Bowie - Ziggy 40th Anniversary, lots of 5.1.

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
New motto- less bitching more listening.

sure, why not... if listening isn't painful and not developing an ears cancer.

on the other hand, seems some folk need to understand that there isn't
relevance between SOUND FIDELITY, MIXING TECHNIQUE and POETIC/
MUSICAL SKILL of artist, as those three are absolutely different things :)
 
The differences between good and great are understood and appreciated, so is the reality of having nothing at all.

For a hobby that constitutes wobbly quad 8 tracks as one part of it's foundation, we're forgetting our humble roots. That includes the middle ages between quad and when we became blessed with high resolution formats. These bring continued joy for those who can still appreciate.
 
The differences between good and great are understood and appreciated, so is the reality of having nothing at all.

For a hobby that constitutes wobbly quad 8 tracks as one part of it's foundation, we're forgetting our humble roots. That includes the middle ages between quad and when we became blessed with high resolution formats. These bring continued joy for those who can still appreciate.

of course, but all talk had begun from mis-sold DVDA
you see, this isn't highly hypothetical project but already existing for decade master mix,
which previously was issued as HiRes and now offered again... but in downgraded to
almost mp3 quality of the sound.
can you justify such stupid move?
 
This is the market today. If you're going to equate DTS DVD with mp3, I've nothing further your honor.

that's your emotion
and here is facts from digital domain of the sound:

mp3 highest 320/2=160 bits per sample
DTS lowest 754.5/6=125 bits per sample
DTS highest 1509/6=251 bits per sample
PCM 96/24 13824/6=2304 bits per sample

every bits contains information about sound thus more bits per sample stored - more details
will be for decoding from digital form to analog sound - more accurately to the original source,
sound would be recreated.
as you may notice, the amount of information per channel, stored in mp3 and DTS containers,
not much differ but neither of them come even close to PCM
 
that's your emotion
and here is facts from digital domain of the sound:

mp3 highest 320/2=160 bits per sample
DTS lowest 754.5/6=125 bits per sample
DTS highest 1509/6=251 bits per sample
PCM 96/24 13824/6=2304 bits per sample

every bits contains information about sound thus more bits per sample stored - more details
will be for decoding from digital form to analog sound - more accurately to the original source,
sound would be recreated.
as you may notice, the amount of information per channel, stored in mp3 and DTS containers,
not much differ but neither of them come even close to PCM

My gawd, I never knew this before! Lossless has more bits per sample than mp3! Holy whillikers!

And what this has to do with the actual surround quality of a mix itself continues to be absolutely beyond me but, hey, keep on listening to numbers.
 
There is facts from digital domain of the sound:
PCM 96/24 13824/6=2304 bits per sample

every bits contains information about sound thus more bits per sample stored
You don't even know what you're talking about it's 24 (or 16) bits per sample, the number of kilobits per second is something completely different.
BTW There is such a thing as lossless compression, a mathematical thing to reduce the bitstream without affecting the actual resolution, but hey, let your calculator be the judge of what you hear.
 
My gawd, I never knew this before! Lossless has more bits per sample than mp3! Holy whillikers!

And what this has to do with the actual surround quality of a mix itself continues to be absolutely beyond me but, hey, keep on listening to numbers.

that's was directed to this sentence
This is the market today. If you're going to equate DTS DVD with mp3, I've nothing further your honor.
and obviously has nothing to do with mixing specifics.
sounds fidelity has very little relation to mixing technics, as a good or bad surround panorama can be in both -
LowRes and HiRes audio stream.
then again, evaluation of surround is strictly subjective and depends on preferences of the listeners, when
fidelity of the sound has objective values, reflected in correspondence of a recorded sound to the original source.

You don't even know what you're talking about it's 24 (or 16) bits per sample, the number of kilobits per second is something completely different.
BTW There is such a thing as lossless compression, a mathematical thing to reduce the bitstream without affecting the actual resolution, but hey, let your calculator be the judge of what you hear.
yeah, you're right in regards of sample, but pretty wrong in conclusion that i have no idea what i'm talking about.
i don't know why i typed "sample" instead of "second". perhaps my english messed up words sometimes and please
accept my apology if this so much hurting you and make you so bitterly sarcastic.
as for lossless algorithm, there isn't such in use when packing audio stream into DTS (even 96/24) container.
in any case during unpacking we get only around 20% of original source sound information and believe me,
i have no need for calculator to hear disadvantages of lossy audio.
other way i would never have concerns about quality of the sound which record labels offering me in exchange for my money.
 
if this [..] make you so bitterly sarcastic.
I may come across sarcastic sometimes but I am not bitter. Just sceptic, you make it look like the sound quality is proportional to the bit rate and that's not the case.
Lossless is always the best bet as there won't be any compression artifacts. Nevertheless in a lot of cases people fail to recognise the difference in a double blind test.
 
that's your emotion
and here is facts from digital domain of the sound:

mp3 highest 320/2=160 bits per sample
DTS lowest 754.5/6=125 bits per sample
DTS highest 1509/6=251 bits per sample
PCM 96/24 13824/6=2304 bits per sample

every bits contains information about sound thus more bits per sample stored - more details
will be for decoding from digital form to analog sound - more accurately to the original source,
sound would be recreated.
as you may notice, the amount of information per channel, stored in mp3 and DTS containers,
not much differ but neither of them come even close to PCM

Irrelevant really as the original multitrack masters for this albium were always on U-Matic digital, meaning they were archived at 16/44.1 in the first place.
The SACD will have been created from 16/44.1 source files, or maybe 24/44.1 but no more than that. My guess is the DTS stream here was uprezzed to 48kHz for the DVD-Video specifications (it is not a DVD-A, of course - even though there is no good reason for it not to be) but these files will never have been anywhere near 96kHz at all.
It should still be lossless in surround though, but that takes DVD-A or BD, the people authoring for EMI cannot make DVD-A and BluRay is just too expensive for most labels to consider.

