DVD/DTS Poll Moody Blues, The - IN SEARCH OF THE LOST CHORD [DTS DVD]

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

Rate the DTS DVD of the Moody Blues - IN SEARCH OF THE LOST CHORD


  • Total voters
    29

4-earredwonder

QQ Lifetime Supporter
QQ Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 9, 2013
Messages
16,618
Finally had a chance to give this a proper listen tonight. Unfortunately, compared to other surround remixes I've heard, this is a travesty. Most especially in comparison to the exquisite new 2018 LOSSLESS LPCM Stereo 96/24 version. I played them both at the same volume and the 5.1 just sounds so dull, with the surrounds barely registering and the question arises, how could they do a sterling NEW Stereo remix without the original multi tracks? It doesn't make sense.

As I played the Stereo Remix I kept musing: Why in hell couldn't the 5.1 remix sound this startlingly GREAT?

BTW, the NEW stereo remix with my Meridian pre/pro in DSP mode [trifield] is my new go to version of In Search of the Lost Chord.
 
Last edited:

ar surround

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
QQ Supporter
Joined
Apr 3, 2010
Messages
2,625
Location
New Joisey
Finally had a chance to give this a proper listen tonight. Unfortunately, compared to other surround remixes I've heard, this is a travesty. Most especially in comparison to the exquisite new 2018 LOSSLESS LPCM Stereo 96/24 version. I played them both at the same volume and the 5.1 just sounds so dull, with the surrounds barely registering and the question arises, how could they do a sterling NEW Stereo remix without the original multi tracks? It doesn't make sense.

As I played the Stereo Remix I kept musing: Why in hell couldn't the 5.1 remix sound this startlingly GREAT?

BTW, the NEW stereo remix with my Meridian pre/pro in DSP mode [trifield] is my new go to version of In Search of the Lost Chord.
Yep, the Stereo 96/24 version enhanced to 7.1 is the way to go. If the DVD only contained the 5.1 mix it would be relegated to the woodpecker repentant pile.
 

jefe1

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
2,561
Location
Los Angeles
I have yet to play the new stereo mix in full....... after all I belong to a surround music forum....:)
But when I get time after thanksgiving holiday week Ill give it a good listen......

If he could remix the stereo and it sounds good what happened to the 5.1 ?
Its pretty sad when consumers here upmix the stereo and get better results than what the "professional" did....
 

svengaleekie

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
QQ Supporter
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
1,107
Location
Swansea, Wales, UK
[JUSTIFY]I voted a 7 for this the other day, on having another listen today I heard a bit more in it and thought I might knock my score up to an 8, BUT I then put on the stereo version and It sounds bloody fantastic in comparison, indeed it sounds more surround than the surround, and clearer, I had to check that my amp wasn't doing something weird, but no, it wasn't. So I'm leaving the score right where it is.[/JUSTIFY]
 

4-earredwonder

QQ Lifetime Supporter
QQ Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 9, 2013
Messages
16,618
[JUSTIFY]I voted a 7 for this the other day, on having another listen today I heard a bit more in it and thought I might knock my score up to an 8, BUT I then put on the stereo version and It sounds bloody fantastic in comparison, indeed it sounds more surround than the surround, and clearer, I had to check that my amp wasn't doing something weird, but no, it wasn't. So I'm leaving the score right where it is.[/JUSTIFY]
I even tried plying the 5.1 at a more robust volume but as soon as I switched to the new Lossless Stereo version ..... ALL bets were off. The stereo remaster is so much more three dimensional and sonically superior than the 5.1. A Real Pity.

Again, how can you create a new STEREO remaster if the MASTER TAPES are in any way compromised? I vote for a NEW 5.1 REMIX by a competent remixer!
 

ar surround

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
QQ Supporter
Joined
Apr 3, 2010
Messages
2,625
Location
New Joisey
[JUSTIFY]I voted a 7 for this the other day, on having another listen today I heard a bit more in it and thought I might knock my score up to an 8, BUT I then put on the stereo version and It sounds bloody fantastic in comparison, indeed it sounds more surround than the surround, and clearer, I had to check that my amp wasn't doing something weird, but no, it wasn't. So I'm leaving the score right where it is.[/JUSTIFY]
I even tried plying the 5.1 at a more robust volume but as soon as I switched to the new Lossless Stereo version ..... ALL bets were off. The stereo remaster is so much more three dimensional and sonically superior than the 5.1. A Real Pity.

