DVD/DTS Poll Jethro Tull - Live At The Palais de Sports July 1975 [DTS DVD]

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

Rate the DTS DVD of Jethro Tull - LIVE AT THE PALAIS DE SPORTS JULY 1975

  • 10: Great Surround, Great Fidelity, Great Content

    Votes: 3 16.7%
  • 9

    Votes: 9 50.0%
  • 8

    Votes: 5 27.8%
  • 7

    Votes: 1 5.6%
  • 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 Surround, Poor Fidelity, Poor Content

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    18

Bob Romano

Administrator
Staff member
Admin
Moderator
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Apr 26, 2002
Messages
5,290
Location
Viva Las Vegas
As part of the Minstrel In The Gallery 40th Anniversary set, this concert is included on a Audio DVD in DTS2496. mixed by Jakko Jakszyk.

Please share your thoughts here... (n)(y)
 

Attachments

colsky

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
1,377
Location
Chelmsford, England
I'm going to have to give this a 10 too. An excellent discrete surround mix of a brilliant live gig, a rare beast :sun. Considering the age of the material here, Jakko has worked wonders. Ian and the band sound good and clear. And remember this was 40 years ago! The one video included here, also mixed in surround, is Minstrel In The Gallery - what a great watch (and sound of course).

And of course this is part of the superb Minstrel In The Gallery set :banana:
 

Bob Romano

Administrator
Staff member
Admin
Moderator
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Apr 26, 2002
Messages
5,290
Location
Viva Las Vegas
I couldn't agree more. I was kind of expecting a band in front mix with a bit of wrap around to the rears. This is an awesome mix and a great performance as well. A really nice capper to a beautiful box set.
 

keenly

Banned
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
1,780
Location
UK
I couldn't agree more. I was kind of expecting a band in front mix with a bit of wrap around to the rears. This is an awesome mix and a great performance as well. A really nice capper to a beautiful box set.
Jakko's mix on Ian's Blu Ray is up there with any SW mix IMO!
 

blue.monk

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Joined
Aug 14, 2011
Messages
1,016
Location
Atlanta, GA
How great to have this show as part of the Minstrel set. The 5.1 mix is very nice indeed. I’m quite pleased to hear John Evan’s keyboard parts so clearly in the surrounds, even if at times they sound a bit too exposed. I hadn’t known that the string quartet from the previous tour were brought back. They sound lovely but are only present for a few numbers. The video is great! What a shame the remaining footage can’t be found. Interestingly the video features an alternate surround mix with guitar and drums more present in rears. 9
 

fizzywiggs41

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Joined
Feb 15, 2015
Messages
4,629
Location
wpg, mb
I gave this live disc a "nine"

Jakko knows how to mix live in surround! Unlike so many live surround mixes this does not disappoint. There are plenty of great Tull Tunes in surround on this disc,70 plus minutes!

Jakko has my vote for any future live recordings, no question!

And what an overall bargain! Three surround recordings for the price of most.Very interesting book to.
 

rtbluray

Hi-Res Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
QQ Supporter
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
8,724
Location
Middle TN
I finally had a chance to listen to this full disc, and since I gave the "Minstrel in the Gallery" surround mix a '9', this one has to be an '8' as there's no way it's on the same plane as the former's mix.

The whole package however (5.1 Mix, Quad Mix, and Live Mix) is a '9', and it would be a '10' if it would be DVD-A or Blu-Ray, but alas, sometimes we can't have it all.

The best part of this particular disc by far is the "Minstrel in the Gallery" live film complete with 5.1 surround mix. :)
 

ProgRules

701 Club - QQ All-Star
Joined
Apr 18, 2012
Messages
789
Location
Charlottesville VA
I finally had a chance to listen to this full disc, and since I gave the "Minstrel in the Gallery" surround mix a '9', this one has to be an '8' as there's no way it's on the same plane as the former's mix.