I don't know why DSD is called High Resolution though, because it isn't. It's a 1-bit system made listenable by heroic noise shaping that shoves the distortions off into the ultrasonic.
It is certainly nowhere near the equivalent of 384kHz PCM, as the noise starts at around 17kHz and all that there is above 23kHz at the very, very most is pure noise.
Anyone who would like to see the proof of this is welcome to PM me.
 
Irrelevant really as the original multitrack masters for this albium were always on U-Matic digital, meaning they were archived at 16/44.1 in the first place.


i'm not really too much concerned in regards of ceiling of freq. particularly sources originally recorded with
less advanced technologies. mainly my problem arise with the sound, when already so-so quality have been
degraded even further by DD or DTS packing.
as for 192 vs. 96 vs. 48 it seems like highest parameter truly relate only to the newly recorded, directly into
digital domain, sound.
================================================================================

as for the topic, seems like amazon canada again beat up amazon usa by price.
as of april 16 2012 they offer $ 27.05 on pre-order.

http://www.amazon.ca/Rise-Fall-Ziggy-Stardust-Anniversary/dp/B007P4OTHO/ref=pd_rhf_dp_p_t_1

amazon usa at moment has it for $48.43

http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Ziggy-St...OTHO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1334637166&sr=8-1
 
i'm not really too much concerned in regards of ceiling of freq. particularly sources originally recorded with
less advanced technologies. mainly my problem arise with the sound, when already so-so quality have been
degraded even further by DD or DTS packing.
/QUOTE]

It's not exactly news that lossless sounds better than DD or DTS.
As I think I already stated - there is no good reason this is not a DVD-A/V with lossless surround, but as usual the labels are doing things on the cheap.
They are simply using authoring housesthat cannot create lossless discs - see Kscope.
 
Someone like DTS (could be Dolby) did a test if an average joe could tell the difference given a blind testing between lossless and the older 5.1 codecs. The result wasn't that great. seems the compressiion codecs did a wonderful job of getting it right. Only the perfect of hearing could tell a subtle difference. google for the test.
 
Someone like DTS (could be Dolby) did a test if an average joe could tell the difference given a blind testing between lossless and the older 5.1 codecs. The result wasn't that great. seems the compressiion codecs did a wonderful job of getting it right. Only the perfect of hearing could tell a subtle difference. google for the test.

Then they must have used deaf people.
The difference between DTS & AC3 (Dolby Digital) on music releases is like night & day, it really is. AC3 sounds to me as if someone put a sack over the speakers - terrible. AC3 was set up & designed for film, with it's built-in (and you cannot turn it off) dialnorm control which will attenuate L,R,Ls,Rs to an idealized level for centre channel.
It should, IMO, never be used for music.
 
Ordered although I already have the 5.1 mix from before. It will be nice to have the extra tracks in 5.1. Always thought that the mix sounded a bit weedy compared to stuff coming out these days from Tull, KC etc. On the album reverse it says "TO BE PLAYED LOUD".
 
what ever floats your individual "boat" is what matters. Not every one likes liver and onions. I have found opinons vary from one to another, especially with taste in music. It's not like anyone is forcing asnyone to eat liver. we can agree that we disagree. be more Vulcan, emotions in check.
 
I tried to buy this in HMV today but when I couldn't find it on the store shelves, I asked two members of staff, one saying they didn't carry vinyl in the Westfield branch (it is a huge store, one of the chains' biggest stores in London!) and the other member of staff there said they had sold all the copies they received.. So make of that woefully conflicting set of information what you will.

It's no surprise HMV are struggling. Even though HMV now have a virtual monopoly for music, video games and video on the high street in the UK, they are still in trouble. Very disappointing.
 
I tried to buy this in HMV today but when I couldn't find it on the store shelves, I asked two members of staff, one saying they didn't carry vinyl in the Westfield branch (it is a huge store, one of the chains' biggest stores in London!) and the other member of staff there said they had sold all the copies they received.. So make of that woefully conflicting set of information what you will.

It's no surprise HMV are struggling. Even though HMV now have a virtual monopoly for music, video games and video on the high street in the UK, they are still in trouble. Very disappointing.

The problem with HMV at teh moment is that it does not know what it wants to be, music supplier (trying to compete with supermarkets for chart Music) games supplier (trying to compete with super markets and specialist game shops) all this against a background of online suppliers who are offering teh same and half teh cost and laess than half the hassle, trying to locate stuff in store.
Not helped by employing a lot but not all peopel wh just dont know or care what they are doing.

I am turning rapidly into a crumbly old git
 
Back
Top