lets hear what you think about this.
lets hear what you think about this.
The divorce was my fault, I just couldn't get along with her boyfriends.
*hint - just type in the title you are seeking info on in the search box in the upper right hind corner of this page
Yeah, that turned out to be a big let down.
The voices in my head come from Right Rear only!
Think of what? Thing sounded great, went out of print, someone's trying to make money off of it for those who have to have the physical copy.
Crap, a hundred and five dollars?!
i didn't buy this one when it was in print and have no regrets.
it's a shame on Rhino for making so much noise about their Quadio
and then offer most lowest from possible sonic quality, had having
previously released stunning DVD-As. not even have included, at least,
flat transfer of SQ stream as 96/24 on the disc.
I got the CTA Quadio as a birthday present. I also have an SQ of it. I've always loved this mix. It's what Quad is all about. As to the music, my all-time favorite track is Beginnings. With over 18,000 albums in my collection, that is no small praise. There are several other terriffic tracks. A 10, even with one or two poor tracks. YOU NEED THIS! Yes, I was heartbroken when I saw the DVD-A logo and found that it was only a DTS DVD.
Later, I bought the Aretha Quadio. Sonically, I loved it, though it is missing some of her best tracks.
can be artificially enhanced for particular purpose. albeit such enhancement can do positive impression on the listeners particularly
ones, who's using pretty basic acoustical setup, it's still a fake sound, created purposely. sure, some DTS releases can sound like
this - bright, sharp and impressive but there is no life in the sound. Chicago quadio was remastered with use of lossy coding in mind
so inevitable lost of harmonics and overtones was compensated by enhancement of those elements of the sound, which are essential
for psychoacoustic cheating of the listeners.
couple weeks ago i'd picked at nearest Walmart latest Opeth CD+ADVD set.
honestly i have hard time to listen surround mix in all it's entirety. no problem with mix, which is great. the problem is the sonic delivery.
quite obvious that mix have been done as it is, in HiRes and then simply downgraded into DTS. no one was concerned how it would
sound after such manipulation and thus wasn't used mastering like in case with Chicago. as result it sounds terrible flat and dead.
PFs quads from immersion boxes contains flat transfer from master tapes with no remastering was involved and they are sound great,
giving the technology and gears used for recording/mastering of their time. same can be told about JT boxset, where are two
mixes - old one and remastered another but both were done from same source multis.
Both the PF Immersion Quads are 2011 remasters, and believe me they are "modern" style masters as well with the sole saving grace being that they are not overcompressed.
The low end on these is substantially different from the Bootleg DVDA of DSOTM, and there is a much nicer sounding Quad DVDA of WYWH too.
The Immersion Quads are - to me - muffled by comparison. They are also less dynamic than the untampered with originals - especially on the case of DSOTM where we have a genuine master tape transfer to compare the Immersion releases to.
The 2 sound -very- different.
I also seriously doubt the Rhino Quadio were mastered with "lossy coding in mind" either.
Again, these are to my ears too bright sounding, and forthe Aretha album the Romanotrax DVDA is a better transfer by quite some distance.
Oh well, whatever - nevermind.
I also think the lack of balance on those Immersion mixes zaps the enjoyment out of them. The rears are way too high in the mix for you to get a good surround experience. Perhaps this is what old quad is "supposed" to sound like but, to me, it just sounds like you mixed your rears too high.
I'll never understand how bit rate matters MORE to some people than what they are actually listening to. It's just ass-backwards to me that a bad 24/96 MLP would be preferable to a solid DTS mix.
DKA, I can appreciate your point of view, but I just have to speak out for "old" quad. I much prefer being in the middle of the sound with all channels at the same level. Much more engaging to my ear. I love the Gentle Giant quad mixes, for example and have no problem with the channel placements on "Free Hand."
The so called "modern" mix is in my view boring by comparison. Of course, I speak in generalities here. There are times when a "modern" mix is the correct one; but in general, I prefer a "vintage" quad style.
I guess my real preference is the "stage" mix that AIX uses - where you get the sense you are sitting with the band and the instruments don't jump from channel to channel unnaturally. Still, I think I would generally rather have the circus atmosphere of a "vintage" quad mix than a balanced "modern" mix.
Sukothai, I agree. I can't fathom why today's engineers have a radically different philosophy from the Quad engineers of the '70's. While I'm grateful for any "real" multichannel mix, I like the old Quad mixes better. Those two extra channels on 5.1 throw everyone for a loop, yet in reality 5.1 IS 4.0. (I'm ready for someone to challenge me on this.) Quad had a phantom center and four full range speakers. Other than pinpointing the center slightly more and (hopefully) better low frequency response with a good sub, I see no difference. Most engineers today haven't a clue how to mix an album in 5.1. A few do understand.
Most Quad systems had better bass than the satellite (small) sub packages today. The range that Bose and HTOB systems' subs reproduce in is mostly low-mid/high-bass. They are much more directional than a "true" sub, intended to be used with four full-range speakers. So, the small systems usually have inferior bass, with no directionality in the lower midrange.
Bottom line: as our technical capabilities get better, features and performance often move backward. "2 computer speakers and a computer sub are all you need," or so most music listeners think. Am I that stupid to "waste" tens of thousands on audio?
I think we generally like what we're used to. I like the "quad" mixes. Sure, they get out of control (Frankenstien, Jump Into the Fire, Black Magic Woman, etc) but that's what makes them fun! It's cool to have the background singers in the BACK! When I want a refined mix, I'll put in the stereo or mono. For surround, I want, well, SURROUND! Ambience I can get from a button.
I have so many DTS titles that I fully enjoy. Take a listen to Holland123's upmix DVD-A of CTA and compare it to the DTS DVD in terms of fidelity and mix placement.
Enjoy both of these (and any version you like) for what they are.
Moderator, Musician, Foole
Daddeo 2014 Selected Songs link:
good and bad sounding releases in both formats
and you see, it's not as much bits matter, but what those bits bring to listener.
to some degree i understand your point. but look at this from simpliest side.
in digital domain of audio, quality of the sound directly depends on amount of stored about captured sound information.
as most simple example - take a movie and from every 10 frames cut off 8. remaining 2 glue all together and try to watch
this movie. roughly similar happens with sound during packing into DTS. if you still not convinced, do a simple experiment.
take a sample from HiRes recording, best source would be well trained and developed opera vocal, and pack it into DTS.
after this give to it side by side comparison.
but on top of this he's understand the value of the sound and works with in exceptionally carefull maner,
preserving true origin. i have great respect to him for such approach.
Yes, Jon, BUT the record companies don't generate profit from your button. It's because of suckers like me who buy virtually everything, even the hall/echo jobs. Blame me and all the other hard-core collectors for all the money-grubbing product over the years. Mo' $$$$$
Kindly address all non-discrete surround complaints to Helen Waite.
Has anyone bought the hi-res downloads from WEA? If so, how are they? (Do these questions belong in another thread?)