• QuadraphonicQuad welcomes you and encourages your participation! Treat all members with respect. Please keep all discussions civil, even when you have a strong opinion on a particular topic.

    Do not offer for free, offer for sale, offer for trade, or request copies or files of copyrighted material - no matter how rare or unavailable to the public they might be. We do not condone the illegal sharing of music. There are many places on the internet where you can participate in such transactions, but QuadraphonicQuad is not one of them. We are here to encourage and support new multichannel releases from those companies that still provide them and as such the distribution of illegal copies of recordings is counter-productive to that effort. Any posts of this sort will be deleted without notification.

    Please try to avoid discussions that pit one format against another. Hint for new users: make liberal use of the search facilities here at QuadraphonicQuad. Our message base is an incredibly rich resource of detailed information on virtually all topics pertaining to surround-sound. You will be surprised at what you can find with a little digging!

DVD/DTS Poll Chris Squire - FISH OUT OF WATER [DTS DVD]

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

Rate the DTS DVD of Chris Squire - FISH OUT OF WATER

  • 7

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 6

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 5

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 4

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 3

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 2

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 1: Poor Content, Surround Mix, and Fidelity

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    14

ssully

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Jul 2, 2003
Messages
2,684
Location
in your face
Hmm, am I really having the last word on the mixes of this? Surely someone else has heard it by now and has things to say, beyond mountain/molehill carping about formats?
 

Ninecats

701 Club - QQ All-Star
Joined
Jun 23, 2015
Messages
761
Location
Sweden
I wish, but not a priority since the only way to get the 5.1 mix is to pay for a lot of other things that I’m not crazy about.

The Barclay James Harvest editions were perfect in that regard.
 

rtbluray

Hi-Res Moderator
Staff member
QQ Supporter
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
8,355
Location
Middle TN
A very generous QQ member sent me the 5.1 mix as FLAC files while I wait for my copy to arrive (which should be next week) and I digested the mix in the car for about a week, but I'm still not quite ready to vote.

It's a great album (always has been) but the mix does not blow me away as much as I thought it would.
I like hearing certain things I never heard before, but I miss certain parts that have now been mixed down.
Fidelity is very good (much better than that terrible Bruford set) so I think DTS DOES make a difference!

I'm torn between an 8 and a 9 on this one, so I'll have to listen to it a little more once my set comes in to see where I finally land!
 

jimfisheye

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
1,335
Listening to a properly decoded dts 2496 version of the 5.1 mix.
I agree with the lossless police on all that is bad with improperly decoded (core only) dts 2496 and all things dolby (dullby) but I continue to find myself none the wiser with fully decoded dts 2496.

I always liked this album but at the same time found some of it long winded and marred with the '70s filler vibe here and there (those flowery slow dull filler parts that sound instantly dated). I'm kind of stunned by this right out of the box! I'm hearing a lot of detail and mix content that just didn't connect before. This is a really well done mix! Bruford's kit maybe doesn't sound quite like the best Steve Wilson mix ever made but it sounds really good. Jakko Jakszyk did this?!?!?! Wow! So those mix abominations out there with his name on them WERE genuinely unfinished! (ELP BSS is a truly glaring example) I had suspensions from what I was hearing but one can only speculate. The Crimson THRAK album and now this are proof this guy can make a fantastic mix! (And the unfinished ones SURE sound like that was the aim to begin with.)

Really surprised and happy with this! Maybe still a bit long winded here and there on repeated listening but this remix is great.
Too bad about the release format messing with a lot of people. Can't help but agree that there's no good reason to use such a clumsy format that can be quite difficult to set up to decode properly. All dts and dolby formats should be considered obsolete here in 2018.
 

4-earredwonder

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Joined
Jan 9, 2013
Messages
12,375
Listening to a properly decoded dts 2496 version of the 5.1 mix.
I agree with the lossless police on all that is bad with improperly decoded (core only) dts 2496 and all things dolby (dullby) but I continue to find myself none the wiser with fully decoded dts 2496.

