or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Surround Music Formats › Sound Quality/Music Reviews and Comments on SACD/DVD-A
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sound Quality/Music Reviews and Comments on SACD/DVD-A - Page 12

post #331 of 439
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abel Calvo View Post

It would also be interesting to make comparisons between SACD releases and their counterparts in BD, such as PF's Dark Side of the Moon and Wish You Were Here, which are available in both formats.

Abel,

I would buy the DSOTM and the WYWH Blurays in a heartbeat but I will not shell out big money for either boxset. I compared the Patricia Barber Modern Cool SACD to the Bluray. For stereo it was very close but the 5.1 DTS-MA layer is outstanding.
post #332 of 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Mac View Post


 I compared the Patricia Barber Modern Cool SACD to the Bluray. For stereo it was very close but the 5.1 DTS-MA layer is outstanding.

Really?  I felt it was the other way around.  FWIW.

post #333 of 439
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post

Really?  I felt it was the other way around.  FWIW.

You felt the stereo layer of the BR was better than the 5.1 layer? I guess I do not understand your post confused.gif.

Bill
post #334 of 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Mac View Post

You felt the stereo layer of the BR was better than the 5.1 layer? I guess I do not understand your post confused.gif.
Bill

I think Kal meant the SACD was superior to the BD. wink.gif

Depending on everyone's gear (as well as taste and preferences), I think there are important elements to consider. For example, when listening to BDs, DVD-V/A and some CDs, I prefer to go digital from my Oppo 93 to my AVR, in order to take advantage of the Audissey Room Correction, which I find gives the sound more punch, an "oomph" factor, if you will.

However, when listening to SACDs, and maybe classical or jazz music on CDs and DVD-As, I find that the way to go is out the analog interconnects and setting the AVR to Pure Direct (my AVR is a Marantz SR 6006). I've tried for example Dire Strait's Brothers in Arms both ways, and when listening to it via digital audio the Audissey gives it way to much treble and makes it sound too "digital".

To summarize, IMHO, the digital way with ARC is the way to go for pop, rock and prog genres, whereas analog is better for classical, vocal and jazz genres. Of course, this is a very simple generalization. There's still a lot to learn and discuss, but I think that in the pursuit of "the perfect sound" resides the joy for any audiophile and music enthusiast. Only recently I learned about AVS forum, for example, and in a couple of months I've learned a lot of stuff that has helped me improve my setup and listening experience a great deal.

Cheers!
post #335 of 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Mac View Post
You felt the stereo layer of the BR was better than the 5.1 layer? I guess I do not understand your post confused.gif.
Bill

Yes.  I thought the 5.1 mix was mostly pretty awful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abel Calvo View Post


I think Kal meant the SACD was superior to the BD. wink.gif

Cheers!

Nope.

post #336 of 439
Grasshoppers,
Do not read into Master Po's, I mean Kal's posts what is not there. wink.gif
Format meaningless, mix everything.
post #337 of 439
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post

Yes.  I thought the 5.1 mix was mostly pretty awful.

Kal,

Thanks for the explanation. What issues did you find with the 5.1 mix? I found it difficult to A-B the SACD vs. the 2CH layer of the BR due to the boot up time of the BR. I think one would need two identical BR players with SACD capabilities (Oppo?) to be able to A-B the two properly.

Bill
post #338 of 439
I also thought the stereo track on the Modern Cool Blu-ray was superior to the 5.1. It boils down to one's preference on how they like to hear their music. One weakness (IMO) of multichannel presentations is the temptation to "over-surround" the sound field, so that a natural stage-view perspective is lost. There are many multichannel SACDs, DVD-As, etc. that do not overdo the surround effect and increase the illusion that you are listening to real musicians in real space. Of course, there is some music (electronica, etc.) that thrives when full multichannel presentation is employed. However, watching a small jazz group or a symphony does not provide the same listening experience as presented in overdone surround.

Lee
post #339 of 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBFC View Post

I also thought the stereo track on the Modern Cool Blu-ray was superior to the 5.1. It boils down to one's preference on how they like to hear their music. One weakness (IMO) of multichannel presentations is the temptation to "over-surround" the sound field, so that a natural stage-view perspective is lost. There are many multichannel SACDs, DVD-As, etc. that do not overdo the surround effect and increase the illusion that you are listening to real musicians in real space. Of course, there is some music (electronica, etc.) that thrives when full multichannel presentation is employed. However, watching a small jazz group or a symphony does not provide the same listening experience as presented in overdone surround.
Lee

When stereo was new, there was a vocal minority - the "binauralists" - who considered the use of multiple mikes placed close to the instruments to be artificial, and believed the only legitimate way to record music was to put a dummy head with mikes in its ears in the center of the auditorium.

