• 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
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?
Any DTS 96/24-compliant hardware device can decode DTS 96/24. Which is basically a DTS 'core' lossy encoding with ultrasonic frequency content added back in. (It's still lossy). DTS 96/24 AVRs etc have been common for many years now.

If you feed a DTS 96/24 encode into a 'plain' DTS-compliant device, it will decode the same DTS 'core' without the ultrasonic content.

Unless you are a bat you are unlikely to hear any difference, in a properly conducted comparison.

Ripping software like DVD Audio Extractor can also rip the DTS 96/24 data, or just the core, depending on settings.
 

Jim the Oldbie

800 Club - QQ All-Star
Joined
Jun 6, 2015
Messages
879
Location
Midwest USA
Just got this in the mail today, listening now, nearly finished. Wow. I was not prepared for this at all.

This surround mix is so different from the stereo version I've known and loved all these years. There's lots of stuff that wasn't there before, and vice versa. And the sound is so changed! The whole space occupied by this mix feels completely different. Where the stereo was big & raucous, this 5.1 is more intimate and elegant. The stereo sound was a big, creaky old orchestra hall; this is a modern, well-designed studio.

The instruments and vocals sound wonderful. Gone is that familiar crust of distortion, that glommed-together sound that seems to plague the original stereo mixes of so many of these classic recordings. Now we hear each individual part, clean and crystal-clear. This continues to just amaze the shit out of me, how good these original tracks sound (and conversely, how messed-up they got on the original path to stereo mixing & mastering, way back when). This sounds like it was recorded last week! (Would that it was possible, sigh.)

For me (and many of you, I presume), much of the draw of this old music is the emotional connection to the past. In later years for example, listening to Fish Out Of Water could often transport me back to one singular, indescribable summer of outdoor parties, running sound for my buddies' band (and smoking a lot of weed). I've been really impressed by how a lot of these recent multi remixes can still take me back like that, while sounding new and different at the same time! I don't know how much of this is intentional, and how much happy accident, but it's pretty amazing when it happens.

Sadly, this 5.1 Fish ain't gonna do that for me. And while this is certainly disappointing, I'm not ready to write the whole thing off. There's a lot to like here; it's just really different. It's like running into one of your old hard-partying high school buddies after 45-some years, and finding out he's really gotten his act together; like, you can understand what he's saying and everything now!

I'm gonna give this reunion a chance. :)

-- Jim

P.S. Just one major gripe: the sax solo toward the end of "Lucky Seven" is WAY TOO GOD-DAMN LOUD!! What the hell is that about.

[EDIT] Just had a listen to the hi-res remaster of the original stereo mix, and it's quite nice. Still has the same old "vibe," but with clearer sound, even somewhat better dynamics than my old CD copy, which I think was a Japanese import? (Too lazy to dig it out of the closet.) Anyway, if I do decide the 5.1 isn't gonna work out, at least there's this. Not sure if it was worth seventy-two bucks, but it's pretty good. Ya pays ya money, ya takes ya chances...
 
Last edited:

4-earredwonder

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Joined
Jan 9, 2013
Messages
12,375
An interesting perspective on the 5.1 remix courtesy of Bullmoose Records starting at 11:09*: https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=chris+squire+fish+out+of+water+you+tube&&view=detail&mid=7D3F49CF302ACCFE0A7F7D3F49CF302ACCFE0A7F&&FORM=VDRVRV

Probably the best current price for the boxset on the web: https://www.importcds.com/fish-out-of-water/5013929472044 [AmazonUS' price is close to $90]

*From the unboxing of the Fish Out of Water boxset

BTW, NOW available as a Stereo SACD from ImportCD: https://www.importcds.com/dont-say-no/707129301499

Addenda: JUST placed an order w/ImportCD for Fish Out of Water. At least I'll get a hi res stereo remaster and since I'm NOT at all well acquainted with this album, I'm sure I'll be thrilled with the 5.1 remix. Ironically, AmazonUS with TAX would've been $96 and for $3 more [than the Amazon price for FOOW, alone] I added two brilliant BIS and Chandos Classical mch SACDs to the ImportCD order [Bernstein's On The Waterfront/Fanfares].

