DVD/DTS Poll Oldfield. Mike - Ommadawn [DD DVD+2CD]

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

Rate the Audio-DVD of Mike Oldfield - OMMADAWN


  • Total voters
    27

quadrofis

Active Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2004
Messages
61
Location
Berlin
Spot on surround mix. Much more aggressive and discrete than the Boxed quad remix. Ommadawn was always great on any surround format, even fake surround. Now this carefully recunstructed mix not only wraps around you nicely, it also highlights lots of previously unheard spots, without being all too distracting.
One point off for being low-res dd 5.1 only!
 

rusinurbe

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Nov 6, 2002
Messages
2,487
Location
Royal Wootton Bassett, UK
Spot on surround mix. Much more aggressive and discrete than the Boxed quad remix. Ommadawn was always great on any surround format, even fake surround. Now this carefully recunstructed mix not only wraps around you nicely, it also highlights lots of previously unheard spots, without being all too distracting.
One point off for being low-res dd 5.1 only!
as above, Its my first time with Ommadawn and Hergest ridge and I ahve to say i am looking forward to the rest of Mike Oldfields catalog in Surround Hope it happens. I would love to have 'Five Miles Out' in Surround.
 

dobyblue

600 Club - QQ All-Star
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
624
Location
Ontario, Canada
I've never heard the Quad mixes, but Ommadawn is probably the work of Mike's I'm most familiar with.

Despite being incredibly sad about the lack of the surround mix being presented with any sort of fidelity I gave in and ordered both Hergest Ridge and Ommadawn to Canada from Amazon.uk and it worked out to about US$41, substantially cheaper than ordering them domestically from Amazon.com or .ca

The surround mix is almost flawless here, I really enjoyed listening to this with the TV off and the lights out. Who cares about watching still images of Mike with all his equipment, most of them are in the liner notes and you can look at them there. The only marks I found I take off:

1) In the raging guitar licks at the end of Part 1 they seem to be quieted compared to listening to the 2-channel CD, Simply Vinyl and original Virgin vinyl release. I actually found myself boosting my centre channel +4dB just for the end, don't know if anyone else felt this way, but that guitar represents the absolute climax of the song and isn't as present as I wanted it to be, despite being front and centre in the mix.

2) OUCH! The drums just fading so abrubtly at the end of Part 1? It really kind of smacks you in the face and says "okay, we're done here". Not such a good thing.

3) Dolby Digital 5.1 @ 448 Kbps. Are you kidding me? Again with this crap? Come on, you put in all the effort to do a brand new 5.1 mix based on the 2010 remastering and then give it to us in .mp3 quality? I'm upset. This should be on DVD-A, SACD hybrid or BD+CD. I hope this is rectified at some point in the future, the sooner the better. I think the time is here where many people who love music would be happy to pick up a Blu-ray+CD version for $5 more and I certainly know there are numerous people that would be over the moon with an SACD hyrid release. But seriously, how much would making this DVD have a DVD-A layer have added to the cost? Seems to me the majority of the work was already done. MLP encoding (if it's 24/96) and authoring right? Bah!

Kind of hard to knock any marks off the actual surround mix, it really is that good...but I have to take off 3 points for the Dolby crap. In 2010 that is just not on. I had to listen to these because I love the music so much, but I've already listed both of my copies on eBay now and will wait with fingers crossed for an eventual high resolution release.

7/10
 

cupboy

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Joined
Jul 25, 2003
Messages
4,892
Location
UT, USA
What happened to "waste of plastic"?

Actually I haven't bought this yet. Need to check into it.
 