I always liked this album but at the same time found some of it long winded and marred with the '70s filler vibe here and there (those flowery slow dull filler parts that sound instantly dated). I'm kind of stunned by this right out of the box! I'm hearing a lot of detail and mix content that just didn't connect before. This is a really well done mix! Bruford's kit maybe doesn't sound quite like the best Steve Wilson mix ever made but it sounds really good. Jakko Jakszyk did this?!?!?! Wow! So those mix abominations out there with his name on them WERE genuinely unfinished! (ELP BSS is a truly glaring example) I had suspensions from what I was hearing but one can only speculate. The Crimson THRAK album and now this are proof this guy can make a fantastic mix! (And the unfinished ones SURE sound like that was the aim to begin with.)

Really surprised and happy with this! Maybe still a bit long winded here and there on repeated listening but this remix is great.
Too bad about the release format messing with a lot of people. Can't help but agree that there's no good reason to use such a clumsy format that can be quite difficult to set up to decode properly. All dts and dolby formats should be considered obsolete here in 2018.
Jim, this is totally off the subject of the album itself, but how is it that you can access the CORE 96/24 DTS codec and probably 99.9% of us cannot? And why use a codec that cannot be successfully accessed by everyman?

It would seem to me that the purpose of not utilizing MLP or even LPCM 96/24 is the majors are playing it safe for use in players which don't have DVD~A capability but advertising a codec as 96/24 which, for the majority of us, decodes as a LOSSY codec is simply downright bizarre!
 

JediJoker

800 Club - QQ All-Star
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
858
Location
Portland, OR, USA
Jim, this is totally off the subject of the album itself, but how is it that you can access the CORE 96/24 DTS codec and probably 99.9% of us cannot? And why use a codec that cannot be successfully accessed by everyman?
I think you're confused. DTS "Core" is lossy 16-bit/48kHz. All DTS bitstreams contain the Core data at their center, plus differential reconstruction information for anything above that be it lossy 24-bit/96kHz or something lossless. Any DTS decoder is Core-capable by definition and design, but not all are capable of higher-spec formats.
 

4-earredwonder

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Joined
Jan 9, 2013
Messages
12,375
I think you're confused. DTS "Core" is lossy 16-bit/48kHz. All DTS bitstreams contain the Core data at their center, plus differential reconstruction information for anything above that be it lossy 24-bit/96kHz or something lossless. Any DTS decoder is Core-capable by definition and design, but not all are capable of higher-spec formats.
I stand corrected. But I think you know what I'm alluding to. None of my players and pre/pros are capable of hi res 96/24 replication from DVD~V......just the Core lossy 16/48. So what player/DACs does Jim utilize to access the higher def 96/24 from DTS?
 

Robert van Diggele

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
3,012
Location
Woerden, The Netherlands
I stand corrected. But I think you know what I'm alluding to. None of my players and pre/pros are capable of hi res 96/24 replication from DVD~V......just the Core lossy 16/48. So what player/DACs does Jim utilize to access the higher def 96/24 from DTS?
Oppos from the 10x series onwads do this. Maybe the 9x as well.

And dvdae can do this software wise.
 

fredblue

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
QQ Supporter
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
23,232
Location
London, England
i'm not complaining, the technical/DTS chat is very interesting.. but tbh I'm curious to hear more about the quality of the new 5.1 mix please, are there any more thoughts yet from people here who have it or is it too soon?

a couple of really negative views on the remix have been posted over at the SHF over the weekend, was looking for some balance here before shelling out for a £75 quid boxful of surplus to requirements stuff just to get the 5.1.!
 

himey

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Joined
Nov 11, 2013
Messages
1,380
I stand corrected. But I think you know what I'm alluding to. None of my players and pre/pros are capable of hi res 96/24 replication from DVD~V......just the Core lossy 16/48. So what player/DACs does Jim utilize to access the higher def 96/24 from DTS?
My decade old Outlaw Audio processor handles DTS 24/96 perfectly fine from my Oppo 83se.
SHF
The 83se won't decode DTS 24/96 and send it over analog according to the thread I found over at SHF. The original beta firmware did but they removed it in the official firmware versions.
 

jimfisheye

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
1,335
Jim, this is totally off the subject of the album itself, but how is it that you can access the CORE 96/24 DTS codec and probably 99.9% of us cannot? And why use a codec that cannot be successfully accessed by everyman?

