Quadrophenia to be released in 5.1 as part of a 40th anniversary release - Page 6 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 16Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #151 of 177 Old 08-24-2014, 05:14 PM
Member
 
LatheOfHeaven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 15
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by ti-triodes View Post
There are differences, but it's usually in the way your player processes them. My Oppo 95 usually sounds better with the DTS stream than the Dolby for some reason.
Oh yeah, I meant to mention too that I also have an OPPO. The BDP-83, an earlier model. This would explain it then. Thought I was going mental...

Cheers!
LatheOfHeaven is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #152 of 177 Old 08-24-2014, 05:17 PM
Member
 
LatheOfHeaven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 15
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milt99 View Post
Jeez, simmer down.
Actually there are 3 HD tracks.
Why not buy it and decide for yourself generally there are little to no differences between the HD streams.
Some times I slightly prefer PCM sometimes TruHD most times none over another.
Heh, sorry... Actually, with the surround sound, I probably won't bother too much with the stereo track myself, personally.

The other guy who also has an OPPO player similar to mine cleared up the issue for me; I had no idea that the player processed the two tracks that differently.

Cheers!
LatheOfHeaven is offline  
post #153 of 177 Old 08-24-2014, 05:29 PM
Member
 
Tornado Red's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Canada
Posts: 153
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by LatheOfHeaven View Post
Hmmm, I appreciate the replies. I guess maybe something is wrong with my encode because there is a HUGE difference in volume between the two. The DTS track is considerably louder and more aggressive, which I prefer. The TrueHD track is quite a bit lower in volume.

Weird though if the rest of you do not notice that...???
Oops, I had assumed you were looking for opinions because you hadn't made the purchase yet. I'm running an Oppo 103 to a Pioneer SC-61 (plus an amp) and the two tracks are just about the same, so maybe it's equipment. Anyway, sounds like you prefer and enjoy the DTS track so you're golden...
Tornado Red is offline  
post #154 of 177 Old 08-24-2014, 06:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Milt99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: West Of California
Posts: 5,132
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 40 Post(s)
Liked: 76
Lathe,
I don't know what your current funds are but the Amazon trade-in program is currently offering $199 for an Oppo-83.
Another $300 gets you an Oppo-103, a far superior player than the 83 in every way.
A friend of mine did this and couldn't be happier.
Take that FWIW.
Bill Mac likes this.

 

It ain't ignorance causes so much trouble; it's folks knowing so much that ain't so

Milt99 is offline  
post #155 of 177 Old 08-24-2014, 06:19 PM
Member
 
LatheOfHeaven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 15
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milt99 View Post
Lathe,
I don't know what your current funds are but the Amazon trade-in program is currently offering $199 for an Oppo-83.
Another $300 gets you an Oppo-103, a far superior player than the 83 in every way.
A friend of mine did this and couldn't be happier.
Take that FWIW.
WOW! That is VERY tempting mate; thank you so kindly for telling me

Cheers!
LatheOfHeaven is offline  
post #156 of 177 Old 08-24-2014, 06:47 PM
Member
 
LatheOfHeaven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 15
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milt99 View Post
Lathe,
I don't know what your current funds are but the Amazon trade-in program is currently offering $199 for an Oppo-83.
Another $300 gets you an Oppo-103, a far superior player than the 83 in every way.
A friend of mine did this and couldn't be happier.
Take that FWIW.
I did check a detailed review of the newer OPPO; I think for people who will use all those newer features and especially the streaming stuff, and also 3D, it would be a very good trade in deal.

But, it just so happens that I do not use any of those streaming or 3D features. The newer rendering chip is better and it does add a couple of new lossless codecs (WAV & FLAC) which is great. BUT... and it is a BIG BUT like Mariah Careys... They have also added the dreaded Cinavia, which I can most certainly do without. So, I greatly appreciate the news about that and I think for MOST people that would be a very good idea, just not for me.

Cheers!
LatheOfHeaven is offline  
post #157 of 177 Old 08-24-2014, 07:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Milt99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: West Of California
Posts: 5,132
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 40 Post(s)
Liked: 76
The audio and ESS DAC is the main reason to upgrade from the 83 to the 103.
Quite honestly the 83 sounds like dogsh!t compared to 90 or 100 series Oppos.
Why would you care about Cinavia?
It's ubiquitous, easily defeated and has no bearing on audio.
I have a 105 and would never look back, but it's your call.