Almen

500 Club - QQ All-Star
Joined
Sep 26, 2006
Messages
530
Location
Göteborg, Sweden
1) In the raging guitar licks at the end of Part 1 they seem to be quieted compared to listening to the 2-channel CD, Simply Vinyl and original Virgin vinyl release. I actually found myself boosting my centre channel +4dB just for the end, don't know if anyone else felt this way, but that guitar represents the absolute climax of the song and isn't as present as I wanted it to be, despite being front and centre in the mix.
I also noted this; first I actually checked my settings, since I don't have a center speaker. For me, they sound too low.
 

neil wilkes

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
4,330
Location
London, England
3) Dolby Digital 5.1 @ 448 Kbps. Are you kidding me? Again with this crap? Come on, you put in all the effort to do a brand new 5.1 mix based on the 2010 remastering and then give it to us in .mp3 quality? I'm upset. This should be on DVD-A, SACD hybrid or BD+CD. I hope this is rectified at some point in the future, the sooner the better. I think the time is here where many people who love music would be happy to pick up a Blu-ray+CD version for $5 more and I certainly know there are numerous people that would be over the moon with an SACD hyrid release. But seriously, how much would making this DVD have a DVD-A layer have added to the cost? Seems to me the majority of the work was already done. MLP encoding (if it's 24/96) and authoring right? Bah!

Kind of hard to knock any marks off the actual surround mix, it really is that good...but I have to take off 3 points for the Dolby crap. In 2010 that is just not on. I had to listen to these because I love the music so much, but I've already listed both of my copies on eBay now and will wait with fingers crossed for an eventual high resolution release.

7/10
In answer to the "how much extra would it have cost" question, the answer is "not nearly as much as you might think".
If only they (Universal) would do this, but they will not.

The DD encoding spoils all 3 of these for me, as I know only too well how good it should have sounded.
 

duncan_england

Active Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
85
Location
England
Hi there. I've been an Oldfield collector for years so I'd like to think I know my stuff!! I got both Ridge and Ommadawn Deluxe sets last month. Not dissapointed at all.... it just sounds like Mike has inserted extra guitar parts, remixed and added other bits to the originals. On Part 1 of Ridge, Mike has almost wiped out the beautiful oboe part!! On Ommadawn the lost sections sound surprisingly new!! The best thing is that on the Ridge set, Mercury include the mysterious Spanish Tune. Amongst hardened Oldfield collectors, we have always known that Spanish tune was a cut demo from Hergest Ridge. So basically everybody always had Spanish Tune on the album. Nice Glider footage though!!!
 

ArmyOfQuad

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Apr 22, 2002
Messages
2,119
Location
Attleboro, MA
I can't rate it, as I refuse to buy it if the fine people over at Universal can't be bothered to even give us a dts track. If they won't listen to my words, I'll speak with my wallet.
 

dobyblue

600 Club - QQ All-Star
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
624
Location
Ontario, Canada
While I would have found a 1.5 Mbps dts track more palatable, in 2010 it's still totally out of order to present this 2010 5.1 mix in a lossy format.

At the very least this should have been presented with a DVD-A layer and as Neil has already pointed out it would have added minimal cost. As far as I know the only notable cost in doing a high resolution mix (especially on DVD-A) would be the studio time it takes to do the mix, and that was already done.
 

neil wilkes

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
4,330
Location
London, England
While I would have found a 1.5 Mbps dts track more palatable, in 2010 it's still totally out of order to present this 2010 5.1 mix in a lossy format.

At the very least this should have been presented with a DVD-A layer and as Neil has already pointed out it would have added minimal cost. As far as I know the only notable cost in doing a high resolution mix (especially on DVD-A) would be the studio time it takes to do the mix, and that was already done.
There is also the authoring to consider.
DVDA authoring is harder than DVD-V authoring, and the resulting Video_TS has some severe limitations imposed upon it.
Still, it is far from prohibitively expensive - ask Steven Wilson, Porcupine Tree, No-Man, Martin Russell (Dorothee Munyaneza) & King Crimson!!
 

dobyblue

600 Club - QQ All-Star
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
624
Location
Ontario, Canada
There is also the authoring to consider.
DVDA authoring is harder than DVD-V authoring, and the resulting Video_TS has some severe limitations imposed upon it.
Still, it is far from prohibitively expensive - ask Steven Wilson, Porcupine Tree, No-Man, Martin Russell (Dorothee Munyaneza) & King Crimson!!
What sort of limitations are imposed? If it helps in your assesment, the current VIDEO_TS folder is about 2GB.
 

