DVD/DTS Poll Fleetwood Mac - TUSK [DTS DVD]

Very well done surround sound mix and many good/great songs. I like this album a bit more than Rumors, although at the time I originally bought it I was a little put off by Buckingham's songs, but not so today. The self-titled album remains my favorite. I gave Tusk an 8 overall. Would have rated it higher (9) if I was not subjected to having to buy 2 LP's, etc. in order to get one DTS DVD.

This album brings back many fond memories for me. I remember acquiring it while home for Christmas break from my job in The Netherlands. Upon seeing my best friend in about a year, the first word out of his mouth was "Tusk!" Why I don't know, but it cracked me up. Also, I had an English girlfriend in Holland. She was from Manchester, and to this ear untrained in English accents, she might as well have been Paul McCartney's sister from Liverpool. She asked me if I had this album and the pronunciation of Tusk came out somewhere between "Tusk" and "Toosk"...very endearing accent on that girl!

Admittedly, I found it hard to connect with this album I first heard it, and it took quite a few listens to really get it. As an album I mean. But it grew on me, and was second only to Rumors for me in the FM repertoire. Everything after this isn't up to par, except maybe Tango, which to me has too many weaknesses to be on the same pedestal as the trilogy. Anyway, this release is nothing short of perfection to me -- the mix is absolutely wonderful, the sound is clean and warm, it's everything I could have hoped for. Not to mention the absolute orgasm of listening to Sarah and Tusk. Close to what I'm feeling when I listen to Something on the Love DVD, and I can't think of anything else that gives me this sensation really Anyway, my two cents. I give this a 10 and only because there's no higher option.

I got this for Christmas! Can't vote yet as I haven't had time to spin it, but sure am looking forward.

Jim the Oldbie is RIGHT. This thing is TOO LOUD!!! What a DAMN SHAME!!!

Why why why do they feel the need to do this, especially with a 5.1 mix. Look below at the wav file from "Sara". This is a direct 24/96 AudioMuxer extraction to 6CH .flac. The front channels light up the clipping indicator right off the bat. After listening to the clean, clear sound of Idlelwild South, this comes on like a hurricane!! Too much gas!!

The mix is fine, the requirement to buy a box sucks, the non-DVD-A/BluRay also sucks, but there is no excuse for this loudness. It really stands out when you go from a non-peaked album to this one.

Very sad. I can only give it an 8 for this.

Here's a look at the entire album:

Absolutely no disrespect, or calling out in this post. But my question....

Those who check the loudness levels...whether it's Audiomuxer, or whatever....do you simply listen to the music first and make a rating? Or do you wait till you view the data, then make a rating?

Sorry - but just curious...that all being said. I get it. I mean, the extra loudness is not needed....but are you influenced by the graphs before you vote?

JonUrban said:

Here's a look at the entire album:

View attachment 24741

Click to expand...

Good heavens.. the fronts look like the fronts on the Station To Station 5.1.. clipping right out of the window...they don't sound as boosted relative to the Centre on this Tusk 5.1 as they do on the Bowie (the whole thing with Tusk seems loud) but I think that's mainly because the Centre on this hasn't been muted like the STS 5.1.. I said on another thread here I thought this one was a "bit loud".. and I said earlier back/up there << I wasn't totally knocked out by the sound but really I was WAY OFF the mark.. nothing could have prepared me for this box hedge of a waveform you've depicted here in Front Left & Right, Jon.. its.. kinda.. disgusting actually.. I was set to give this a 9 or 10 (mainly because it is such a welcome release - at last, thats how I feel after all this time..) but to think they compressed it like this is just.. unforgiveable and really as you have suggested renders it unworthy of a v.high mark in part because of the compression.. wow.. I'm going to have to have a rethink before I cast my QQ Poll Vote on this one..

JonUrban said:

Jim the Oldbie is RIGHT. This thing is TOO LOUD!!! What a DAMN SHAME!!!
Why why why do they feel the need to do this, especially with a 5.1 mix.

Click to expand...

It is very simple. Engineers feel like the louder something is the better the chance of being noticed on the radio. I am not saying I approve, but that is why you see so much of it.

GOS said:

Absolutely no disrespect, or calling out in this post. But my question....