 

It ain't ignorance causes so much trouble; it's folks knowing so much that ain't so

Milt99 is offline  
post #158 of 177 Old 08-24-2014, 07:48 PM
Advanced Member
 
DocCasualty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Northern Michigan
Posts: 505
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tornado Red View Post
Like ace I guess I hadn't bothered with the Dolby track.
Me three. Honestly I have just come to prefer DTS over Dolby in general and haven't even bothered listening to the Dolby mix. Next time I will though, thanks for mentioning it.

"Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye." - 2001:ASO
DocCasualty is offline  
post #159 of 177 Old 08-24-2014, 09:39 PM
Member
 
LatheOfHeaven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 15
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milt99 View Post
The audio and ESS DAC is the main reason to upgrade from the 83 to the 103.
Quite honestly the 83 sounds like dogsh!t compared to 90 or 100 series Oppos.
Why would you care about Cinavia?
It's ubiquitous, easily defeated and has no bearing on audio.
I have a 105 and would never look back, but it's your call.
That is very good to know; appreciate you taking the time to tell me, especially about the trade in value, I had no idea. Thanks!
LatheOfHeaven is offline  
post #160 of 177 Old 08-25-2014, 01:39 AM
AVS Special Member
 
SeeMoreDigital's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Nottinghamshire, UK
Posts: 1,704
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 79 Post(s)
Liked: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by ti-triodes View Post
There are differences, but it's usually in the way your player processes them. My Oppo 95 usually sounds better with the DTS stream than the Dolby for some reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LatheOfHeaven View Post
Oh yeah, I meant to mention too that I also have an OPPO. The BDP-83, an earlier model. This would explain it then. Thought I was going mental...

Heh, sorry... Actually, with the surround sound, I probably won't bother too much with the stereo track myself, personally.

The other guy who also has an OPPO player similar to mine cleared up the issue for me; I had no idea that the player processed the two tracks that differently.
If your Oppo's are set-up to pass a bit-stream to your amplifier, it's more likely that the differences you're hearing are related to how your amplifier processes the different stream types, not the Oppo...

I SUPPORT 'FAIR USE'. MY MORALS PREVENT ME FROM HELPING ANYONE WHO OBTAINS COPYRIGHTED CONTENT ILLEGITIMATELY
I've been testing hardware media playback devices and software A/V encoders and decoders since 2001 |
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
SeeMoreDigital is online now  
post #161 of 177 Old 08-25-2014, 03:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ti-triodes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Damfino
Posts: 2,188
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by LatheOfHeaven View Post
Oh yeah, I meant to mention too that I also have an OPPO. The BDP-83, an earlier model. This would explain it then. Thought I was going mental...


I also have the 83 and it does the same thing. My 103D isn't set up for 5.1 but I'm sure 103/105 owners have commented already.

Cheers!
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeeMoreDigital View Post
If your Oppo's are set-up to pass a bit-stream to your amplifier, it's more likely that the differences you're hearing are related to how your amplifier processes the different stream types, not the Oppo...

There was a long discussion about HFPA discs about a year ago on another forum. IIRC, it was never solved to my satisfaction. It could be a number of things.

The way the player processes them.
The way the receiver/preamp processes them.
The discs themselves shouldn't be, but are different. People have reported problems with certain discs. The sloppy way HFPA has been handled I wouldn't be surprised.

I don't remember if anyone spent the time checking all the different codec/ processor combos on a particular disc. I was going to try comparing my 95 to my Panny 500 but it wasn't worth it to rip apart my system to hook it up. I only have 4 discs and never found the time.

For my money they should have picked one codec and PCM and spent more time remastering these discs into decent sounding stereo and 5.1.
JimWinVA likes this.
ti-triodes is offline  
post #162 of 177 Old 08-25-2014, 04:32 PM
Member
 
LatheOfHeaven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 15
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by ti-triodes View Post
There was a long discussion about HFPA discs about a year ago on another forum. IIRC, it was never solved to my satisfaction. It could be a number of things.

The way the player processes them.
The way the receiver/preamp processes them.
The discs themselves shouldn't be, but are different. People have reported problems with certain discs. The sloppy way HFPA has been handled I wouldn't be surprised.