Again, how can you create a new STEREO remaster if the MASTER TAPES are in any way compromised? I vote for a NEW 5.1 REMIX by a competent remixer!
Yep. If you place yourself in the sweet spot between the two stereo speakers, the Lossless Stereo version gives a better surround presentation than the 5.1 version...and this is before applying any DSP which when doing so really blows away the 5.1.
 

4-earredwonder

QQ Lifetime Supporter
QQ Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 9, 2013
Messages
16,618
Yep. If you place yourself in the sweet spot between the two stereo speakers, the Lossless Stereo version gives a better surround presentation than the 5.1 version...and this is before applying any DSP which when doing so really blows away the 5.1.
And if you really want to be technical, ar, the same applies to the original LOSSLESS remixed Stereo version of Days of Future Passed. Really and truly! ALL the Surround versions of DOFP HAVE THAT VOCAL INTRO 'COLD HEARTED ORB THAT RULES THE NIGHT ....' IN THE REAR SPEAKERS AT A MUCH REDUCED VOLUME COMPARED TO THE SUPERIOR STEREO VERSION....in which that intro is transcendent.
 
Last edited:

Perpendicular

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
QQ Supporter
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
4,046
Location
In My Mind’s 👁
Since, a lot of different comments on this 5.1 Mix has already been said, I’ll agree and will only add a few comments.

The packaging is fairly good. Too bad there wasn’t a glossy cover but I like that they put a photo of the chorded baby on the inside of the lid. I really wish when a label does a catalog re-release that their box sets are all the same size, even if their are only a couple of discs in the package.

Ah! The sound. The clarity on the new mixes are great. It’s like I’m hearing the master tapes. The surround mix? Not so great, but there are moments of okay-ness (very, very little), if not perfect. The stereo mix is definitely the one to listen to. In comparison to the original mix, both the new stereo and surround mixes are missing the dynamics (not as pronounced) when Graeme hits that drum kit. It’s even less on the surround mix. A lot of instruments are buried. Overall, I’d rather listen to the original mix off my SACD. I probably won’t listen to it again. I’m going with a 4. This is probably the lowest score I’ve given yet.

I’ve only watched the first part of the second DVD. Gee, our parents and grandparents used to dance that way? 😂
 

salsdali

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Joined
Jul 8, 2014
Messages
1,313
Location
Altered State
I don't think the 5.1 is that bad. It's no White album and like GOS said, considering it's the same era and virtually same physical location the recording equip had to be very similar but from what I'm reading I guess something happened to the Masters, not all but some???

Anyway, this is similar to Jacko's Brain Salad Surgery. He definitely has a different perspective and I can tell it's either one you like or hate, there is no middle ground.

I will say that the fidelity, even though muddy on most of the 5.1, does sound descent/better if cranked up loud (I can't emphasize that enough). Lower volumes will just mush it into an already mushy mess. It sounds very similar to an analog LP. I feel I'm 10 years old listening to this album on my parents system, but it was that system that turned me on to music and there is a bit of nostalgic sound in this mix if you know what I'm saying. I'm saying analog sounding digital mixes aren't all that bad. At least they don't have that shrill digital sound from over processed digital recordings.

I like the menu with the psilo inspired flashes that Halbroome mentioned (no it's not your imagination, it's my imagination your imagining lol). I do wish they had the option to remove the pictures of the band repeating themselves and the titles just so it was the illustration only in all it's trippy, flashing glory. Would make an nice screensaver if they did ;)

Departure - strong opening

Ride my See-Saw - WTF? How can you fuk up this Signature song like others have said. BuzzKill is right. My 10 year old niece could do a better job. This gets a 0. Still shaking my head

House of the four doors (Part 1 and 2) - Good (not great), trippy just the way it should be. Play that shit LOUD!

Legend of a Mind - I'm bias, it's my favorite song, almost ever - Good showing. Not great or spectacular but not bad but has that trippy vibe the band was surely going for. I just wish it was better (more professionally) done but still satisfying. It's Jacko, love him or hate him. I think I get what's he's going for it's just he doesn't really pull it off but if he did I would like it. I'm saying I don't mind Jacko's style, he just needs to be more consistent and a little more proficient at surround. Like GOS said, the flutes are the highlight.