Suffice it to say, we all know who won that argument. Now it's playing itself out again about how to record and mix surround sound.

Just as cinema transcended the filming of stage plays to become a separate art form, so the making of recordings is no longer limited solely to the capturing of the experience of being in the audience at a concert, and allows musicians to create a separate art form in which each of the instruments can be heard more clearly by separating them not just left to right but also front to back around the listener.

One advantage of DVD-A, SACD, and Blu-ray is that they have enough space to carry both "auditorium" and "stage" perspectives along with a stereo mix.

Once most folks have set up true discrete surround systems (as opposed to matrix decoding, which can, at best, mimic auditorium perspective) in order to watch DVDs and Blu-rays, I expect that stage perspective will become dominant.
Edited by Philnick - 11/15/12 at 4:21pm
post #340 of 439
Thread Starter 
I thought I would play the Modern Cool BR and compare both the 2.0 and the 5.1 audio. It is very easy to switch between each to get a feel for how each sounds. I still really like the 5.1 layer very much as it gives one the feeling of being in the center of the recording. I can see how some might enjoy the stereo audio over the 5.1 audio. But I feel it is one of the better sounding multichannel discs that I own. Maybe those that do not care for the Modern Cool 5.1 audio could suggest what they feel are better sounding multichannel audio recordings for comparison. I just finished listening to the BR and I do not feel the 5.1 audio is overdone at all. I feel it adds just the right amount of ambiance and space to the recording.

Bill
post #341 of 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Mac View Post


Kal,
Thanks for the explanation. What issues did you find with the 5.1 mix? I found it difficult to A-B the SACD vs. the 2CH layer of the BR due to the boot up time of the BR. I think one would need two identical BR players with SACD capabilities (Oppo?) to be able to A-B the two properly.
Bill

First, my full commentary is in Stereophile and you can read it there.

Second, I have multiple Oppos.

 

BTW, Bill was responding, reasonably, to a quote:

 

"With the 5.1 tracks, I was struck by how much the already superb stereo soundstage opened up, with each of the instrument more clearly delineated. Striking,                                                                                                        too, was the increased spaciousness and power in the bass, a well-known attribute of the original."
--Kalman Rubinson, Stereophile, October 2012, Recording of the Month


And he asked, "Is the above quote incorrect?" 
My response was:
 
I did say that.  The quote is correct but out of context. Note that the quoted text makes no mention of Barber's voice but only about the instruments. If you read the full commentary, you would come away with a different impression.I am sure that you know that commercial enterprises will dissect out passages for their own purposes and it is futile to try to make them quote in full or convey the total meaning.

Edited by Kal Rubinson - 10/23/12 at 5:31pm
post #342 of 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post

Yes.  I thought the 5.1 mix was mostly pretty awful.
Nope.

My bad, Kal. wink.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philnick View Post

When stereo was new, there was a vocal minority - the "binauralists" - who considered the use of multiple mikes placed close to the instruments to be artificial, and believed the only legitimate way to record music was to put a dummy head with mikes in its ears in the center of the auditorium.
Suffice it to say, we all know who won that argument. Now it's playing itself out again about how to record and mix surround sound.
Just as cinema transcended the filming of stage plays to become a separate art form, so the making of recordings is no longer limited solely to the capturing of the experience of being in the audience at a concert, and allows musicians to create a separate art form in which each of the instruments can be heard more clearly by separating them not just left to right but also front to back around the listener.
On advantage of DVD-A, SACD, and Blu-ray is that they have enough space to carry both "auditorium" and "stage" perspectives along with a stereo mix.
Once most folks have set up true discrete surround systems (as opposed to matrix decoding, which can, at best, mimic auditorium perspective) in order to watch DVDs and Blu-rays, I expect that stage perspective will become dominant.

I read somewhere (sorry I forgot the original source) a specialist said that the difference between recorded classical music and any other "modern" style of music is that the latter is an artificial stage created in the studio, whereas the recording of classical music could attempt to be as faithful as possible a reproduction of what was heard in the concert hall. While I tend to agree with the principle of this idea, I don't necessarily think that the "artificiality" of modern music is a bad thing, as it opens a lot of possibilities.

