DSOTM DVD-A/V - Review in HiFi News!

[Cai Campbell]

I've heard the DTS CD of DSOTM that was slated for commercial release. It sounded very good with tasteful noise reduction. The DSOTM DVD-A was certainly not sourced from this DTS "pre-release". The differences are startling. The DVD-A claims to be from a straight transfer from the quadraphonic master tapes. After listening to this many times, I do not doubt this claim in the least bit.

 

[timbre4]

In emails with Rory at DTS, he said they were working on a deal for DSOTM on DTS disc. That must've been about 1999 or so....

 

[zabble]

It is possible that this "straight transfer from the quadraphonic master tapes" to DVD-A was the original source of the "dts pre-release". It could be that the master tape was tranferred into a high resolution and then downsampled for dts distribution, and that the newer DVD-A version was taken from the aforementioned high resolution source (which of course is a straight transfer from the master analog tape). I just find it hard to believe that the master tapes were accessed twice for two different transfers, the second of which would have been highly illicit. I may be wrong here and anything is possible, but I just don't see it and more importantly, I don't hear it.

I do have two different dts versions and one of them is clearly superior (and no, one is not the Q8 version!). And believe it or not, this superior dts version is my go-to version when I want to hear the A.P. quad mix. I chose it over the DVD-A version every time. Admittedly, my judgement may be a bit skewed because I don't currently use a subwoofer (the DVD-A version is too light on bass to my ears).

 

[Cai Campbell]

And believe it or not, this superior dts version is my go-to version when I want to hear the A.P. quad mix. I chose it over the DVD-A version every time. Admittedly, my judgement may be a bit skewed because I don't currently use a subwoofer (the DVD-A version is too light on bass to my ears).

The DTS pre-release is obviously processed. Your preference for it over the DVD-A is likely to do with this processing and there is certainly nothing wrong with that. Minimally, there is noise reduction and there may have been some EQ-tweaking; I don't know. Personally, I have a very strong preference for the DVD-A and it is my go-to version for the AP mix. I've listened to it in both a 4.0 and 4.1 configuration and there is definitely not a lack of bass to my ears without a sub! If you use bass management, you'll want to turn it off for this disc, especially if you don't use a sub.

 

[elias]

Talking about processing - did anyone look at the spectral view of the 96/24 dvda track? As far as i can see it does not contain any components above 21 kHz. It looks as if there is a sharp cut-off above that point.

Makes you wonder about the "direct from 1/2" tape" remarks. But then again, at the time it maybe was the maximum resolution reachable?

 

[winopener]

This cutoff point doesn't suprise me, was considered hi-fi when you reached the 12.500 Hz, and to go further you had to sacrifice running time or noise floor. When the Digital world came into the hifi scene the bar was raised to 22050 Hz, before 15000 was considered enough (CD4 has 15.000 Hz maximum by design).
The bad thing is that many times they filtered the tapes too, even when there was no need to do it.

 

[Cai Campbell]

Makes you wonder about the "direct from 1/2" tape" remarks. But then again, at the time it maybe was the maximum resolution reachable?

What is the upper frequency response of magnetic tape circa 1972?

 

[ChristopherLees]

As far as i can see it does not contain any components above 21 kHz. It looks as if there is a sharp cut-off above that point.

What is the upper frequency response of magnetic tape circa 1972?

it was way above 21k...good analogue tape never exhibits sharp frequency cut-offs anyway ..only digital does that...which would suggest that there is at least one generation of a digital dub before the dvda was made(ie. the original 4 track tape wasn't playing straight into the 96/24 but a digital dub of it), or that the machine making the dva has a soundcard input a-d that doesn't go past 21k.

 

[winopener]

I do agree that usually analog tape doesn't have sharp cutoff, as digital does, however i've noticed *very* sharp cutoff in most of the Q8 i'v transferred to dvd-a. It does depends by policies and labels - early Columbia quad carts have a cutoff at around 12KHz (and wonder why so low), while A&M and W.E.A. quad carts cuts at 15KHz (same master for the CD4 release?) - but there are some that goes past the 19KHz mark.
Since this was not a duplication process problem, why they did this cutoff? It is sharp, and it is all analog.

 

[ChristopherLees]

Since this was not a duplication process problem, why they did this cutoff? It is sharp, and it is all analog.

most likely because there is a digital dub in the processing chain that's not being mentioned

 

[winopener]

Digital dub on Q8 in 1972????

 

[ChristopherLees]

No..I am referring to the dvda not a q8 tape dub

 

[solaris]

What is this, CSI

 

[rusinurbe]

What is this, CSI

No the only crime was not Consulting Alan Parsons to remix for SACD @:

Oh and releaseing DSOTM as an SACD and not DVD-A

and Sony