I don't remember if anyone spent the time checking all the different codec/ processor combos on a particular disc. I was going to try comparing my 95 to my Panny 500 but it wasn't worth it to rip apart my system to hook it up. I only have 4 discs and never found the time.

For my money they should have picked one codec and PCM and spent more time remastering these discs into decent sounding stereo and 5.1.
I appreciate all the input about the OPPO players and the way the bit stream is processed. I've learned a lot!

Cheers!
LatheOfHeaven is offline  
post #163 of 177 Old 08-26-2014, 01:33 AM
AVS Special Member
 
SeeMoreDigital's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Nottinghamshire, UK
Posts: 1,704
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 79 Post(s)
Liked: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by ti-triodes View Post
There was a long discussion about HFPA discs about a year ago on another forum. IIRC, it was never solved to my satisfaction. It could be a number of things.

The way the player processes them.
The way the receiver/preamp processes them.
The discs themselves shouldn't be, but are different. People have reported problems with certain discs. The sloppy way HFPA has been handled I wouldn't be surprised.
Hmmm...

The only way a native bit-stream can only be processed by a playback device is if it's decoded to a PCM stream prior to being sent to an amplifier. Meaning, the output from the playback device is no longer a native bit-stream, it's a PCM stream.

That being said... A native bit-stream can contain meta-data, which can effect how a surround sound amplifier processes the native bit-stream. The most common example is Dolby's use of meta-data to control the output level of the front centre channel. Meta-data may be useful for controlling how audio is heard in movies but it's useless for controlling how audio is heard in audio only media, such as HFPA discs. As no standard has been agreed regarding how it should be applied, including whether it should be applied at all!
ti-triodes likes this.

I SUPPORT 'FAIR USE'. MY MORALS PREVENT ME FROM HELPING ANYONE WHO OBTAINS COPYRIGHTED CONTENT ILLEGITIMATELY
I've been testing hardware media playback devices and software A/V encoders and decoders since 2001 |
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
SeeMoreDigital is online now  
post #164 of 177 Old 08-26-2014, 03:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ti-triodes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Damfino
Posts: 2,188
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeeMoreDigital View Post
Hmmm...

The only way a native bit-stream can only be processed by a playback device is if it's decoded to a PCM stream prior to being sent to an amplifier. Meaning, the output from the playback device is no longer a native bit-stream, it's a PCM stream.

That being said... A native bit-stream can contain meta-data, which can effect how a surround sound amplifier processes the native bit-stream. The most common example is Dolby's use of meta-data to control the output level of the front centre channel. Meta-data may be useful for controlling how audio is heard in movies but it's useless for controlling how audio is heard in audio only media, such as HFPA discs. As no standard has been agreed regarding how it should be applied, including whether it should be applied at all!


You make a really good point. There's so many variables, I don't think there really is an actual answer in the long run. I just play whatever sounds the best.

Life was a lot simpler when all you had worry about the pops and scratches on your vinyl.
acebreathe likes this.
ti-triodes is offline  
post #165 of 177 Old 08-26-2014, 05:56 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Milt99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: West Of California
Posts: 5,132
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 40 Post(s)
Liked: 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by ti-triodes View Post
You make a really good point. There's so many variables, I don't think there really is an actual answer in the long run. I just play whatever sounds the best.

Life was a lot simpler when all you had worry about the pops and scratches on your vinyl.
Well then, let me simplify your life and take those stressful hi-res discs off your hands!
10 bucks a piece for the lot and I'll pay the shipping!
Stop! You don't have to thank me.
acebreathe and ti-triodes like this.

 

It ain't ignorance causes so much trouble; it's folks knowing so much that ain't so

Milt99 is offline  
post #166 of 177 Old 08-27-2014, 03:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ti-triodes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Damfino
Posts: 2,188
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milt99 View Post
Well then, let me simplify your life and take those stressful hi-res discs off your hands!
10 bucks a piece for the lot and I'll pay the shipping!
Stop! You don't have to thank me.