YIKES: just checked AmazonUK's price [£84.94] and in US currency that's $115 + s/h [without VAT removed]........:eek::eek::eek::eek: Ironic, since it IS a UK import!

YOU ONLY LIVE ONCE!:SG
 
Last edited:

blue.monk

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Joined
Aug 14, 2011
Messages
1,003
Location
Atlanta, GA
I've enjoyed rediscovering this album. Good stuff. I was never as familiar with it as I was with 70's Yes material. As a result I'm not too bothered by (or often aware of) the liberties Jakko has taken with the mix. To my ears the elements sound nicely balanced and the fidelity is strong. I voted 9.
 

d0zer

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
271
wow, only 3 votes so far. I guess it is because the high price, that not so many people had the opportunity to buy this (and listen to it). But I really like the surround mix (and the music as well...)
 

Jim the Oldbie

800 Club - QQ All-Star
Joined
Jun 6, 2015
Messages
879
Location
Midwest USA
This is just me, but I'm having a hard time assigning a single rating number to this stuff. I don't mind talking about it (and talking, and talking...), but to summarize the experience with a numbered vote is difficult.
 

jimfisheye

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
1,335
This is just me, but I'm having a hard time assigning a single rating number to this stuff. I don't mind talking about it (and talking, and talking...), but to summarize the experience with a numbered vote is difficult.
Me too. And then the discussion usually digresses. I just comment now and skip the voting part. :)
 

MikeMonaco

Active Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2012
Messages
91
Location
North Carolina USA
Pre-ordered mine at Cherry Red, it shipped to USA on Apr 4th, and then was held in US Customs until June 9th. My local USPS postmaster was just as surprised as me when it finally showed up, we both figured it was lost or worse, All I can say is I’m so happy it’s here, I just love it,
 

wheeler98

300 Club - QQ All-Star
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
361
Location
Toronto, Ontario
This is a worthy addition to any surround sound fan’s collection. It’s expensive...but man that soundscape opens up like a blooming flower on fast forward. It’s crisp and punchy while the orchestrations are lush and exciting. I imagine I’ll reach for this title instead of many other surround sound titles on my shelves....
 

quicksrt

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Jul 5, 2002
Messages
2,277
Location
Surf City, CA
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!
Many do not realize that DTS MA or HD24/96 or whatever DTS want to call it is simply a brand name and not a rating of bit depth or sampling rates. It's like calling a brand of milk and cheese "Organics" but the product is not organic.
 

ssully

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Jul 2, 2003
Messages
2,684
Location
in your face
DTS-HD Master Audio (DTS-HD MA) is in fact a lossless codec that *supports* any sample rate/bit depth up to 196/24 . Which makes it no different from , say, MLP -- you can losslessly package whatever you put into it. No more than MLP (or 'DVD-A' ) on the label or format info guarantees that the content is 96/24, DTS-HD MA doesn't either. Similarly, SACD (and DSD) don't guarantee that the material on the disc is actually 'hi rez'. No more than .flac at the end of a file name says anything about the sample rate or bit depth. That, ultimately, is a function of the digital recording rate (for an all digital recording) , or transfer rate of the analog tape transfer . Not the type of lossless encoding. As many, or at least some, know by now I hope.

DTS is fanatical about making its products 'back compatible' so even lossless DTS-HD will default to a 'lossy' version if the DTS-HD MA decoder isn't available in your hardware. DTS 96/24, which btw is lossy even if decoded by a proper DTS 96/24 decoder, defaults to plain ('lossier') 48/24 DTS if you don't have a proper DTS 96/24 decoder. You can think of DTS products as always having a reliable, extractable lossy 'core' version (output @ 48/24) hiding in them, in case of emergencies. Unless your AVR is completely bereft of *any* DTS decoder, you will always be able to play a DTS source, whatever its species.