Voices in the sky - Great song, OK mix

The Best Way to Travel -another Great song, another OK mix but not bad because of the pans. Esoteric sounds in the surrounds help this songs mix. Wish this song had be done better. Another favorite song of mine. Very analog sounding.

Visions of Paradise - another favorite song of mine (can you tell I like this albums content, a lot lol)- not bad, same as the other OK mixed songs

The Actor - Good song. Not great mix. Bland, Boring. Muddy, similar to ride my see-saw but not that bad but surely could have been done better.

The Word - OK but could be a lot clearer

Om - Good Song. This one could have shined in surround but it's just barely OK. And am I the only one who hears almost the exact same Indian chords from George Harrison's "Within You Without You" and even basically the same song concept? Who stole who?


But now after listening to the New 96/24 Stereo Mix I am utterly confounded. Why didn't Jacko just upmix that stereo mix and use the fidelity off of that instead of whatever source he used for the surround mix??

Verdict:

New 2018 Stereo Mix - Fantastic. One of the best Stereo Mixes I've ever heard!
New 2018 Surround Mix - Muddy in Comparison fidelity wise to the New 2018 Stereo Mix but still has a full analog sound.

The New 2018 Stereo mix is worth my purchase as it sounds the best I've ever heard this album.
 
Last edited:

holland123

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
1,087
Location
detroit, michigan.usa
I gave this one a 7, It got a bonus cuz it is one of my favorite Moody albums, with Legend of a Mind one of my favorite Moody songs, they did a very nice job on that track too, overall I am happy with the purchase, the new stereo mix is delightful, the vids of the band at the time when they were crossing over from rock a billy (shortly after the days of future release) were outstanding. but my vote is based solely on the surround disc, I found it quite enjoyable, but again I am biased towards this album, The muffled or muddy bottom end , prematurely rolled off upper end and over extended midrange are unfortunately typical sonic signatures of DTS. and yes indeed, I have heard better upmixes of this album. However this one stands easily next to all the other Moody surround releases, cuz lets be honest here, none of them are really that great, I would give no more than a 6 or 7 vote for the whole collection
 

Which_One_Is_Pink

800 Club - QQ All-Star
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
844
Location
Shoutin' bamalama
Okay...after not listening to this for a couple of weeks I decided to play it today, on my initial listens I was very much disappointed with the fidelity and surround mix listening via the DTS 96/24 option (like most here). After several underwhelming listens I switched to the Dolby option and was surprised after bouncing back and forth between them that it sounded much better, fidelity improved and the surround mix opened up a little, not great but much better than the DTS which is odd as it is usually the other way around for me when DD and DTS 96/24 are the options. Not sure what the deal is but the only conclusion I can come to is that something went wrong with the DTS implementation and it is faulty somehow, as it should sound better than the Dolby mix.
I am actually enjoying this in Dolby, still not great but liking it much better.
So I was thinking a 7 but with the addition of "A Simple Game" in surround which sounds very good to me, and I really like the content a lot so I am going to vote 8 but for Dolby only, DTS just ain't right on this one.
 

ghalteman

Well-known Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
188
Location
Reading, PA
Just got a copy for Christmas. I'll play the Dolby Digital Surround copy FIRST.
Not sure what the deal is but the only conclusion I can come to is that something went wrong with the DTS implementation and it is faulty somehow, as it
After several underwhelming listens I switched to the Dolby option and was surprised after bouncing back and forth between them that it sounded much better, fidelity improved and the surround mix opened up a little, not great but much better than the DTS which is odd as it is usually the other way around for me when DD and DTS 96/24 are the options. Not sure what the deal is but the only conclusion I can come to is that something went wrong with the DTS implementation and it is faulty somehow, as it should sound better than the Dolby mix.
I am actually enjoying this in Dolby, still not great but liking it much better
 

Rickko

Active Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2014
Messages
62
Location
Narol (outside Winnipeg), Canada
Okay...after not listening to this for a couple of weeks I decided to play it today, on my initial listens I was very much disappointed with the fidelity and surround mix listening via the DTS 96/24 option (like most here). After several underwhelming listens I switched to the Dolby option and was surprised after bouncing back and forth between them that it sounded much better, fidelity improved and the surround mix opened up a little, not great but much better than the DTS which is odd as it is usually the other way around for me when DD and DTS 96/24 are the options. Not sure what the deal is but the only conclusion I can come to is that something went wrong with the DTS implementation and it is faulty somehow, as it should sound better than the Dolby mix.
I am actually enjoying this in Dolby, still not great but liking it much better.
So I was thinking a 7 but with the addition of "A Simple Game" in surround which sounds very good to me, and I really like the content a lot so I am going to vote 8 but for Dolby only, DTS just ain't right on this one.
"In Search of A Lost Chord" holds a special place for me. It was the initial album played on a new Dual turntable through my new, and first, good stereo system (Sansui). It sounded great.