The whole package however (5.1 Mix, Quad Mix, and Live Mix) is a '9', and it would be a '10' if it would be DVD-A or Blu-Ray, but alas, sometimes we can't have it all.

The best part of this particular disc by far is the "Minstrel in the Gallery" live film complete with 5.1 surround mix. :)
You're certainly free to do as you please- and I'm not saying you're wrong either- but I don't understand deducting a point for the mix not being hi-rez lossless. Isn't the sound of the mix all that ultimately matters? I find this album to sound glorious in 5.1 lossy DTS; for me, that's what counts. Would I prefer a dvd-a or BR? Sure- and perhaps it would sound better. But I am unconcerned w/ the format when it sounds this good.

I could understand a deduction for something along the vein of "this sounds great, but the strings seem a little lacking in presence sometimes, which would probably not have been an issue had this been a dvd-a or BR, so I'm deducting a point."

Again, not saying you're wrong, just that I don't understand. And personally, I'll take a reasonably-priced DTS DVD over a BR that is only available in a pricey box-set any day (though why EMI sets up this false dichotomy is unfathomable).
 

rtbluray

Hi-Res Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
QQ Supporter
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
8,724
Location
Middle TN
You're certainly free to do as you please- and I'm not saying you're wrong either- but I don't understand deducting a point for the mix not being hi-rez lossless. Isn't the sound of the mix all that ultimately matters? I find this album to sound glorious in 5.1 lossy DTS; for me, that's what counts. Would I prefer a dvd-a or BR? Sure- and perhaps it would sound better. But I am unconcerned w/ the format when it sounds this good.

I could understand a deduction for something along the vein of "this sounds great, but the strings seem a little lacking in presence sometimes, which would probably not have been an issue had this been a dvd-a or BR, so I'm deducting a point."

Again, not saying you're wrong, just that I don't understand. And personally, I'll take a reasonably-priced DTS DVD over a BR that is only available in a pricey box-set any day (though why EMI sets up this false dichotomy is unfathomable).
Simple. There's usually three pieces of criteria that go into any vote: surround, fidelity, and content. I give three points total for each of those categories, and the last remaining point is usually a gimme as long as it's a High-Res disc (DVDA, SACD, Blu-Ray). I don't think I've ever given a '10' to anything that's just DVD-V just cause it can't quite be on the same plane as the very best High-Res discs.
Plus it's 2015, and I can't understand why DVD-V is still being used for audio-only releases, especially when a company like Panegyric has proven that CD/DVD-A and/or CD/Blu-Ray releases can be done with a lot of amazing content and sold for a really affordable price.
So concerning the overall release of "Minstrel in the Gallery" it gets 3 points each for surround, fidelity, and content, and that's why it get a '9' overall.
 

ProgRules

701 Club - QQ All-Star
Joined
Apr 18, 2012
Messages
789
Location
Charlottesville VA
Simple. There's usually three pieces of criteria that go into any vote: surround, fidelity, and content. I give three points total for each of those categories, and the last remaining point is usually a gimme as long as it's a High-Res disc (DVDA, SACD, Blu-Ray). I don't think I've ever given a '10' to anything that's just DVD-V just cause it can't quite be on the same plane as the very best High-Res discs.
Plus it's 2015, and I can't understand why DVD-V is still being used for audio-only releases, especially when a company like Panegyric has proven that CD/DVD-A and/or CD/Blu-Ray releases can be done with a lot of amazing content and sold for a really affordable price.
So concerning the overall release of "Minstrel in the Gallery" it gets 3 points each for surround, fidelity, and content, and that's why it get a '9' overall.
So that makes 4 pieces of criteria for you then: surround, fidelity, content and format. I understand your reasoning, I just fail to see the logic. The way I see it, if the fact that it's lossy affects the fidelity or the surround, a point (or more) would be deducted for that reason, with a concomitant explanation, e.g. "I took a point off for fidelity b/c the drum sound was not as full as I'd like." It almost seems to me as if you're automatically deducting a point b/c of your frustration w/ the industry not standardizing to hi-rez lossless. While I agree w/ you in failing to see the logic of offering dvd-v instead of dvd-a (but then I'm pretty ignorant of the whole process/costs involved w/ creating, authoring, licensing, etc.), I don't understand taking a point off for the mere fact that a mix is delivered via lossy format, regardless of how good that mix ends up sounding.

