Moody Blues Boxset with 5.1 DVD

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Here's a thing.
BluRay Audio discs cost around 4 to 5 times the amount a DVD-A/V will cost because of the massive additional complexity involved with the authoring as well as the mandatory, crippled AACS "copy protection" system.
What you do get is dr4amatically better graphics & visuals.
What you do *not* get is any improvement in audio quality whatsoever compared to an Audio-capable DVD player, and depending on your BluRay player you may well not actually be listening to the stream you think you are. Why? Well, basically neither DTS-HD MAS or Dolby True HD (MLP Lossless by any other name) are actually supported mandatorily in lossless - the mandatory component is the hidden core audio stream. The lights can be on but you may well be actually hearing DTS Core (16/48) or AC3 - seriously. The Dolby True HD light can be on & you may be playing AC3 as only that core stream is supported by mandate - the lossless are optional.
The only lossless 5.1 guaranteed on BD is LPCM.

Why did this not include MLP streams? I know it had nothing to do with available space, and cannot say any more than that.

Shame that space wasn't the reason these weren't DVD-As (as advertised). I know it is the truth that every once in a while there will be a DVD that can't fit the audio layer on it, but it's such a waste when there's a missed opportunity like this. I hope that everyone who is unhappy with the sets returns them as a statement.
 
.........
Why did this not include MLP streams? I know it had nothing to do with available space, and cannot say any more than that.
Interesting. Universal hasn't had anything against MLP in past. Rush, for example. I wonder if this is the end of MLP for Universal then.
 
Interesting. Universal hasn't had anything against MLP in past. Rush, for example. I wonder if this is the end of MLP for Universal then.

I honestly doubt it very much indeed.
For whatever reason it did not happen this time, there will always be another. No, not defending Universal either - I also think this was a missed opportunity but I believe that all the time we accept lower quality then that is all we will get most of the time on the grounds that it is - as far as the labels are concerned - obviously acceptable as it will doubtless sell out of it's allocated numbers. It leaves us in a nasty hole though - stop buying lossy & they may drop 5.1 altogether. Would it really come to that?
I still think one of the biggest blocks we face is budget. DVDA was at first very expensive because it was all command line stuff, and a lot of labels still think it is that expensive now (approx $5,000-$8,000/title) when the reality is that it is not necessarily that way at all - but there is this nasty perception that if they are not paying enormous money then they are not getting their money's worth. It's mad, but seems to be true.
The reality is that fully lossless titles are not nearly as expensive as the labels think, especially with the more simple title. It is when you get into stacked split menus (multi-page jobbies) & linked lyrics that it gets complicated and by definition that means more money. So I blame budget, every time - I cannot and will not believe the project manager of this box set did not want fully lossless DVD-A/V.
 
I honestly doubt it very much indeed.
For whatever reason it did not happen this time, there will always be another. No, not defending Universal either - I also think this was a missed opportunity but I believe that all the time we accept lower quality then that is all we will get most of the time on the grounds that it is - as far as the labels are concerned - obviously acceptable as it will doubtless sell out of it's allocated numbers. It leaves us in a nasty hole though - stop buying lossy & they may drop 5.1 altogether. Would it really come to that?
I still think one of the biggest blocks we face is budget. DVDA was at first very expensive because it was all command line stuff, and a lot of labels still think it is that expensive now (approx $5,000-$8,000/title) when the reality is that it is not necessarily that way at all - but there is this nasty perception that if they are not paying enormous money then they are not getting their money's worth. It's mad, but seems to be true.
The reality is that fully lossless titles are not nearly as expensive as the labels think, especially with the more simple title. It is when you get into stacked split menus (multi-page jobbies) & linked lyrics that it gets complicated and by definition that means more money. So I blame budget, every time - I cannot and will not believe the project manager of this box set did not want fully lossless DVD-A/V.

Neil

Out of curisoity did you end up returning the Moody Blues box set because of the non lossless DVDs?
 
I honestly doubt it very much indeed.
For whatever reason it did not happen this time, there will always be another. No, not defending Universal either - I also think this was a missed opportunity but I believe that all the time we accept lower quality then that is all we will get most of the time on the grounds that it is - as far as the labels are concerned - obviously acceptable as it will doubtless sell out of it's allocated numbers. It leaves us in a nasty hole though - stop buying lossy & they may drop 5.1 altogether. Would it really come to that?
I still think one of the biggest blocks we face is budget. DVDA was at first very expensive because it was all command line stuff, and a lot of labels still think it is that expensive now (approx $5,000-$8,000/title) when the reality is that it is not necessarily that way at all - but there is this nasty perception that if they are not paying enormous money then they are not getting their money's worth. It's mad, but seems to be true.
The reality is that fully lossless titles are not nearly as expensive as the labels think, especially with the more simple title. It is when you get into stacked split menus (multi-page jobbies) & linked lyrics that it gets complicated and by definition that means more money. So I blame budget, every time - I cannot and will not believe the project manager of this box set did not want fully lossless DVD-A/V.