Regarding surround music, I for example enjoy very much discovering the differences in mixes made by Elliot Scheiner and Steven Wilson, for example, both of whom have mixed (different) albums of Wilson's band, Porcupine Tree. This also applies to their mixes of other artists. I love trying to understand what they tried to do, how faithful -or not- they remained to the original stereo mixes of those works, and ultimately deciding which styles I enjoy best. For instance, after improving my gear, I absolutely loved sitting down to listen Porcupine Tree's Lightbulb Sun DVD-A, and finally discovering how Wilson tried not to make you feel you're among the musicians but rather playing with them. I play drums and with this mix I totally could feel myself behind the drum kit playing along. You can imagine the air-drum fest that ensued biggrin.gif

Whether you're prog-heads or not, I absolutely encourage you to check at least one of Wilson mixes. Lightbulb Sun would be a great start.

Abel Calvo
post #343 of 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abel Calvo View Post

. . . a specialist said . . .

Abel Calvo

Sounds like a specialist in one kind of classical music recording. Take a look at the different approaches taken to surround mixes of the Beethoven symphonies on the DVD-As by Daniel Barenboim and Claudio Abbatto (or between the Berliner Staatskapelle and the Berlin Philharmoniker) - one favoring the use of the surrounds for hall ambience and one using them to surround the listener with the orchestra.

At the risk of raising a few hackles (Do we have an emoticon for "tongue in cheek"?), one definition of "a specialist" is "one who knows more and more about less and less until they eventually know everything about nothing."

Of course, the specialist's riposte is that we generalists know less and less about more and more - you get the picture!
post #344 of 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philnick View Post

Sounds like a specialist in one kind of classical music recording. Take a look at the different approaches taken to surround mixes of the Beethoven symphonies on the DVD-As by Daniel Barenboim and Claudio Abbatto (or between the Berliner Staatskapelle and the Berlin Philharmoniker) - one favoring the use of the surrounds for hall ambience and one using them to surround the listener with the orchestra.
At the risk of raising a few hackles (Do we have an emoticon for "tongue in cheek"?), one definition of "a specialist" is "one who knows more and more about less and less until they eventually know everything about nothing."
Of course, the specialist's riposte is that we generalists know less and less about more and more - you get the picture!

I totally concur! In the end it's like an adventure trying to enjoy so many different mixes and possibilities, from "A cello in a moist cave" to "A full chorus in a millennial cathedral", and of course to some great musicians each recording in his or her home studio and sending files back and forth between each other. The possibilities are endless and we have the fortune to be able to enjoy it all in great equipment at prices that would have been just a dream a generation before.

On a side note, while I'm an advocate for surround sound and consider some mixes -like Dire Strait's Brothers in Arms- works of art, I find Queen's A Night at the Opera DVD-A to be almost unbearable.

Abel Calvo
post #345 of 439
All very reasonable positions. There's nothing wrong with listening to music recorded via many different miking techniques. I have many, many surround recordings (classical & modern) that use the surround channels actively and enjoy them. However, there are some recordings that IMO lose focus and fail to provide a convincing illusion of looking at the live performance while listening. I'd venture to say that most listeners would hear Patricia Barber from an audience perspective at a relatively close distance. It's unlikely that most any live musical performance would be attended by someone in the stage perspective.

In the end, it's a matter of flavor. Some recordings need merely to allow you to immerse yourself in the sound, whether from all directions or from a frontal soundstage. Other recordings attain higher satisfaction (for me, and many others I suspect) when played back in a more natural perspective as if one were attending the live performance. Using the surrounds for a more believable ambient space can certainly enhance this version of the experience. Recording technique (isolation booth, multi-track mix, overdub, edit, etc.) notwithstanding, I would bet that most live modern concerts are using mainly the audience perspective for sound. Sure, there are some venues and some performers (Pink Floyd, as far back as the early '70s; Porcupine Tree, etc.) that actively use surround sound, but they're still the minority. I'm willing to bet that only Elvis Costello has Diana Krall sitting in his lap while she sings........

The best part of all this is the enjoyment of music. If surround technology revives some of the great performances now & past, that's a good thing.

Thanks,

Lee
post #346 of 439
To put a capper to this discussion, there's a fascinating album available for download at HDTracks called Explorations in Space and Time which is a pure "drum and percussion" album recorded by Chesky Records last year with a trio that included Lenny White of Return to Forever, Jamey Haddad, a "world percussionist," an classical percussionist Mark Sherman.