But then you state that a dvd-v can never be on the same plane as the very best hi-rez discs. So I assume this means you "think" this mix would be better if delivered in hi-rez lossless. But if that's so, wouldn't the difference be something that could be pointed out? Personally, I'm firmly in the camp that believes any differences between delivery formats (let's exclude MP3's) pales in comparison to the quality of the mix. And to these old ears, on my modest system, this mix sounds fantastic.

I began this whole tangent b/c to me, this set is so fabulous in every way it deserves a 10, if anything does. Not only do we get a fantastic 5.1 mix of the album and a bonus song, we also get the concert in 5.1, a flat transfer of the original mix, a new 2.0 mix (in redbook and hi-rez), more bonus songs in 2.0 and a great book. If someone had a concrete objection to the fidelity, surround or content, while I likely wouldn't agree, that I could understand. But sans any deductions in any of those areas, it just seems to me rather arbitrary and unfair to deduct for the format. But that's just how I see it.

Who knows, maybe 5 years from now when they release this same mix on BR to get us to buy the same album once again and there is a noticeable improvement in the sound, you can say "see- THAT'S what I was talking about." But for now, I am just thrilled w/ how this sounds. And with all the amazing content. These Tull sets are the best value in surround releases imo, b/c they do offer so much (but foremost for me, they contain excellent 5.1 mixes).
 

LuvMyQuad

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
QQ Supporter
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
3,033
Location
Western NY
But then you state that a dvd-v can never be on the same plane as the very best hi-rez discs. So I assume this means you "think" this mix would be better if delivered in hi-rez lossless. But if that's so, wouldn't the difference be something that could be pointed out? Personally, I'm firmly in the camp that believes any differences between delivery formats (let's exclude MP3's) pales in comparison to the quality of the mix. And to these old ears, on my modest system, this mix sounds fantastic.

I began this whole tangent b/c to me, this set is so fabulous in every way it deserves a 10, if anything does. Not only do we get a fantastic 5.1 mix of the album and a bonus song, we also get the concert in 5.1, a flat transfer of the original mix, a new 2.0 mix (in redbook and hi-rez), more bonus songs in 2.0 and a great book. If someone had a concrete objection to the fidelity, surround or content, while I likely wouldn't agree, that I could understand. But sans any deductions in any of those areas, it just seems to me rather arbitrary and unfair to deduct for the format. But that's just how I see it.

Who knows, maybe 5 years from now when they release this same mix on BR to get us to buy the same album once again and there is a noticeable improvement in the sound, you can say "see- THAT'S what I was talking about." But for now, I am just thrilled w/ how this sounds. And with all the amazing content. These Tull sets are the best value in surround releases imo, b/c they do offer so much (but foremost for me, they contain excellent 5.1 mixes).
I agree with the above. I cant comment on the disc because I don't have it yet... soon to be rectified. The comment on the sheer value of these Tull releases is a very good point. They are the "model" the industry should strive for, regardless of codecs used. And, I've mentioned this in other threads. but ill mention it again. More of Jakko's live surround mixing wizardry can be found on Anderson's "Live in Iceland" release.... and its a blue ray to boot.
 

ssully

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Jul 2, 2003
Messages
3,022
Location
in your face
You're certainly free to do as you please- and I'm not saying you're wrong either- but I don't understand deducting a point for the mix not being hi-rez lossless. Isn't the sound of the mix all that ultimately matters? I find this album to sound glorious in 5.1 lossy DTS; for me, that's what counts. Would I prefer a dvd-a or BR? Sure- and perhaps it would sound better. But I am unconcerned w/ the format when it sounds this good.
There seem to be a number of posters here who either are sure they can hear significant difference between DTS, Dolby, and lossless (whereas psychoacoustics would suggest those differences to be subtle *at best*, under normal listening conditions, especially in surround) *or* simply deduct points for lossy 'on principle'.