I was close to taking you up on your offer but I decided to tough it out with all those crummy hi-res discs. Sometimes we have to make sacrifices in life.

ti-triodes is offline  
post #167 of 177 Old 08-29-2014, 08:40 AM
Member
 
tom_c's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 91
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I have to admit that this was one disc that I actually enjoyed in stereo more than the the surround track. There seems to be a lot more low end and impact to the stereo track, the surround at least in DTS seemed a bit lifeless. Anyone else experience this? I'll have another listen and maybe fine tune my system a little to accommodate the lack of low end. Anyway, I'm not disappointed at the least, stereo mode is just fine, just a little miffed that the surround tracks are dull.
tom_c is offline  
post #168 of 177 Old 09-02-2014, 10:00 AM
Member
 
jayna_95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Too shrill for my taste

I got my copy of the Quadrophenia Blu-Ray last week and spent the weekend listening. The Dolby track seems like it has slightly more punch than the DTS track, but both sound shrill to me. Especially when played loud, the bottom end seems to be absent. I wonder if Townshend's deafness is to blame. This is one of my all time favorite albums (I bought the big box last year) and I'm really disappointed by the lack of "heft", especially on tracks like The Punk and the Godfather and 5:15. There is way too much treble - to the point of being almost painful.
jayna_95 is offline  
post #169 of 177 Old 09-02-2014, 12:10 PM
Member
 
Tornado Red's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Canada
Posts: 153
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayna_95 View Post
I got my copy of the Quadrophenia Blu-Ray last week and spent the weekend listening. The Dolby track seems like it has slightly more punch than the DTS track, but both sound shrill to me. Especially when played loud, the bottom end seems to be absent. I wonder if Townshend's deafness is to blame. This is one of my all time favorite albums (I bought the big box last year) and I'm really disappointed by the lack of "heft", especially on tracks like The Punk and the Godfather and 5:15. There is way too much treble - to the point of being almost painful.
Lots of people complaining about lack of bass, haven't heard too much about the 5.1s being shrill though. The listener and equipment, as always, play a role. Personally, I didn't find it shrill for my ears and equipment. I'm also fine with the bass, I'm listening in a 5.2 set up, plus as I've aged I've found my "bass requirement" to be just ever so slightly less than years ago. It's hell getting older!
Tornado Red is offline  
post #170 of 177 Old 09-02-2014, 01:08 PM
Member
 
jayna_95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tornado Red View Post
Lots of people complaining about lack of bass, haven't heard too much about the 5.1s being shrill though. The listener and equipment, as always, play a role. Personally, I didn't find it shrill for my ears and equipment. I'm also fine with the bass, I'm listening in a 5.2 set up, plus as I've aged I've found my "bass requirement" to be just ever so slightly less than years ago. It's hell getting older!
Getting old is a drag, indeed. Just to be sure I hadn't messed up settings somewhere I compared other Blu-Ray Audio discs (2112, Dark Side of the Moon, etc.) and the bass was just fine. I'm not sure why Quadrophenia sounds so thin by comparison.
jayna_95 is offline  
post #171 of 177 Old 09-02-2014, 01:57 PM
Member
 
Tornado Red's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Canada
Posts: 153
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayna_95 View Post
Getting old is a drag, indeed. Just to be sure I hadn't messed up settings somewhere I compared other Blu-Ray Audio discs (2112, Dark Side of the Moon, etc.) and the bass was just fine. I'm not sure why Quadrophenia sounds so thin by comparison.
That's certainly a complaint of many, so much so a lot of folks are preferring the '73 stereo mix. I'm just not one of those and still like what the 5.1 brings.
Tornado Red is offline  
post #172 of 177 Old 09-03-2014, 12:00 AM
Member
 
LatheOfHeaven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 15
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tornado Red View Post
That's certainly a complaint of many, so much so a lot of folks are preferring the '73 stereo mix. I'm just not one of those and still like what the 5.1 brings.
I too appreciate the newer 5.1 mixes IF they are done well. I just gave this one a quick listen; I really need to spend some time properly evaluating it. But, I will admit that like some others here, I DID get just the HINT of an impression that the low end could have been a bit better.

Maybe I just need to turn up the sub

Cheers!

