DVD/DTS Poll Jethro Tull - War Child (40th Anniversary Theatre Edition) [DTS 96-24/DD DVD]

Plan9 said:

Yeah, there is no "core" with DTS 24/96 like you have on DTS-HD... because DTS 24/96 is already lossy. The difference is just on the sample rate: standard DTS players will play it in 24/48kHz (not exactly 24bit resolution as it is lossy although the source certainly is) while those equipped with the special (and pretty uncommon) DTS 24/96 decoder will read it at 96kHz. There's barely any difference really, I have tested both against lossless 24bit/96kHz masters on pro gear.

Click to expand...

Actually the difference is quite noticeable. At least the apps I've tried that only rip the core dts (DVD Audio Extractor, XBMC) sound very noticeably compromised. Ripping with a proper decoder is night and day different. Perhaps the 'lossy' ripping apps I tried were "extra lossy" and making it worse than intended? DTS 24/96 sounds like lossless audio to me and I'm pretty sensitive to generation loss. (Obviously I have no way to compare it to the master files. But it sure doesn't sound like say, putting in a 16 bit recording which is immediately obvious. That's pretty much the kind artifact I was hearing with an improper decode of DTS 24/96.)

I certainly understand the dislike of the format. I can tell from the comments that some of you have only ever heard the lossy decode (core only) of this format.

That's why I listen to music with the computer. Access to proper decoders and always the fullest quality playback of the program to send to the DACs. So I'm comfortable enough to purchase discs in this format now. It took a little screwing around to get a proper decoder setup too. I refused to buy any of these discs at first after hearing an improper decode.

Finally got into the 2nd disc.
Nice mixes!
Very cool to now have the most interesting stuff from the 20 Years of JT box set with full blooded proper mixes and done with the same aesthetic as those done in the period. Man, that '80s reverb really made for a challenging listen for some of this stuff on that original CD box! Sure, some of them are still just a little weak - they were outtakes and b-sides. Great bonus stuff though!

This 2nd disc (and the original Passion Play mixes on that 2nd disc too)...
Fully produced 5.1 mixes of these tracks...
This is something that normally just doesn't happen.

What can I say... Any release that has this much material really is a winner. Between the fantastic SW 5.1 remixes and the extra unreleased quad bonus tracks (that really got me - you just don't see this - ever) this still gets a 10.

I mention the difficulties with the format as a 'FYI: buyer beware' because so many people have no way to listen to a proper (nearly) lossless decode which is unfortunate.

Could be worse. Could have been released in DSD format (SACD). So those of us who invested in PCM digital converters (ie. most of the world and most recording studios) would be left shaking out heads with the only listening option being a conversion to PCM (and then some insanity like needing a Gameboy or Gamestation or something to rip the stupid thing?! What the #$%@#^$! is that?!). But I digress again...

Isnt Audiomuxer able to extract DTS 24/96 as 24/96 FLAC files?

Robert van Diggele said:

Isnt Audiomuxer able to extract DTS 24/96 as 24/96 FLAC files?

Click to expand...

It is when you kludge the right decoder into it. Even when you buy the cheaper Windows-only version of the decoder and hack it into a Windows version of Audiomuxer and run it natively in OSX (with Wine installed)!

I actually looked for a newer clean native OSX app recently thinking I should clean up that mess but everything still has absurd price tags. Oh well. It still works!

DVDAudioExtractor also extracts the DTS 96/24 files if you select "direct demux". It doesn't matter which container you then use, it will always be lossy.

If you experience a "night and day" difference between DTS 48/24 and 96/24, then something is very wrong with your setup. The difference shouldn't be more than with a 96kHz file downsampled to 48kHz.

And DTS 48/24 is NOT more compressed than the 96/24 portion: they have the same lossy compression applied, only a few additional kilobits per second are allocated to the supplementary decode of the upper "missing" 24kHz, which are actually more compressed than what comprises the "core".

FYI, on Windows, Foobar with the older DTS decoder 0.4.3 installed decodes DTS 96/24. (The foo_input_dts component has now been reverted to version 0.3.3 because of some incompatibility with decoding DTS CDs)

Of course for all examples I'm talking about full rate DTS at ~1512kbps, not the half-rate version at 755kbps which sounds noticeably inferior (and is not used on the Tull sets).

Thanks Thomas for the info.

jimfisheye said:

Actually the difference is quite noticeable. At least the apps I've tried that only rip the core dts (DVD Audio Extractor, XBMC) sound very noticeably compromised. Ripping with a proper decoder is night and day different. Perhaps the 'lossy' ripping apps I tried were "extra lossy" and making it worse than intended? DTS 24/96 sounds like lossless audio to me and I'm pretty sensitive to generation loss. (Obviously I have no way to compare it to the master files. But it sure doesn't sound like say, putting in a 16 bit recording which is immediately obvious. That's pretty much the kind artifact I was hearing with an improper decode of DTS 24/96.)