Silly, to me. What really matters are the mixing and mastering (and of course, the performance!)



I'd understand a deduction for something along the vein of "this sounds great, but the strings seem a little lacking in presence sometimes, which would probably not have been an issue had this been a dvd-a or BR, so I'm deducting a point."
But even that's not very reasonable.

DVD-A or BR probably isn't going to make the strings 'more present'. A different mix or mastering could do that. Or if for some reason your playback setup treats different formats differently.....I've seen some quite peculiar 'settings' reported in this forum.
 

ProgRules

701 Club - QQ All-Star
Joined
Apr 18, 2012
Messages
789
Location
Charlottesville VA
Well, I wouldn't call it silly, as I find that a bit too judgmental. I know what I've read (and what I've gleaned from those sources, as I can't pretend to have an exhaustive understanding of all things digital) and what my aged ears tell me on my decidedly non-high end gear, both of which contribute to my beliefs. But I don't aspire to considering my beliefs to be the absolute truth. However, I have few beliefs stronger than that the quality of the mix/master absolutely dwarfs any possible differences between formats (excluding low bit-rate lossy schemes).

As for my choice of an example of a complaint that might be voiced about a lossy vs. a hi-rez mix, I'm only going by the types of things I've heard others say, given that I seem unable to hear these things on my system. As to their reasonableness, I can't comment on that either. I possess neither the audiophiles' golden ears nor their highly resolving systems. I just know what sounds good to me. I can appreciate a nice, phat, "rounded" bass sound, as well as distinguish a highly detailed presentation from a muddy one; can appreciate a recording that presents a wide, deep soundstage from a narrow, constricted one- to name a few examples. But most of what I can tell about a good recording vs. a bad one is the absence of undesirable elements (distortion, clipping, lack of low end, etc.) as opposed to the presence of things I hear audiophiles typically mentioning. But even w/ the things I can notice, I tend to attribute them to the quality of the recording/mixing/mastering and rarely to the format.

But it is telling that the meister himself, SW, states that he can hear a difference- though admittedly slight- between 24/48 and 24/96. I would not think that would be the case and I highly doubt I could notice a difference. But even given the knowledge that SW is just as susceptible to bias as any of us, that does give me pause. But again, it's irrelevant in the face of the important factors. His sole point was why record in 48 if there's any possibility of better results w/ 96, which makes complete sense.

Again, my goal in derailing this thread w/ a debate wherein the chances of changing anyone's mind is slight is merely to ensure that a potential buyer not be put off this excellent release due to any concerns over formats. I tend to avoid these types of discussions, since most of us are firmly entrenhced in our beliefs, right or wrong. As one final aside, I recall way back in the day you posting in an amy thread that the reason vinyl enthusiasts prefer that format has to do w/ "euphonic distortion," to which they have become accustomed and learned to prefer over the accuracy of digital. My research led me to agree w/ your statement, although I never trot it out in the endless analog vs. digital debates at places like SHF. I sometimes peruse those threads for amusement, but never join in, as no one will ever change their stance.