My expectations for surround sound on this release were tempered by the limitations of 4-track recordings encompassing this album. I had read a number of negative comments on this thread about the mix and audio quality on some tracks. I normally listen to DTS 96/24 as a preference for most 5.1 releases containing this format. I made some adjustments to balance out the 5.1 sound by increasing the rear channels by +2db and the subwoofer by +3db. After listening in DTS four times, I had some personal general conclusions. The 5.1 mix by Jakko was not bad as some opinions implied and overall I liked his approach to mixing theses 4-track recordings (I will elaborate later). The audio quality overall was good but the song "Ride My See-Saw" fell below this standard and had a flat or soft, closed-in characteristic. In total, I would have rated this surround release in the 7 area using DTS.

I decided to try the Dolby Digital (DD) AC3 5.1 format to hear if there would any significant differences. The first track, "Departure" did sound much better but it was the next song "Ride My See-Saw" that was startling with it's improvement. It was a night and day difference. There was a greater aural perception of detail. The drums on See-Saw were more transparent. And notably the bass had a stronger firm tone that, at times, turns to a rich, fat quality. After listening to all the tracks in DD AC3, I was very impressed by the changes to the audio within this format.

I went back and forth listening between DTS and DD formats. The differences are indeed significant as I found the DD AC3 vastly superior. There is a greater capacity for openness that expands the sound parameters filling my listening room. I found the DD to be cleaner-sounding with a better sense of realism. And how did it impact my feelings toward the 5.1 mix from Jakko? I enjoyed the placement of lead vocals and instruments in the front and centre channels maintaining a good impression of balance with the treble having an airy quality leading to better clarity. I hear subtleties and placement of discreet elements in the rear channels that are not as obvious in DTS. It is these mixing details that I came to appreciate Jakko's work more in DD AC3. I found his conservative approach in line with the limitations of musical information available on 4-track tapes.

I just finished listening for the 6th time in DD AC3. Overall, the fidelity sounds excellent. A very immersive 5.1 listening experience for me. I did not hesitate to give this release a high rating based on using this format.
 
Last edited:

ar surround

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
QQ Supporter
Joined
Apr 3, 2010
Messages
2,625
Location
New Joisey
...I decided to try the Dolby Digital (DD) AC3 5.1 format to hear if there would any significant differences. The first track, "Departure" did sound much better but it was the next song "Ride My See-Saw" that was startling with it's improvement. It was a night and day difference. There was a greater aural perception of detail. The drums on See-Saw were more transparent. And notably the bass had a stronger firm tone that, at times, turns to a rich, fat quality. After listening to all the tracks in DD AC3, I was very impressed by the changes to the audio within this format.

I went back and forth listening between DTS and DD formats. The differences are indeed significant as I found the DD AC3 vastly superior. There is a greater capacity for openness that expands the sound parameters filling my listening room. I found the DD to be cleaner-sounding with a better sense of realism......

...just finished listening for the 6th time in DD AC3. Overall, the fidelity sounds excellent. A very immersive 5.1 listening experience for me....
I haven't tried this yet, but I will give it a try. Usually, it's the other way around with DTS being superior to AC3. Regarding the night and day difference on Ride My See Saw, you have to wonder how things could go totally sideways during DTS encoding. WTF? Hope someone with experience in these matters chimes in.
 

ghalteman

Well-known Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
188
Location
Reading, PA
VERY disappointed with both the fidelity and 5.1 Mix as most reported. As was stated years ago, the Moodies couldn't find the multi track masters for "Chord" way back when to do a Quad mix in the 70's , but had them for the other albums. Where did the source material come from for this mix and how much of what was needed is missing? Can someone post a link to that thread please?
The new mix mostly sounds like something stereo played on a surround synthesizer and dull. My Rating is about a 3.
 
Top