Adore this album can’t wait till tomorrow, but damn why couldn’t we get it on Blu-Ray
Same here, ...I absolutely love this album.Adore this album can’t wait till tomorrow, but damn why couldn’t we get it on Blu-Ray
Not out yet in the states (will be at midnight though)I know everyone's excited about the Atmos mix, but don't forget this one which was also released today...
Paul McCartney & Wings - Band On The Run (Underdubbed Mixes) (1973)
View attachment 101006
It is absolutely available in the US as I bought the 96/24 from HDtracks earlier today.Not out yet in the states (will be at midnight though)
Interested in checking it out.
LOLI doubt I will find the new mix even worth it since the old 5.1 DTS mix is about twice the bitrate
I don't know what you find funny about that, is my math wrong? IMO a DTS 5.1 mix (+1400kbps) sounds better than a 12+channel streaming Atmos (768kbps). Eac3 is more efficient but not by that much.
Enjoying the release right know, but I remembered that this article also mentions an Atmos mix for "Helen Wheels" which isn't included on most versions of the main album, including the one in Atmos on Apple right now. Does anyone see this track anywhere in Atmos?Just read this post at The Other Forum™ and thought it worth sharing here. The link below goes straight to his track-by-track capsule review so you can bypass that forum.
Yeah, it’s in the “Archive Collection” version (which is marked as lossless only because all the other extra tracks are stereo).Does anyone see this track anywhere in Atmos?
I think the "LOL" was for the situation and not directed at you. I think you're right with the math, but do you have a source on EAC3 being only a little better than DTS? DTS is far older, so I wouldn't be surprised if EAC3 was significantly better (but that's just me guessing). Also, the Atmos tracks are often just 6 channels with the height information embedded in the other channels, right? It's still a lot of compression but a bit more apples to apples compared to a 5.1 DTS encode.I don't know what you find funny about that, is my math wrong? IMO a DTS 5.1 mix (+1400kbps) sounds better than a 12+channel streaming Atmos (768kbps). Eac3 is more efficient but not by that much.
For those of us who only have 5.1 systems, I don't really see a streaming Atmos version as an upgrade unless it is a vastly superior surround mix.
One thing you're not taking into account is the quality of the source recordings. The new Atmos version was remixed from the original multitrack masters, so you're going back a full audio generation in comparison to the DTS-CD that was sourced from a '90s-era digital transfer of the quadraphonic mix - which I doubt is even a real indicator of how good the quad master could sound.IMO a DTS 5.1 mix (+1400kbps) sounds better than a 12+channel streaming Atmos (768kbps). Eac3 is more efficient but not by that much.
You bring up a good point with the multi-track masters, ...I didn't know that.One thing you're not taking into account is the quality of the source recordings. The new Atmos version was remixed from the original multitrack masters, so you're going back a full audio generation in comparison to the DTS-CD that was sourced from a '90s-era digital transfer of the quadraphonic mix - which I doubt is even a real indicator of how good the quad master could sound.
A lot of those DTS-CD releases made from adapted '70s quad mixes sound rather poor (Santana's Abraxas and Wings' Venus & Mars being the most glaring examples). Even though Band On The Run is probably one of the better-sounding entries in the series, it still isn't great. I've seen people blame the DTS-CD format for the quality of these discs, but I've never bought into that argument as there are plenty of commercial DTS-CD releases that sound great. The first 5.1 version of Steely Dan's Gaucho and Lyle Lovett's Joshua Judges Ruth being prime examples. So I imagine that a modern reissue of the quad mix would sound considerably better than what's on the DTS-CD, as turned out to be the case with Abraxas - but it would still be a generation removed from the multitrack masters.
I would be surprised to hear if anyone preferred the sound of the DTS-CD to the new Atmos stream. Just compare "Jet" and the sonic upgrade is kind of night-and-day. As for the surround mixing, both versions have pluses and minuses. I think the first two tracks are way better in Atmos, but "Bluebird" is more of an 'expanded stereo' presentation with some backing vocals popping up in the sides towards the end. The quad mix had the sax solo in one of the back corners, whereas it's in center front on the Atmos. I was also kinda bummed that the big vocal delays in "Let Me Roll It" are mostly in the front on the new Atmos mix, while the quad places them in the rear speakers as you'd expect.
As others have mentioned, to only look at the bitrate, rather than the more important other variables, is just funny to me. I will add that DTS CDs just isn't a format to defend. Even standard DTS DVDs sound better. I have converted to both formats from my own lossless multichannel sources, and I never preferred DTS CDs over DVD, despite the better compatibility.I don't know what you find funny about that, is my math wrong? IMO a DTS 5.1 mix (+1400kbps) sounds better than a 12+channel streaming Atmos (768kbps). Eac3 is more efficient but not by that much.
For those of us who only have 5.1 systems, I don't really see a streaming Atmos version as an upgrade unless it is a vastly superior surround mix.
I also prefer the DVD DTS compared to a DTS-CD, and I agree that all things being equal, a standard DTS file is superior than the DTS-CD file.As others have mentioned, to only look at the bitrate, rather than the more important other variables, is just funny to me. I will add that DTS CDs just isn't a format to defend. Even standard DTS DVDs sound better. I have converted to both formats from my own lossless multichannel sources, and I never preferred DTS CDs over DVD, despite the better compatibility.
So, without even hearing if the mix and mastering is better, you are defending the DTS CD because of the bitrate? I just can't wrap my head around this, especially from someone who creates his own mixes.
Enter your email address to join: