.

Yeah, I wasn't sure what I used, I know I tried a few methods, and now that I think about, making a DVD video may have been the one worked.

Hey guys! Still lurking and still trying to download... Could some of you reseed the file during the holiday? There doesn't seem to be a complete d/l currently available and only 1 seed up right now. All this, makes the d/l nearly impossible with a nearly infinite d/l time.
Please share some bandwidth for us late grabbers - We would be grateful!
Thanks
vegggas

It's not an image.
It's an ISO, and I used "burn image to disc" with Nero. Several times. Works fine...

Question - I only have DVD video on this...should I also have a separate DVD-A section?

It's an ISO, and I used "burn image to disc" with Nero. Several times. Works fine...There must be multiple downloads out there, as the one I loaded had a Video TS file & an Audio TS file.

Question - I only have DVD video on this...should I also have a separate DVD-A section?
The below is what's on the disc I have.

The disc will play on all DVD players, as it is a DVD-Audio/Video "hybrid" containing the following:

Audio_TS
MLP Lossless at 24/96 Resolution in 4.1

Video_TS
DTS from 24/48 Source files
Dolby Digital from 24/48 Source files

Additionally, it is possible to play both the lossy streams from DVD-Audio players.
Each type has it's own menus. What you can access is dependant entirely on your player.

There must be multiple downloads out there, as the one I loaded had a Video TS file & an Audio TS file.
I'm pretty sure the original file is an ISO image though. The above post lists what in the file but the file it came from is an ISO image file.

The original torrent consisted of 4 files:

An ISO, 3 JPEGs, and a TXT file.

The original torrent consisted of 4 files:

An ISO, 3 JPEGs, and a TXT file.
You mean 2 JPEGs, the disc label and the box label. What you listed there totals 5 files.. :D

Hey guys! Still lurking and still trying to download... Could some of you reseed the file during the holiday? There doesn't seem to be a complete d/l currently available and only 1 seed up right now. All this, makes the d/l nearly impossible with a nearly infinite d/l time.
Please share some bandwidth for us late grabbers - We would be grateful!
Thanks
vegggas


vegggas - if you're still having problems with downloading, drop me a PM.

You mean 2 JPEGs, the disc label and the box label. What you listed there totals 5 files.. :D

My mistake.

You are correct.

For anyone keeping tabs on released versions of this, a DTS version was released "into the wild" yesterday ;)

For anyone keeping tabs on released versions of this, a DTS version was released "into the wild" yesterday ;)

If it has been stripped from this DVDA ISO that is too bad as the README specifically asked that this not be done....

There has been another dts mix floating around for ages from different sources than this ISO so perhaps that is the one you are seeing. There are a couple of guys on eBay flogging Animals, DSOTM and WYWH dts from those old releases.

If it has been stripped from this DVDA ISO that is too bad as the README specifically asked that this not be done....

There has been another dts mix floating around for ages from different sources than this ISO so perhaps that is the one you are seeing. There are a couple of guys on eBay flogging Animals, DSOTM and WYWH dts from those old releases.

So.....the DTS version is NOT commercially available than I take it? Does anyone have it & willing to B & P or know where one could trade or get a hold ot it? Sounds very intriguing! Would be interested to compare the the SACD v. DVD-A v. DTS version!

Thanks!,

Steve