It was recorded in stereo by both techniques: closely positioned stereo pairs on each instrument and using a Neumann KU-100 binaural microphone, which consists of a "dummy" head with a microphone implanted in the head's ear canals.You can listen to binaural and close-miked versions.

The clips I listened to were the most persuasive case I've heard for binaural - but I suspect that the dummy head was a lot closer to the musicians than out in the middle of an auditorium.
Edited by Philnick - 10/24/12 at 6:37pm
post #347 of 439
I've heard the Chesky percussion album mentioned. The binaural is really cool. It's another example of configuring the artists and instruments to achieve a desired effect. Would you be likely to attend this performance and get the same audio presentation? Probably not, but it's incredibly enjoyable as a listening experience.

A good example of the "natural" perspective, where the audio presentation matches the reality of a live performance, is the Kroumata Percussion Ensemble (BIS-232) in their first release. The performers are spread out in a wide arc on the stage in the pictures of the recording venue, and the playback remains faithful to that view.

Now, since it was suggested that this discussion needed a "capper", I will state that recorded music can serve two purposes: to provide the illusion of what you would hear at a live performance or to provide an enveloping sonic experience from a perspective that allows a novel viewpoint into the music.

Fully in realization that we're in the "Surround" forum, so I completely understand the positions espoused.

Lee
post #348 of 439
Also check out the live recordings made by Mark Waldrep (one of the pioneers in the development of the DVD-A format) at his AIX Records. He works in 5.1 96/24 digital - and, oh yeah, in 3D Blu-ray as well. His disks contain three mixes: stereo, 5.1 auditorium, and 5.1 stage. He works with close-miked stereo pairs.

I have no interest in 3D, having been thoroughly unimpressed by its ballyhooed use in Avatar and Tron, Legacy - the only example of it that really impressed me was in the National Geographic trailer before Tron - where I noticed that I could actually choose where to focus my eyes, foreground or background, which is a degree of freedom no theatrical director can afford to let an audience have, given the necessity to make the audience see what the narrative requires at any particular moment (the exception being those situations where there's a misdirection of attention where it's hoped that a viewer will see through the ruse on a second viewing).

I'm thus very glad that in addition to selling physical disks, he also has a companion download site, iTrax.com, where you can download any or all of the tracks.

My favorite disk of his so far is called Gathered Around, by Steve Huffsteter's Big Band, which is in the Gil Evans tradition of jazz arrangements, but all the tunes are originals. I bought the stage perspective mix, and love it. Don't miss it.

-Phil
post #349 of 439
Binaural is not dead yet and there are a few examples of different surround techniques, including others than Dolby and DTS. Some are even superior if you can get away with non-conventional speaker placement.
post #350 of 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theresa View Post

Binaural is not dead yet and there are a few examples of different surround techniques, including others than Dolby and DTS. Some are even superior if you can get away with non-conventional speaker placement.

Can you say a little more? That's awfully cryptic.
post #351 of 439
Thread Starter 
Maybe discussions for different forms of surround should be discussed in a different thread. Thanks smile.gif.

Bill
post #352 of 439
Sorry about getting off-topic.
post #353 of 439
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theresa View Post

Sorry about getting off-topic.

Theresa,

Not a problem as it happens all the time in many different threads smile.gif. I'll try to snap out of my writers block and post a few reviews of SACD and DVD-As I've listened to recently wink.gif.

Bill
post #354 of 439
Thread Starter 
Artist/Title Info: Tsuyoshi Yamamoto Trio - Midnight Sugar


Format: Hybrid - Stereo SACD


Genre: Jazz


Label: FIMSACD035

I was very happy to see that this SACD was released again as it is an excellent sounding jazz SACD that was quite rare and very expensive. Tsuyoshi Yamamoto is not a well known artist other than in the audiophile world and in Japan. Most if not all of his titles demand very high prices until recently when a few of his titles were rereleased. I have a number of his SACDs as well as CDs and they are all excellent recordings. On Midnight Sugar Tsuyoshi Yamamoto is joined with a bassist and a drummer. First Impression Music is well known for their high quality recordings and Midnight Sugar does not disappoint. All aspects of the recording from Tsuyoshi Yamamoto's piano playing to the very well defined acoustic bass is so life like in its presentation. In the liner notes it shows the number of mics and the types used in the recording process. Multiple mics are used for the piano and it shows as the imaging is so lifelike. I feel at the current price of $26.99 for both the Midnight Sugar and Misty SACDs from Elusive Disc it is a bargain.