It's a feature, not a bug. The amount of time anyone should worry about it, in terms of audibility, approaches zero. But in audiophile world, it's not fun believing that.
 

jimfisheye

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
1,335
Many do not realize that DTS MA or HD24/96 or whatever DTS want to call it is simply a brand name and not a rating of bit depth or sampling rates. It's like calling a brand of milk and cheese "Organics" but the product is not organic.
That's not right quicksrt. DTS may be a brand but DTS HD is in fact a format spec that is a lossless container (for their brand). They don't sell lossy in DTS HD containers as a bait and switch.
 

quicksrt

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Jul 5, 2002
Messages
2,277
Location
Surf City, CA
That's not right quicksrt. DTS may be a brand but DTS HD is in fact a format spec that is a lossless container (for their brand). They don't sell lossy in DTS HD containers as a bait and switch.
Oh, it's the other DTS 24/96 which is not necessarily 24/96Khz? The HD (flavor) one is just as great as PCM 24/96kHz?
 

quicksrt

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Jul 5, 2002
Messages
2,277
Location
Surf City, CA
Yes, and it sounds absolutely *terrible* because as smart people know, that's what Dolby Digital does. It dulls the sound. You can even see it in EQ analysis, if you look really carefully and wear special glasses and a hat made of thin aluminum.

So make sure you do not buy it. (Even though there is a DTS choice and it says 'DTS 96/24' when the disc is playing, it's all lies)

:rolleyes:
No, Jimfisheye just corrected me, he is saying it's real lossless 24/96 when that darn disc is playing back and your equipment can handle real 24/96. *I was also suspicious but now I'm better. I thought it was all DTS marketing B.S and not real 24/96khz too.
 

jimfisheye

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
1,335
That DTS 2496 is in fact the "ringer". Not bait and switch though, just a really really bad idea! Decoded fully, it's slightly but genuinely transparent lossy 24/96. Decoded on gear that only decodes the "core" dts signal, it's heavily lossy. That it also decodes to 48k (in core lossy mode) in that scenario is the telltale but the lossy is magnitudes worse than merely a sample rate conversion to 48k.

Now this may raise an audiophile's eyebrows but it's still not anywhere near say, the mp3 meat grinder. (For reference. Not to justify using this.) I've heard mastering destruction often enough that crosses the line even further than any of the lossy formats so much to make them a moot point. Some of the complaints on some of these releases have more to do with that.

You have to pick your battles I guess. Considering how transparent and very much HD DTS 2496 can be if decoded properly and some of the titles available, it's worth it to jump through a few hoops and get set up. I bring this up often as an FYI because this is a tricky one to deal with. Hopefully at least a couple people will suddenly be listening to their DTS 2496 titles in fullest quality for the first time.

The treble blast "mastering" where apparently someone wanted to be able to listen with earbuds - with the earbuds sitting out in the next room from them! - is still the biggest offender in many releases. And that's not the fault of any lossy format.

There was an opportunity with that first Tull Aqualung 5.1 edition to compare DTS 2496 with LCPM 24/96. They nearly nulled. Whereas comparing the fully decoded DTS 2496 to the lossy core decoded of the same was striking and obvious immediately.

I still don't like this kind of screwing around but I'll take this over stuff like knowing there's a SW remix of Deep Purple Made in Japan that someone refuses to release. Or a pricey Moody Blues boxed edition that turns out to have the worst upmix you've ever heard for the 5.1 "mix".

I still think this Squire remix sounds really good! Who really mixed this?
 

quicksrt

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Jul 5, 2002
Messages
2,277
Location
Surf City, CA
"That DTS 2496 is in fact the "ringer". Not bait and switch though, just a really really bad idea! Decoded fully, it's slightly but genuinely transparent lossy 24/96. Decoded on gear that only decodes the "core" dts signal, it's heavily lossy. That it also decodes to 48k (in core lossy mode) in that scenario is the telltale but the lossy is magnitudes worse than merely a sample rate conversion to 48k. "

This is some fantastic writing, that I am not sure I get it at all. The "ringer" flavor is the brand name plain DTS24/96 that is not 24/96kHz like my LPCM ELP or Grateful Dead DVD-As are? And the top of the line DTS "flavor brand" to look for is the "MA" flavor, like chili cheese flavor Fritos, not plain? DTS MA is the deluxe real lossless 24/96kHz I take it?
 
2
Group builder
Top