I certainly understand the dislike of the format. I can tell from the comments that some of you have only ever heard the lossy decode (core only) of this format.

That's why I listen to music with the computer. Access to proper decoders and always the fullest quality playback of the program to send to the DACs. So I'm comfortable enough to purchase discs in this format now. It took a little screwing around to get a proper decoder setup too. I refused to buy any of these discs at first after hearing an improper decode.

Finally got into the 2nd disc.
Nice mixes!
Very cool to now have the most interesting stuff from the 20 Years of JT box set with full blooded proper mixes and done with the same aesthetic as those done in the period. Man, that '80s reverb really made for a challenging listen for some of this stuff on that original CD box! Sure, some of them are still just a little weak - they were outtakes and b-sides. Great bonus stuff though!

This 2nd disc (and the original Passion Play mixes on that 2nd disc too)...
Fully produced 5.1 mixes of these tracks...
This is something that normally just doesn't happen.

What can I say... Any release that has this much material really is a winner. Between the fantastic SW 5.1 remixes and the extra unreleased quad bonus tracks (that really got me - you just don't see this - ever) this still gets a 10.

I mention the difficulties with the format as a 'FYI: buyer beware' because so many people have no way to listen to a proper (nearly) lossless decode which is unfortunate.

Could be worse. Could have been released in DSD format (SACD). So those of us who invested in PCM digital converters (ie. most of the world and most recording studios) would be left shaking out heads with the only listening option being a conversion to PCM (and then some insanity like needing a Gameboy or Gamestation or something to rip the stupid thing?! What the #$%@#^$! is that?!). But I digress again...

Click to expand...

I tested Surcode encoded 24/48 dts vs. DTS (DTS-HD) Master Audio Suite 24/96 dts and they both sounded equally excellent. Then compared to Surcode encoded 16/44 dts and that sounded like crap. All were done at the maximum bitrate allowed.

Plan9 said:

If you experience a "night and day" difference between DTS 48/24 and 96/24, then something is very wrong with your setup. The difference shouldn't be more than with a 96kHz file downsampled to 48kHz.

Click to expand...

Fully agree. Which is why I'm saying there is more loss going on with the improper decoding than just losing some hi frequency content (which would be above the range of hearing).

Aside: I hope this doesn't devolve into the strawman argument about HD sample rates having anything at all to do with reproduction of frequencies above the range of hearing. That is an artifact of the system of course but the real reason is simply giving the audio band a very wide margin instead of the top of the range being RIGHT next to the limit (and sampling frequency). The hardware circuits in the AD and DA converter units simply operate cleaner on the audio band with the wide margin (just like most machines and devices we build.)

And you'll find that some of the higher end converter units actually work very well at lower def sample rates.

I may not hear a difference between program downsampled (with the SOX algorithm for ex.) from 96k to 48k on my Apogee units. But I'll hear a bit of loss comparing the two on my MOTU converters.

And none of that comes even close to reducing the sample size (bit depth) from 24 bit to 16 bit at any sample rate.

So... I'm hearing something beyond even bit reduction with the improper decode.

And it's certainly the same thing others are hearing that have been giving poor reviews. Many/most people reviewing these releases have only heard the compromised decode.

Plan9 said:

And DTS 48/24 is NOT more compressed than the 96/24 portion: they have the same lossy compression applied, only a few additional kilobits per second are allocated to the supplementary decode of the upper "missing" 24kHz, which are actually more compressed than what comprises the "core".

Click to expand...

All I can say is that IF the compromised decode (which results in a 48k file) was intended to be no more than the difference between a sample rate conversion from 96k to 48k, then I haven't heard a proper 'compromised' decode yet myself! And thus I can only conclude that this function is not working properly with the decoder apps I have tried (assuming the premise is correct).


Someone may have had reasonable intentions to make a format that will still at least play in what is technically incompatible equipment. But what they ended up with is a format that can insidiously prevent you from hearing the content even on a full fidelity system if you aren't careful with the technical details. Which leads to many bad reviews and returns.

At the end of the day, we have an audio standard of 24 bit 96k now for stereo and surround program. Disk space is cheap and lossless FLAC compression cuts it in half again. Even the consumer grade converters benefit from the format. Nice simple clean HD digital files that can be delivered directly to the consumer with zero loss.

Formats like this DTS crap are asinine. Hide the audio inside a 'black box' with plenty of ways to have it come out compromised? There's really very little defense of this format.

I'm not sure how you could get an "improper decode". What do you use to listen to the DTS tracks?
Could it be that you have a resampler somewhere along the chain that (badly) resamples the 48kHz tracks while it doesn't touch the 96kHz? Or something that would re-encode and compress it in another format?

Plan9 said:

I'm not sure how you could get an "improper decode".

Click to expand...