ssully

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Jul 2, 2003
Messages
3,022
Location
in your face
As I wrote yesterday on another thread: the Ommadawn surround mix sounds great -- in terms of mix choices AND sound quality. The bitching about DD here is audiophile prejudice; to refuse it a listen because it's not DTS or DVD-A or SACD, is mind-bogglingly silly.
 

neil wilkes

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
4,330
Location
London, England
What sort of limitations are imposed? If it helps in your assesment, the current VIDEO_TS folder is about 2GB.
The list is quite long....so go grab a coffee and get comfortable.
Ready?

VIDEO_TS Restrictions for Video Links

When a VIDEO_TS is used for a Video, the following restrictions should be observed for the contents of the VIDEO_TS:


VMG (Video Manager)

The Video Manager is used when the disc is played in a DVD-Video player. The following VMG restrictions should be observed:

  • No Region Management.
  • No Parental Management.
  • Text Data Manager should not be specified.
VTS (Video Title Set)

VTS titles shall be linked from the DVD-Audio playlist.

A Video Title may be specified in conjunction with an Audio Title for a playlist item. In this case, the Video Title will be played on video-capable players, and the Audio Title will be played on audio-only players (e.g. portable or car players).

If only a Video Title is specified for a playlist item, the title will only be accessible from a video-capable player.

The Video Title (and VTS to which it belongs) should observe the following restrictions:

  • A Title shall consist of one Program Chain (PGC), and should not be a PGC Block. The Title shall be set for Sequential playback.
  • Pre-Command, Post-Command, and Cell-Command shall not be specified, except for the “CallSS from TT_DOM (title domain) to VMGM_DOM (vmg domain)” in the Post-Command area. This command will only used by DVD-Video players, and ignored by DVD-Audio players.
  • Availability control of User Operations, Audio Streams, and Sub-picture Streams should not be specified. These features will always be available.
  • Cell Stills and VOBU Stills shall not be defined.
  • Number of audio streams shall be 1 or 2, with one stream being Linear PCM or AC-3 (if playlist title only consists of Video Title).
  • Cell blocks (e.g. different Angles) may be specified if the playlist title consists of only the Video Title.
  • Some Button Commands are restricted. The available commands for a Video Title are LinkPGCN, LinkCN, LinkSIns(PG, C), COMP_LinkPGN, COMP_LinkCN, COMP_LinkSIns(PG, C), SetSTN, Set, COMP_SetSTN, SetSTN_LinkPGN, SetSTN_LinkCN, SetSTN_LinkSIns(PG, C), Set_LinkPGN, Set_LinkCN, Set_LinkSIns(PG, C)
  • The Navigation Timer should not be used.

    Contact your video authoring software manufacturer for more details on how these restrictions map to the features of the authoring software.
The reason for all this is because a DVDA/V title is actually 2 separate discs on one piece of plastic, with the DVDA (Audio_TS) being the primary and the Video_TSsecondary but accessible from within the Audio Manager of the Audio_TS.
Space here is definitely not an issue - at 2Gb, we still have 2.7Gb available for a high resolution section.
It should definitely fit, and even if it did not fit on a single layer disc we have the availability of a second layer.

ssully said:
The bitching about DD here is audiophile prejudice; to refuse it a listen because it's not DTS or DVD-A or SACD, is mind-bogglingly silly.
I beg to differ.
What is mind-bogglingly silly here is the complete lack of a decent audio stream in what is supposed to be a music release, with valuable bits wasted on a silly "video" that is a short loop repeated ad infinitum. Dolby Digital is ghastly, it sounds like shit, it goes non directional on all frequencies above 15kHz at 448kbps (12kHz at 384) and it trashes the transients.
There is plenty of room on this disc for DTS at the very, very least.
Yes - I still bought all 3 of them, so feel entitled to bitch about this. Only having DD streams on a music disc is a con. Simple.
If you think this sounds good now (and to my ears, the mix is a very good one but hobbled by the Dobly) then imagine how much better it could have been.
 

dobyblue

600 Club - QQ All-Star
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
624
Location
Ontario, Canada
The list is quite long....so go grab a coffee and get comfortable.
Ready?