It would seem to me that the purpose of not utilizing MLP or even LPCM 96/24 is the majors are playing it safe for use in players which don't have DVD~A capability but advertising a codec as 96/24 which, for the majority of us, decodes as a LOSSY codec is simply downright bizarre!
I assume you meant "How can I access the FULL dts decode for dts2496 instead of just the core element... ?"

I can only guess but it seems likely that there are a lot of people with older software or stand alone hardware disc players that are now a few years old that are having no love with this. I'm assuming from the caustic reviews that this is likely the scenario in these cases. I believe at least some of the newer media players (or newer revisions) have corrected this. So I'll throw that out there for anyone upset with the sound to consider. Using some older hardware disc player? I'm suggesting to try converting to FLAC or bluray image yourself and then play that.

If someone STILL has an issue with the sound... well, wow, but OK.
I have a decent enough dialed in system to hear the difference between 24 bit and a reduction to 16 bit. (Assuming dynamic music and not ultra squashed volume war pop hash that sounds like mp3 out of the box to begin with.) I honestly can't hear the difference between 96k and a conversion to 48k or 44.1k with my Apogee converters but I sure can with my MOTU converters (which is kind of expected).

The one direct comparison I had in front of me for full lossless vs. dts 2496 was from the first edition of the JT Aqualung bluray. (I'm assuming they used the same master to encode the dts from and I know how to match volumes for A/B testing as needed. All signs pointed to them being the same master.)
The lossless bluray program nulled with the (proper) dts decode way down into the decimal dust. 60 or 80db or so down. Couldn't hear a difference A/B'ing them.

Comparing the core-only decode to the full decode was very apparent. Obvious difference with an A/B listen. Pretty much didn't null at all with the lossless (or the full decode). The blanket over the speaker effect followed the bad reviews I read around this forum. And this was magnitudes beyond anything I hear from a sample rate reduction with my MOTU converters. This core-only decode is not merely analogous to a sample rate conversion or even a bit reduction.

So that's what I'm hearing. That's what I think is behind it.
I get the part where someone wanted a solution that at least produced sound from old equipment but I very much agree this format has no place for music releases. Save it for the crude 'whispers and explosions' style movie soundtracks or something. Having said that... it turns out that with proper decoding at DOES actually work. And I think well enough for the kind of discerning ears around this place.

If it turns out that there IS loss that I would hear but I'm none the wiser (which would mean the Aqualung dts2496 program was mastered from a better sounding master so that it lined up with the lossless copy of an apparently degraded copy... yeah, that's just a ridiculous stretch there!). All I can say if that's true is the level of fidelity I'm hearing is more comparable to lossless than most anything else I've heard. That Fleetwood Mac s/t album in dolby (in spite of being one of the better sounding examples of such that I've heard actually) is VERY obviously slathered in lossy artifacts. The attenuated higher range that leads to the tubby blurry sound with the imbalance in the lows and low mids. This still sounds better than some chirpy 16bit CD mind you and is still enjoyable. Night and day to a troubled copy of a Q8! But it's obvious and glaring just the same. (Sorry, dts vs. dolby is apples/oranges! My point was to give an example of something that had clear lossy artifacts all over it but at the same time still retained a high level of fidelity.)