Neil,
I feel that in the case of Universal & DVD-A, surely artist demand must also play a bigger factor. If artists like RUSH or Pete Townshend (w/ The Who) want DVD-A for their box sets and reissues, then it happens.
The Moody Blues said themselves that they were not really involved at all with this release, leaving it purely to the label & others to work on.
 
My copy has not yet arrived but it will indeed be returned. In fact I would have cancelled the order had I been able to.
My gripe is that it is definitely advertised as DVD-A on the product page, this is why I pre-ordered, and what I will receive is not what I thought I was buying.
It comes under the Sale of Goods act & the Trades Descriptions act.
DVD-Audio logos are all over this, and that is just wrong.
I am even beginning to wonder if DTS is even there - the page states Dolby Digital DVD-A, so who can tell!!
 
Neil,
I feel that in the case of Universal & DVD-A, surely artist demand must also play a bigger factor. If artists like RUSH or Pete Townshend (w/ The Who) want DVD-A for their box sets and reissues, then it happens.
The Moody Blues said themselves that they were not really involved at all with this release, leaving it purely to the label & others to work on.

Then again, it could also be that they tried mastering in MLP and found the difference between it and DTS or Dolby Digital wasn't audible, nor significant enough to warrant including it. Unless we were to get feedback directly from those who mastered and authored these discs, we'll never know the truth.
 
Then again, it could also be that they tried mastering in MLP and found the difference between it and DTS or Dolby Digital wasn't audible, nor significant enough to warrant including it. Unless we were to get feedback directly from those who mastered and authored these discs, we'll never know the truth.

Then they used deaf people. Sorry, I do not believe or accept any competent ME cannot pick the difference when it is material they have worked on. I will grant it can be difficult as an end user, but when you mastered the album or mixed the album believe me you are familiar with every nuance and I can most definitely hear the difference between DTS and MLP. I will further grant it is nowhere near as bad as Dolby Digital, which to my way of thinking has no place on any music release and is only barely tolerable for films but the differences are plain for anyone with the kit & the ears to listen - the lossless is simply more detailed & fuller all round.

I had a copy of the box show up today, and it will be returned unopened.
 
Then they used deaf people. Sorry, I do not believe or accept any competent ME cannot pick the difference when it is material they have worked on. I will grant it can be difficult as an end user, but when you mastered the album or mixed the album believe me you are familiar with every nuance and I can most definitely hear the difference between DTS and MLP. I will further grant it is nowhere near as bad as Dolby Digital, which to my way of thinking has no place on any music release and is only barely tolerable for films but the differences are plain for anyone with the kit & the ears to listen - the lossless is simply more detailed & fuller all round.

I had a copy of the box show up today, and it will be returned unopened.

I think the determining factor would be the quality of the masters used. I think DVD-Audio would be the best thing, but they could be looking at it from the viewpoint that there aren't necessarily enough DVD-A players out there anymore, while DVD-V players are still the driving force. That's why I figure the cost of mastering for something that may largely go unused may not be justified. Anyone with a DVD player can play Dolby Digital or DTS, and I'm sure most wouldn't know the difference. We're the ones who could and would appreciate the difference MLP would make. The other thing is whether or not these are new mixes, or the same that appeared on the SACD's of a few years back. If they are new mixes, the cost of the box set could be justified. But if the mixes are the same as the SACD's, I don't think I'll spend the money. Also, what's up with including blank cassettes, even if they are replicas of those that went into space with the astronauts? C'mon, they're milking it for all it's not worth.
 
The other thing is whether or not these are new mixes, or the same that appeared on the SACD's of a few years back. If they are new mixes, the cost of the box set could be justified. But if the mixes are the same as the SACD's, I don't think I'll spend the money.

I agree. ;)


What the hell is this supposed to mean?

* 3 DVD audio discs containing the long-deleted 5:1 surround sound mixes of Days Of Future Passed, On The Threshold Of A Dream, To Our Children's Children's Children, A Question Of Balance, Every Good Boy Deserves Favour and Seventh Sojourn

Were these ever released at all or are they talking about the 4.0 SACD mixes from just a few years ago?
 
I agree. ;)


What the hell is this supposed to mean?



Were these ever released at all or are they talking about the 4.0 SACD mixes from just a few years ago?

The original SACD's had stickers on them boasting 5.1 mixes, when they were really the same 4.0 mixes made for the never-released SQ LP's. If the mixes on the new box set are the same as the SACD's, I can't justify spending the money. If, however, they're new mixes actually in 5.1, I might consider it. Someone's gonna post their findings here before I shell out the bucks.
 
I think the determining factor would be the quality of the masters used. I think DVD-Audio would be the best thing, but they could be looking at it from the viewpoint that there aren't necessarily enough DVD-A players out there anymore, while DVD-V players are still the driving force. That's why I figure the cost of mastering for something that may largely go unused may not be justified. Anyone with a DVD player can play Dolby Digital or DTS, and I'm sure most wouldn't know the difference. We're the ones who could and would appreciate the difference MLP would make.

