I'm not entirely sure because i've not been able to buy a copy in-store anywhere yet (GRR..!!) but from the images i've found of this set online, the DVD comes in a little cardboard wallet (with the top image in Bob Romano's post of the Ziggy album logotype on a black background as the front cover) which slips inside the gatefold LP sleeve itself.how is the DVD packaged within the vinyl?
Is it part of the vinyl slipcase like the Aqualung packaging?
This was actually one of my favorite jobs ever from stereo. It absolutely can be done. Complete and utter idiotic failure from the supposed pros. It's a wonder people trust them to produce anything of note in 5.1 after listening to drivel like this and "Station to Station."I'll bet we have about 10 members who can do a better job at production in MC! That sucks I really wanted some DB in MC!
It's not surprising to me they are shifting vinyl as it is the only way you can get the DVD, and the DVD is the only way to get those extra tracks & the 2012 version in 24/96 resolution.I finally grabbed a copy of this yesterday in a tiny independent record store while having a day out in Brighton.
£19.99 so not too steep but I should have got it on Amazon at the pre-order price after all (which I stupidly cancelled when I found out it was DTS!).
I asked the guy in the store if they'd done brisk business on this LP/DVD and he said they'd sold 6 copies since Monday.
He said he was surprised it had sold that well, as it was an album he felt everybody owned at least one copy of already and that it really had hardly anything new on it!
Sad that such crap sells. I literally only got it just to have it. Which is a bit sad in itself.. but when you're an anally-retentive completist... Sigh!
It is clear that this is a major disappointment, but it wasn't as if we were not warned--the advertisement made it clear they were reusing the 2003 SACD master for this. I wouldn't think it takes a genius to figure out that a subpar DSD release, when transcoded to a lossy DTS codec (and not even a high bitrate one), won't sound all that great. I believe this release bears this out. Even the 'art' work is horrendous. Literally looks like someone tossed an old promo on an older scanner from the 90's and called it a day. I thought the SACD was bad, but in this case it might be a step up!first impressions on one listen through yesterday.. and the way I'm feeling thats about all I'm going to give this. one listen.
the new stereo remastering is brighter than i'd imagine yet still a bit dull. its lacking that magical "energy" of the original, somehow.
all the time i was listening to it, i kept longing for the same sound as on my old LP. even my old 8 track of it has a more engaging sound despite all that formats' shortcomings! where's the bass energy!? where's the treble energy!? where's the f***ing ENERGY full stop!?!? its like all the spirit has been sucked out of the performances listening to the new stereo of this.
i have no idea what so many other people are hearing that I'm missing but i bet this sounds NOTHING like the tapes, which a bona fide remaster should!
this doesn't even have the warmth and power of the old LP for goodness' sake, let alone the original recordings which i imagine sound great!! unless they're now in poor shape and this is the best that can be got out of them?!?
also, despite all the hoopla about this new remaster being created in an all-analogue chain, the end result still has a slightly cold digital edge to it, which i find even more disappointing.
most of all though, what i can't forgive about this new stereo, is that even when i whacked it up (maximum volume! oh yeah..) it still sounded whimpy
and lifeless. huh??
now i realise this is QQ and its the surround thats most important, so I apologise for ranting on about the new stereo.. but for me once i discovered the 5.1 was to be unchanged, the stereo and extras took priority, so they will have to influence my score here.
as for the 5.1 its just the same old stuff as the old SACD, only now in inferior sound quality. this should have been 24/96 DTS at the very least, better still a DVDA in Adv.res, though a bit fruitless wasting it on this mix.
oh and the extras in 5.1 are a joke mix wise, plus the instrumental of moonage daydream is so brittle and harsh-sounding, lacking any warmth. the only extra with any decent sonics in 5.1 was the last one, Sweet Head, where the studio chatter and mix suited the track and the fidelity was the best of any of the tracks on this set.
the packaging is ok but the quality of the artwork and especially the photos in the inner gatefold are of such atrociously low quality. authentic to the UK vinyl perhaps where the pics were never up to much but the US LP is by all accounts much nicer. the front cover artwork also looks too pale and washed out compared to the original. these of course are minor quibbles but on such an important albums' re-release.. unforgivable.
why not replicate the finest-looking version, in fact, why not improve on the best version out there by making the definitive version?
rather than, just like the sound on the new stereo remaster (and just like them lazily re-hashing the old 5.1 SACD in worse quality) replicate the bloody old vinyl!? make it better-sounding than any other Ziggy or don't bother.
this set is an inauthentic replica at best.. a half-arsed effort and a cash-in at worst. for one of the most important rock albums of all-time, it should have been a 40th anniversary triumph.
this is one of the many things i've always loved about the DVDAs and SACDs with multichannel remixes of old stereo classics. new spins on old stuff you'd heard loads of times, where you felt more often than not the people working on them weren't afraid to stick their necks out and do something daring, exciting and inventive that really works in surround sound, whilst trying to stay faithful to the original stereo we all know so well.
if only this set had been like that.. to date, the only Bowie classic album that has anywhere near approached this was the Young Americans DTS DVDV. it wasn't perfect by any means but the 5.1 mix was effective and at times ambitious, the sound was ballsy and not lacking in bass oomph and high-res detail like an old LP.. and yet it was still sympathetic to the original stereo. it worked.
I've never heard Harry Maslin's STS 5.1 but i hear it on good authority its awful, while the stereo in the box set is possibly the best it has ever sounded, outside of the studio and the original tapes, i'd imagine... whereas this Ziggy 5.1 and set itself is just a bit of a waste of everyones' time and effort all-round.
such incredible classic material as this deserves much, much better treatment.
therefore i can only give this an equally half-hearted 5.
Too right, I totally agree with you! Every single time with the Bowie boxes & 5.1 releases, EMI has screwed up in some shape or formsuch a shame that more consideration wasn't given to a really good album. It seems all the DB stuff is sucky in one way or another. Got to get a TT and end this once and for all. No respect for a very talented artist
I saw the documentary too, Neil.Like the PAL DVD "Best Of", with "Life On Mars?" at the wrong speed & pitch.
DOn't know if anyone saw the documentary on BBC4 recently, but that had the same track, same film & same speed issue.