Just how I said. If the claim is that the 'compromised' 48k decode is intended to be the same level of nearly imperceptible loss as a 96k to 48k sample rate conversion... then the apps I've tried are flawed. (These include: DVD Audio Extractor, AudioMuxer (with default decoder codec), XBMC Media Center.)[/QUOTE]

Plan9 said:

What do you use to listen to the DTS tracks?

Click to expand...

I convert dts tracks (as losslessly as the particular format allows) to FLAC files.
Songbird is my currently preferred media player. I like that I can leave core audio set to 5.1 and any format I play in Songbird is directed to the correct speakers. Other media player apps make you switch core audio between 5.1, 4.0, etc. for example.

Plan9 said:

Could it be that you have a resampler somewhere along the chain that (badly) resamples the 48kHz tracks while it doesn't touch the 96kHz? Or something that would re-encode and compress it in another format?

Click to expand...

Always a fair question but, no. No mysteries in my system. I tend to listen to surround on the studio system too.

I'll pull a recording into Reaper (my current DAW of choice) if I'm curious or think something has screwed up and take a look/listen.
And yes I have in fact verified that the media player apps I use for convenience are delivering the audio with zero loss or artifacts. I test this stuff with null tests because I don't trust absolutely anyone or anything with all the shenanigans going on!

When I decode DTS 24/96 with the 'proper' decoder (I mean, as far as I can know without access to the original master files of course), I can tell you that I don't hear any typical lossy compression artifacts. Absolutely nothing that sounds even near the sound of a 24 bit to 16 bit conversion for example. The audio frequency content extends up to over 40kHz (verifying 96k program decode).

Wow, about a dozen preceding posts need their own thread... This is a poll threads, dudes!

Anywho. Holy shit. If you don't have this, what's wrong with you? I agree with all the positive comments. There are some reference cuts on here (SW's 5.1).
And all the bonus content. It's like a surroundophile's trip to Disney World or something. This is outrageous value for the doh-ray-me.
10 for the package. 9 for the music.
Baggy go with a 9.5, rounded up, of course.

Another great Wilson Tull release always loved this album and it has never sounded better absolutely love the surround on this, a 9 for me.

Always been a big Jethro Tull fan. Had a bit of luck and finally received this special edition. I can only confirm the compliments already strewn here. The extras are the cream on the cake. Wonderful 5.1 experience..... 9

The amount of extras is especially staggering on this set. It was actually my second purchase in the series, after Aqualung. I picked these up in a store.

Plan9 said:

Yeah, there is no "core" with DTS 24/96 like you have on DTS-HD... because DTS 24/96 is already lossy. The difference is just on the sample rate: standard DTS players will play it in 24/48kHz (not exactly 24bit resolution as it is lossy although the source certainly is) while those equipped with the special (and pretty uncommon) DTS 24/96 decoder will read it at 96kHz. There's barely any difference really, I have tested both against lossless 24bit/96kHz masters on pro gear.

Click to expand...

Even in 2015, DTS themselves referred to DTS 96/24 as having an embedded 48/24 'core' with 96 kHz SR content 'extension' . So 'core' was/is the proper term. But yes, it's still lossy in both forms. And yes, listeners are extremely unlikely to tell a difference between core and core + extension. (In a correct i.e. blind, comparison.)

But my actual reason for posting here is to ask if the quad War Child sounds notably muffled/treble rolled off compared to SW's 5.1 mix, to anyone else. It's an example of the general less-than-great-soundingness of the quad bonus tracks on the Tull releases, to my ears.

(We know now that some of them do have quality control issues, e.g. phase and LFE on the Aqualung 'quad')

(Also....the release consistently shows the title as WarChild, one word. I assume this is Ian Anderson's preference.)

ssully said:

(Also....the release consistently shows the title as WarChild, one word. I assume this is Ian Anderson's preference.)

Click to expand...

WarChild for album, War Child for the song. Quad was transferred pretty much as is.

It sounds to me like the quad mixes are flat transfers. And they're just a little murky. They're unmastered and it turns out they could have used either a rework run or help after the fact from the mastering desk. As was the case often enough. I imagine the team didn't want to get into production decisions on the old quad mixes and decided flat transfer was the best way to handle it and offend the fewest listeners?

Meanwhile Wilson's mix is being dialed in pretty finally on the mixing board and doesn't need any help with overall frequency balance or levels whatsoever.

That's my guess from what I hear.

Pretty cool to include all this! And I'll sure as heck take flat and a little murky over the shrill volume war treatment! So I wasn't going to say anything.

I remember listening to a very troubled distorted copy of someone's Q8 tape. (Not positive if it was a Q8.) The flat transfer was a big upgrade for me. I listen to the Wilson remix mostly. He followed the quad mix for a lot of things!

ssully said:

(Also....the release consistently shows the title as WarChild, one word. I assume this is Ian Anderson's preference.)

Click to expand...

Of course the MFSL WarChild is opposite to totally confuse.

YIKES!