The reason for all this is because a DVDA/V title is actually 2 separate discs on one piece of plastic, with the DVDA (Audio_TS) being the primary and the Video_TSsecondary but accessible from within the Audio Manager of the Audio_TS.
Space here is definitely not an issue - at 2Gb, we still have 2.7Gb available for a high resolution section.
It should definitely fit, and even if it did not fit on a single layer disc we have the availability of a second layer.
That is awesome information, thanks for all that Neil!


I beg to differ.
What is mind-bogglingly silly here is the complete lack of a decent audio stream in what is supposed to be a music release, with valuable bits wasted on a silly "video" that is a short loop repeated ad infinitum. Dolby Digital is ghastly, it sounds like shit, it goes non directional on all frequencies above 15kHz at 448kbps (12kHz at 384) and it trashes the transients.
There is plenty of room on this disc for DTS at the very, very least.
Yes - I still bought all 3 of them, so feel entitled to bitch about this. Only having DD streams on a music disc is a con. Simple.
If you think this sounds good now (and to my ears, the mix is a very good one but hobbled by the Dobly) then imagine how much better it could have been.
Agreed 100%, and in addition in order just to "give it a listen" you have to fork out US$35 in North America or import from Amazon UK.

Yes, I forked out the money to give it a listen. Yes, the surround mix is really good. No, I did not listen to it a second time and have since sold the discs on eBay. The surround mix is excellent, but the sonics are severely lacking. In hindsight my 7/10 rating is very generous, given that I didn't even keep the discs, but the fact that it's one of my favourite pieces of music may have prevented me from giving it the slightly lower score it deserves.

I am sure with a DVD-A layer and 24/96 MLP 5.1 track this would have been an EASY 10/10.
 

neil wilkes

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
4,330
Location
London, England
Agreed 100%, and in addition in order just to "give it a listen" you have to fork out US$35 in North America or import from Amazon UK.

Yes, I forked out the money to give it a listen. Yes, the surround mix is really good. No, I did not listen to it a second time and have since sold the discs on eBay. The surround mix is excellent, but the sonics are severely lacking. In hindsight my 7/10 rating is very generous, given that I didn't even keep the discs, but the fact that it's one of my favourite pieces of music may have prevented me from giving it the slightly lower score it deserves.

I am sure with a DVD-A layer and 24/96 MLP 5.1 track this would have been an EASY 10/10.
All I can say here is that whilst I will still play the disc, as the mix truly is a good one, I cannot but help think how good it could have been myself.
If you have the 2003 DVDA of Bells - and I just got this myself - the difference between the DD and the MLP on that one is like night & day.
I think the problem us surround fans face is one of appalling ignorance - there is a long. long thread at GearSlutz Mastering forums about why DVDA did not replace CD.
Apart from the fact they missed the point completely - it was not, IMO, supposed to replace CD but to complement it - despite the posts from respected ME's stating that they can hear the difference between Red Book & 24/96, there are some hard core idiots who refuse to believe it. The claim is "you cannot tell the difference" and that "there are no scientific tests that prove 24/96 is better" and so on. Truly infuriating. There is much more to music than so-called "double blind tests" (most of which are flawed anyway and prove nothing at all).
I don't listen to stuff on statistics, I use my ears - and my ears tell me there is a difference.

But I am ranting now, and I do apologise.
This is a fine, fine mix - but sonically? Well, that's Dobly for you!
 

ssully

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Jul 2, 2003
Messages
3,022
Location
in your face
The list is quite long....so go grab a coffee and get comfortable.
Ready?


The reason for all this is because a DVDA/V title is actually 2 separate discs on one piece of plastic, with the DVDA (Audio_TS) being the primary and the Video_TSsecondary but accessible from within the Audio Manager of the Audio_TS.
Space here is definitely not an issue - at 2Gb, we still have 2.7Gb available for a high resolution section.
It should definitely fit, and even if it did not fit on a single layer disc we have the availability of a second layer.