I disagree utterly.
There is vanishingly little additional cost, given what has already been spent, to add lossless for those who care about it. As it stands, we are (as I have pointed out elsewhere) being basically told that we have more money than sense, will buy anything as long as there is a cheap-ass DVD included with lossy mixes. It will cost them seriously less than you may imagine and at £1780, I want lossless - they can keep the crappy cassette.
I will ask about the mixes & post back when I hear

EDIT.
They are the same as on the SACD releases.
 
Last edited:
First, Neil, thank you in advance for checking on the mixes.

With all due respect, I believe that even if the labels will save fifty cents, they will choose to cut costs. I don't mean fifty cents a unit, I mean fifty cents in total. Packaging has become cheesier by the minute. It's a sad state for those of us that prefer physical media. I'm afraid that downloads aren't much better.
 
With all due respect, I believe that even if the labels will save fifty cents, they will choose to cut costs. I don't mean fifty cents a unit, I mean fifty cents in total. Packaging has become cheesier by the minute. It's a sad state for those of us that prefer physical media.

Whilst I agree entirely that this is the way of the world with "mainstream" labels there are a number of smaller labels and independants looking to take up the slack that they're leaving.

Look at the incredible job Cherry Red/Esoteric/Atomhenge have done with "Warrior" - the packaging is superb! Ditto much of Burning Shed's releases and special editions. And look at what Rob Reed did with Kompendium - beautiful stuff!
 
the way I feel about it right now (this is a recent development) is if its a new (or unique to) DTS release I really don't care, I'm just thankful to get it at all in surround - if its been released previously on SA-CD or DVD-A, I'd rather hunt that version down and pay over the odds than have the newer lossy version.
 
Although Justin Hayward has mentioned this box set in passing, and seems to be happy with the remasters of the basic catalog (as opposed to the old ones from the '80s), this appears to nonetheless be a boutique title, of interest primarily to the most diehard of fans. They've had box sets in the past, though nothing this complete. As for the quad mixes, they were done once, by Tony Clarke and Derek Varnals. Tony has passed on, and I doubt Derek--or anyone else--would care to tackle them again, given the crossfades and missing parts they had to deal with in reconstructing the six albums in the first place (pity, though, that later '80s albums were never considered for 5.1 for this project, as one would imagine they'd sound great and be fairly complete).

Ah well....

ED :)
 
the way I feel about it right now (this is a recent development) is if its a new (or unique to) DTS release I really don't care, I'm just thankful to get it at all in surround - if its been released previously on SA-CD or DVD-A, I'd rather hunt that version down and pay over the odds than have the newer lossy version.

I find this a tough pill to swallow, mainly because the regular inclusion of 24/96 STEREO shows that it DOES matter - we just have to shout loudly enough & stop putting up with second best and considering ourselves "lucky" somehow that we will pay £Premium for substandard quality. The Stereo crowd do not put up with this - why should we?
 
Whilst I agree entirely that this is the way of the world with "mainstream" labels there are a number of smaller labels and independants looking to take up the slack that they're leaving.

Look at the incredible job Cherry Red/Esoteric/Atomhenge have done with "Warrior" - the packaging is superb! Ditto much of Burning Shed's releases and special editions. And look at what Rob Reed did with Kompendium - beautiful stuff!

Totally agree! it can still be presented/packaged with a little tender loving care! even the little 3-disc "Warrior" set is a little beauty! (y)
 
Although Justin Hayward has mentioned this box set in passing, and seems to be happy with the remasters of the basic catalog (as opposed to the old ones from the '80s), this appears to nonetheless be a boutique title, of interest primarily to the most diehard of fans. They've had box sets in the past, though nothing this complete. As for the quad mixes, they were done once, by Tony Clarke and Derek Varnals. Tony has passed on, and I doubt Derek--or anyone else--would care to tackle them again, given the crossfades and missing parts they had to deal with in reconstructing the six albums in the first place (pity, though, that later '80s albums were never considered for 5.1 for this project, as one would imagine they'd sound great and be fairly complete).

Ah well....

ED :)

as a huge EJ fan who's been waiting/longing for the remaining 5.1 "classic years" mixes, I've reluctantly had to mellow in the interim and come to accept my lot and be happy with what we have got and what we get from now on. the declining state of the music biz the last 10-15 years, we're lucky to be getting any decent new surround mixes, let alone physical CDs/DVDs of Hi-Rez/surround (non-Classical) music etc.!
 
I disagree utterly.
There is vanishingly little additional cost, given what has already been spent, to add lossless for those who care about it. As it stands, we are (as I have pointed out elsewhere) being basically told that we have more money than sense, will buy anything as long as there is a cheap-ass DVD included with lossy mixes. It will cost them seriously less than you may imagine and at £1780, I want lossless - they can keep the crappy cassette.
I will ask about the mixes & post back when I hear

EDIT.
They are the same as on the SACD releases.

You're in a better position than most of us, Neil, because you're in the business, to know about these things. My viewpoint is strictly that of a consumer. I figure Meridian still wants a royalty for every DVD-Audio disc that's mastered, and that would certainly add to the cost. Thanks for the word that the mixes are the same as the SACD's. Maybe the DVD's aren't hi-rez, but the SACD's are. I won't waste the money on the box set.
 
Back
Top