Sorry for the tangent in a poll thread, Jon, but hopefully there's something in all this that might help a potential buyer. Bottom line- if you don't have this release but you're interested enough to even open this thread- JUST DO IT!
 

rtbluray

Hi-Res Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
QQ Supporter
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
8,724
Location
Middle TN
I honestly think many are making a bigger hullabaloo out of my comments than necessary.
So I give the overall a package a '9'. So what? That's not bad, is it?
I'm only one person, and I honestly doubt people are going to be dissuaded from buying this simply because it's DVD-V. (Now if it only had Dullby audio, that would be a different matter…) People are going to buy this if they have an interest in Jethro Tull or Steven Wilson's surround mixes in general, and people should get this release for Steven Wilson's 5.1 surround mix of the studio album. The other stuff (live concert, Quad mix, etc) is lagniappe to me, and I doubt these other elements will get much play in my ever-growing collection.
There's lots of other reasons besides high-res audio why DVD-A and/or Blu-Ray would make these Tull releases better, but I won't bog down this thread any further with that kind of discussion.
 

ProgRules

701 Club - QQ All-Star
Joined
Apr 18, 2012
Messages
789
Location
Charlottesville VA
Upon reflection, you are absolutely right. While my original point was valid, imo, a poll thread was not the place to take up this issue. I now regret starting this whole thing. I don't think the difference between a 9 or a 10 would keep anyone from buying this and while I've seen a few people who might pass on a release b/c it is delivered in a lossy format, I highly doubt that a discussion of this sort would change their mind. My apologies.

I am surprised you consider this lagniappe (had to look that up!). I think the concert is great and while it won't get the same play as the album, I will certainly be coming back to this many times. I've read many a post that state the version of Aqualung in this show surpasses the original. While I don't agree, I'm very glad to have this alternate version. And the surround mix on this concert is really well-done; while perhaps not quite up to the high level established by SW, it approaches that standard and serves as an example of how to mix for for live surround.
 

kap'n krunch

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Joined
Nov 25, 2008
Messages
7,389
Location
estados hundidos
....
I am surprised you consider this lagniappe (had to look that up!). ....
After living all these years in España, and getting acquainted with the "Latin" languages I DID find that term VERY interesting ..In Puerto Rico, it's "la ñapa" (almost the same pronunciation...) which, for the rest of the Forum I'll translate..
a BONUS

(correct me if I'm wrong)

and yes, I'm one of the members that feels that a DTS is prettttttyyy good , but there is a difference (depends on your hearing, to me it is noticeable but ONLY when I hear the lossless)...Björk's "Vespertine" comes to mind...the DTS is really good bit the DVD-A is just MIND BLOWING ...
 

DuncanS

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
QQ Supporter
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
5,917
Location
UK
Well I finally got round to listening to this disc today 10 July 2015, so only 40 years & 5 days since it was originally recorded! I will confess to be a Tull fanatic, just loved them ever since a school friend lent me Aqualung & Living In The Past in 1972/73.

Music 9 (nice improvisations & arrangements), some of the sound quality isn't that great in places (but it is a 40 year old live recording!) so a 7-8, I like Jakko's mix, very immersive, with the instruments well spread around, a bit like being on stage, so a 9. So overall an 8-9.
 

quicksrt

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Jul 5, 2002
Messages
2,596
Location
Surf City, CA
Upon reflection, you are absolutely right. While my original point was valid, imo, a poll thread was not the place to take up this issue. I now regret starting this whole thing. I don't think the difference between a 9 or a 10 would keep anyone from buying this and while I've seen a few people who might pass on a release b/c it is delivered in a lossy format, I highly doubt that a discussion of this sort would change their mind. My apologies.

I am surprised you consider this lagniappe (had to look that up!). I think the concert is great and while it won't get the same play as the album, I will certainly be coming back to this many times. I've read many a post that state the version of Aqualung in this show surpasses the original. While I don't agree, I'm very glad to have this alternate version. And the surround mix on this concert is really well-done; while perhaps not quite up to the high level established by SW, it approaches that standard and serves as an example of how to mix for for live surround.
While I agree a high res lossless disc could top this one for sound quality perhaps. This poll is within the DTS and DD section of spotlight discs. So within that criteria is where we should be voting on the quality.
 
Top