Those who check the loudness levels...whether it's Audiomuxer, or whatever....do you simply listen to the music first and make a rating? Or do you wait till you view the data, then make a rating?

Sorry - but just curious...that all being said. I get it. I mean, the extra loudness is not needed....but are you influenced by the graphs before you vote?

Click to expand...

Well if I may briefly leap in.. that is an excellent question... I have always voted based on pure listening.... but now I'm doing more of this surround stuff on the computer I admittedly am starting to view things differently and take into account the actual technicalities of things (within my limited means) as opposed to just trusting my ears.. I did think this was kinda loud-ish anyway but really its horrific to SEE just how loud it is.. so it is influencing my decision making for sure. It wouldn't have stopped me buying it (I think even a crappy mix wouldn't have stopped me it has been such a slog waiting for it.. tbh I never thought it would come out ever..) if I had known in advance but it'll be a factor in my vote here on this one for sure.

But along the lines of what GOS is asking - I've heard bricked albums that somehow, some way sound pretty damned good.
And of course there are countless examples of crushed albums that sound like garbage. Apparently there are engineers who can smash without causing damage.
Sure, there must be nuances that are compromised, but I think one can see what I'm getting at.

seilerbird said:

It is very simple. Engineers feel like the louder something is the better the chance of being noticed on the radio. I am not saying I approve, but that is why you see so much of it.

Click to expand...

I get all that.... :upthumb

..though we don't get much surround music on the radio round these parts so it seems a bit, unneccessary to compress the beheck out of the 5.1 in this way..?

GOS said:

Absolutely no disrespect, or calling out in this post. But my question....

Those who check the loudness levels...whether it's Audiomuxer, or whatever....do you simply listen to the music first and make a rating? Or do you wait till you view the data, then make a rating?

Sorry - but just curious...that all being said. I get it. I mean, the extra loudness is not needed....but are you influenced by the graphs before you vote?

Click to expand...

Fair question...

In this particular case (Tusk), I listened first, and immediately noticed the boost on the quiet songs. Always intended to have a look but been too busy to get around to it.

In other cases (like comparing different releases of the same title), I do sometimes look first.

-- Jim

GOS said:

Absolutely no disrespect, or calling out in this post. But my question....

Those who check the loudness levels...whether it's Audiomuxer, or whatever....do you simply listen to the music first and make a rating? Or do you wait till you view the data, then make a rating?

Sorry - but just curious...that all being said. I get it. I mean, the extra loudness is not needed....but are you influenced by the graphs before you vote?

Click to expand...

No disrespect at all. Here's what I usually do before I vote:

1) Listen in the native format at home
2) (If not DVD-A) Rip to PC and make a real crude DVD-A with only track marks to play in the car where I listen the most
3) When I get a chance, I like to go back to the PC and sample individual channels, see how the mix is done, listen to the rears only, the center only, the fronts and rears without center. Just to see how "surround" it really is.
4) At this point I have a good idea on how it's all come together.

In the case of Idlewild and Tusk, I got them both about the same time, and played them at home. I attributed the difference in volume on the DVD vs BluRay thing. I did notice that I had to turn up my receiver volume when I went from Tusk to Idlewild, but really didn't pay that close attention.

When I made the DVD-A for the car, I saw the compression, but really didn't listen to individual channels at that point. I just chopped it up and put in the track stops. Today, different story. I started with Idlewild, which was a thing of beauty. Perfect audio, perfect mix - IMHO, this is the way to do it.

I then queued up the Tusk .flac file as ripped with AudioMuxer and wow, I had to turn my speakers down a LOT. And watching my clipping indicator on the front channels in Sound Forge keep activating everytime I cleared it, well, that spoke volume(s)!!

So, in good conscience, I had to dock it at LEAST 2. For Mix 3, for Content 3, for Audio 2, and 0 for the Huge Box = 8. I could have easily done a 7, but the title itself kept me from doing that.

fredblue said:

I get all that.... :upthumb

..though we don't get much surround music on the radio round these parts so it seems a bit, unneccessary to compress the beheck out of the 5.1 in this way..?

Click to expand...