I beg to differ.
What is mind-bogglingly silly here is the complete lack of a decent audio stream in what is supposed to be a music release, with valuable bits wasted on a silly "video" that is a short loop repeated ad infinitum. Dolby Digital is ghastly, it sounds like shit, it goes non directional on all frequencies above 15kHz at 448kbps (12kHz at 384) and it trashes the transients.

Opinion noted. One might also note that another venerable *perceptual* codec, MP3, does all sorts of objectively 'ghastly' things to audio , yet people again and again find it extremely difficult to *perceive* a difference between a well-made MP3 and source, in fair tests.



Yes - I still bought all 3 of them, so feel entitled to bitch about this. Only having DD streams on a music d
If you think this sounds good now (and to my ears, the mix is a very good one but hobbled by the Dobly) then imagine how much better it could have been.
Imagine away. I imagine that in a fair test you'd find the difference was small at best, if you could discern it at all. Certainly not worthy of all the angry lamentation being vented here.
 

ssully

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Jul 2, 2003
Messages
3,022
Location
in your face
All I can say here is that whilst I will still play the disc, as the mix truly is a good one, I cannot but help think how good it could have been myself.
If you have the 2003 DVDA of Bells - and I just got this myself - the difference between the DD and the MLP on that one is like night & day.
I think the problem us surround fans face is one of appalling ignorance - there is a long. long thread at GearSlutz Mastering forums about why DVDA did not replace CD.
Apart from the fact they missed the point completely - it was not, IMO, supposed to replace CD but to complement it - despite the posts from respected ME's stating that they can hear the difference between Red Book & 24/96, there are some hard core idiots who refuse to believe it. The claim is "you cannot tell the difference" and that "there are no scientific tests that prove 24/96 is better" and so on. Truly infuriating. There is much more to music than so-called "double blind tests" (most of which are flawed anyway and prove nothing at all).
I don't listen to stuff on statistics, I use my ears - and my ears tell me there is a difference.

But I am ranting now, and I do apologise.
This is a fine, fine mix - but sonically? Well, that's Dobly for you!

And weekly, I encounter posters, sometimes including respected ME's, who blithely ignore or dismiss a century of research into human audio perception, compared to *their* self-professed ability to easily hear differences that are likely subtle if audible at all...abilities they claim are proved by anecdotes and control-free methods that would be laughed out of any serious investigation.


I'm sorry it infuriates you that research to date stubbornly refuses to validate a strong subjective impression which you feel 'must' be true. Nature can be cruel that way. Scientists -- those deaf, amusical idiots who think in statistics and rely on useless 'controls' to separate experimental signal from noise -- know the feeling too.


One interesting thing those dopes have turned up in their bumbling way, is that listener discrimination of audio quality difference tends to *WORSEN* as channels are added. So we're more discriminating in mono than stereo than 5.1. Put another way, multichannel can itself be so aurally satisfying that it smooths over a variety of 'ills' that would be more prominent in stereo. Food for thought, see that idiot Floyd Toole's book for more.
 

ssully

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Jul 2, 2003
Messages
3,022
Location
in your face
That is awesome information, thanks for all that Neil!




Agreed 100%, and in addition in order just to "give it a listen" you have to fork out US$35 in North America or import from Amazon UK.

Yes, I forked out the money to give it a listen. Yes, the surround mix is really good. No, I did not listen to it a second time and have since sold the discs on eBay. The surround mix is excellent, but the sonics are severely lacking. In hindsight my 7/10 rating is very generous, given that I didn't even keep the discs, but the fact that it's one of my favourite pieces of music may have prevented me from giving it the slightly lower score it deserves.

I am sure with a DVD-A layer and 24/96 MLP 5.1 track this would have been an EASY 10/10.


Since you've convinced yourself already, no doubt it would. And I'd lay odds that if you were played the DD version, but told it was the new 24/96 remaster, you'd pronounce it a vast improvement.
 
Top