1. Midnight Sugar
2. I'm A Fool To Want You
3. The Nearness of You
4. It Could Happen To You
5. Sweet Georgia Blues

http://www.sa-cd.net/showtitle/2584


Rating (scale 1 - 10) Music - 9.0 SQ - 9.5


System Info:

Source: Oppo 103

Pre/pro: Denon 4311 with Audyssey XT32

Amplification: Boston Acoustics A7200 (Sherwood A-965 clone)

FR/FL: Salk SongTowers

Center: Salk Song Center

Surrounds: Definitive Technology BP2x

Surround location: On the ceiling (behind the MLP and slightly outside FR/FL speakers)

Sub: Rythmik F12SE


Room: 17' W (which is open on one side), 14' D with 9' high ceilings. No room treatments as of yet.


Bill
Edited by Bill Mac - 10/26/12 at 5:08pm
post #355 of 439
My brother is as much of a Steely Dan fan as I am, and is coming by next week or later to listen to my hi-def surround disks by the Dan and the Man (Fagen).

A little while ago I dug out my first surround sound disk of Gaucho, a DTS music disk that I got before I knew about DVD-A and SACD. I had recently ripped to FLAC the CD layer of my SACD of that album and my old Mobile Fidelity Ultra Disk CD, as I'm building a hi-fi jukebox using my Oppo BDP-93 to play music off my computer over my LAN, so I decided to do a little comparing. Since my brother doesn't have an SACD or DVD-Audio player, I wanted to see how my old DTS disk sounded - I could give that to him.

First I played "Babylon Sisters" from the CD layer of the SACD. That sounded very good. Put on the same track from the Ultra Disk. That sounded warmer, but not as detailed. Then I put on the DTS. W-a-a-y-y too much bass!

So I put on the real SACD in 5.1 as a tie-breaker. It sounded somewhere in between the Ultra Disk and its own CD layer.

Then I put on the DVD-A of Gaucho. All other versions paled into insignificance. Bright, clear, with lots of low-octave punch, and it was like having the musicians in the room around me perfectly balanced and every one perfectly recorded - in short, a 3D version of the Dan's reputation for "the infinite mix" back in the days of stereo.

That DVD-A has got to be one of the best-recorded and mixed albums of all time.

Next stop - my DVD-A of The Nightfly.

-Phil
post #356 of 439
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philnick View Post

My brother is as much of a Steely Dan fan as I am, and is coming by next week or later to listen to my hi-def surround disks by the Dan and the Man (Fagen).
A little while ago I dug out my first surround sound disk of Gaucho, a DTS music disk that I got before I knew about DVD-A and SACD. I had recently ripped to FLAC the CD layer of my SACD of that album and my old Mobile Fidelity Ultra Disk CD, as I'm building a hi-fi jukebox using my Oppo BDP-93 to play music off my computer over my LAN, so I decided to do a little comparing. Since my brother doesn't have an SACD or DVD-Audio player, I wanted to see how my old DTS disk sounded - I could give that to him.
First I played "Babylon Sisters" from the CD layer of the SACD. That sounded very good. Put on the same track from the Ultra Disk. That sounded warmer, but not as detailed. Then I put on the DTS. W-a-a-y-y too much bass!
So I put on the real SACD in 5.1 as a tie-breaker. It sounded somewhere in between the Ultra Disk and its own CD layer.
Then I put on the DVD-A of Gaucho. All other versions paled into insignificance. Bright, clear, with lots of low-octave punch, and it was like having the musicians in the room around me perfectly balanced and every one perfectly recorded - in short, a 3D version of the Dan's reputation for "the infinite mix" back in the days of stereo.
That DVD-A has got to be one of the best-recorded and mixed albums of all time.
Next stop - my DVD-A of The Nightfly.
-Phil

Phil,

I'm a big fan of Steely Dan and Donald Fagen as well. I listened to the Gaucho SACD the other day and I have to admit the bass is a little too much at times. I actually had to turn the sub trim level down a bit as it seemed a bit boomy. After I listened to Gaucho I set the sub trim level back to where it was. Then I played the Avalon SACD and the sub level was just right. I listened to the Nightfly DVD-A last week and it sounds excellent. I borrowed a friends copy of DF's new CD Sunken Condos. I have to admit at first listen I wasn't overly impressed. The CD comes in a very cheap cardboard jacket that has no liner for the CD rolleyes.gif. I will hold out on buying the CD to see if there will be a 5.1 DVD-A or SACD release.