P.S: Although I do not consider myself as 'Old', I have been an avid Audiophile for almost 35 years. For me personally, any SERIOUS listening I do with my vinyl in my dedicated sound room with my higher end equipment [at another location] BUT... with that said, here at home where I have a moderately decent system is where I listen to and enjoy all my digital stuff. So HERE with my home surround setup, I really enjoy the advantages of well mixed / mastered 5.1 stuff. Like I mentioned, compared to many other 5.1 albums that I have, this one just kind of struck me right off as being a tad less in the low-end department. It could very well be though that the original was that way. I guess I'll hafta get my lazy @ss over to my sound room and check out the original vinyl

Cheers!
LatheOfHeaven is offline  
post #173 of 177 Old 09-03-2014, 05:14 AM
Advanced Member
 
acebreathe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: No Plfd NJ
Posts: 900
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayna_95 View Post
I got my copy of the Quadrophenia Blu-Ray last week and spent the weekend listening. The Dolby track seems like it has slightly more punch than the DTS track, but both sound shrill to me. Especially when played loud, the bottom end seems to be absent. I wonder if Townshend's deafness is to blame. This is one of my all time favorite albums (I bought the big box last year) and I'm really disappointed by the lack of "heft", especially on tracks like The Punk and the Godfather and 5:15. There is way too much treble - to the point of being almost painful.
Just out of curiosity how was the 5.1 mix on the box set?
acebreathe is offline  
post #174 of 177 Old 09-03-2014, 08:21 AM
Member
 
jayna_95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tornado Red View Post
That's certainly a complaint of many, so much so a lot of folks are preferring the '73 stereo mix. I'm just not one of those and still like what the 5.1 brings.
I agree that the 5.1 mix is the way to go for this album. The sounds of the sea and the other background "noises" certainly are made for surround systems. I just wish the overall mix was deeper. Reverting to the stereo mix kind of defeats the purpose of this release IMO.
jayna_95 is offline  
post #175 of 177 Old 09-04-2014, 07:23 AM
Member
 
jayna_95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by acebreathe View Post
Just out of curiosity how was the 5.1 mix on the box set?
I listened to the DVD-A from that release again last night in order to compare it to the new Blu-Ray. It was far from a scientific test - I just played one disc after the other. They seemed to have slightly different characteristics, although the use of surround seemed identical. The Blu-Ray felt like it had a slightly wider soundstage, but it also seemed louder. The guitars and cymbals on the DVD felt less harsh. Both versions could use more bass, but the lack is less noticeable in the DVD-A version. The most notable difference to me seems to be in the prominence of the guitars. I think the Blu-Ray has them cranked up too high in the mix, which leads to my sense of shrillness or harshness. I had to turn the volume down on the BluRay because it was painful to listen at the same level as I had done with the DVD. That being said, the BluRay is still worth owning - this album really benefits from a 5.1 treatment. After listening to it in surround, the stereo mix just feels flat to me. Bring on the sea and the sand and the rain!
jayna_95 is offline  
post #176 of 177 Old 09-05-2014, 06:00 AM
Advanced Member
 
acebreathe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: No Plfd NJ
Posts: 900
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Thanks for the response. I came close to buying that box but the fact that only some of the tracks were MCH was a deal breaker. Agree that this is an album that benefits from a 5.1 treatment.
acebreathe is offline  
post #177 of 177 Old 09-05-2014, 03:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ti-triodes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Damfino
Posts: 2,188
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayna_95 View Post
I listened to the DVD-A from that release again last night in order to compare it to the new Blu-Ray. It was far from a scientific test - I just played one disc after the other. They seemed to have slightly different characteristics, although the use of surround seemed identical. The Blu-Ray felt like it had a slightly wider soundstage, but it also seemed louder. The guitars and cymbals on the DVD felt less harsh. Both versions could use more bass, but the lack is less noticeable in the DVD-A version. The most notable difference to me seems to be in the prominence of the guitars. I think the Blu-Ray has them cranked up too high in the mix, which leads to my sense of shrillness or harshness. I had to turn the volume down on the BluRay because it was painful to listen at the same level as I had done with the DVD. That being said, the BluRay is still worth owning - this album really benefits from a 5.1 treatment. After listening to it in surround, the stereo mix just feels flat to me. Bring on the sea and the sand and the rain!

Did you ever check to see if they were offering full 5.1 downloads to the buyers of the box set? Townshend promised to do that if the entire album ever came out in surround.
ti-triodes is offline  
Reply Surround Music Formats

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off