It's past due for me to have a media player/software shootout again but I've been lazy and the old stuff is still working. I'm still using the kludged mess of the Arcsoft codec forced into this AudioMuxer app. (And a Windows version of it at that because the OSX version of Arcsoft was $$$.) Yeah, I should update this stuff one of these days...

Pick your battles I guess. These titles absolutely should NOT be released in ANY lossy format. Period. But... some of these mixes are to die for! And there's software that actually works to let you hear them. And the greedy bit with the expensive boxes full of vinyl release facsimiles and other trinkets pisses me off much more.


Anyway, I think this sounds pretty great! The mix is also not only improved but this is a very welcome redemption for Jakko Jakszyk after a string of unfinished/flawed sounding releases (that I suspect weren't his fault). I'm reinterpreting some of what I thought of as "long winded" bits more as mix flaws in the original.


So, are we going to get treated to Olias and Beginnings next? :D
 
Last edited:

Robert van Diggele

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
3,012
Location
Woerden, The Netherlands
My decade old Outlaw Audio processor handles DTS 24/96 perfectly fine from my Oppo 83se.
SHF
The 83se won't decode DTS 24/96 and send it over analog according to the thread I found over at SHF. The original beta firmware did but they removed it in the official firmware versions.
You have the 83se connected via HDMI to the Outlaw I assume?
 

JediJoker

800 Club - QQ All-Star
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
858
Location
Portland, OR, USA
The 83se won't decode DTS 24/96 and send it over analog according to the thread I found over at SHF. The original beta firmware did but they removed it in the official firmware versions.
Interesting... It does HD Master Audio, but not lossy 24/96 DTS?
 

himey

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Joined
Nov 11, 2013
Messages
1,380
You have the 83se connected via HDMI to the Outlaw I assume?
The Outlaw Audio doesn't do HDMI, only DVI. I use the analog outs of Oppo to a 5.1 multichannel preamp (Sony P9000ES) for lossless discs. The Outlaw does DTS 24/96 through spdif which I use for PC. The Sony preamp has pass through for 5.1 which is connected to the Outlaw.
 

4-earredwonder

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Joined
Jan 9, 2013
Messages
12,375
Why don't these mastering gurus just release these pricey boxset remasters in LPCM 5.1 96/24 and LPCM 96/24 stereo and just abandon DTS 96/24 [?] altogether as, IMO, ALL decent DVD/BD~A/V players can universally play these LOSSLESS codecs in FULL RESOLUTION! P.S. There's NO royalty payments attached to utilizing LPCM!!!!!!!

BTW, Adam [fredblue] would ike someone who has the Squire boxset to comment on the quality of the 5.1 remix as he's considering a purchase.
 
Last edited:

rtbluray

Hi-Res Moderator
Staff member
QQ Supporter
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
8,355
Location
Middle TN
BTW, Adam [fredblue] would ike someone who has the Squire boxset to comment on the quality of the 5.1 remix as he's considering a purchase.
It's kinda difficult for anyone to cut through the clutter and actually talk about this disc when there's a whole lot of technical talk going on that has absolutely nothing to do with the disc at hand!
All posts not directly relating to "Fish Out Of Water" will be moved out of this thread in due course, and let me remind you all that poll threads are meant to discuss the disc at hand, not anything that anyone feels like talking about!

Thanks in advance for your cooperation!

RT
 

ssully

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Jul 2, 2003
Messages
2,684
Location
in your face
It is bad logic to assume that the difference in fidelity between two different releases of two different mixes is down to the lossy codec used. What isn't bad logic is to assert that DTS is psychoacoustically superior to Dolby Digital. For one, it operates at a higher base bitrate.
Actually, it is (bad logic to assert that), when you are talking about two different codecs. For one, bit allocation is done quite differently in DTS vs AC3. The only way to demonstrate 'psychacoustic superiority' is with level-matched, randomized, double-blind listening tests.

Please read and absorb this before venturing such faulty arguments again..

http://www.spannerworks.net/reference/10_1a.asp
 
2
Group builder
Top