Bill
post #357 of 439
Additional interesting findings from tonight's Steely Dan / Donald Fagen marathon:

The DVD-A of Gaucho was a wonderful 96/24 5.1 mix, as I mentioned earlier.

The 5.1 DVD-A of The Nightfly, which is one of my favorite collections of songs - particularly the title track, which is a miniature movie - was only at 48/24 and lost a little transparency as a result.

Then I put on the 5.1 DVD-A of Kamakiriad, which I hadn't listened to more than once - when it first came out. While its back cover said that it was at 48/24, my Oppo testified that it was actually 96/24! Being familiar with his later songs - particularly "The Things I Miss The Most" from Everything Must Go - I recognized that he's been writing about his marriage and its breakup for years, with Kamakiriad being almost a song cycle on the subject. I hadn't gotten the emotional resonance of that disk and "The Things" until I listened to all of them straight through.

I don't have Two Against Nature in high def, and I ran out of steam before getting to Morph The Cat - which I'm very familiar with.

I bought the 96/24 stereo HDtracks download of Sunken Condos last week. It's one of those rare mixes that really opens up when run through the DTS: Neo 6 Music matrix processing in my Yamaha (it's a gentler process than the corresponding Dolby version).

It's a shame that The Nighfly is odd-disk out - I'd love to have a 96/24 5.1 version of that - it has some great tunes.

-Phil

PS Before moving on to other disks after Gaucho, I replayed my FLAC rip of "Babylon Sisters" from the CD layer of the SACD - it sounded more like the DVD-A than any of the other versions. It has displaced the Mobile Fidelity Ultradisk in my affections, and will be the version I play in my car.
Edited by Philnick - 10/27/12 at 11:53pm
post #358 of 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philnick View Post

Then I put on the DTS. W-a-a-y-y too much bass!

On my Denon AVR there's a menu setting specifically recommended when playing DTS music CDs which attenuates the bass 10dBs.
post #359 of 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philnick View Post

Also check out the live recordings made by Mark Waldrep (one of the pioneers in the development of the DVD-A format) at his AIX Records.
. . .
in addition to selling physical disks, he also has a companion download site, iTrax.com, where you can download any or all of the tracks.

My favorite disk of his so far is called Gathered Around, by Steve Huffsteter's Big Band, which is in the Gil Evans tradition of jazz arrangements, but all the tunes are originals. I bought the stage perspective mix, and love it. Don't miss it.
-Phil

I started out slow with iTrax downloads, with a quiet little acoustic jazz blues guitar session called Guitar Noir by Laurence Juber that my sweetie adores, and the big band disk I described above.

Today I took the intensity up a notch by downloading the 5.1 "stage perspective" FLAC of a hard-core rock album called Take One Step, by the The Carl Verheyen Band.

Imagine Mahavishnu John McLaughlin sitting in with the Grateful Dead and Jefferson Airplane. There's a considerable range of styles but it feels like a band.

Oh, and a 5.1 production that can give the DVD-A of Gaucho a run for its money!

You can burn it to a DVD-A with Cirlinca, or if you have a recent Oppo you can put it on a DVD data disk - or just stream it over your network!

I've got to get this to Sam Kopper, the 1968 original program director of WBCN-FM, who is reincarnating that pioneering bluesy folk-rock free form station on the net (tune in at WBCNboston.com) - I've been a big supporter of his efforts.

-Phil
post #360 of 439
Bonnie Raitt - Nick of Time (dvd audio)

I thought i would give a mini review on a disc i hardly ever hear anything about just in case any of you like Bonnie Raitt and maybe haven't heard that there was a dvd-a of this record. It has radio hits "Nick of Time", "Have a Heart" and "Real Man". I'm not a huge fan of Bonnie Raitt but i do get the urge to listen to her stuff from time to time. This dvd-a sounds really nice. It's very clean sounding with plenty of bass (not bloated though). The word that comes to mind when trying to describe the sound signature would be "lively". The surround treatment is slightly on the aggressive side (which i like). Some really nice background vocals come through in the surrounds. If you're a Bonnie Raitt fan, this disc is worth owning. And there are three videos as a bonus: Thing Called Love, Love Letter and Nick of Time. Not sure about the availability - i noticed there are used ones for sale on amazon for $25.

Sound quality - 9.25
Surround mix - 9
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Surround Music Formats
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Surround Music Formats › Sound Quality/Music Reviews and Comments on SACD/DVD-A