Yup. In this case it's just ignorant complacence. "This is how we've been doing it for years now." I can see no other plausible explanation.

Jim the Oldbie said:

Yup. In this case it's just ignorant complacence. "This is how we've been doing it for years now." I can see no other plausible explanation.

Click to expand...

What's odd is that in MOST cases, when a 5.1 release is maximized like Tusk, it's usually just the front channels. The rears they leave alone. "Hey, leave the fronts alone too!"

JonUrban said:

What's odd is that in MOST cases, when a 5.1 release is maximized like Tusk, it's usually just the front channels. The rears they leave alone. "Hey, leave the fronts alone too!"

Click to expand...

Very true!! touch-a-touch-a-touch-a-touch meeee!
and there's that Station to Station abomination (hey that rhymed! ) where centre is mega lowered, the rears have practically zilch but reverb and the fronts are horrrrrrendousssssssly squished to within an inch of their decibels...!!!

It is sad to think some putz got to Tusk and molested it when it was probably perfectly balanced when they first finished the 5.1 mix and readied it for the DVD-A that never happened.. whoever is responsible they should.."GO TO JAIL, GO DIRECTLY TO JAIL, DO NOT PASS GO, DO NOT COLLECT $200.."..!!! :ugham:

JonUrban said:

What's odd is that in MOST cases, when a 5.1 release is maximized like Tusk, it's usually just the front channels. The rears they leave alone. "Hey, leave the fronts alone too!"

Click to expand...

I think the whole thing has been jacked up, otherwise the balance would be off. The center & rears don't look quite as awful because their relative levels are lower, but they're getting brick-walled at some points too.

Jeesus... And the most aggravating thing is, it's now possible to screw up the dynamics like this, while maintaining a sound that really is clear and clean! This digital technology allows extreme limiting without actual clipping distortion. The whole thing is just kinda depressing...

Jim the Oldbie said:

I think the whole thing has been jacked up, otherwise the balance would be off. The center & rears don't look quite as awful because their relative levels are lower, but they're getting brick-walled at some points too.

Jeesus... And the most aggravating thing is, it's now possible to screw up the dynamics like this, while maintaining a sound that really is clear and clean! This digital technology allows extreme limiting without actual clipping distortion. The whole thing is just kinda depressing...

Click to expand...

Oh yes.. I missed that, the rears are clipping in places too.. why why why???? I get it when they squish this stuff for iTunes and earbuds and stuff kinda.. but... damn.. why would you mess with all that beautiful 5.1 from the multi's..!?

edisonbaggins said:

But along the lines of what GOS is asking - I've heard bricked albums that somehow, some way sound pretty damned good.
And of course there are countless examples of crushed albums that sound like garbage. Apparently there are engineers who can smash without causing damage.
Sure, there must be nuances that are compromised, but I think one can see what I'm getting at.

Click to expand...

I think this is partly because the Loudness Wars have evolved over the years; and as with larger conflicts, the weapons are now more advanced.

I have an old remaster of Van Halen's Diver Down, done probably 15 or so years ago now, that has been boosted all to hell. The sound definitely has a bit of extra "punch" which of course is not completely inappropriate here. But because of the tech of that period, this brick-wall limiting has also created a lot of actual clipping distortion, where the tops & bottoms of the waveform are simply lopped off when maximum amplitude is reached. This adds a noticeable amount of harshness and grit to the sound, and not in a good way.

Newer digital techniques allow the same extreme brick-wall limiting while avoiding the actual clipping. For example: I haven't checked this yet, but I'd wager if we were to zoom in on one of these severely limited waveforms from the Tusk release, we'd see nice, rounded, non-clipped peaks. I think this may be why some of these smashed-up releases sound better than others.

-- Jim

[EDIT] Just had a look, and it turns out there is a fair amount of good old-fashioned waveform clipping going on in Tusk. It's limited to the brief transient peaks, but it's still depressing to see, since I didn't hear it.

The terrorists win... I'm going to bed.

seilerbird said:

It is very simple. Engineers feel like the louder something is the better the chance of being noticed on the radio. I am not saying I approve, but that is why you see so much of it.

Click to expand...

That comment is insulting to audio engineers. It's recording artists and record labels that have really driven the loudness wars.